October 2002 posts


Previous October 2002  

More October 2002

"A history of heart irregularities": Thoughts on "Help" (spoilers for BtVS 7.04; long) -- Dyna, 18:22:15 10/20/02 Sun

***** Note: I went away for a couple of days to write this, and I won't have time to catch up on the boards before I post, so I sincerely hope I don't repeat things that have already been said in the meantime. Thanks in advance for reading. Oh, and this is rather long. Cheers! ~Dyna (off to read OnM's review and see if her prediction was correct) *****

Last Tuesday, after watching "Help" twice, I took a dose of Sudafed and went to bed--where I proceeded to spend the entire night dream-analyzing the episode. I took this as a sign that it's time to post a few things. We'll see if my waking version is as interesting as what the Sudafed came up with. :)

First let me say, I am one of what I hope is not a minority of viewers who really enjoyed this episode. I liked the story, I found the character of Cassie nicely written and well-acted, I laughed out loud a few times, and I was surprised by the ending. More to our purposes here, I believe there is a lot more going on in this episode than what is apparent on the surface--hints of how past themes are to be carried forward this season, interesting structural points, ambiguous explanations--all my favorite things!

I've been trying to find a way to make my thoughts on this episode hang together and I've concluded that if I keep it up no one will ever read this, so all I'll say by way of further introduction is this:

"Help" raises a number of questions, some of them, such as "What are we to make of Buffy's treatment of Spike?" open to quite a bit of contention. I think this is very intentional. I also think that, in classic BtVS fashion, the proffered (or at least readily obvious) explanations aren't the whole story. This is evidenced by the discomfort many viewers feel with them. It's easy to chalk up feelings of discomfort with the characters or the way a situation is explained/resolved to "bad writing" or "choices by the writers I don't agree with," but I think that sells short what I believe has been well-established over time as a highly intentional, purposefully structured work.

(Without straying too far into subjects that are not this episode, I would like to point out that one of the hallmarks of the gothic genre is that very discomfort--a sense created in the reader of a "gap" in the story, a little wobble in the resolution. As students of gothic, our job is to pay attention to our discomfort, because in the "gap" is where the real story is told. All of which is a subject for a much longer essay, so I'll only conclude by saying that "Buffy," as a modern variant on the gothic tradition, seems to me to carry out this pattern quite nicely.)

Also, Rahael asked: What is the thematic significance of the heart? And while I won't try to come up with any sort of unified theory about it, the question has lingered in my head for days, and led me farther afield than I think I can go in one post. I hope she finds something here to add to her thinking on that question in return.

But first, a digression on Xander and hammers:

*****

~ On Xander and hammers [insert tool joke here] ~

Did anyone else notice something missing from Xander's analogy of the hammer? (I can't be the only one--in fact I'm half-expecting OnM to start his review of "Help" with a discourse on the hammer. Not sure why.)

What Xander says, basically, is there are two ways to use a hammer: You hold it way at the end, and you have lots of power but little control--you're bound to smash your finger some of the time. So you "choke up," hold it near the head, and you have lots of control, but no power--and it takes ten strokes to hammer in a nail.

As a way of hinting to viewers that this season may have something to do with issues of "power" and "control," Xander's analogy of the hammer is a useful, if didactic, device. But where I think it is actually quite neat is the way it puts to good use the little-appreciated literary device of calling attention to something by leaving it out. (Kind of like the way having the Aprilbot say "It's always darkest before the..." makes us all go "the dawn! Dawn! What's this about Dawn?"--something that simply completing the sentence doesn't do.)

Anyone who has used a hammer will recognize that neither of the ways that Xander describes is the proper way to use a hammer. Xander's is a zero-sum hammer, a hammer that is either powerful or controlled, but not both. Missing from his analogy is of course what is really most important: the third way--the "right" way--to use a hammer. A hammer is designed to be held at the point that provides the best balance of power and control. So used, it augments one, without the loss of the other.

This is, of course, also what Willow needs to do with her magic. The marked absence of this "middle way" from Xander's analogy seems to me a neat way of pointing up the fact that Willow is just at the starting point of her journey toward finding this balance. Xander's omission, and Willow's ready assent, show us where they are at this moment, and hints--a rather anvil-sized hint--at the direction that the Scoobies' work on "power" and "control" will be called on to go this season.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Not! digression--

*****


~ "A history of heart irregularities" ~


In our discussion of earlier episodes, several posters (shadowkat, I think, and others) observed that in each episode so far this season, the "A" plot--the monster or other unnatural "problem"--is also a metaphor for the current dilemma of one or more of the characters--their conflicts, fears, anxieties, etc. In this way each "crisis of the week" parallels and provides illumination for the secondary (but no less important) plot thread in each episode--the very human muddle that comprises the emotional and personal lives of the Scooby gang.

(By now I've read so many posts and thought so much about this myself that I can't tell anymore how much of this aspect of the earlier episodes came up in discussion and how much is my own mental embroidery. For those who are interested, I'm including a footnote summarizing briefly how I think this works in the first three episodes.)

I believe this pattern is continued in the episode "Help," and unlike the previous two episodes which saw more ensemble action, here the focus seems entirely on Buffy. Xander, Willow and Dawn have things to do, and exposition to provide, but the real work of tackling the "problem of the week" that is Cassie is done by Buffy alone.

One question we can ask is, What aspect of Buffy's current state, what emotional truth about Buffy is further revealed to us through the story of Cassie? What insight do we gain into Buffy that extends beyond the space of one episode, and connects this week's action to the larger plot arc?

Luckily for us, the writers don't make us look very far to find an aspect of Buffy's current emotional state that needs some further illumination--they place it right in the middle of the third act. I'm referring, of course, to the ongoing mystery that is Buffy's demeanor toward Spike. What are we to make of her treatment of him in this and earlier episodes? What is she feeling in these scenes? Why not try to help him? What's with the avoidance?

If there was any doubt about whether these are questions in need of some answers, I think the level of disagreement, the number of perfectly plausible yet opposite interpretations of Buffy's feelings that can be found on these boards amply demonstrate the point. But just in case there were any viewers left who hadn't clued in to the fact that there is something about Buffy's response to Spike that we're Just. Not. Getting, the writers hand her what is arguably the least satisfactory, or at least the most debated, line in the episode--where Buffy refuses Spike's request that she stay and help him with: "I think it's worse when I'm here."

(I'm aware, obviously, of the plot-based reasons that can be used to explain Buffy's refusal of Spike's request for help--she's in a hurry, time is running out, Cassie, it's Friday, etc. All of these are clearly true. Nevertheless, this is not what Buffy says. We know that the writers are capable of coming up with a line for Buffy that would get across without ambiguity that the reason she is leaving is that she has a girl to save and time is running out. They chose not to. Buffy's line attracts our attention because it is unexpected, because an opportunity to be perfectly clear is pointedly not taken. I believe a point where we find ourselves having to "rewrite" what's said to supply what should have been an obvious explanation is a point where we are meant to look more closely, and keep a grain of salt handy.)

Some posters have taken a harsh view of Buffy in this scene, interpreting her line as a self-serving lie. I don't agree with this, but the objections these viewers raise to Buffy's excuse are reasonable: At the very least, Buffy cannot know what "it" is like for Spike when she's not there, and there's at least some reason to suspect he is better when *not* left alone-- his moments of lucidity seem to have come in response to being approached, talked to, given something to focus on besides his own hallucinations.

I see Buffy's line less as a lie than as an unintentional truth. What, after all, is "it?" What is this "it" that is worse when Buffy is there? And "worse" for whom? Clearly, Buffy cannot know what things are like for Spike when she's not there. But she does know what things are like for Buffy. I think the answer to the question "worse for whom?" is "worse for Buffy," and the "it" is--whatever it is Buffy feels when she's with Spike. (Shock, fear, sorrow, guilt, anger, heartache, helplessness, all of the above?) Whatever it is, it is clearly something Buffy does not wish to spend a lot of time feeling.

So--what does Cassie have to do with this? How does the main plot with Cassie further our understanding of what's going on with Buffy? Or to put it another way, if Cassie is a metaphor, what does she represent?

I'm going to skim right over the obvious things here, because they're obvious and many others have commented on them--Cassie's an innocent, Buffy has trouble accepting that she can't save everyone, Buffy fears she'll fail to save someone she loves someday, etc. I will point out something others have also observed, that Buffy's question--"What do you do when you know you can't help? When there's really nothing you can do?"--is clearly as much about Spike as about Cassie. The implication is that we may, if we like, reinterpret the basement scene, substituting "I know there's really nothing I can do to help you" for "I think it's worse when I'm here." I do think this is part of what's going on with Buffy. However, I don't think that's all, so let's continue.

I think it's obvious that Cassie isn't here just to represent the mass of innocents Buffy is supposed to "save." She also represents Buffy herself--not just the high school version, but a kind of aggregate Buffy: "Prophecy Girl" Buffy, whose death is foretold, who wants so many things from life and sees them being taken away, and whose familiarity with death makes other kids regard her as a freak; "Reptile Boy" Buffy, trussed up to be fed to a demon in exchange for "untold riches"; "Doomed" Buffy, rejecting a sweet, persistent boy over and over (Did Riley actually have a line like "it's a girl's job to drive guys crazy," or am I imagining that?); "Weight of the World" Buffy, worn out from the constant awareness of death and just "wanting it to go away"; season six Buffy, with her "yin for the big dirt nap."

In this sense, Buffy's efforts to save Cassie could be seen as a representing fears Buffy has about her ability to "save herself"--that although she is stronger this season and has made progress in her life, she still worries about sliding back into the depression of last year. It may be too that, as she's become reattached to life, she feels more acutely the knowledge that her career as a slayer can only have one ending, and she's outlasted most of her sisters already. Maybe her new love of life has reawakened her sense of what she'll lose when she dies.

These are big issues, and certainly relevant to Buffy--but they don't feel especially applicable to this moment. But what about the other thread of this episode's plot, the troubled question of how we are to understand Buffy's response to Spike? What meaning does the Buffy/Cassie connection hold that could give us some clue to understanding what is driving Buffy's behavior?

Remember that Cassie's death is not a failure of Buffy's strength or resolve. It is a failure of the heart--a weakness, so secret that even Cassie does not know it's there until it's too late. Here, I think, is the real point of significance, the meaning that ties the two threads of the plot together. The heart--the secret, unknown, suspect, fearsome heart.

Many pages of posts have come and gone on these boards on the subject of Buffy's heart--her fear of love, her alienation from her own feelings, the history of abandonment and tragedy that makes her fears so understandable and so poignant. Buffy is a person who has known all of the pain of love and precious little of its joy. It's no wonder that she fears it.

In Cassie, this girl with "a history of heart irregularities," we find Buffy, and more to the point, we find the things that Buffy fears most in herself: That her love--her "heart"--is "irregular"--that there is something defective about her love; that she will love wrongly, or be loved wrongly; that even now there could be something in her heart that is secret even to her--but suspected, sensed if not fully known--and that will lead to her downfall. I think it is this fear, not just the fear of "not being able to help," that we are being asked to recognize in Buffy, and sympathize with, even as we may dislike the face that this fear gives to her interactions with Spike.

I don't think it's necessary that we conclude from this that Buffy loves Spike. It's worth recalling that Buffy's history is not only of disappointment in or loss of the men she loves, but also of seeing the men who love her suffer because of that love--Angel lost his soul and spent 100 years in hell; Riley broke down in the face of her emotional distance, something she later acknowledged she felt responsible for. That Spike loves Buffy--or did, before the restoration of his soul altered him to the point where it hardly seems to matter--she does not doubt. She does not have to love him in return for his destruction on the altar of love for her to stir her deepest fears about herself, and what it means to love her.

As I said, I don't believe it's necessary that we conclude that Buffy loves Spike; it's enough to say she fears it, fears that like Cassie she may not know what's really in her heart.

Phew!

~ Dyna



{Footnote on the season's pattern so far, which I hopefully isn't painfully obvious:

"Lessons": the ghosts in the basement and the school on the hellmouth, reflecting Dawn's anxiety about school, Buffy's fears that she won't be able to protect Dawn; also Buffy's past which she doesn't want to examine, the "failures" she is reluctant to revisit--see also Spike, also in the basement, also at first thought to be "not real."

"Beneath You": an ex-boyfriend turned into a monster--representing Buffy's anxiety about the "new" Spike ("I believe you've changed, I just don't know what you've changed into..") as well as the doubts about the old that kept her at a distance (doubts that found justification in SR); for Spike the fear of turning on Buffy, the sense of the monster he still was, that drove him to get a soul; for Xander his old fears about himself and about Anya--that if they married he would become "an abusive bastard," and Anya turn monstrous--and his literal present, in which his "ex" is now a monster (specifically, a demon).

"Same Time, Same Place": Willow's invisibility her fear of being rejected by her friends, of metaphorically "not existing" to them anymore; everyone's worst fears about Willow embodied by Gnarl--like "Dark Willow" a gleeful killer, one who skins his victims, and whose taunts are so terribly personal and hurtful.

I've probably left some things out, but that's the basic gist as I understand it.}
[> Wonderful post, Dyna! Too late tonight, but might have some comments sometime tomorrow. -- OnM, 22:14:08 10/20/02 Sun

Very fine insights, though, pretty much agree.

:-)
[> A failure of heart... -- LeeAnn, 01:38:10 10/21/02 Mon

Great post. I didn't pick up on the heart thing before. So..maybe this telegraphs the message that when Buffy fails, or will fail in the future, it's a failure of heart?

Her heart? Spike/William's? Someone else's? Maybe her failure to love Spike/William, to let herself love him, will lead her to fail in saving someone, or saving the world, or saving Spike/William. Does Buffy's unwillingness to care about Spike/William, to care for him, thus leaving him in the basement with the Morphing Big Bad, will that cause her to fail to save someone else?

Interesting idea. If that is Joss's metaphor?
[> Wonderful Indeed!! -- Rahael, 02:14:41 10/21/02 Mon

Just got into work, will post later - but keeping this tread alive until then!
[> Very insightful, Dyna -- alcibiades, 03:59:06 10/21/02 Mon

[> The heart of the forest, and the middle way, the straight way. -- Rahael, 06:03:55 10/21/02 Mon

I'm really proud that my question played a part in the evolution of this post. This beyond all things, the dialogue on the board is what I value. I don't really have any ideas or analyses until I start reading others', and realising what I agree with and what I don't.

I was thinking, in that thread you mention I did a further post addressing the points that Alcibiades and Pony girl had raised, and I want to requote my last train of thought, because it kind of fits in with my reactions to the points you raise:

"Alcibiades had mentioned Xander's being the 'heart' of the group in the Primeval ep of Season Four. Ponygirl had 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 emotional exhaustion a pointer to the spirit that needs to be refreshed?

Maybe being human is the problem..."

(I think this ties into Spike, and his newly found, hybrid surface. His struggle to contain his new soul, the different personas he tries on, his attempts to comprehend who he now is - all that speaks of the problem of living, of being human.)

Xander, the heart, and Power

You talk about the 'third way', the right way to hold a hammer. It's not for nothing that we talk about the 'heart' of the matter, the 'heart' of the forest. Because we often use the word 'heart' to mean the very middle of us. The source of our strength.

Again and again in BtVS we have the imagery of the heart being punched out. Buffy stakes Vampires through the heart. Xander's dad pulls out his heart in 'Restless'. In the Basement, in Normal Again, Buffy kills her demon by punching through its chest. She pulls out Adam's radioactive heart.

Your point about the significant gap in the story, the silence that speaks volumes is just great. I think, in this season the theme of power misses out one of the crucial imageries of power that beats at the heart of BtVS. Where does Buffy's power come from? From her heart, from her emotions, from the love that will lead her to her gift.

I think Buffy's gift is a double edged sword. You point out very well, how Buffy's love has 'damaged' the people around her. In Season 6 she abused that power, the power of love, and this was metaphorically and starkly shown by her beating of Spike, the Vampire who was in love with her, under her spell, under her power. Surely the biggest metaphor in Season 6 was the correlation not between lesbian sex and magic, but between sex/love and Power. Love of all kinds, and the disruptive powers it has. How it can awaken our deepest fears. How receiving love can make us insecure. Under the loving gaze of Tara, Willow becomes convinced that Tara can't really love the 'real' Willow. The more Spike protests that he loves Buffy, the wronger she feels. The closer Xander and Anya come to wedded bliss, the more afraid they get.

Perhaps that beautiful love song that Tara sings Willow, which is so moving, can be changed into a song of fear. As it does, when Tara finds out what Willow has done to her, which is wiped her mind. In fact, there is a metaphorical basis for this as well, because doesn't love sometimes do that to us? Don't we fear that we will lose our individuality, that we'll simply be under the spell of our lovers, that we are dependent on them?

Buffy is scared for her heart, scared for the power it has. Willow is scared of her own power. Anya is very very ambivalent about her veangency power. Spike is alarmed about his physical power. They all have to find the middle way, the straight way through the forest they got lost in during Bargaining.

Why does the heart stand for both power and love? Because the heart pumps blood, and 'it's all about blood' in BtVS. Blood is the very stuff of life, just as love is. And Love and Death are flip sides of the coin, and Buffy's gift is death.

We had a poster here a while back, talking about power as being wholly physical. That women didn't understand power because they were 'emotional'. I think the message of Season 7 is not going to be about 'physical' power (Kraft) but Macht, spiritual power, to go for the Nietszchean reference. I think in the heart lies an elemental power beyond 'good and evil' and deals with 'love will lead you to your gift. Your gift is death'. Are death and life 'good' or 'evil'? Or are they something even more, just containing a potent power to be used for better or worse. It's like the fire, the spark. Essential to us, but too much and we'll burn. Is Dawn good or evil? Does she have a soul? I think we'll find the answers to many things this season, including solving the inconsistent metaphor of soul. Because a soul isn't anything without a heart. Spirit, body, heart and mind must come together.


In case you hadn't seen it, I must recommend a really great thread to you - which is Carolines little thread in Archive two. There are many excellent posts, chiefly one by Manwitch.
[> [> Spoilers for all eps up to Season 7 aired so far! -- Rahael, 06:47:30 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> Power -- Sophist, 08:30:56 10/21/02 Mon

I think the message of Season 7 is not going to be about 'physical' power (Kraft) but Macht, spiritual power

Interesting. I am assuming that Knowledge is Power.
[> [> [> Re: Power/Knowledge -- Rahael, 08:58:04 10/21/02 Mon

I am thinking that this is only one part, in the region of 'brain'.

Perhaps real, positive, healing power (as opposed to only destructive power - i.e Season 6 - which is what happens when only one kind of power is emphasised) comes when you integrate all the possibilities of being human. Fractured, no more.
[> [> [> [> I would end up in the same place -- Sophist, 10:33:46 10/21/02 Mon

by way of "Know thyself". That knowledge is true power; it leads to healing. And it seems to me the best way to explain Buffy's enigmatic appearance at the end of Spike's hallucination chain. Just speculatin'.
[> [> [> [> button -- anom, 21:04:41 10/21/02 Mon

"Knowledge is power.
Power corrupts.
Study hard.
Be evil."
[> [> [> [> [> lol - the message of Season 4, surely? -- Rahael, 03:58:43 10/22/02 Tue

[> [> Thank you, Rahael! Another small thought... -- Dyna, 16:16:32 10/21/02 Mon

"Surely the biggest metaphor in Season 6 was the correlation not between lesbian sex and magic, but between sex/love and Power."

So true!!

Rahael, thank you for your thoughtful reply! It's always a great pleasure to read your take on things. My allergies are making me all foggy today, so I can't do a lot of justice to it, but your post and especially the remark above reminded me of something I couldn't fit into my original post that connects well to what you say--

While I was writing about Xander's analogy of the hammer, for some reason the Buffy/Spike conversation in the bathroom in "Seeing Red" popped into my head, and I want to point it out here because it seems somehow relevant:

BUFFY
I'm not saying I don't have feelings
for you. I do. But it's not love.
I could never trust you enough for it
to become that.

SPIKE
Trust is for old marrieds, Buffy.
Great love is wild and passionate and
dangerous. It burns and consumes.

BUFFY
Until there's nothing left. That
kind of love doesn't last.

It occurred to me that this "debate" is also a variation on the theme of power vs. control--with Spike arguing for a vision of love that is all-powerful, all-consuming, while Buffy argues for love that is under control, that is bestowed only if we are certain at the start that it will "last," that comes with guarantees of safety. Yet as in Xander's analogy of the hammer, there is a sense here of a missing piece--can it be there is really no middle ground between these? Of course there is, and must be. It seems to me that both Buffy and Spike, despite their positions at the extremes of this debate, are yearning for the more complete experience of love that lies somewhere between the poles. It is this yearning that has led Spike to try to "tame" himself with a soul, to give Buffy the guarantees she thinks she must have in order to love. It remains to be seen what Buffy will do, but I feel strongly that there must be some movement here for her too, if only for her own sake.

And that's all my frontal lobe can do for today!
[> [> [> Great posts again, Rahael and Dyna! Thanks... much to ponder. -- redcat, 22:03:51 10/21/02 Mon

And Rah, thanks for the heads-up re: Caroline's archived thread. I'll look for it as soon as I get a chance to do some archive-dipping.
[> [> [> Lasting Love (Spoilers for AtS season 3, Buffy Season 7, up to "Help") -- Rahael, 06:14:31 10/22/02 Tue

Good point about the extreme views of love.

Spike equals stability and trust to boredom. It's interesting, given that I subscribe totally to the metaphorical reading of Vampires as frozen in time - a la Keats' Grecian Urn - that Spike is very dynamic in character, in image. He never stays the same, he's always changing, and this is very much demonstrated by his shifting personality of late.

But - in Ode to a Grecian Urn, Keats describes the kind of wild passionate love that Spike speaks approvingly of. I wrote a long post about this back in July:

"Keat's, and his brother died of consumption, which, famously involves the coughing up of blood, and consumption is a very Romantic illness, and is 'all about the blood'. The heroine of La Traviata dies of consumption. The imagery of blood which signifies both life, and death and mortality in the round is highly potent - this why Vampires are such a powerful metaphor, and why these creatures of death in the Buffyverse seem so potent, and so alive - they drink of the very stuff of life and death.

The Vampire, as has been noted by many posters here, notably Age and Rufus, are arrested teenagers, adolescents, always on the brink of high emotion.

"In Ode to a Grecian Urn, Keat's celebration of the immortality of art, he says, talking of the scenes depicted on the vase:

"Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone,
Fair youth beneath the trees, thou cans't not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold lover, never, never can'st thou kiss
Though winning near the goal - yet do not grieve
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love and she be fair!"

The two lovers of the Grecian urn are stuck, in their passionate, frozen love, reminding me of James and Elizabeth in Hearthrob. Where an unchanging, frozen love is prized above a changing, human, mortal one.

But Vampires exist in a world, Sunnydale, where things are in constant flux, whether it be Gods or Keys, or just plain mortal death, love, marriage, life. Nothing around them stands still, but themselves. So they become casualties of Buffy who seems to represent the force of life itself. Both her relationships with Vampires was shown to be highly passionate, but doomed. Her affair with Angel could never be consummated without danger - they are forced to stand apart. Her affair with Spike disturbed dangerous emotions in both.

Significantly this season, Angel has 'grown up' become an adult in the fullest sense by having a son. Though ironically, he's stuck motionless at the bottom of the ocean this summer. Spike entered the Crucible of change and has come out, who knows what?

So there appears to be three options for a vampires, in the world of Sunnydale - forever frozen, to turn back into the ashes and dust of death (I will show you fear in a handful of dust) or to truly change and grow up."

I just wanted to take these earlier points forward by saying that in the static image, there is great movement
and dynamism, just as Keats' frozen lover, pants forever:

"And, happy melodist, unwearied,
For ever piping songs for ever new;
More happy love! more happy, happy love!
For ever warm and still to be enjoy'd,
For ever panting, and for ever young;
All breathing human passion far above,
That leaves a heart high-sorrowful and cloy'd,
A burning forehead, and a parching tongue."

The kind of love that Spike talks about will inevitably mellow and become stable. And his current instability will also settle. Spike's love is poetic in its truest sense. It is the love that poets describe, but it's also the kind of love which is a metaphor for 'art'.

(There's more in my post, where I talk about Yeats, and the holy fire that consumes your heart away:

http://www.ivyweb.net/btvs/board/archives/jul02_p03.html

(Approx in the middle of the long archive page)
[> [> [> [> Re: Lasting Love (Spoilers for AtS season 3, Buffy Season 7, up to "Help") -- aliera, 19:33:57 10/22/02 Tue

Thanks Rahael...I'll have to think about this and look up your prior thoughts on Yeats. I agree that they are frozen in time ever young as a result of their choice. And some do seek the change to maintain youth. But youth wasn't what William sought, was it? Nor love at that moment? Surcease from pain? Something effulgent? I'm not sure. Just some stray butterflies...dichotomy of happy ever young new and cloyed sorrowful... the head and tongue are from a different drink, one Spike sought oft last season but not recently, Lethe, and not one traditionally ascribed to Vamps...Spike hangs about the shadows last season...runs about under a coat in the day...reaches for the cross last season...wraps himself drapes himself on the cross this season...Blood is life. We're being told this season...More than blood. More than flesh. Before the Word...if we're seeing the possibility of change for vamps, it's new to vampdom (we haven't heard of vamps resouling or seeking redemption other than Angel and Spike?), catalyzed sparked it appears by contact with the "slayer". Slayer of the desire for vamp stagnation? Spike, I believe, sought more than romantic love. Not to the sensual ear but pipe to the spirit, Pan. Sorry, just butterflies tonight now off to flit across the Net.
[> [> Hammers, the third way, and other musings -- Rattletrap, 14:54:44 10/22/02 Tue

The more I think about the hammer analogy, the better I like it.

What we're calling the third way to hold a hammer is one that balances power and control. This point along a hammer is different for every person and every task. For a nail on which to hang a picture, control is crucial. Driving a big framing nail into a 2x4 for a house frame requires more power. Proper use of magic does not just require Willow to find a balance between power and control, but a contextual understanding of which is the best in which situation.

The analogy runs even deeper: I've known a few guys over the years who were very talented framers, roofers, or carpenters. People who use a hammer all day, every day learn to do so very efficiently. Someone who can drive a big 16-penny nail in 1 or 2 strokes (something that has always left me slightly amazed, I'll confess) does it not with brute strength but with technique. Raw power is valuable only up to a point. Knowing how to use that power most effectively is the real heart of the matter. The same basic idea holds true not just in carpentry but in farming, sports, martial arts, and even computer programming. Why shouldn't it apply in magic as well.

Just my $.02 on a wonderfully rich analogy

dl
[> Re: "A history of heart irregularities": Thoughts on "Help" (spoilers for BtVS 7.04; long) -- Deb, 06:47:05 10/21/02 Mon

That was quite a read with some interesting observations. Your discussion of Gothic Drama, though, does not touch upon the fact that it is based on the love of two "whole" people to create a "whole" relationship. Love of two "wholes" is love used to open oneself to the other and gives a "human" dimension. Love of two "non-wholes" restricts the openness, and leaves the potential woman as a girl, and the male as an animal.

The goal of Gothic Romance is a love of equals. At this point, neither Buffy nor Spike can help each other because they are both possess fragmented self-identities. They have no idea of who they are. I think Buffy does want to help Spike, but it hurts too much because she would have to grow up and accept the fact that all humans (and vampires sooner or later), not just slayers, eventually die. She also needs to believe that she is loveable. (Both have that problem) I think she is also concerned that the love that Spike felt for her when he was a "monster" has disappeared now that he has a soul. When she tells Spike that he can't believe that he can just return and they can pick up where they left off, she's not telling him she wants nothing to do with him. She's frightened that he agrees with her. . . It's over, and it was never serious.

But look how "serious" she is (right after denying it) when Spike and Anya start a fight. What did Buffy and Spike do for foreplay last season? They duked it out, and Buffy was the only woman he could fight it up with. (sorry about that). Well Anya is a demon now, and there was that one time. . . So Buffy jumps in to fight with Spike, pushing Anya away, figuratively speaking. There is another woman who is "equal" to Spike (only physicially though) in town now. The "power" has shifted.

Ack! I could go on, and on, and on, but it is my three hour sleep shift, and I'm late for bed. If anyone has any interest in reading more on all this, (psychanalytical criticism with a touch of feminism and can tolerate academic writing, I suggest:

"Gothic drama in Disney's Beauty and the Beast: Subverting traditional romance by transcending the animal-human paradox." -- Susan Z. Swan, "Critical Studies in Mass Communication" 9/1/1999. Can be found at Northernlight.com. (I used this article as a jumping off spot in analyzing the movie "The Matrix." The "resurrection" scenes are almost identical in both texts, and gives new meaning to the concept that women are bearers of life and slayers of life.) It (the article) gives the characteristics of the Gothic drama, including a:

Young woman faced with a dark secret to uncover, which requires skills beyond the traditionally feminine-and at some point flees in terror (of love) before she discovers her own power; a flawed romantic lead who must be taught how to love; a rival or alternate lead who turns out to be evil; and, a happy ending achieved through a process of redemption.

Oh yeah, the dark castle, haunted house, creepy building, high school basement.....
[> Oooh! That was so good! -- ponygirl, 06:58:21 10/21/02 Mon

[> Wonderful post, Dyna! Thank you, -- redcat, 10:38:29 10/21/02 Mon

[> Wow !!! That was absolutely fantastic -- Artemis, 20:07:04 10/21/02 Mon

You took an episode that I thought was okay, at best, and shed a light on it that has made me not only love it but realize how vital it was.
As I was reading your post I found myself thinking, "Duh". It seemed so obvious, once you pointed it out.
Thank you .

There was one part that I found interesting in this episode that I haven't seen mentioned.

It's when Willow is reading Cassies poem. There is a line she read that goes "My thighs unused, unclenched
This body is not ready yet"
Immediately after that, we get a reaction shot of Buffy that suggest that these words particularly connect to her.
Any thoughts
[> Just adding my kudos. Great post! -- Sarand, 21:02:54 10/21/02 Mon

A couple of things you said crossed my mind during the episode (like Xander's hammer/power analogy not being complete) and then promptly left. I'm so glad you posted. It made me look at the episode in a whole new way.
[> Adding to the accolades - wonderful post. -- shadowkat, 06:57:32 10/22/02 Tue

And I believe the definitive one on Help, having now read everyone's views on it. Also it has helped me come to rethink this episode and change my mind about it. As many people know, I didn't initially like the episode, but posts like yours and OM's and Caroline's have made me reconsider.
Not to mention the fact that I've watched the episode four times now and it appears to get better on repeated viewings.

BTW reading people's posts on this episode, mine included,
makes me realize how much of our own subjective desires and blindspots regarding the show, the characters and the series come into play. Your post seems to me to be the first one I've read that isn't thrown off-kilter by a personal desire or blindspot. (OR maybe this is merely because you have the same ones I do so I can't see them ;-))

Your post opened my eyes to a few things about the episode and discussions about it that bugged me. In every post - the main problem has been Spike. That is the point that every post including mine have felt off. Your post is the first one that I think clearly addresses what is going on with the B/S relationship and more importantly what is going on with Buffy - because it is through Buffy's lense that we are usually watching this story. It's her tale more than any of the others. Hence the title: Buffy The Vampire Slayer.

"It is a failure of the heart--a weakness, so secret that even Cassie does not know it's there until it's too late. Here, I think, is the real point of significance, the meaning that ties the two threads of the plot together. The heart--the secret, unknown, suspect, fearsome heart."

I think you are right here. About the heart. I also think Buffy is most afraid of herself. She always has been. And if last year - we were inside Willow and Xander's Restless dreams. This year we are mainly inside Buffy's and Giles.

When I was reading your post in bed last night, I kept remembering two old scenes from the series - scenes in What's my Line Part II and Becoming Part II (I'd just seen Becoming again that evening on FX). The first scene is Buffy telling Kendra that your power comes from your emotions, that your emotions make you strong. Your heart makes you strong. Her love for Angel and fury at Spike for hurting him - motivates her to kick butt, she is incredibly powerful in this episode. Then in Becoming? Pained. Her power is lessened in a way by the need to harnass the negative emotions - in the space of a few hours, Buffy in Becoming - has been told off by her mother, the principal and to some extent her friends, when she battles Angel? She is alone. When she battled Spike in What's My Line - she was surrounded by her friends. She had to give up a little of herself to send Angel to hell.

As you state:"It's worth recalling that Buffy's history is not only of disappointment in or loss of the men she loves, but also of seeing the men who love her suffer because of that love--Angel lost his soul and spent 100 years in hell; Riley broke down in the face of her emotional distance, something she later acknowledged she felt responsible for. That Spike loves Buffy--or did, before the restoration of his soul altered him to the point where it hardly seems to matter--she does not doubt. She does not have to love him in return for his destruction on the altar of love for her to stir her deepest fears about herself, and what it means to love her. "

I think that's it. It goes back to Intervention. The reason she goes to find the guide in the desert is she is terrified she has lost the ability to love. She lost her mother. She lost Angel. She lost Riley. She lost her father.
She tries to tell Giles she loves him and to tell Dawn...because she's partly wondering if that's why she lost the others. So Giles takes her out to the desert, where she is sent off alone with a huge mountain lion, to seek the answers to her fears. What the Guide tells her doesn't calm those fears, if anything it just makes them worse.

FIRST SLAYER: You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the fire ... blinding. That's why you pull away from it.
BUFFY: (surprised) I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?
FIRST SLAYER: Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love ... give ... forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. It will bring you to your gift.

When she asks what her gift is...the Slayer says, Death.

We see the same thing echoed in Cassie. Her gift, her destiney is death.

The boy that persistently asks Cassie to the Dance reminds me of two boys in Buffy's life: Xander and Riley. (BTW, Riley did say something about girl's job is to drive a guy crazy - it was in Something Blue, at the very end of the episode, Xander has also said it on more than occassion). In Season 1, Xander persistently pursues Buffy, but Buffy knows she'll probably die, so sweetly rejects him, culminating in the rejection in Prophecy girl. And ironically - Xander brings Buffy back to life. Unlike Cassie - Buffy's friends are able to resurrect her more than once, because Buffy's cause of death so far has not been a natural one. One wonders if part of Buffy resents Cassie's natural death?
One that would release her once and for all? (No probably not, that does not appear to be where they are going here. I think your take is far closer.)

You bring up the hammer analogy and what is missing...the middle way - the proper way to hold a hammer is not at the end and not at the top but in the middle. The proper way to love and be loved is not wild passion or comfortable disinterest, but something in the middle. It's the extremes that cause the problem. Too much spirit? And you risk leaving your body entirely. Too much mind? Overthink the problem. Too much heart? You overreact, get too passionate which oftens results in acts of violence such as the attempted rape or scorning your ex-lover. Too much hands?
Don't know. But at any rate - it's balance in all things they need to strive for. (What religion preaches this? Buddhism? Something about the Middle Way? Or Middle PAth?)

Cassie died from a failure of heart. Apparently the heart is the problem right now - makes sense, it's the emotional center. And look at the heart imagery...Tara is killed with a bullet to the heart. Xander loses his heart when he stands up Anya at the altar. Spike is clawing his heart and his soul is placed in his heart or chest. (Very different than the image for Angel's soul - which is through his eyes in Becoming.)

"Buffy has trouble accepting that she can't save everyone, Buffy fears she'll fail to save someone she loves someday, etc. I will point out something others have also observed, that Buffy's question--"What do you do when you know you can't help? When there's really nothing you can do?"--is clearly as much about Spike as about Cassie. The implication is that we may, if we like, reinterpret the basement scene, substituting "I know there's really nothing I can do to help you" for "I think it's worse when I'm here." "

I think you're right here as well...or it feels right in my gut, which tends to be more trustworthy than my brain ;-)
It is more complicated than that of course. But her comment
feels like a statement encompassing them both. She can't figure out a way of helping him without hurting them both.
And she is terrified of him and what he represents on numerous levels. I remember thinking after I read your essay last night - Spike scares the heck out of Buffy and he should. And I don't think she understands completely why.
You hit the main reason on the head.

"That her love--her "heart"--is "irregular"--that there is something defective about her love; that she will love wrongly, or be loved wrongly; that even now there could be something in her heart that is secret even to her--but suspected, sensed if not fully known--and that will lead to her downfall."

yes. That's it. She has known little of the joy of love. And every time EVERY TIME she gives in - it blows up in her face. In I Was Made to Love You- she wonders if true love is possible, comes home to see flowers delivered to her mother, makes the comment that some people can still get it right - and discovers...her mother is dead, her mother died before she was able to enjoy it. BTW her mother died from a blood clot to the brain - the heart pumps blood and most blood clots to the brain can be associated with failure associated with heart. (Although I think this was a complication due to the brain surgery, but it is worth noting in any case.)

And what about Anya and Xander? "They were my light at the end of the tunnel, turns out they were just a train." Or Willow and Tara - Tara dies and Willow becomes a worse vengeance demon than Anya. Or Giles and Jenny - Jenny is killed by Angel, trying to atone for the secret about the soul.

I don't blame Buffy for wondering about love. Or fearing it.
For Buffy, love has always equaled great pain and little joy. And from her perspective...those who love her seem to get hurt the worst. I'll be interested to see where ME goes with this and how and if they resolve it.

Thanks again for a wonderful post. It changed my mind about Help.

SK
[> [> Oh..spoilers for episodes up to 7.4 Btvs. -- shadowkat, 07:01:30 10/22/02 Tue

[> Thanks so much for the nice comments, everyone! -- Dyna, 09:35:47 10/22/02 Tue

(Almost)They Way They Were(Angel Spoilers 4.3) -- Cecilia, 19:28:55 10/20/02 Sun

Enjoyed the episode, but was sort of hoping that what the casino owner was taking from people was souls. I would have loved to see a (brief) return of Angelus. They could have ended it the same way, busting the dish/globe and returning all the souls, including Angels. I would have just loved to see how Gunn and Fred would have handled meeting Angelus without Cordy or Wes, who at least have encountered him before. Still a decent episode.

Was everyone else as happy as I was to see Lorne return to the fold? I've missed him and his sassy, sarcastic dialogue! Now that he's back and Cordy (well, sort of) can Wes be far behind?
[> A very interesting thing (Angel Spoilers 4.3) -- Apophis, 20:03:34 10/20/02 Sun

I just thought it was worth noting that they managed to have a promo without showing anything about the next episode. Neither images nor information. Just thought it was odd.
[> Re: (Almost)They Way They Were(Angel Spoilers 4.3) -- Robert, 20:14:42 10/20/02 Sun

>>> "I would have loved to see a (brief) return of Angelus."

Yes, that would have been interesting, but we have already seen Angelus. As horrifying as Angelus was, the fate of losing all destiny is somehow even worse. I am glad that Joss Whedon showed us this view of Las Vegas. I visited Las Vegas only once, but I saw the same unhappy purposeless blank looks on the faces of the slot machine players. Imagine having no more in your life to look forward to than dropping your next quarter in the slot machine. This was a great episode.
[> [> Re: (Almost)They Way They Were(Angel Spoilers 4.3) -- yabyumpan, 03:45:27 10/21/02 Mon

A few thoughts about this episode, baring in mind that i haven't actually seen it, only read wildfeed, reviews, feedback etc.

All the talk from Angel about knowing the rat pack, getting drunk at Elvis's wedding and playing tennis with Bugsy just doesn't gel with what we've been told of is past history. The Vampire we saw in 1952 was someone who kept himself to himself, when he tried to help someone he got burnt and them left them all to the demon. Yet only a few years or so later, he's being Mr Socialble. What happened? Did he start taking the new anti-depressants they's started to develop then? And how did he he from there to being Stink Guy? It would have much more sense IMO if he'd some something like 'It's not the sort of place he would have visited before', thus staying in tune with what we know of his past and also showing us how far he's come. It seems to me that ME have messed with what we know to get a few funny lines and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Re: Futures. Angel had his future stolen and yet (with a little help from a friend), was able to start creating a new one by deciding to help Fred, Gunn and Lorne. I this following on a theme from Fred's wonderful 'Screw Destiny' speech in 'Offspring', prophecies that are wrong and 'the powers that screw you'. Is ME saying something about freewill and deciding your own future? And is this something Angel can do because of who he is? I know that Lorne talked about his friends being his destiny but surely all the other people who had their futures stolen had friends and family too.

Still on Futures, does Cordy's Amnesia mean that her destiny has been stolen? If she doesn't remember anything, I'm presuming this from the 'Who are you people?' comment, then doesn't that mean that her future is starting anew? Sort of OT, but if someone has complete amnesia, could they be considered to be the same person they were before?

And what about Wesley? It occurs to me that Wesley's state of mind at the moment could be likened to teenage rebelion. He's left home because of a major disagreement with his 'family', he's now got his own gang, he's not wearing smart clothes anymore nor is he wearing his glasses and he's shagging the 'bad girl'. He hasn't totally broken ties with his family when when he sees them he's sullen and distant. I doubt he had a chance to be a rebelious adolecent, I almost expect him to start going to heavy metal concerts and smoking (not just ciggaretes)

As for W/L, that strikes me as a car crash waiting to happen. I think it's possible that Lilah's relationship with him will cause her problems at work, esp if she used her relationship with him to sell herself to the senior partners over Linwood. I wonder what Wesley would do if being involved with him put her in danger. It could get interesting if he has to go to Angel to help rescue her.

Ok, that's it. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted anything, as I say, I haven't seen the ep yet and won't till next year GRRR AAARGH
[> SMG have anything to do with Last Nites Angel 7.3? -- neaux, 04:04:18 10/21/02 Mon

Isnt it Ironic or just plain weird that Angel story last nite could be directly compared to the recently released on DVD Scooby Doo?

I find this horrifying.
[> [> Oops I meant 4.3 -- neaux, 04:06:56 10/21/02 Mon

Evil Willow's Use of Technique in "Two to Go/Grave" (Spoilers galore including Season 7) -- Sophomorica's first essay, 19:35:41 10/20/02 Sun

Outline:
Teleportation Skills (cut)
Rack
The Raping of Giles
Required Review of Clothing


Burp.

After fine-dining on the entrails of some poor slob on the subway, I'm feeling bored tonight. So, I thought that I would re-watch and write an essay about last years "Two to Go/Grave" epeisodes, which I have been meaning to do for quite some time. I would excuse my slowness based on somebody taking the computer apart for a month over the summer, but after she finally put the thing back together, it did turn out rather nice. Now if I could just convince her to replace this slow-ass IDE hard drive for a screaming fast SCSI cheetah drive... Keyboard needs replacing, too, I might add.

Oh bah with the sad faces, the poor sod was offering food - ok, so he meant the food in his bag for the homeless (which, gratefully I am not homeless). What is it with this recent trend of giving food to the homeless on the subway, anyway? His entrails were delcicoius and I feel quite satiated.

I absolutely adore Evil_Willow and I am so upset with her returning to normal weepy Willow. How can she repent? Turn back to goodness? I just don't understand.

Willow playing coy with Rack, then stealing magicks from him. She did that so well. Brilliaint I will add. The sexual intrigue is there, at least on Rack's part. Does this count as rape, if I am goingto accuse her of rapng Giles?

Damn, where'd that remote go? Hate watching ads. Oops, spilled a my wine. Damn, the keyboard ot wet. Sh*t. The doesn't work. Maybe she'll buy a new keyboard fnally. This mi ht turn out to be a ood ni ht after all.

Fastforward past Anya and Xander fi htin .

enerally, rape is defined as forcin oneself upon another for sexual intercourse. Willow doesn't technically have sex with iles but she does violate his body when she reaches inside of his chest to steal the ma icks. iles may have expected Willow to steal the ma icks that he borrowed, but he couldn't be sure that she'd do it or not. And even if he did, he still wouldn't ive her expicit permission to stick her hand into his body/chest.

Willow and iles have fou ht before, but never at this intense a level. Angry iles does look cute, thou h.

Violatin someone else's body creates a stron bond between iles and Willow. I had not thou ht about them as lover's before this ep, but can't stop wishin for it to happen ever since. If Willow

( iles' lau hin when Buffy tells him about sleepin with Spike is too funny.)

and iles ot it on, it would add an excitin replacement tension/dynamic to their relationship. She does copy Rack's methods of troture with pinnin iles alternatively to the floor then the ceilin then the flor. The dychotmoy of Willow enjoyin the or asm from stealin iles' ma icks, while iles lies nearly dead on the floor is incredible. And to think that Willow reforms over the summer! Ar hhh!

The endin is a bit of a let down, thou h. Oh well.


Fashion Review

Why is Buffy wearin a winter coat in May in Southern California? I do think that I like bra-less Buffy in Season 7 best.

I love Evil_Willow's black hair, black eyes, and veiny face. I even adore her shirt with a azzilon buttons.
[> Oh dear... -- Sophie, embarrassed, 06:06:43 10/21/02 Mon

[removes keyboard and puts it in dishwasher.]
[> Winter coats in May -- CW, 06:42:48 10/21/02 Mon

Must be some kind of Sunnydale tradition. She also wears a heavy jacket in the evenings in Graduation pts 1 and 2. And I thought Angel was cold blooded.
The Real Meanings of your screennames... -- The Second Evil & the Peanut Gallery, 20:00:01 10/20/02 Sun

It's been *cough* a few months since we've done this last, so I will reintroduce everyone to the concept. Every now and then, the Peanut Gallery and I get a little restless. And we post our first impressions of the screennames folks are using on the boards... and these are the results. As always, no malicious purpose intended, all in good fun, do not use while under the influence, contents may be under pressure, and all other standard disclaimers apply.


aliera - Mistress of the Not So Dark
alcibiades - Euripedes trousers, Eumenedes trousers
Arethusa - also sprach.
Darby - recently promoted to chimneychase.
Dead Soul - Flatfoot
Dochawk - formerly Steve A. Dore
Dyna - might!
Etrangere - one of them fancy breakfronts
Finn Mac Cool - Irish sushi
frisby - desperately seeking Pyramus
Herne - god of pulled muscles
HonorH - careful, the ice... is slippery.
Indri - Got insurance?
Ironmaiden - "Get your hands off my Aquanet."
JM - minus Paul Weller
Littlebit - Dr. Watson's personal assistant
luna - reversed Freudian
KdS - are alright
MayaPapaya9 - lifetime highpoint: Fruit of the Loom walkon.
Miss Edith - dressmaker to the stars
oboemaboe - Connected to the armbone, connected to the...
ponygirl - National Velveteen
rabbit - a frog without spellchecker
Rowan - as hard as she can.
Rufus - in over her head.
Scroll - down to the corner for a capachino
shadowkat - Sundog's evil twin
skpe - "smooth or extra chunky?"
Slain - "And stop calling me a Scottish skirt."
Sophie - Couchie's younger sister
Tamara - creeps in her petty pace, from day to day...
Tchaikovsky - Decomposer
TeacherBoy - ...not to play with that thing
Wiscoboy - "When I grow up, I wanna be Libman."
ZachsMind - If found, please return to...


And here folks were thinking I was actually talking about them catching up on doing their poster bios... fools!

bwahaha.
[> *raises hand* -- HonorH (the frightfully dull), 21:02:51 10/20/02 Sun

Um, I don't get mine. Am I just dumb?

(Don't answer that.)
[> [> *also raises hand* -- Darby, 06:31:52 10/21/02 Mon

The club is growing - me neither.
[> [> [> well, here's a hint. -- The Second Evil, 06:46:48 10/21/02 Mon

First of all, if you don't get the joke from looking at your name... say it outloud. Repeat it outloud five or six times, really fast. Start to think of what it might sound like, if you weren't being as precise in how you're saying it, if you were slurring it, or rushing it. Remember, what you're getting here are two different people's impressions, which can sometimes be based on a not-entirely-accurate understanding of the screenname.
[> [> On or ouch... -- alcibiades, 07:06:13 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> Neither do I -- Etrangere, 14:37:28 10/21/02 Mon

What's a breakfront ?
[> [> [> One of them cabinet type thingies... -- dubdub ;o), 14:43:27 10/21/02 Mon

Isn't there one called an etagere, or something like that?

Just tryin' to be helpful!

;o)
[> [> [> [> Oh yeah... a shelf ! -- Etrangere, 15:22:31 10/21/02 Mon

lol ! So I'm used to keep stuff tidy, huh ? so unlike me...
[> [> [> [> [> but you're an especially *fancy* thingum to keep china and knickknacks... ;-) -- Solitude1056, 16:46:25 10/21/02 Mon

[> Hey, I didn't get one! Come on, guys, think of something clever for me! ;o) -- Rob, 23:06:23 10/20/02 Sun

[> [> how about... -- anom, 11:04:19 10/21/02 Mon

"Rob - man of steal"?

Or is that too obvious?
[> [> Look below for Pt II... we weren't done yet! -- The Second Evil, 12:45:06 10/21/02 Mon

Although I like Anom's, too, so pick which one you think is funniest, Rob, and that's what'll go in the final version. ;-)
[> [> [> Cool, thanks. I felt so left out! Flashbacks to gym class...LOL. -- Rob, 21:53:53 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> I posted my answer as a response to Part II...so you're just gonna have to scroll down to find out! -- Rob, 22:03:51 10/21/02 Mon

mwahahahahahahahahaha!

Rob
[> You callin me short??;) -- Rufus, 00:38:31 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> well, the alternate was... -- The Second Evil & the Peanut Gallery, 12:42:56 10/21/02 Mon

Latin for "we do shingles."

;-)
[> Splendid -- Tchaikovsky, 02:31:21 10/21/02 Mon

They're decomposing composers
There's more of them every year
You can still here Debussy
But there's not much of him left to hear.

From Monty Python
[> [> Re: Splendid -- Sophie, 07:08:51 10/21/02 Mon

Liszt has a twist that you can't resist,
Ya ya put Liszt on that list.

Hayden!
Who?
HAYDEN!
Well, let him come out!

Kachaturian.
Gesundheit.
Thank you.

stolen from the Five Pennies, "Saints"
[> [> [> Re: Splendid -- anom, 11:11:27 10/21/02 Mon

The main classical station in DC used to (& maybe still does) sell bumper stickers that said:

"PUT WGMS ON YOUR CHOPIN LISZT!"
[> Re: The Real Meanings of your screennames... -- Sophie, 05:54:39 10/21/02 Mon

Frightfully, clever, and very humorous. But who's Couchie? Is that another alterego? As you can see my first evil alterego has run-amuck.

Sophie
[> [> Sheesh. -- The Second Evil, 06:48:44 10/21/02 Mon

I am NOT going to explain all of these, but here's a hint:

what do you put in your living room, and SIT on?

(bwahaha)
[> [> [> Thpththth! Double thpththth! -- Sophie, 06:55:34 10/21/02 Mon

[> extra chunky (but trying to fight it) -- skpe, 06:11:46 10/21/02 Mon

[> Re: The Real Meanings of your screennames... -- Purple Tulip, 06:47:48 10/21/02 Mon

I feel left out *frowns and sinks into a corner to cry for hours*
[> In this corner, debating Zarethustra, -- Arethusa, 07:06:06 10/21/02 Mon

sprachen Arethusa, who concedes the lack of a deity, but will prove the necessity of morality in five minutes or less. Next week: She challenges John Stewart Mill to a drinking contest, to see who can drink the most without passing out!
[> Hey, *I* get my name! -- Scroll, 07:08:26 10/21/02 Mon

Scroll - down to the corner for a capachino

Never at night or through dark alleys. But possibly to the local beer store, not Starbucks. ;)
[> [> I'd give myself an Evil nickname, but . . . -- Scroll, 07:21:14 10/21/02 Mon

What with everybody coming up with names for their more Evil selves, I have come to the realisation that I'll never be able to post under an alter ego because

I. Lack. Snark.

It's kinda sad, really. I mean, what's a world without snark? A place full of sunshine and roses, little children hippity-hopping in green meadows like bunnies out to get poor Anyanka. I'm not like Honorificus, who can denigrate her worthless inferiors, or D'Horrible, who can inspire much fear and adoration, or those most magnanimous Evils to whom we bow down and do much genuflection. Alas, I'm a humble Scroll who couldn't figure out the right combination of humour, sarcasm, and arrogance to save her pitiful life. I mean, even this post is lame beyond all lameness.

Sheesh. I should just give up the field to my betters and concentrate on being a meek little mouse.

Scroll (squeak-squeak)
[> [> [> You're in luck. -- The Second Evil, 07:34:42 10/21/02 Mon

I don't do 'evil!twin' names, only the primary screennames used by folks. The evil!names are intended to be rather amusing (not to mention they play on the original names) so there's not much challenge in letting creativity run amok on first impressions.
[> [> [> [> Oh, I get what you were doing... -- Scroll, 07:51:05 10/21/02 Mon

Yeah, I know you were just playing around with our primary posting names. I should've written OT for my above post.

What that last post was about was my half-hearted self-pity regarding my complete inability to write in an interesting, possibly evil, second persona. In fact, I kinda think my first persona isn't all that exciting to begin with. HonorH has Honorificus, d'Herblay has d'Horrible, OnM has the Third Evil, Rahael has Azrahael... My problem (and this is perhaps indicative of my social interactions in real life as well) is that I don't know how to joke around. Problem is, I'm well aware of the fact that I don't know how to joke around. And I want to! I wish I could be snarky, I just can never get into the zone. Or something.

Eh, like I said, very self-pitying. That poor Scroll, no sense of humour at all. (Well, I have one, I'm just not very good at portraying it in writing). Hence the problem... :o}
[> [> [> [> [> Rahael is pretty humourless as well!! -- Azrahael, 08:05:14 10/21/02 Mon

She's so serious! Always a poem or some boring old book that no one ever reads. Pretentious much?

And also prone to bouts of self pity. cackle.

Most of her jokes in real life are geeky historian/poetry type jokes that her boss sometimes gets. Goes totally over the head of her friends. They just stare at her and say "you are so sad!"

It's an insect reflection thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Well, I *like* Rahael's posts! -- Scroll, 08:57:33 10/21/02 Mon

So back off, Azrahael! Sheesh, those alter egos can be so critical, huh? But I do love the poetry you quote, and I put those old books my ever-growing list of Books I Must Read But Will Never Find Time To Read. Hmm, confess I've never noticed the self-pity thing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, I *like* Scroll's posts! So there! -- Rahael, 10:21:20 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Azrahael, dear, I keep telling you, you should just EAT that poor girl's insect reflection. -- CathSith, 11:07:46 10/21/02 Mon

Perhaps you could serve it with a nice roasted honeybee sauce and the slightest sprinkle of burnt spider web on top (yum! now I'm making myself hungry).
[> [> [> [> [> Frankly, as I was telling someone on Saturday... -- Solitude1056, 08:08:39 10/21/02 Mon

I tend to use The Second Evil when I'm either being particularly snarky (like the Real Meaning posts), or when I'm acting in an official capacity (as Fictionary webmaster). The rest of the time I usually stick to Sol, unless irked. I don't mind Evil!Names if there's a cheatsheet somewhere, and there is - the F.A.Q. - and I'm on it, so I don't bother explaining who I am 'cause I know there's a place for people to look. Besides, 2nd Evil doesn't really relate to any posting names; it's not an obvious one like the current trend of Evil!Names. So it definitely needs to be listed somewhere as explanation, I suppose.

This is OT for this particular thread, but I's gotta say it: the only beneficial thing about the Evil!names is that it lets me know when it's okay to ignore a post. Snarky posts writing from the anti-Buffyverse, or from an upside-down morality (or insert your own PC expression here) here amusing the first three or four times, but for me it just raises the noise-to-signal ratio after a while. So as long as you're posting as Scroll, I'll read your posts regularly. I may be around more recently, but I still don't have time to read every single post, so frequently I pick a place to start based on recognizing the person's screenname. I suppose Evil!Names are good then - it lets me know it's probably okay to skip that post.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, I have read the FAQ -- Scroll, 08:49:42 10/21/02 Mon

It just totally slipped my mind that you're listed there, Sol. Sorry about that. And as for lack of time, I can well understand. The snarky, upside-down morality ep reviews are pretty funny to read, though. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> The FAQ needs updating with regard to nicknames. -- Sophie, 08:51:04 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, then let's do a roll-call -- The First Evil, 10:19:26 10/21/02 Mon

Anyone want to list all the posting names and their corresponding nick-names, or just chime in with their own?

I'm lazy, I don't want to go back through the archives to figure it out. : ) : )
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> see new thread -- Sophie, 10:26:12 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> [> considering what some of the scrolls on our favorite shows contain... -- anom, 11:21:06 10/21/02 Mon

...I'm not sure you need an evil nickname!
[> [> [> [> Lol! "I prophesy that you are doomed to wear plaids and stripes... for eternity! Bwahaha!!" -- Scroll, 12:51:18 10/21/02 Mon

[> Question -- The Second Evil, 07:48:58 10/21/02 Mon

Are "Ete" and "Etrangere" the same person? So many short-names and evil-names, I'm losing track... Where's that Evil!Name cheatsheet when you need it?
[> [> Yeah, same person -- Scroll, 07:56:12 10/21/02 Mon

Not Ete, but thought I'd answer since I remember reading her clarifying her lazy name "Ete" for someone in another thread.

Btw, I know I'm a total moron for not knowing this already, but what's your usual posting name? I know you're not OnM or Masq (3rd and 1st Evils?), so which one are you? (Cheat sheet would definitely help!)
[> [> [> I'm on the F.A.Q! -- Solitude1056, 08:01:09 10/21/02 Mon

[> Re: The Real Meanings of your screennames... Pt II -- The Second Evil & the Peanut Gallery, 08:59:44 10/21/02 Mon

Continuing... (as always)

Apophis - The Magic Dragon
azazel - Az it really?
Cecilia - gets around.
Chris - 83% Messiah
Corwin of Amber - What a card!
Deb - come out, come out...
lulabel - Last name: Avery
oceloty - The ex got the Jag.
Purple Tulip - ...and lavender mascara.
Rob - Future partner at Dewey, Cheatum & Howe
Tyreseus - Drives a minotaurus.
yabyumpan - Extra absorbent!
[> [> Oh, no, now I have to choose between this and anom's! -- Rob, 22:02:18 10/21/02 Mon

I hate picking sides! And they're both really funny.

Um...okay...I guess I'll go with yours because it's just slightly more subtle.

Sorry, anom, I still love ya! Please forgive me. :o)

Rob
[> LOL! nice one...Sundog -- shadowkat, 09:01:37 10/21/02 Mon

Maybe I should use that for my demon alter-ego??
[> Re: The Real Meanings of your screennames... -- ponygirl, 09:18:52 10/21/02 Mon

"She's certainly tamed that rabbit. But what man can tame her?"

Thanks guys!
[> To explain, again... and to ask an OnM-like favor. -- The Second Evil, 10:21:26 10/21/02 Mon

Have you ever met someone and formed a truly bizarre impression of their name, their personality, or their general outlook on life based on their nickname? And sometimes find out afterwards that what you heard as "Tweed" is actually "Thuy" (vietnamese, pronounced Twee), or it was "Jen" and you heard "Gem," and immediately thought of Dark Crystal and wondered what they'd look like as a muppet?

Keeping in mind that the only thing I have to go on, the majority of the time, is what you've written and the name you've selected... sometimes it's possible to also misread a person's screenname (or worse, read it correctly) and get the strangest first impressions. That's what these are. None is meant in harm, although I have changed some in the past where they might be misinterpreted. (I still adore "genteel space cadet" for Lady Starlight!)

These have nothing to do with alter egos, and if you choose to go that route, I take no responsibility... as for my favor, it's becoming clear that perhaps OnM was on the right track but the wrong tree: instead of identifying spoilers, could you identify yourself if you're posting under a different name for the first ten times? It'll take about that long for me to create a connection in my overworked brain that Person A = Person B.

Thanks.
[> Don't know whether to feel hurt . . . -- Sarand, 13:43:35 10/21/02 Mon

or relieved that you did not come up with a clever meaning for my name (besides Saran Wrap with a "d"). ;)
[> [> well... -- The Second Evil, 16:31:54 10/21/02 Mon

If you hadn't posted within the past day or so - and thus had your name on the current front page - then I probably missed your name & didn't put it on the list. Never fear, you've posted now - you're toast.

(But in a good way.)

Bwahahahaha.
[> [> [> Oh, when will I learn to leave well enough alone! (NT) -- Sarand, 20:39:55 10/21/02 Mon

Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Tyresius, 20:47:44 10/20/02 Sun

Apologies if this topic has already been broached (I'm an every-other day reader who doesn't always get to read every thread).

So I was asking myself about the title of the epiode and suddenly it struck me like Thor's hammer -- Buffy rejected two pleas for help in the episode. The first one was Spike (although her ambiguous answer might lead us to believe that she thought she was helping him) and the second was Peter with her cold "office hours" comment.

Now, I know that both Spike and Peter have disqualified themselves as innocents, but still... Spike and Peter have both been rendered harmless (and actually in quite a bit of pain) by their own actions. Does she have no mercy?

There's been a lot of talk about Buffy's inability to help Cassie and Buffy trying to cope with the reality that she cannot save everyone. How about those she simply refuses to help?

I won't get into the debate over why/how she turned away from Spike, but the refusal of Peter bothers me. Here's why... Buffy's new role as Guidance Counselor takes her even further away from Slayer tactics than I think she even realizes yet. In the past, "protect innocents, kill demons, neutralize human bad guys" has always been the operation. But now, her job is not only to protect young people, but to GUIDE them.

Now, I've never been a high school guidance counselor, but I've held a number of positions where I worked with at-risk youth. One of the cardinal rules is that you can't give up on the "bad apples." For example, at a multi-cultural, prejudice reduction camp, I wanted nothing more than to smash the skull of a smart-mouthed skin head (we're talking about some serious KKK attitudes). He deliberately antagonized the Latino and African-American campers and threatened to kill one boy who held the triple strikes of being black, gay and smaller than the other boys. As much as I wanted to write this kid off and have nothing more to do with him... ever, I had accepted a position as role model and had to continue trying to bring him around to a less hate-filled view of others. (Side note: ultimately, the kid did realize the selfishness and hurt he was doing to himself and others, I'm now proud to call him a friend)

My point is, with all that we've discussed Buffy entering the adult world, she still hasn't grasped it all yet. As a Guidance Couselor, her job includes a lot more than "protecting the kids." She hasn't grasped that yet. Pricipal Woods didn't bring her on because she can kick some serious vamp buttocks, he hired her because he thought she would be able to relate to his students and act as a good role model. (The debate is still out on whether or not he anticipated having problem students who attempt sacrificing their peers to raise demons).

Will Buffy ever realize that the fight against evil isn't just a matter of killing demons, but also includes guiding the ambiguous and misguided towards a path of good. She understands it when her friends are the ones who go all black-hair and veiny, but does it occur to her that Peter and Spike might just need some attention and the kind of love that Xander used to save Willow?

One last thought - the mythological connection of Cassie/Cassandra... Cassandra's murder (along with Agammemnon) was part of a lenghty cycle of vengence murders. Clytemnestra killed Cassandra and Agammemnon because Ag. had killed their daughter. In return, Electra and Orestes killed their mother Clytemnestra. The cycle kept going because killing a family member earned you the wrath of the furies, but not getting vengeance was also bad. The whole thing ultimately had to be settled by the gods in a court. I haven't spotted any direct tie-ins to the plot of BtVS yet, but I think there are definate possibilities (re: vengeance demons).
[> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:01:05 10/20/02 Sun

I don't think a guidance counselor's job description includes trying to work out problems with a kid right after he tried to kill a girl. At the moment, Buffy and Peter weren't so much in Counselor and Student roles so much as Law Enforcer and Perpetrator roles. Plus, as Buffy pointed out, she wasn't on duty as guidance counselor at that moment.

As for Spike, remember the episode Amends? What was one of the chief ways the First Evil tormented Angel? With the images of the people he hurt. And, of all the people Spike has hurt and killed, his attempt to rape Buffy seems to be the one he feels the worst about. Her being there acts as a powerful reminder of what he did, and the guilt from his newly gained soul is only increased. Besides, what exactly do you want Buffy to say to Spike?
[> [> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Tyreseus, 21:24:45 10/20/02 Sun

Yeah, I admit that Peter wasn't exactly in the most sympathetic position. And your comment about the Law Enforcer and Perpetrator roles is great. But presumably, the next day, she's going to have to put on that Guidance Counselor hat again and see Peter walking the halls with a bandage over that bite wound from the demon. Will she continue to ignore his need for help then?

As for Spike, you're absolutely right. Her presence probably does increase the guilt. But didn't he ask her to stay? I have no idea what she should say to him (maybe Cassie does), but I believe that sooner or later she's going to have to become involved in Spike's healing process (and her own).
[> [> [> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:07:13 10/20/02 Sun

Provided Peter comes to her for guidance (unlikely) or if he is sent to her (which I also doubt, since if what he did comes to light he'd be off to jail, not a counselor's office).
[> [> [> [> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Deb, 22:34:50 10/20/02 Sun

Just an observation: Yes, Buffy didn't help Spike after she asked for help, but what could she do? She couldn't help herself last season without Spike's silent acceptance of what she confided in him. There was an "innocent" in danger, and Spike is not an innocent, and besides if he can help her he can probably help himself. And, besides besides, he will always be around because he loves her, and he couldn't walk away from her. Look, he came back just to start a relationship with her again. And, besides, besides, besides, he seemed safe enough in a catatonic state. (This is an attempt to think like Her Buffiness.) But, she did help, though it was caste as helping herself by using Spike. They needed to follow a blood trail, and she gets Spike. I love the line where he says something like "Well helping doesn't seem to help."

I have a question that needs answering badly: What did the pre-cog girl say to Spike after he removed the "miracle, cure for all woes" duck tape from her mouth . . . and not so gently I might add. Ouch!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Chris, 02:36:16 10/21/02 Mon

She said, "She'll tell you; someday she'll tell you".
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Deb, 05:35:25 10/21/02 Mon

Thanks Chris! N/T
[> [> Geez, go read Dyna's post above -- the pain being felt there is by Buffy -- azazel, 04:10:37 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> [> That's not quite the impression I meant to give, though-- -- Dyna, 08:26:08 10/21/02 Mon

The focus of my post was Buffy and trying to understand Buffy's feelings and behavior, mainly because they are what seems most in need of explaining. It's quite evident that Spike is in a great deal of pain pretty much all the time. I hope my argument doesn't seem to say that only Buffy felt pain in that scene!
[> [> [> [> You didn't. Don't worry. -- azazel, 09:25:01 10/21/02 Mon

Not at all. That Spike is in pain is obvious.

I just shorthanded you badly, cause, you know title heading and snappiness leads to imprecision.

I was responding to Finn saying Besides, what exactly do you want Buffy to say to Spike?

Probably I should have said Buffy is feeling her own pain.

And I should have underlined the fact that the important thing is Buffy has not even tried to deal with his pain -- she is too enmeshed in her own.

BTW, Dyna, I think did a great job of exposition.
[> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Robert, 21:35:31 10/20/02 Sun

>>> ... Buffy rejected two pleas for help in the episode.

Good point. I interpreted Buffy's actions as follows. She rejected Spike because she doesn't know how to help him. She rejected Peter because she didn't believe that he needed her help, or at least that he didn't need her help as immediately as Cassie did.

Looking at the situation from Buffy's point, Cassie wasn't yet out of danger, which of course is precisely what we find out moments later. Remember that Buffy knew about the booby trapped door. She was there in the circle when the kids were discussing it. Thus, she wasn't done yet in protecting Cassie. Peter, on the other hand, was busily making a career of crying wolf.

>>> One of the cardinal rules is that you can't give up on the "bad apples."

The question is whether Buffy has indeed done so. We won't know unless Peter comes to Buffy in a subsequent episode with an honest request for help.

The situation with Spike is much more complex, because Spike (unlike Peter) is honestly in need of help and to describe him as a bad apple doesn't do justice to Spike's crimes. This board has already given much thought about Buffy's response to Spike's plea, and I don't have anything additional to add.
[> Very OT, but i have to ask... -- Corwin of Amber, 22:02:04 10/20/02 Sun

>For example, at a multi-cultural, prejudice reduction camp, I wanted nothing more than to smash the skull of a smart-mouthed skin head

Isn't having a "skinhead" at a multicultural prejudice reduction camp kind of asking for trouble in the first place?
I'm assuming he wasn't there voluntarily.
[> [> Re: Very OT, but i have to ask... -- Tyreseus, 22:08:33 10/20/02 Sun

No, he wasn't there by choice. His high school guidance counselor (a large unathletic woman, very un-Buffylike) persuaded his parents to force him. But at the time, none of them knew how deeply his racist attitudes ran. Also, an element of Camp Anytown is that most of the kids don't exactly know what the purpose of the camp is before they arrive. It's explaned to them as a "leadership camp" and we let them draw their own conclusions until after the buses have left.
[> Re: Not helping in "Help" (spoilers AtVS 7.4) -- Cecilia, 05:32:35 10/21/02 Mon

"She hasn't grasped that yet. Pricipal Woods didn't bring her on because she can kick some serious vamp buttocks, he hired her because he thought she would be able to relate to his students and act as a good role model."

I sort of thought that was the point of the whole episode. Buffy knows how to "protect" people with her slayer-strength, she can kick some very serious vamp and/or demon butt. Having already survived Sunnydale High, she knows how important having those skills are to the lifespans of the student body. What she doesn't know yet, and I did see her struggling with it, is how she can be of help outside of her slayer powers. (Buffy: "Buffy the Vampire Slayer would kick this door in" Xander: "And Buffy the Guidance Counsellor?" Buffy: "She waits") This is what she doesn't know how to do yet, or thinks she doesn't. Remember this is the same girl/woman who has always doubted her inner personal strength. If she can't physically fight it, she feels lost. But her strength goes beyond her physical prowess, she demonstrates that time and time again, she just can't or won't focus on it.

I understand why she felt she had failed Cassie, anyone who is faced with the loss of another human being due to forces beyond our control would have some feelings like that. I would even venture to say that a non-slayer guidance counsellor would likely have some of those same feelings. But in her capacity as a guidance cousellor she did provide guidance and counselling to at least one student that we saw. Remember the boy who, though he employed a facade of streetwise toughness, was in turmoil over his older brother joining the army (or marines) and going off to war and possibly getting killed. She seemed, to me at least, to be doing exactly what Principal Wood hired her to do. She listened, she offered support and advice. This is her victory as a Guidance Counsellor. Saving Cassie from being offered up as a sacrifice was her victory as a Slayer, even if she ultimatley died anyway from natural causes. I think Buffy may be beginning to learn the distinction between the two.
[> Responsibility of Teachers - TeacherBoy, help? (spoilers 7.4) -- Scroll, 06:41:55 10/21/02 Mon

I was also struck by Buffy turning away from Peter when he was hurt. Yes, he isn't an innocent but he is still a student and an injured teen. As counsellor, part of the school staff, Buffy has a responsibility to the students, whether she likes them or not. I don't think any real life teacher could say she is only responsible for her students from 8am-3pm, and can therefore turn her back once her office hours are over. TeacherBoy or any other teachers, can you verify this?

I've noticed Buffy turning her back on injured villains before, and we've never really paid much attention to her actions because they felt justified. But I'm not sure we can or that we're supposed to feel they are justified in this instance. I'm not sure whether Buffy is *obligated* to help Peter (I kinda don't think she is) but it does reflect on Buffy (either badly or not) that she doesn't help him when he asks for it.

I do think how she reconciles helping not-so-innocents is something that will be dealt with some time this season. Or at least, I think the potential for this plot point is there. Good post, Tyresius!
[> [> Re: Responsibility of Teachers and Pot. New BB (spoilers 7.1,2,3, etc. etc.) -- Deb, 11:25:08 10/21/02 Mon

Buffy turning her back on injured nasties is a dramatic device. She is actually turning her back on her "injured" half. (Just that special tinted lens I view the world through.) Real teachers probably would not be there in the first place, nor counselors. Do you know how much home work teachers have?! Really can't compare Buffy fiction to "real" life. I've had to intervene on a potentially dangerous situation only once in three years and I didn't go into it without backup. Now, the fights I can break up pretty well now. Teenagers don't think before they fling themselves at someone (girls) or throw the first punch (after dancing around in a circle, throwing out insults for a few minutes to attract a crowd -- boys), and well, a good self defense class helps wonders.

That principal knows something or else Buffy would not be there. Big, Big Bads are soooo nice when they first present their faces.
[> [> Re: Responsibility of Teachers - TeacherBoy, help? (spoilers 7.4) -- TeacherBoy, 16:34:07 10/21/02 Mon

This is a fairly juicy topic, and one that I thought a lot about both during the ep and afterwords. Before I make my serious comment, I want to share something with you that I thought during the episode, because it might be relevant to my answer.

So I'm watching, and I'm seeing Buffy talking to the students at the beginning (during the montage), her dealings with Cassie, and her interactions with Peter. When she made that comment to Peter, my first reaction was, "Geez, Buffy, that's not really appropriate..." Then I thought to myself, 'Wait just a second me, I can accept, for the purposes of this show the existence of vampires, Slayers, etc., but *not* the way that a school is portrayed?!' Point being, I see Buffy's actions not in the light of a real world school employee, but as a Slayer.

For me, the most interesting question is not how Buffy should be compared to a real world counseler, but do her actions make sense as a fictional character (i.e. "Vampire Slayer") within a dramatic context ("Buffy the..."). My one word answer is yes, for the most part.

At the beginning of the episode, we see Buffy having to talk to a variety of students about a variety of problems. No big suprise here. It seemed that quite a few posters had problems with Buffy in this ep (not a shock), and they seemed to say something along the lines of 'she wasn't being compassionate.' I'm not sure if this is just refering to Spike, but I thought she was great with the students. Throughout the episode, in fact. I thought her efforts with Cassie were above and beyond the call of duty, even for the Slayer. But I am going to skip most of the ep, and just look at the last scene with Peter.

The line about office hours is what seems to have people talking. Would a real life counselor say this? None that I've met. Then again, I've never met any counselors who battle the forces of darkness at night, either. So the real question is, is this line (and her attitude toward Peter) fair, *even for Buffy*? I say absolutely, and here's why. Yes, everyone who works in a school is duty bound to do everything possible to help students in need, whatever our feeling toward that student. No matter how much they have screwed up in the past. That having been said, there is a limit to that, and to me it is a bright, shining line. That line is, "Is this student a danger, either now or in the near future, to the health and safety of the students and/or the staff?" Let me be clear, Buffy may have been a little flippant, but remember, *this student was planning to commit the premediated murder of another student*. To me, that is the line, and she is completely justified in what she did.

Here, though, is where real life and Buffy's life diverge. In real life, the student would be expelled, arrested, made to go through mandatory counseling, etc., before he could even think about returning to school. But remember, Buffy is the Slayer. By neccesity, she tends to see the world a little more black and white than others, even in the Buffyverse. So she pummels him, leaves his pathetic ass on the ground, and even manages to get off a snide comment as she walks away. Another reason I feel this way is her dealings with the other boys who tried to summon the demon. She physically threatens a student in order to get information. Real life? Loss of job and possible jail time. Buffverse? Buffy is the Slayer, and has neither the time nor the inclination to have a sit down with this student and discuss feelings. However, notice what Buffy does to the OTHER sudents after she kills the demon. Does she beat them up? Make snarky comments? No. Because they went along with Buffy (in the end), it seems that they are off the hook (with the unspoken but very clear thought that there is a counsellor in the school who can, at will, beat the crap out them if they pull something like that again. The ultimate time-out).

I realize this line of arguement begs a rather obvious question. So would Buffy beat the snot out of a student who brought a gun to school? I think the answer is clearly no, for any number of reasons. First, as has been made painfully clear in the history of the show, Buffy's role as the Slayer begins and ends with the supernatural (come to think of it, that was the point of this episode as well. Boy, nothing gets by me :). Peter summoned a demon, not a gun, and is therefore on Buffy's turf. Not only are there real limits to what she *can* do, but also what she *should* do. Finally, this has come up before, in an episode I just re-watched (Earshot). Buffy didn't smack Jonathan around, she talked him out of the gun.

To sum up? If you go to Sunnydale High School, and you have a regular problem, you are going to find a great counselor there. If you bring a gun to school, you'll find that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons. Summon a demon to kill one of your classmates, and you are well, truely (and deservedly) screwed.

TeacherNoy, who is only speaking for himself, and not for teachers in general

ps - I forgot to mention how totally wrong, even for the Slayer, it was to go to Cassie's step-fathers house, but that is a post for another time.
[> [> [> Slayer responsibilities vs. counselors & teachers' responsibilities -- Dariel, 20:09:57 10/21/02 Mon

Eureka! Thank you, TeacherBoy. Your post made me finally understand why I disliked this episode so much. All of the lines between what a Slayer does/how Buffy operates, and what a counselor does, got all mixed up. Because Buffy is a bit mixed up--she hasn't figured out her role yet. The whole thing pushed my buttons bigtime.

As you mentioned, going to the father's house, and then making an accusation--wrong on so many levels! Inappropriate. In a cases of abuse, potentially dangerous for the child. She doesn't even tell him why she's concerned about Cassie, which drove me nuts! But that's the way Buffy works--she thinks it's all on her, and tends not to bring others in. When a parent is, in a case like this, the first person you want to bring in.

And Buffy is so all over the place with the authority thing. She doesn't recognize the importance of the parental role in protecting a child, and yet she's got locker searches going on. She also kind of threatens Cassie's friend (Mike?) in an inappropriate, heavy handed way. More like a hall monitor/school cop.

BTW, I don't agree about Peter belonging on the supernatural side of the law, or justice, or what have you. He attempted to kill another student on school property, and there were witnesses. I don't fault Buffy for a lack of compassion--I fault her for not calling the police. Again, she's trying to handle everything herself, figures she'll keep an eye on him. Which means the kid's going to cause trouble again.
[> [> [> [> The Crime Scene -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:22:54 10/21/02 Mon

If she called the police, there's the issue of not letting them see the crime scene because there's a charred demon corpse in there.
Whence the authority of leadership on Angel (by JM): a late response -- oceloty, 01:12:49 10/21/02 Mon

I'm sorry to have missed the initial discussion (now archived), with JM's essay, and some equally thoughtful responses from yabyumpan, KdS, and other posters whose names my computer won't let me paste. I really enjoyed JM's insightful analysis of Wes, and this is an attempt to address some of the issues raised by his/her post (and perhaps give a slightly different perspective).

As JM wrote, Wesley's actions were the logical extension of his previous characterization. He did what he thought he had to do at great personal cost, and the consequences were tragic. While Wes regrets the terrible outcomes, he doesn't seem to regret his choices. He's not sorry for what he's done, only that it turned out so badly. He feels wronged by his friends' rejection: he did the right thing, but it didn't go well, and they turned on him for it (from Wes' perspective).

On the other side, we have Gunn, Fred, and Angel, who also feel wronged. From their perspective, Wes didn't trust them enough to tell them about the prophecy; instead, he acted in a way that jeopardized all their lives and got Connor kidnapped into a hell dimension by Holtz. Did Wes make a mistake? We can never know what would have happened if Wes had acted differently (I personally think they would have turned out better), but regardless of the consequences, Wes violated his friends' trust by not telling them. Therefore, to the gang, Wes' actions weren't heroism but betrayal, so much the worse because they trusted him. Worse, Wes shows no sign of remorse, so now he hasn't just violated their trust, he's turned his back on them (from the gang's perspective).

JM has discussed Gunn, so I'm going to focus on Angel, who I think exemplifies the the anti-utilitarianism of the gang. From the beginning of the series, Angel's mission has been about helping the hopeless rather than stopping the big bad. This is made explicit in "Judgment" when the whiteboard is junked. Over the years, Angel's philosophy has evolved (e.g. his epiphany in "Epiphany" and new perspective in "Deep Down") but the core premise remains: saving people one soul at a time.

Angel's background is also the opposite of Wesley's. Wes is the product of the Watcher Council, and however much he may change, he will always have his roots in an organization that is rooted in the exercise authority. Angel on the other hand comes to his fight by an odd combination of destiny, choice and hapstance. He has a role in the battle between good and evil but no one seems to know what is; he has tremendous potential but only occasional guidance from a mysterious higher power as to how it should be used. He has a long history of conflict with authority, from his troubled relationship with his father as a mortal, to his rejection of the Master's authority. I think Angel's view of authority remains mostly negative, especially given his experiences with the Watcher Council during Buffy's Cruciamentum and the Mayor's ascension. My point is that Angel's perception of authority is 180 degrees from Wes: therefore while Angel may understand Wes' reasons, Angel himself would not have acted as Wes did.

One more point about Angel: at the end of season 2, he asked to return to his friends, not as their leader but their employee, because he no longer trusted his own judgment. In handing over the leadership position to Wesley, Angel trusted him to do the right thing. I think this probably added to Angel's feeling of betrayal, when he found out what Wes had done.

So here we are with a four people (and a missing Cordelia), all of whom believe they're owed apologies by the other side. The writers have constructed this dilemma so that both sides think they're in the right. And perhaps they are. Would you betray someone you loved, to save him and everything he believes in? I think most of us have a very strong answer to that question, and yet there isn't a single definitive right or wrong. It's question of what you, or Wes, or Angel, value most. Most of us are fortunate: we have the luxury of distance to debate these issues. Wes, Angel, Gunn, et al are living them (albeit fictionally). Reconcilation and future relationships, or the lack thereof, depend how they deal with these issues.

I think that as long as both Wes and the gang believe they're right, they cannot reconcile. (I'm going to skip a discussion of forgiviness because this is way too long already.) Having had their trust betrayed, Gunn, Fred, and Angel cannot simply take Wesley back without either believing he won't betray them again, or accepting the more ruthless aspects of Wes' beliefs. If they're going to trust Wes again, he'll have to earn that trust. For his part, Wes must either reconsider those beliefs, or be willing to explain them. I don't think either will happen soon; Wes seems to have completely adopted the ends-justify-the-means philosophy, while Gunn, Fred and Angel show no willingness to adopt the same attitude.

In the past, ME has tended to come down on the side of the anti-utilitarians, but
to be honest, I don't think that's the case here. Rather, I think the writers are trying to make the point that both taken to extremes, each position is flawed, and what's really necessary is to strike a balance. Individually, Angel and Wesley possessed some qualities which made them excellent leaders; however, they also possessed weaknesses which led them to make errors in judgement.

Where is ME really going with this? One thing I find interesting is the way Wesley's descent (or development, to use a more neutral term) in seasons 3 and 4 has evolved much like Angel's in season 2. The last few episodes of season 3 also had more than a few visual parallels between Wes and Angel. (There's another whopper of a post in that comparison, which I would love to get to later.) Personally, I would like to see Wes' current dark phase be used as a springboard for more positive character growth, just as Angel's walk on the dark side was a fulcrum for his epiphany and growth. I would also like to see the relationship between Wes and Angel evolve; while their troubles are currently a source of conflict, they could eventually be a means for the characters to better understand each other and maybe even grow closer. Finally, entering the realm of pure speculation, perhaps we will see Angel face a similar dilemma, perhaps in which he'll have to choose between the good of the one and the good of the many (Connor vs. the world?) and grow himself as a result.

Well, this is much longer than I had planned. So much for a short post before bedtime. I didn't mean to go on and on, but I have very much enjoyed the discussion. Thank you to anyone who got this far and hope it was worth the read.
[> Spoilers for ATS S3, S4 discussed generally, above (nt) -- oceloty, 01:17:47 10/21/02 Mon

[> Re: Whence the authority of leadership on Angel (by JM): a late response -- JM, 06:22:53 10/21/02 Mon

Thanks for reading my thread oceloty. I want to respond as soon as I can to yours and alcibiades below, too. Unfortunately I'm in class today, so I'll have to wait till this evening. And there's no such thing as too long. Except for when it interferes with the need to sleep. LOL.
The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:21:52 10/21/02 Mon

First off, sorry, OnM. Decimal spoiler numbers are a very good idea, but unfortunately it's the new people posting spoilers who are the biggest problem. I think using numbers would just be intimidating. - Translation - I'd never remember what number meant what.

Judging by the lack of posts, I suspect others found this episode of Angel a tad off-base, as I did. Kind of a fun idea not gone totally wrong, but one taking the long way to Vegas so to speak. I didn't buy the destiny stealing idea. Kind of predestination gone beserk. If a destiny was so easy to steal Wolfram and Hart would have all of them by now. In fact, it looked like a good opportunity for W&H to ride in and save the day for their own devious ends. I was disappointed in the Angel-would-fight-for-us-anyway outcome. I certainly don't mind Lorne being one of the big heros of the piece.

Andy Hallet has a fine voice, but for me lounge-style singing strips away all the feeling (as artificial as it may indeed be in other styles) and replaces it with stylized glitz. Very much like the ladies who sing the seventh-to-last word of the US national anthem as free-ee instead of free, because they want to show off themselves instead of the song, it sort of makes me nauseous. So, maybe I have an unfair bias against the ep from the moment he starts his act onward.

Also Cordy's return seems a little heavy on the deja vu. Haven't we seen enough folks returning from hell/other dimensions disoriented and out of touch with this dimension? Okay, so Cordy gets kicked out of near-heaven for helping the gang back here? Is that all there is?

Have to say that the House Always Wins is the weakest ep of the season so far. But, fortunately, it's been a very fine season up to this point.
[> Re: The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- Darby, 06:48:28 10/21/02 Mon

Gotta agree, it's a typical "Road Trip!" on-location episode.

And since when did Lorne's readings get so specifically precognitive? Isn't his gift more the emotional condition and immediate direction of the current singer? And if the destinies were so valuable and Lorne's been there for months, why was the repository full of chips? Hadn't they been selling them off? Maybe the volume was incredible, but wouldn't that bring the price down?

Also thought the loungy aspect was too stereotypical (at least there were no lizard references), but I've no experience in that area, so maybe it was a great take-off on it. Anybody know?

The continued attention to Gunn and Fred is fun and well-deserved - they're broadening out Gunn without sacrificing what's gone before (his accusation of Lorne showed this), and Fred is definitely moving somewhat beyond Willow-lite. And it looks like Wes and Lilah have an actual relationship - have we seen any foreshadowing of this Woman-Commanding Wesley before this season? How is this the guy who couldn't speak up to Fred, or is it feast or famine with him, depending on whether the woman is on a pedestal or in a pit?

One question - couldn't Connor hear his old man's commentary from the rooftop? We know that his hearing is incredibly sensitive. Maybe the fight distracted him, but Angel should have known enough to keep his comments silent - yeah, yeah, dull scene that way, but it bugged me. Maybe it'll turn out that Connor is aware of all of his "shadows."

- Darby, also agreeing that being this season's weakest ep thus far didn't make it bad - still enjoying it more than the Buffster.
[> [> And speaking of Connor... -- Masq, 07:20:13 10/21/02 Mon

Now I know how all those Spike fans feel. Connor becomes a regular on the show (in the opening credits, at least) and so he gets an obligatory 5 minutes in every episode and then disappears. Grrr Argh.

O.K., I know you Wesley fans will say the same thing about Wesley's five minutes (but what a five minutes he had. I'm still blushing).

Anyway, now I've officially gone over the deep end. Yes, I admit it. I am a Connor freak. More Connor!!
[> [> [> Re: And speaking of Wesley... -- Arethusa, 08:29:18 10/21/02 Mon

Evidently Wesley has been broadening his reading material, mixing in a little Penthouse with his ancient texts!

(Not that I would know what's in a Penthouse magazine, of course.)

I'm very interested in what happens next to Wesley, because every time he lets that smug little tone creep into his voice, he gets slapped down by fate. And his attitude towards his crew is now much clearer. He gives the orders, they obey instantly. He's eliminated trust, respect, and friendship from his relationships. How low is ME going to take Wesley?

I had very high hopes for this episode, so I was a bit disappointed. I guess I wanted "Midnight Run" and got "Viva Las Vegas." The build-up to the revelation about Lorne was good, but in a town built by mob violence and junk bonds you'd think the villain would be more than just another human guy with a glowy orb.

It's all Firefly's fault. It's so damn good-exciting, funny and quirky-that I want all Whedon's shows to be just as good, all the time. The man seriously needs to be cloned.
[> [> Re: The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- RichardX1, 07:26:52 10/21/02 Mon

>>Also thought the loungy aspect was too stereotypical (at least there were no lizard references)<<

What, you mean aside from Lorne's complexion?
[> Lounge singing and stylized glitz (O/T, no real spoilers) -- TRM, 06:50:20 10/21/02 Mon

I was a little upset not having seen the episode -- but I suppose a moderate review does make me feel slightly less disappointed. The ad campaign for it certainly interested me.

I just wanted to comment on lounge singing in general, however, and not really argue that it isn't stylized glitz, but to consider why lounge singers do what they do -- the goals of which isn't to create stylized glitz even if that is what results at the periphery. As a onetime member of a jazz band (high school, albeit), I recognize the cheesiness of the overabused gliss, slide, flip, or whatever musical embellishment one might employ randomly throughout a piece. On the other hand, people simply get bored sometimes. Musicianship isn't all that creative if you're playing the same piece over and over, and to combat the melodious monotony, you occasionally throw in some embellishment for your personal benefit and not necessarily for the listening enjoyment of others; this doesn't even have to be a form of self-aggrandization (though I agree that national anthem thing almost always is), though it is arguably a slightly selfish act. Lounge singers, in particular, I can imagine getting severely bored -- singing the same things day in and day out. I would imagine much of their stylization is a result of boredom as much as it is of the mirroring of the kitsch-ness of their environment.

Of course, there exists a great number of historical precedents to such embellishments, ranging from "Variations on a Theme" by Mozart through the rendition of "Pop Goes the Weasel" in "April in Paris." Though certainly the former is a much more regimented (in terms of it having a "proper" way of being played) version, whereas the latter offers much more personal improvisation. Also do note that I'm not saying that all improvisation results from boredom,
and we might say that the refusal of boredom is creativity.
[> [> That's a good explaination -- CW, 07:42:50 10/21/02 Mon

I do understand why lounge-style is sung the way it is (boredom, and trying to save one's vocal cords while doing all those shows). I'm just saying for me personally, it sounds bad. I've been listening to 'cheap' jazz on TV (worse than what we heard in the episode last night) since I was a kid, and never understood why people would go to a show to see it, unless they, too, were bored out of their minds.
[> Monetary Question (spoils spoils) -- neaux, 08:13:33 10/21/02 Mon

Uh.. so did Angel get the 300,000 and the car?
[> Re: The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- meritaten, 10:21:08 10/21/02 Mon

"Okay, so Cordy gets kicked out of near-heaven for helping the gang back here? Is that all there is?"

I'll start by saying that I had to catch the episode while I was doing three others things, so I need to watch it again. So, I may not be strong on the details, but I got the impression that Cordy intervenved. She definitely caused Angel to win on the slot machine. Couldn't she also have helped him find the drive to help his friends? I also thought that she might have played a role in releasing the destinies. I know that the orb-thing got smashed and that seemed key, but then I thought about Cordy losing her marbles. What if she had assisted in releasing the destinies and lost hers in the process?

Does this sound plausible to anyone?

Now I can't wait to sit down and watch the show again.
[> [> Re: The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- alcibiades, 10:58:40 10/21/02 Mon

Yeah, last year she subsumed her self - her destiny - more and more into Angel's until she started disappearing. She dressed Groo like Angel -- all the while not recognizing what she was doing. She never went to see Wesley because of Angel -- instead of acting like a friend to both -- only Angel's perspective was important. Meanwhile, now that Angel has an MC Escher perspective, he can see that not everything he did was right -- like trying to murder Wesley in cold blood (well duh, about the cold blood, because vampire, but you know what I mean).

But Cordelia was not able to see past Angel's emotional needs. She limited herself only to him and his needs -- no one else mattered -- she said wtte once in the hearing of Groo. As she said, she became a part demon on his behalf.

There is no healthy separation.

Now that C is in a heavenly dimension -- she's doing the same thing -- she's devoting her time to Angel's needs and she only wants Angel to rescue her. Meanwhile there is a whole wide world of benevolence to be spread -- but she's ignoring that in favor of herself and Angel's destiny.

So when she breaks the rules on his behalf -- because she thinks that only his destiny matters and can't stand back from Angel -- her loss of identity goes from the metaphorical to the real.

She regains her substance, her physical existence, but she loses her identity.

BTW, this episode has a bit of STSP in it. Cordy and Angel are in the ST, SP, only Angel can't see Cordy (because she chose to make herself invisible) but Cordy can't see anything but Angel and by extension, the friends he is with.
[> [> [> Re: The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- Rahael, 11:20:11 10/21/02 Mon

Nice post. More parallels - Buffy got thrown out of heaven as well.

Only - she didn't lose her memory, but had a terrible self knowledge that spoilt life in Sunnydale for her.

She thought that everyone was safe and well, while Cordelia worried about those she had left behind.

Buffy died to save the world (falling down). Cordy left the world and its problems behind her (rising up)
[> [> [> Re: The House always wins. (spoilers for the Angel ep) -- Miss Edith, 17:34:01 10/21/02 Mon

I'm a bit confused regarding Cordy. I thought the point of her ascending was so she could help others. What's the point of making her a higher being if all she does is stand around glowing. Hasn't she got any important work to do.
And I'm confused about why she expects Angel to help her. Is she being held prisoner against her will? She chose to ascend and I would love to know how it all works and why she felt she needed rescuing. Hopefully we'll get some answers soon as the scenes with Cordy were starting to become irritating and repetitive IMO.
[> [> [> [> We're all confused. Need. More. Data. -- alcibiades, 17:44:25 10/21/02 Mon

[> [> [> Cordy vs. Buffy (spoilers for 4.2) -- Rob, 20:44:00 10/21/02 Mon

I liked the contrasting between Buffy's stay in a heavenly dimension and Cordy's. Buffy's friends, when she dies, assume that she wants to be alive again, so they resurrect her, thus yanking her out of heaven, where she was so at peace. Cordelia, on the opposite end of the spectrum, is completely bored by being in a heavenly dimension, and wants to leave...but her friends decide to leave her there, deciding she must be happier where she is now. I think that comments a great deal on the fact that the "Angel" characters are less self-centered in their decision-making post Cordelia's "death" than the Scoobies were after Buffy's. The Scoobies needed Buffy, and didn't ever stop to think she might not want to come back. Of course, there's also the delicious irony that Cordelia really, really does want to return to Earth...and is annoyed that the others made the decision for her. So, in a roundabout sort of way, it is the same situation, come to think of it. In both cases, the heroine's decision is made for her.

Rob

P.S. You guys might notice this is my first "Angel" post, and that is because I have just started watching this season. Well, I actually began in the first season but lost interest...because, well the show, IMO, just wasn't that great then. But then started hearing all the buzz about how it was getting better, and sporadically watched throughout the second and third season. It was difficult, though, since I had another show on at the same time and didn't have a VCR setup where I could watch a different show as it taped. But now I finally made the commitment to watch, and am thoroughly enjoying it, even though I'm dreadfully confused by a lot of it! I'm still not quite ready to post on it with any authority, or on a regular basis, since I'm still getting a feel for the show. Just wanted to tell everybody that. :o)
[> [> [> [> one crucial difference -- anom, 10:01:48 10/22/02 Tue

"I think that comments a great deal on the fact that the 'Angel' characters are less self-centered in their decision-making post Cordelia's 'death' than the Scoobies were after Buffy's."

Angel had a chance to see Cordelia's situation & make his decision (wrong though it was!) on that basis. If Willow & the others who participated in resurrecting Buffy had had a chance to see that she was happy & at peace, they might have made a different decision. If they hadn't--if they'd decided that their need to have her back was more important than what she wanted--now, that would have been self-centered! Might have made for some interesting eps, though. And on the other hand, we don't know what lengths Angel & the rest of AI would have gone to to bring Cordelia back if they hadn't been able to get any further info on where she was. If they'd found a way to bring her back without actually finding her, I think they'd have done it. Angel's whole motivation for finding her was "I need her"--does that make him any less self-centered than the Scoobies were?
[> Hilarious! Joss poking fun at Greenwalt in this ep! -- Scroll, 11:17:59 10/21/02 Mon

Just thought I'd tack this onto this thread (hope you don't mind, CW). Read this on a friend's LiveJournal. I haven't seen this ep yet so can't verify, but don't see why it wouldn't be true. It's hilarious!

Did you notice....

David Greenwalt's future was one of the ones up for sale on the casino's ticker.

I only saw DG's because the words "new show" caught my eye and I thought to myself "Self, that sounds like a remarkable co-incidence". So when I was rewatching to drool over Wesley a few thousand times see if Angel's destiny was a different color from everyone else's (yes), I hit slow-mo on my remote and was able to read it. The words were something like "Deal with Disney for new ABC show"

Hopefully Greenwalt is a good sport about this, if he ever finds out!
[> [> Re: Hilarious! Joss poking fun at Greenwalt in this ep! -- Rahael, 11:23:35 10/21/02 Mon

I assume that he would take it in good spirit - since apparently the Mayor's obsession with cleanliness was taken straight from DG
[> Viva Las Angels (spoilers for the latest Angel ep) -- fresne, 11:36:20 10/21/02 Mon

So, I was sitting in a meeting and of course I wasn't thinking about the meeting, 'cause that'll never happen, instead I contemplated the falling vase on Angel.

Or rather falling connections. Glowy Cordelia dropping a payout on Angel's slot machine. Angel dropping a stone vase thingy in front of Connor's vamp. Both trying to connect with a someone from a vast distance and yet that distance is a matter of choice. Cordelia chose, if not wisely, her heavenly prison. Angel chose to, how exactly can that complex stream of events be characterized, kick Connor out. Yet, now he stalks from above. If Fred and Gunn are to believed, every night. He says advice, but Connor can't see him. Can't hear him. Cordelia asks for help, gives advice, mostly asks for help and is unheard.

Both plot trends extremely annoying. Uhhh, annoying in a good I think the writers want me to be annoyed with the characters sort of way. Stalking - never a good idea in a relationship.

Although, at least Fred and Gunn stalk as a couple. As I consider stalking some more, it is among the things that detectives do. Follow the suspect. Ah, Angel, who doesn't want his song read. Who hasn't picked a song. Whose people don't know where he's going. Who still has more to loose.

Even more elliptically, Lorne asks for help at each phone call, using obscure pop culture speak, which Fred is not hip enough to understand, which apparently no one is hip enough to understand. Okay, I wasn't hip enough to understand. After all, it's not the dog that's down the well, it's little Timmy. The dog is always understood. Lorne with his blue fluffy coat is not. Speaking of which, it's obviously the Vegas influence, but Lorne's clothes were the least tailored that we've seen.

Then there's Wesley. Of course, he'll accept Angel's cases while he's out of town. Who is he talking too? Three conversations at once. Cases for Angel, some mysterious device for ??? and Lilah, with whom he won't quite have time to meet tonight because he's handling Angel's cases. Apparently, she distracted at meeting too. Okay, she's got the better distraction, because come on.

Just as an aside, this was one of the richest Angel was there episodes that we've had. Bugsy Siegel, the Rat Pack and Elvis. Okay, beyond the funny, why? In two references, he was drunk and in the first he was playing tennis. Night time tennis. With mafiosos and starlets. Drinking martinis? Makes me think of a Bugsy quote in which he told someone (Ah, Biography - great show) not to be so nervous because his kind only kills their own. Then again he was called Bugsy because he was mad as a bed bug, so whatever.
[> [> Re: Viva Las Angels (spoilers for the latest Angel ep) -- yabyumpan, 11:46:10 10/21/02 Mon

A few thoughts, barring in mind I haven't actually seen the ep, only red wildfeeds, feedback etc:

All the talk from Angel about knowing the rat pack, getting drunk at Elvis's wedding and playing tennis with Bugsy just doesn't gel with what we've been told of is past history. The Vampire we saw in 1952 was someone who kept himself to himself, when he tried to help someone he got burnt and them left them all to the demon. Yet only a few years or so later, he's being Mr Socialble. What happened? Did he start taking the new anti-depressants they's started to develop then? And how did he he from there to being Stink Guy? It would have much more sense IMO if he'd some something like 'It's not the sort of place he would have visited before', thus staying in tune with what we know of his past and also showing us how far he's come. It seems to me that ME have messed with what we know to get a few funny lines and that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Re: Futures. Angel had his future stolen and yet (with a little help from a friend), was able to start creating a new one by deciding to help Fred, Gunn and Lorne. I this following on a theme from Fred's wonderful 'Screw Destiny' speech in 'Offspring', prophecies that are wrong and 'the powers that screw you'. Is ME saying something about freewill and deciding your own future? And is this something Angel can do because of who he is? I know that Lorne talked about his friends being his destiny but surely all the other people who had their futures stolen had friends and family too.

Still on Futures, does Cordy's Amnesia mean that her destiny has been stolen? If she doesn't remember anything, I'm presuming this from the 'Who are you people?' comment, then doesn't that mean that her future is starting anew? Sort of OT, but if someone has complete amnesia, could they be considered to be the same person they were before?
[> [> [> Re: Viva Las Angels (spoilers for the latest Angel ep) -- Mal, 15:45:18 10/21/02 Mon

Re: *** The Vampire we saw in 1952 was someone who kept himself to himself, when he tried to help someone he got burnt and them left them all to the demon. Yet only a few years or so later, he's being Mr Socialble. What happened? Did he start taking the new anti-depressants they's started to develop then? ***

See, I would have thought that hanging around with mobsters such as Bugsy would have meant that you were pretty much nonchalant about the whole human-death equation. I like the idea of Angel having nothing better to do, and so hooking up with the current "Big Bad" in town (Organized Crime). In fact, I can plausibly see him going from there to "Stink Guy" because I've always had this mental image of 20th-century angel as more or less a vacillator. He swings from one extreme to the next because he doesn't know where he fits in and, unlike Spike, he doesn't have a chip to keep him from hurting people.

He only has a soul which makes him feel guilty if he does.
[> [> [> Re: Viva Las Angels (spoilers for the latest Angel ep) -- fresne, 17:20:59 10/21/02 Mon

You know, I don't think that Angel did decide to help his friends, which is something that may not come across in Wildfeeds.

However, a brief digression. So, my housemate and I were watching Angel and I made a stringing comment about my actual theory, which came out in a sort of short hand. Actually, upon reflection, it was stream of consciousness gibberish. She gave me this look like I was deranged. The longer she looked, the harder it was to actually gather my words, because well, I've floated the theory quite a few times. Shouldn't she know it by now? Finally, I regrouped and spit out a complete sentence.

She said that I sounded like Spike, all seen hill tops with the valleys hidden from view and even though she knew what I was saying, in conjunction with Angel going all vague, it was really bizarre. I then posited that many of our conversations would sound that way to others, because so many of our conversations are based on a common background and history. I was comprehensible and yet in a real way made utterly no sense, because, in that moment, the real strangeness of that kind of communication was clear. The cogitative was dissonant.

Anyway, my theory runs something like this - so, Angel has a soul, whatever gives him his personality, which I'll call his spirit, and a demon. So, the casino stole the destiny of that Vampire with a Soul. Was it the destiny of Liam, Angel or Angelus. In a person that complex, how easy for some other aspect to come out and play the damage game. He's struck in the stomach. His visage changes and he fights. It actually, made me think of the Hulk. "Don't make me angry (i.e., punch me), you wouldn't like me when I'm angry." Oh, look with the Grr and the serious ow!

As to the name dropping, well since Bugsy was a talkative and charming, if deadly, fellow, Angel's description doesn't really jive with the man. Also, well, night tennis. So, I'm not sure what to think. I'll buy the "Vegas was more friendly when run by the mob." comment as mild substantiation.

It interests me because it's something that Angel never does. So, why does he drop names? Those names? I mean, this isn't Highlander or Forever Knight where eventually every character knew someone interesting. Generally, we get a rejection of the known. Characters who aren't Lestat, were at the Crucifixion, knew insert name of famous person here. Angel doesn't have millions of dollars in a nice interest bearing account. His books aren't personally signed first editions.

Why drop name? Because Angel is out of phase. He is lost. He had this little sea cruise and ever since everything isn't like he thought it would be. Cordelia is gone and he can't even storm heaven to save her because, he can't conceive of her being unhappy there. He has no real idea of how to reconnect with his son. How to reconnect with Wesley. How to reclaim his mission. Whether or not he needs a vacation, Wesley's line about cases is telling. Angel has cases that can be neglected. Although, if Angel goes out every night to follow Connor, has he actually been doing cases, helping the helpless, since he emerged from the deep?

He goes to Vegas, not to be read by Lorne, but to go to a retreat. Not one of meditation, but of distraction. Flashing lights that bedazzle. Girls in tight outfits. Shows. Free drinks. It almost ends with the ultimate distraction, mindless feeding of slot machines. Instead, we have that young woman emerging from the Casino, ready to get on with her destiny bright. Chef school in Paris, not the Paris casino.

BTW - the Strip is no where near Fremont Street (the esplanade that Gunn, Fred and Lorne run out into.) Every night Fremont street has this very psychedelic street show in which neon lights flash shapes (abstract or not) across the arched grid over the street, while music from the 60s and 70s blairs. It's extremely surreal. Actually, the whole place is surreal. Especially when emerging from vast smoke filled mazes of distracting lights and sounds and free drinks. Free in that you have to sit still long enough at a slot machine for them to bring it to you, so free is relative.
[> [> [> [> Re: Viva Las Angels (spoilers for the latest Angel ep) -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:29:19 10/21/02 Mon

My speculation is that (despite what Lorne said), the reason Angel could fight was because, destiny or no destiny, he's still a vampire and thus retains his vampy strength and martial arts skills "they inevitably seem to pick up". When the guards started to beat on him, vampire instinct came to the front and he kicked some major butt.
[> [> [> [> Destiny (Spoilers, Latest Angel ep, and Buffy ep "Help") -- Rahael, 04:16:47 10/22/02 Tue

Am I the only one who views Angel losing his destiny as a positive thing?

Isn't this just the continuation of the process of epiphany, where he realises that he isn't working toward a reward?

He is a complete loose canon in the Buffyverse. No longer constrained by fate, he is more free than ever to make his every action count.

I thought it tied in nicely with the theme of "Help" - of exploring the idea of fate, destiny and mortality. Where Cassie had only a short life, not even enough to experience enough the joys it could bring, Angel has had too much of life, and one moment of true joy brings damnation.

Angel longs for true, human mortality - that's no grand destiny. It's the (quiet, un-grand) gift of every human being, human beings like Cassie.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Destiny (Spoilers, Latest Angel ep, and Buffy ep "Help") -- CW, 06:14:21 10/22/02 Tue

It was clear from the actions of the characters, they didn't simply lose their destinies, but all ambition and sense of self-direction as well. This isn't good for anybody. I'm pretty sure ME didn't want people thinking too hard about how good it might be if Angel's destiny was different. So what we saw were aimless people with no destiny other than leading aimless lifes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Lifes? Arrgh! Wish I wasn't destined to be such a #@&!# proofreader! -- CW, 06:18:03 10/22/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Aimlessness -- Rahael, 06:26:10 10/22/02 Tue

Obviously, I haven't seen the ep.

So, Angel has lost his place, his sense of destiny, is this correct? Does this mean that he has to regain it sometime this seasn, or will he forge his own destiny?

Going for a metaphorical reading, with all the qualifiers above, I'd say that the fate that those people encountered in Las Vegas is really an illustration of Angel's history.

Angel spent hundreds of years being lost, having no purpose, until Whistler found him and showed him his destiny: Buffy. So for him, this dichotomy between a glittering destiny as a Champion, and the lost (Vamp with )soul living in the gutter is an acute one. But for him to grow as a person perhaps he has to find a middle ground? The ordinary, rather than the grand? But this is a reading that is self consciously refracted through my own worldview/prism!!

In my view, I don't think that ME are saying that without destiny or fate, our lives lose meaning. Our meaning is gained through the little things that Angel dreamt of in the ocean. Love, family, relationsips, etc.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aimlessness (spoiler just for Rah) -- CW, 06:44:25 10/22/02 Tue

Before the episode ended the destinies are all freed and go back to their original owners, including Angel's destiny. I think the author of the episode did think that without a destiny life is totally aimless. I don't think anyone else at ME necessarily agreed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Aimlessness -- ponygirl, 07:14:14 10/22/02 Tue

While Angel's destiny, in the form of some glowy light thing, did seem to return to him at the end of the episode the idea that a destiny can be removed, exchanged and traded like a commodity might be something worth exploring in the future. If Angel really thought about it, it's a pretty depressing concept to think that one's purpose has so little to do with your true self. So much of Angel's self-image seems to come from these external factors - he is told from Whistler on that he is meant to be a champion, that he has a purpose, a mission. It's the opposite of his father's message that he was worthless, but it's still other people telling him what he is, what he is to become. Stripped of this what's left? There was obviously enough of himself left that he was able to act when attacked, but was it just a reaction or a sign that Angel can find a way to function without a clear destiny?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's destiny -- Masq, 10:23:46 10/22/02 Tue

The prophecy that Angel is slated to be a "key player" in the coming apocolypse has been around since the end of season 1 of AtS. It has always been an open destiny, as far as Wolfram and Hart are concerned. They do not know if Angel will be on the good side or the evil side in this apocolypse, only that he will play a key role.

In the beggining of season 2, Angel was gung-ho to achieve this destiny and win his humanity. He went after Wolfram and Hart believing he was doing what he was slated to do. It proved a tad bit premature.

Since his epiphany in the middle of season 2, though, Angel has been blase about this alleged destiny. He almost doesn't believe in it anymore, and why not? Prophecies and destinies in the Buffyverse are tricky creatures--open to interpretation about when, where, why and even if they will actually happen.

What is important for Angel now is the present--namely, reconnecting with the people he loves, Connor, Cordelia, even Wesley. It's a very human desire, and in a way, Angel's goal has always been that small, every-day human desire. He wanted to achieve his "grand" destiny in order to be made human and live an ordinary life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel's destiny -- yabyumpan, 12:16:23 10/22/02 Tue

The theme of the episode seemed to be very much about destiny. If Cordy has now come back with Amnesia does this mean that her 'destiny' has changed? Is she in fact, still 'Cordelia'? I'm not sure where I stand on the 'we are the sum of our memories' stance, but I think a good part of who we are is determined by who we've been. "All that we once more informs all that we become". It will be interesting to see how ME play this. The snarky Queen C as well as the more recent compassionate/vison girl Cordy have all come about as a result of her upbringing and life experiences IMO. If she has complete amnesia then she is a blank slate, able to create a new future or is her 'destiny' something that is larger than who she is, a force outside of herself which will point her in the direction she was meant to go, no matter who she is now?

This ofcourse brings up the point as to why she was sent back without her memories. It seems she was kicked out of 'heaven' for helping Angel but why would TPTSY take away her memories as well? Does she know something she's not supposed to or is this a case of the powers using her as a puppet in part of their plans? And does she still have her visions and demony powers? That would be really cruel to let her keep her visons but have no idea of what they are or why she has them.
[> [> See, I didn't think... -- Masq, 11:50:07 10/21/02 Mon

Angel actually met any of the Pack, or Elvis, or Bugsy. He was dropping anecdotes he'd heard to make it seem like he knew them. Maybe he was in Vegas in 1962 and saw them walk by him in the casino.

I thought it was insecure name-dropping. Insecure Angel I can deal with. Angel actually knowing them as real people is, well, lame. I mean, does he have the personality to get into situations where he'd rub shoulders with big names? Nuh-uh.
[> [> [> Re: See, I didn't think... -- alcibiades, 12:08:34 10/21/02 Mon

But see, it's the RAT Pack... so that's okay, perfectly okay for him to associate with the Rat Pack, not to mention the mafia, while he's busy consuming rats in corners.

Also, someone on Stakehouse pointed out that what this means is that Liam is actually alive and well in Angel -- just not always at the forefront of his personality.
[> I agree its weak, but that just makes Angel and Buffy even at the moment... -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:47:42 10/21/02 Mon

Great seasons' beginnings, but they've each got a weak one under their belts now. Was I the only one that felt the same way I do about The House Always Wins about Help? Or I guess would have had Crazy!Spike not kept it more interesting.

Current board | More October 2002