November 2003 posts
Hatred
for Spike, Rising -- Bluestem, 08:09:26 11/20/03 Thu
This episode has heightened my hatred for Spike.
Okay, so Spike has a soul, and he died closing the Hellmouth.
Whoopi-fricking-doo! He's still not a good guy.
What does Angel want? Correcting the problem. Spike? Glory. He
even admitted it. Note that he was the one to start the fight.
Would Angel have done the same thing? Don't know, but I doubt
it.
What really irks me is that Spike has his old pre-soul attitude
but the show is still portraying him as a hero. Back in the old
days, Spike's badness was liked because he was the villain. But
to cast him in a hero's light while retaining that 'tude is simply
contemptible.
I see the gist of this episode as an appeasement. We finally see
the writers addressing the Shansu vampire-with-a-soul issue involving
Spike and Angel. Why does this sound like a move to turn AtS into
a Spike-centric show?
Replies:
[> Really? IMO this ep like all the others was all about
Angel (sp. 5.8) -- Ponygirl, 08:41:49 11/20/03 Thu
Spike seemed to call it pretty accurately - that Angel sees Spike
as a reflection of himself in the worst possible way. Angel has
spent much of his souled career hearing that he has a destiny,
that his choices matter. He has come to see that as a burden but
he does still believe in it. Now all of those reassurances are
being taken away.
When Angel hears the new faux prophecy he assumes it's about him,
that he will take on the burden and solve the problem. It's heroic
but it's also a bit arrogant. Why does Angel fight Spike for the
cup? Why doesn't he just step aside and say, you want it so badly,
drink? Angel's giving as good as he gets in that fight and most
of his verbal blows seem directed at proving Spike unworthy. Why?
Is it because acknowledging Spike's achievements diminishes his
own? It makes Angel's role, while still heroic, not unique. Not
the one, not the security of a destiny.
In the end Angel admits that he didn't want it enough. Not wanting
the suffering, the weight of the world is pretty understandable,
but I wonder if on some level Angel doesn't want life. This season
has been all about the loss of heart and will.
The great thing about the fight was that it showed both of our
vamps as complete jerks who bring out the worst in each other.
Spike never said he wanted glory but he does crave external validation
of his worth. Angel sees the quest as another problem to be solved
a duty, lacking in passion. They're both messed up and thus were
both easily set-up.
[> [> Finally an ep this season that I can seek my teeth
into -- Spike Lover, 09:25:06 11/20/03 Thu
Howdy all.
Glad to see Leslie is back! Wish Lilah was back too...
Anyway.
Interesting episode, addressing the question: Why does Angel regard
Spike with such disdain? It is pretty odd. He is a creature of
the night that has done good (like Angel). YOu would think he
would embrace him more. Admittedly, the writers have Spike in
a 'Devil's Advocate' comedic role, but still, Angel's dislike
of him is pretty strange. Is it still a jealousy over Buffy thing?
I don't think so.
I think it is pretty much what Spike claims it is: Angel hates
Spike because he created him. (The Father figure reversal.) Again
in the historical eps, they showed that 'William the Vampire'
had limits to his evil. He is more interested in pursuing Dru
than perversion- and Angelus knows this and strikes out at him-
hurts him where he lives.
I don't understand it. I can just say that the writers have done
a good job making Angelus depraved. I agree that Spike definately
has an ax to grind with Angel, but they still have not explained
why Angel has an ax to grind with Spike.
The question of the Cup/Prophesy: I think it is a prize. Spike
thinks he deserves the prize to be human again, to have a fresh
start. (That fake prophesy promised that once the hero drank of
the cup, took on the burden of the world, he would have his past
erased. Wow, a clean slate and a fresh start. I think Spike definately
wants that. He does not 'brood' over his past evil acts like Angel
supposedly does. If you will recall the Thanksgiving ep many Buffy
seasons ago... when Spike was talking about the Am. Indians being
conquered. He said, "You don't say, 'I came, I saw, I conquered,
I feel really bad about it.'" (but I think he clearly feels
pain/remorse over his past evil deeds.)
Maybe I am rambling.
Another issue the writers seem to be making is what is a hero?
Angel who fights the fight, but still lives to fight on, or is
a true hero the one who will give all he is to save the world?
They have compared Spike's burning up to close the hellmouth with
Buffy's leap from the tower.
As you look back on the 'fight' that Angel is fighting, has he
faced an apocalypse on his own?...
Let's see: There was Jasmine, but she was more of a slow evil,
that was going to devour the world little by little. How does
he defeat her? By embracing his darkness (desouling himself).
Ultimately, he can not defeat her. Conner kills her, but Angel
is rewarded by the forces of evil.
Interesting?
Another example is Dorn (?) the half demon in season 1 of Angel
who had the visions and a crush on Cordy. He too made the ultimate,
heroic sacrifice to save whatever.
The writers seem to be asking: Is Angel really on the same caliber
with Spike, Buffy, and Dorn?
Also liking Gunn's new role.
[> [> [> Re: Finally an ep this season that I can
seek my teeth into -- kisstara, 11:37:25 11/20/03 Thu
His name was Doyle, not Dorn.
[> [> [> [> And Lindsey, not Leslie... -- _,
12:09:19 11/20/03 Thu
[> [> [> It's Doyle, not Dorm. :) -- wolfhowl3,
13:19:29 11/20/03 Thu
[> Re: Hatred for Spike, Rising -- Malandanza, 09:18:21
11/20/03 Thu
"Okay, so Spike has a soul, and he died closing the Hellmouth.
Whoopi-fricking-doo! He's still not a good guy.
"What does Angel want? Correcting the problem. Spike? Glory.
He even admitted it. Note that he was the one to start the fight.
Would Angel have done the same thing? Don't know, but I doubt
it.
"What really irks me is that Spike has his old pre-soul attitude
but the show is still portraying him as a hero. Back in the old
days, Spike's badness was liked because he was the villain. But
to cast him in a hero's light while retaining that 'tude is simply
contemptible."
Actually, I think the writers of AtS have a much more jaded view
of Spike than many of the writers of BtVS -- Spike hasn't been
shown in a good light since his return. Examples include:
Angel saying he spent a century atoning for his evil deeds while
Spike spent three weeks in a basement and was fine. Wesley letting
everyone know that Spike was the second worst vampire recorded
by the Council.
Fred calling Spike's fantasy history with Wesley.
Wesley and Gunn being completely nonplused by Fred's revelation
that Spike was being dragged into hell ("Of Course."
"Where else would he go?")
Spike as the creepy stalker watching Fred shower.
Spike getting scared in the elevator (still afraid of Pavayne)
and his not caring about the fate of anyone other than himself.
Wesley's robodad reminding everyone that Spike committed quite
a few evil deeds in his past.
And, in this latest episode, Spike and Harmony, Spike trying to
steal Angel's birthright (he admits that part of the reason he
wants the cup is to deny it to Angel), Spike's fantasy about how
he went to get a soul because he wanted to be a hero (and Angel
calling him on it -- he wanted to get back with Buffy, not save
the world).
The good that we hear about Spike is from Spike's lips, which
is hardly a heroic quality. Angel doesn't brag about saving the
world, but almost every episode Spike reminds people of his (accidental)
sacrifice. The petty jealousies, the self-absorption, the braggadocio,
the ingratitude, the treachery, and the attitude -- Spike is not
a hero and on a show where everyone suffers for his misdeeds,
it's unlikely that Spike will end up as the hero -- at least not
without a couple of seasons of repenting of and paying for his
sins. So I think AtS has made it clear that Angel is the hero
and Spike is a poor substitute.
The AI gang have assumed that the Shansu is about Angel for quite
some time. It is (in their perceptions, at least) Angel's destiny
that Spike sought to steal -- can you imagine their reactions
if Spike had been successful? Angel sees the Shansu prophecy with
the jaundiced eye of one who's been the subject of dubious prophecies
before. He's willing to go through with it because he wants to
save the world and is willing to endure whatever punishments fate
has in store for him. Spike sees the Shansu as a prize that Angel
is getting and Spike wants.
[> [> I'd like to believe that, but ... -- Earl Allison, 04:34:27
11/21/03 Fri
While you are correct, Spike is extolling his own virtues, I'm
not actually seeing ME show him as wrong, here.
As with LMPTM, it seems like Spike "gets the last word,"
he defeats Angel, and Angel even admits "Spike wanted it
more." It's like Buffy S7, where the one person to really
question Buffy or condemn Spike was Anya, and the writers made
sure to cut her to pieces in doing so ("Spike could kill
a hundred fratboys" -- because, you know, clever writers
need to disarm Anya's comments by playing meta). It conveniently
implies (IMHO) that the character who comes out on top is "right."
I know Fury seems to dislike Spike as a hero, and that LMPTM wasn't
exactly portraying Spike in a positive light either -- but the
lack of consequences, the lack of any real, defined opposing view
seems to cripple that claim. WHAT is this episode trying to tell
me, other than Spike being a selfish jerk and Angel backsliding
incredibly since "Epiphany"?
Also, I'm having a problem with Spike in general. He starts to
drag Harmony off for a carnal liason BEFORE she gives in, and
it's still pretty clear he has no use for her aside from making
himself feel good. Wasn't this a bad thing when it was Spike being
treated this way -- according to the character (and some fans)?
The "excuse" in S6 was that Buffy was abusing Spike,
and he called her on what he felt it was like in S7 -- where is
the outrage now? Many people felt Spike was being treated poorly
(I didn't, but many did) -- where is that commentary now that
it's Spike (who should know better from firsthand knowledge) doing
the using?
Maybe Spike knew she would give in, but haven't her comments in
earlier episodes (implying they should talk, etc) implied that
she still might have feelings for him, or that she still hopes
he might care?
But I don't see ME bringing it up, and I have no faith that they
WILL bring it up. If Spike can complain about how he was treated,
isn't he even WORSE than Buffy, now? He experienced it from the
receiving end -- why now would he do the same thing to someone
else? He's got a soul, for all the good it's seemingly doing for
him -- where is that empathy for people in general, instead of
those that directly or indirectly can do something for him?
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: I'd like to believe that, but ...
-- BunnyK., 06:27:44 11/21/03 Fri
I think it's possible that Spike didn't actually get the last
word about his relationship with Harmony. The last word would
have come from Harmony, going crazy and trying to kill him for
using her and making her feel like an object. It might be a little
lessened since she was crazy, but since the crazy characters seemed
to be talking about how they really feel, it seems to me that
the last impression was hearing Harmony express rage and hurt.
This isn't exactly complimentary to Spike.
[> [> [> Re: I'd like to believe that, but ...
-- Anon, 12:09:20 11/21/03 Fri
If you're talking about the fans there has been a lot of outrage
and commentry actually. The Spike spoiler board Sparklies has
had people complaining for weeks about Sparmany. Spike fans are
not happy about Spike using Harmony, any more than they were pleased
with Buffy in season 6. No double standard. Read some of the recent
threads at Sparklies and they are full of Spike fans saying they
cannot connect to the Spike on Ats and now he isn't in love with
Buffy, he is coming across as a petty jerk and they may quit watching.
His interaction with Angel does neither character any favours
at the moment, and it has very much been picked up on. Hence Spike
fans asking to see more of Spike with females like Fred. Most
internet Spike fans choose to be spoiled now, and feedback criticising
Spike has been occuring for weeks.
[> The characters know each other... (spoilers) -- Darby,
11:01:15 11/20/03 Thu
The fight scene just gave the writers a great chance to dig at
the personalities of the characters, while ignoring a lot of things
we all know but can'r bring in...
Why does Spike even want to be human?
Hasn't Angel rejected humanity before? It's redemption, not humanity
that Shanshu's for him...
And if he ever really wants out of the cursed vampire schtick,
he just needs to butcher one of those gemmed warrior demons.
[> [> BTW, Darby-- :) -- Arethusa, 11:05:58 11/20/03
Thu
Do you remember this?:
"Lies My Parents Told Me" Revisited -- Darby, 09:01:35
04/01/03 Tue
Spike and Dru are obviously hot-n-heavy at first, but the Fanged
Four dynamic later seems to have Spike more as the squire. At
what point did Spike become the beta male, watching Angelus with
both Darla and Dru, and how big an adjustment was that? Filed
under Stories I'd Like to See Told...
[> [> [> I'd forgotten - but I did like seeing it
told... -- Darby, 13:34:42 11/20/03 Thu
[> Re: Hatred for Spike, Rising -- Kendra, 12:41:03
11/20/03 Thu
You state that Spike is not a good guy. No not really but neither
is Angel. What I like about Spike is that he is not perfect. He
is a flawed "person" who IMHO ultimately tries to do
the right thing. I think his portrayal is in line with his late
season 7. Angel has been pretty ruthless himself as Angel. But
the thing that keeps me from hating Angel at times is that he
too struggles to do the right thing.
I find it quite amusing that people often belittle Spike's quest
for a soul because he did it for Buffy. I truly believe that Spike
loved Buffy and I also believe that to try to be better a person
for the sake of love is an honorable thing. For example: Take
a person who abuses drugs but stop using because she is pregnant.
Does the reason for her quitting drugs devalue her decision? More
to the point Angel himself changed because of Buffy.
You also state that all Spike wants is the glory. I disagree.
I think what Spike wants is a reason and a purpose. Buffy, Dawn
and then Buffy again was that reason. Now he does not have one.
But the Shansu prophecy gives hinm one. Does Angel want the glory?
Probably not as much as he once did before. A lot has happened
since early season two when Cordy, Wes and Angel was keeping track
of his good deeds. I will state further that earlier in the season
Spike was not blowing his own trumpet. As a matter of fact, he
downplayed his "heroism" to Fred. She insisted that
he was a champion because his made a sacrifice to save her life.
If you look carefully, he only seems to boast when he is around
Angel.
Finally earlier I stated that Spike's behavior is consistent with
S7. After Spike's confrontation with Wood in LMPTM, the old personality
traits returned. Some including myself was aggravated with Spike
because he was not more sensitive to Wood. But later I realized
that in some ways it does not make sense to agonize over something
that was in his nature. To me the important thing for both Angel
and Spike is not trying to atone for wrongs committed as a vampire.
The challenge is to try to be better men now.
[> [> Re: Hatred for Spike, Rising -- Tapioca, 22:36:46
11/20/03 Thu
I think that a lot of the way Spike is portrayed this season is
based on Angel's point of view. There was a lot of talk last year
that on BtVS we the audience saw characters mainly from Buffy's
POV. I think that the same thing may be happening on Angel. Angel
doesn't want Spike around at the moment and so a lot of the Spike
we see is the annoying side of Spike not the more soulful (pardon
the pun) character we saw in later seasons of Buffy. I suspect
that as Spike becomes more accepted in Angel's world, pure speculation
here, that the character will be again more developed and sympathetic.
[> [> Re: Hatred for Spike, Rising -- aJAWA, 03:21:45
11/21/03 Fri
i'm sorry but i think you are all forgetting that, when SPIKE
when to get his soul back he told the demon he wanted to give
that BITCH what she deserved his plans were to have the chip removed
or destroyed so he could go back n be in power it was the DEMON
who was like u want to return to your previous state and SPIKE
was like YEA (major paraphrase) and the DEMON was like fine i
shall return YOUR SOUL!!! am i the only one who remembers that
it wasn't until later when SPIKE started to say that he did it
FOR BUFFY in order to get HIS SOUL back......
[> [> [> Yeah, I thought that too! -- DorianQ,
00:15:14 11/22/03 Sat
For the whole first half of Buffy season seven, I could of sworn
he had been tricked in receiving a soul. Just like Cordelia had
her words and wishes twisted by Anya in "The Wish",
the demon had turned Spike's desire for retribution and reprisal
against Buffy and gave twisted his words to give him his soul
back. I thought the crazy, non-platinum haired vamp in the basement
really fit that character.
IMO, it's a shame they didn't make Spike the ultimate villian
for the final Buffy showdown. It would have had more emotional
weight than going to war against ill-defined Ubervamps of varying
strength (In the middle of the season, it takes the whole house
three episodes to kill just one; in Chosen, Andrew and Anya take
out like eight. By themselves. Did anyone else find that wrong?)
[> [> [> [> You've gotta remember what the demon
who returned Spike's soul was like -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:10:42
11/22/03 Sat
1) He seemed not to like Spike's decent from being a "legendary
dark warrior". As such, he wouldn't want to give Spike his
soul unless he had to. If anything, he probably would have preferred
taking the chip out.
2) It seemed quite capable of reading Spike's thoughts. It knew
why he was there and why he was doing it without Spike having
to say a word. As such, what Spike said wouldn't really make a
difference, only the thoughts that the demon read.
[> [> [> [> [> This Is An Excellent Point
-- CTH, 21:16:26 11/23/03 Sun
[> [> I'd disagree with some of that ... -- Earl Allison, 04:49:38
11/21/03 Fri
"To me the important thing for both Angel and Spike is not
trying to atone for wrongs committed as a vampire. The challenge
is to try to be better men now."
The problem is, I'm not seeing Spike even try to be a better man,
with the possible exception of his actions in saving Fred and
giving up being corporeal.
He continues to wear the coat of someone he murdered (Nikki the
Slayer), while claiming to fight on the same side as his victim.
He treats Harmony as he was treated (and apparently not in a way
he enjoyed) in Buffy S6, and HE of all people, having experienced
it already, should know better.
As for LMPTM, and even this season of Angel, Spike seems to lack
human empathy. He doesn't care about Nina the newly-infected lycanthrope,
and wants everyone to concentrate on him. He complains about the
lack of accolades and physical rewards for his sacrifice, forgetting
that he is among a room full of people that have sacrificed more,
more often, with little expectation of reward. Yes, Angel did
say something stupid in implying that Spike hadn't saved the world
"enough," but for Spike to expect some reward seems,
to me, to belittle his "heroism."
When someone tells you something bad that happened (my cat died,
a co-worker's relative passes on, whatever), the reflex is to
offer condolences, to say "I'm sorry." We see this in
LMPTM, when Buffy tells Wood about her mother's passing. Spike
can't even seem to reach this simple level of social behavior
-- and for someone many like to credit as perceptive, I have to
chalk the lack of it up to a total absence of empathy, or pure
apathy.
It's really hard to compare Souled Spike and Angel, because (IMHO)
Spike got so many inherent advantages simply for being second,
for being able to travel the path Angel already blazed. Yes, it
took years for Angel to change, but he didn't have the built-in
support Spike did from Buffy. Spike, I don't think, would even
have conceived the very notion of GETTING a soul, that it only
came to him due to Angel's very existence.
That being said, Angelus having a soul forced on him results in
a horror-stricken Angel, overwhelmed with his actions and deeds.
Spike? He whines about wanting an office, and badmouths Wesley
in an effort to co-opt his. Nevermind that Wesley was actually
bothered by killing what he thought was a parent. Even worse than
anything else? The argument that Angelus made Spike.
Is Spike responsible for ANYTHING? His vamped mom coming onto
him traumatized him (forgetting, for a moment, that Spike KILLED
and ATE her originally). Angelus made him a monster. Who made
him treat Harmony like dirt? Was THAT someone else's fault, too?
Compare that to Angel in Buffy, "It's not the monster in
me that needs killing, it's the man." Maybe Angel goes too
far with the sackcloth and ashes, but I can SEE that what happened
troubles him. Spike? Too far in the other direction. He may actually
have noble intentions, but as long as he behaves like an amoral,
apathetic jerk, he's getting no credit from me.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Jenoff Review -- Kendra, 13:20:19
11/25/03 Tue
Jenoff posted an excellent review that answers some of your points.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/jenoff/angel508.htm#angel508a
This should have been a terrific episode. The Angel/Spike history
is a strong point of the series now and there were certainly lots
of good surprises in this one. But I find the characters just
a bit off, Spike is just shallower (not in personality but in
writing) than he used to be. The emotional impact of the show
just doesn't seem to be there any more. Everything just seems
weaker than it used to be. I can't, at least in this episode,
delineate the reasons why I feel the show has declined. But that's
still my general feeling. The positives, however, I can articulate.
Mostly, it's a lot of little things done right, small ideas and
moments, which add up to one of the best episodes this season.
Spike says that Angel created him as a monster. And in these flashbacks,
and ones we've seen in earlier episodes, we get a sense of how
really evil Angelus was. He didn't just want to destroy, he wanted
to corrupt. Vampirizing Dru was part of that. And turning Spike
into an Angelus wannabe was another part. I guess in a lot of
ways Spike was Angelus' son (or grandson if you want to get technical
about the sire lineage). When they first meet, Angelus starts
warping Spike's attitude toward pain. In the coach, we see William
has become an Angelus admirer, going on and on about how Angelus
killed people at the bridal party. When Angelus realizes that
Dru is William's first love, he takes her from him. He wants to
be the primary being in William's life. He wants to twist and
warp every aspect of that life. He even tells William to change
his name, leading to Spike.
Back in Just Rewards, Angel told Spike Buffy was in Europe. Spike's
decision to go there must have something to do with that. When
Angel says Europe will still be there, he knows he's really talking
about Buffy and the relationship Spike hopes to forge again. Even
Harmony, as insensitive as she is, realizes Spike is thinking
about Buffy while having sex with her (he wants her quiet so she
doesn't break in to his fantasy). It's interesting that Spike
thinks of Buffy while having sex with Harmony (and we know this
from Buffy episodes even if not from this one) and Angel claims
Buffy was thinking of him while having sex with Spike. And in
the past Angel has sex with Dru who is both Spike's mother (in
the vampire sense) and lover. And Spike keeps going on about how
he killed his mother as she was coming on to him. While I don't
like the casual way he throws that out, it clearly ties together
the strange and Freudian relationship between Spike and Angel
(which has got to be the genesis of volumes of slash fiction).
Angelus wanted to mess up Spike, to make him a shadow creature
always lagging behind Angelus, always number two. In many ways
he succeeded, but the curse put a curious twist on it all. Spike
followed Angelus all the way, including getting a soul. But then
things changed. They changed because, as Spike notes, Angelus
had a soul forced upon him. Spike sought one out. He fought for
it. That makes him a different kind of champion, if not a better
one. All the evil Angelus did, his evil intent for Spike, was
turned to good by the curse. It's a beautiful example of how the
actions of evil are turned to good by the higher powers.
It's interesting that Spike seems to have waited for Angel to
arrive before looking for the cup. I think this isn't simply plot
convenience (like the bad guy revealing his plan to the hero),
but is an essential part of Spike's nature. He wants to win, but
he wants Angel to lose even more. He has to exorcise the demon
Angel(us) from himself so he can really be free and be his own
man. Angelus tried to remove all hope from Spike. He tried to
make him despair, the way Angelus and at times Angel despairs.
But it never quite worked. Spike, for all his failings, never
loses his sense of humour, his connection to humanity. He makes
mistakes, but he rises above them. And, always, he understands
himself and his motivations. When Angel questions his motives,
Spike admits they are mixed. But he drinks from the cup anyway.
He's willing to take the risk, he knows himself well enough to
know this is what he wants even if the implications of the action
are not entirely clear. Angel says the burden will burn him to
ashes, but Spike has already been burnt and died. He's reborn
and so carrying the cross of torment is no threat to him. That
realization alone distinguishes him from Angel. Spike says Angel
has chosen sides, but he's wrong. Angel is conflicted, unsure
of his champion status and of what he will do. Spike knows. He
is himself and he will fight for good.
Vampires, by and large, are not a very introspective lot. The
ones we've seen tend not to change and grow. Angel and Spike are
exceptions to that rule. That may explain why they both ended
up with souls or the souls may explain why they've both managed
to grow as people. But of the two, Spike has outdistanced Angel.
While Angel has pondered his crimes and attempted to repent, Spike
has pondered himself and attempted to understand his motivation
and to make himself better. Angel is a champion because he wants
to make amends for all the evil he has done. He knows he cannot
really do that, nothing can undo the horrible crimes of Angelus,
so this has led him to despair. His only logical move, being a
champion, is fated to failure. Spike has become a champion because
it is part of his bettering himself. Unlike Angel, he accepts
the fact that past deeds cannot be made good and focuses on improving
himself for the future. Angel gives lip service to this idea,
often talking about defending the weak because he is strong, of
the sense of service to others he feels. But time and again it
comes back to his sense of guilt over specific deeds (hence the
many flashback scenes throughout the series). Spike is not hobbled
by this overwhelming sense of guilt. His guilt is a positive force,
causing him to grow. Angel's guilt has always paralyzed him. It
did so for years until Whistler introduced him to Buffy and it
was continuing to do so until Doyle came to him. Change has always
been forced upon Angel, starting with the acquisition of his soul.
Spike has sought change to better himself. Even becoming a vampire
was a mistaken action along that route. He was a victim, but a
willing one. He tried, for a long time, to be the ultimate in
evil; attempting to live up to the role model of Angelus. But
as he was exposed to more and more good (from Buffy and her gang)
he took new role models and fought to make himself better. At
the same time, he fought to understand himself. Thus when Angel
questions his motives, he is capable of accepting their mixed
nature and still drinking from the cup. Spike's quest has been,
for as long as we've known him, to be better. He has sought out
positive emotions such as love and has tried to turn his negative
emotions (such as his love for violence) to a good purpose. But
he has never pretended to be an angel. He knows he is flawed and
it is that self knowledge which makes him more a champion than
Angel.
Spike's actions upon becoming corporeal are interesting and I
have to wonder whether the sequence means anything. First, he
hits a barrier, the door. Then he touches Angel (interesting that
in the flashbacks Angelus grabs William's hand when they first
meet and William complains while in this sequence Angel complains
of Spike touching him). Then he drinks the blood in Angel's cup
(while in past sequences he's always refusing drinks from Angelus).
Then he goes off to have sex with Harmony (while in the past Angelus
will have sex with Dru and in the more recent past both will have
sex with Buffy - the Angel(us)/Spike relationship is mediated
through shared relationships with women). These are all physical
activities. Spike, having being insensate for a long time, yearns
for physical sensation. He wants contact with people and with
the world. This is very different from the withdrawal from the
world Angel always goes in to. But after having had this initial
contact, Spike is ready to take on the burden of the cup of torment.
While Angel makes a sharp division between spiritual and physical,
Spike has no trouble combining these. He can be a physical being
enjoying his physicality and a spiritual being striving to better
himself and the world around him. In the epilogue, Spike intends
to get drunk and invites Gunn to go with him (interesting that
Spike can so easily reach out to others even calling Gunn Charlie
- he is essentially a convivial and social person very unlike
a vampire). But Angel is already in a moping and introspective
mode. For Angel, the world is within, for Spike it is both within
and without.
Eve keeps saying she's not the bad guy and maybe she really means
it. When I realized Sirk was involved in the plot against Angel
I thought again of a revised council - the theory I had last week.
But Lindsey showing up puts that in question. Especially since
Lindsey was covered in markings as was Eve's apartment. And since
Eve knows about Connor, I'm guessing Lindsey does, too. Which
makes me wonder how much was changed because of Connor. Whether
Lindsey was affected by that. Or has he just come back to get
revenge or maybe to rid the world of evil. I've complained about
lack of foreshadowing and about evil characters introduced just
for an episode. Well, by bringing back Lindsey, one of my favourite
bad guys, the writers sure have answered that point. And by linking
him to Eve, they make her bearable and give her some reason for
being other than taking on Lorne's role. Of course, it is possible
that isn't the real Lindsey.
I have to wonder whether the prophecy is real. Perhaps it was
artificially created simply to keep Angel off balance. That doesn't
explain the universe ending fx, but maybe that's something entirely
different. The key seems to be the coexistence of Spike and Angel,
who are in many ways the same thing. And two objects cannot occupy
the same space. That's simple physics and that's what is happening
to these champions. I'm probably wrong here, but I think everything
we think we know about the prophecy and the nature of Wolfram
& Hart is now questionable. This really is a new beginning to
the series. I'm curious whether Wesley, on his leave of absence,
will be doing some additional research into all this and will
he come back with some surprising information.
Some quick final thoughts. I assume Julie Benz was unavailable
for this episode and having her summoned by the master was a way
to write the character out. She had to have been summoned quite
recently, since in Darla and in the companion Buffy episode Fool
For Love we saw the Spike creation and Darla was with Dru and
Angelus. Why do the most dramatic moments keep happening off screen
this season. This week, it's Wesley taking that leave of absence.
Spike is right about the otter, back in Conviction Harmony told
Angel the blood was a pig and otter mix. You've got to love the
Mr. Goodfang line. I also loved the anger over the toner. He's
right, nobody replaces the toner and it's really irritating. Harmony
has always had potential interest and I'm glad to see that there
are indications she'll be better used in this series. I'm looking
forward to seeing some depth in her character. I love toner written
in blood on the wall, very Shining.
[> [> [> [> Re: Jenoff Review -- Dlgood, 23:07:08
11/26/03 Wed
He wants to win, but he wants Angel to lose even more. He has
to exorcise the demon Angel(us) from himself so he can really
be free and be his own man.
But, this again is a sign of Spike's refusal to accept responsibility
for himself. Namely, why does he feel the need to "defeat"
Angel. In a similar situation Angelus laughs at the Master, calls
him irrelevant, and just walks away. Spike cannot do this w/respect
to Angel for the very simple fact that Spike believes Angel is
correct.
Angelus has not made Spike into anything that William didn't desperately
want to be. It's a point Spike cannot refute. So rather than admit
that Angel is correct on the matter, Spike attempts to win the
war of ideas by beating on him physically.
Spike's self-image is heavily dependent upon the way he percieves
others to see him, and he needs to see Angel sink low, so that
he might view himself as higher in comparison.
I assume Julie Benz was unavailable for this episode and having
her summoned by the master was a way to write the character out.
Actually, I think this is a key plot point. Darla and Angelus
encourage Dru take a playmate, primarily because they are increasingly
preoccupied with each other. Were Darla around, Angelus would
likely have left Dru and William to their own devices, and hardly
given Willie much notice at all. Additionally, Darla would likely
have asserted her own place in the group hierarchy.
Something Willie is no doubt blind to. It's not just that he's
at the bottom of their heap, but that he's not being actively
persecuted so much as being seen as a non-entity. He evinces a
rather strongly developed Oedipal complex, and likely a persecution
complex as well.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jenoff Review -- Zoriah
- enjoying the benefits of Rum toddies, 00:18:17 12/01/03 Mon
I think he wants to prove to Angel that he is just as worthy as
Angel is, that he is his equal. By beating Angel for the first
time ever, he is coming of age and refusing to accept second best.
All through his undead life he was beaten down by Angelus, forced
to realise that destiny was not something that came to you, you
had to claim it. Angelus taught the early Spike some harsh lessons
and now the present Spike reiterates that lesson. What makes you
think this destiny is yours? Have you truly claimed it? Fought
for it? Is Angel's heart really still in the mission? Does he
want the shanshu and the burden that it brings or is he also just
spurred into action to deny Spike from claiming something he always
just assumed would come to him?
angel and spike?? -- aperitis, 16:25:51
11/20/03 Thu
Did anyone sense the underlying homoerotic undertones between
spike and angel? interesting phrase angel used, too! "share
the slaughter of innocence with a man"...
Replies:
[> Re: angel and spike?? -- monsieurxander, 16:52:19
11/20/03 Thu
Oh, yes. That was definitely intentional.
[> [> Re: angel and spike?? -- aperitis, 16:59:52
11/20/03 Thu
why? why would they go there? i thought it was all about drusilla
and spike jealousy...dont get me wrong, i would have loved to
see angel smack a big ol' kiss on spike in london...but i dont
get how sexual tension between spike and angel fits in the picture
[> [> [> Re: angel and spike?? -- monsieurxander,
17:06:05 11/20/03 Thu
I suppose it could have just been a reference to all of the Angel/Spike
slashy fanfic. Subtexty/metaphory, maybe?
[> [> [> Re: angel and spike?? -- Antigone, 17:38:37
11/20/03 Thu
Many reasons I think. First to portray the old Angelus as the
a-moral "libertin" he was, the Dorian-Gray-dandy type,
always willing to experiment and go against all rules of Society.
Angelus (and Angel for that matter) has never seemed to be so
insecure in his masculinity that he would be afraid of the occasional
bi-sexual experiment and/or homoerotic relationship with his vampire
friends as long as he could get pleasure or power out of it. I
mean the first person Angelus bit after getting out of the grave
was a man. No coincidence to me. Spike on the other hand is the
"ladies' man," but he is still fascinated by Angelus'
charisma and his "no-boundary" persona ; he wants to
be "educated" in all things "monstruous."
(Note: absolutely no negative judgment of male homosexuality on
my part here; just thinking in terms of Victorian morals.) It
is completely believable that Spike would have real "attraction"
for Angelus and be willing to experiment, to push his limits,
to be part of "Angelus' world." The whole scene where
Spike and Angelus put their hands in the sunlight was, IMO, a
clear metaphor for sex; kind of a "I dare you to go beyond
anything you've done before" moment. The young impressive
Spike would totally follow Angelus at that time.
Blood, sex, torture, pleasure... it's always kind of the same
thing for vampires anyway right? (didn't Buffy make a similar
remark sometime last year?) Just think of Lestat and Louis in
Interview with a Vampire... Their "relationship" and
sexual arousal through siring and exchanges of blood was very
clear in the book. It seems to me that ME has always made sex
a central part of the Spike/Dru/Angel/Darla gang. Remember the
lesbian subtext in the Dru/Darla scenes in Angel season 3? So
it totally makes sense here.
So yes, I think it was a totally deliberate move by ME (cf. I'm
paraphrasing here but Angelus did also say "do you think
I'm a deviant?") I like the fact that they did not actually
"show" any Angel/Spike action; it's all much better
left implied. It's a metaphor for their relationship really. Right
away Spike was violently "attracted" to Angelus, without
the moral restraints imposed by society. There is no middle ground,
wishy-washy feeling between them. It's all very animal, very passionate,
very sexual... even when they hate each other! I'm just glad ME
did not shy away from the homoerotic subtext either in last night's
episode. It's always been there, but it was just cool to get a
mini-confirmation. They don't make a big deal about it; it's just
there. A great Spike/Angel scene. Go ME!
[> [> [> [> Oops, sorry: spoilery content for 5.8,
Destiny above. -- Antigone, 17:50:41 11/20/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> Great post! + why I want explicit homoeroticism
-- Maura, 21:48:50 11/20/03 Thu
Great post, Antigone! I think you have a great reading of what's
going on with the homoerotic subtext.
In contrast to you, I would personally like to see that subtext
brought into the explicit text (at some point; I don't think 5.8
would have been the right place). On the whole, I don't think
that aspect of Spike and Angel's relationship is better left implied
(*only* implied; I don't mind a lot of implication and metaphorical
overtones).
My reasons here are pretty sociopolitical. Homoeroticism has been
"implied" since it became unacceptable to make it explicit:
Oscar Wilde, A. E. Housman, etc. Culturally, we're starting to
move beyond that now. The lesbians are getting there ahead of
the men (Willow, Xena). The men are at a point where homosexual
relations are pretty acceptable on TV if the people involved are
minor characters, guest characters, or comic characters (_Will
and Grace_). I haven't seen _Queer as Folk_, but from what I've
heard, that show seems to be moving a step further into "gay
drama."
I feel, however, that AtS is in a position do something truly
radical with our cultural discourses of gender and sexuality.
Although this move would probably not get by the network and would
anger a lot of fans and sponsors, it would ultimately put the
show on the map--right up there with BtVS or maybe even more so--as
one of the most revolutionary statements about gender on TV.
This is because Angel and Spike are emphatically not gay. They
are both strongly heterosexual characters strongly coded masculine
(though both problematize this in some ways). Therefore, the idea
that they could have been sexually involved with each other decouples
sexual attraction from our discourses of gender orientation. This
could be a truly radical--and I think very positive--move away
from categorizing people on the basis of who they sleep with.
I believe that AtS is the perfect venue for this move because,
though I've been talking in ideological and not artistic terms,
I feel this move fits the internal narrative perfectly. Given
Angel and Spike's background as sensual vampires, it's difficult--for
me anyway--to imagine a scenario where they never had any kind
of sexual relationship. It seems totally in character. ME could
also make it a bit less "risky" for the network by leaving
this aspect of their relationship in the "evil soulless"
flashbacks. That way, people who wanted to read it as "evil"
could, but people who wanted to read it as involved--at least
in some way--with positive emotion could also do so.
As a last note, I want to make it clear that I'm not suggesting
that this be a big part of the show: just one scene with some
explicit content--a kiss maybe--would be enough, and more than
I frankly expect to see. Meanwhile, I heartily thank ME for the
"implying," but I'm still hoping for more.
[> [> [> [> [> Agree: If women can, why not
men? -- mamcu, 18:12:50 11/26/03 Wed
Since there's been so much open woman-woman eroticism, why not
man-man? Tells us something we already knew about our culture...
[> [> [> [> [> It would be sooooooo Anne Rice
derivative and boring...... -- Spartacus, 15:03:45 11/30/03
Sun
There would be no point to it. Its territory already well covered
by forementioned Author. Willow going lesbian didn't make any
sense and helped ruin the character for me (I would have much
preferred a Willow who was lesbian from the start--or not at all)---but
this would make even less sense...none whatsoever and would probably
ruin the characters and the show. Now--if Angel and Spike had
a history of not really liking women from their character's debuts
on BtVs, then it would work and would probably come off as brilliant.....but
given who they are, it would be just stupid and would be another
great example of the bad writing that helped make the last 3 seasons
or so of Buffy so much weaker than the first four. Lack of consistent
characterization and bizarre character development that makes
little or no sense made me dance for joy when Buffy went off the
air instead of mourning. The writers' and producers' ability to
make characters (especially Buffy) that I previously loved become
so inept, so immature, and so annoying (although credit must be
given to SMG's expanding ego, and growing prima donna behavior
as well) that I was hoping they all got whacked in the last episode
of that particualr series. Angel and Spike bi or bi-curious at
some point in their past? In the words of Roger Rabbit, "Pleeeeeaaaaaaaseee!"
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bi does not mean 'Must
have a man and woman at the same time, all the time' -- KdS,
15:25:19 11/30/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> It would be sooooooo Anne Rice
derivative and boring...... -- Spartacus, 15:05:38 11/30/03
Sun
There would be no point to it. Its territory already well covered
by forementioned Author. Willow going lesbian didn't make any
sense and helped ruin the character for me (I would have much
preferred a Willow who was lesbian from the start--or not at all)---but
this would make even less sense...none whatsoever and would probably
ruin the characters and the show. Now--if Angel and Spike had
a history of not really liking women from their character's debuts
on BtVs, then it would work and would probably come off as brilliant.....but
given who they are, it would be just stupid and would be another
great example of the bad writing that helped make the last 3 seasons
or so of Buffy so much weaker than the first four. Lack of consistent
characterization and bizarre character development that makes
little or no sense made me dance for joy when Buffy went off the
air instead of mourning. The writers' and producers' ability to
make characters (especially Buffy) that I previously loved become
so inept, so immature, and so annoying (although credit must be
given to SMG's expanding ego, and growing prima donna behavior
as well) that I was hoping they all got whacked in the last episode
of that particualr series. Angel and Spike bi or bi-curious at
some point in their past? In the words of Roger Rabbit, "Pleeeeeaaaaaaaseee!"
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! + why I want
explicit homoeroticism -- Jaelvis, 22:27:04 11/20/03 Thu
Plus it would just be really sexy to have them kiss!!!Isn't that
reason enough? When Angel lost his soul and went back to Spike
and Dru, one of the first things he did was kiss Spike on the
forehead. That was intriguing but not especially sexual or sensual,
however. Now we just need one on the lips.
I agree that it wouldn't be out of character for Spike and Angel.
I can see them having some sort of sexual encounter as soulless
vamps possibly in a threesome with Drusilla. I think Angelus would
do it just so he could dominate Spike and I think Spike would
see it as a rebellion against his background and sexually repressed
Victorian culture.
Why ME would do this, I'm not sure. If they want to go there,
this may be a warm up or it just could be a little morsel for
all those S/A shippers or slash-fictioners. It may fall by the
wayside like the Spike/Halfrek relationship which was more than
just subtext or metaphor. I'm still bummed we didn't get to find
out if Halfrek and Cecilly were the same person. A kiss on the
lips (tongue optional) between our 2 favorite souled vamps would
make up for that though. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! + why I want
explicit homoeroticism -- phoenix, 13:06:55 11/21/03 Fri
Just wanted to add my strong agreement on the need for our culture
to stop catagorizing people on the basis of who they sleep with.
As a bisexual(yes, I know that is yet another lable!)I am heartily
fed up with the assumptions people make about me purely on that
basis...I can't wait for the day when it ceases to matter. Why
should the expectation be that attraction is always based on gender,
rather than being open to the possibility that it might simply
be about the person? I am not launching into the old arguement
that we are all bisexual really, I don't actually belive that,
and it seems disrespectful to those who really are gay or straight,
well, at least 99%. What I do hope is that our society will become
open to consenting adults following their attractions to eachother,
whether it be true love or a one night stand, without all the
hangups about orientation making peoples' lives a good deal more
painful and confusing than they need to be.I do believe that TV
and films can and do help in that process. Growing up ,the few
representations of queer sexuality I did see made a big impression
me, and helped get me through my days when I felt very alone and
scared and unable to communicate my feelings. Luckily my life
changed for the better but there are plenty of other people still
experiencing that pain. I love bringing my own subtext, but I
cannot live by sutext alone (-:
Great post.Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [> [> That says it all on that
topic: quote of the week! -- Masq, 13:21:57 11/21/03 Fri
"I love bringing my own subtext, but I cannot live by
sutext alone."
[> [> [> [> [> Why I DON'T want explicit homoeroticism
-- Rob, 11:51:10 11/24/03 Mon
ME could also make it a bit less "risky" for the
network by leaving this aspect of their relationship in the "evil
soulless" flashbacks. That way, people who wanted to read
it as "evil" could, but people who wanted to read it
as involved--at least in some way--with positive emotion could
also do so.
The problem is that after the huge eruption of emotion from a
large contingency of gay and lesbian fans that accused ME of homophobia
in having Willow's evil meltdown occur moments after sex with
her girlfriend, I doubt that ME would want to again do any plotline
where homosexuality is linked with evil. Being a huge Anne Rice
fan, I think the idea of a gay male vampire relationship is very
natural, particularly due to the fact that all societal restraints
are lifted upon being sired: gay or straight really doesn't matter
to creatures that can't reproduce. However, I doubt ME will want
to deal with the fallout that could occur from the revelation
that two soulless male vampires had a sexual relationship that
no longer exists once they acquire their souls. That could be
interpreted as even more problematic than Willow's walk on the
dark side, especially since Willow becoming evil was clearly a
result of Tara's death, not the sex act, and gay sex was never
shown to be worthy of punishment earlier in the series; their
relationship was portrayed as sweet, loving, heartwarming. In
this situation, however, we would have two male characters who
had a gay relationship when they were evil. I think even
I (who never doubts ME ever) would be uneasy about that.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Also, it's actually a step
backwards -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:44:21 11/24/03 Mon
What we really need are more signs that two men can be close without
having any sort of sexuality between them. Guys often will not
get too emotional or physically close with each other for fear
of homosexual accusations. Making Spike and Angel former lovers
because they once were somewhat close only serves to reinforce
this homophobia.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Completely agreed.
-- Rob, 10:54:19 11/25/03 Tue
[> Re: angel and spike?? -- Corwin of Amber, 20:45:02
11/20/03 Thu
The phrase used was "share the slaughter of INNOCENTS".
I really think you're reading more into it than was there.
[> [> Adding to my own post -- Corwin of Amber, 20:49:00
11/20/03 Thu
The phrase "slaughter of innocents" refers to, I believe,
when Herod ordered the slaughter of every male Jewish child under
the age of two, in the hopes of killing the "King of the
Jews" (Jesus) before he was crowned...
ENTIRELY different meaning.
[> [> [> nice pick up (vague spoilers Angel 5.8)
-- sdev, 22:54:23 11/20/03 Thu
Herod's Slaughter of the Innocents is only documented by Matthew
(2:16-18). Matthew believes it is a fulfillment of the prophecy
of Jeremiah, foretold six centuries earlier, which says Rachel
will weep and be inconsolable over the death of her children (Jeremiah
31:1-17). Some religious scholars (and historians) believe that
Matthew either misinterpreted or manipulated the prophecy as proof
of references to Jesus in the Old Testament. Those scholars do
not see Jeremiah's prophecy as foretelling this event at all,
if this event in fact ever occurred.
Interesting reference to another prophecy possibly misinterpreted
or misused by the interpreter. Shades of Shanshu?
[> [> [> [> Re: nice pick up (vague spoilers Angel
5.8) -- Dandy, 14:55:04 11/29/03 Sat
Interesting. The son of Corbin Fries is named Matthew. I have
wondered if the name had significance. Weeping over the death
of a child. Historians arguing over whether the event occured
at all. It does seem linked, referentially, to Connor and the
midwipe.
[> [> [> [> Re: I don't see why it can't be both...
-- Dead Soul, 23:00:55 11/20/03 Thu
..."innocence" and "innocents." Because
William's innocence is being slaughtered just as surely as their
victims are.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't see why it can't
be both... -- Dandy, 14:57:56 11/29/03 Sat
Angelus, who implies he is a virgin as far as sex with a man,
would also be slaughtering his own innocence.
[> [> [> [> [> Both works for me -- sdev,
23:24:09 11/20/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> It can be both... -- Corwin
of Amber, 09:53:09 11/21/03 Fri
but the biblical reference is what I picked up on. And sdev has
a really good point about prophecy in the bible...some of the
ones used to deify Jesus were a stretch, but then wasn't Matthew
written with the express purpose of appealing to Jews to accept
Jesus as savior?
Buffyspeak dictionary -- Sshpadoinkel,
01:47:27 11/24/03 Mon
The college essay Im doing on Buffy also includes a Buffyspeak
dictionary, where I explain the meaning of Buffyspeak in danish.
This is what I've been gathering so far (with the danish explanation
included, just so you can see what danish looks like *s*).
But I know there are many more terms out there I haven't remembered
yet. Can you help me? The only demand is that the term has been
used in an episode of Buffy (not Angel), and the term mustn't
be merely fancy yet self-explanatory. It must be a term a foreigner,
who speaks fair english but without much knowledge of american
slang and culture, wouldn't understand. A word like "Owenosity"
is borderline. I haven't quite made up my mind on that yet.
Thanks ahead :-)
A
A RITUAL SACRIFICE WITH PIE - Thanksgiving mad
AFTER HOURS UUH - Sex efter arbejde
ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT-MORON-BAR - Forsamling af folk der frivilligt
lader sig bide af vampyrer
AMERICAN SALIVATING BOY TALK - Vrøvlesnak fra en dreng
ansigt til ansigt med en smuk pige
ANNE RICE ROUTINE - Vampyr med en plaget samvittighed
ANYWHERE BUT HERE - Fantasispil hvor deltagerne forestiller sig
at være et andet sted
(THE) AWKWARD SILENCE THING - Den pinlige tavshed ofte oplevet
på dates
B
BABBLEFEST - Flere personer vrøvler samtidig
BACKSEAT MOTHERING - Råd fra en ikke-forælder
BAKE A CAKE - Sprænge noget i luften
BAT SIGNAL - Alarm signal
BENT - Dumt, forkert
BIG DOG - Vigtig person
BIG FREAKY CEREAL BOX OF DEATH - Mausoleum
BITCA - Fejlhøring af "B-I-T-C-H", mær
BRILL - Brilliant
BUTFACE - Ansigtsudtryk på en person der skal til at sige
"men"
BUTT MONKEY - Lavtstående og misbrugt person
BYO SHOVEL - Medbring egen skovl
C
CARBON DATED - Ekstremt umoderne
CARE BEAR WITH FANGS - Nuttet vampyr
CELLMATES - Bofæller
CHIPMANSHIP - Chiphåndværk
CLOTHES FLUKE - Utilsigtet handling (kys) forårsaget af
tøjet man har på
COME AS YOU AREN'T - Halloween
CORDELIA-ESQUE - Mæragtig
CYBERCOVEN - Internet heksegruppe
D
DADAISM - Vrøvlesnak
DEBARGE - Når man smagsmæssigt sidder fast i midt-80'erne
DELIVER - DEL-tastens betydning for computerignoranter
DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER OF THE PUPPY - At se trist ud
DOGLY - Utiltrækkende mand
DOLLSOME- - Tiltrækkende
DREAD MACHINE - Computer
DUH - Nedladende kommentar til en dum bemærkning
DUMP-O-GRAM - At blive dumpet af sin kæreste
E
EVITA-LIKE - Selvcentreret, arrogant
EUROTRASHED - Dræbt europæer
F
FABOO - Strålende
FANG GANG - Vampyrer
FILET THEIR SOLE - Slå ihjel
FIVE BY FIVE - Alt i orden, klart og tydeligt
FLAKE - Distræt, glemsom
FLUFFY BUNNY FEELINGS - Varme følelser for en anden person
FLYING FATALITY - Dræbt af en armbrøst
FREAKY DEAKY - Sært, ironisk
FRUIT PUNCH MOUTH - Vampyr med blod om munden
FRUIT WHILE IT'S FRESH - Kuvøseguf
FUDDY DUDDY - Pedant
FULL-ON EXORCIST TWIST - Evnen til at dreje hovedet 360 grader
G
GAG-ALICIOUS - Meget utiltrækkende
GAME FACE - Vampyrens dæmoniske ansigt
GATHERING - Kedelig fest
GOD'S GIFT TO THE BELL CURVE - Idiot
GOING ALL FELICITY WITH THEIR HAIR - Klippe sit hår meget
kort
GOING WILLY LOMAN - At sælge
GUILTAPALOOZA - Dyb skyldfølelse
GUTTER FACE - Person der tror slemme ting om andre
H
HAPPY MEALS WITH LEGS - Vampyrbetegnelse for mennesker
HAVING ORS - Overveje muligheder
HEARTBURN - Vampyr med pæl i hjertet
HELLMOUTH - Magisk center og åbning til underverdenen
HIJINKS - Have det sjovt
HOOP-OF-THE-WEEK - Obligatorisk intetsigende opgave
HOOTENANNY - Overvejende morsom fest
HORNY - Dæmon med horn
HOSTILE SUB-TERESTIALS - Dæmoner
I
ICK FACTOR - Ulækkert
IDIOT BOX - Computer
J
JOAN COLLINS 'TUDE - Megamær attitude
JONESING - Et stærkt behov
K
KEEPING IT UP - Have sex
KEYSER SOZED - Narret
KISSING DAYLIGHT - Vampyr dræbt af sollys
L
LOCKER-DOOR MATERIAL - Seriøs kæreste
LOONY FRINGE - Halvtosset
LOST WEEKENDING - At blive fuld og glemme tiden
LUNCHABLE - Tiltrækkende
M
MACPLASMAS - Vampyr fast food
MAIDEN VOYAGE - Første date
MAMAJAMA - Sej dame
MAN SIZED MICROWAVE - Elevator
MISSAGE - Følelse når en person ikke er til stede,
at savne
MOM-AGED MITS - Hænderne på en ikke helt ung kvinde
MOVE FREE - En date hvor man ikke lægger an på hinanden
MUFFIN - Sød dreng
MUSIC OF PAIN - Country musik
N
NAME-TAG PERSON - Nedladende betegnelse for butiksansat
NANCY TRIBE - Englændere
NASTY POINTY BITeY ONES - Vampyrer
NEG - Nej, negativ
NON-SAPIENS - Dæmoner
NOT DRIVING STICK - Lesbisk
O
OFFICE ROMANCE - Kærlighedsforhold mellem vampyrdræber
og vampyr
ONE-STARBUCK TOWN - Ikke-spændende by
OOGY - At føle sig syg
OTHERWHERE - Andetsteds
OVERBITE - Vampyr
OWENOSITY - Owenagtig
P
PINK RANGER - Overivrig fighter
POINTED TOOTH FAIRY - Vampyr der lægger gaver ved folks
hovedpude mens de sover
POINTY - Have en pointe
POS - Jo, positiv
PRE-POSY - Tidspunkt i et forhold før fyren giver pigen
blomster
R
REFLECT ME NOT - Vampyr
RIDING THE MELLOW - At nyde en rolig tid
ROGAINE BOY - Skaldet
ROLLERBOY - Kørestolsbruger
ROUND ROBIN - At ringe til hinandens forældre og lyve om
hvor deres børn er
S
SALTY GOODNESS - Lækker fyr
SANITY FAIR - Fiktivt blad som uligevægtige personer ikke
kommer på forsiden af
SCARE-A-POLOOZA - Vampyrbetegnelse for Halloween
SCOOBY GANG - Buffy og hendes venner
SHINDIG - Middelgod fest
SHIVER ME TIMBERS - Sex
SINGLE WHITE FEMALED - At blive efterlignet
SITCH - Situation
SLAYAGE - Vampyrdræberdrab
SLAYEE - Diverse uhyrer udslettet af vampyrdræbere
SLAYERETTE - Vampyrdræberhjælper
SLAY-STUDY DOUBLE FEATURE - Dobbelt arbejde med dæmondrab
og lektier
SMOOCHIES - Kys og romance
SOCK PUPPET OF LOVE - Mandehånd
SOFTER SIDE OF SEARS - Nørdtøj
SOYLENT GREEN - Ulækker mad
SPARKAGE - Romantisk elektricitet
SPAZ - Skør, vild
SPIDER SENSE - Faresans
SSHPADOINKEL - Udtrykker overraskelse og vantro
STEAK - Blondineudtalelse af "stake" (pæl)
STUDLY - Tiltrækkende mand
SUCKFEST - Multi-vampyrdrab
T
TECHNOPAGAN - Internet heks
TWINKIE DEFENSE - Lam undskyldning/forsvar
TWO DOOR TRAMP - Sportsvogn
U
(THE) UBERSUCK - Kæmpe bommert
UN-BUDGER - Stædig
UNDEAD AMERICAN - Politisk korrekt betegnelse for vampyrer
UNLIFE - Livet for en vampyr
UP WITH PEOPLE - Mandlig seksuel ophidselse
V
VAMPIRE MEALS ON WHEELS - Blodtransport
VAGUE THAT UP - At gøre en tåget forklaring endnu
mere uklar
VISIT DECAF LAND - Tag det roligt, slap af
W
WANNA BLESSED BE'S - Kvinder der tror de er hekse
WAY - Jo
WICCAPALOOZA - Stort hekseslagsmål
WICKED JUMPY - At være meget nervøs
WIGGED - Følelse af ubehag
WOW POTENTIAL - Mulig kæreste
WRINKLIES - Nosser
Y
YAM SHAM - Thanksgiving
YEN - Stærkt begær efter noget
YESTER - Overstået, passé
Z
(THE) ZEPPO - Nytteløst medlem af en gruppe
Replies:
[> Some possible addtions -- manwitch, 08:56:37 12/06/03
Sat
These may or may not fit in with your plan, but since you asked
for others, I thought I'd throw a few out.
Per what Ames said about pop culture references:
MULDERING IT OUT -- to figure something out
SCULLY -- to be skeptical, to undermine someone else's credibility
with a more plausible alternative (Giles, I can't believe you
of all people are trying to Scully me.)
CARRIE -- supernatural mass murder (I've got to stop a crazy from
pulling a Carrie at the prom.)
DAVID LYNCH -- non linear. (So that's why time went all David
Lynch.)
I think the noun "HAPPY" meaning orgasm is specifically
Buffy.
OOGLIE-BOOGLIES (tabula rasa)-- monsters
FRAY-ADJACENT (zeppo) -- out of harms way
A COUPLE OF COUNTY LINES OVER FROM (enemies) -- very much not
TWELVE-STEPPY (enemies) -- I assume this means self help support
group program for self-improvement through confession, or the
like. Someone smarter than me should define it.
Not to be in any way critical, but IDIOT BOX definitely means
TV in English. The point of the exchange is that Giles is so untechnological
that he doesn't know what either really is. The computer monitor
looks like the idiot box, so he calls it the idiot box. While
he has an argument to make after the fact, it seemed like he was
just incorrect due to his own ignorance when he actually called
it the Idiot Box. But the joke in English is that he doesn't know
what a computer is. There's no joke if it means "computer."
The Computer does end up saving them all in the episode, so I'm
sure to a degree he recognizes that despite his concerns, Willow
and Jenny aren't idiots. And the computer not only isn't, but
would never ever be referred to again in the Buffyverse as the
"idiot box." It only happens during Giles state of ignorance.
It would never communicate "computer" to anyone in the
Buffyverse. When he says it they all think he's an idiot because
he's not only wrong, but using such an obsolete term in his wrongness.
[> Re: Buffyspeak dictionary -- Celebaelin, 06:08:49
11/24/03 Mon
Try
http://www.btvspassion.com/btvsspeak.htm
http://www.javascrypt.com/fallenangels/speak.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/5851/slayspeak.html
There are definitely others, including one with downloadable sound
files including 'preposy' and 'business class ticket to cool with
comlimentary mojo after take-off'.
btw
MAMAJAMA - Not sure how you've translated this but I think the
phrase I'd use would be 'Motherf**ker', complete with asterisks
obviously. Either that or leave it out since it's not original
Buffyspeak.
C
[> [> i think this may stem from pronunciation confusion
-- anom, 09:53:34 11/24/03 Mon
"MAMAJAMA - Not sure how you've translated this but I think
the phrase I'd use would be 'Motherf**ker', complete with asterisks
obviously."
I'm guessing Sshpadoinkel spelled "mama-yama" the way
it would be spelled in Danish (w/the "j" pronounced
like English "y"), & Celebaelin read it as the English
pronunciation, which could sound like a slang way of saying "mamajammer"
(which I've actually never heard). But this was the word Willow
used when she told Tara she used to be a shy nerd, not the "hot
mama-yama" she was by the time Tara knew her--which is what
the translation looks like. (I don't know much Danish, but "dame"
= "woman," right?) BTW, Sshpadoinkel, I'd spell it that
way in the dictionary, since you're using English spellings for
the other words.
I'm only ~halfway through, & I have to get back to work, but would
you mind if I made some more editorial suggestions like that last
one? There aren't very many so far, so it shouldn't add much to
the work you'd need to do.
[> [> [> Re: i think this may stem from pronunciation
confusion -- Sshpadoinkel, 07:09:40 11/26/03 Wed
I dont recall exactly where I found "MAMAJAMA", but
that was how it was spelled there. Maybe I should check whether
Willow pronounces it "dj" or "j", if I could
just recall the episode :-)
And please make all the editorial suggestions you like, that's
why I posted it here *s*.
Btw, have anyone else had trouble getting into the discussion
forum, too? I could access all the other forums, but this was
blocked for a day or so.
[> [> [> [> editorial suggestions (& comments!)
-- anom, 10:28:10 11/28/03 Fri
OK, here they are. I'm sure we'll hear from anyone who disagrees.
For 1 thing, I question whether several terms that didn't originate
on Buffy are really "Buffyspeak," but since I
don't understand Danish, maybe you're citing a diff't. way they
were used on the show & I just can't tell. (Um, I just checked
your original message & that's not a requirement...but I'm not
gonna go back & take the q's. out. You can just ignore them.)
My suggestions, comments, & some questions are in brackets.
ALL-YOU-CAN-EAT-MORON-BAR [no hyphens after "eat"] -
Forsamling af folk der frivilligt lader sig bide af vampyrer
BAKE A CAKE - Sprænge noget i luften [does this really qualify
as Buffyspeak? used only by Jack's gang, more as code than slang]
BUTFACE [I'd spell this as 2 words, or at least w/a hyphen] -
Ansigtsudtryk på en person der skal til at sige "men"
BUTT MONKEY [this one probably should have a hyphen] -
Lavtstående og misbrugt person [I don't think this originated
on Buffy, so does it count as Buffyspeak?]
DADAISM - Vrøvlesnak [I don't remember this on the show--just
"Dadaist pep talk" (in The Freshman)]
FABOO - Strålende [again, not a term that originated on
Buffy]
FILET THEIR SOLE [sole, or soul? (sorry, don't remember the context)]
- Slå ihjel
FREAKY DEAKY - Sært, ironisk [again, not a term that originated
on Buffy]
HOSTILE SUB-TERESTIALS - Dæmoner [the Initiative used this
for vampires & werewolves as well as demons]
IDIOT BOX - Computer [only according to Giles--does that really
make it Buffyspeak? need to explain that it usually means the
TV?]
JOAN COLLINS 'TUDE - Megamær attitude [heehee! I don't know
much Danish, but I can figure this one out!]
LUNCHABLE - Tiltrækkende [not sure if I'm understanding
this right--sounds like it's about how they look (based on your
translation of "gag-alicious"), but the context was
whether the vamps were going to feed on Dawn & her friend or turn
them in All the Way]
MAMAJAMA [see post above] - Sej dame
MAN SIZED[needs hyphen] MICROWAVE - Elevator
MOM-AGED MITS [mitts] - Hænderne på en ikke helt ung
kvinde
MOVE FREE [hyphen] - En date hvor man ikke lægger an på
hinanden
OOGY [from Killed by Death, right? hmm, transcript spells it this
way, but it sounded like "ooky" to me (maybe because
of the Addams Family)] - At føle sig syg
OWENOSITY - Owenagtig [need more explanation? your readers might
not understand this w/no context]
POINTED TOOTH[needs hyphen] FAIRY - Vampyr der lægger gaver
ved folks hovedpude mens de sover
REFLECT ME NOT[should be hyphenated (2 hyphens)] - Vampyr
SHIVER ME TIMBERS - Sex [I'd say "sex game"--it didn't
refer to sex in general]
TECHNOPAGAN - Internet heks[is this specifically Internet-related?
or computer-related generally? And does heks mean "magic"/"witchcraft"?
if so, it may not equate to "pagan"]
TWO DOOR[hyphenate] TRAMP - Sportsvogn [I'd add however you say
"seductive" in Danish here]
(THE) UBERSUCK - Kæmpe bommert [is this Danish for "bummer"?!]
WAY - Jo [true as far as it goes, but doesn't convey that it always
follows "no way" (what's Danish for "is too!"?);
also, not specific to Buffy]
Gotta say, Sshpadoinkel, this was a lot of fun! I learned a lot,
incl. how to say things like "bitch," "stake,"
"bald," & "lesbian" in Danish & that Danish
has apparently borrowed lots of words from English. Let us know
what reaction you get to your essay!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: editorial suggestions (& comments!)
-- Sshpadoinkel, 01:44:16 11/29/03 Sat
Spike used "dadaism" in Bargaining - part 1 to comment
on Buffybots' funny way of talking.
The term "filet their sole" I borrowed from somebody
elses list of Buffyspeak. I don't know where it might have been
used.
I appreciate your help with the terms I already have, but I wish
people would suggest some new terms also.
And I can't help smile at what I consider your little display
of american arrogance, where you automatically assume that we
borrowed a word from english if the danish and english words are
similar.
But "fantasi" we got from the greek "phantasia".
"Vampyr" we got from the serbian "vampír".
"Lesbisk" we got from the greek "Lesbos" etc.
And a huge ammount of words originate in latin, like "computer",
"elevator", "signal", "modern" etc.
To some degree you are right, though, we do borrow words from
english, but I think all nations borrow from other languages :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> assumptions, & presumption
-- anom, who has a button that says 'don't assume anything', 23:04:45
11/29/03 Sat
"And I can't help smile at what I consider your little display
of american arrogance, where you automatically assume that we
borrowed a word from english if the danish and english words are
similar."
Well, I can't help not smiling at being accused of arrogance.
Do you presume that because I'm an American I must not know anything
about linguistics & go around making ignorant assumptions about
English-looking words in other languages (even though words that
don't fit a language's usual pattern are more likely to have come
from another language)? The 1st 3 you cited weren't among the
ones I thought came from English. As for those w/Latin roots,
Danish didn't develop from Latin, so these words didn't come into
Danish directly from Latin; if they'd come from the Romance languages,
their forms would reflect that--but they don't. Many words of
Latin origin did come into the Scandinavian & other non-Romance
languages by way of English, which got them through Norman French,
rather than directly from Latin or its descendants. For example,
"elevator" doesn't occur in that form in any of the
Romance languages, yet that's how it's shown in Danish in your
list. And computer terms in particular tend to come from English,
except in countries that have policies to keep their languages
"pure," resulting in words like ordinateur instead
of anything related to "computer" in French.
When I wrote about words borrowed from English, I was thinking
of words like "brilliant," "attitude," "fighter,"
"date," & "fast food." These are the clearest
examples; some others may just as well have come from other languages.
(On the other hand, there can be little doubt "passé"
was borrowed from French!)
Reading through your dictionary again, I don't know how I missed
1 correction: "HOSTILE SUB-TE[R]REST[R]IALS." I have
to say, I didn't feel much like supplying this one for you after
reading your post above. Your English is good enough that it's
hard to imagine you don't realize "little display" comes
across as patronizing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: assumptions,
& presumption -- Sshpadoinkel, 13:45:53 11/30/03 Sun
Im the type of guy who likes to push peoples buttons a little,
though I always try to keep it somewhat lighthearted. I have come
across several britons/americans, who were extremely assumptive
when it came to languages. Since you hadn't pinpointed exactly
what words you were referring to, I wasn't completely sure whether
you fit the same profile, but I took a little chance and made
a general assumption. Apparently I was wrong, and Im sorry if
you took offense.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> well, ok...
-- anom, 22:54:20 12/02/03 Tue
I try not to make assumptions, & I don't like having them made
about me. I didn't think I needed to be specific, & yeah, it does
bother me that the words you chose as supposed counterexamples
didn't look at all like they'd come from English, esp. when there
were plenty that did. It made it look like you didn't think I
was very smart, & I don't much like that either. I hope next time
you'll ask rather than assume.
Just to show there are no hard feelings, here's a suggestion for
an additional entry. I saw Older and Far Away on the UPN reruns
on Sunday, & there it was: Stay-inny (Buffy, in response to Tara's
understanding that she wasn't ready to "come out" about
her involvement w/Spike).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 1 (or
many?) more -- anom, 10:24:45 12/04/03 Thu
Maybe "-age" should have its own entry. Even though
it doesn't mean anything different in Buffyspeak than in regular
English, it's used far more & with verbs that aren't usually subjected
to this painless nouning process. Not sure how you'd define it,
though...but that's your job.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gawd
bless 'em -- Celebaelin, 18:08:19 12/04/03 Thu
Agent nouns! Like 'Slayer'. There's a word game (no money) that
was originally a French game show but works better in English
'cos it's a bigger language that's made agent nouns common knowledge.
If that means 'Slayer' is OK then so be it, though I doubt you'll
find it in a dictionary.
Bring on the Gypsy Creams!
Afternoon tea may yet determine the fate of the world.
On the other hand it seems a lot more likely that it won't.
[> [> [> [> It's in 'All The Way' s6 -- LittleBit,
09:50:20 11/26/03 Wed
[> [> Typo warning -- Celebaelin, 11:01:44 11/24/03
Mon
comlimentary - complimentary
and, while I'm posting
But this was the word Willow used when she told Tara she used
to be a shy nerd, not the "hot mama-yama" she was by
the time Tara knew her--which is what the translation looks like.
I remember the hearing the quote on the first UK airing and my
reaction at the time was 'Huh? Must be Willow not being the non-nerd
that she thinks she is.' Perhaps I misheard/assumed Willow mispronounced,
I've not had a chance to review (?What ep.?) but that was definitely
my reaction at the time. I certainly thought 'mamajammer' on the
first hearing but there's a reason you're allowed to say that
isn't there? Something to do with cultural surpression (or perhaps
the avoidance thereof)? Am I right?
C
[> Det er After Hours Woo Hoo!! -- CW, 07:12:17 11/24/03
Mon
I think you've done fairly well finding them. My Danish is pretty
weak, but I can see a few misses you've made. 'Yam Sham' wasn't
really Buffy speak, just a play on words. It means exactly what
you'd find in a dictionary 'a falsehood with sweet potatoes,'
in describing Thanksgiving trying to be supportive of Willow.
Spaz is short for 'spastic,' meaning 'someone with poor coordination."
Both 'Way' and 'Wicked' usually mean 'very' in her speech, but
as you point out there was an instance when 'Way' meant a negative
'yes' as in 'Oh yes, there must be a way!' Suckfest also was used
two ways, one as you said, and also as 'an occasion when everything
is going very unpleasantly.'
Here's a couple additions
Gives Me The Wiggins - Makes me upset or afraid
Bad Boo - Evil ghosts
[> [> Re: Det er After Hours Woo Hoo!! -- Sshpadoinkel,
07:54:41 11/26/03 Wed
To me it sounds like Faith says "after hours uuh" http://dogwood.phpwebhosting.com/~tvshrine/b-characters2.htm
"Yam sham" is Buffyspeak to me. I sure haven't heard
it anywhere else :-)
Yes, maybe I should just write "Spastiker" after "Spaz",
or just leave it out, the meaning being too obvious.
In what episode was "Suckfest" used in the non-vampire
meaning of the word?
Thanks for the input :-)
[> [> [> Re: Det er After Hours Woo Hoo!! -- CW,
06:48:20 11/27/03 Thu
Sorry. With 'woo hoo' I was thinking of Anya instead of Faith.
Faith's utterance might be better spelled 'Unh' at least in English.
It's your paper, so you can leave in 'yam sham.' But most of us
think of Buffyspeak as teen slang that other teens in the Bufyverse
might use. Buffy definitely says it as a joke to make Willow feel
better. Willow even says it's a jokey rhyme, at the time. So,
it's not really normal even for Buffy. More Buffy's one-time pun
than Buffyspeak. 'Suckfest' in the other meaning is normal enough
teen speech, that I have no idea when it might have been said,
but I'm guessing it was said by Xander.
[> [> [> [> Re: Det er After Hours Woo Hoo!!
-- LittleBit, 16:52:03 11/27/03 Thu
"The Harvest"
Angel: You shouldn't be putting yourself at risk. Tonight
is the Harvest. Unless you can prevent it the Master walks.
Buffy: Well, if this Harvest thing is such a suckfest why don't
you stop it?
Angel: 'Cause I'm afraid.
[> Re: Buffyspeak dictionary -- skpe, 07:37:25 11/24/03
Mon
A very interesting project I have often wondered how Buffy would
be viewed in other cultures because of there heavy use of S.C.
slang, cultural references and double meanings. for instance you
have 'HORNY - Dæmon med horn' I don't speak Danish but I
assume Dæmon med horn = Demon with horn where as the usual
meaning of HORNY is 'desperate for a shag'
[> [> the meaning of Horny on spanish, just to answer
you question -- Andrea,
13:21:40 11/24/03 Mon
well i can tell you being a spanish speaker, that that particular
word (Horny/ cachondo), can also take the "desperate for
a shag" meaning but it just sounds way too taky, too blunt,
in fact at least in Most of Latin america it isn't an expesion
you would use often but in Spain you would.also "putting
the horns" on someone means cheating on someone.
[> [> Re: Buffyspeak dictionary -- Sshpadoinkel,
07:58:55 11/26/03 Wed
It's one of my favourite Buffy-quotes :-) She and Riley is facing
a vampire and a demon with horns, and she says: "You'll get
fangs, I'll get horny". LOL
[> Re: Buffyspeak dictionary -- monsieurxander, 12:03:38
11/24/03 Mon
Just wanted to add...
INSANE TROLL LOGIC - Illogical and happenstance
:)
[> Re: Buffyspeak dictionary -- Ames, 12:39:03 11/24/03
Mon
A lot of Buffyspeak is based on references to shared popular culture,
i.e. concepts most people in that culture are familiar with through
movies, TV, and yes, even books, which can be easily abbreviated
by simple reference to a recognizable name. For example "don't
go all Wild Bunch on me" in The Harvest, or Xander's "Thanks
for the Dadaist pep talk" in The Freshman. As the range of
concepts embodied in shared popular culture grows, and the total
amount of exposure from movies and TV grows generation by generation,
it becomes a more and more useful form of shorthand.
An episode of Star Trek NG actually explored this idea in the
form of an encounter with an alien culture in which the sole mode
of communication is this form of cultural reference. The words
could be translated by the ST universal translator, but without
the shared cultural heritage, nothing made sense.
To some extent U.S. popular culture is common throughout the world
with the current generation who watch U.S. movies and television
extensively, but I wonder how much is not shared, and how much
this might lead to communication breakdown in the future. For
example, I've noticed frequent references in U.S. movies and television
to a handful of books which are commonly studied in U.S. schools
but not necessarily in other English-speaking countries like the
U.K. and Canada.
[> Pretty good list, here's a couple of passing notes on
some entries -- OnM, 19:57:40 11/24/03 Mon
1. Fuddy Duddy. This isn't a Buffyism; that expression
(meaning someone extremely old-fashioned and/or set in their ways)
was going strong in my youth, and for that matter in my older
sister's youth.
2. Game Face. Not a Buffyism either, although perhaps it's
unusual usage in the show could qualify it.
3. Hootenanny dates to the folk music era of the 50's and
60's.
4. When I was a kid, Idiot Box was a TV. Although the expression
is rarely used anymore, I think it still is, and hasn't been transferred
to computers.
So there be, for what it's worth. Nifty little project ya got
there-- quite a shindig!
[> [> Re: Pretty good list, here's a couple of passing
notes on some entries -- Sshpadoinkel, 08:19:27 11/26/03
Wed
Ok, guess I should drop "Fuddy duddy" and "Hootenanny".
I will keep "Game face", though, and Giles insists "Idiot
box" is the computer, though Jenny tries to tell him it's
the television :-)
[> [> [> Overall great! But some entries could be
more Buffy-centric... -- Briar, 02:47:45 12/02/03 Tue
Hootananny, shindig and gathering are definitely words in dictionaries,
however Oz's definition is more specific to BtVS:
Gathering - mellow music and Brie
Shindig - lots of people, chips and upbeat music
Hootananny - Loud, hard music, huge crowd and mega amounts of
malted beverages
This is where the beauty of Buffy-speak comes in for me. Not in
the definition of the word, but in the way that the SG put it
into context for themselves.
It's like the "Joy...." or "No Joy...." that
I was introduced to THROUGH BtVS. It wasn't in the lexicon of
the time I was a teen or used widely by the teens I was around
at the time I heard it on BtVS. Let alone such lines as "Wish
me monsters...." The usage was peculiarly BtVS in more ways
than words alone can explain.
Some other words were definitely NOT Buffy-centric, however they
were made so by a simple trick of writing, One thing is adding
"ey" to the end of words, such as "wisdom-ey"
that makes it truly a BtVS word. (The grammar was atrocious!*L)
But the overall feel for the usage of rather common words like
"Wiggins" and "Suck fest" and "Over bite"
was definitely unique to BtVS and will play a part in anthropoligical
discussion for years to come, IMO.
Buffy Arcs and Angel Season 5 (Spoilers Up to
Now) -- Darby, 07:34:49 11/24/03 Mon
I've got this feeling that Joss has decided, after the near-cancellation
of Angel and the end of Buffy that, damn it, if
we're goin' down, we're goin' down doing what we do best. But
we seem to have a very atypical ME show with AI being swallowed
by Wolfram & Hart.
Or do we?
What is a typical ME season, as exemplified on Buffy the Vampire
Slayer? At their foundation, they are all about some critical
emotional issue for the main character, with the supporters following
reflective arcs in the same emotional vicinity. The villains are
metaphorically connected to this arc, and many of the episode
themes, even the ones that don't seem to advance the arc, are
related. The usual full-season arc begins with a vision statement,
followed by a period during which a Little Bad(LB) is utilized
to set up the Big Bad (BB), who occupies the latter part of the
season and whose defeat brings some sort of resolution to the
emotional arc.
In action - (It may help if you do what I did - open a window
on Masq's Episode Index
and look at the episodes for each season) (Of course, this is
all just my opinion - as shadowkat says, your milage may vary)
The first, truncated season was basically about Duty - how Special
Responsibility comes with Special Powers (no wonder Spider-Man
shows up on the show so often as a reference!). The episodes were
primarily about the roles one plays / responsibilities one takes
or doesn't, in high school, and the perils involved. There is
no LB, with only twelve episodes, just the BB, the Vampire Master,
a fitting image for the ultimate responsibility of a Vampire Slayer.
In the end, both villain and heroine rise.
The second season was about First Love, how choosing may be done
well but not wisely, but the burning aching need of it,
and the passion that leads to extremities of response and sometimes
to harmful actions that are virtually unfixable. Buffy's need
for loving support is introduced in the first episode, as well
as her not-so-mature methods in accepting the responsibility from
Season One and the selection of Angel as the one to share the
weight with. The Anointed One would have been the LB, but a much
better if on-the-fly choice for this season were Spike and Dru,
with Spike's passion driving his episodes. The BB was Angelus,
First Love gone horribly wrong, a creature of raw passion willing
to destroy the world once it became obvious that, with the reveal
of his True Inner Self he couldn't really have Buffy's love. Episodes
dealt with raw attraction mixed with mistaken ideas of romantic
love and sex, with only a couple of puzzling exceptions. Peripherally,
Willow hooked up with Oz, Xander with Cordelia, Giles with Jenni,
relationships all doomed in one way or another. At the end, Buffy
had to send her great Love away, since even though he was repentant,
his actions and dark side made it impossible (until TV Audience
Feedback said otherwise) for him to remain.
Season three was about Roles - rejecting your current persona
and experimenting with other possible lives. Buffy starts out
as Buffy the Waitress, and finds through the course of the season
that some roles are necessary whether you want them or not, and
ultimately your role is a reflection of who you are. Faith, the
LB, is the representation of this, a Slayer unlike Buffy but not
someone Buffy can be, while Faith would love to be Buffy but cannot.
We get the Mayor, stuck for decades in a role he wants to discard
but who is ultimately defeated through his inner nature, the human
he thought left behind. Many of the episodes explore the roles
people play and involve variations, often drastic ones, that usually
rebound back to the role that naturally fits them. The finale
revolves around one of the great role-changers, Graduation, and
pivots on Buffy's realization that changes in one's role does
not mean a change in one's Nature. Supporting characters reflect
the theme - Willow moves into her witch & lover role, Xander finds
his place as SupportoMan, Giles agonizes over whether he's in
the right role, and Angel realizes his role is untenable. We get
hints of Cordy's potential, but her role changes are yet to come
in a different series.
Season four was about Transitions, exemplified as the proverbial
Fish Out of Water. Buffy starts college and is totally lost, unsure
of her role again for a while until she realizes that, no matter
what goes on in her life or with her friends, she is the Slayer
and has to do those things only the Slayer can do. The basic theme
is developed through dichotomies - Buffy is a regular college
student, but really the Slayer; Willow finds other sides through
Tara; Xander is part of the group and yet apart; Giles is a Watcher
with no one to watch. Riley, a caring boyfriend / supersoldier,
Spike, a largely toothless Puck, and Anya, a caring girlfriend
/ ex-vengeance demon, become supporting characters. Tara is a
bit of a cipher, but we do see a shy girl, unwilling to speak
up, who has knowledge and maturity hidden beneath. We get the
LB, a psychology professor who is also a military leader, running
a super-science organization dealing with magical creatures, and
the BB, an amalgam of science and magic, as comfortable in his
contradictions as the group is uncomfortable in theirs, and the
key to his downfall is our heroes' rising above, even embracing
of their differences, revealing that Adam has really repressed
the magical side of his nature, cannot deal with it in the image
of UberBuffy. Restless itself, a very atypical finale,
helps complete the transition imagery, even if no one knows who
they are or what is to come.
Season five is Identity, possibly True Self, settling into the
roles that do or will define you and accepting what goes with
them. Buffy, no longer trying to ignore uncertainties, is willing
to explore her Slayer role and ultimately embrace it at its basic
level. The LB, Dawn, has an identity, but is it her true one?
Buffy believes in her sister, Key or not, and part of Buffy's
True Self is to be Dawn's Sister, even before she is the Slayer.
The BB, Glory, has no identity in this reality - she is hidden
in Ben most of the time, but is a very un-god-like Consumer Creature
when she is out. Her True Self is Hellgod, and to play that out
she needs to flee this reality. Buffy's True Self is Martyr, which
ends with her leaving this reality as well. Xander comes to grips
with his less-than-super self, Riley ultimately goes back to being
a soldier, Willow gets a touch of her Dark Side, Giles is reinstated
as Watcher, Anya slips into a persona defined by but at odds with
the people around her, Tara finds her voice, and Spike becomes
a hero. But the center of their universe, the one to whom everyone's
identities are tied, plays out her self and dies. You can see
why this was originally planned as the final season.
Season six is dealing with Adulthood and coming to grips with
those parts of your nature that are not very nice, the Dark Side.
These two arcs do not meld well together (it was a tricky undertaking
under a split regime), producing a season of not-quite-compatible
episodes. Buffy's arc reflects the adulthood of a Slayer, which
is pretty much a non-issue, and she spends the season being drawn
along by the flow, hardly a participant and hardly caring, being
the Slayer but not much else, until she comes to the realization
that her adulthood, for as long as it lasts, also involves relationships,
especially with Dawn, and that she needs to support those who
will largely continue without her, as plays out in the finale.
The LB, the Legion of Doofs, are arrested adolescents, largely
ineffective in their stagnation (this may be why the former a.a.
representatives, vampires, were unsuited to this role) but drawn
by their actions into some seriously adult consequences. Willow's
Dark Side, the need for control and certainty that she always
knows what she's doing in areas of intellect, is the BB, but the
emergence pattern is very different this season. Most of the other
Dark Sides play out in Once More With Feeling - Buffy's
disconnectedness, Giles' feeling of ineffectiveness, Dawn's response
to being ignored, Xander's fear that he can't be a success at
love, Anya's lack of trust in Xander's love, Tara's and Spike's
fears of losing themselves, with Spike's fear of losing the Dark
Side that defines a large part of him. In the end, Spike potentially
gives up his Dark Side, Anya (and to some extent Tara) surrenders
to her Darkness, Willow must surrender her intellect and ego to
her emotions and friends, Xander saves the day through his success
at relationships, and Buffy realizes that not everything depends
upon her, that even Dawn can be a partner rather than a perpetual
damsel.
Season seven is about Changing the Rules, no longer accepting
What Is at face value. Ironically, the season is also the one
that least closely adheres to the "season pattern."
The LB and BB are less clear - the First is on the face of it
the BB, but what really is its plan, and what really defeats it?
Buffy changes the Slayer Rules, but it's really Spike, the ultimate
Rule Breaker, who saves the day, a warrior for darkness who decides,
on his own, to get a soul and save the world. Angel really couldn't
have played that theme. The LB could be the UberVamps, or Caleb,
or even the Potentials, as the latter represented the real enemy,
the Rules. Many of the episodes turned some of the rules askew,
and the established mythology on demons and vampires was challenged
in several ways. The supporting characters were not all involved,
or were not involved deeply - Willow's arc was a weak echo of
the theme, Xander's hardly a whisper, Spike's was all over the
map, Giles was, what, Bad Daddy?, and Dawn was suddenly Kirk from
the Gilmore Girls, fulfilling a different role in almost
every episode, maybe with a similar comedic intent. Only Anya
really supported the theme, but just for a brief moment, and we
saw what bucking the status quo got her. The grand weakness of
the arc was that Buffy didn't change the rules, not really, for
anyone but her - she is no longer the One and Only, but how does
that matter to the rest of the Chosen? She raised an essentially
militaristic response to the idea of Evil, an Rule ripe
for some Changing, but in the end there was a Grand Battle won
by the side with the Biggest Weapon, and forced roles on girls
around the world that they didn't necessarily want. \
They will either fight individually in their little corners, as
Buffy did, or band together, a band of warriors, an army, to what
end? And the BB, still with no clue as to how it really was motivated,
poofed away.
Anyway...(wow, this is Exposition Gone Berserk!) Angel
has generally followed emotional arcs, but only season four really
came close to following Buffy-type plot arcs. Is season
five going to?
Does this pattern seem to be applying the season five Angel?
I think it might, and I think that the arc might be about Control
- who or what pulls our strings, not from the Outside (as Angel
is increasingly concerned with), but from the Inside - those aspects
of our pasts and/or our personalities that determine, subconsciously,
our choices. Eve (the LB? Or it that W&H itself?), as the Original
Sin Girl, represents those little inward urges telling us to bite,
while Lindsay may represent those things we've chosen in the past
rearing up and biting much later. As each member of AI seeks to
find their roles in this new dynamic, we see the influences of
their roots - Lorne, just trying to fit in while secretly hating
it; Wesley, trying to satisfy, outdo, and rebel against Daddy
simultaneously; Spike, motivated by the actions and personalities
of those around him and burying the inner William. Fred, whose
story is yet to really be told, is, like Spike, being driven by
expectations of those around her but fighting their perceptions
of her (repeatedly). Gunn's education-based inferiority has been
covered, but I think with him we'll see maybe the biggest revelation,
some aspect of his past or near-hidden part of his personality
(he really reveled in running his crew, will his Inner Boss come
out?) that may give us another of those gasp! moments.
What sort of changes will this produce in Angel? He is already
resisting the influences of prophecy, but he isn't as clearly
resisting those old, evil impulses. How much of an influence on
him is the whole Champion thing? - That was put in question in
Destiny. Having Spike around pulls Angelus' influence closer
to the surface, and combined with the power he now wields, I think
we are going to see a Major League Temptation as this plays out.
This actually would have been a better arc to bring the First
Evil into, but we may see a need for Angel to fully utilize
the power of Wolfram & Hart against a threat just as overwhelming.
- Darby
Replies:
[> What motivates Evil? -- MaeveRigan, 09:57:47 11/24/03
Mon
And the BB, still with no clue as to how it really was motivated,
poofed away.
Shanghai-ing the thread, slightly. No doubt someone else will
pull it back to AtS :-)
I think we do have some clues as to what motivates the B7 BB.
Check out these little exchanges between Caleb & FE:
THE FIRST/BUFFY: I envy them. Isn't that the strangest thing?
CALEB: Well, it does throw me a tad. I mean, they're just... well,
they're barely more than animals, feedin' off each other's flesh.
It's nauseatin'. But you... you're everywhere. You're in the hearts
of little children, you're in the souls of the rich, you're the
fire that makes people kill and hate. The fire that will cure
the world of weakness. They're just sinners. You are sin.
THE FIRST/BUFFY: I do enjoy your sermons.
CALEB: And you're in me. Gave me strength no man can have.
THE FIRST/BUFFY: You're the only man strong enough to be my vessel.
And I know you feel me but... I know why they grab at each other.
To feel. I want to feel. I want to wrap my hands around an innocent
neck and feel it crack. (7.20 "Touched")
FE: Look, when this is all over and our armies spring forth
and our will sweeps the world, I will be able to enter every man,
woman and child on this earth, just as I enter you. (7.21
"End of Days")
Although the FE is neither exactly nor explicitly "Satan,"
compare its combined envy and revulsion at the idea of incarnation
with Milton's Satan, who views humanity as
"A Creature form'd of Earth [as opposed to pure spirit],
and [...]
Exalted from so base original,
With Heav'nly spoils, our spoils; What he [God] decreed
He effected; Man he made, and for him built
Magnificent this World, and Earth his seat
[.......................................]
Since higher I fall short, on him who next
Provokes my envy, this new Favorite
Of Heav'n, this Man of Clay, Son of despite,
Whom us the more to spite his Mak'r rais'd
From dust: spite then with spite is best repaid."
(Paradise Lost 9.149-54, 174-78)
The incorporeal "First Evil" wants to become truly corporeal,
for one thing, even though it thinks being pure spirit is superior.
It wants to destroy whatever is "good"--it doesn't really
need a motive for that, it's just its goal in life: "Evil,
be thou my good," is Satan's mission statement, according
to Milton. And secondly, it wants what ultimate Evil always wants--everything.
In some ways, this makes it incredibly boring ;-)
[> [> Useless pet theory -- Gyrus, 09:16:57 12/03/03
Wed
My pet theory for a while was that the "I'm done with the
mortal coil" line meant that the FE wanted to die (being
so ancient, it might have grown tired of existence), and that
it could only do that if it became corporeal first. But nothing
we saw at the end bore that out.
[> [> [> Re: Useless pet theory -- LittleBit,
10:28:21 12/03/03 Wed
Perhaps being "done with the mortal coil" meant that
the FE was no longer interested in the balance of good and evil
with demonkind and humans (mortals). With that interpretation,
loosing an army of Turok-han on the world could very well mean
the end of humanity, or 'mortals' and a return to the days of
the old ones. [wank wank nudge nudge]
[> [> [> [> Re: Useless pet theory -- Gyrus,
12:51:19 12/03/03 Wed
Perhaps being "done with the mortal coil" meant that
the FE was no longer interested in the balance of good and evil
with demonkind and humans (mortals). With that interpretation,
loosing an army of Turok-han on the world could very well mean
the end of humanity, or 'mortals' and a return to the days of
the old ones.
If the FE planned to possess every human being on Earth, it would
have to either kill all the Turok-Han (in self defense, since
they would be looking to feed on human blood) or let them kill
all the humans. If the latter occurred, the FE might simply return
to non-corporeal form (something I don't imagine it would want),
or it could, perhaps, die. So the Turok-Han are either dupes to
be subjugated or exterminated once they have served their purpose,
or they are the FE's instrument of suicide. I suppose I lean towards
the former explanation, lacking much evidence for the latter.
[wank wank nudge nudge]
If you could nudge with the arm you're NOT wanking with, I'd be
most appreciative. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Useless pet theory --
LittleBit, 13:08:38 12/03/03 Wed
That was fan wanking I'll have you know! It's quite a lovely 18th
century Spanish embroidered black lace fan at that. And it works
very nicely for a smart smapping for impertinence. ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Useless pet theory
-- Gyrus, 07:38:43 12/05/03 Fri
It's quite a lovely 18th century Spanish embroidered black
lace fan at that. And it works very nicely for a smart smapping
for impertinence. ;)
This is actually my very first "smapping". Could you
walk me through the procedure? :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Useless pet theory
-- LittleBit, 16:25:07 12/06/03 Sat
Hahaha!
It's a cross between a smack and a whap administered quite smartly.
but not necessarily hard, to the shoulder unless a different target
is specified (as in 'smaps head').
[> [> But that was only one of the motivations we heard...
-- Darby, 12:05:27 11/24/03 Mon
What the First told Willow in the library is hard to resolve with
what it told Caleb - hard to imagine how "no more mortal
coil" matches with "being made flesh," or how "fed
up with the whole good-evil balance" correlates with the
plan it seems to be carrying out as the season ends, and what
any of it has to do with the Slayer, except as someone
who's in the way in Sunnydale (but why not kill Buffy first, then?).
[> [> [> Balance and Such (Spoilers thru 'Chosen')
-- Nini, 12:25:32 11/24/03 Mon
The First is done with the balance of good and evil...It tries
to destroy the Slayer Line by destroying the Watcher's Council
and killing Potentials...maybe the point of killing Potentials
was to scare other Potentials away....away from Buffy and away
from their possible calling, so that when a new Slayer was called,
she would not follow.
Also, by releasing the ubies, the "scales would tip"
as the FE says...more evil would exist then their should be.
Maybe this would be sufficient to make the FE corporeal...if there
is more evil in the world then good, then the FE could be consdiered
a corporeal entity in the form of all the extra nasties running
around.
However, I think the season would have been more effective by
giving the First a REAL plan to become a corporeal entity.
Of course...Buffy tipped the scales in favor of good by making
new Slayers, but maybe the First was right...the balance, although
important, shouldn't stop us (the good guys) from getting in a
few extra jabs in at evil.
[> [> [> [> oops...Nini...hehe... -- Nino,
12:31:43 11/24/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> Good vs. Balance (spoilers through
AtS 5.8) -- Maura, 14:26:59 11/24/03 Mon
Nino said:
"Of course...Buffy tipped the scales in favor of good by
making new Slayers, but maybe the First was right...the balance,
although important, shouldn't stop us (the good guys) from getting
in a few extra jabs in at evil."
This does, indeed, seem to be an almost necessary conclusion to
be drawn from "Chosen." The only way around it I can
think of is to suppose that things were out of balance to start
with (with only one slayer) and that the slayer activation is,
therefore, restoring the balance. The problem with this reading
is that there is no concrete evidence to support it, while the
very fact that one slayer has been fighting evil and keeping it
from destroying the world from time immemorial seems strong evidence
that having one slayer vs. evil was "balanced."
The message, therefore, seems to be that "good" is more
important than "balance."
I won't say that's necessarily a bad message (though it's one
I personally disagree with). But good or bad, it is a dangerous
message: i.e. a message readily subject to abuse. Depending on
how one defines "good," that message could be used to
justify just about any level of destruction. "Balance,"
on the other hand, tends to resist change. That can be bad, of
course, but at least it has the advantage of strongly resisting
large scale, quixotic change, which can easily lead to massive
destruction.
And just to tie this into _Angel_, I sense a potential metaphorical
double standard looming. In 5.8, we're essentially told that having
two souled vampire champions upsets that balance, and therefore,
that there ultimately must be only one. "Balance" is
suddenly more important than increasing the amount of "good."
I really, really hope (and somewhat suspect) that this "imbalance"
argument is one of Eve's lies. If they ultimately played it out
as a central theme of the story, I feel it would set up an ethical
double standard in comparison to "Chosen."
[> [> [> [> [> Something for Nothing (spoilers
for 'Chosen', 'Fray' and 'ToftS') -- Nino, 14:48:37 11/24/03
Mon
In terms of magic, we saw countless examples that you can't get
something for nothing (Jonathon's spell in "Superstar"
released a vicious demon, the Scoobs spell in "Bargaining"
which led to the demon in "Afterlife", Jasmine's world
peace at the cost of free-will).
It was also made clear in "Get it Done" that with magic,
as in physics, you can't get something out of nothing. There has
to be a catalyst.
In "Chosen" the scythe is the catalyst to transfer Slayerness.
The reason I believe that there will be no bad result as there
were in the above spells, is because nothing was being created
or destroyed. The catalyst simply transfered something that already
existed, ie Slayerness.
One of the reasons that the Shadowmen created only one Slayer,
was because they feared her and wanted to be able to control her
(Joss' "Tales of the Slayer"). Plus, one Slayer, against
arguably thousands or millions of beaties? These things suggest
that it was not about balance, but, as we learned in season 7,
about power. Choosing one Slayer ensured that the Watcher's Council
had the power.
So to transfer the Slayer power into many girls at once without
a negativly responding force is not in conflict with the physics/magic
the show has set up. However, something tells me that not all
the Slayers will be fighting the good fight (as we saw with Faith)
and so, we have balance in the individual girls choosing how they
use their power.
Balance seems to be retained in the Buffyverse post-"Chosen".
As we learn in "Fray", eventually a Slayer in the 21st
Century (i thought it would be Buffy) succeeds in banishing all
demons from the earthly dimension. In this case, balance is thrown,
but not for long. Because there is no more supernatural evil,
there is also no more supernatural force of good to fight the
evil...the Slayers, although called, did not use their power.
And so, balance is retained.
Anyone disagree that balance is retained in the Buffyverse?
[> [> [> [> [> [> A question of authorial
deemphasis -- Maura, 20:01:00 11/25/03 Tue
Nino, your points about the scythe as a catalyst for power that
is already present make a lot of sense. And, no, I don't think
the Buffyverse is presented as being out of balance post-"Chosen,"
but I think this is more because the writers chose not to present
it that way than that there are clearly explained reasons for
its remaining in balance.
One possible problem with the transfer-of-power argument is that
how the power becomes stored as potential in the Potentials is
never explained. We are told that the First Slayer was given the
power of a demon soul, apparently one Slayer/one soul. How did
this power end up stored not in one Slayer but in perhaps hundreds
or thousands?
Another problem may be that conserving the laws of physics/magic
is not necessarily tantamount to maintaining "balance."
For example, a nuclear bomb follows the laws of physics, conserving
matter/energy transfer, but this doesn't mean it can't serve as
an imbalancing force in terms of causing social and ecosystemic
instabilities.
I'm sure we can think of explanations to make it all work out,
though.
What I see happening in this plot line is not really that the
balance *must* have been upset. What I see is a general disregard
for the issue of balance, as evidenced in the lack of discussion
of these balance-related questions within the Scoobies' planning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops! Sorry, I didn't
respond...I forgot about this thread! -- Nino, 09:34:20
12/08/03 Mon
Good points, especially the nuclear bomb analogy.
My response would be (i may have mentioned this before) that balance
was never important in the Slayer line to begin with. One Slayer
was chosen in order for the Shamans (and later the Council) to
easily control her. They wanted to harness her power, and an army
of slayers, althogh more effective in balancing good vs. evil
considering all the beasties out there, would prevent them from
having the power we learned was so important in "Lessons."
If its all about power, then Watchers had the power. It wasn't
until Buffy quit the council in "Graduation Day" and
again reasserted her power over them in "Checkpoint"
that we learn that the Slayer truly has the power. It is still
unclear in my mind why the Council never tried to kill Buffy (or
did they?) in order to have a new Slayer rise.
So, to recap: 1 Slayer + Lots of Beasties = No Balance, but Power
for the Watchers. Lots of Slayers + Lots of Beasties= Much more
balance in good vs. evil, but no power for the Council...all the
power goes to the girls, who must choose if/how they will use
it. The weight of the world is no longer on one girls shoulders,
and I feel that the attitude towards being "chosen"
will be much different and less oppressive then it was in "WttH"
when Buffy had to accept her destiny.
[> [> [> [> [> So, you're saying that balance
is good? -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:28:57 11/24/03 Mon
If balance is good, than achieving and keeping it actually puts
good in the lead, which means the balance is out of whack, so
how could there have been balance in the first place to cause
this problem? And, if there is a problem, than the balance is
actually tipping towards evil, but the problem results from there
being too much good. See the paradox? Therefore saying that balance
between good and evil is good is not a message I would advocate
since it makes no sense.
The arguments I have seen advocating balance seem to rest on the
essential foundation that good pursuing its goals too much will
innevitably lead to the world becoming a worse place. However,
if the progress is heading towards a decline in the world's quality,
then the balance is really tipping towards evil instead of good.
Balance exists as a compromise between good and evil, so, by its
very definition, it's not the best state of affairs since it is
less than good, which, also by definition, is the totality of
that which is desirable.
As for Spike and Angel, it wasn't that the balance between good
and evil was messed up, it's that there were two beings in existence
that could fit the Shanshu prophecy. The existence of two options
when destiny only refers to one acts to disrupt the order/destiny
of the universe, thus creating chaos.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So, you're saying that
balance is good? -- DorianQ, 23:18:51 11/27/03 Thu
I going to try to explain my thoughts on the paradox that was
brought up, so I apologize if I don't make sense or illustrate
everything but here goes:
I can really only show this with an analogy. Try to define ambiguity.
Easy, right? But now, it is no longer ambiguous. how can ambiguity
no longer be ambiguous? It's a paradox, right? Not really. The
word itself and the ideas it represents are two seperate entities.
The meaning of the word ambiguity is no longer ambiguous but the
things and ideas that the word ambiguity applies to are still
ambiguous.
Similarly, the word red does not itself have to be in red ink
to convey the point that it is refering to the color red.
In the same way, balance is good while the situation that is balanced
is neither good nor bad. The two don't need to affect the other.
In an unrelated facet of the discussion, demons (who it could
be presumed to be evil) also desire balance. Spike in Becoming
is probably the best example of this and he probably wasn't the
only one. He refered to demons "with a vision" distainfully,
as if this isn't the first time something like this had happened
and when it had, fellow demons stopped him from creating the opposite
of balance, chaos. In fact, looking back at it, many of the season
finales were just as much about preventing chaos as stopping the
rise of evil (Adam said as much, I think, in Primevil when he
set his demons against the Initiative soldiers to collect body
parts.)
I hope this makes sense, but please show me where my logic breaks
down if you want.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So, you're saying
that balance is good? -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:30:43 11/28/03
Fri
I don't think the analogy applies. See, you're talking about the
definitions of words, while I'm talking about how they exist within
the Buffyverse.
OK, first, let's agree on some terms: good is everything right
and desirable (for humans), evil is everything wrong and undesirable
(again, for humans), and balance is somewhere between these two
extremes. Since good encompasses all that can be desired, anything
further away from good and closer to evil is, by its very nature,
less desirable than good. It's certainly preferable to evil, but
it can never become the best choice when good is availble, since
its very nature prohibits it from truly being as desirable as
good.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I knew I'd
screw it up... -- DorianQ, 23:02:19 12/01/03 Mon
I knew I couldn't explain it. I wasn't just talking about the
defintions of words but their properties and the apppelations
that we give them and other things that are part of their "definition,"
like whether or not they are good or evil, large or small, introverted
or extroverted, etc.. I guess my point is that all things have
properties and qualities, but those properties and qualities have
their own properties and qualities and it is a fallacy to to apply
those to the original things. Althugh balance could be called
good (necessary might be a better term), the state of balance
itself is neither good nor evil.
Using your definitions of good and evil, what we as humans desire
is good, not balance. I would personally kind of want everyone
to be happy all the time. Balance is a state that just happens,
whether one desires it or not. That's what kind of worries me
about Willow's spell; similar to what happened in Superstar, she
may have inavertantly created more powerful demons somewhere,
that they can't kill, because to do so would undo the formation
of the new Slayers. Buffy may have changed the rules, but she
didn't make the board any bigger.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK, this
makes a lot more sense -- Finn Mac Cool, 05:49:10 12/02/03
Tue
The impression I've been getting from some people is that, if
offered the choice between making the world better and keeping
it at status quo, they'd choose status quo. Balance as a state
of affairs that naturally develops is a whole different story.
However, I don't think there are any real negative reprecussions
of Willow's spell. Remember, all of the potentials had the Slayer
essence inside them since birth; Willow just set it free. Nothing
new was really created, the power that already existed was just
made available for use.
[> [> [> [> [> [> are the shows saying that
balance is good... -- anom, 00:22:37 12/01/03 Mon
...or just that the universe demands balance? That seems more
like what we've seen, in cases like Superstar & Afterlife. References
to keeping a balance in smaller-scale spellcasting seem to be
more about balancing natural (physical) forces than about good
vs. evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So, you're saying that
balance is good? -- Claudia, 16:02:21 11/24/03 Mon
[As for Spike and Angel, it wasn't that the balance between good
and evil was messed up, it's that there were two beings in existence
that could fit the Shanshu prophecy. The existence of two options
when destiny only refers to one acts to disrupt the order/destiny
of the universe, thus creating chaos.]
Wasn't this whole thing about the existence of two souled vampires
nothing but a hoax created by Eve and Lindsay, to test Angel and
Spike, in the first place?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So, you're saying that
balance is good? -- auroramama, 19:16:39 11/24/03 Mon
"The existence of two options when destiny only refers to
one acts to disrupt the order/destiny of the universe, thus creating
chaos."
Oh, I like this! Souled vampires are fermions, and these two have
the same spin, so they can't occupy the same energy state. That
shouldn't lead to chaos, though, just some sort of state splitting
to avoid degeneracy. Eve was lying, or just isn't a very good
physicist. Fred, now... hmm. I don't remember nearly enough of
this stuff to come up with a good Fred solution to this issue.
[> [> [> [> [> [> It depends on the context
-- Maura, 20:06:30 11/25/03 Tue
You know, after I posted that post, I was trying to think of instances
where I would consider balance to be "evil," and I really
had trouble. The post itself was testy, for which I apologize.
I think that on the whole this is a question of perspective. One
of the most insightful things, in my opinion, that H. G. Wells
ever said concerned the need to look at questions at different
scales. For example, from one perspective, the Earth is flat;
from another, it's round. Both are true from their own perspectives.
And while the idea that the Earth is both flat and round at the
same time sounds like a contradiction, it's really not if you
look at the two explanations as referring to different scales.
How does this relate to balance/good/evil? My post was unclear
in that I didn't explicitly relate the ideas of "good"
and "balance" to the scales in which I was thinking.
In the context of "Chosen," I was referring to "good"
as defeating the FE and having more power to fight evil demons
(as so defined in the Buffyverse), thereby saving and helping
people. I was referring to balance as a cosmological condition--such
as was discussed in "Get It Done"--in which power, magic,
etc. are supposed to come from somewhere and be conserved and
exist in some sort of relation of powers that prevents radical
instability in the fabric of space/time (like what we're seeing
now in _Angel_). My problem with "Chosen" is not that
the "good" and the "balance" are necessarily
logically incommensurate. It is that the reasons for their being
compatible are not explained. To me, the activation of the slayers
suggests a shift in the balance that the "text" does
not address. A change in balance without an explanation of why
balance is retained seems to me to suggest an "imbalance."
But I'm not saying there must be one. What concerns me is that
ME chose to present balance as a trivial point (one not worth
discussing/exploring) when, I feel, it is not a trivial point
at all in our world today, given phenomena of "imbalance"
such as global warming. It is the trivialization of balance (in
the ecological sense) that has led to such problems.
On the more "absolute" scale of cosmic good/evil/balance
outside the Buffyverse, the conditions of the discussion are somewhat
different. In brief, I think good/evil and balance (as ultimate
values) tend to exist in different philosophical/religious symbol
sets. Ex. Christianity tends to see things as good/evil (support
good, oppose evil). Taoism tends to see things in terms of balance
(we need both light and dark).
The Buffyverse, like _Star Wars_, gets a bit confusing sometimes
because it tends to conflate these two symbol sets. In Force terms,
should the Light Side try to minimize the Dark Side or do we need
"balance," as _The Phantom Menace_ tells us? I think
there are ways to negotiate this conflation; it doesn't have to
be a bad thing. But ME, whose project has never been primarily
to develop a consistent cosmology, have failed to develop a consistent
cosmology to explain these issues, in my opinion.
This rankles me sometimes because personally I have a greater
investment in such issues than ME appears to. I realize that others
don't and that this makes my criticisms sometimes appear to be
trivial, too nit-picky, or "missing the point."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It depends on
the context -- Rosie, 10:17:15 11/26/03 Wed
[But ME, whose project has never been primarily to develop a consistent
cosmology, have failed to develop a consistent cosmology to explain
these issues, in my opinion.]
But isn't it possible to say that you can simply attribute this
failing to "Chosen" and Season 7 only? ME's failure
to delve into the issue of balance seemed to have been consistent
throughout BUFFY's seven-season run. Nor do I recall such issue
being addressed in ANGEL, until this "Shanshu prophecy"
thing between Angel and Spike came up in "Destiny".
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Good vs. Balance (spoilers
through AtS 5.8) -- Claudia, 15:52:23 11/24/03 Mon
[This does, indeed, seem to be an almost necessary conclusion
to be drawn from "Chosen." The only way around it I
can think of is to suppose that things were out of balance to
start with (with only one slayer) and that the slayer activation
is, therefore, restoring the balance. The problem with this reading
is that there is no concrete evidence to support it, while the
very fact that one slayer has been fighting evil and keeping it
from destroying the world from time immemorial seems strong evidence
that having one slayer vs. evil was "balanced."]
We really do not know what was more balanced - one slayer vs.
evil; or many slayers vs. evil. Frankly, I never saw how one Slayer
could fight demons and vampires all over the world. It simply
didn't make any sense. And the only reason there was one Slayer
(at least from what I've seen) is that this system made it easier
for the Shadowmen, and later the Watchers' Council to maintain
control over these girls. I suspect that maintaining balance between
good and evil had nothing to do with the one-Slayer system.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good vs. Balance (spoilers
through AtS 5.8) -- Maura, 20:12:35 11/25/03 Tue
You're certainly right that the balance was never between one
Slayer and all evil. There are lots of others fighting the good
fight, probably throughout history. The fact, however, that having
a Slayer seems to have been essential to avoiding the apocalypse
(if Buffy's life is any indication), yet one Slayer alone seemed
pretty adequate to avoiding the apocalypse (since the world never
ended over the millennia that there was only one) suggests that
one Slayer (plus other "good" helpers) was enough to
maintain a good/evil balance that at least prevented the total
triumph of evil.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Good vs. Balance
(spoilers through AtS 5.8) -- Claudia, 09:18:15 11/26/03
Wed
[You're certainly right that the balance was never between one
Slayer and all evil. There are lots of others fighting the good
fight, probably throughout history. The fact, however, that having
a Slayer seems to have been essential to avoiding the apocalypse
(if Buffy's life is any indication), yet one Slayer alone seemed
pretty adequate to avoiding the apocalypse (since the world never
ended over the millennia that there was only one) suggests that
one Slayer (plus other "good" helpers) was enough to
maintain a good/evil balance that at least prevented the total
triumph of evil.]
Which only leads me to believe that there is also nothing wrong
in having more than one Slayer. The only problem with a multi-Slayer
system (and one can say the same about a single-Slayer system)
is that the wrong girl might end up with Slayer strength. I'm
sure that if the Watchers' Council had their way, neither Buffy
or Faith would have become Slayers.
Besides, one can have an apocolypse in more than one place. During
the 2002-2003 TV season, there was an apocolypse going on in both
Sunnydale and Los Angeles. For all anyone knows, there are apocolypses
being played out in other parts of the world - especially since
BtVS has established that there were more than one Hellmouth.
Having more than one Slayer, along with various demon hunters
could be essential in this.
[> [> [> That was Cassie/First, not First/Buffy
-- Finn Mac Cool, 15:34:23 11/24/03 Mon
As the honorable Richard Wilkins III told us, everyone the First
Evil takes the form of actually has their spirit making up part
of it. So it doesn't seem rash to infer that the First may have
different attitudes and personalities depending upon who it's
manifesting at the moment. Cassie was pretty accepting of her
own death, so the First became very accepting of the end of it
all when in her form. Buffy's issues for a long while have centered
around feeling alone or unable to feel, so the First feels different
desires when manifesting her.
I do believe its plan was the same all along, just that once it
did upon achieving that plan is uncertain. Once the Turok-Han
conquered the earth, making the First Evil corporeal, it could
rule the earth if it wanted, go around commiting various brutal
acts, or possibly even end its own existence (we've seen cases
before where certain beings can only die after being made corporeal).
[> Re: Buffy Arcs and Angel Season 5 (Spoilers Up to Now)
-- Cactus Watcher, 10:25:22 11/24/03 Mon
But we seem to have a very atypical ME show with AI being swallowed
by Wolfram & Hart.
I wouldn't say it was atypical at all. Your choice of words immediately
brings to mind "From beneath you it devours." It also
reminds me of Nina's statement, that she didn't care if she got
eaten. Her feeling was, "let them choke on me."
Buffy was pretty much swallowed up in season five with heavy life-crisis
emotions. In season six she was'spit out' without the ability
to feel much of anything.
Faith in season three, was lost in her own insecurity, and eventually
corrupted.
Giles from season four on had difficulty dealing with the fact,
his role as evil fighter had slipped to a secondary status. Even
in his 'infection of Willow' at the end of season six, he relied
on Willow believing she could overcome any powers he had. His
drinking shows he too had been swallowed.
The relation with Xander is fairly easy to see as well. He spent
most of five seasons trying to find confidence and worth in himself.
But, then immediately before the marriage was supposed to take
place, he was swalloed up by his self doubt.
Angel has always played on the fringes of good and evil. It is
no big change that now evil is letting him make his own pitfalls.
[> [> Corruption -- Darby, 12:11:16 11/24/03 Mon
What I find different is that the basic plot implies that W&H will
corrupt AI with its evil power, but the real danger lies within
the characters. Except for Willow and MagiCrack, the idea of the
BB sucking in the characters to the Dark Side is ...um, more of
an Angel thing - Darla, Jasmine etc... so I guess it's
not unusual for ME at all.
Never mind.
[> [> [> What Angel said to Spike in Destiny........spoilers
for Destiny -- Rufus, 05:18:19 11/27/03 Thu
SPIKE
Come on, hero. Tell me more.
(punches Angel)
Teach me what it means.
(punches Angel)
And I'll tell you why you can't stand the bloody sight of me.
(punches Angel)
ANGEL
(punches Spike)
Tell it to your therapist.
(punches Spike)
SPIKE
(punches Angel)
'Cause every time you look at me...
(punches Angel)
you see all the dirty little things I've done,
(punches Angel)
all the lives I've taken...
(punches Angel)
because of you! Drusilla sired me...
(punches Angel)
but you... you made me a monster.
(punches Angel, walks toward the cup)
ANGEL
(collapses to the ground)
I didn't make you, Spike. I just opened up the door...
(starts to get up)
and let the real you out.
Spike picks up the cross that burned Angel before and swings it
at Angel, knocking him across the room. Spike holds the cross
in his hands.
SPIKE
You never knew the real me.
(hands sizzle on the cross; he throws it away; walks toward Angel)
Too busy trying to see your own reflection... praying there
was someone as disgusting as you in the world, so you could stand
to live with yourself. Take a long look, hero. I'm nothing like
you!
Wonder when these two will stop bickering long enough to see just
how well they have been played?
[> Buffy Season 8? -- OnM, 19:24:40 11/25/03 Tue
*** Season seven is about Changing the Rules, no longer accepting
What Is at face value. Ironically, the
season is also the one that least closely adheres to the "season
pattern". ***
I agree, and as far as Ats S5, I see the same general arc emerging--
it's about changing the rules. In a way, AtS
this season is continuing the theme of BtVS S7. You might note
that, for the very first time in our experience with
the Buffyverse, the 'new' season started up only three weeks
after the end of the previous one. Thus, I
submit the possibly radical concept that AtS S5 is BtVS S8-- just
without Buffy! (But fairly regular mentions of
her so far).
*** The LB and BB are less clear - the First is on the face
of it the BB, but what really is its plan, and what
really defeats it? Buffy changes the Slayer Rules, but it's really
Spike, the ultimate Rule Breaker, who saves the
day, a warrior for darkness who decides, on his own, to get a
soul and save the world. ***
This is true, and yet it isn't. It's a matter of your chosen frame
of reference. Spike saved the day only
because of Buffy. Spike came to power as a 'champion' only because
Buffy believed in him, and in the end
because her inner 'fire' was so bright she could bend reality
and make the impossible possible. It's the Joan of Arc
metaphor, except gender-reversed so that Spike is Joan, and Buffy
is god.
*** Angel really couldn't have played that theme. ***
True. Angel doesn't view Buffy as a deity. The dynamic is wholly
different.
*** The LB could be the UberVamps, or Caleb, or even the Potentials,
as the latter represented the real
enemy, The Rules. Many of the episodes turned some of the rules
askew, and the established mythology on
demons and vampires was challenged in several ways. ***
Excellent point. I likewise vote for 'all of the above'.
*** The grand weakness of the arc was that Buffy didn't change
the rules, not really, for anyone but her - she
is no longer the One and Only, but how does that matter to the
rest of the Chosen? She raised an essentially
militaristic response to the idea of Evil, an Rule ripe for some
Changing, but in the end there was a Grand Battle
won by the side with the Biggest Weapon, and forced roles on girls
around the world that they didn't necessarily
want. ***
There is no action without reaction, or viewpoint without frame
of reference. If Buffy changes the rules for herself,
she also changes the rules for everyone else within her frame
of reference.
*** And the BB, still with no clue as to how it really was
motivated, poofed away. ***
Several other posters have outlined the likely motivation of the
Big Bad here. I think what many viewers were
expecting was an inclination of the danger/destruction level from
past seasons, when that wasn't was Joss
intended at all. Going 'back to the beginning', as he stated,
I took to mean returning the theme to the basic
pervasive-- and frankly banal-- nature of Evil, with the capital
'E'. The FE had no 'grand motivation' from our
perspective-- it just wanted to be A) Ultimately powerful and
B) Corporeal so that it could not only be the source
of Evil, but experience it also, and C) spiritually eternal. Think
of the 'holy trinity', but with Evil instead.
BTW, for whatever it's worth, my ultra-abbreviated BtVS S7 arc
summary is like so:
Ep 1: Buffy is now the teacher, not the student. Buffy teaches
Dawn (her 'sister') that 'the stake is not the power',
and that there is 'always a talisman'.
Ep 22: Buffy demonstrates (after temporarily forgetting the wisdom
of her earlier teachings) that indeed, 'the stake
is not the power'-- I (Buffy) am the Power. The Scythe
is the talisman. Who does she teach? Her 'sisters',
the new Slayers.
Ahh, sometime I have to expand/expound on this summary thing,
but not tonight.
:-)
[> [> Excellent points, OnM. :-) -- jane, 21:07:02
11/25/03 Tue
[> [> Re: Buffy Season 8? -- LittleBit, 21:21:52
11/25/03 Tue
The FE had no 'grand motivation' from our perspective-- it
just wanted to be A) Ultimately powerful and B) Corporeal so that
it could not only be the source of Evil, but experience it also,
and C) spiritually eternal. Think of the 'holy trinity', but with
Evil instead.
Wow! Now you're really making me think! What an intriguing concept.
Hmmm....
fray question -- angelverse, 16:24:53 11/24/03
Mon
question...i know that "a slayer and her friends managed
to remove all evil from this world in the early 21st century"
and that even though slayers were born they were not called...but
even though they were not called it still means they had the power,
right? and i didnt read the comic books but i think someone told
fray she was the last in a long line of slayers...what happened
to the rest of 'em...i thought there was supposed to be thousands
...why is she the only one all of a sudden...also i remember reading
on a website that frays brother was also a slayer...what happened
to the all-girls club thing?
Replies:
[> Spoilers for 'Fray' above -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:53:24
11/24/03 Mon
[> some answers....Fray spoilers -- Nino, 17:55:08
11/24/03 Mon
The tons-o-slayers from "Chosen" are not addressed.
All that is known is that since the demons were banished, the
Slayer line was forgotten. Somehow, the demons returned. The comic
makes it pretty clear that Fray is THE slayer, and that at this
point, we are back to the one and only format. How and why this
happened, they don't address (keeping in mind that "Fray"
came out before "Chosen"). I would guess that it has
something to do with the Slayer in the 21st Century who banished
all the demons in the first place...maybe it goes back to the
idea of balance...w/o the evil, the Slayers lost their power.
I don't know.
Or maybe the Slayer line will continue to be carried through only
Faith, and when she dies a Slayer will be called, but when all
the other Slayers (Buffy, Kennedy, Rona, etc.) die, new Slayers
will not be called. This makes sense because the new Slayer army
was activated by a DIFFERENT METHOD then the original Slayer line...so
why should these new Slayers work the same way as the magic surrounding
the "true" Slayer work?
Course...when Faith dies...in theory there won't be any potentials,
since they were all activated. So maybe this how the Slayer line
dies out...with no more Potentials...Slayers can't be called in
mass amounts...its a can of worms.
Any thoughts?
[> [> Re: some answers....Fray spoilers -- angelverse,
19:32:50 11/24/03 Mon
i didnt think the new method was that complicated...the way i
took it was that if a girl, before she is born, has the potential
to be a slayer she will be one from birth. I dont think that when
the new slayers (ie rona kennedy) will call other slayers because
they are already called. get it? when they die nothing happens
cause there are already thousands of slayers in the world, not
waiting to be called upon someone's death but already called since
birth. there is no more calling, slayers are just born. my theory
is that when faith dies no slayer will be called cause that method
is gone, dead. they'll just keep being born. The line of slayers
is no longer tied to death, but birth, kind of poetic, no? And
plus, its no longer a line (ie buffy-kendra-faith). I dont know
what to call it but its different and cool. Also i dont understand
what would make it go from this new method to the old method used
in fray, i mean, i just dont see all the slayers dying leaving
just one left, cause the way i see it they'd still be born...i
just dont get the transition...maybe joss can set it straight
[> [> Actually....Fray spoilers -- Sofdog, 10:39:23
11/25/03 Tue
It's just a plain old contradiction. The Fray series states that
the unnamed Slayer fought a war that resulted in *all* magic being
removed from the world. The picture shows her disappearing into
a vortex with the demons. And so, since there were no more demons
there was no more Slayer.
There is no reasonable explanation. Joss wrote one story for Fray
and then a year or two later he wrote a different one for Buffy.
The best you can do is to note that the Fray story is hearsay,
with no details, and that it might be wrong.
Create your own explanation. Fanfic away.
[> [> [> Re: Actually....Fray spoilers -- angelverse,
15:03:40 11/25/03 Tue
so...since all magic was presumably removed from the earth, that
would mean that the magic behind the slayers powers were also
removed...i can see how that would work. no magic = no magic being
(ie slayer) so the reintroduction of demons into the world meant
the reintroduction of its counterpart, the slayer...but i wonder
why it would go back to the old way of slayer calling (ie one
slayer at a time)...oh well. i also wonder why they made her brother
a slayer as well...maybe since all those hundreds of years the
rules changed and allowed boys to be slayers. YAY for equality!!
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually....Fray spoilers --
Drizzt, 17:39:02 11/25/03 Tue
Or her brother was gay...wich confused the Spirit of the Slayer
enough that it thought he was a she:0)
IMO Slayers are chosen by personality IE potentials are those
with a greater predisposition and potential for exhibiting heroic
traits IF they are put in a situation where there is danger. The
potential would not actualize untill SOME form of danger triggered
it.
A hereditary Slayerdom...only certain bloodlines would be contrary
to the Buffy mythos and make corruption more likely IMO.
[> [> [> [> Re: Actually....Fray spoilers --
Sofdog, 17:57:17 11/25/03 Tue
Oh, the brother was a twin. That's how he got the memories instead
of her.
Looking at the book (Issue 3), it does say that the "Watcher"
didn't know if the 21st Century Slayer lived or died. He says
that all demons being gone, she was the last to be called. And
you're right, he also says that there were Potentials born but
none were ever Called to full strength until Fray. Which brings
us back to the two stories simply not connecting.
If it helps your fanfic'ing, Fray's "Watcher" wasn't
really a good guy. You can always pretend his information is a
lie.
[> [> [> Re: Actually....Fray spoilers -- Sci,
16:34:49 11/25/03 Tue
That, or the unnamed Slayer seen in the Fray flashback
was a different Slayer, and the battle a different battle from
the one we saw in "Chosen." I don't see how there's
any contradiction -- at some point between the beginning of Season
Five of Angel and Issue One of Fray, there will
be an apocalyptic battle in which all magick is removed from the
Earthly plane and the Slayer line disappears. No big.
[> [> [> [> I agree with Sci.... (Fray Spoils)
-- Briar, 02:15:55 12/02/03 Tue
The link between the two Slayers (Fray and Summers) is the scythe.
However, the canon still holds up because even though that does
link Buffy directly into the line that produces Fray (BUFFY was
the Chosen One who was given directly and actually wielded the
scythe in Chosen!) the added knowledge that whatever battle ended
the Slayer line in the 21st century is described as "That
battle ended all demons, all magics."
This would mean that the spell Willow cast would be null and void,
so no more Slayers were magically empowered. Slayers could only
be empowered through whatever the old system was. Was it magic?
That we still don't know and maybe never will....
JW left it open (as he has all along) as to exactly HOW the Slayer
is called. He also didn't specify (ever that i ca remember) if
there are different types/strains of magic at work in his verse.
So even though "all magics" were removed from the fight
of good versus evil, it doesn't specify the type of magics humans
and spirits (Willow and Anyanka) can control versus something
as "magical" yet controlled by genetics and relative
naturalness as say, embryos living in amniotic fluid inside the
human body to birth and starfish growing back severed limbs.
[> Joss' Answer -- Dochawk, 22:02:26 11/25/03 Tue
Joss actually addressed this question at Comicon this summer.
Fresne can correct me if I remember this incorrectly. He stated
that there were inconsistancies with the mythology as regards
to Chosen and Fray and that he would have to write a new series
of Fray to synchronize them. The new Fray seemed to be in his
plans for this year, but one never knows.
[> [> Re: Joss' Answer -- Darby, 11:54:39 11/27/03
Thu
Since the trend toward the end of Buffy was to not trust
the accepted versions of how things work, that can always be applied
to the mythology of Fray - the legends from the past may
not match the actual events.
That's the simplest way to reconcile the stories, at least.
Current board
| More November 2003