October 2002 posts


Previous October 2002  

More October 2002



William and Proinsias (Spoilers to Grave)) -- KdS, 03:40:56 10/14/02 Mon

I hesitate to bring this up in case anyone who might sue is watching, but does anyone else feel there are definite parallels between Spike S4-6 and Garth Ennis's vampire Proinsias Cassidy (in the Preacher comic strip serial).

Both charming, alcoholic sociopaths redeemed to a certain extent by their capacity for loyalty to individuals.
Both memorably angered by the pretensions of other vampires, who they kill by exposure to sunlight.
Both grossly embarassed by their Christian name :-)
Both involved in a romantic triangle with a woman warrior who feels her resurrection as a violation and a man with dual human/demonic nature.
Both become sexually involved with the woman after fate parts her from the other man.
Both shockingly lose the audience's sympathy after an act of gross sexual predation against the woman.
Both are driven by guilt over this act to a self-sacrificial act that results in their rehumanisation.

Admittedly, the plot structure of Preacher is very different - the BtVS equivalent would be if we were first introduced to Spike as the funny, romantic chipped vamp and only found out about his past after Seeing Red, but I think it's quite thought-provoking.

[> Re: William and Proinsias (Spoilers to Grave)) -- Juliet, 12:03:38 10/14/02 Mon

maybe joss reads Preacher? It seems like something he might do...

Quick psychological question -- KdS, 03:44:43 10/14/02 Mon

A couple of posters here seem to use the words "psychopath" and "sociopath" in a way that suggests they're clearly different things. I thought that both meant a person grossly lacking in moral sense or ability to learn from experience, but that "sociopath" was the PC term for "psychopath" because the later had been so sensationalised by pop culture. If they are different, what's the difference?

[> Dictionary.com to the rescue? -- Tchaikovsky, 04:17:14 10/14/02 Mon

One of the entries I got when bunging 'psychopath' in came up with:

psychopath

n : someone with a sociopathic personality; a person with an antisocial personality disorder (`psychopath' was once widely used but has now been superseded by `sociopath') [syn: sociopath]
Source: WordNet (r) 1.6, (c) 1997 Princeton University

So that would suggest you're right. I'd always considered a sociopath to be someone who had an anti-social disorder, but psychopath to be someone who actually did something about it, ie there was a side of violence or abuse to their disorder. However, I can't remember clearly differentiating in any posts, so I'd probably better leave others their right of reply.
TCH

[> [> I find they are the same thing....just some people prefer one term over the other. -- Rufus, 05:20:33 10/14/02 Mon


[> [> [> Re: Done some quick research -- KdS, 05:25:29 10/14/02 Mon

Some people on the web seem to use "sociopath" to refer to someone who simply has no moral sense and "psychopath" to mean someone with no moral sense *and* some other overt mental disorder. Some people seem to use "sociopath" in the general sense of "amoral" and "psychopath" to mean someone who actually has a history of violence/crime.

[> [> [> [> Re: Done some quick research -- shadowkat, 08:52:24 10/14/02 Mon

This is a pet peeve of mine, because I've always distinquished them in this fashion based on Criminal Law -
which is a sociopath - has no empathy for others and tends to be anti-social, but does know the difference between right and wrong. While a psychopath - is insane and doesn't know the difference.

This however according to psychology is an incorrect distinction. I just went online and found out a few things:

Excellent articles examining the root of two words and why they're meanings are now merged:

http://psychology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.flash.net%2F%257Esculwell%2Fpsychopathology.htm

Here's some of what is stated by psychologists on about.com:

"(I)n essence, the significant difference between the two general terms is the presence of a criminal component to behavior. While the psychopath, if overt criminality generates immediate gratification (e.g., theft, rape, etc.), will engage in that behavior, a sociopath is defined as one who habitually violates social norms and fails to learn from previous experience. Another way to look at the distinction is to say that all sociopaths are psychopathic, while not all psychopaths are sociopathic, due to the absence of the overt criminal behavior that defines sociopathology."

They go on to state there are three types of psychopaths.

1."The Primary Psychopath
Primary psychopaths are the true psychopaths. When someone is asked to come up with a mental picture of a psychopath, it will, more than likely, be that of the primary psychopath.
"He or she is unique: neither neurotic, psychotic, nor emotionally disturbed as commonly believed. Primary psychopaths are usually not volcanically explosive, violent, nor extremely destructive. They are more apt to be outgoing, charming, and verbally proficient" (Bartol, 1995, p.59).
In other words, they are calm and collected. They can control their tempers and appear as though they have everything under control. Furthermore, primary psychopaths are held to be "callous, manipulative, massively selfish, and routinely untruthful..." (Levenson, Kiehl, Fitzpatrick, 1995, p.151). They are actors, meaning that they can convey with gusto and immense feeling almost anything they feel may warrant the emotion. However, it is just an act. True psychopaths are incapable of experiencing any form of emotional content."

These are the types - that I generally think of as sociopaths.

" The primary psychopath's relations with other people also suffer as a result of the "illness." Their inability to convey emotion and their flat emotional affect prohibit them from adequately feeling genuine, meaningful affection for others. "

." Psychopaths can basically be thought of as emotional shells; the surface is all there, but there is no substance. When they
"...articulate their regrets for having done something [wrong, their] words are devoid of emotional meaning, a characteristic Cleckley (1976) [refers to as] semantic aphasia. Johns and Quay (1962) remarked that psychopaths 'know the words but not the music.' Similarly, Grant (1977) notes that the psychopath knows only the book meaning of words, not the living meaning" (Bartol, 1995, p.64)."

2."The Secondary, or Neurotic, Psychopath
Secondary psychopaths, to distinguish them from primary psychopaths, have severe emotional problems and would most likely be diagnosed as neurotic. They are often referred to as "acting-out neurotics, neurotic delinquents, symptomatic psychopaths, or simply neurotic characters" (Bartol, 1995, p.58). Their delinquency can be attributed to inner conflicts and psychological discord (Bartol, 1995). Levenson, Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick (1995) concur by saying that secondary, or neurotic, psychopaths have an emotional disorder (extreme impulsivity) that can account for their exhibiting antisocial behavior, whereas a purely primary psychopath will exhibit no such disorder."

These guys can exhibit emotion. And they tend to do criminal acts.

3."The Dyssocial Psychopath
Dyssocial psychopaths exhibit antisocial and aggressive behaviors they have learned from their culture in some way (Bartol, 1995). Dyssocial psychopaths can be said to have come about primarily due to Bandura's Social Learning Theory and his model for observational learning. In other words, if a behavior is modeled, the viewer is more likely in the future to display that behavior when in similar situations. So, the dyssocial psychopath can attribute his antisocial behavior on his culture and the society that surrounds him or her. They were effectively made antisocial by their environment. However, because of its diagnostic rarity in psychopathic individuals, not much information on dyssocial psychopathology was disclosed by the research articles for further discussion. "

These are more agressive and may be the serial killers.

But psychologists don't consider 2 and 3 to be true psychopaths because they don't exhibit the emotional flat states. Criminologists have termed them sociopaths :
"to refer to the repetitive offender who does not respond appropriately to treatment, rehabilitation, or incarceration. The term 'antisocial personality disorder' (ASP) is used by psychiatrists, and many psychologists to refer to those offenders who demonstrate a 'failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviors as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest' (American Psychiatric Association (APA), 1993, T-4). However, ASP is more narrow than primary psychopathy because it restricts its definition to behavioral indicators" (Bartol, 1995, pgs. 58-59)."

The article concludes that Psychopaths aren't monsters :
"They are not the bloodthirsty, rampaging lunatics that the media has portrayed them as being. They are merely individuals unfortunate enough to lack the capability to form lasting bonds with other people, show or experience meaningful emotion, or escape the constant threat of boredom. They are, in fact, manipulative, pathological liars who have no qualms of doing injustice and harm to another if, in the end, it provides some modicum of personal gain. They have no conscience and can only think in terms of themselves. Cleckley (1976) said that egocentricity is always a factor in psychopathic individuals-they know of no other way to think, and in that way, they are truly selfish individuals. "
Copyright (c) 1997-1999 by Shaun Culwell. All rights reserved.

This seems to fit our vampires. But I'd say our vampires fit more the view of the secondary or third definition.

Here's another definition taken from the alleydog psychology definition site:

Sociopath: This term is really synonymous for someone with a sociopathic personality, which is really another way of saying "antisocial personality". So, let's define antisocial personality-this is a type of personality disorder in which the person has impulsivity, an inability to live by the rules, customs, and laws of the society in which they live, and a lack of anxiety or guilt about their behavior.
http://www.alleydog.com/glossary/definition.cfm?term=Sociopath

Most online psychology dictionaries will define sociopath but do not recognize the term psychopath.'

Personally I find the way Btvs and ATs refer to the vampires as psychopaths or sociopaths or serial killers as incredibly confusing and misleading. Would prefer the writers stay away from these terms. Because to compare Spike or Angelus to a human serial killer seems ludricous to me, but hey, that's just me.

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- vh, 09:01:21 10/14/02 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> Ditto, thanks for doing such a lot of work. Clear as mud, but not your fault :-) -- KdS, 09:21:27 10/14/02 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL...it's Pysch, sic! -- aliera, who likes a little mystery..., 18:57:49 10/14/02 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> See now you went and got me started.....:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:34:55 10/14/02 Mon

Personally I find the way Btvs and ATs refer to the vampires as psychopaths or sociopaths or serial killers as incredibly confusing and misleading. Would prefer the writers stay away from these terms. Because to compare Spike or Angelus to a human serial killer seems ludricous to me, but hey, that's just me.

You are so right. BTVS and ATS are fantasy shows and as vampires aren't "real" I find putting real life labels on them at the very least misleading. It also gets the show into trouble when they try to portray one character as "better" than the other. The term "serial killer" has been simplified and pasted on characters that have been highly romanticized causing much confusion. You can't say that Angel is no longer a "serial killer" because he got a soul, but Spike still is because he has none.....add up the bodies and the term fits for both, soulled or unsoulled. But if you stick to the fantasy realm where mythical creatures find redemption in metaphorical situations I have no problems. But if they want to hang "real life" labels on a very unreal situation then we have to look at the show Angel very closely because if we go all "real life" the whole show is based upon a serial killer who just changed types of victims to kill. If the writers want to be real, be real don't jerk everone off by trying to apply a real life label to only one or two characters while glossing over the same behavior in their lead character.

If we want to go all real life.....we also have to take a close look at Buffy....as after all, she is a killer too.;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: See now you went and got me started.....:):):):) -- yabyumpan, 05:10:51 10/15/02 Tue

The other problem with applying those terms to our favorite Vamps is that, in doing so, we anthropomorphesise (sp?) them. From a Vampire perspective, I would say that Angelus was just a very acomplished and renound Vampire, probably admired within the Vampire community for his cruelity etc. He was very good at being a Vampire. I would say that Spike, on the other hand, from a Vampire perspective, would be looked on as a Sociopath over the last few years. Kills his own kind, hangs out out with humans, falls in love with a Slayer and then actively seeks out a soul. The quote the Blond One 'How's that for perversion?'

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> requested spelling, & comments -- anom, 22:13:57 10/15/02 Tue

Anthropomorphize.

As for applying human labels to vampires/demons, are the characters who do this on the show speaking for the writers or just expressing their own understanding? When Buffy says postchip/presoul Spike is like a serial killer in jail, I see that as her opinion, & certainly open to question in the context of the show. I don't assume it's the writers' point of view. It makes sense to me that the human characters would anthropomorphize the vamps. It's a human thing to do. Vamps don't do it in reverse, & they take full advantage of humans' tendency to do it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Exactly... -- shadowkat, 06:53:46 10/15/02 Tue

"The term "serial killer" has been simplified and pasted on characters that have been highly romanticized causing much confusion. You can't say that Angel is no longer a "serial killer" because he got a soul, but Spike still is because he has none.....add up the bodies and the term fits for both, soulled or unsoulled. But if you stick to the fantasy realm where mythical creatures find redemption in metaphorical situations I have no problems. But if they want to hang "real life" labels on a very unreal situation then we have to look at the show Angel very closely because if we go all "real life" the whole show is based upon a serial killer who just changed types of victims to kill. If the writers want to be real, be real don't jerk everone off by trying to apply a real life label to only one or two characters while glossing over the same behavior in their lead character. "

Exactly. This is my pet peeve in a nutshell.

Most sociopaths aren't serial killers. They are people who have a mental illness that makes it impossible for them to understand emotional connection. Actually the closest ME came to depicting a real criminally inclined sociopathic personality was Warren Myers. Warren was a sociopath with criminal inclinations. (Of their villains over the past six years - Warren Myers was the only one taken from the real world with almost no metaphor. He wasn't a metaphor for a villain, he was like most sociopaths. Which was one of the reasons he remains my least favorite villain on the show.)

Spike and Angelus and Darla don't really fit this definition, the vampire metaphor is too romanticized for it.
These characters appear to have emotional connections with fellow demons and each other, they also are social with each other - just not necessarily with humans. Makes sense.
They think of humans as cows. So they do not fit the "anti-social behavor definition" except as it relates to their
source of blood.

And you're right if you're going to apply a real life lable? What does this make Buffy? Or Giles? Or Willow? Or Weseley? Or Spike fighting the vamps? Dropping metaphors and applying real life lables in a fantasy show about vampires - is a little risky and very confusing to the audience. I mean, Spike is right when he states to Buffy in FFL, how many of my kind have you killed. And don't tell me you don't get off on it. She does and she has killed quite a few. But the audience is told not to question this - since Buffy is human and vampires kill humans and she must
kill them to save humanity. Sort of like us killing maneating lions - which I consider a better label than serial killer. (Maneating Lion is an extremely bright creature - also described as ghosts and very difficult to kil. It enjoys playing with its food and will kill just for the sake of killing.)

That's the problem with writing genre - there are rules, granted you get to create them for your made-up world - but break your rules and you risk breaking your audience's suspension of disbelief. This happened quite a bit last year actually (AR scene, the guns, the drug addiction storyline). It's very risky thing to do. It would be like ER suddenly admitting vampires exist and treating one.
I think ME would be better off not describing their metaphorical fantasy characters with real life lables.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Foreshadowing about guns -- Tchaikovsky, 08:20:18 10/15/02 Tue

I'm going off on one of my one-day-to-be-infamous branch lines here, but I had a thought about guns when rewatching Season Six.

'Flooded', Buffy to bank manager about gun:

'These things? Never useful'.

'As You Were' Buffy to Riley/herself about guns:

'These things? Never useful.'

It's worth noticing that the line is repeated twice. The first time it's a funny throwaway line about demon-hunting. The second time, it's more of a thought about the role of slayer- the slayer-like aspects of Buffy come from within, not from machines, (the source of Warren's power, beside his brain).

And, of course, the next time we're made to consider the effects of guns is at the end of Seeing Red, and throughout 'Villains'. The gun is the cause of the tragedy of the season. It cuts people open, breaks people apart and leaves only a feeling of emptiness. In an ironic aside, Warren fails in his aim. He doesn't kill the Slayer. Both for Warren and the Scooby Gang, guns have become, to say the least, 'never useful'.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Foreshadowing about guns -- shadowkat, 10:09:25 10/15/02 Tue

"The gun is the cause of the tragedy of the season. It cuts people open, breaks people apart and leaves only a feeling of emptiness."

Interesting. One of the best moments of Villians is where Willow removes Buffy's bullet and says somewhat wistfully, "so small...I didn't expect it to be so small."
Something so small can destroy a life. It's quite shocking.

And they do make that point throughout the season - "guns never useful." And even the demons in the bar seem to mock Warren for using one.

Happy Thanksgiving, Canadian People! -- Wisewoman, 10:08:09 10/14/02 Mon

I'd say, "Happy Turkey Day," but there are only going to be two of us for dinner tonight so it's "Happy Humungous Chicken Day" at our house.

dub ;o)

[> Thanks -- matching mole, Canadian in exile, 10:53:39 10/14/02 Mon

Maybe I'll get a turkey sandwich for dinner. Enjoy the really big chicken.

[> Happy Thanksgiving, Canada! ....from one of those who has to wait a month -- CW, 10:58:35 10/14/02 Mon

We've got Columbus Day on this side of the border, which is a holiday only for the government and the banks. And I need to get to the bank. Sigh.

[> Re: Happy Thanksgiving, Canadian People! -- Wizardman, 14:10:44 10/14/02 Mon

We're not gonna be having our turkey until Thursday, due to work schedules, but thanks anyways!

[> Re: Happy Thanksgiving, Canadian People! -- Dedalus, 14:34:13 10/14/02 Mon

Happy Thanksgiving, oh ye Friends from the North.

P.S. I somehow have managed to get on this board from a public library computer, and lo and behold, I seem to be able to actually post again. Will wonders never cease?

[> Very Happy Thanksgiving WW and others. -- aliera, 18:20:07 10/14/02 Mon


Why always the second time? (spoilers for FOTR and His Dark Materials III) -- Tchaikovsky, 13:02:00 10/14/02 Mon

Well, I rewatched 'Two to Go' and 'Grave' again yesterday, after having watched most of the second half of Season Six again in the last three days. No, I don't have anything to do. I'm a student, we're supposed to loaf.

Now, I've cried at Buffy before, obviously, (well, maybe obviously- do some of you remain stone cold? Robots.) But I hadn't cried at any point in Season Six. Until rewatching 'Grave'. And before you start to be clever and second guess- it was at the most obvious point of all: the wondeful Xander/Willow moment where he repeats six (?) times 'I love you'. By that stage I was gone completely though. The yellow crayon, which Nicholas Brendon mentioned he loved when it was added to the script, and the slow weakening of Willow's resolve had me in floods.

So what, you might add? That happenned up and down the country, up and down the world. Indeed. But this was the second time I watched it. The first time I sat through it with out so much a a touch of moisture.

And this isn't the only time this has happenned before. Oh no. I found The Fellowship of The Ring very moving when I watched it the first time. The second time Boromir's death and Sam's rescue of Frodo from Anduin I was gushing like Sirion in the First Age, (OK, revealed too much Tolkien knowledge there). The second time I read The Amber Spyglass, where Will and Lyra, eternal loves very much in the style of Buffy and Angel, find they must part to their own worlds for ever, I looked like a suicidal case, alone in tears in my little box room.

So what's the deal? Why the second time? Did I come back wrong? My only suggestion, before i throw it open to the room, is a quote from Hitchcock. 'Never confuse the audience', the magical horror director said, 'if they are confused, they can't emote'. Maybe it is in sure and certain knowledge of the end that it hits me just what an emotional wrench these stories are. But I'm not quite sure. Has anybody else had this feeling?

Oh, and I'm planning on rewatching 'Becoming' later this week. Expect a tsunami.

[> Re: Why always the second time? (spoilers for FOTR and His Dark Materials III) -- Dedalus, 14:31:29 10/14/02 Mon

The second time is the charm?

Sometimes that happens to me. Like in the case of the Gift. I was just so shocked, you know?

However, usually the first time. For instance, I won't even go near the Amber Spyglass FOR the second time. I cried hysterically for like ten minutes after I finished it.

Maybe the second time is like bracing for a car wreck after you've already been in one?

:-)

[> [> Re: Why always the second time? (spoilers for FOTR and His Dark Materials III) -- d'Herblay, 15:57:14 10/14/02 Mon

First of all, manly man here. I've got to uphold a reputation. I do not cry. Occasionally, I might have a solitary tear cross my cheek, in a strong and macho manner, just like that Native American finding the litter in the '70s commercial.

There is one guaranteed occasion on which this solitary, manly tear will make its appearence: the NCAA men's basketball tournament. Not during any game, any live event, not even when my favored team wins the championship or is eliminated. It happens during the retrospective montage set to "One Shining Moment" which ends the broadcast. This digest of highlights from the 63 games is my last look at small school players whom I will probably never hear of again; it is my chance to relive a three week immersion into the hopes, the failures, the surprising victories and the deferred dreams of others. I know how the tournament ended; I watched it fervently, and though I cheered and swore, I never cried during it. It is only afterwards, when I am less caught up in the moment, that I find my eyes growing wet.

During the course of a basketball game, and the course of a tournament, there is a sense that anything can happen. (Well, it's not like Princeton was going to win the entire thing if it held on against Georgetown back in 1989 -- on the other hand.) Afterwards, though, watching the replays, there's an inevitability that seems tragic. It is no accident, I think, that the Athenian tragedies were so concerned with man's inability to escape his fate. As in basketball, in the arts, the first time I deal with a work, when I don't know what's going to happen, there's rarely this sense of inevitability. (Buffy has, unlike Oedipus Tyrannos, taken the anti-fatalistic stance over and over again.) The second time, however, I know exactly what's going to happen, and I know that nothing I or anyone else can do will change that. Contemplating inevitability, losing even the illusion of agency, anticipating tragedy: these can make me well up in tears.

I've cried at strange times watching television. "Becoming" doesn't get me until Buffy is on the bus out of town, but the scenes of previous episodes are what get me during "The Gift." A similar montage was used during the final episode of Homicide, and it makes me cry, not just for the realization that there is nothing I can do to prevent Tim Bayliss's realization that as much as he tries, his attempts to make the world a better place have improved neither it or himself, but also for the certain knowledge that there just won't be any more episodes of Homicide (ok, there was the reunion movie). In "The Gift," I watch the flashes of time past go by, and I know that all this leads inexorably to Buffy's sacrifice, and there's nothing that's going to change that. And I blubber helplessly.

[> [> [> Times I recall crying... (spoilers for Cool Runnings, Sixth Sense, Saving Private Ryan, & Grave) -- ZachsMind, 17:47:51 10/14/02 Mon

Now make no mistake. I am not the kinda man who claims to be all manly and I never cry. I ain't no stone slab but I ain't a pushover either. I think a real man should be capable of crying. Crying takes BALLS. And babes like that sensitive stuff. However, it seems to be difficult for a guy to cry. It takes a little. We don't cry at the drop of a hat. Probably the testosterone or sumphin. It takes a special kinda performance. A special kinda work of art. To get me to cry. Still, there's been a few times in my brain's vodka-soaked memory cells when I do recall crying.

Utah Olympics 2002. Michelle Kwan, during her final performance to Sting's "Fields of Gold." Man that hurt. Major combination of emotions there. I felt happy for Hughes, and proud of Kwan I mean the girl gave her best. I was also proud that she was such a trouper, and performed to Fields of Gold with far more emotion and expression and finesse than was required. Simply because she loves her sport. She'd already lost the gold. She didn't even have to perform that last piece. In a way though, it was like she was telling us she got more than the gold. She got somethin more precious outta just being there. And she was sorta saying goodbye. When she reached down and touched the ice with her hand in that wide circle, I was chokin' em back.

The movie Cool Runnings, at the end, when they crashed and they're huddled there under their sled, and they're hurtin' and they know they've lost, but they lift that sled up on their shoulders and they WALK it the rest of the way. Yeah. Ah shed a tear there. No lie.

The movie Sixth Sense. The SECOND time I watched it. First time it didn't hit me emotionally cuz I was confused, but the second time when he realizes he's been dead all this time? I felt like rippin' my innards out and slammin' them on the aisle. I barely held my composure.

The end of the movie Saving Private Ryan. Tom Hanks' character's gonna die. There's no doubt about that now. He's got a tank comin' towards him. All he's got left is a pistol. He pulls it outta the holster. He aims with his good arm. The one the Nazis didn't bust up. He fires. The sound of the bullet's tinier than a pinprick compared to everything else around, and what's he do? He aims and fires again. Then the air support comes through and the tank stops. Ryan rushes up to Hanks' character. Hanks looks up at Ryan, the bastard they came there to save, and Hanks says, "earn this."

EARN this! Damn! I can't see the screen no more my eyes are filled with water.

And the Crayon Breaky Willow speech. Every damn time I see it.

There's only two other times when I feel like crying, in all of the seven seasons of Buffy, but I don't. The first one's a couple episodes before that, when Willow's got Tara cradled in her arms and she's screaming at Osiris.

The other time is several seasons ago. Angel has come back from one hundred years in a hell dimension. He's an animal now. No hope for him, but Buffy nurses him back to health as best she can. She left him chained to a wall cuz she had to take care of this other problem involving a Jeckyl/Hyde 'monster of the week' dude. The scene's where Buffy's beating up on that guy. Then feral Angel jumps outta nowhere to finish the Jeckyl/Hyde dude off.

Then Angel turns towards Buffy and his face melts from monster to normal dude, and he just says "Buffy?" And kneels before her like she's his queen and he's been on this long painful quest filled with hardship just to get back to her. I wanna cry. I really do. I don't though.

But that Crayon Breaky Speech? That whole scene from when he first shows up on screen to when she falls into his arms and they just rock there back and forth on the cliff, Xander comforting her, bringing her down from the bad magicks.

Damn.

"So if I'm going out, it's here. You wanna kill the world? You start with me. I've earned that."

Every single damn time.

[> [> [> [> * sniff * -- Robert, 21:07:52 10/14/02 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> Buncha SNAGs! (j/k) -- dub ;o), 23:05:13 10/14/02 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buncha SNAGs! (j/k) -- CW, 04:13:27 10/15/02 Tue

Just goes to show, guys. You can cry all you want over Kerri Strug bravely doing the vault with a bad leg in the Olympics, Old Yeller getting shot or any pathetic old episode of 7th Heaven. But, never let a woman see you cry, cause she'll never let you forget it. ;o)

[> [> [> Fate and inevitability (or why I'm a spoiler trollop!) -- Rahael, 05:22:00 10/15/02 Tue

Which in this case refers to being spoiled for books, not for BtVS.

You express very well, and with great subtlety (perhaps too subtle, heh!) how affecting it is when we realise what the end is going to be, and 'watching' someone who is unaware of it. We, the audience know more than the character, and thus, everything they do is invested with a terrible meaning.

Which is why Shakespeare's tragedies lose none of their effectiveness because we know the end. The words of the soon-to-be-dead are tongued with fire beyond the language of the living.

And in real life (this including basketball!), knowing the end adds a poignancy to joy - am I being peculiar? It's because the joy once happened, and was ephemeral, and has passed. And if there is a terrible tragic momentum in a certain event, when you replay it in your mind, a perfectly normal day gets recast into something more. And the very normalcy adds to how moving it is.

By the way, what's a SNAG?

And, an aside to Tchaikovsky - thank you, for yet another interesting post!


'During Wind and Rain'

They sing their dearest songs--
He, she, all of them--yea,
Treble and tenor and bass.
And one to play;
With the candles mooning each face....
Ah, no; the years O!
How the sick leaves reel down in throngs!

They clear the creeping moss--
Elders and juniors--aye,
Making the pathways neat
And the garden gay;
And they build a shady seat....
Ah, no; the years, the years;
See, the white stormbirds wing across!

They are blithely breakfasting all--
Men and maidens--yea,
Under the summer tree,
With a glimpse of the bay,
While pet fowl come to the knee....
Ah, no; the years O!
And the rotten rose is ripped from the wall.

They change to a high new house,
He, she, all of them--aye,
Clocks and carpets and chairs
On the lawn all day,
And brightest things that are theirs....
Ah, no; the years, the years;
Down their carved names the raindrop plows.

-- Thomas Hardy

Can we ever forget our own ending? When we grieve for 'Goldengrove unleaving', do we grieve for ourselves, for a knowledge heart heard, ghost guessed?

[> [> [> [> Beautiful, Rahael -- Scroll, 06:37:10 10/15/02 Tue

You and d'Herblay have clarified why I tape and rewatch TV shows, or why I'll re-read a book over and over again. Most people I talk to can't seem to understand that knowing how it all turns out doesn't spoil your experience the second time; it enhances your reading. They think I'm wasting my time watching old tapes of TV shows, but beyond seeing details I often miss the first time around, there is sometimes more emotional impact knowing that Doyle really is gonna die. There's no way Joss is going to change his mind and spare our poor half-demon.

As for Buffy/Angel eps that make me cry (I'm a big softie, it's a long list):

"Same Time, Same Place" - Willow finally seeing Xander and Buffy, knowing they hadn't left her.
"Grave" - Xander's yellow crayon speech, the Prayer of St. Francis montage.
"Villains" - Dawn finding Tara's body. I wanted to reach into the TV and give MT a hug!
"The Gift" - Buffy's final words to Dawn, the shot of her headstone.
"Forever" - Buffy and Dawn breaking down in each other's arms at the end.
"The Body" - The whole dang episode, but especially Dawn's breakdown in the school hallway.
"Hero" - From Doyle kissing Cordy to Cordy and Angel watching that video tape of Doyle.
"I Will Remember You" - Buffy's "I'll never forget, I'll never forget, I'll never forget..."
"The Wish" - Giles' desperate belief in a better world, the gorgeous incidental music over the montage of all the Scoobies killing each other, that SLAM! onto Anyanka's necklace.
"Becoming II" - From Buffy skewering Angel to her sad face reflected in the bus window. And for 20 minutes after.
"Passion" - Tears start brimming when I see Jenny's body on Giles' bed, but I don't make a sound until I see Willow drop the phone, bawling. Then I bawl along with her!

(I'm also with ZachsMind about crying over the end of Cool Runnings! Also, everytime Matthew dies in Anne of Green Gables. It's very sad, even though I know it's coming!)

Making vampires... -- Jade, 18:27:46 10/14/02 Mon

I have a question about the making of vampires. In Lie to me both Buffy and Spike say how vampires are usually picky about who they make into vampires, yet we see so many of them made. It seems every second victim of a vampire is turned...why is this? For example in School Hard, Drusilla was very weak, and needed the blood, from Shelia, for strength...what I don't understand is how she got up enough strength to vamp her when the girl was meant for food? Now maybe I'm just being incredibly thick but can someone explain this to me?

[> Ooh.. Good question... Which leads to many other questions and fun speculation.. -- ZachsMind, 19:37:00 10/14/02 Mon

I'm reminded in the sixth season episode "All The Way" there's a scene where Spike goes up against this other vampire who appears to be one of the 'leaders' of this group of vamps. Apparently the same gang to which Dawn's would-be boyfriend belongs...

VAMP 1: What is your malfunction, man?!
SPIKE: It's Halloween, you nit! We take the night off. Those are the rules.
VAMP 1: Me and mine don't follow no stinkin' rules! We're rebels!
SPIKE: No. I'm a rebel. You're an idiot. (Spike dusts Vamp 1) Give the lot of us a bad name.


In the fifth season episode "Into The Woods" we get an indication that there's a major underworld that the tv series hardly touches on. Dirty deals where humans trade their blood for money, or just for the rush they get from the bloodletting. As vampires go, Spike & Angel are the cleanest of the crop. Most of them don't have morals. They don't follow rules. And those are the ones who get dusted. The ones who follow the rules and obey a code of conduct happen to last longer, because most of the rules are there for a reason.

WHAT those rules are is uncertain. What rules was Spike referring to? "Those are the rules." What rules? Who decides? The only one who seemed powerful enough to control ALL the vampires was The Master, and he's very very dead. Dead not in the hanging out with your other dead pals dead. Dead in the cleaned up with a garden hose and mopped up by a janitor dead way. So who IS in charge? Who's making those rules?

When Spike stepped in and took out The Annointed One early in season two, the other vampires seemed to have no leader. They were running around like chickens with their heads cut off, and in season four ADAM was able to step in and begin some rudimentary communication between vampires and demons. He even got some of them to start working together.

These little vampires are coming from somewhere. Perhaps when in the frenzy of feeding, most vampires don't think straight and they do what ..uhm, comes naturally? To them? Maybe they go with what feels good, and it makes sense that in order for any species to perpetuate, the process of turning a human would feel good, overcoming even the worst of weaknesses or pains, like when Drusilla turned Sheila. Maybe it's not always a choice. Maybe it's a reaction of instinct, which populates the species. Or maybe the one turning doesn't have to do much after they feed. Maybe they just lie there in the afterglow of whatever they felt from the feeding, and then the victim, weak and susceptible, reacts to some feral deep-seated need of replenishing what has been taken, and bites back.

We've seen that if stopped after the initial bite, there's little to no effect. A bitemark on the neck to hide with makeup or creative fashion choices. Maybe a little light-headed, but I don't think in the course of the series we've ever ACTUALLY seen a turning. The vampire either sucks the victim dry or takes a bite and then breaks the victim's neck. Angel once had to drink from Buffy, in order to stop Faith's poison from killing him, but he didn't let her bite him back. Maybe there's a point somewhere between being sucked dry and someone just taking a nip. A point where the victim is overcome by the bloodlust. A point just before dying, and if the victim answers that call of bloodlust, she bites back, and that's when her fate is sealed.

There's a lot of vampires in the shadows in Sunnydale. These vampires are without a leader. So they're little more than predatory beasts. Lost wolves, occasionally in sheep's clothing, with no shepherd to guide them. It's one of the many moral ambiguities in Buffy, and reflects life. There's talk presently of America going in and taking out Saddam Hussein, but what are they going to replace him with? There's only rudimentary talk about that now. One could hope that the people of Iraq would be able to rebuild after yet another stupid war on their soil. There's hope there in Iraq, because regardless of one's beliefs, the people there have souls, and they have hopes and dreams just like all human beings do.

The comparison between the real world and fictional Sunnydale stops there. Buffy killed The Master, but she left nothing in his place to control the vampire population, to give a sense of order to their chaos, so it's only natural that they'd breed like cockroaches. They're soulless. They don't know. There's no one to guide them. Had Adam survived, maybe there would have been an eventual equilibrium, or maybe they just would have taken over the planet until there were no humans left to feed upon, then they'd turn on each other.

Without guidance, order, or control, the vampires just pop up out of the shadows. They scurry about like rats, and breed like rabbits, yet they're powerless without someone to guide them. And as was said in the seventh season opener, it's not about right or wrong. It's all about power. It's about control. Order vs. Chaos. Who gets to play Master? Who gets to play God?

God, this show is fascinating! LOL!

[> [> One On-Screen Turning -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:02:24 10/14/02 Mon

In "Becoming I" we flash backed to Angel being turned by Darla. Darla drained him first, then used a fingernail to cut herself a little above her breast, and forced Angel's mouth to the small wound. She dropped him after a few seconds, so apparently not much of the vampire's blood is needed for a turning. I can't think of any others, though maybe someone who's been watching "Angel" for a while can think of another example.

[> [> [> Oh.. well.. Let me rephrase.. -- ZachsMind, 22:08:20 10/14/02 Mon

Cuz I also know we saw Dru turn Spike in ..I think it was Lover's Walk, wasn't it? Maybe I got the title wrong. It's late. But what I mean is we haven't actually seen any turnings, except in flashback, with the historical costuming and the ambiance and the mysterious lighting and the backdrop of an alley that looks maybe a little dirty but certainly not 21st century dirty. For some reason, turning scenes look cool when it happens in the 19th century.

Compare that to the fifth season episode where Riley's sitting there with his wrist cut and some sleazy vamp babe is sucking on his arm like it's a pig's teat, y'know? I mean in Victorian times sucking blood looks kinda cool, but in modern times it looks downright gross and decadent (yay decadence!) yeah whatever but we just haven't seen vamps getting turned in modern times. I don't think it's pretty in the 21st century. I think it's just not television worthy. But SOMEONE is killing these people, then burying them, then they climb out of the grave just in time to do a cameo with Sarah Michelle Gellar before the special effects crew dusts them and the next day the actor's back waiting tables. I mean in the context of the SHOW, these guys gotta be coming from somewhere but we never see it.

Whedon's never actually shown us like, a FACTORY where humans go in and vampires come out, but sometimes there's so many vamps in Sunnydale you know there's GOTTA be a factory somewhere, maybe with corporate benefits for the vampires and demons employed by some Trick wannabe vampire in a cheap suit. Y'know what I'm sayin'? I mean they GOTTA be coming from somewhere.

Mass produced vampires on a conveyor belt. YEAH! THERE YA GO! There's a whole slew of episode potential here.

Or how about this? Assembly line zombie making. Check this out. You go to this place run by some moneygrubbing demons -- ANYA should get into this racket! They set it up where there's this false front that encourages humans to come inside. Like a new dance club that calls itself SilverGold and touts itself as better than The Bronze. Young innocent gullible humans go inside, and then hired thug vampires jump out and grab the stupid humans and throw them into this back room, and strap them onto a conveyor belt.

There'd be a guy killing the humans as they go down the line, then there's some warlock in a robe doing a quick reanimating spell on each newly killed corpse. Then a couple demon guys holding those paddle things-- CLEAR *BZZZT!* And voila! Ya got yerself a horde of zombies for hire, ready to get pounced on and killed by a nearby slayer while YOU, the big meanie bad with a thick wallet, escape scott free to survive for another episode.

I'm thinking somewhere there's gotta be some demon making lots of money just CHURNING OUT brand new thrall type zombies and vampires for Buffy to slay. That explains everything!

[> [> [> Darla's second turning -- HonorH, 00:12:19 10/15/02 Tue

We observed that--it was an echo of how Angel was turned. Dru drank from Darla, laid her on the bed, cut herself in exactly the same place Darla had when turning Liam, and Julie Benz had to do something she found extremely gross and lick the fake blood off Juliet Landau's chest.

[> Re: Making vampires... -- aliera, 20:28:17 10/14/02 Mon

I don't think we actually see too many made...but then I 'm faulty memory girl. Other than Sheila, can you give me an example? My main interest in this area is that the few vamps we've seen lately, and this was season 6, were sorta...well clownish. And then lately, of course, insane Spike and moulty-vision-guy...makes one wonder about the vamp=metaphor shift.

O/T: Another apparent sniper victim -- Wisewoman, 21:15:45 10/14/02 Mon

Another person, a woman, shot to death outside a mall in Virginia tonight.

To our posters in the DC and Virginia area: how are you guys coping with this? It must be an incredible strain to have to take your life in your hands every time you put gas in the car.

I'm glad that the geographic profiler, Kim Rossmo, is there and I hope that he is able to help locate this nutcase.

Rossmo was a Vancouver police officer (or RCMP, I forget exactly which) who was saying years ago that it was a serial killer causing the disappearances of so many prostitutes in the Vancouver East Side, well over 50 at last count. He was summarily fired. As you may or may not know, police have been finding DNA from one missing prostitute after another, on the property of a local area pig farmer--so Rossmo was apparently right. Not that that's any consolation.

Take care, be careful, and please, somebody get this creep!

[> I'm about 40 minutes from tonight's location... -- Solitude1056, 21:36:01 10/14/02 Mon

And it'd be a lot easier if it weren't for the fact that every bloomin' station, including the nationals (CNN, MSN, etc) have to have repeated statements from various talking heads... when fact is, no ballistics are in yet to determine whether this really is a connected incident. And, of course, if you're even remotely familiar with suburbia, then you know how ridiculous it is to block off a stretch of mid-level highway with various accesses when every intersection (at 100-ft intervals) gives you entrance to a variety of little back roads. Hell, anyone with a MAP could figure out an alternate route. But I digress...

yeah, okay over here, don't know about the rest of the Greater DC Metro area ATPo'ers.

As for the geoprofiling, I'd feel a great deal better about it if they didn't discuss it on the news - that just tips the hand. given the info available on the internet, it doesn't make sense to give a criminal any more insight into police tactics than absolutely necesssary. (And someone please enlighten me - WHY, oh WHY, is the site swarming with ATF folks? What the hell do they care? Where is the FBI? Argh.)

My final observation of the night is this, though: if I were going to commit a crime of this size, in a large urban/suburban population, I wouldn't drive a white van. I'd drive a silver four-door sedan. Honda, Nissan, Altima, Volvo, they pretty much all lok the same... and there's a billion of them around here. All the computer yuppies & geeks drive them. For that matter, a silver four-door hatchback is equally anonymous - I drive one myself and constantly find myself in the huge university parking lots trying to stick my car key in the door of the wrong car!

[> [> I wondered that, too... -- dub, 21:55:14 10/14/02 Mon

Even my mother commented that it seemed like many of the news broadcasts could be seen as "how-to" manuals for potential nut jobs.

At first I thought we'd just heard of Rossmo's involvement up here because there'd been a bit of a scandal when he was fired but then of course it showed up on CNN. Doesn't everything, eventually?

Glad to hear you're okay. Let's be careful out there.

dub ;o)

[> [> [> They should take lessons from Joss! -- Solitude1056, 22:58:09 10/14/02 Mon

Disinformation being the name of the game.

(Gotta love those false spoilers!)

[> [> Re: I'm about 40 minutes from tonight's location... -- parakeet, 23:10:31 10/14/02 Mon

I live around there, too. There's a lot I could say, but it's all pretty obvious.
Anyway, about the obviousness of the van, well, rationality isn't a package deal. I mean, a psycho killer who thinks things out still isn't necessarily going to think "but then I'll be really suspicious if I drive that van." Of course, there are a lot of white vans out there, and many of them are for work-related purposes (i.e. not easy to take off the road, even under present circumstances), so it might not be that dumb.
The news...The lefty in me wants to say that this is what you get when ratings and the bottom line are all that counts, but that's a bit unfair.
As for the ATF, good question. I won't even pretend to be an expert on federal jurisdiction, though, and must admit that I have little faith in the powers that be even if I thought that they understood it themselves.
Anyway, I've been indulged enough for a very O/T topic but couldn't resist. I've only been watching the news sporadically (little real info), so found Wisewoman's comments about the connection to Vancouver to be interesting.
No glibness or disrespect intended, but bad things are a part of life and must be dealt with. My thoughts go out to the families and friends of the victims.

[> [> [> Addendum -- parakeet, 23:26:09 10/14/02 Mon

The ATF are probably there as extra manpower, and it's not unappreciated. Still, such questions are important, if only because if something goes wrong, they will be asked. Not that I can think of...jheesh, I should go to bed. Peace to you all.

[> Thanks for your concern, Wisewoman -- Caroline, 06:58:30 10/15/02 Tue

I live in DC and the mall in Seven Corners where the latest shooting occured is about a 15 minute drive from my home and it's one of the malls I shop at regularly. It's actually a rather scary time. It has hit close to home. My secretary's daughter attends Benjamin Tasker Middle School in Bowie and had to rush to the school to pick up her daughter when a schoolmate was shot. Thankfully he is recovering at Children's Hospital right now. Everyone's behaviour has changed. People aren't going out as much, they look around suspiciously when they fill their gas tanks and our families who live outside the region and overseas all want us to get out and come home. My friends and I have curtailed all activity outside the downtown area, figuring that sticking close to home is much safer than being in the suburbs. Yet it doesn't feel real somehow - or maybe I'm just in denial?

[> [> Re: Thanks for your concern, Wisewoman -- Wisewoman, 15:04:47 10/15/02 Tue

Much too close to home for you, Caroline. My thoughts are with you. Denial may be one of the only ways to cope; you can't maintain an attitude of hyper-alertness for long before it starts to affect your health. Let's hope it's not much longer...

dub

A theory on Spike and Dru (S7 spoilerish) -- Jacki, 14:30:24 10/15/02 Tue

I brought this up in chat last night, and LittleBit, O-K, and Doc all told me I wasn't crazy, so I'm going to post my theory here. I'm not much for posting, but here goes.

It doesn't take much to see that Spike is insane. He is always talking to himself...or is he? My theory is that Spike is always talking to someone/something, most likely the big morphing villian. Why? From watching the scene in STSP where Spike was talking to Willow and Buffy/Xander, it just makes sense. That is point one.

Point two is that while Spike is definitely off his rocker just slightly this season, he also has moments of total sanity, with lines like "I'm insane, what's his excuse?". Another character we all know and love who was mostly insane with occaisonal moments of clarity, was the one-and-only Drusilla. Now, for my actual point, and theory-ish thing:
What if Drusilla was always talking to something too? Could she have known about the big-baddie thing seasons ago? She could have been seeing something completely different, or I might just be crazy, but it's a thought.

Let me know what you think :-)

[> I love the idea. -- Sophist, 15:43:24 10/15/02 Tue


[> Yeah, but . . . ( big picture question for the board ) -- Amara, 15:48:50 10/15/02 Tue

Could be. But it often seemed to me that Dru was talking to the other people around her (that we could see), just making weird non sequiters. For example, I saw Fool for Love again the other night, and she is talking to Darla about Spike and Angel fighting. Darla says something like "I think our boys are going to fight." Dru responds with something like "The King of Cups is going to have a party. But it is not his birthday." This makes no sense, but seems to be directed at Darla, in response to Darla's comment, and seems to be meant to be a description of the fight they are both watching.

I also think your notion is a too obscure reference. Something I've been thinking about for a long time is how we board dwellers tend to complicate things when looking for answers and making connections. As an example, we look for answers to season 6's questions in season 2 or season 1. Remember all the discussion about whether Willow had somehow made some deal with a higher evil power to get the strength to restore Angel's soul in Becoming II, and whether that evil power would be the S6 big bad?

That is the sort of bizarre twist that I would expect to see in a comic book, or perhaps an elaborate fantasy series (like George Martin or especially Robert Jordan's work). I think, though, that ME story writers are less subtle than that because I think they (especially Joss) know that esoteria does not make a good story; instead it complicates a good story. In Jossverse, story is king. In Jossverse, big things are obvious, because if the audience says "huh?" instead of "wow" after watching, he hasn't done his job. (Robert Jordan, pay attention!)

Now, a little self reference can be a good thing, and can reward true fans of the program ("You heard what happened to Principal Flutie, right"). But, what we are seeing in S7 may turn all this on its head. If we are really seeing FE again, then that would seem to run counter to the pattern I mentioned above. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first time that non-character monsters-of-the-week have returned to the show? I guess the FE is a little bit different, but I would be shocked to see other monsters-of-the-week return in any kind of important role. Can you imagine the quellor demon being S8's big bad? Or the syphilis carrying Chumash guy? Or preying mantis teacher?

It sure is fun to speculate on some grand over-arching X-Files like master plan. And I don't want to discourage that. I just think that it is unlikely to lead to accurate predictions of future events.

Maybe S7 will change this, though?



-A-

[> [> I have to agree with you re the big picture (Spoilers for Season 7 Eps) -- Rahael, 05:20:30 10/16/02 Wed

Speculation on the board about plots, and plot points are invariably more complex than the plots that ME goes with. ME seems to go for the least complicated (not least complex, because the themes always have depth and complexity) plot lines. I think it's no accident that the plots are uncomplicated, but the themes are, because otherwise, you leave yourself even more open to charges of plot holes, suspension of disbelief etc etc, which I know spoils viewing pleasure for some.

With an occam's razor of a plot, even where there are discontinuities of the past, we can always go for the thematic goodness.

But I think that Jacki has brought up an interesting thematic point, the portrayal of insanity on BtVS. There seems to be a consistent theme - those who are insane see more than the sane do. They also have a prophetic resonance and also provide a commentary on events. The mad people who Glory brain sucked, including Tara. Drusilla. Now Spike. I think that is a rich vein to be mined.

Nice post btw Amara. Have you been lurking, or have I just missed your posts before?

[> [> We board dwellers tend to complicate things -- LittleBit, 09:08:29 10/16/02 Wed

Perhaps I've been mistaken but I thought that complicating the non-subtle message of the show was the existential scooby's raison d'etre. If we saw nothing beyond the obvious in this show then the posts here would never have intrigued me, held my attention, taught me things I hadn't known before or, above all, made me think.

I think Jacki brought up an interesting point for speculation about the 'otherness' of Dru and Spike. And made me think about the way we have seen mental illness portrayed. We have seen many instances of the clarity of vision (recall the mind-drained in season 5). And there were times when I felt Dru was speaking, perhaps not to someone standing there that only she could see, but to someone/something in her mind. And may I point out as well that in many of Buffy's dreams, she speaks to someone, or someone speaks to her, whom she would or could not otherwise be speaking to. There's some room here for esoteria, I believe.

That is the sort of bizarre twist that I would expect to see in a comic book, or perhaps an elaborate fantasy series (like George Martin or especially Robert Jordan's work).

I, for one, prefer to see Buffy (and Angel) as an elaborate fantasy series. There is a continuity and connectedness throughout that links the seasons in ways I don't see on other shows. We see individual character journeys, we see group dynamics unfold, shift, fall apart and rebuild. We know that Sunnydale is merely a locus for evil and certainly not the only one. We have been given hints that there is more to the Slayer than simply "when on slayer dies, the next one is called." If we go back to the Slayer lore, and the voice-over quote that started every show in the first season ["She alone will stand against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness."] we can see that one of the first things that happens in Buffy is that this Slayer turns that aloneness on its ear from the very beginning.

Remember all the discussion about whether Willow had somehow made some deal with a higher evil power to get the strength to restore Angel's soul in Becoming II, and whether that evil power would be the S6 big bad?

Intriguing. Whether or not she consciously made a deal with some higher power, that was the first time Willow did significant magic, having decided that she was going to attempt regardless of the consequences to herself, and the first time we saw it go beyond her control. In season six we see her using increasing amounts of magic with varying degrees of control, and less and less concern for the consequences of its use. By the end of the season, she allowed herself to be completely submerged in the magic, and was prepared to destroy the world, becoming one of, if not the, Big Bad of season six. Cause and effect? Not terribly likely. Connected? You betcha.

I just think that it is unlikely to lead to accurate predictions of future events.

And thank heavens for that. If I were ever able to predict where Joss planned things to go I would 1) be bored with the show, 2) be concerned that I had been suddenly afflicted with Dru's visions, and 3) be packing for Hollywood and my successful career developing television series.

[> [> Foresight -- Sophist, 09:36:57 10/16/02 Wed

The reason I like Jacki's idea is that foresight must come from somewhere. It makes no sense that it would be internal to the brain of the seer. Instead, there must be communication from outside. For Joan of Arc it was the voice of God. For Dru it makes more sense that it would be a voice of evil she hears. That she would respond to that voice while we, as outsiders, fail to realize that it was a conversation, makes perfect logical sense.

[> [> [> Voices in our heads -- Off-kilter, who listens to them, 11:30:21 10/16/02 Wed

I think Jacki's idea is right on with the notion that Dru is talking to (and about) things that others cannot or will not see or acknowledge. It's part of being fey, 'least as far as I can tell. Spike seems to have that ability now, in part.

I'm not sure why Spike is seeing/hearing things that others have not. He's never shown any fey abilities and Angel didn't get them with the addition of a soul. I'm anticipating the explanation!

I don't think that Dru is listening to the First Evil or any particular evil entity per se. She can probably see/hear/feel it, but her visions started when she was a devout Catholic girl. It was Angelus that tried to convince her that she (and her ability) was evil. The visions continued after her turning but I don't think the messenger changed so much as her interpretation of the message.

It could be that her access to the future/unseen plane is neither good nor evil. Just how she uses the info. It's all about the power, isn't it? ;-)

As for Dru having known about this years BB? It's very possible that Joss thought of this long ago. Even if he didn't think of it at the time, Joss and company have been known to comb though their mythology to come up with new story lines.

Wouldn't be the first time he's made us take a look at old history with a fresh outlook.

[> [> [> [> Good points -- Sophist, 12:43:34 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> Conversations (7.3 spoiler) -- Veronica, 14:28:33 10/16/02 Wed

That she would respond to that voice while we, as outsiders, fail to realize that it was a conversation, makes perfect logical sense.

I thought that was exactly what Spike's conversation in STSP was demonstrating. That reinforced for me the idea that some of his crazy-talk is him talking to whatever we saw at the end of 7.1.

-V

My 7.4 Review (spoilers, of course) -- Rob, 22:04:25 10/15/02 Tue

"Help" was what I would call a nice little episode. Did it contain any earth-shattering story arc developments? No. Did it knock me right off my socks? No. But, at the same time, was it disposable? No. And that is the most important aspect of this episode. For starters, it was the first true stand-alone that the show has had for a long, long time...the type they haven't done since the first three "high school" seasons. Like the best second and third season episodes, the story was strong, the supporting characters were likable and well rounded characters. Compare the remarkable Cassie to, for example, the girl from OaFA whom Buffy brought from work, or the guy who was there just to get stabbed, and, well, there's no comparison. In her short time on screen, she created a one-episode character that we, as viewers, actually care about, and mourn. And that is perhaps unprecedented for me, on any show.

Beyond that, it accomplished what "Buffy"s best stand-alones do: provide a compelling story that, while it does not advance the major story arcs of the year, allows us to explore the psyches of our main characters. Like "Earshot" and "I Only Have Eyes for You" before it, we are afforded here the opportunity to zoom in on Buffy's psyche by examining the life of another student. Yes it is "back to the beginning," like an episode from an earlier season, but it has a much darker message. Buffy cannot win every battle, and this episode can be seen as either a dark omen for the future, or as inspiring, based on the last words Cassie utters.

Also, unlike a lot of the sixth season episodes, there doesn't seem to be any "staging" problems, how to get characters from point A to point B, etc. All of the characters had an important role in this episode, or at least were allowed moments to shine. It was great to see the SG functioning as a group again and the true return of ComputerGeek!Willow. (Loved the "Doogie Howser" fan fic line). I also loved Willow's visiting Tara's grave, and the little touch of her putting some stones on the top of the gravestone, a sign that Willow is not completely ignorant of her Jewish heritage.

What else did I love? The fact that they named the character "Cassie," which is short for Cassandra, the princess of Troy who was cursed by Apollo with the gift of precognition that no one would ever believe. She foresees her own death much as Cassie does.

The end, also, was perfect, and seemed in many ways to be a sequel to "The Body." Interestingly, this is what Hercules said at Ain't It Cool News, but I had this thought before reading his review. Like "The Body," "Help" is about a death that Buffy can't prevent, even though this time she does her damndest to do so. Yet even with ample warning (which she did not have with Joyce) sometimes she cannot win. The episode showed again that yes, Buffy can beat the supernatural (hell, she was able to be brought back to life, because her death had been caused by supernatural forces), but she can't fight the natural forces of the world. And that is, perhaps, the way it should be. I believe this episode was the first time Buffy was unable to save somebody from death whom she had set out to help from the start of an episode. This also stands as a symbol for the fact that, at her job at school, she will not be able to truly "cure" every troubled kid...but the fact that she's trying, that she's listening is enough. On another level, Dawn's encouraging words that Buffy had tried, and that was what was important, also help to revalidate Buffy' s return to life. Ever since Buffy's had this renewed love for life, she has seen it as her goal to teach others and protect others with an even stronger vigor. Dawn here makes sure Buffy realizes not to give up just because she lost her first patient since returning to the job, so to speak.

Rarely in earlier stand-alone high school episodes did we see the gang mourning one of the myriad students who was killed. It was touching to see how this one had so affected their lives in the short time they knew her, particularly Dawn, whose genuine tears were truly moving.

Again, I'd also like to mention Azure Skye's performance, because she was truly amazing. She's an incredibly gifted actress who I found equally luminous and moving in the Sandra Bullock film, "28 Days."

"Help" was a solid, heartfelt episode, with great performances from the whole cast. At the board here, I read a post at some point that ever since the fourth season, "Buffy" had been moving increasingly inward, focusing in on the SG to the point that others in Sunnydale did not matter at all. Now, it's very cool to see the show spreading its wings again and revealing the lives of others in Sunnydale. As this huge Big Bad begins stirring, the epic impact it will have seems even more apparent, now that we see such a widespread amount of people that will be affected by it.

And I'm not gonna spoil next week's promo, but those of you who saw it will know what I mean when I say "Oh my God!" I sooooo can't wait to see it!

Rob

[> Re: My 7.4 Review (spoilers, of course) -- Rufus, 22:33:50 10/15/02 Tue

In a way Buffy made a difference.....Cassie died a different death than she would have at the hands of her insensitive, greedy schoolmates.....before she died she knew that people had done all they could to keep her alive....she died knowing someone cared, even if they couldn't change the fact that she died.

[> [> Yes! (And a link everybody should check out!) -- Rob, 22:41:09 10/15/02 Tue

That's very true. I hadn't really thought of that, and that is a much more optimistic way to view the end, isn't it? Buffy prevented every possible external possibility of death, both supernatural, and even natural (the arrow), making her death much more peaceful and non-grisly.

Speaking of which, I just found out that ME actually put up Cassie's website at http://www.cassienewton.com so check it out!

Rob

[> [> [> See TeacherBoy's Thread, "Some interesting info" from yesterday below -- CW, 05:18:57 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> Re: My 7.4 Review (spoilers, of course) -- Slayrunt, 22:48:36 10/15/02 Tue

My take is that Cassie know that Buffy would "save" her from the bad guys, but she was still going to die.

And what will Buffy tell Spike that Cassie forsaw?

[> Re: My 7.4 Review (spoilers, of course) -- celticross, 22:38:45 10/15/02 Tue

The list, cause I've just watched it once and haven't looked it in depth yet. :) Consider the "me like, me not like" review.

Me like:
Cassie. What a sweet, beautifully written character. I really wished she could have come back. I have to admit I liked her much better than Dawn's new friends from "Lessons".
Willow at Tara's grave. "Hey. It's me". Nothing overwrought or drawn out. What a lovely scene.
Dawn the friend maker/trying super hard Scoob/recon girl. I always knew she had potential. Go Dawn!
Speaking of Scoobs, the gang rides again! Yay!
Xander's hammer analogy. Control and...power? I smell a theme.
The last scene at Buffy's place. Was I the only one who thought "insert Angel's Epiphany here"?

Me not like:
Ok, I've been giving Buffy the benefit of the doubt, even after the smell comment last week. But not now. I was not happy with the scene between her and Spike in the basement. I may not believe soullessness is a reason to treat someone like crap, but the show apparently does. Ok, we disagree. But Buffy's STILL treating Spike as a convenience, even though he is obviously extraordinarily guilt ridden about his past behavior towards her. If he makes her uncomfortable, she should leave him alone.
Wow. That was a rant. Moving on...
Azura Skye was wonderful, and Zachary Ty Bryan filled the role of stupid creepy guy admirably, but having seen them both in other roles and knowing they're both FAR too old for high school made it diffifult to put them believably in the characters. Just sayin'.

Me go "huh?":
Buffy's ok with spending half an hour in a coffin? Huh?
So partially-colleged Buffy, who has her job by the goodness (or potential evil) of Principal Wood, can go to a parent's house and accuse him of abuse with no evidence? Huh?

[> [> Quick responses -- Rob, 22:50:56 10/15/02 Tue

Buffy being okay with being in coffin...I think that's meant to show she's totally reassimilated back into the world thing. She's no longer traumatized by being brought back. She has embraced both her death and rebirth, so hiding in the coffin is no big deal for her.

About Spike...I could not be reading it any more differently than you if I tried. I didn't see her using him as convenience at all. I heard true pity on her part, and sadness for him...a bit of remorse too that she had to go to him for help. I thought her line to him that she didn't want to stay because she only makes things worse for him was the most telling, and touching. That showed that she felt guilty for using him. She doesn't stay to console him, b/c she thinks, in the long run, he would be better without her, after all that loving her has put him through.

Accusing the father...If she were acting on behalf of the school, I'm sure she couldn't have done that. But she wasn't. She was doing her usual investigating Slayer thing, which is where her two professions collided. Remember, the principal didn't even think it was something worth pursuing. As usual, Buffy did all that by herself. I'm sure it always wasn't totally in her job description to threaten to beat the crap out of the boy who wouldn't explain the coin to her. ;o)

About the high school kids...I was able to completely overlook their advanced ages by how amazing they were. Well, at least Azure Skye. I think ZTB isn't too great an actor, to put it mildly. But Azure Skye! Wow! She was freakin' amazing!

Rob

[> [> [> The Age of High Schoolers.. The Joke -- neaux, 04:34:40 10/16/02 Wed

I believe the AGE of the actors was supposed to be an inside joke. Of course you've seen these actors before. You know their age.

Could make logical sense why Principal Wood made the Beverly Hills reference. Yes that was his "hood", but I think it also alludes to Beverly Hills 90210. A series well known for their older than hell characters.

[> [> [> [> Re: The Age of High Schoolers.. The Joke -- DEN, 07:07:36 10/16/02 Wed

There might be another in-joke here. Remember in s i-3, a common fan gripe was the ages of the central characters--Charisma Carpenter, AH, NB, and SMG were all WELL beyond the "normal" high school age, and showing it to degrees that practically impelled the Jossyear/Realyear connection. (Check out AH in AMERICAN PIEI: the calendar gap REALLY shows)

[> [> [> Strapping on my crankypants -- ponygirl, 06:27:28 10/16/02 Wed

I don't know Rob, the Buffy/Spike scene had me almost throwing my remote at the tv. I had a fair number of reasons to be cranky last night (Roommates! Broken water heater! The movie Moonlight Mile!) but Buffy was the icing on my bitter cake. I watched the scene twice and the most I could get was that she did seem to have a flash of fear when she first saw him sitting dead to the world. But then it was eye-rolling, the protective body language, the whole thing. Why? Are we being set up for something? If so, why drain so much of my sympathy for Buffy? We have had Buffy behave unsympathetically in the past, but this time there didn't seem to be any attempt to allow the audience to connect with what she was feeling. I want to empathize with Buffy, I so do, but last night I just couldn't get past the fact that in an episode about helping people she turned away from a person who asked for her help. I have a feeling we won't see her reasons for doing so for a while, and in the meantime my crankypants are strapped on tight and chafing.

Oh, and I owe some kittens to HonorH and shadowkat since Spike's chip is still working. They'll be on their way as soon as I can figure out how to punch holes in the box.

[> [> [> [> Re: Strapping on my crankypants -- Tamara, 06:37:59 10/16/02 Wed

Oh I dont know I thought the scene was lovely. Nothing pleases me more than seeing the hero find a catatonic self-mutilating basket case and start yelling about him about her needs. And then when he begs for a moment of her time after being stirred back into agony she just saunters off saying youre better off when Im not around, bye. A truly beautiful show of compassion.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Strapping on my crankypants -- Robert, 07:10:06 10/16/02 Wed

>>> "... and start yelling about him about her needs."

She's trying to save a stranger's life, and you call it her needs?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Strapping on my crankypants -- Tamara, 07:20:15 10/16/02 Wed

All right fine pick apart one sentence in my post and ignore the rest. Fine Buffy had noble intentions and when she uses Spike she is generally doing it for others. That doesnt change the fact that she is only interested in doing her duty and she lacks compassion from what I can see. Spike begged her to stay and his eyes were full of tears and she just looked totally blank.
She only visits Spike to use him for help. People are arguing she doesnt use Spike as a convienience but thats exactly what she does. She visits him for information then leaves him to his pain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> more crankypants -- Robert, 08:03:07 10/16/02 Wed

>>> "All right fine pick apart one sentence in my post and ignore the rest."

I did not ignore the rest. I read you posting in its entirety. Most of it was subjective and my opinion is no better than yours. On the other hand, when you made such an outrageous statement, I wanted some clarification.

>>> "Fine Buffy had noble intentions and when she uses Spike she is generally doing it for others."

This is generally how I see it. I'm sorry that you see is as "her needs".

>>> "That doesnt change the fact that she is only interested in doing her duty and she lacks compassion from what I can see."

This is another blatantly outrageous statement. The whole episode was about compassion; Buffy's, Willow's, Dawn's and others. It was Buffy's compassion for Cassie which took her into the basement, where (in my opinion) she clearly did not want to go. It was not always true, but Buffy does her duty due to her compassion.

Now having said that, I know that you are referring to her lack of compassion for Spike. As you and everyone else on this board is no doubt aware, I am not a Spike lover. I don't know how much compassion Buffy has for Spike or William or whoever is in there. I am sure we will learn soon. My desire for Buffy to show compassion for Spike is muted by that fact that Spike is a victim of his own actions. None of his trials and tribulations would have occurred if he had kept to his original agreement with Buffy back in "Becoming". In the mean time, Buffy is trying to help innocent victims.

>>> "Spike begged her to stay and his eyes were full of tears and she just looked totally blank."

And what would you have Buffy do? Should she have stayed there, and let Cassie die? Is Spike more important than Cassie? Is Spike more of an innocent victim than Cassie? Does not Spike bear as least some responsibility (all responsibility in my opinion) for his current plight?

>>> "She only visits Spike to use him for help."

... and only reluctantly, I might add.

>>> "People are arguing she doesnt use Spike as a convienience but thats exactly what she does."

I would argue that there is nothing about Spike that is convenient. My guess is that Buffy would far rather avoid Spike if she could.

>>> "She visits him for information then leaves him to his pain."

She didn't cause his pain and she doesn't know how to stop his pain. In the mean time, she has innocent victims who are at least equally deserving of her time and efforts.

Regarding why Buffy visits Spike for information, would it not be unethical if Buffy did not avail herself of all resources, to save the life of an innocent victim?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: more crankypants -- celticross, 10:17:39 10/16/02 Wed

"...she doesn't know how to stop his pain"

I think there's the crux of the issue, Robert. One's read of the scene in question seems to be based whether it looks like Buffy doesn't know how, or doesn't want to. Perhaps you see something in the scene I did not. It seemed to me that she was simply treating him as she always had before, but she no longer has the no soul excuse to justify treating him in that manner. Maybe our difference in opinion rests on whether or not we think Spike needs or deserves Buffy's compassion. I think that may be it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: less crankypants -- alcibiades, 10:30:28 10/16/02 Wed

Stepping back for a moment from the admitted emotional prejudices on both sides, I think it is worth looking at that moment in terms of story structure.

It is completely obvious that it is compare and constrast time between the way she deals with Spike in the basement and the moment at the end of STSP where Buffy did help Willow.

It is the same moment, but with a different person and different pressures and different (symbolic) lighting and Buffy reacts differently. So what does this reflect about Buffy's emotional situation at this moment? Where is Buffy emotionally in this story?

She comes across both of them meditating as a way to deal with the pain -- Willow's pain is physical primarily -- the growing of new skin -- but also metaphysical as the demon she skirmished with unsuccessfully -- she did not vanquish this demon, Buffy did it for her -- was a representation of her own fears. Spike's pain is metaphysical.

Willow is living upstairs in the main house -- although in the child's wing -- and she is doing her meditating by light of day -- in the morning.

Spike has banished himself -- at his own behest or the behest of others to the basement as the three headed guardian of hell -- at the hellmouth and he is doing his meditating in the dark and is wearing dark clothes as he does it. He's taken off the blue costume and is back in black.

So the question is why can Buffy help one but not the other? What interesting thing does it tell us about Buffy?

Is it because she can deal with all out physical attacks on her and the threat to unmake her sister because that is the kind of evil she fights everyday, -- but can't deal with assaults on her what exactly -- her trust? well Willow betrayed her trust deeply and she is dealing with that. Her body? She fights assaults on her body every day, although true, not sexual ones. Her heart? Maybe. What else is there?

Is it because Willow despite everything still has status as an ex-Scooby? Maybe. And that shows us something about Buffy too.

I still think that the fact that Spike is sitting down and fighting his inner darkness -- win or lose, doesn't matter, for him it's an all out fight -- scares Buffy to death because that is something she has never been able to do herself, indeed it is something she has run from. So Buffy can help Williw with her physical/metaphysical task but is deeply uncomfitted by Spike's.

And why the absurdity of Buffy blaming herself for Cassie's death at the end -- isn't that hubristic -- blaming herself for death because a heart gave out?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hearts (Spoilers, AtS and BtVS latest aired eps) -- Rahael, 10:37:39 10/16/02 Wed

"And why the absurdity of Buffy blaming herself for Cassie's death at the end -- isn't that hubristic -- blaming herself for death because a heart gave out?"

Isn't there a thematic link between Buffy's guilt at her inability to help Cassie, and Robert's point that she doesn't know how to help Spike? His demons are only visible to himself - she can't slay them.

As for the heart imagery, I would have to read the actual transcript, but I think the fact that Cassie's heart gives out, that stops pumping blood has a thematic importance. Especially when you consider that Angel's heart started pumping over at AtS. And that Spike has scars where he's tried to cut something out his chest.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hearts (Spoilers, AtS and BtVS latest aired eps) -- alcibiades, 11:22:54 10/16/02 Wed

Good point about Hearts in both BTVS and Angel.

And of course both Cassie and what's her name are freaks.

Isn't there a thematic link between Buffy's guilt at her inability to help Cassie, and Robert's point that she doesn't know how to help Spike? His demons are only visible to himself - she can't slay them.

I think there is a definite link.

My problem with Robert's point is that we have seen Buffy make exactly 0 attempts to help Spike since she heard about the soul. So for her to conclude she can't help seems -- ludicrous -- for action girl. If she had made an attempt and failed, okay, but she has made no attempt at all. She has left him alone, except when she hasn't left him alone.

In fact, we have a bit of a conundrum in Buffy's behaviour. She was more compassionate to Spike in Lessons and early in the Church scene in BY when she wanted to find out what happened to Spike -- why he was all cut up -- definite compassion there both times -- then since she found out about the soul. One big reshot moment of compassion watching him hang on the cross -- and then -- nothing since.

So, my reponse to

Help

is

What's it all about?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hearts (Spoilers, AtS and BtVS latest aired eps) -- Rahael, 18:02:10 10/16/02 Wed

I can't come with anything resembling a decent answer at the moment! Let me read the transcript and get back to you!

Because as per usual, I can't yet see the damn ep!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, that was exactly what I was looking for -- ponygirl, 11:03:47 10/16/02 Wed

Thank you alcibiades. I've had a hard time trying to move beyond my emotional response to the Buffy/Spike scene, and instead try to figure out what it means for Buffy's story. Hadn't been able to because I could not find a hook to hang any sort of theorizing on -- but paralleling the scene in Help to the Buffy/Willow scene last week is a beautiful solution. It's all there right to the hands, of course in STSP Buffy takes Willow's hand to help her to heal, while here Buffy takes Spike's hand to stop him from hurting himself. The questions you raise are very interesting ones, and certainly strike to the heart of the matter. I still think we need to connect more to Buffy, to understand exactly what sort of journey she's one right now.

And I think Rahael is right in pointing out the heart connection to AtS. But is it just a hint to Cassie's problem or is there a deeper link?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautiful, alcibiades! -- Dyna, 14:51:23 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> same moment? -- anom, 22:31:38 10/16/02 Wed

"It is the same moment, but with a different person and different pressures and different (symbolic) lighting and Buffy reacts differently."

I don't think it is. In Same Time Same Place, the dangerous situation has been dealt with, so there's time to deal w/other needs. Buffy doesn't need to expend her strength on behalf of anyone else, so she's free to offer it to Willow. In Help, when Buffy goes to Spike, she's in the middle of trying to save someone's life. She has until Friday night & is starting w/no leads. She doesn't have time to stay w/Spike to help him feel better (when it might not actually make him feel any better), & as when she first finds him in Lessons, he's not in immediate danger & someone else is. I saw her impatience w/his unhelpful answers as based on wanting to save Cassie's life w/not much time to spare, & maybe partly on not knowing how to respond in a way that would help him (except to stop him from hitting himself, as ponygirl pointed out--which I would call an act of compassion).

"She comes across both of them meditating as a way to deal with the pain...."

I wouldn't call what Spike was doing "meditating." Meditation is about flow--the flow of breath, letting thoughts come & go as they will. Spike was frozen, not flowing, like an animal whose primary means of defense is to remain unmoving so as to go unnoticed. He wasn't dealing w/the pain so much as trying to avoid it. Willow was connecting w/the earth to draw energy from it & heal herself. Spike was trying to avoid all connection; he may have been trying to prevent any further pain, but I wouldn't call it healing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> When you can't help! -- Robert, 00:39:05 10/17/02 Thu

>>> "Stepping back for a moment from the admitted emotional prejudices on both sides, ..."

and

>>> "And why the absurdity of Buffy blaming herself for Cassie's death at the end ..."

Uh huh!

Buffy did not blame herself for Cassie's death. She said that she "failed her". Buffy has defined herself as a hero who protects the innocent and she is finding out that some people are beyond her help. Yes, there was hubris in thinking that she can help everyone, and the price of this hubris included Cassie dying in her arms, but beyond her reach.

Buffy was asking; what do you do when you know that sometimes you can't help. The answer, of course, is that you keep trying, and we saw that with the closing scene. As I was taught by a very good friend and minister, our job on this earth is not to be successful, but to be faithful. Buffy remains faithful to her mission when she goes to work each day and tries to help people, whether it is within her power to do so or not. This is anologous to the terrible burden that teachers and social workers must carry throughout their careers. They see so many problems and so much suffering, and they can never know how many people were truly helped by their efforts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: When you can't help!-Spoilers for AtS 4.1 and BtVs 7.4 -- Arethusa, 07:37:02 10/17/02 Thu

"As I was taught by a very good friend and minister, our job on this earth is not to be successful, but to be faithful."

In 4.1 of AtS, Angel says,"It doesn't matter where we come from, what we've done or suffered, or even if we make a difference. We live as though the world was what it should be, to show it what it can be." Having faith is not always possible; sometimes it is lost (and found, and lost again). Depending on faith can cause one to give up if one loses faith, as sometimes happens when the wieght of the world becomes too much. But heroes have to be true to the mission, whether they have faith or not, because what else can they do? Give up, and save no one, or act as if they can make a difference, and just hope for the best? Buffy faced the same delimma in "Help," of course. Cassie was certain she would die, and Buffy knew she could see the future (the purpose of the obvious coffee cup scene). But Buffy did everything in her power to stop the inevitable, as she has done so many times before. That is all a hero, fictional or not, can do.

quote by psyche

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is what I said! -- Robert, 08:50:02 10/17/02 Thu

You wrote:
But heroes have to be true to the mission, whether they have faith or not, ...

This is what I wrote. In my posting, I wrote:
Buffy remains faithful to her mission when she goes to work each day and tries to help people, ...

How is what I wrote any different in substance than what you wrote? Let us take a look at the definition of faithful in the Merriam-Webster dictionary.

faithful : adjective
1 obsolete : full of faith
2 : steadfast in affection or allegiance : LOYAL
3 : firm in adherence to promises or in observance of duty : CONSCIENTIOUS
4 : given with strong assurance : BINDING (faithful promise)
5 : true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original (a faithful copy)

You wrote:
Having faith is not always possible; ...

I wasn't writing about having faith in the religious sense. The third definition is applicable to my usage, not the obsolete first one. Though I would argue that a person needs faith in something to keep them going each day, whether that faith is in God or in humanity or in a person. How else would a school teacher find the strength to get up and go to work, day after day, if he or she had faith in nothing and nobody? What would be the point?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Uh, Robert, -- Sophist, 09:33:35 10/17/02 Thu

I think Arethusa was agreeing with you and supporting it with an apt quote from Angel.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: This is what I said! -- Arethusa, 09:42:39 10/17/02 Thu

I suspect a minister would be talking about faith in the religious sense, but as we both are not, let's move to your definition, which is applicable to both our posts. Adherence to duty no matter what is what I'm referring to; I thought that "faith" implied belief in something and I'm really suprised that it doesn't, always. But as you go on to say, "though I would argue that a person needs faith in something to keep them going each day," I don't have to concede my point-if there is no faith, act as if there is, because the alternative is inertia. Buffy has faith in her mission, which was given to her by TPTB, and is physically manifested in her. She has proof that she's here for a reason. Angel doesn't have this proof. It's what he's been told, what he tries to believe, but in his more existential viewpoint it's not a given. When he says,"We live as though the world was what it should be," he's saying we must act as if we believe we can make a difference, even if we don't believe we can. Otherwise, we're never going to help anyone, because we never tried. As a former school teacher who got up every morning and taught literature to bored 14-year-olds, I suspected that many of them got little or nothing from what I tried to teach about using literature to refresh, improve and strengthen our minds. But there was always a chance that I was wrong, and I would be betraying both them and myself if I didn't try. Even if I never made a difference at all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Strapping on my crankypants (oh yes, spoilers for 7.4) -- ponygirl, 07:26:14 10/16/02 Wed

Jumping back in since I do kind of agree with Tamara. I have no problem with Buffy's priorities, obviously immediate danger is going to take precedence, it was how Buffy was presented. She may have had lines about helping Cassie, but her exit line was instead, it's better if I'm not here. Buffy seemed to be uncomfortable with the situation and wanted out. I'm not trying to do some sort of "Buffy's a bitca" type post, I'm just trying to figure out why she is being put in such an unsympathetic light in this scene.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Strapping on my crankypants (oh yes, spoilers for 7.4) -- Tamara, 07:32:04 10/16/02 Wed

Exactly. Buffy was doing the right thing. So its easy for people to get cross when Buffy is criticised.
But why didnt the directors show Buffy feeling torn and concerned for Spike as she walked away? She behaved as if she had no feeling at all and I cant just dismiss that by saying she was off to do the right thing so who cares about how she treats her informers.
I know Sarah wanted her unsympathetic scenes reshot in Beneath You. Seems like that was a mistake to me as it is totally inconsistent with how Buffy has been presented in the last two episodes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey she's a slayer, not a support group -- luna, 13:31:45 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> Can I have chocolat instead? (also an attempt to defend Buffy) -- shadowkat, 07:14:16 10/16/02 Wed

Since I just gave notice for my job and can't afford the kittens. ;-) (I did seriously. No more ranting about evil boss after Nov. 1.)

Agree a little with this statement." watched the scene twice and the most I could get was that she did seem to have a flash of fear when she first saw him sitting dead to the world. But then it was eye-rolling, the protective body language, the whole thing. Why? Are we being set up for something? If so, why drain so much of my sympathy for Buffy? We have had Buffy behave unsympathetically in the past, but this time there didn't seem to be any attempt to allow the audience to connect with what she was feeling. I want to empathize with Buffy, I so do, but last night I just couldn't get past the fact that in an episode about helping people she turned away from a person who asked for her help."

First a brief rant...Yep felt the same rage. Damn writers. We know you can do better than this. So can Gellar. After watching her interactions with Angel in Season 3, having troubles liking Buffy. (It's the dang Angel hangover.) Also sorry Rob, this episode felt like a retread of Reptile Boy and Beauty and The Beasts. They can do a better stand alone: The Wish, Superstar, Earshot, even Inca Mummy Girl, Some Assembly Required, Ted, Bad Eggs, and Reptile Boy were better. (The production just felt off to me). And well it doesn't help that Ats has been so amazing this year - production quality, dialogue, story arc, set design,customs, etc - it looks better than Btvs. What's up?
Maybe it's just me. But Help felt like a B-/C episode.
Worth rewatching for some of the Spike/Dawn/& Willow bits, but Xander barely registered and I had to struggle to like Buffy again. She seems hard to me for some reason.
End of subjective irrelevant rant. sigh.

Now onto - objective rant:
Okay now putting my defense of Buffy into gear.
Buffy is town sheriff. She has three major problems:
1. Willow - the most powerful witch in the Western Hemisphere who tried to destroy the world and doesn't have that much control over her abilities.
2. Spike - an insane vampire living in the basement of the high school. Granted he's still chipped, but as proven last night, that does not necessarily stop him from hurting someone. He attacked Buffy last year. And yes he has a soul now, but he also appears to have a splintered personality and is channeling this "other" he keeps mentioning. And well he is living on top of the hellmouth. She obviously cares for him or he'd be dust right about now. What to do?
3. Anya - a vengeance demon who is turning men into monsters.

Well, uhm sounds like a problem for the town paranormal sheriff. What do you do? Accept them? Kill them? Keep them close so they don't kill anyone? Let them alone to find their own way and pray they don't kill anyone?
Buffy's never been much of a talker - can't expect her or Xander to discuss Anya/Spike in the open. Right now they are trying to figure out what to do with Willow - who is a much bigger powder keg. Much better to keep Willow close and safe.

Theory on what they are up to with Spike. They are trying to make the boy find his own way, get validation from himself not her. They don't want her to save him - that's not redemption in ME's book. They want us to watch Spike struggle with rejection, quilt and remorse. Struggle to do the right thing. Right now he is the most unpredictable character. We don't know what he'll do week to week. I was as surprised as Buffy when Spike appeared in the room to fight off the demons.

I think Rob is right. She cares for him. But she's been through all this before with Angel and Riley and got her heart broken. She doesn't want to go through it again.
And she can't trust him right now. If he goes off and starts killing? She'll have to stake him - which is something she sooo does not want to do. As an audience we have a problem - we keep rewatching how she handled Angel and Riley and expect her to be at least as considerate for
Spike. It's not shocking that she isn't, if you think about it. Buffy is older now, not as open and caring as she was as a teen. The pain of her life and the traumas she's experienced have closed her down a bit. She doesn't cry as easily or break down. She can't, she has responsibilities she didn't have then. A sister to care for. A job. And a responsibility to the community. (She reminds me a lot of Joyce in her behavior actually.)
HEr caring for Willow? It's different. Willow is still human and hasn't been alive for over a hundred years. She can help Willow. She doesn't know how to help Spike or whether she should attempt to help him, and Anya is exactly asking.

Now that said? I think the writers aren't writing the Spike/Buffy story very well. In Lessons and Beneath You I still felt sympathetic towards Buffy and could read her.
In STSP and Help...I struggled. She came across and realistically so...frustrated, scared, and uncertain. But she also seemed hard and not very compassionate to anyone.
Including the students she was trying to help. Not sure
why. But again - this is realistic, these students aren't ones Buff identifies with and Buff has never really socialized outside her own group. She's used to being contained. So I'm willing to wait and see how they develop it.

This isn't really a review but I give this episode no more than maybe 4 out of 10. It reminded me far too much of Reptile Boy in Season 2 and I'm sorry, but I liked Reptile Boy better. The monster was more interesting and funnier lines.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I have chocolat instead? (also an attempt to defend Buffy) -- ponygirl, 07:47:32 10/16/02 Wed

Congrats shadowkat! Good for you on giving notice, cyber-chocolates shall be yours in abundance!

Glad I was not the only one to not be impressed with this episode. I was going to wait and rewatch it again when I was less ranty, since I suspected my anger over the one scene coloured my impression of the rest of the ep. But I agree with your other points. Xander just feels absent, Willow seems emotionally exhausted, and Buffy closed off. Oddly enough I connected more with Dawn in the final scene than anyone else in the entire episode. Is she expressing emotions that Buffy cannot? There were also some continuity and pacing problems: Cassie's speech about why she wanted to live went on way too long and reminded me of Willow's similar and more concise speech in Graduation Day; Wood's TGIF scene was then followed by the research montage which really should have preceded it.

I don't know. I feel that we're being set up for something with Buffy's distance, but I can't figure out what it is and expect not to get any answers until sweeps or beyond. And that just leaves me feeling cranky.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks and you and me both -- shadowkat, 09:58:55 10/16/02 Wed

"I don't know. I feel that we're being set up for something with Buffy's distance, but I can't figure out what it is and expect not to get any answers until sweeps or beyond. And that just leaves me feeling cranky."

Yep me too. STSP and HELP made me cranky. But I expected it from HELP. They've done this before. Remember Go Fish that occurred before Becoming arc in Season 2?

" was going to wait and rewatch it again when I was less ranty, since I suspected my anger over the one scene coloured my impression of the rest of the ep. But I agree with your other points. Xander just feels absent, Willow seems emotionally exhausted, and Buffy closed off. Oddly enough I connected more with Dawn in the final scene than anyone else in the entire episode. Is she expressing emotions that Buffy cannot?"

Actually that one scene didn't bother me that much. She seemed nicer actually than she had previously. What bugged me was the pacing and the fact that I felt a lack of attachment to any of the characters outside of a couple of times with Dawn, Willow and Spike. I should have been with Buffy all the way through - it's her pov. Willow made me laugh out loud. Dawn actually was the one I felt the greatest identification with and I agree with Mal, I think there is a Dawn/Willow turf war coming up.

But I have to step back a minute and realize, every year has off episodes. Season 6 had a few (I know I know there's a group of people who hated all of season 6..sigh.) and Season 3 had more than it's far share. Depending on your pov, there's going to be an episode you won't like. I went back through a Buffy Yearbook and discovered most of the episodes at the beginning of Season 3 didn't turn me on. Season 3 didn't really heat up for me until Lover's Walk.
So..it depends on what you like I guess. From scanning the board, lots of people loved this episode. I didn't but hey I know there's episodes I adore that other people hate.
A good show provides options for a wide range of people - Buffy does that. Also HELP? Still far better night of tv than anything besides Angel so far this week or since the last Btvs episode. So I shouldn't complain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cassie and problems of the heart/future spec -- alcibiades, 10:50:34 10/16/02 Wed

I didn't really "like" this episode so much either, but I think one possibility for what is going on which will make it far more interesting in retrospect and in terms of the future story arc is that "the heart" is a problem that cannot be solved. And that will make it a mute scream into a future that is still blank. Quite like Cassandra's prophesies.

Since Primeval, Xander has been the heart of the group -- and what if he is the center that cannot hold. He has sure been weird lately, there is definitely something going on with him.

Maybe Spike's words from STSP to him apply to some future arc: "I'm insane, what's your excuse?" Excuse for what? What does Xander need an excuse for? And why is Spike telling him to hold onto his ticket for the return trip or wtte? Admitted that everyone seems to be riding the engine blindly into the future but where is Xander getting off the tracks that he'll to return from?

Anyway, here's hoping that unlike Reptile Boy and all those stand alone MOTW episodes I really dislike, "Help" actually foretells something important about the future direction of the arc, but one we won't know until later.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Being human (spoilers, Help) -- Rahael, 04:12:55 10/17/02 Thu

Very nice post! Especially this line:

"the heart" is a problem that cannot be solved.

And you go back to Xander as the Heart in Primeval. Ponygirl has pointed out that Buffy's 'hand' is very important so far in Season 7, as a gesture of healing and comfort. Buffy was the Hand in Primeval. Which I took to mean 'action'/Slayer type stuff. But Season 7 has added a depth to Buffy.

In the commentary for Primeval, David Fury said something along the lines that the union of all four scoobies is really about the wholeness of integrating heart, body, mind, spirit within all of us. That it's a symbol of Buffy achieving wholeness. Maybe her heart needs to start beating again. Is Spike's insanity a pointer to the mind that needs to recover wholeness? Is Willow's exhaustion a pointer to the spirit that needs to be refreshed?

Maybe being human is a problem that can't be solved.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: (also an attempt to defend Buffy) -- Malandanza, 08:18:44 10/16/02 Wed

"2. Spike - an insane vampire living in the basement of the high school. Granted he's still chipped, but as proven last night, that does not necessarily stop him from hurting someone. He attacked Buffy last year. And yes he has a soul now, but he also appears to have a splintered personality and is channeling this "other" he keeps mentioning. And well he is living on top of the hellmouth. She obviously cares for him or he'd be dust right about now. What to do?"

As Sang and Finn Mac Cool point further down the thread, Spike has shown that he is able to beat people through the pain in his current mentally unbalanced state -- a reminder of Dru's remarks in Crush that the pain was just an illusion that he could overcome. I don't think we've ever seen him less incapacitated by the chip than last night and I think as time goes on, Spike will be more and more able to ignore the blinding pain, even in his lucid moments.

I agree that Buffy cares for Spike, but even if she didn't, I can't see her dusting him. After all, she didn't kill him (or let him kill himself) in Pangs back when she hated him -- which gets back to the three problems you mention: Willow, Spike and Anya. How does a slayer who's too squeamish to kill people/things she knows deal with them?

As for the Buffy the Bitca remarks in several posts (not yours -- I just don't want to respond to seven different posts) I think that Buffy did show compassion when she left -- because her presence was making things more difficult for Spike. Remember that Spike tried to rape her -- and would have raped her had Buffy not been stronger. How many of the women defending Spike would be as willing to chat with, forgive and help out a madman in similar circumstances just four months after the attack -- no matter how much he seemed to be suffering? I have a feeling that Buffy's compassion for Spike is eventually going to get people killed --probably the very children she's trying to protect. (I don't see Spike/William killing children, I see his demons using his body to kill them -- although, the whole time he was beating the boy, he was jabbering on about what a bad man he is so it's possible for him to be both remorseful and violent at the same time). Anyway, Spike used Buffy for sex last season when she was at her most emotionally vulnerable. Self-gratification at her expense. Buffy using Spike for information seems like a pretty cheap way to pay off a karmic debt.

Buffy went to Spike to find out if he knows of an evil influence in the basement (besides himself, I mean) -- he does, and he didn't tell her. Maybe he can't -- compelled to keep quiet by the forces -- although the First Evil, or whatever is responsible, doesn't seem to exert too much control over him -- he comes and goes as he pleases. Then again, maybe he only comes and goes after Buffy has been there -- she's the catalyst that allows him to momentarily free himself of the FE's influence. Maybe he thinks that he's hallucinating (or maybe he is hallucinating). But if he can tell Buffy about the evil and he hasn't, he going to share the accountability when things go badly.

"Theory on what they are up to with Spike. They are trying to make the boy find his own way, get validation from himself not her. They don't want her to save him - that's not redemption in ME's book. They want us to watch Spike struggle with rejection, quilt and remorse. Struggle to do the right thing."

And there is precedence. Angel suffered for a century on Earth and a few centuries (subjective time) in hell. Buffy suffered for a season for things that weren't her fault. Hopefully, we're going to see an end to the get out-of-jail-free cards this season. For Spike, at least -- Willow doesn't seem to be suffering unduly right now. In fact, her comments to Xander about power and control felt like classic Willow -- the magic made her do it. She's afraid the magic will make her kill her friends -- it really wasn't her fault at all. Maybe if she had been visiting Warren's grave instead of Tara's I'd believe that there was some hope that Willow had accepted responsibility for her actions.

On a slightly less morbid note, I think that ME is continuing to set up a Willow/Dawn turf war -- who is the real Scooby. We saw Buffy, Xander and Dawn together early on, then Buffy, Xander and Willow, with Dawn walking in as an ignored outsider. Then We saw Buffy and Xander leave both Dawn and Willow behind. I'm guessing there wasn't much conversation between the two -- Dawn probably found some homework to do and Willow went back to intently staring at her computer.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (also an attempt to defend Buffy) -- Tamara, 08:43:17 10/16/02 Wed

Did you watch Beneath You? Spike was not using Buffy for sex. In his speech to her the writers are suggesting it was the other way around and Spike felt used. He tells her she was feeding off his flesh so I dont think you can say that Spike was using Buffy for sex. He was never gratified by the relationship at all.
And as for you asking how we would feel helping a madman out a few months after an attack/rape. Buffy expected her friends to accept Angel although they were all reluctant. Giles was tortured by Angel and his girlfriend was slaughtered at her hands. But Buffy expected her friends to help Angel because she argues he was a completely different entity with a soul. So the example doesnt work. The man in the basement is actually William and he would not have raped Buffy if he was in his right mind and possessed a soul. And anyway Buffy is fine with Willow sharing a house with the little girl that she tried to kill for being a whiny pain in the butt, her words.
And you say Buffy is going beyond the call of duty by hanging out with Spike, forgiving him and helping him out? Funny because I have never seen her try to ease Spikes pain by saying she forgives him or she understands he regrets his past. Look at her impatience in Help. She visits him so she can use him for information. That isnt compassion. Unless you thought she was showing compassion to Willy the bar owner when she demanded information. I know some people are saying Buffy is being saintly by letting Spike be used because it means hes helping out the good guys. Sorry dont see that as evidence of compassion.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I think you have some stuff wrong. -- Caroline, 09:08:22 10/16/02 Wed

"Anyway, Spike used Buffy for sex last season when she was at her most emotionally vulnerable. Self-gratification at her expense."

Buffy admits herself in All the Way that she was using Spike and that it was killing her. I cheered her on when she said that - finally some self-knowledge. As for Spike, there has been a 2-seasons-long arc establishing his feelings for her, which I happen to believe. I agree with you that Buffy does not love Spike, but he wasn't using her, he loved her and loves her still. And loved her enough to go get a soul. The writers are using the soul to symbolize Spike's transformation. (As you can see, this is a button for me. As much as I dislike the lovers of Spike, I also dislike the haters who won't give him any credit for change).

My opinion is that Buffy is using him now, and I must admit that I hate to see my favourite character behaving this way. She is capable of so much more - and her behaviour says something about her. Either there is a serious reason for this that will be revealed or SMG is not doing a good enough acting job to convey the necessary fear, ambivalence etc that some argue she is supposedly feeling.

"Buffy went to Spike to find out if he knows of an evil influence in the basement (besides himself, I mean) -- he does, and he didn't tell her."

Is a vampire with a soul, one who sought a soul, not one cursed with it, one who comprehended the nature of his evil (even if only in a limited way - 'I hurt the girl') while still soulless and one who passed several trials to regain his soul still considered to be evil? What will it take to get the Spike-haters believing that Spike is now a good guy, or at least no longer a malefic influence? Your view would only be consistent if you stated that all vampires, even those with souls, are evil. If that is you view, fine. If not, do you acknowledge that ensoulment is the symbolic way that writers have chosen to show us the transformation from graySpike to goodSpike? And that fact that he has saved the day (or tried to) in every episode this season not had any impact on your views whatsoever? In Lessons he told her of the talisman. In Beneath You he goes charging after the worm demon. In STSP he leads the SG to Gnarl so they can save Willow. In Help he brings the fire to kill Avilas when Buffy was getting her ass kicked. I actually wanted Spike to remain evil or at least ambivalent but the writers have chosen the good path for now and are busy bludgeoning us over the head with the goodSpike anvils. You could perhaps argue that this is overkill and doesn't augur well for goodSpike in the long run but for now, he's good.

Why don't we try seeing the story rather than responding to whether a character is liked or hated by other posters? I know we'll have different opinions on what the story is and where it's headed but not everything is unclear - see previous paragraph.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree but a few quibbles -- shadowkat, 09:43:45 10/16/02 Wed

One quick correction? As You Were (not all the way).

But thank you for addressing my button.

"(As you can see, this is a button for me. As much as I dislike the lovers of Spike, I also dislike the haters who won't give him any credit for change). "

Big button! I left another board because you couldn't have a discussion without a war erupting between Shaters and Slovers. It's annoying. sigh.

Okay I think you're both right in places. Spike wasn't using Buffy for sex last season, Spike was in the Riley role last season - "You have her but you're all alone" speech from Into the Woods. In his twisted demon brain he believed that sex was love. That her enjoyment of their sex was proof she loved him. Hence the line - "You loved me when I was inside you." He had no soul at the time, so didn't get it. (I think a lot of Angel fans have troubles with Spike because what they think it says about Angel. It says zip about Angel. When Angel lost his soul in Innocence/Surprise - he lost all his humanity - he was clean of humanity - could not be burned by the Judge. Spike, Dru and their minions could be burned by the Judge they still had humanity. So do not confuse Angelus sans soul after Innocence with Spike sans soul. Angelus sans soul after Innocence = pure evil. Spike sans soul and chipped was grey. Spike with soul? Looks like they are moving towards redemption. Don't know. ) Buffy was however using Spike for sex last season. She admitted it twice.
In AS YOU WERE and later in Entropy when she let him know she never loved him. He however did love her - they literally hit us over the head with it. The attempted rape doesn't change it. If it did, he'd never have gone after the soul or be beating himself up over it now.

Buffy is NOT just using him now. I know it feels that way. But actually I think she does it out of desperation. Notice he is never her first stop - he's her last recourse. In Lessons she ran into him by accident. In Beneath You - he offered and showed up. In STSP - she is following up partly on his request to help. In Help - she clearly held off as long as possible and seems to feel somewhat ill at ease for doing so.

I think Mal needs to give Spike a break and Caroline needs to give Buffy a break. ;-)

Personally Buffy reminds me a bit of Gary Cooper in High Noon or the Dean Martin character in Rio Bravo. She feels like the town sheriff trying desperately to keep the peace
and deal with the unpredictable friends at the same time.

That said, even I find her bitchiness tough to handle at times. I miss the emotional, kind, overly compassionate girl I see on FX in the reruns.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, Buffy IS my favourite character! -- Caroline, 10:34:50 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "It's gone forever. That funny, young, lost look I loved." -- Arethusa, 10:46:32 10/16/02 Wed

"That said, even I find her bitchiness tough to handle at times. I miss the emotional, kind, overly compassionate girl I see on FX in the reruns."

Tragedy and responsibility have changed Buffy, and not totally for the better, sometimes. Her self-protective reticence has become more ingrained; after all she-alone-is the Chosen One. Everyone, I think, has become tempered in last year's crucible. I think the changes in the characters and all the hints being dropped (whoops! tripped over another one!) are leading to a test of their powers, abilities and characters like no other. The coming Apocalypse is being mentioned more on both shows, I believe, and the gang will probably need their toughness, just as Giles needed his to kill Ben. But Buffy showed a lot of compassion to the troubled students, so at least we can see some. She just doesn't have a lot for Spike right now. The man inside might be new, but the exterior hasn't changed, and she evidently still has an unpleasant, visceral reaction to Spike. We do get a huge hint that her attitude towards Spike does slowly change-"She will tell you". Since Spike seems to want forgiveness so badly, what he wants to be told is probably something he would like to hear. (Wild guesses, like wild horses, run away from their owners; I could be wrong.)

They're all taking baby steps now, while we are dying for hundred-league boots.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "It's gone forever. That funny, young, lost look I loved." (hijacking to OT) -- celticross, 11:49:29 10/16/02 Wed

Oh, Arethusa, what is that quote from?? I recognize it, but don't remember from where and as soon as you tell me, I'll remember and feel foolish. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Rebecca" Olivier to Fontaine directed by Hitchcock -- Arethusa, 12:07:43 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> DUH! :) -- celticross, now foolish, 12:14:14 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "It's gone forever. That funny, young, lost look I loved." -- shadowkat, 12:07:25 10/16/02 Wed

I generally agree Aerustha. Maybe I'll see the compassion to the other students in a rewatching of the episode?
I tended to greet this episode with a level of annoyance brought on by a personal pet peeve it may not have deserved:
"the website gimmick" and the writers assertions on Bronze Beta that this was based on a real character - leading me to believe that Cassie had died in reallife as well. It pissed me off. So this shadowed a good deal of my viewing.

But I think yours and alcibades readings of this episode may be the correct ones. I agree I think Buffy has no clue how to handle Spike, she's never had a clue how to handle him. He understands her better than she understands him or herself for that matter. And I think, maybe it was alcibades above, that said part of Buffy's problem is he represents the part of herself she hates.

I'm not unconvinced that the fan reactions to Spike/Buffy have more to do with Angel than we care to admit. How many times have we watched the angsty Buffy/Angel episodes now? Ten? Twenty? On FX? On Tape? We have them memorized. And some of us expect Buffy to give Spike the same benefit of the doubt she did Angel, particularly since Angel did worse things while he was Angelus. What we forget is the relationships are incredibly different. And Buffy is no longer the girl who was in love with Angel in Season 2-4. She's changed. That Buffy no longer exists as you so beautifully quoted in your subject line. Just as Angel is no longer the vampire Buffy loved. That Angel is equally gone. And Spike is no longer the vamp who made the deal with her in Becoming or returned in Lover's Walk. That vampire is gone as well. They are the same, in some respects, but also very different. I think your right part of the theme this season is exploring how the characters have changed and stayed the same.

"I think the changes in the characters and all the hints being dropped (whoops! tripped over another one!) are leading to a test of their powers, abilities and characters like no other. The coming Apocalypse is being mentioned more on both shows, I believe, and the gang will probably need their toughness, just as Giles needed his to kill Ben."

Yes...that's it I think. I don't believe this is really and truly a stand alone. I think in this episode, they tell us how Buffy struggles with her inability to save people and her desire to help. Each of the characters is struggling
with who they are deep down inside this year and while they can help one another to some extent. Most of the work needs to be done on their own. And in some ways I'm very glad their showing that - because in real life, that's what happens, people can help you, but you have to make your own choices and live with them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A few random comments -- Arethusa, 13:15:39 10/16/02 Wed

I disliked the show the first time I watched it, for just the reason you mentioned. For some vague reason, I thought it was creepy to show a plucky young girl calmly obsessing over death, complete with maudlin death poems on her website. It felt like a "there, there, sensitive little death-courting internet soul" pat on the back. Weird reaction, maybe, but true. If it were based on a real character, that's even less appealing, like pandering to an unhealthy trait in some fans (imo).

Since when did ME choose well-known tv actors over good actors? Why did Xander go with Buffy to Cassie's dad's house? It's not like she needs a bodyguard. How did Cassie happen to be at her dad's house, when she lives with her mother and wasn't on a visitation to her dad's?

I'm with you on Spike-this is his internal journey, and he has to do it himself. Watching Spike and Buffy reconcile would be satisfying, but watching Spike reconcile with himself will be even more interesting. He's (maybe) in the same place as Buffy last year-lost and alone, except for the voices battling it out for control of his head. Buffy can't heal Spike's damaged heart any more than she could Cassie's-she can only try to not harm him. I do hope, however, that she soon is able to face him and listen to him more.

At least the teens were mostly average-looking "kids," by Hollywood standards.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A few random comments -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:38:58 10/16/02 Wed

Cassie's psychic, remember. She knew Buffy and Xander would be coming there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You know, I found her dealings with the students very compassionate. -- HonorH, 13:49:22 10/16/02 Wed

She *is* in a new role, so I think she's still feeling the waters, but I saw plenty of compassion especially with the kid with the Marine brother. Her attempts to counsel the faux-gay guy and the bruiser girl were sweet, too, if adorably misguided. It's a new job for her, and I think she's still trying to find the lines between her Counselor persona, her Slayer persona, and Buffy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree totally, I loved her interaction with kids -- Scroll, 08:18:02 10/17/02 Thu

In my Defending Buffy the Cousellor, I said that "Of the kids Buffy was trying to reach, I really want to see the boy with the Marine brother again. He seemed to be speaking not only to the current situation in the U.S. but also for Dawn and how she must see Buffy. Here's this older sibling, tough, strong, sometimes closed off, who goes out to serve others, possibly dying in the process and the younger sibling can't do anything about it. Can't help. It was nice, short but incredibly moving scene.

Buffy is definitely feeling her way as she goes, trying to adjust to this new role of mature grown-up authority figure. Her advice was pretty sound, it's just the kids that are really tricky! They kept overturning her expectations -- which, since this is "Buffy", should be expected, really! Maybe we're in the minority, HH, but I didn't think those snippets of Buffy counselling kids, quick dips into various aspects of Buffy's personality, to be shallow or silly at all.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> a quick thought about the web "thing"(spoilers) -- TeacherBoy, 16:14:16 10/16/02 Wed

Sorry, stupid heading, didn't want to include a possible spoiler in the title.

I must be really on the minority on this one, but I *really* liked seeing Cassie's web site before the episode aired. Was it unusual? Of course, but I thought that it added another level to what I think was a great episode (again with the minority). But I never thought for a second, even after reading what the writers had written over at the Bronze, that Cassie was a real person or a real web site, so that part didn't creep me out. Actually, it did creep me out, but in a good way. I think the last reason I really liked it was that it showed me that the writers are still working, meaning that they are still trying to find ways to challenge and suprise us every week, sometimes succeeding, sometimes not (btw, what the hell are they putting in the coffee over there at ME? That web chat with the writers was super weird).

And as far as the compassion issue (which I think I have a lot to say about, so I'll save the rest) goes, I thought she was great with the students. Beyond great, actually. Yes, going to her step father's house was totally out of line, even for Buffy. Most schools should be so lucky.

TeacherBoy

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, this may be splitting hairs, but... -- Isabel, 04:36:24 10/17/02 Thu

"Personally Buffy reminds me a bit of Gary Cooper in High Noon or the Dean Martin character in Rio Bravo. She feels like the town sheriff trying desperately to keep the peace
and deal with the unpredictable friends at the same time."

John Wayne was the sheriff in Rio Bravo. Not that you don't have a good point. Dean Martin played the recovering alcoholic deputy, who, if I keep following the analogy, reminds me of Willow. There's also a crotchety deputy with a heart of gold, (Xander). They're helped by the flashy new-kid-in-town gunfighter, (Dawn). I guess that would make Feathers, the woman on the wanted poster with a shady past, Spike.

That actually occurred to me the last time I watched Rio Bravo. Am I thinking about Buffy too much? Nah! ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ok, this may be splitting hairs, but... -- shadowkat, 08:16:40 10/17/02 Thu

Ah someone picked up on my mistake. I can't decide if Buffy represents Dean Martin or John Wayne. But I think you're right John Wayne. Makes much more sense. I was thinking Dean MArtin - because he was the sheriff of the town.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (also an attempt to defend Buffy) -- JM, 14:49:46 10/16/02 Wed

You know that fear of what Spike might do really resonates right now with me. Last night was the first time that I really, really sympathized with Spike like I used to. I felt in last in SR. That look was so agonized but so confused. Like my dad's dog who had horrible abandonment issues (her previous owners left her chained to a fence in the middle of the country where she almost starved to death before animal control picked her up). She had the exact same expression when she got caught chewing up something when we were away. Horrified by this bad thing that she'd been caught doing, but unable to understand why she couldn't stop herself. I definitely don't mean to trivialize the assault, but before the re-ensoulment, missing that crucial piece, Spike was very much more an animal than a man.

Since he's come back I haven't been able to recognize, and therefore sympathize with him as well. I did last night for some reason. Not sure whether it was seeing him beat on himself, the same point where Buffy registered horrified compassion for the first time since BY, or seeing him repeat the actions in his attact on bad guy. But I really saw again HIM last night for the first time.

And my biggest fear was that he would do something to Cassie. Although I was ultimately faked out with the arrow, I was pretty sure that she was going to die. First I thought Buffy would be too late. Then I thought that she would fail when distracted by the demon. Then I was terrifyingly sure that Spike would hurt her, either accidentally or deliberately because he was so confused by the real and the not real. I think that is currently my big fear for the character. I'm sure the effect on him would be devastating. He's currently having a very hard time interacting with this world.

[> [> [> [> [> Can't agree - Defending Buffy the Counsellor -- Scroll, 08:41:56 10/16/02 Wed

I'm not going to address Buffy's reaction to Spike except to say I didn't think she was being a bitca but OTOH also wondered why she couldn't be kinder.

But I loved everything else about this episode, from Buffy's attempts at being Counsellor, to Xander's hammer analogy, to Willow visiting Tara's grave, to Dawn's Scooby recon attempts -- the gang really seemed in sync, working together and trying so hard to prevent the impossible. Of the kids Buffy was trying to reach, I really want to see the boy with the Marine brother again. He seemed to be speaking not only to the current situation in the U.S. but also for Dawn and how she must see Buffy. Here's this older sibling, tough, strong, sometimes closed off, who goes out to serve others, possibly dying in the process and the younger sibling can't do anything about it. Can't help. It was nice, short but incredibly moving scene.

Also, this episode got me bawling the first time round. And the second time. When I watch it again tonight, I fully expect to bawl again. So yeah, despite lack of Anya and weird Buffy/Spike interaction, I thought this episode was incredible. Cassie seemed to speak for all those children/young people with terminal illnesses, who have no choice but to think and deal with death on a daily basis, but who really really want to live and grow up and do things with their lives. Personally, "Help" rates 9/10 whereas "Reptile Boy" is more a 5 or 6/10.

And you have to give them props for "Doogie Howser fanfic"! LOL!

[> [> [> [> [> [> on reflection... -- celticross, 10:08:24 10/16/02 Wed

"...I didn't think she was being a bitca but OTOH also wondered why she couldn't be kinder."

I think you put your finger on it there, Scroll. (Though I know you weren't writing about Spike and Buffy...sorry to hijack!) After re-watching, I wasn't so much angered by Buffy's first scene with Spike as I was confused. Intellectually, I understand that there's a lot of ugliness behind both these characters and their interactions with each other. I understand that Buffy's got on her sheriff's hat on (tm Shadowkat). I understand that she doesn't know how to deal with him, and certainly not with his insanity. Emotionally, I don't understand. One does not simply snap out of mental instability. And Spike is obviously very guilty for his treatment of Buffy in the past. His insanity is fixated on having hurt her. And being the big ole softie that I am, it's hard to see Buffy's only reaction to him being frustration and a difficult to read expression. I don't like disliking a character and getting the feeling from the show that I'm not supposed to be taking issue with her behavior.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ITA, celticross and Scroll -- Caroline, 10:37:06 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe the point is you are supposed to be taking issue. -- alcibiades, 11:36:02 10/16/02 Wed

I just keep on thinking that it is interesting that Buffy had more compassion for Spike in Lessons and Beneath You before she found out about the soul than afterwards.

She was nicer to him -- she wasn't afraid to touch him. Here she is keeping her distance. Why?

[> [> [> [> [> Do you like Joseph Schmidt chocolates? -- Vickie, 12:03:04 10/16/02 Wed

A cyber-truffle coming your way! It's hard to do these necessary scary-life things. Good for you, for stepping up and handling it.

Good luck with the next thing, whatever it is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you! yep on Joseph Schmidt -- shadowkat, 12:17:22 10/16/02 Wed

yep scarey is right but also relieving...

at any rate starting novemember 1, I'll be officially unemployed. So if anyone knows of anything? let me know:-)

And thanks for everyone's kind support. Not sure I would have made it through nine months of evil boss without this board and online community. The healing power of Buffy and Angel. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Has anyone considered *anger* as a motivating factor? -- HonorH, 13:09:19 10/16/02 Wed

Consider this: Spike and Buffy had a violent, tempestuous relationship that came to an abrupt end when he tried to rape her. She doesn't see him for months, and then he turns up crazy, then somewhat sane, and then he reveals that he got a soul for her and is in torment for it.

I think Buffy probably feels quite a bit of anger right now--both toward him and toward herself. Not entirely rational anger, but not entirely irrational, either. They've still got all the outstanding Issues from their relationship, for one thing. For another, she never asked him to do this. She never hinted at it. The only place he could've gotten the idea was from the love she shared with Angel. So, drawing on a complex, painful, intense relationship that Buffy once had, he goes out and gets himself a soul, then comes back to her and says he did it for her. What's she supposed to do?

Add in some anger at herself--for having had the relationship in the first place, for having treated him poorly, for letting it go so long, possibly for letting him live in the first place when, rationally, she should've staked him when he first got the chip, or at least when he proved he could still be a menace, i.e. the Adam thing. She's probably blaming herself for the whole mess, and being angry that she's taking the blame when Spike's at least as responsible.

If you look at it through that lens, then add in some guilt about harboring anger at him when she feels she should have only compassion, that would add up to inconsistent behavior on her part.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Has anyone considered *anger* as a motivating factor? -- alcibiades, 14:34:53 10/16/02 Wed

For another, she never asked him to do this. She never hinted at it. The only place he could've gotten the idea was from the love she shared with Angel. So, drawing on a complex, painful, intense relationship that Buffy once had, he goes out and gets himself a soul, then comes back to her and says he did it for her. What's she supposed to
do?


COMPLETELY disagreeing with your point here -- not about the anger, of course Buffy feels anger, but about the fact that Buffy never equated the two to Spike -- love and the soul.

The point is she did make the hook up between the two over and over -- it was her rationale for why she could never take him or the relationship seriously -- You're just a thing - An evil disgusting thing -- she just never thought he would be the one vampire ever -- throughout history -- who would do something about that.

She thought it was a safe thing to say because how could a vampire ever seek out a soul.

Smashed: On why she won't talk to him about what her kissing him meant.

BUFFY
You're just a thing. An evil, disgusting thing. All right?

Dead Things

BUFFY (cont'd)
You don't have a soul! There's nothing good or clean in you. That's why you can't understand! You're dead inside! You can't feel anything real! I could never... be your girl!

Not to mention the end of Entropy:

XANDER
I'm not joking now. You let that evil, soulless thing touch you. You wanted me to feel something, congratulations. It worked.

Anya stares back at him.

XANDER (cont'd)
I look at you - I feel sick - 'cause you had sex with that.

A long cold beat. Xander full of rage. Anya, pain. Buffy, shame. And Spike, indignation.

SPIKE
(offhand)
Good enough for Buffy.

Spike looks into Buffy's eyes.

XANDER
(disbelieving)
Shut up. Leave her out of...

As Xander looks into Buffy's eyes. Sees the shame.

XANDER (cont'd)
(cold)
This.

ANYA
(realizing)
Buffy.

BUFFY
Xander--

She moves towards him. He steps back.

XANDER
I don't want to know this, I don't want to know any of this.


It's all about the need for the soul.

spike was right -- from her words -- the small bit she did communicate, getting a soul was what she was telling him he needed.

But as Grant says above, he didn't realize how it would undermine him.

The fact that she feels anger at him is nothing new -- anger has always been a part of the Spike/Buffy dynamic --

But part of the anger here is that Buffy now has to do the sensitive and painful work of disassembling her own mythology of self -- about how men always leave her, about how Angel couldn't stay for his own good -- and really look at it and put some of it away with her childhood possession. It's painful and hard and scary and she needs to rethink herself. And she doesn't want to do it because change is hard. No one likes change.

Meanwhile, Spike can barely look away from his past. Even her presence can't distract him at points -- how deflating for Buffy. Here's an area where he's way ahead of her, and surpasses her in courage. And I don't think she is altogether responding well to that. Because wasn't he just an evil soulless thing?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hm. -- HonorH, 17:32:26 10/16/02 Wed

I do see your point. Come to think of it, I think Buffy sees your point, too, and that perhaps adds some to her anger. When emotions get that jumbled, anger almost always joins the party.

As for facing the past--it's been forcibly thrown at Spike. For those who've had a soul for their entire lives, it's easier to ignore the pains you suffered and caused and just keep going on with your life. Spike's resouling threw his entire, lengthy past right in his face, and the result is madness. He's not beyond Buffy in facing it; he's on another field of play altogether. It may take him another lifetime to learn to deal with his past. Buffy's on the human road to adulthood, which includes putting away childish things.

They are paralleled, however, in that they're both dealing with cases of arrested development. Spike's development was arrested when he became a vampire. Buffy's was arrested soon after she became a Slayer. That event at once caused her to grow up several years ahead of time, and froze her in a state of adolescence. Because she had to make so many changes and suddenly had so much responsibility, part of her clung to every vestige of childhood as a refuge. Perhaps now, she's finally learning to let go of that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Alcibiades, HonorH: Great points about Buffy! -- Dariel, 18:04:27 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> good points both HH and alcibades -- shadowkat, 08:42:50 10/17/02 Thu

I agree that anger is very much a motivating factor.
Towards herself, towards Spike, towards the world in general.

Remember what she says to Giles in Grave? "I still don't understand why I was brought back"
Giles: "Because you have a sacred calling.."
Buffy: "But I was done. They could have gotten someone else. You know another slayer would be called." (not exact.)

Part of her fury is that. She is hyper stressed. I know what this is like, to want to scream but not be able to, to want to fight but not be able to, to want to flee but not be able to. It's like being in a cage. Spike enrages her on numerous levels:By getting the soul - he's forced her to change how she treats him, she can no longer beat him up like she did before, he's made it impossible for her to hate him for attempting to rape her - because well how do you hate someone who is hating themselves first? (Anya made that clear in STSP when she tells Willow it's no fun beating someone with their rib cage when they are begging you to do it.), he's made her feel guilty about her role in their relationship, etc. The reasons are complicated and numerous. She's also furious with herself for going there with him and for how she's treated him and for not ending his life when she had the chance. He's been a thorn in her side since she met him. And it would make life so much easier if she didn't care about him as much as I'm beginning to think she does.

"But part of the anger here is that Buffy now has to do the sensitive and painful work of disassembling her own mythology of self -- about how men always leave her, about how Angel couldn't stay for his own good -- and really look at it and put some of it away with her childhood possession. It's painful and hard and scary and she needs to rethink herself. And she doesn't want to do it because change is hard. No one likes change. "

Very true. She needs to stop blaming herself. She has not got past the old Daddy leaving nightmare vision that we saw in Nightmares: "Of course I'm leaving because of you. Who would want to stay with a daughter like that?" She needs to realize as she does in HELP that it's not always all about her. Or her calling. Nor can she save everyone. Nor does the help always succeed. Sometimes it's okay to fail.
And Sometimes people just leave because of them, not you.
Spike didn't so much get the soul because of Buffy, but because the conflict inside him was driving him insane, he was having a nervous breakdown in Entropy through SR - the AR was the result of that breakdown. He went after the soul to resolve the conflict - the irony is that he made it worse. The soul didn't resolve it - it made it worse. He also went after the soul for Buffy of course. But I doubt it was ever that simple.

"Meanwhile, Spike can barely look away from his past. Even her presence can't distract him at points -- how deflating for Buffy. Here's an area where he's way ahead of her, and surpasses her in courage. And I don't think she is altogether responding well to that. Because wasn't he just an evil soulless thing?"

Yes...again I see the parallel. Buffy can't deal with the darkness inside herself and here he is unable to look away from it - forced to deal with it on a daily basis. At least Angel did a good job of hiding it from her. Spike can't hide anything from her.

But the other point - the evil soulless thing point is also well taken. How do you handle being a vampire slayer when your worst enemy, a vampire, goes after a soul? And how do you handle the fact that the ensouled vampire that you loved lost his soul and never wanted it back? Very confusing. Spike getting a soul is probably confusing Buffy on more levels than even she understands.

[> [> [> [> [> mazel tov, shadowkat! & good luck! -- anom, 23:25:52 10/16/02 Wed

Takes a lot of courage to leave even a lousy job. I once stayed in one till it left me (literally--company moved). But 3 weeks of vacation made a pretty good anchor....

[> [> [> Re: Quick responses -- Tamara, 07:07:08 10/16/02 Wed

Buffy only visits Spike when she needs help. That is what I call treating him as a convienience. When Spike pleads for help she just walks away. Shes not interested in offering him forgiveness even when she knows the pain he is in. She could throw him a crumb at least. She is using Spike regardless of the cost to him.
Just coming to Spike when she wants something is horrible considering the state he is in. I am so not enjoying watching my favourite character be tortured and the hero not even care that much. She is acting like the original ice princess.
She was snapping her fingers and sighing huffily when a helpless Spike can't jump up to help her out like he used to. And dont even get me started on how she doesnt thank him again! She makes no effort to explain the situation to Spike. She seems to think that because he cant snap out of his issues he is being insane just to mess up her day.
In BY Spike was torturing himself on a cross because of what he did to Buffy. Has she tried to help him since? No. She is emotionally disconnected from Spike who she sees as a tool. She only visited Spike because he might be of use. She then rolls her eyes when her dog doesnt perform on command. No thought of offering him forgiveness or sitting with him quietly helping him through his pain.
Her only attitude seems to be "will you snap out of it so I can use you already". That was just cold. Theres a review from a Canadian reviewer who isnt even a Spike fan joking that Buffy looked like her cat was coughing up a furball in that scene.
She has become like a mechanical bot doing things because they are the right thing to do but with little emotion. Last week was bad enough when she was using Spike like a dog whilst making callous remarks about the level he has sunk to. A real hero would help Spike out. No she doesnt have to sit with him and help him get out of the place that is torturing him. Spike isnt her responsibility. But would it kill her to go see Clem and ask him to help out Spike? Just leaving him in the basement except when she needs help is a very low way of behaving I feel.

[> [> [> Re: Quick responses -- celticross, 07:31:24 10/16/02 Wed

Rob, I know you and I have differing amounts of BuffyLove (ie, you like her a lot more than I), which probably accounts for our differing takes on the scene in question. I just didn't see in Buffy's rather frustrated expression any conflict over how she should act towards Spike. Maybe I will when I rewatch the episode. Like sk below, I tried to put on my objective hat, but the darn thing wouldn't fit. As it stood last night, I wanted to throw something at Buffy's departing back.

And about the high school students' age...it was so bothersome with AS, as I only recognized her from bits and pieces of other TV shows. But ZTB distracted me through the whole episode. I kept muttering to myself "his character went off to college by the end of Home Improvement, and that went off the air how many years ago?" Maybe I'm just spoiled by the fact MT is actually within a year of her character's age.

[> Stones on a Grave (spoilers for 7.4) -- Dochawk, 22:51:41 10/15/02 Tue

That scene (Willow going to Tara's grave alone and placing the stones on Tara's grave) was the first in over a season that made me tear up (I was spoiled on Tara's death and it was so jarring that I didn't tear then).

As Rob mentioned placing stones on a grave is a longstanding Jewish tradition and I was really happy that they included it. Willow is getting back in touch with who she was and the tradition represents (one theory anyway) that the spirit in the grave will never be alone.

[> [> Re: Stones on a Grave (spoilers for 7.4) -- TeacheBoy, 23:06:38 10/15/02 Tue

Ditto on the tears thing. This was the first time I teared up since "The Body", and I'm not sure why. I think it was the simplicity of the scene. I'm not one for being beat over the head with something, which explains why there was no similar reaction to the death of Tara (a character which I never cared for but...)

Another great episode, IMO. In my book, ME is batting a cool six out of their last six. I know there will eventually be a crappy epsiode, which I love. You don't get "The Body" and "OMWF" without pushing your own boundaries - something I try to tell my students. You must be willing to fail and accept failure if you ever want to really succeed.

See, us teacher-types can say stupid stuff like that and get away with it, because we are, you know, teachers 'n stuff.

TeacherBoy

[> [> [> Re: Stones on a Grave (spoilers for 7.4) -- mucifer, 05:14:36 10/16/02 Wed

I thought another intersting Jewish death thing in the episode (Rebecca Kirshner, the writer of the ep is Jewish) was Buffy's comment at the beginning of the show after dusting the vamp "I think an open casket is tasteless anyway" or something like that. Jews dont do open caskets.

[> [> Re: Stones on a Grave (spoilers for 7.4) -- Sophie, 06:30:23 10/16/02 Wed

Tears here, too.

I was wondering what the stones on the grave thing was about. Being a pathetic Catholic, I was going to guess something about witchcraft. Oops. Thanks, Rob et. al.

Sophie

[> [> [> It was shown in "Laughter on the 23rd Floor" as well -- vh, 06:38:32 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> God, I hope this isn't considered a spoiler! :) -- vh, 07:04:44 10/16/02 Wed


[> Re: My 7.4 Review (spoilers, of course) -- Wizardman, 23:00:46 10/15/02 Tue

I pretty much have to agree. So far S7 has blown me away.

We had a rousing season premiere, Lessons, which had myself- and others, I'm sure- jumping for joy because Buffy was back! Not just from hiatus, but back into a new state of empowerment and fun.

Beneath You... what can I say? James Marsters, and Emmy. It bloody well better happen this year!

Same Time, Same Place- not what I expected, but still very good. Easily one of the most overtly gruesome eps ever done, but I'm okay with that as long as that sort of thing doesn't become too common.

Help- I don't believe that any one ep character was mourned like Cassie was. Not even Jesse way back in S1. I prostrate myself in humility and awe before the goddesses that are Rebecca Rand Kirschner and Azura Skye. I hope that we see Cassie again in some form before the end of the season. Actually, the website that the Scoobies were looking at is real. The website is www.geocities.com/newcassie

In more detail about help, the only serious problem I have with it is that with the exception of the 'Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer' and the opening credits, we were completely lacking in Anya. I'd be mad, if I didn't know that that will not hold true next week. This episode certainly played on the emotions of the viewers more than others have. The boy and his newly Marine brother was intense, and nicely underplayed. The rest of the kids weren't as sympathetic. The pseudogay guy was a creep, and yet completely believeable. The girl that beat up her bully was meant to remind us of Buffy, I think, only she got a little too much pleasure out of it. I wonder- if Jonathan ever beat up, say, one of the guys on the swim team, would he have turned out the way he did? Peter was a jerk, but his little scene set up his behaviour for the rest of the ep. And I have no sympathy at all for the whiny little brat that complained about her domineering sister :)

The main focus of the ep was on the troubles of Cassie. Let me take another moment to bow before the alters of her actress and writers. Azura Skye brought what I felt was the right mix of pathos and fatalism to her character. In lesser hands, she could have been either too fatalistic, or too emotional. But Ms. Skye gave her a surface of bravery, which made her small crackings all the more poignant. And Rebecca Rand Kirschner wrote her beautifully. I especially loved the moment when Cassie confronted Buffy and Xander. The line about the cousins was a wonderful break in the doom and gloom flow that reminded us that this is BtVS.

And speaking of Buffy... she has tried to save people before, and failed, but in every occasion, they were either evil (the Coach in Go Fish) or victims that could be avenged (Theresa in Phases). This was the first time that we've seen her lose someone to natural causes in spite of her best efforts. And judging from her reaction, it was her first time, too. Okay, there was Joyce in The Body, but that was completely beyond Buffy's power to fix. Joyce was dead when Buffy found her, whereas Cassie collapsed right in front of her.

Other characters... Dawn seems to be collecting friends. First Kit and Carlos, whom we've yet to see again, and now Cassie and to a lesser extent Mike. I wonder if we'll see Mike again. He was going to ask Dawn to the dance, and it would be so utterly Joss to have Dawn become attracted to him and feel tortured for going out with the guy her dead friend obviously cared so much for. Not much is new on the Xander front. He's still supportive... and obviously doesn't search the Net much. I loved the 'control vs. power' speech, but I couldn't help feeling that Willow's gonna need both in spades when the time comes. Speaking of whom, Willow is back to her endearingly nerdy self. She's still worried about losing control, but that's natural. I loved the scene at the grave. I expected bigger, but 'tastefully understated' seems to be this ep's motto, and I don't disagree with that choice. Spike is still crazy, but is still willing to help out. And he actually seemed saner this week than he did last week, so that's a step in the right direction. What did Cassie mean? It was deliberately vague, but I'm sure by the Season Finale, if not sooner, we'll all be hitting ourselves saying "That's what she meant!" And as for Buffy making a difference, was there ever a doubt?

One final thought: the guy that rigged the doors mentioned that his cousin Ben taught him that trick. A lethal trap, involving archaic weaponry, taught by a guy named Ben. We never saw our Ben do something like that, but he would have known how. Could this be a coincidence, or a throwaway line that will come back to haunt us later on? Only time and Joss will tell...

[> Re: Willow, Spike and Dawn in this ep (spoilers for 7.4) -- Sang, 23:33:49 10/15/02 Tue

That was very nice ep. Quiet yet strong. Interactions between rookie counseller Buffy and students were quite real and funny.

I don't need to mention about Cassie's charator, since every one who saw the ep will know. I also liked Buffy's small mistakes, saying 'shit' in front of student and misunderstanding Principle Wood's 'hood'. How about Mr. Wood? He is more like Giles than Snyder or Flutie. He is most likable adult charactor after Giles left.

I found it interesting that the effect of the chip getting weaker on Spike. He felt less and less pain and the duration getting shorter.

Another interesting factor was that we haven't seen Dawn and Willow communicating. ME craftly cuts scenes so that we cannot see any Willow/Dawn scene. Even in the same room, they never talk or listen to each other, not even having a eye contact.

Last week, Dawn and Willow were invisible to each other. This week, they are still invisible to each other. I wonder what is in Joss's bag.

[> [> Re: Willow, Spike and Dawn in this ep (spoilers for 7.4) -- Finn Mac Cool, 04:37:52 10/16/02 Wed

Well, Spike's a lunatic right now. Many lunatics can bear horrible pain much more easily than sane people.

[> [> [> And you would know this how? -- Caroline, 08:09:39 10/16/02 Wed

I would advise you to not say things like this - it's rather lacking in sensitivity.

[> [> [> [> What I thought he meant -- Scroll, 08:53:23 10/16/02 Wed

I'm not Finn and can't speak for him, but I interpreted him to mean that crazy people (i.e. Glory's brain-sucked victims) seem to have extra strength that is due to the fact that pain doesn't register in the same way. Think of the security guard from "No Place Like Home". It took two nurses, Ben, and Buffy to restrain him on the gurney. I'm not saying that it's okay to subject the insane to pain, I just think Finn meant (and I could be wrong here) is that "Buffy" has shown the insane to be able to work through physical pain/discomfort (and this is possibly part of the insanity) that others wouldn't be able to stand.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: What I thought he meant -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:43:29 10/16/02 Wed

OK, let me rephrase that. Not all insane people can bear substantial amounts of pain. However, a number of people have severely mutilated themselves because of a mental condition. From this I inferred that it is not unusual for an insane person to withstand large amounts of pain, since otherwise these particular people would not be able to get far into their self-mutilations before having to stop.

[> [> Re: Willow, Spike and Dawn in this ep (spoilers for 7.4) -- Robert, 07:21:23 10/16/02 Wed

>>> "I found it interesting that the effect of the chip getting weaker on Spike."

My hypothesis is that the chip is operating that same as it always has, but that the pain from Spike's soul is overwhelming the effects of the chip.

[> The Willow-ness (spoiler) -- HonorH, 00:19:48 10/16/02 Wed

Fortunately, I did get to see the graveside scene, even with my truncated ep (crap). I was deeply touched. Aly Hannigan is *such* an actress. So amazing. A few words, a simple gesture, and I felt deep, deep grief and love. The stones on the grave were, I must say, a beautiful touch. It's part of Willow's culture, something she was taught since she was a little girl, and it's a wonderful way to honor her love. I was amazed.

[> Much more than a "nice little episode" -- Captain Pugwash, 02:24:21 10/16/02 Wed

I really enjoyed this one; I was worried after the pile of dreck that we got last week (an utterly forgettable 'filler' episode), but this was superb (apart from Dawn's *awful* acting at the end).

[> Everything's connected, right? (sp 7.4) -- Tchaikovsky, 03:54:11 10/16/02 Wed

So...

Maybe I'm stretching the connectedness line a little too much here. Or maybe I've got to be careful not to confuse a reference with applicability. And perhaps the free association which you make through the episode is more important than what the writer intended you to think of in any case. I know what that one idea of literature study is that if it connects for you, it is right. A subjectivist approach. Pragmatic. No right or wrong. But this long pre-amble is starting to sound like Spike, so to the point.

Cassie: a psychic girl, bullied by some of her peers. A misfit. In touch with the supernatural. Exchange two letters from s to r and we have Carrie, from the famous, (and infamous?) Brian De Palma horror film. The name, as much as being short for the classical Cassandra, who foretells her own death, also reminded me of the film.

So does anyone concur? Or shall I tell myself if it works for me, that's all that's important?

TCH

[> [> Re: Everything's connected, right? (sp 7.4) -- neaux, 04:39:32 10/16/02 Wed

well here's some connectivity for you.

Zachary Ty was in Carrie 2. A god awful movie!

[> Re: Stones (7.4 Spoilers) -- Wisewoman, 06:33:37 10/16/02 Wed

You don't know how glad I am that you and Dochawk, below, mentioned the fact that stones on the grave is a Jewish tradition.

I was driving myself crazy. I'd never seen or heard of it before but made the immediate mistaken assumption that it was something Wiccan that Willow was doing! But then, the stones looked like ordinary stones, not crystals, or specific semi-precious gemstones...I spent an hour with my books last night trying to find the reference.

Woo! Talk about subjective viewing.

;o) dub

[> [> Re: Stones -- ponygirl, 06:58:44 10/16/02 Wed

Going off on a bit of an aside, but I saw a documentary a few years back on tracking down Jews who had fled Spain centuries ago and settled in the American Southwest. Almost all had been forcibly converted or hidden their origins, and over the generations Jewish traditions had been forgotten. However the filmmakers found local customs that had Jewish orgins. One of these was the leaving of stones on graves. It was very moving to see that some things are never completely lost.

I just checked google to refresh my memory on the documentary. It was called Expulsion and Memory. Highly recommended if you can find it.

[> [> [> Re: Recycled Plots and Recovered Traditions. -- DEN, 07:41:39 10/16/02 Wed

Two observations, not really connected:

1. The clear connections to earlier story lines can be interpreted as a way of highlighting the changes in the Scoobies. Now fighting evil is what they do, and how they define themselves. They approach situations with some powr. They are becoming part of the system, first Xander and now Buffy. Cassie's soliloquy on the things she wanted to do seemes at first drawn out. But note Buffy's, and especially Xander's expressions--as though they were looking into mirrors of their own pasts.

2. I believe the stones Willow placed on Tara's grave made a wider statement as well. Judaism allows a time for mourning, but rejects the notion of "burying your heart in the grave." "Life," as a classic study puts it, "is with people." Willow's gesture, by a character who has never made a show of her Jewish identity, contributes significantly and tastefully to what another poster called the understated closure appropriate to Tara's story line.

[> [> [> [> More thoughts on plot recycling and other ideas... (7.4 spoilers) -- Rob, 14:23:40 10/16/02 Wed

The allusions to earlier episodes in "Help" are very deliberate, IMO, the most obvious one being "Reptile Boy." And, I agree with you, this serves to reinforce the new role of the SG. Before, Buffy herself was the one being sacrificed by a bunch of guys to a demon who would bring them wealth and power. Now she is no longer the high school student, but an authority figure, from the outside, trying to make life easier for the kids in the high school. She tries to prevent a similar fate that almost befell her from befalling Cassie. Just as the cult of boys was a deliberate allusion, so do I think the references to "snakes" was, to the snake-like demon of "Reptile Boy." That, I believe, is the largest clue that this "plot recycling" was done so deliberately.

Another link is to "The Gift." Again, Buffy is not allowing this sacrifice to take place. She herself had sacrificed herself in the past to save people like Cassie Newton, and she won't allow these kids to undermine that. Further, this reinforces the idea that Buffy is "over" her death, as evidenced by the fact that she was able to hide out in the coffin without being traumatized. Buffy was brought back for a reason, and she is no longer scared by what was once one of her biggest fears--being buried alive.

Other references? The library itself again underlines the "back to the beginning...but different!" theme of this season. Why would the ritual have to be in the library, which is no longer right over the Hellmouth? Because the library alludes to the first three seasons. It is no longer the same, musty old place...but modern, new, and much less charming than the original. This is no longer a place that Buffy feels the same connection with as she did in the first three years. It underlines how much things have changed, and yet how much they have stayed the same--what with the demonic ritual being done there and all.

Willow even mentioned her old crush on Xander, something that we haven't thought about it a long, long time. All of these references indicate to me that the show is look to its past in order to redefine its future. And we all know that prophetic lines on "Buffy" always have greater significance later. I can't wait to see what "she'll tell you" means!

And on a separate point, regarding Buffy and Spike (I thought I might as well post it here, since a response in the middle of this thread will probably just get lost in the crowd), I again watched "Help" (for the third time), and I still see nothing wrong with Buffy's treatment of Spike in this episode, mostly due to the yearning in Buffy's voice to help Cassie. Again, to me it is very clear that Buffy is remorseful for using him for information, but is desperate to save this girl, especially apparent due to her pleading tone. This is not the way she used to go to Spike for information. She is begging him for help. For me, this made Buffy even more sympathetic. It proves to me that at the end of "Beneath You," Buffy was moved by Spike...and yes, as she said in STSP, frightened. I think it scared the hell out of her that she could have caused Spike to do this to himself. She decides not to stay with him, because her presence, she thinks, will only make him worse. I found that extremely touching, as I found Buffy's empassioned plea to the "coin" boy to help her. Buffy is desparate to save this girl, and I don't see her sorrow at not being able to do so as hubris. She isn't in it for the glory. She just can't accept that an innocent, good person was allowed to die like that. Buffy had always been one to challenge prophecy--all the way from the first season finale, she undermined an ancient prophecy. (There's another reference--to "Prophecy Girl.") This may be the first time that she was faced with a prophecy she was unable to undo, despite the lengths she took. Of course, I also agree with Rufus that, although Buffy doesn't see it, she actually did help Cassie. She helped her die peacefully and unpainfully.

Dawn tells Buffy at the end that if it weren't for her, she never would have been friends with Cassie. It is not important that their friendship lasted for only a day or two. Dawn is glad to have known Cassie, for however a short a time it might have been, and is grateful. If she were self-centered, she would have been upset that she had met Cassie at all, now that so soon after her death had caused her so much grief. This reminds me of "The Puppet Show," (I'm doing the notes now lol) where Cordelia cries at the death of Emily the dancer, "This is such a tragedy for me! She was my best friend!" Never mind that she doesn't even know the girl's name, and calls her "Emma." Dawn realizes that the tragedy is not hers, but the world's, for losing such an amazing person as Cassie.

The importance isn't the outcome of the help Buffy provided, but the fact that she cared enough to help at all.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: on plot recycling Spoilers: BS1,2,6-7.4,ATS4.2 ,SH5, GHD. -- Age, 18:59:17 10/16/02 Wed

I got the impression that Cassie (blond hair) was an allusion to Buffy first season, being straddled between two worlds: in Cassie's case the worlds of the living and the dead; in Buffy's the worlds of the living and the undead. This identification is reinforced by Spike's confusion as to saving the girl, Buffy or Cassie; and by her two friends being male and female, the suitor who wants to go out with her(like Xander in season one) and Dawn, the computer researcher(like Willow, season one.) Buffy had to come to grips with her duties as slayer in first season, foregoing, as Cassie had to, certain aspects of living that normal people get to experience. Not only this but Cassie expressed Buffy's sense of isolation and alienation from the world as slayer, and alluded also to the first year finale when Buffy had to accept her own death('Prophecy Girl' the title, can be applied to Cassie; also is Cassie's death a symbolic confirmation of the death of the teenager Buffy, in the same way that the death of the Anointed One at the beginning of season two was a confirmation of the death of Buffy as child?) It would seem that as Buffy begins her new type of slaying, her listening to students, as opposed to fighting their inner demons after they've grown too powerful, (ie adult slaying season one, so to speak, with the difference between Buffy as counsellor and slayer highlighted by Buffy herself when she speaks to Xander outside Cassie's father's house) Whedon took the opportunity to travel down memory lane to make the parallel; to show how much Buffy has accepted her role as slayer; and, to teach Buffy that adults are not gods. (It's like the death of the old man in the movie, 'Groundhog Day,' which coincidentally is about someone who comes to know what is going to happen through experiencing it so many times. I'm unclear on this, but is this the premise of 'Slaughter House Five' the Vonnegut book that Cassie was reading? Does the protagonist in this book/film keep reliving aspects of his life as if his life itself were a type of labyrinth?)

I think that Cassie was tied to Willow and Tara also. In one scene she was wearing a shirt with a couple of people on it, one of which was sporting red hair. Cassie mouthed the words for the dead Tara, telling us everything she wouldn't do in her life; she also gave us a glimpse of how alone Willow must have felt. While Tara's death was by gunshot, it was defined as a natural death, as was Cassie's. Also, Buffy was unable to stop Warren from shooting her(the use of the word 'bitch' in this week's ep reminded me of Warren.) By mourning Cassie we get to mourn Tara.

I also got the impression that we were being told that Tara's death last season was inevitable; and that Tara somehow knew this was going to happen, and how, as Cassie says to Buffy, it would make a difference.

Some other posters have been noting similarities in regards to this week's Buffy and Angel. Here's what I saw: the highlighting of alienation through two guest characters with special abilities; the emphasis on the themes of mortality and acceptance of loss through Gunn's short death(and Fred's reaction) and Angel's letting go of Cordy, paralleling Willow's going to Tara's grave.

Age.

[> [> [> [> [> [> This is why I love this board! -- Rob, 19:57:13 10/16/02 Wed

Wow, Age, just wow! That was such a great post! I love how I always end up finding illuminating posts that give me a whole new level of interpretation for an episode. Your thoughts about Cassie=first season Buffy are brilliant, and I think spot-on. I had seen the link between "Prophecy Girl" and "Help," but I didn't make that final jump that you made to see just how similar to Buffy Cassie is...and to Tara. I also hadn't thought about Cassie being a possible parallel to Buffy's reaction to having failed Tara, as well. Which was made even clearer by the fact that Willow visited Tara's grave this episode.

Thanks, Age, for such an illuminating post! KABOOM indeed!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent post, Age -- Arethusa, 20:53:00 10/16/02 Wed

One of the greatest things about reading the board is that when I watch the shows for the second time, I see it through a dozen different perspectives. Maybe that's why I never get tired of watching the reruns.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Age, I just started a thread on Vonnegut above, would appreciate you input -- Caroline, 20:48:33 10/16/02 Wed

I think that we saw a lot of the same things in terms of the themes of the book and their correspondance in Help.

[> Quick wonderment about names -- d'Herblay, 17:28:45 10/16/02 Wed

That Cassie was named for Cassandra is so obvious to be undeniably intentional; I wonder if a case could be made for her surname as well. Newton makes me think that objects in motion tend to stay in motion unless acted upon by an outside force. In "Help," Buffy's outside force is not enough to stay the events already in motion.

[> [> Oooh! I love that! -- Rob, 18:11:18 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> Could it be another reference to Juice Newton? ;-) -- Arethusa, 18:29:01 10/16/02 Wed

Remember Joyce's approbation of a fancy coat in "Band Candy"?-"very Juice Newton."

Just look at the lyrics to one of her most famous songs- Angel of the Morning-so many references to Angel, an affair cut short, even dawn!

There'll be no strings to bind your hands
not if my love can't bind your heart.
And there's no need to take a stand
for it was I who chose to start.
I see no need to take me home,
I'm old enough to face the dawn.

Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
then slowly turn away from me.

Maybe the sun's light will be dim
and it won't matter anyhow.
If morning's echo says we ve sinned,
well, it was what I wanted now.
And if we're the victims of the night,
I won't be blinded by light.

Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.
Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
then slowly turn away,
I won't beg you to stay with me
through the tears of the day,
of the years, baby baby baby.
Just call me angel of the morning ANGEL
just touch my cheek before you leave me, baby.

A non-crossover event?

Arethusa, giddy with lack of sleep.

[> [> [> Danke Schoen . . . -- d'Herblay, 18:46:15 10/16/02 Wed

Oops! Wrong Newton! (And now Sophist is again wondering just what time warp I was caught in.)

[> [> [> [> Curse you, d'Herblay! And Wayne Newton, too!! -- dub, 19:22:20 10/16/02 Wed

Angel of the Morning is a fond memory in itself, Danke Schoen is not!

AotM reminds me of an incident, though. I was auditioning young people for a drama workshop years ago and they had to sing one chorus of a song of their choice. One earnest young man whose voice was still unsettled chose AotM. I managed to keep a straight face until he sang,

Just call me angel of the morning, angel,
Just touch my feet before you leave me, darlin'


They had to shovel me outta there...

dub ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Arethusa, 19:53:05 10/16/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> Hey doesn't Olivia NEWTON John deserve a nod too? And she, like, Cassie is a blonde! -- Rob, 20:04:34 10/16/02 Wed

That's deeper than your Isaac Newton reference anyday! :p

Rob :o)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey doesn't Olivia NEWTON John deserve a nod too? And she, like, Cassie is a blonde! -- Sang, 22:36:33 10/16/02 Wed

She may not related with Isaac Newton but Olivia's maternal grandfather is Max Born. Nobel prize winner in Physics. He is one of the key physicists who founded Quantum Mechanics. :) Oh I found out that Newton was her grandmother's maiden name. Her father changed family name John to Newton-John since John was so common name in Wales. Hey! maybe she is realted with sir Isaac.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! And I was only joking! -- Rob, 10:01:10 10/17/02 Thu


Current board | More October 2002