October 2002 posts


Previous October 2002  

More October 2002

Jung, Souls, and Spike -- Sophie, 10:48:50 10/27/02 Sun

Outline

Spike getting his soul back
Jung's thoughts on souls
More on Spike getting his soul back
Is the Buffyverse playing a big joke on Spike?


I am surprised nobody has said this yet (maybe I missed it), but perhaps Spike got more than just his soul back. I am wondering if he got about half a dozen souls, plus or minus a few, back.

I have read Masq's wonderful website and treatises on the soul in the Buffyverse and I enjoy her writings and find them incredibly helpful, but I find myself a little reluctant to say that the mystery of the soul is answered or that there is one answer, even in the Buffyverse. Deb (I think) brought up Jung the other day, which inspired me to dig out "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" by Jung, which I read about six years ago. I was originally inspired to read this particular book as it has a chapter where Jung writes about building his house in Bollingen, Switzerland. The most fascinating part (architecture aside) is that the house is a living, never-finished project. Like other things in the world that have no answers, his home was an ever-changing complex structure, despite being constructed in stone. His home became a palimpsest for his own changing ideas and thoughts.

As I have gotten older, I have found that I need fewer and fewer answers, and as an architect, someday I too will suffer Jung's problem of carving ever-changing thoughts in stone. I have gained increasing capability to swat ideas around, endlessly applying different definitions and playing with them, without making a decision that one concept instead of another is the answer, as I no longer feel that I need an answer.

Jung tosses around the idea that a being can have multiple souls. He works into this concept, that all beings living today have the souls of all beings that have lived in the past and all future beings will have our souls. Thus what we do today is grounded in the past and crucial to the future. Jung frames this argument primarily in the realm of ancestral souls, but I think the argument can be extended if one considers that a soul is the collective memory of an individual and his exchange of ideas with the community at large.

So, maybe Spike received his own soul plus some of Sunnydale's more famous extras. Presumably the Master, Glory/Ben, the Mayor and others started out humans with souls, and lost them, becoming vampires, demons, etc. So their souls are somewhere. Maybe they returned to the collective will (Schopenhauer) or got reincarnated, etc., or as the Buffyverse seems to feel, they exist somewhere unknown but still intact. On bad days I wonder if this was done as a bad joke. Someone mentioned that Angel has had 200+ years to come to grips with his soul, but Spike has only had three months. If Spike got half a dozen or more souls back, it may be no shock that he is insane.

Thus, I bravely toss this out for discussion.

Sophie
[> Re: Jung, Souls, and Spike -- frisby, 11:46:24 10/27/02 Sun

I think Jung learned his most important lessons from Nietzsche, who rejected soul atomism but added "it is not at all necessary to get rid of the "soul" at the same time, and to thus renounce one of the most ancient and venerable hypotheses (Beyond 12)." He also adds new versions such as "mortal soul," "soul as subjective multiplicity," and "soul as social structure of the drives and affects." Nietzsche aims to restore psychology or the study of the soul to its rightful role of queen of the sciences (Beyond 23). Last, in one his most beautiful phrases, hes says" "The human soul and its limits, the range of inner human experiences reached so far, the heights, depths, and distances of hese experiences, the whole history of the soul so far and its as yet unexhausted possibilities -- that is the predestined hunting ground for a born psychologist..."

Summing up, Nietzsche rejects soul atomism but not soul. Plato speaks of soul as the highest interest, higher even than the ideas. "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is perhaps the most religious show on television because it constantly and in multi-faceted ways compels the viewer to consider the soul hypothesis -- what am I, in the eye of eternity?

I think Jung (see his 2000 page book on "the prophet of our time" Nietzsche) drew (as did Freud) many of his most important ideas (such as the collective unconsciousness and the archetypes) from his reading of Nietzsche. But maybe I'm wrong.
[> [> Re: Jung, Souls, and Spike -- Sophie, 12:09:20 10/27/02 Sun

Interesting, frisby.

I never read much Nietzsche as he ran around with Richard Wagner (composer) and they were both anti-semitites. Sad that I rejected Nietzsche and will someday have to cave and read his works since I listened and much-enjoyed Wagner's music despite his attitudes. Of course, Wagner was harder to avoid as I played oboe in band for many years and inevitably some band director would make us play Wagner's music. But despite all this I still was seduced by his music and pursued listening to it.

As for soul in religious context - I always blame Descartes for this as he originated the body/soul (Carteisn duality) split, which the church (Catholic anyway) builds upon. When the body dies, the soul leaves but continues to exist separately.

Good food for thought.
S
[> [> [> Re: More Jung, and my dinner party. -- Deb, 14:17:14 10/27/02 Sun

Jung, later in his life, had a near death experience, and in his brography he speaks of viewing his ideas from a different point of view, as if he took one step to the right. He also declared that many people did not understand what he was saying and twisted it for their own purposes.

I have this silly little mind game, that I'm considering writing into a short story, where I have a dinner party and I can invite any 50 people (characters) from history and/or fiction. The only rule is that they must be dead or fictional. I've been doing this for years, but certain people have been constants: Jesus, Jung, Mozart, Charles Chaplin, Mary Shelley, Emily Dickinson (I think I have a wallflower here.), Eleanor of Aquataine, Cleopatra, and I recently added Spike/William, Joan d'Arc, Cicero, Hannibal (I'll seat these last two together.), Gowron (the late Leader of the Klingon Empire -- what a hoot!) and enough said.
[> [> [> [> Re: More Jung, and my dinner party. -- frisby, 15:37:39 10/27/02 Sun

Hi Deb. Ever see on PBS or see performed Steve Allen's "Meeting of Minds" series, which is very similar to your idea (well, maybe "just" like it). It's a great series and the scripts are available for purchase so small theatre groups can perform them. I took my son to one a couple of years ago which featured Darwin, Atilda the Hun (mis-spelled), Francis Bacon, and (I think) Emily Dickinson. Great mind game though. I think I'd start with Homer, Plato, Bacon, and (of course) Nietzsche.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More Jung, and my dinner party. -- Deb, 17:41:49 10/27/02 Sun

Well, no idea is ever original now is it? The more I learn, the less I know. No I was not aware. Still, it works with me. You're invited to my dinner party if I can come to yours.
[> [> [> Re: Jung, Souls, and Spike (Nietzsche not Nazi) -- frisby, 15:33:10 10/27/02 Sun

Hi Sophie. I agree Nietzsche carries a lot of baggage but surely not anti-semitism. Wagner, yes, but Nietzsche, no. I suppose there's always room for difference, but I refer you to the four hour PBS show on Wagner's life (Richard Burton's last role) which includes Nietzsche significantly, but most importantly, shows his telling Wagner off and storming off breaking their friendship forever, and why? because of Wagner's anti-semitism. Nietzsche was never semitic. His sister took control of his works and herself became the Godmother to the Nazi party, and developed a special relation with Hitler (but Nietzsche was screaming in his grave, just as he did when she married an anti-semitic and the two of them started a colony in South America to produce the master race). Nietzsche broke relations with Wagner because of this and fought it on many fronts. Others have defended Nietzsche on this score much better than I can here off the top of my head, and he may have other even worse sins on his conscience, but surely, not anti-semitism. This isn't really one of my buttons either, it's just incorrect as far as I know. He praised the Jews in Europe in many ways. But I'll stop there, on that. (I'm not trolling here am I?)

Descartes play a big role in the history of the soul hypothesis, which of course had a long history before him, stretching back to Plato (whom Nietzsche charges as the creator of soul atomism). But the truth, in my opinion, after many many years, and running counter to the authoritative opinion of the times of course, is that Descartes thought he could simply toss out the soul altogether in favor of a pure science of behavior. At the end of part five of his Discourse he says that belief in the existence of God and the immortality of the soul is necessary because it keeps "weak minds" on the straight path of virtue (obeying the law and doing their duty), and that if that belief is taken away from them and they are told they have nothing more to fear or hope after life than do ants, they won't obey. Elsewhere, he implies that "strong minds" do not need those beliefs. I think Nietzsche disagrees with Descartes on this important point, but then given the conditions of the times, even Descartes can be defended. He (according to Leo Strauss and others too of course) was one of a group of co-conspirators who conspired to defeat and bring down what Hobbes called the Kingdom of Darkness (meaning Christianity). The interesting thing here is that Nietzsche looks at their efforts a couple of centuries later and pronounces their victory. God is dead. Modernity defeated Christianity and now reigns supreme over the globe. Nietzsche though (in Heidegger's words) questions whether humanity is fit to assume this position. Nietzsche declares that the modern science of Bacon and Descartes as developed through Kant will destroy all life on earth, and then takes as his task to transform that science into a joyful science, one loyal to the earth that makes life lovable.

Anyway, there's my two cents worth. Thanks for sharing food at this wonderful feast.
[> [> [> [> My apologies -- Sophie, 16:35:14 10/27/02 Sun

I am sorry that I called Nietzsche an anti-semite. I also apologize for calling Richard Wagner an anti-semite. You are right, I shouldn't make such statements in public. Sorry.

Sophie
The stages of maturity--more on metaphors of vampirism (spoilers through Selfless) -- luna, 14:10:04 10/27/02 Sun

In some ways, the Buffyverse is a simple place: human good, demon bad (OK to kill demons, bad to kill humans). However, in the past couple of seasons, a number of characters have changed from one form of existence to another, crossing the boundaries of human/inhuman, life/death. Even from the beginning, Angel and Buffy blurred the lines, but since last year this time we've had Buffy's resurrection, Spike's gaining a soul, Willow's shifts back and forth from the Dark Side, and now Anya's renunciation of her demonhood. What do these shifts add up to?

I'm sure there are many metaphorical views of this, but the one that strikes me is related to an essay I read by someone I can't remember (SORRY!!) about a study done of the development of mental maturity in Harvard undergraduates. According to this study, students arrive with a very authoritarian, black/white, right/wrong view of the universe. After a year or so, all their assumptions have been challenged, and they retreat to the opposite: a purely relativistic stance, where there is no good or evil, and all ideas and acts are equal. Howver, as they continue to encounter ideas, they develop a mature sense of values, where they do ultimately develop standards, but realize that these must always stand up to tests of reason, evidence, etc.

It seems to me that this is one of the things that happens with the Buffy characters, esp. Buffy, Willow, and Xander, but perhaps to view of things. The old oppositions of good and evil just aren't completely reliable anymore. Spike is perhaps the embodiment of the confusion of losing old certainties and also of the process of synthesis that will eventually (I hope anyway) result in an integrated personality (or not). For both Willow and Anya, there's an attempt to see the human as valuable beyond the deeds, the view that one bad deed (or even a lot of bad deeds) don't eternally condemn someone, but that some kind of redemption is possible.

For Buffy, this went on all of last year, too, as she came to accept her return to life and it's varied complexity.

Contrast all this with early seasons, like "Anne," an episode where Buffy was able to come to terms with her killing of Anger very quickly.

Seems to me, anyway, that coming of age is what's happening now--the development of adult minds.

(though from some points of view, the difference between 15 and 22 is not all that great....)
[> Re: The stages of maturity--more on metaphors of vampirism (spoilers through Selfless) -- DivineSong, 17:18:10 10/27/02 Sun

Unless you happen to BE 22 looking back on yourself at 15. lol
OT: Remember Ian? -- celticross, 14:37:42 10/27/02 Sun

Some of you may remember a poster named Ian, who was here about until May of this year. He and I became good friends through our interactions on the board and in chat, and I've stayed in touch with him, though he's stopped posting out of time constraints.

His health is not good at the moment; he's been diagnosed with a degenerative nerve disease and currently has pneumonia. So please have good thoughts and prayers for him, everyone. Thanks.
[> I remember Ian -- Rufus, 14:48:47 10/27/02 Sun

Tell him I say hi. I'm sorry to hear he is doing poorly and would be happy to add him to my prayers.
[> Oh no! -- Rahael, 14:49:26 10/27/02 Sun

I not only remember Ian, but often wondered how he was doing. He was one of my favourite posters (and witty in chat, to boot).

Please assure him of my thoughts and prayers and thank you so much for letting us know!
[> Sending warm thoughts... -- Wisewoman, 14:57:20 10/27/02 Sun

and healing energy. Tell him I hope he's well enough to visit us here soon.

Blessed be,
WW
[> I'm in chat -- Rahael, 14:59:40 10/27/02 Sun

in case you are around, and can spare 10 mins or os
[> I'll be thinking good thoughts for him. Send him my best, please? -- LadyStarlight, 16:53:44 10/27/02 Sun

[> I remember him too. Please send my best, also. I'm sorry to hear he's ill. -- Rob, 17:33:30 10/27/02 Sun

[> CC, can we contact him directly? Or can he e-mail us? -- Sophist, 20:35:54 10/27/02 Sun

[> [> Re: CC, can we contact him directly? Or can he e-mail us? -- celticross, 07:10:07 10/28/02 Mon

I hesitate to put his email addie on the open site, but I'd be very willing to pass along any emails you'd want him to get.
[> sorry to hear ian's not well -- anom, 22:36:27 10/27/02 Sun

I'm glad you're in touch w/him & let us know about his condition, celticross. Please send my good wishes; I'll send prayers & positive energy.
[> Ofcourse I remember him -- Etrangere, 11:37:35 10/28/02 Mon

Like Rahael I often wondered how he was and what had happened to him. I'm so sorry to hear he's not well. I'm sending him all my wishes of recovery. We miss you Ian. Go better and come back to us.
[> [> Thanks! -- Ian, 12:50:30 10/28/02 Mon

Hey everyone. Wow.

First off, I'm really touched Celticross would post this. Thanks Mel! Second, I'm really touched y'all even remembered me. lol

I haven't really had the opportunity to follow the boards in a while, but hopefully I'll be able to at least stay semi-current in the future. Truthfully though, my forte is complaining, and since I am REALLY enjoying this new season of Buffy, the wind has left my sails. Hard to know what to post, other than, "I loved that Anya-centric episode!" Seriously, that is in contention for my favorite ep of all time.

Thanks again everyone. I appreciate it.
[> [> [> Re: Thanks! -- Masquerade, 13:11:47 10/28/02 Mon

I think I might have met you in chat once. Thanks for posting again. We're all thinking about you.
ME anvil textual proof Something is Wrong with Buffy... (Spoilers 7.5) -- alcibiades, 16:18:41 10/27/02 Sun

...although I don't know what yet.

Hee, Hee, Hee (insane giggling)

In Blood Ties, Dawn enters the mental ward in the hospital , conveniently left unguarded. One crazy upon seeing Dawn says:

CRAZIE #1
Can't hear it can't hear it can't hear it...

We learn how Giles glosses this:

DAWN (reading)

"The Key is not directly described in any
known literature, but all research indicates
an energy matrix vibrating at a dimensional
frequency beyond normal human perception.
Only those outside reality can see the Key's
true nature." Outside reality? What's that
mean?

Spike tosses his cigarette in an ornate urn.

SPIKE
Second sight blokes, maybe. Or even just
your run-o'-the-mill lunatics.

(And Spike is now quite possibly both.)


Compare to visionary Spike seeing black Buffy in the basement:

Buffy: Spike, this basement is killing you. This is the Hellmouth. There is something bad down here. Possibly everything bad.

Spike: (insane giggling) Can't hear you, can't hear you,

EXACTLY the same phrase as in Blood Ties.

So this is a HUGE ME TEXTUAL ANVIL

*****

Is this Buffy real at all?

In STSP, Spike thought black-Buffy glowed.

There she was also in slayer mode, but much less so than with Anya.

So, what is she?

Dawn as the key wasn't precisely real. She was some sort of near primordial matter, alive from just this side of forever and also green glowy energy?

What is Buffy?
[> Silly Question, and an interesting (I hope) hypothesis. -- HarryParachute, 18:48:37 10/27/02 Sun

Are we *sure* that "Can't hear you" is what Spike was repeating? I've watched it twice, maybe three times and what I heard was "Clearly you, Clearly you". Guess it was just my mind playin' tricks.

But anyway, It's my opinion that whatever Buffy is it sure as Hell isn't a Slayer. She hasn't been a Slayer since Prophecy Girl.

Actually, I think it's wrong to have a concept of A Slayer. There is only THE Slayer. When the one and only dies, the power jumps. First to Kendra, then to Faith. Whatever power Buffy has I doubt stems from the line of worthies.

Another poster around here some time ago pointed to a line in Prophecy Girl to back the claim. Buffy, upon being revived, said, "I feel strong. I feel different."

That line still irks me. How does she feel different? How is she different? What's her power source now? Did she draw power directly from the Hellmouth...Beneath Her? *cue the creepy music*

That's an idea.

What if this BB of Season 7 is the source of Buffy's power? If this season really is the end of the series (though I seriously hope it isn't, agreeing with shadowkat's S5 = Mind, S6 = Spirit S7 = Heart concept) it could be that with the defeat of the villain Buffy might become an ordinary girl. Or maybe die. Again. Yeah, it would be the third time...but y'know how it goes with the number. Three strikes. The charm. *shrug*
[> [> Is Buffy Real? Is Buffy Wrong? Is Buffy Right? -- alcibiades, 07:25:54 10/28/02 Mon

Are we *sure* that "Can't hear you" is what Spike was repeating? I've watched it twice, maybe three times and what I heard was "Clearly you, Clearly you". Guess it was just my mind playin' tricks.

Yeah, it is definitely "can't hear you."

The interesting thing is that ME never repeats these kinds of phrases unless there is good reason to and that they are hinting about things that will be made known later on. It's deliberate.

About what Buffy is: who knows at this point? As you point out, she certainly isn't a slayer in any kind of normative sense anymore.

A friend of mine not on this list pointed out that when Anya and Willow are staring at the map in STSP, after they have done the spell, there is one house shown prominently in one shot, which contains two demon glow thingies. That could well be Dawn and Buffy -- anyway it is possible.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what it means that ME is pointing out that in this subtle, textual way (in an episode filled with inter-episode textual correspondances) that Buffy is a kind of vessel whose internality does not match its externality -- in the same way that Dawn is. There is something not real about her anymore -- and I think it is as a result, not of her death and revival in Prophecy Girl but of the resurrection -- the cellular suntan explanation really never worked for me, and ME knew they had an additional year to play with that arc, so that Buffy could find out really what was different about her now.

Others have mentioned that Willow's incomplete spell invoked the warrior of the people, not Buffy the individual, warm, caring woman. I think -- and I realize there is severe disagreement on this board, but not everywhere -- that in particular in this episode we saw Buffy acting like the warrior of the people.

I wonder if there is something wrong with her -- as Spike first pointed out because of his chip in Smashed -- will Spike ever be able to articulate to her or to us what is going on. It is kind of ironic that he is the first to notice it on the physical plain and then he becomes the first to notice it on the spiritual plain as well.
[> [> [> An addendum -- alcibiades, 07:46:51 10/28/02 Mon

It is kind of sad for Buffy that Tara is the only human/Scoob who knew that Buffy had moments last year when she felt wrong -- and now Tara is dead. So no one, not even Willow, knows there ever was a problem in Buffy's mind about who and what she is now. No one she trusts close to her has that additional information to do an early warning. And I don't see Buffy trusting Willow enough magic wise or maybe even friendshipwise at this point to go to her over something like that -- so personal and so revealing of weakness.

Last year, Buffy was acutely aware of her sense of otherness. Even in the finale she was telling Giles she didn't understand why she was back and it didn't seem right to her. This year, it seems of less concern.
[> [> [> [> Re: An addendum -- Spike Lover, 10:29:02 10/28/02 Mon

Is Tara gone for good? Or will her spirit act as guide from the other side?
[> [> [> Re: Is Buffy Real? Is Buffy Wrong? Is Buffy Right? -- Etrangere, 11:54:09 10/28/02 Mon

"The interesting thing is that ME never repeats these kinds of phrases unless there is good reason to and that they are hinting about things that will be made known later on. It's deliberate."

Oh yeah; I get that.

No seriously, very good catch, very interresting. Though I'm sad, I liked it when Dawn was a Key.
[> [> [> [> Thanks Etrangere -- alcibiades, 13:03:19 10/28/02 Mon

Angel 4.04 `Slouching` spoilers Watching the Clock -- Cleanthes, 20:36:53 10/27/02 Sun

A major problem with Tv is that damn clock. As the time ticks towards 10 PM, you just KNOW that some quick fix is gonna pop up and foil Lilah's evil scheme. There HAS to be a Star Trek ending where Cordy gets her memory back and the family returns to normal.

Or at least, damn it, we need to see exactly what's written on that dollar bill!

Noooo, I'm thinking - did I screw up the clock when I changed it this morning? No? Heck, the episode's OVER.

So, about 15 seconds before the Joss Whedon credit comes up, I say to my son Max - 'hey, it looks like Ms Morgan is not going to fail this episode.' "No," he replies, "Cordy is gonna wake-up at the last moment." But then the end credit came up and, hey, Wolfram & Hart undoubtedly won that whole episode. Must be the lead-in for sweeps or something.

Of course, guessing who's the rough beast slouching toward Bethlehem will be much fun, yes?

No answers in this episode. The bad guys won!

Lilah uses football codes. Gotta love it. Football's also a game with (IMO), too much clock watching. Down by 20 with 45 seconds to go? Well, either it's a dream or the bad guys win the game/episode. I guess that's what Wolfram and Hart did this episode, run out the clock.

Did the director actually darken Lorne's makeup during his reading of Cordelia, or did they slowly twist in a green filter on the camera? Which would be easier from a filming standpoint. He waxed greener as fast as a Wyoming meadow after a good rain.
[> Maybe you could explain the title of the ep? (AtS 3.4 spoilers) -- Solitude1056, 20:48:09 10/27/02 Sun

The significance of the phrase 'slouching towards bethlehem' - I know someone quoted a poem a few days ago that had that line, but all I can think of is the Joan Didion book. (Or was that Slouching Towards Jerusalem?) When Lorne asked Angel if he knew the phrase, I was shouting at my TV, "no! I don't! explain it!" But noooo...
[> [> explanation of "slouching towards Bethlehem" -- Rob, 20:50:44 10/27/02 Sun

AICN said that it was from a poem by Yeats, about the apocalypse.

Rob
[> [> [> Re: explanation of "slouching towards Bethlehem" -- yabyumpan, 21:05:02 10/27/02 Sun

The Second Coming by WB Yeats

TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

Here's the poem. I'm not even going to begin to analyse it, poetry not being my forte and I haven't even seen the ep. But those with better brains than mine, Please do :-)
[> [> Re: Maybe you could explain the title of the ep? (AtS 3.4 spoilers) -- Sang, 21:19:19 10/27/02 Sun

You may get some information from this site,

http://www.iuinfo.indiana.edu/HomePages/121099/text/A3Bethlehem.htm
[> [> Yeats (AtS 4.4 spoilers) -- Cleanthes, 21:35:24 10/27/02 Sun

W.B. Yeats wrote "The Second Coming" about, apparently, the birth of the anti-Christ. It seemed to presage Hitler, although, not, IMO, as well as Kipling's "The Storm Cone". But then, in 1922, predicting Hitler was harder than predicting him in 1931.

I was going to just send you to a site, but the poem's short enough to reproduce in full; sorry for those who dislike poetry like this, but, it's REALLY on-topic in this case.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.

Surely some revelation is at hand;
Surely the Second Coming is at hand.
The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out
When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi
Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert
A shape with lion body and the head of a man,
A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun,
Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it
Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds.
The darkness drops again; but now I know
That twenty centuries of stony sleep
Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle,
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?

When he wrote this, World War I had just ended and the Irish Civil War was still a very fresh event, so any predictions of the future were far from Yeats's mind, although obviously the really lousy times just past would move a pessimist to imagine whether even worse things were in store, as, indeed they were.

As far as the Angel episode goes, the key question is about the "rough beast", I think. Who is it? Angel, Conner, Cordy, Wes? Or some other external threat?

How long was Cordy in the glow-ey dimension of boredom? I'm thinking time may have moved slower for her, although I suppose even four months of a "heaven" where time was NOT meaningless would already seem like hell.


Because I mentioned it, and because I'm quite fond of it, I've also quoted the Kipling poem which also deals with this same theme. Hitler did not come to power until 1933, so Kipling also saw through the false confidence of the interwar years.

Yeats played on the fantastical plane all his life. He wrote many neoplatonic poems and followed Madame Blavatsky for a time. His poem fits well with the horror genre, I think.

"The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

These lines remind me of Wes & Lilah, for some reason.

Yeat's wrote often of Byzantium, incidentally. I don't suppose that has anything to do with the opening scene of Buffy this season, set in Istanbul? Well, probably not, but maybe the same source material is inspiring the big bads on both shows.




The Storm Cone

This is the midnight let no star delude us dawn is very far.
This is the tempest long foretold
Slow to make head but sure to hold.

Stand by! the lull twixt blast and blast
Signals the storm is near, not past;
And worse than present jeopardy
May our forlorn tomorrow be.

If we have cleared the expectant reef,
Let no man look for his relief.
Only the darkness hides the shape
Of further peril to escape.
It is decreed that we abide
The weight of gale against the tide
And those huge waves the outer main
Sends in to set us back again.

They fall and whelm. We strain to hear
The pulses of her labouring gear,
Till the deep throb beneath us proves,
After each shudder and check, she moves!

She moves, with all save purpose lost,
To make her offing from the coast;
But, till she fetches open sea,
Let no man deem that he is free!

(Rudyard Kipling, 1931)
[> [> Ever since the Tara quote -- Rahael, 02:32:00 10/28/02 Mon

This poem has been discussed.

I went into more detail on another board, as I was awol at the time. But I repeated some bits a couple of days ago, I can't seem to find the thread in the recent archives though!

So I just went back and found one of the old posts again.

"[> [> [> [> Chinua Achebe was referencing the Yeats Poem -- Rahael, 05:12:12 07/05/02 Fri

and also Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'. It was in many ways a critique of western thinking about Africa - the beast slouching its way to Bethlehem (aka Western Civilisation) from the dusty deserts of a dark and foreign land.

The fact that Tara uses that line and Spike goes to Africa is too much of a link not to take in the complexities of all the ideas, both literary and political that now envelope this phrase."

Yeats may have predicted Hitler, but since he was talking about the savage beast about to rise from distant, hot deserts, and bring down European civilisation, I'd say he just got lucky.

He also composed marching songs for the Irish Blueshirts, so it's not like he was completely unaware of fascism.

Actually, I loathe the second coming as a poem. I love Sailing to Byzantium and Leda and the Swan, which are two of my favourite poems, but the whole apocalyptic tone puts me right off. I like the whiff of brimstone and purple prose to stay well within 17th century history. I can stand a good poet having unsavoury views as long as it doesn't become too obvious in the poetry - like Larkin.
[> [> [> Re: Ever since the Tara quote -- ponygirl, 07:47:23 10/28/02 Mon

The interesting thing that came out of those discussions, if I recall correctly, was the question of perspective. Yeats seems to be talking about the destruction of Western civilization, the end of a 2000 year cycle. There are many who would see this as not such a bad thing, and that 2000 years is a mere drop in the bucket in the grand scheme of things. In any case, from the viewpoint of the beast or of Bethlehem, it is about change and the destruction of old forms and structures, and that is always frightening no matter the outcome.
[> Can I help? Spoilers 4.4 Angel; Slight spoilers for previous 7th season Buffy -- Isabel, 21:57:19 10/27/02 Sun

Wesley had to sign his name to the dollar bill to acknowlege that 'he' lost the bet. When I first saw the exchange between Wes and Lilah, I was foolishly assuming that she was happy that Wes considered it a relationship rather than she won the bet (and the round) and "Ha! He's a romantic sap!" When Wes saw that Lilah didn't take the dollar bill he realized that it (their relationship) was not important to her.

Maybe she considers it payback for the fake out he did to her all summer.

As for the beast 'slouching towards Bethlehem,' it's gotta be related to what's rising in Sunnydale. Yes, they've both had apocalypses to defeat separately before, but not on this scale. Buffy's 'defeat' of Glory was a major happening and if AI had been in this dimension there could have been an argument made for their helping Buffy, BUT they weren't. They left before Glory discovered the Key and returned after Buffy died. If the badness on the rise is that big, there may be plenty for both shows to deal with without stepping on each other's toes.

Yes, Lorne did look like he was gonna toss his cookies.
[> [> Re: Can I help? Spoilers 4.4 Angel; Slight spoilers for previous 7th season Buffy -- The One With the Angelic Face, 08:32:39 10/28/02 Mon

Yes, but the Key unlocked the doors separating all dimensions, didn't it? It wasn't just between the Earthly plane and the others. I would love to have seen effects of the "turning" of the Key in Pylea. That would have been a great crossover opportunity. As for this season, I sincerely hope this big thing that Lorne saw, and what is going on in in Buffy are related. They both seem to big and foreboding to not be connected. That would really send Buffy off with a bang.
[> [> [> The cross-over that never happened -- Masq, 10:04:14 10/28/02 Mon

I heard that ME wanted to do a thing where a giant teradactyl-demon goes streaking across the Pylean sky, with key-like energy crackles as the dimensions bled into each other. But they didn't have the time and/or money for the effect, which didn't actually contribute to the AtS plot line.

Would have been cool, though.
Mrs Robinson (spoilers for "Slouching" well not really...) -- sTalking Goat, 22:10:45 10/27/02 Sun

I didn't actually think they would do that. Considering that Cordy's changed the boys diapers, fed and wiped drool off his chin, that Cordy/Connor scene was just a bit Oedipal ...or that could just be envy and jealousy talking. I wonder if I'll ever get to that the whole Hand-out-gallantly-"Come with me if you want to live." thing. That would be cool...
[> Cordy's only 21 remember -- oboemaboe, 23:35:30 10/27/02 Sun

and Connor's probably about 15-17? (Though the actors are 32 and 23 respectively.) That's not too uncommon. Much more normal than Buffy and the 350+ Angel. I thought I was seeing things when he had his hand on her boob. Me, I haven't liked Cordy that way since she lost her long brown hair.


Since I apparently am in a pop-culture void, what is the origin of the term "Mrs. Robinson?" Is it that song? I've listened to that for years and never heard anything about older women/younger men in it. What am I missing?
[> [> Mrs. Robinson reference -- KKC, 01:55:33 10/28/02 Mon

"Since I apparently am in a pop-culture void, what is the origin of the term "Mrs. Robinson?" Is it that song? I've listened to that for years and never heard anything about older women/younger men in it. What am I missing?"

The name refers not to the Simon and Garfunkle song but the character played by Anne Bancroft in the motion picture "The Graduate." The older experienced woman has some urge to seduce much younger men, as she tries to do with Dustin Hoffman's character Benjamin. Mrs. Robinson seems to have become a general term for describing older women with younger men (the female version of 'Humbert' as it were.)

We're about due for another pop culture purge, as the old media references die down and make room for the newer ones. In twenty years people will be asking where the term 'barf-worthy' comes from. :)

-KKC, and then we'll show you your insect reflection too. :)
[> [> [> D'oh. Stupid Google. -- oboemaboe, 03:06:19 10/28/02 Mon

In the spirit of "Do your own damn research," I typed ""Mrs. Robinson" + sex" into Google and a lot of the pages about older women/ younger guys use the phrase, "Here's to you, Mrs. Robinson."


My philosophy on this subject is to each his own, just don't tell me about it! Likewise, I'm sure none of you want to hear about the kind of naughty thoughts I have about Hilary Duff.

Over and out.
[> [> [> [> Actually, oboemaboe, you're both right. The Simon and Garfunkel song... -- Rob, 08:38:48 10/28/02 Mon

...was the theme song to "The Graduate." It was written for the movie's soundtrack. The lyrics "Jesus loves you more than you will know," etc. are meant to be ironic, since Mrs. Robinson is an evil character.

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> Mrs. Robinson is EEEEEEvil? -- Yellowork, 11:08:35 10/28/02 Mon

I thought she was just sad and sort of ... doomed. I thought that line was rueful rather than cruel irony i.e. Mrs. Robinson is lost in an amoral milieu, not inherently horrid although she does make a huge mistake. The actor / character age(s) thing is interesting; Anne Bancroft was only 36 when she played Mrs. Robinson; Dustin Hoffman was all of 30. As Robinson had a kid when she was at art school in her late teens, and this girl is a bit younger than Benjamin, it is possible that Mrs. Robinson is pretty much within the same age range as Bancroft; maybe 38-40. Benjamin is explicitly 21.

I think we are meant to think of Cordelia as somewhat older than 21, as her age is downplayed, which avoids the credibility gap of the lovely but fully grown Ms. Carpenter being constantly called upon to portray a stripling. It also suits the tone of the show more.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mrs. Robinson is EEEEEEvil? -- Rob, 11:11:29 10/28/02 Mon

I'd agree that she's sad and doomed, but she's also pretty cruel, trying to sabotage both Benjamin and her own daughter's future happiness, out of jealousy and spite. She later falsely accuses him of raping her.

Rob
[> [> Its not the age thing -- sTalking Goat, 08:49:20 10/28/02 Mon

I'm 21 and my girlfriend is 28, so obviously I'm the last person in the world who should be making comments about older womwne and younger men. Thats not the issue.
She changed his diapers, wiped his butt, did everything but breast feed him, that effectively makes her his Mom and its a lot more than a lot of Biological Moms do. Plus like some said below, there the whole tried to kill his father thing. Its all very Oedipal.
[> Okay by me (Spoilers) -- LA, 23:53:46 10/27/02 Sun

I'm okay with it. I think it's a nice complication and how ever old Charisma is, Cordy is 21-22. Not too old for Connor. In fact, I WANT them to get together. Would drive Angel, well, at least, semi-crazy. And make Cordy more interesting.

But Wes is screwed. He thought he could sleep with Lilah and not feel anything for her. But he can't.
[> Not Mrs. Robinson....but Jocasta (Oedipus) -- LA, 00:34:48 10/28/02 Mon

As in Oedipus Connor had a real and a foster father..and he's already tried to kill his real father. More than once. He tried to kill him the first time he met him, as did Oedipus...except Oedipus was successful. And if Cordie isn't his mother, she was his surrogate mother. And we have a prophet predicting doom. Maybe one of the things that Lorne saw but would not say was a relationship between Connor and Cordie and a deadly conflict between Angel and Connor as a result. Think Connor will gouge out his eyes before it's over...or just become emotionally blind to Cordie, unable to see her? And Cordie's lack of memory means she has lost any maternal feelings she might have had toward Connor. Just as Jocaster had no maternal feelings toward Oedipus because she didn't know (and thus didn't remember) she was his mother. If Cordie gets her memory back after the relationship starts will she be horrified at what she has done?

Cooool. So many possibilities. Hope they don't throw them away.
[> Previews, hyperbole, and the fragmentation of memory (4.4 spoilers) -- Masq, 09:08:16 10/28/02 Mon

I just got done erasing a spoiler post title to the effect that Connor would be "making the moves on Cordy" next week.

Maybe he will, but I doubt it will come to anything. The WB isn't as bad as UPN when it comes to misleading promos (did anyone ever get seriously ANNOYED with the hyperbole and misleading nature of Voyager promos??), but I think it is a misleading promo.

The reason I don't think it will come to anything is I don't see Cordelia responding that way to Connor. For one thing, she is seriously vunerable right now and doesn't need someone taking advantage of her. For another thing, she has seen the photos of herself with baby Connor, and even if she doesn't remember it, her first re-introduction to Connor when she got back to Earth was him as an infant in the photos. That's got to stick in your mind when some guy makes a pass at you.

But I also think Cordelia will have a visceral reaction to the idea of being intimate with Connor in that way. And that has to do with the way memory and memory loss works. If you remember in Tabula Rasa, Willow lost her memory of who she was, who here friends were, her whole life. But she retained not only an attraction to Tara, but an emotional connection to her. So did Buffy and Dawn.

Memory of one's identity and emotional memory reside in different parts of the brain. I think Cordelia will retain the emotional memory of maternal feelings towards Connor, even if she doesn't remember the events that lead to those feelings.
Sympathy for the Devil & The Horizon Events of Probability - Thoughts on *Selfless* - Pt. I -- OnM, 22:13:29 10/27/02 Sun

*******

"I wish Buffy Summers had never come to Sunnydale!"

............ Cordelia Chase

*******

( It's nighttime, the interior of Giles' apartment. Giles has been going through books. Buffy stands, not helping. )

Giles: Aha! Here. (paraphrases) In order to defeat Anyanka, one must destroy her powercenter. This should reverse all the wishes she has granted, rendering her mortal and powerless again. (to Buffy) You see, without her powercenter she'll be just an ordinary woman again and all this will be different. (pleased) I'd say my Watcher muscles are not completely atrophied after all!

Buffy: Great. What's her powercenter?

G: Dyeh -- Ahhum, doesn't say.
B: Why don't I put a stake through her heart?
G: She's not a vampire.
B: You'd be surprised how many things that'll kill.
G: I don't want to kill her, Miss Summers. Merely reverse whatever effect she has had on this world.
B: You're taking a lot on faith here, Jeeves.
G: Giles.
B: Kill the bad fairy -- or destroy the bad fairy's powercenter, whatever-- and all the troubles go away.
G: I'm sure it's not that simple, but...
B: World is what it is. We fight and we die. Wishing doesn't change that.
G: I have to believe in a better world.
B: Go ahead. I have to live in this one.

*******

Pleased to meet you / Hope you get my name
But what's puzzling you / Is the nature of my game

............ Rolling Stones

*******

This week's episode opens with the unusual sight of Dawn giving Willow advice concerning her upcoming return to college life. Said advice seems to consist of what, in short form, could be stated as 'watch what everyone else is doing, and then do the same'. I.e., act 'normal'. These constitute some rather interesting suggestions, coming from someone who was once a green-glowy, dimensional-rendering, energy-ball something-or-other, and directed towards 'the most powerful Wicca in the Western hemisphere' who by-the-way happened to nearly destroy the Earth as few months ago.

Normal? Been there, done that. Not going back, nuh-uh-uh. If Bruce Cockburn wrote a tune about The Matrix, it would probably be called The Trouble with Normal Is, There Is No Spoon. Matrix, Buffyverse, same diff, and Selfless pretty much proved the fact, and in more ways than one. But that's for later on, during the much-anticipated Wacky New Theory portion of this week's essayage. It took me quite a while (and multiple, much-studied re-viewage) to even get a handle on everything that went down last Tuesday, and I'm still not sure that I've scoped more than just the main meanderings.In fact, after the original first-run partaking thereof, I was sitting there in my chair in a semi-brain-funk because I knewthat something was happening but I didn't know what it was, now did I, Mr. Jones? Oh, it wasn't that I didn't follow the action and plot and all. It was just that it has been a long time since I can recall a Buffy ep that layered itself in so many historical/literary refs and such, both within as to the Buffyverse and without as to the Normalverse, that my lack of knowledge in these areas was really holding me back. That, and the unsureness as to whether or not the odd visual look of the show was due to deliberate choices on the part of the BtVS creative staff, or else just your basic ineptitude on the parts of the area UPN affiliate and/or my doofus cable company.

As to the latter, I have come to the conclusion that it was some of both, so this also made my analysis a bit more taxing as I set out to filter which was which.

Take the opening scene of the show, where Willow, Dawn, Buffy and Xander are apparently in Willow's room at the Summers' house. The scene is set at night, and indoors, so it is natural that the lights and the colors of the scene would be subdued, muted, almost slightly fuzzy. Except-- I've rarely ever seen this done before on the series. Indoor shots, nighttime or no, are usually as crisply lit and accentuated as the danger that lies in wait at any moment. The photography here, in this scene, gave the overall impression of looking at something through a technical 'fog', as if the original film had been copied onto VHS videotape, then copied again back onto film.

It was so odd, that I was about to twiddle the picture settings on the TV to 'spruce things up' a bit, when the 'Act Normal' scene cut abruptly to the scene with Anya in the frat house, bodies everywhere, blood everywhere, and the photography was suddenly back to 'classical' horror-film' chiaroscuro-- the 'normal' Buffyverse 'reality'. Did this mean that the 'normal' part that went before wasn't really normal? Was the conversation about 'fitting in' meant to have an even deeper irony than the obvious one it offered up?

Oh, yeah.

So, moving onward to after the first commercial break, we return to find a scene which brings to mind Ingmar Bergman, or more accurately, the (in)famous Bergman parody short film, Die Duve. Only instead of Mooska the cow and her perverted human paramour, we have rabbits everywhere and someone named Aud, which a later-on Google search revealed to be a name meaning either 'wealthy' or 'silent'. Ooooooo...K. Add on this big, lumbering hulk of a guy named Olaf, some deliberately (not the cable company this time) phony-looking grain and film scratches on a washed-out looking stock, and things are getting pretty trippy.

Aud is obviously Anya, and the fact that Olaf isn't currently a Troll God means that Anya's turn to the vengeful side hasn't taken place yet. All appears well as Olaf blusters into the house, cursing those annoying trolls, and does his best Hagar the Horrible impression for Helga-- I mean, Aud-- pleading for some Mead and some breeding.

All right, Hagar never mentions anything about breeding to Helga, but then Aud obviously isn't Helga, either. After stating that she intends to donate the surplus of bunnies to the rest of the community as a gesture of good will, her sunny disposition turns very, very cloudy as Olaf admits to hanging out at the local tavern, and furthermore hanging in the presence of a 'bar-matron' named Rannveig. Aud obviously thinks that something beyond normal customer/ matron relations is transpiring, but Olaf denies it. (BTW, 'Rannveig', according to my research, is a name that roughly translates as 'house-protector' or 'house-woman'. My on-line reference states that it is a name 'of recent origin'. What constitutes recent, the ref doesn't say).

While we don't really know whether the next scene is the next day or the next month, somehow Aud's suspicions must have been confirmed, because Olaf is now a really big troll, and the villagers are chucking meats and veggies in his direction, and hiding their children and beadwork. The photography neatly and smoothly transitions back to normal full color and 'reality' as the camera pivots to show Aud standing by a demony looking fellow we recognize as D'Hoffryn, Anyanka's vengeance mentor. He questions her about the spell used to transform the hapless Olaf, and then openly expresses admiration for her 'talents'. He refers to her as Anyanka, and urges her to renounce her present life, and pursue her 'real abilities'.

Now, this is where things took a somewhat unexpected turn. Aud appears to be a lot like the (human) Anya we know from the contemporary Buffyverse, with her direct, overly linear speech patterns and odd relationships with rabbits. She also has the capacity for love and warmth that we have observed develop in the last few years since Anya lost her demon status. Olaf states emphatically that he loves his Aud, and frankly I believe him, oafishness or no. Is he diddling Rannveig? Well, I believe that too. Is turning him into a giant troll-- creatures that he professes to despise with great passion-- appropriate vengence for his misdeed? One could argue that it is, but wouldn't a few days or weeks in this state have been sufficient punishment?

There is no way we shall ever know if Aud would have relented after a time and restored her significant other to normalcy, since D'Hoffryn was successful in taking advantage of the feeling of justice that had been accomplished and drew Aud into becoming Anyanka. In a time typical of most of human history, where women generally had very little in the way of personal empowerment, D'Hoffryn's offer had to be attractive. Here was this being, obviously powerful, who was insisting that she, ordinary little Aud, could be powerful also. A being who appeared to respect her for what she was, and encourage her to become even more. Who, as we find out in the bookend to this scene at the end of the episode, is not much more than a demonic pimp and Anyanka one of his whores.

But Aud does not know this at the time and gratefully accepts the stranger's offer, smiling in anticipation of finally becoming someone more self-respecting than Olaf's favorite bunny. The next transition, to a scene of Anya (in obvious Lady Macbeth style) washing the copious amounts of blood from her hands, is one of perfect balance, showing a proud beginning and equally ignoble ending. Anya is aghast at what she has done, and equally so at the debilitating thought that she has finally crossed a line for which there is no way back. Later on in the show, Xander expresses stunned disbelief that Buffy would even consider killing Anya instead of trying to help her, but at this current moment, the hard darkness of the tiny frat bathroom closing in around her, Anya must be thinking exactly that-- that Buffy, who discerns the requirments of her own calling as surely as Anyanka did hers-- will need to 'do her job'. When that time comes, Anya will put up a fight, but I really think she already understands that's it's all for show. She knows Buffy well enough to realize that demons are only permitted to live within Buffy's realm when they don't kill Buffy's kind, and further comprehends that this is only reasonable.

The potential impending conflict between human and demon repeats itself in the next scene, where Spike is talking with Buffy in the basement of the new Sunnydale High School. Most viewers, myself included, have been following the interations between Buffy and Spike since the ensoulment revelation in the church with a mixture of puzzlement and curiousity, wondering just where ME is ultimately going with this particular arc. When last we saw Buffy speak with Spike, she was still pretty cool and distanced from him, more Slayerish than humane. Startlingly, we see 'HumanBuffy' sitting by Spike's side, a look of kindly beneficence all over her face and body language, assuring a fairly coherent-sounding Spike that 'they will work this out together'. There really isn't any sexual subtext to this exchange, just the idea of one person offering support to another one who is in pain, and in need of help and guidance. This is quite a radical change from the previous meeting between these two, but then the camera sweeps over to the other side of the room, and we see another Buffy, this one black-clad, steely looking, harsh and unyielding. SlayerBuffy strides purposefully over to where Spike sits, and looks piercingly at him.

Spike seems momentarily disoriented, then shakes his head and beings to laugh, seemingly at his own befuddled brain. He doesn't freak, he just accepts. Another delusion?, he must be thinking. Is she real or was the other one? Are they somehow both real? After all, he knows all too well that indeed, at different times, they are both the 'real' Buffy. The split is just no longer which aspect of her personality is currently at the fore within the one body-- now there are actually two different bodies. It makes no sense, and yet it does. And of course, in different ways, he loves them both-- the bright fire and righteous passion of the one, the warmth and forgiving grace of the other.

The announcement made by the one with fire is not actually cruel, but it is extremely stern and demanding, basically insisting that Spike prove he is worthy of a soul by getting up off his ass and getting out of 'this basement', which is rather obviously not a good place for him-- or likely anyone-- to be living in. Spike replies that 'he doesn't have anyplace else to go'. Is this true? Perhaps it is, but more likely this is what The First Evil (or whomever) wants him to believe. In either case, ME seems to intend for this scene to inspire debate as to whether one approach or another has the best chance of setting Spike on the road to redemption, should redemption be what they have in mind. (And that surely isn't a given, by any means).

Some fans may natuarally tend to lean towards the side of kindness and overt charity (as do I, but then I'm an old softy), however I clearly recognize that it was Whistler who had to apply some 'tough-love' to get Angel back on the path, by getting him to stop unliving like a refugee and find a focus. In that case, the focus was Buffy, who Angel had never met before. This time around, Spike already knows (and of course loves) Buffy, so that might save some time and a lot of misery, but he still has to pull himself up-- it isn't Buffy's job to redeem him, he needs to find that power within himself.

And so we are back to Anya. Willow has just been given the good news that she will be able to return to college life, and she's nearly ecstatic with yet another sign that she can re-enter 'normal' human society. No sooner does her one professor walk off, leaving her in the glow, than she spies Anya, clutching a white cloak tightly around her person, leaving the frat house where the vengeance slaughter has recently taken place. She still looks terrible, but as Willow approaches she tries to cover for her strange appearance by informing Will that she 'has a new boyfriend, and we've just had lots of sex'. Willow seems to sense that something is odd, and has it confirmed when Anya moves a hand to straighten her hair, revealing a splotch of blood that she missed during her attempted cleanup. Willow hides her reaction, and allows Anya to leave. She then investigates the frat house, finding the horribly violated bodies of the victims, and a terrified young woman, the apparent 'wisher', cowering in a closet. The woman repeats over and over again, "I take it back, I take it back."

Willow quizzes the girl and once the 'wish' word is uttered, knows immediately that the surrounding carnage has to be Anya's work. The creature responsible for the deaths, a giant demon spider, appears behind Willow and attacks her, but she holds it off with a magical force-field of some kind, and thrusts it out through a nearby window. During the time she engages the spell, her eyes turn black, and she snaps "stop whining!" at the terrified girl in a cold, hard fashion, not unlike SlayerBuffy's treatment of Spike in the previous scene, or during DarthWillow's slams at 'whiny' Dawn in last's season's endgame eps. After the spider has been temporarily repelled, Willow's eyes immediately return to normal, and she apologizes to the victimized girl for her behavior.

There seems to be a rather clear pattern being presented-- Buffy, Anya, Willow and Spike are all 'split' to some degree or another, with a human side and a 'demon' side. We already know that Giles has a 'Ripper' side, and Dawn was once not human and has presented serious evidence lately that she can be 'scary'. Xander, the 'most human' of the group, nonetheless manages to be seperated into suave, capable Xander and silly, erratic, insecure Xander. There appeared to be prior evidence given that this year would show Buffy and the Scoobies 'reintegrating' their disparate natures, but perhaps that isn't going to take place as quickly as we may have thought. Is this delay because of the influence of the year's big bad, or was the four months over the summer just not enough time yet? Buffy at first appeared to be well integrated, and the same for Dawn (who still seems pretty together so far this season), but the recent behavior towards Spike is casting doubt.

This is Anya's show, though. After calling Buffy to alert her about the wayward demon spider, Willow goes to Anya's apartment to confront her about the frat house vengeance. Anya is initially fearful that Willow will turn into her enemy, and becomes very defensive, reminding Willow of her own vengeful misdeeds of not too long ago. Willow declines to duck her responsibilities, and tries to tell Anya that she either needs to ask for help, or that things will get very bad very quickly for her. Anya remains defensive, but at this point I already felt that she had decided on a course of action, and that all she had left to do was try to maintain a degree of diginity, or something that passes for that in either human or demon terms.

We cut to Buffy at her job at the high school. Buffy is dressed in black (as she was when she met with Spike), leaning back in her chair, and balancing a cup of pencils on her forehead. (The 'little stakes' image appears again, like last week when she was sharpening them. Does she have 'stakes on the brain'? Is the placement directly in front of the forebrain-- the 'human' part of the gray matter-- deliberate? She could have been balancing them on a fingertip, or foot, or elsewhere, although granted that wouldn't have been nearly as funny). The phone rings-- it's Willow with news of the spider. She doesn't mention Anya's role, just that the spider needs slayage. Buffy recruits Xander and they go after it.

Out in the woods, Buffy and Xander confront the demon spider, which attacks Buffy viciously. She throws it off, with some effort, and it retreats to the trees. Xander, shaken, wants to go for help, but Buffy ignores him, and is intently watching the trees over her head. She suddenly hefts the battle axe upward, and a few seconds later the spider crashes to the ground, dead. Xander, both grateful for the 'easy' kill and obviously equally unhappy at his extreme lack of real sidekicky assistance to his friend/hero, makes the deflecting quip 'or you could do that'.

Back at the Summer's house, Buffy doesn't seem to notice any pain from her injuries by the spider, even though the wounds look very raw and nasty. I had mentioned last week that Buffy seems to be increasingly tougher when she is in Slayer mode, and this is yet additional evidence. Willow is there and sadly informs Buffy and Xander about Anya, and the deaths at the frat house. Buffy looks somewhat sad, but otherwise there is no real crack in her Slayer demeanor. Xander is angry at Willow for witholding the information about Anya until now, but Buffy stops him, saying she understands. Willow wanted to be sure, because this information means that Anya has to be killed. Xander looks stunned, and we cut to a commercial.


~~~ Continued in Part II ~~~

[> Re: Sympathy for the Devil & The Horizon Events of Probability - Thoughts on *Selfless* - Pt. II -- OnM, 22:24:34 10/27/02 Sun

~~~ Continued from Part I ~~~


When we return, we see another 'historical' scene showing Anya(nka) and Hallie seated at a lavish dinner table in a large, obviously wealthy home at the time of the Russian Revolution. There are dead men everywhere, and the sounds of additional death and destruction are taking place outside the house. Hallie is complementing Anyanka on her work, but saying that there is more to life than just 'her job'. Anyanka disagrees, she sees herself and her work as one and the same. Hallie is interested in 'seeing the sights', but Anyanka wants to pay a visit to the local brothel to punish some additional deserving males.

This is a really critical scene in bringing about an understanding of why the ending of this episode takes place the way that it does. It is becoming apparent that whether she is Aud, or Anyanka, or DemonAnya, or HumanAnya, Anya has never been able to develop a real identity of her own-- she only become 'herself' in terms of her 'job', whether her job was serving the interests of Olaf, D'Hoffryn, Xander, or even as owner of the Magic Box. She confuses her 'self' with her 'profession'. Her years as a human in Sunnydale have gradually split her soul into two parts, one of which is sickened by the pain she has brought about and the other angry and confused at the validity of its (demonic) objectives being questioned this way. No such reticence is apparent at the feast of destruction in Russia, 1905. Anyanka is vengeance personified, feared by humans, admired by demons. All is right with the worlds.

Back at the Summers' house, Xander is freaking badly. He cannot understand why Buffy would even consider killing his lover (there really is no 'ex', despite his previous statements to the contrary. We know all along that he is still deeply in love with his demon). Willow is looking very unhappy, but doesn't offer him much in the way of consolation or advice. She understands that if it had come down to saving the world, Buffy would have killed her too, no matter the pain it might have caused her. This scene was quite wonderful for a number of reasons, not the least of which was finally getting to hear Xander's deception in Becoming come into the light of day, and seeing Buffy get to stand up for herself and her duties as Slayer, making it clear that 'it's never easy'. Unlike Spike, whose dark nature allows him to appreciate the great and sometimes violent power Buffy wields without the simultaneous desire to pull away from it, Xander can never bring himself to accept that his hero could become this emotionally detached from her 'human' side. (Anya states exactly this later on, when she tells Xander that he 'has always seen what he wants to see').

Buffy has many faults, but I have always felt it was manifestly unfair to blame her for doing her job. She's right, she has no 'mystical guidebook' (a little Jossian dig at the value of 'Holy Writ'?) or other 'legalities' to provide her with answers for every situation. Saying that 'I am the law' is jarring and scary because we prefer to see Buffy with the same rose-colored glasses that Xander does illustrates ME's point perfectly. Buffy has nearly always erred on the 'human' side throughout her career as humanity's defender against the demon world, but she knows only too well the risks that come from doing so. It isn't a coincidence that she begs Xander to 'give me an alternative', and then allows him a several minute head start to reach Anya first. Buffy has been backed into a corner, her duty is clear, and she still has enough humanity residing within her Slayer half to give him a chance, any chance, to save the day. The same is true when Xander leaves, and she looks at Willow, her eyes asking the same question-- and Willow doesn't have an answer either. Buffy turns, sword in hand, and heads out the door.

Xander insisted to Buffy that 'when our friends start killing people, we help them, we don't kill them', and in the final act of the show, this is exactly what takes place, and each one of the gang plays an important part. Buffy makes the first move, by challenging Xander and Willow to find a solution, because she has tried and cannot think of one. She allows Xander to leave the house ahead of her, and while she could obviously easily overtake him and get to Anya first, she does not.

Willow gets up, goes to her room and retrieves the talisman/pendant/whatever that D'Hoffryn had given her many seasons ago when she nearly cast a spell to provoke vengeance on Oz, who had betrayed her with the she-werewolf Veruca. (ME may be trying to get newbies into the show, but they never forget the long-term viewers, who are the only ones who would immediately understand what was happening here). I loved the hilarious bit where D'Hoffryn appears and intones in dramatic and scarifying fashion until he sees that it's Willow, and then greets her in a perfectly ordinary, conversational tone of voice. Willow may not have had a very good last year, but her experiences did have the benefit of giving her enough confidence to treat D'Hoffryn as if she were in a position to command his respect, which he apparently grants her. Apparently, there are some up-sides to the Dark Side, at least when it comes to dealing with demonage.

Xander arrives at the frat house, and begins trying to persude Anya to accept the help of her 'friends'. He tells her that Buffy is coming to kill her. Anya confounds him by not only refusing the offer of help, but acts perfectly accepting of the fact that Buffy 'has a job to do'. She tries to imply that Buffy may not succeed, that she, Anyanka, could be the victor in the upcoming battle, but neither she nor Xander really believe this. She knows only too well how powerful Buffy is-- this is, after all, the equally supernatural woman who destroyed a god and sacrificed her own life, willingly, to save her sister and the world. Anya has given up on any chance of becoming human, so the only thing left to do is die fighting, so at least the demon world will give her some credit for trying and dying bravely, in a battle with their enemy.
Buffy arrives, and the battle is joined. Anya makes a surprisingly effective opponent, and Buffy has to work for it, but eventually gets the advantage. She pins Anya to the wall with her sword, right through the heart, a jolting image very reminiscent of when she plunged a sword into Angel in becoming. and pinned him to the statue of Acathla. Naturally, we cut to a commercial, but as we do, we also have to think, "Wait a minute-- last year, we saw Halfrek run through with a sword, and it didn't kill her. Buffy has to know this. So why not a beheading, or some other more permanent method of slayage?"

As we return to the final scenes, we get a hint of what Buffy may be up to. We see a wonderfully choreographed and delightfully wonky song & dance number by Emma Caulfield, obviously from the time period of Once More With Feeling, of last season. In it, Anya relives what she clearly feels to be the happiest period of her 1100 years of existence, singing about how wonderful she feels to be in love with Xander, and about to be married to him in the near future.

There have been references to 'seeing your entire life flash before your eyes' in descriptions of death scenes throughout much of human history, and this scene, or quite possibly all of the flashback scenes in the show, act to show us what Anya has been seeing as she dies. It's pretty sobering-- for one who spent over a millenium priding herself on the satisfaction her 'work' has brought her, all of that time pales in the light of a few short months with a single human being who she knows, despite his foolish and immature betrayal, did, and still does, passionately love her.

But Anyanka doesn't die. As we predicted, a sword through the heart isn't enough to vanquish a vengeance demon, and the dance sequence ends with Anya stirring back to life, and calmly noting to Buffy the failure of her efforts, and that "You know that". Buffy just stares back, her face stoic, thoughts impenetrable. Anya pulls the sword out of her body, screaming in pain as she does-- a very human sounding scream for a demon. Buffy is still unreadable, but backs off as Anya advances towards her, this time with her human, not demon face on. The fight begins again, but it's very short-- Buffy again gets the upper hand, Anya is flat on the floor, looking up at Buffy standing above her, sword in hands, getting ready to deliver the real death blow. Anya stops trying to escape. The image lasts only seconds, if that (you need to use slo-mo or still frame to see it clearly), but Anya realizes that this is the time, and it's as good as the end will ever get. This moment's Anya is emotionally human, and wants the pain to end, to escape the total failure she feels her life to be. The demon Anyanka is no longer in control.

And Xander steps in, crashing his entire body against Buffy, knocking her aside just as the sword is about to descend. Anya is momentarily stunned, and then angry at Xander for drawing out the inevitable. But nothing is ever reliably inevitable in the Buffyverse, and D'Hoffryn suddenly magically appears in the room. All eyes turn to him.
D'Hoffryn is a fascinating character, and with this episode has risen up quite few notches in my own personal 'favorite villians of the Buffyverse' list. He seems to have quite a bit in common with my other favorite baddies, which is that he seems to be one thing, but turns out to be quite another. He reminds me greatly of Mayor Wilkins, who presented the same mixture of overt social 'politeness' with what turns out to be a really evil core. One big difference, though, is that the mayor did seem to retain the human capacity to love, for I am quite certain that evil or not, he did genuinely love Faith like a daughter. Even after his death, he tried to look out for her interests, a benevolent characteristic no longer in evidence with D'Hoffryn, who we now find out seems to regard his 'women' as utilitarian servants, existing only to further his demonic agenda, the familiar one that has as its goal the eventual extermination of the human 'pestilence'. This fact is only revealed to Anya after D'Hoffryn asks her if the penalty of 'the life and soul' of a vengeance demon is acceptable in order to restore the lives of the murdered men. Anya accepts, thinking, as we do, that she will be the one to surrender her life. What difference would it make, as she was just as ready to have Buffy kill her just a few minutes earlier?

But then there is the inevitable ME twist-- D'Hoffryn magically summons Halfrek, and before Hallie has any chance to grasp what is going on, is screaming horribly as her body is enveloped in a fiery shroud that consumes her physical being in seconds.

Anya is appalled at this horrific sight. Her friend, Hallie-- apparently her only remaining true friend in the demon kingdom-- is gone, and with that departure there is the additional knowledge that her soul may live on beyond the physical plane to suffer some kind of torment in some other hell dimension (again, visually reminiscent of Angel being swallowed up into the hell-portal opened by Acathla when Buffy 'killed' Angel, and with a similar suggested afterlife).

The even greater horror begins to really set in as Anya pleads with D'Hoffryn, failing to understand why it was Hallie who was killed, and not herself. "Never go for the kill, when you can go for the pain", D'Hoffryn replies, cruelly. "There will always be vengeance demons. Pain goes on forever". Already reeling, Anya now finds that all along, she has been nothing more than one of D'Hoffryn's vengeance 'whores'. She has never even possessed the one great power that she thought she had, despite all the 'praise' directed her way by the demon kingdom. At best, D'Hoffryn was the bourgeoisie, and she was the proleteriate, and the revolution did not go remotely the way it was expected to.

Despite this abject villainy, D'Hoffryn appears to be a demon of his word, and while we do not see it happen, the frat boys are evidently restored to life. Anya wanders out the door, and Buffy urges Xander to go after her, saying she will 'look after the guys'. The final scene is heartbreaking but realistic, as Xander encourages Anya not to be alone at a time like this, but Anya states that she needs to be. Xander reluctantly goes along with her wishes, and the two part. As Xander slowly walks away, Anya turns and asks him if maybe she really isn't anyone after all. His response, and hers, were about as perfect as could be written, and then we cut to black and the credits.

This was a very fine episode (9 out of 10 for me), and in particular it holds up well with and benefits from repeated viewings. As I mentioned before, I am hard pressed to recall any other ep that drew as heavily as this one did on the past events of the Buffyverse. I also loved the gradual way it became apparent that the story was a mirror for the one between Buffy and Angel at the end of season two, where Angel had turned evil, and Buffy had to kill him despite her previous love. This time Xander, who had hated Angel so much that he lied to Buffy about Willow's attempt to re-ensoul Angelus, got to be on the other end of the coin when his own ex-lover returned to killing humans and had to be dealt with. What goes around. comes around, or as Willow has said, it's all connected. I am wondering if it will occur to Xander that it really wasn't Angel's fault that he was afflicted with a Gypsy curse, and that Buffy's love unwittingly released the demon Angelus, while in his case, the 'curse' was largely of his own doings. While it's true that Anya didn't have to choose demonhood, as Buffy correctly said, Xander knows only too well that none of this would have occurred if he had had more faith in himself. His weakness led to her weakness, and the failings were human, not supernatural ones.

Now it's time for the Wacky New Theory (tm) portion of this week's review adventure! Several posters have wondered whether or not the morphing evil entity in Lessons was real, or whether Spike is hallucinating, perhaps under its influence. From ep. one of this season on, my vote has been that what Spike is seeing is real, at least a large part of the time. Selfless, in my opinion, has acted to confirm this, and I have started to think of a new possibility that extends along those lines.

Think back to the episode Superstar. It was Anya who made the comment about 'alternate universes are fun!', and after getting some evil eyes from the rest of the Scoobies, promptly dropped that topic. The Buffyverse has always accepted the idea of other dimensions of existence, and parallel universes. Back in the spring, when Normal Again aired, my take on the story was that both the Normal Buffyverse and the 'Asylumverse' were real, physical places. (Heck, I even attempted to write a grand ol' novelistic fanfic based on that assumption. But that's not important now). What is important is that several things seem to be coming together here which suggest that something along the multiple/parallel universe line is going to be introduced this year, and what we are seeing now is occuring as a result of that.

I think that some critical event-- whether it was Spike regaining his soul (my vote), Willow conjuring up the means to destroy the Earth, or whatever-- has caused a dimensional split from which two new series of causalities are branching. Having effectively two seperate Buffyverses that are diverging from the original event horizon could explain a lot of things. Back when Willow was doing her invisibility schtick, I assumed that she was 'out of phase' with the Normal Buffyverse, since this concept is a fairly common SF story device for quite a long time now. (The Trek folk use it downright regularly). She is in the same universe, but 'out of phase'.

Now, I am thinking that she may have actually been shifting back and forth between the two diverging universes, depending on her current mental state while under the spell she 'thought of'. Normally, she is in universe 'A'. Whenever Buffy, Xander or Dawn get within a close distance of her, the spell she inadvertantly conjured pushes her into universe 'B'. The divergence of the two universes is very small at the moment, so they are nearly identical. But, there are some problem areas. One-- big surprise-- is shaping up around the Hellmouth, which of course is where Spike/Cerebrus is living. Spike, for what could be a number of logical reasons, can exist in one universe or the other, or perhaps even in both simultaneously, and still be 'connected' to himself-- after all, he now holds multiple personalities within his brain. This could be similar to the 'psychic link' I theorized existed between the Normalverse Buffy, and the Asylumverse Buffy.

So, when Spike sees first the 'compassionate' Buffy, and then turns and sees the 'dispassionate' Buffy, it's not a delusion-- there really are two Buffys. In one of the causalities, Buffy is mostly SlayerBuffy. In the other, Buffy is mostly HumanBuffy. This could really add to the strangeness to come (Not spoiled!-- there is always strangeness to come in BtVS! ;-) if we as viewers did not know for sure which universe we are looking at at any one time. Consider-- right now, in the other universe, Buffy may have chosen to be 'compassionate' to Anya, and did not try to kill her. Anya takes advantage of the situation and leaves Sunnydale. Events change, the universes diverge further. For better? For worse?

All of this leads to the possibility that the First Evil, or whatever the ultimate bad is, could take advantage of this development in some way to enable its rise to power. It could also foreshadow an eventual critical role for Dawn, who-- ta-dah! -- finds a way to use her latent Key powers to mend the rift and put the universes back together again next May.

Well, this sucker is long enough, as usual, so I'll let it go at this little concept swig for now. Think about it a bit, and by all means feel free to poke holes, but think of all the precedents-- there are quite a few events in the past few years that could foreshadow something of this nature. Buffy has always defended the Earth-- what if we now need two Buffy's to defend two Earths?

Closing time-- last call for various portents/observations/etc.:

D'Hoffryn sets a pretty good example of a truly devilish figure. He lies, often but not always. He is cruel when he can be, but seems reasonable or even gracious at other times. From his demonic point of view, humans are low creatures, barely above the level of cattle. Why not play with their heads by enlisting humans to kill their own kind?
I took note of how important the use of names were in this ep when it came to Anya's various incarnations. When Willow summons D'Hoffryn, she calls Anya 'Anya'. D'Hoffryn calls her Anyanka, until after he has killed Hallie and granted Anyanka's wish. (Prior to this, he wanted to get some kind of little insult in by giving away Anya's original human name, Aud, but got cut off first). After the wish, and Hallie's death, he then refers to her as Anya, her human name. The devil's in the details, eh?

During the musical number, I enjoyed Anya's 'lame-ass' pretend-middle-name remark. Anya Emmanuelle Christina Jenkins, something like that, wasn't it? The Demon/Human, Libertine, Child of God, Human/Human? My sincere apologies to all the women out there named Emmanuelle who don't consider themselves 'libertines', but the series of erotic films based on that character have given the name a certain connotation that is hard for many Americans to disregard.

Foreshadowing dept.? Anya washes the blood off her hands while in the bathroom of the frat house. Last season, in the episode where Halfrek grants Dawn's wish, Anya is 'trapped' with Xander in the Summers' bathroom while trying to escape a nasty demon and is freaking out badly, sweating, trying to take off her shirt. Xander tries to calm her, but she seems to sense that something is really wrong. This seemed like odd behavior at the time for her, and I remember many viewers were puzzled by it, including myself. Recall also that the demon in that ep. has some sort of relationship with the sword he carried.

*******

The Master: The days of compromise, of living alongside the humans, are over. It's time to take them out. Time to treat them like... well, let's not mince words here -- like the cattle they are!

*******

Giles: Cordelia Chase. What did she wish for?
Anyanka: (smiling): I had no idea her wish would be so... exciting. A brave new world. I hope she likes it.

G: She's dead.
A: It happens.
G: You're going to change it back. (pause) I'm not afraid of you. Your only power lies in the wishing.
A: Wrong. This is the real world now. There's no going back. This is the world we made.

*******

Anyanka: Trusting fool! How do you know the other world is any better than this?
Giles: (almost to himself): Because it has to be.

*******

( A dark and maleficent demon, D'Hoffryn, sits on a stone altar, barely visible in the dim flicker of candlelight. Kneeling before him is Anya, dressed in ceremonial robes. Neither of them is particularly happy. )

D'Hoffryn: Do not ask again! Your powers were a gift of the lower beings. You have proved unworthy of them.

Anya: I was robbed of them!

D: By your carelessness.
A: For a thousand years I wielded the power of the wish. I brought ruin upon the heads of unfaithful men, I offered destruction and chaos for the pleasure of the lowers beings. I was feared and worshipped across the mortal globe and now I'm stuck at Sunnydale High! A mortal! A child! And I'm flunking math.
D: This is no concern of ours. You will live out your mortal life and die.
A: Give me another chance. You can fold the fabric of time. Send me back to that moment and I'll change it. I won't fail again.
D: Your time is passed.

*******

( At The Bronze - Anya sits grumpily down at the bar.)


Anya: What a day... ( She addresses the waiter behind the counter. ) Gimme a beer.

Waiter: I.D.

( Pause - She stares at him. )

Waiter: I.D.

Anya : (losing it completely): I'm eleven hundred and twenty years old! Just give me a friggin' BEER!

( Long Pause )

Waiter: I.D.

Anya: Give me a coke.

*******

And I shouted out / "Who killed the Kennedys?"
When after all / It was you and me, yeah

Pleased to meet you / Hope you got my name

............ Rolling Stones

*******
[> [> *** SPOILERS *** for BtVS 7.5 in above - Non-spoiler speculation near end of Pt II -- OnM, 22:38:24 10/27/02 Sun

[> [> [> I think your non-spoilery speculation is more spoilery than you may think...;) -- Rufus, 00:55:41 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> well, i guess we are a bit spoiled now. :( -- disappointed, 02:32:42 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Don't worry, no you aren't.....;) -- Rufus, 14:52:53 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't worry, no you aren't.....;) -- notsodisappointed then :), 16:44:36 10/28/02 Mon

thanks. looked like the spec was being confirmed. i feel better now. :)
[> [> Terrific analysis, OnM! -- HonorH, 22:45:19 10/27/02 Sun

I may have additional commentary tomorrow, once I've slept, but I think this is a very balanced, fair view of everyone in the episode. And your theory is a gas. If it turns out to be remotely true, you should sue Joss for custody of the Evil Brain.
[> [> my disjointed probably naive take on 7.05 -- tost, 05:07:03 10/28/02 Mon


I've had a few stray thoughts rattling around and I thought I should get them out before they bruise something.

First let me thank all the posters for their insight and industry, traits I aspire to with hope but no expectation. I especially want to thank Rob who always has the antidote for flagging enthusiasm, Shadowkat for never failing to widen my focus when my vision narrows and OnM who's weekly review of a new episode I look forward to almost as much as the episode.

Insert appropriate disclaimers for the scholastically impoverished and ergonomically flush here.


Willow took a tremendous risk when she called d'Hoffryn not of course as great as the risk Giles took for Willow, but certainly a danger to Buffy and Xander. Perhaps she was counting on d'Hoffryn's affection for Anya (he was at the wedding) to carry the day. At any rate the gamble proved justified and everyone escaped unscathed (except maybe for Hallie and Anya's guilt thereof) I still hold the probably futile hope that Hallie's immolation was not necessary but a show of same was and we may yet see the genisis of her and Spike's mutual recognition. I'm an optimist. It requires less work (see above non-disclaimer). It will be interesting to see how Anya's guilt over Hallie compares with that of her awakening empathy with her past victims. But that is for another time. What I really wanted to talk about was:

d'Hoffryn - Just which side is he on? If you take away all the threatening rhetoric you're left with the fact that he punished Anya for wanting to be a good guy by (maybe) killing a bad guy. Then he leaves, warning of the evil yet to come just in case Buffy wasn't already cued in, without taking Anya's pendent. Before I believe that the view we get of the chain around Anya's neck is an accident or coincidence I'll believe in Leprechauns (forgive me wee folk for using your name in vain).

Actually on my more whimsical days I wonder if d'Hofferyn isn't providing a service by removing dangerous undisciplined witches (see 6.22) to the relatively less dangerous (to the world) profession of Vengeance Demon (I know Sunnydale suffered in the Wishverse but Cleveland was there and the phones worked). That's enough of that nonsense.

The next point (question really, it's all a question) I want to make is. There seems to be significance to 800 or so A.D. The Watcher's Council is changing it's rules, Trolls are running rampant in Sweden, d'Hoffryn shows up. Maybe it's nothing but I am curious.

I suppose the reason that it strikes a chord in me is that sometimes late at night, when I'm alone, the following scene plays in my head.

Joyce: I don't want Buffy to die.
Giles: It's her destiny
Joyce: Well maybe she should retire
Giles: One slayer did. She moved to a cabin in the woods and lived to a ripe old age growing turnips.
Joyce: Well, what happened.
Giles: The Dark Ages.

I don't want to leave without saying a word or two about Buffy (it is her show).

After she pinned Anya to the wall and we had that lovely multi-purpose scene from 2000 we see Buffy standing and watching as Anya wakes up. She showed little surprise, understandable considering Hallie's heads up in OAFA. Anya explained, just in case Buffy had forgotten (fat chance), that Vengeance Demons couldn't be killed that easily. Some more fighting and Buffy gets the sword and again moves to pin Anya through the chest this time to the floor. I don't believe I have ever loved Buffy more then at that minute. The scene reminded me of something I remember Joseph Campbell* saying. I believe he was talking about "I come not with peace but a sword" or some such thought from Jesus. Campbell thought this referred to the cutting open of the psyche to allow (humanity?, divinity?, integration?) in and (guilt?, doubt?, conflict?) out .(it's been a while and my mind doesn't work as well as I once thought it did)
How many times would Buffy have to skewer Anya until Anya could release her guilt. eleven? thirteen? At any rate Buffy didn't seem to be in any hurry. To me she seemed compassionate yet ruthless, resolute yet flexible. Waiting patiently while delivering fatal blows until Anya was able to suggest the third option that no one else could.

I thought it was beautiful.

d'Hofferyn's arrival interrupted what could have been a fascinating, albeit repetitive, scene and offered a quicker way to relieve Anya's guilt and allow her to decide who she really is. Good for the frat boys, bad for Hallie (probably). d'Hoffryn leaves, Anya leaves still sporting the amulet (a mislead from ME? why?), Buffy goes to check on the newly revivified boys and Xander goes after Anya to tell her she shouldn't be alone (really to let her know she isn't). To my taste a very, very satisfying episode.

tost

*I hesitate to invoke this name as there seems to be some disagreement on this board as to his ultimate worth. Personally he has my gratitude for making his thoughts accessible to me. I realize he stands on the shoulders of giants. (doesn't everyone)
[> [> [> Love Unknown -- Rahael, 05:20:37 10/28/02 Mon

I love your point about Buffy and Anya. It reminds me of a poem, "Love Unknown" by George Herbert, an Anglican priest. He talks of how he goes to offer his heart as a sacrifice to Jesus. But each time he does, the Angel standing beside him does something cruel. Tosses it into a font, where the heart starts bleeding. The second time, it was onto a scalding hot pan. His hard heart expells a calciferous matter. At last, disheartened, he goes home to bed but finds his mattress full of pins and needles, stopping him from sleeping and piercing his body.

The poem ends by saying:

The Font did onely, what was old, renew:
The Caldron suppled, what was grown too hard:
The Thorns did quicken, what was grown too dull:
All did but strive to mend, what you had marr'd.
Wherefore be cheer'd, and praise him to the full
Each day, each houre, each moment of the week,
Who fain would have you be new, tender, quick.

And, don't worry about quoting Joseph Campbell! It's just that there's a bit of a pendulum swing. When I first got here, his word was holy, and he was recommended as required reading to everyone. Nearly every major essay quoted him as an authority. It's impossible for everyone to agree with such an approach and the inevitable happened - a few people started making a point of saying that they didn't find him very helpful. But the vast majority of the board find him the major resource for Buffy analysis. I'm not one of them, but I think any resource that clarifies your own thinking (and I use poetry a lot) is worth it, if it produces good posts like the one you've just made!
[> [> [> [> Spoilers for "Selfless" above, and in tost's post -- Rahael, 07:30:32 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Love Unknown -- tost, 07:50:41 10/28/02 Mon

Thanks Rahael for your kind words and fixing my slip. I always read, always love but seldom understand your poems. Please keep them coming.
[> [> [> [> [> lol (Spoilers for AtS 4.2, "Ground State") -- Rahael, 09:25:23 10/28/02 Mon

yeah, quoting a complex metaphysical poem is rather like answering a question with a question!!

Just to clarify, why that poem leaped out at me was because when I first read it (it's complex but very clever - also, very few 17th C poems can do ordinary conversational tone), the treatment of the heart by God is shocking. It gets boiled alive, scalded, pierced all over, chucked to the ground. How could a loving God treat an offering like that?

Because it makes you "new, tender, quick". It took a calcified, dead, hardened heart and made it beat again. Seems to tie in with Buffy's problem with heart irregularities, and Angel's suddenly beating heart in AtS
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Love Unknown -- aliera, 19:03:38 10/28/02 Mon

I wanted to second what Rah had to say with a bit more of an endorsement for Campbell (and many fine other writers in this field) and the poetry. I love the blend on the board and the differences of the posts and in the spirit of that (and my own leanings!) I always enjoy a little Campbell in the mix. I read him for the first time this summer (incredible! I know) and very much enjoyed his work and the works of others he led me to. For me poetry often expresses things I have difficulty finding my own words to say, since I'm not as adept at that as many others here. In terms of the reading I so sympathize. I read far too much and far too widely and my abilities to recall often lag far beyond my recall.

One of the my enjoyable aspects of reading the thoughts here is the great variety of thoughts and connections and meanings that we each take from the show. For example, your mention of the year in question. I had seen it mentioned but not with the connections that you made. I found it interesting that D'Hoffyn used the word family and that they gave her a third name and that we received her full made up name in her song. I read what OnM said about Emanuelle; but me (in my naivety) thought first of Emmanuel and of course Christ but also St Christopher.

I also hadn't thought about the risk Willow assumed particularly in light of the darkness of her eyes we saw in the frat house. My thoughts of her aspect sitting on the couch were focused on wondering how afraid she might of been at that moment. What was she wondering about herself, after seeing the destruction that power can wreak and her slipping into darkness?

I very much enjoyed your post. Are you new to the board? I have been in and out quite a bit lately, apologies if I missed your postings. But if new...welcome!
[> [> [> [> Re: Love Unknown -- anom, 20:34:02 10/28/02 Mon

It's like answering a question with a question, Rahael? You sure you're not Jewish? @>) Speaking of which, part of the Yom Kippur liturgy asks God to take the heart of stone from within us & give us a heart of flesh.

"How could a loving God treat an offering like that?

Because it makes you 'new, tender, quick'. It took a calcified, dead, hardened heart and made it beat again. Seems to tie in with Buffy's problem with heart irregularities, and Angel's suddenly beating heart in AtS"

This makes me think of Buffy's condition in S6. She'd been brought back to life but still seemed dead(ened) in many ways. Maybe all the different kinds of pain she went through were what it took to open her up to life again--to make her "new, tender, quick.*"

On the other hand, she seemed overly sensitive/tender when she 1st came back, telling Spike, "Everything here is bright. Hard. Violent." She may have hardened herself against feeling those things. As she found out, it doesn't work.

Ooh, couple other thoughts. Maybe this was what Spike thought he could do for Buffy in the attempted rape scene. "I'll make you feel it!" He's trying to break through her emotional defenses by breaking through her physical ones.

And on the other hand, in a way, maybe Buffy herself was trying to do this in her mutually abusive relationship w/Spike. Using him to hurt herself till she could feel something--not love, as he thought she felt but denied, but anything. (Now that I think of it, these attempts may be a parallel to Anya's attempted "suicide by cop," as Rufus put it, via Buffy.) But instead she lost herself in the violent sex, substituting the physical feelings for the emotional ones she couldn't deal with.

It didn't work for either of them. Spike mistakes Buffy's sexual response in their earlier, um, sessions for love. No less than in Crush, he's still attributing his feelings to her. And Buffy has chosen a method that disgusts her, possibly reflecting her feelings about herself & her restored life, & then takes these feelings out on Spike, which makes her feel even worse about herself & may confirm her self-disgust. Then she shuts down even more, & has to try harder to break through. Or maybe she's punishing herself. Or both.

Wow. This post went places I didn't expect.

*For non-native-English speakers, an older/poetic meaning of "quick" is "alive," as in "the quick & the dead."
[> [> [> [> [> Excellent post, Anom: Love Unknown -- alcibiades, 07:26:42 10/29/02 Tue

In particular I like your parallel of the Yom Kippur service with Angel's heart.

I'm a little worried for Angel about what is going to happen to him not that the Apocalypse is arriving and his heart feels quick once again and the Dinza pronounced he is only at the beginning of what he is going to lose. It certainly seems he has lost Cordy to some extent.

I wonder if his opening dreams were prophetic to some extent.

Ooh, couple other thoughts. Maybe this was what Spike thought he could do for Buffy in the attempted rape scene. "I'll make you feel it!" He's trying to break through her emotional defenses by breaking through her physical ones.

I agree with this 100%. But obviously her emotions can't be triggered that way.

I also think it is interesting that in light of the soul, Buffy has gotten harder with him than she was in Lessons or the first half of BY. Maybe, on some level, unconsciously perhaps, or in her gut or somewhere, she feels more vulnerable so she has to keep herself completely hard now when she is around him.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent post, Anom: Love Unknown -- Sophist, 08:43:47 10/29/02 Tue

Ooh, couple other thoughts. Maybe this was what Spike thought he could do for Buffy in the attempted rape scene. "I'll make you feel it!" He's trying to break through her emotional defenses by breaking through her physical ones.

I would say it differently: he was trying to force her to acknowledge an emotion that he believed she was suppressing by recourse to the physical stimulus which (in his twisted way) he believed to have generated that emotion. In other words, Spike thought Buffy loved him because of the sex, rather than that she had sex because she loved him.

This is an interesting psychological point. William James argued that emotions do not generate changes in the body. Instead, changes in the body cause emotions. Paraphrasing his famous phrase, "we do not run because we are afraid, we are afraid because we run." If James was right, Spike's understanding of psychology may have been better than his morals.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> which comes 1st? -- anom, 22:12:47 10/29/02 Tue

Oy. Really didn't mean that as a double entendre, but....

"In other words, Spike thought Buffy loved him because of the sex, rather than that she had sex because she loved him."

I wasn't really saying he did (at least I don't think so). Spike was insisting Buffy loved him long before she had sex w/him.

As for William James' theory, I've read similar things. But if "we do not run because we are afraid, we are afraid because we run," then why do we run?
[> [> [> [> [> Very nice! -- Rahael, 02:45:37 10/30/02 Wed

I'm not having much time to check the boards at the moment. Wish I could write a longer reply.
[> [> On Your Spoiler Spec -- CW, 05:33:49 10/28/02 Mon

Something struck me immediately in the scene where Buffy hunts the spider demon. We have seen Buffy make innumerable kills. We have seen her in even more fights. Buffy is unquestionably right handed. But she tosses the axe to kill the spider demon with her left hand . That is the oldest trick in the book to deceive an audience into thinking they are seeing something normal when they are not.

Before your post I hadn't really thought about it, but I was convinced that the two Buffy's in the basement both, black Buffy and white Buffy, were equally real (or unreal).

If what you say is what is actually happening, I think ME ought to put Wisewoman in the credits. I liked the idea when she told us that 'split Buffy' was a good explanation of how 'Buffy came back wrong' last year. In fact, I thought it was a much better story than what played out last season. The week before Selfless I thought I noticed some things that were almost nods to individuals on this board. ME is 'stealing' our best ideas! And if the season so far is any indication, I say let 'em! ;o)
[> [> Spec on the spec... yet still non-spoilery! -- ponygirl, 07:04:19 10/28/02 Mon

First off, great review, OnM. I always look forward to your reviews, they come after the furor of a new episode has died down a tad and we can look at the issues raised with a bit of perspective.

I think your theory is an interesting one, and it certainly ties in to ME's penchant for stories about doubles and shadow selves, and the whole alternate reality thing. The trouble I have with it is the same one I had with the early season 6 theory that Buffy had come back without her soul. If in season 6, say at the end of Dead Things, we had found out that Buffy had indeed come back wrong, it would have negated any impact of her behaviour up until that point. It becomes a problem to be fixed rather than a psychological journey.

If there are two dimensions, two Buffy's, I would assume it would be the same situation as The Replacement-- they're both Buffy-- but would they also need to be integrated? Again would this negate what we have seen of Buffy this season? Does the Buffy, who we speculate needs to reconnect with her heart, simply require a little dimensional shimmy to fix everything? I'm not against your theory, but if it plays out I wonder if we would be heading close to the famed Trek reset button, or as close as ME can get.
[> [> [> Well, season 6 spoilers -- ponygirl, 07:56:00 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> Existentialist Responsibility -- Sophie, 08:32:29 10/28/02 Mon

But who's responsible for Halfrek's death?


As an existentialist, an individual is responsible for all of their behaviors, and the direct consequences of their behaviors. And to a some limited extent the indirect outcomes of their behaviors. How far down this slope an individual's responsibility goes is not quite answered. What about indirect and unforeseen outcomes? I am still responsible even when I never realized blah would happen?

Masq's analysis asks if Anya should be slain, but she doesn't ask who is responsible for Halfrek's death. As we are existentialist scoobies, I think that we should ask this question.

D'Hoffryn - he committed the original action, that is, he killed Halfrek. Therefore he is responsible, bu is he the only one responsible?

Halfrek - as a vengeance demon, one can argue that she deserves to be killed. But she should be killed for her own mis-justices, not for Anya's failures as a vengeance demon.

Buffy - HonorH brilliantly pointed out that Buffy and Anya's relationship is uncomfortable and the best solution is avoidance of each other. But Buffy makes a decision to kill Anya, which is the catalyst of Anya's situation in "Selfless".

Anya - She agrees to D'Hoffryn taking the life and soul of a vengeance demon. Anya is offering her life and soul, she never intends for her agreement to result in Halfrek being killed. This is the classic case stated above of an individual's behavior resulting in an indirect behavior of another - how far does the responsibility go?

Xander - I'll include him because of his messy break-up with Anya that results in her returning to being a vengeance demon.


Sophie
[> [> [> Bringing in the Shakespeare -- Tchaikovsky, 09:01:40 10/28/02 Mon

This question reminds me of the question about who is responsible for Romeo and Juliet's ultimate deaths in the play.

Pleading guilty or not guilty we have:

Friar Lawrence for being an inept fool, and not sending Juliet's letter on.

The Nurse, of course, for not spilling the beans on the whole issue, (despite the fact that she seems incapable of shutting up through the rest of the play).

Juliet herself for devising such a madcap scheme in the first place

Romeo for compromising his position in a proud house

Capulet and Lady Capulet for making the match between Juliet and Paris despite her protestations.

The Families in general for not loving their neighbours.

And I could probably make up perverse arguments for Mercutio, Tybalt et al if I had the inclination.

How do we apportion blame?

Of course, 'everything's connected', so if we're being exhaustive, an arbitrarily large number of people can be implicated in a death. Does this mean all of them were morally wrong in doing actions, even if they could never have predicted the consequences? Or are Romeo and Juliet merely 'star-crossed lovers' for whom fate has written a tragic end.

Sorry I didn't really 'answer' your post Sophie. Just throwing up ideas.

TCH
[> [> [> [> Not a problem...i'm just tossing out ideas, too -- Sophie, 10:12:54 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> [> Re: Existentialist Responsibility -- shadowkat, 11:29:49 10/28/02 Mon

I guess I'm of the view that in the end? We're all more or less at least partially responsible for our own fates or at least for taking the roads that lead us there. Blaming others for who we are or where we end up, seems a bit easy to me. Or like picking scapegoats.

Halfrek or Cecily - decided long ago to become a vengeance demon - to be one of D'Hoffryn's "girls". She sold her soul to belong to D'Hoffryn. Which meant he could dispose of her as he wished. Whether she realized this at the time or not?
(shrug). It reminds me a bit of the old deal with the Devil, and forgetting to read the fine print. D'Hoffryn tempts his ladies with the high life, put the end price?
Their souls. Is D'Hoffryn the person responsible? Is the Devil? Or are we? For selling our souls for the high life for vengeance?

As Buffy tells Xander in Selfless: "Anya chose to be a demon twice. She had a choice." Unlike Spike who did not choose to be a demon or chose to have a chip.

Anya may not have known the risks when she first chose the gig. But she certainly knew them when she decided to do it again. D'Hoffryn tells her as much. "I've Always told you Anya don't go for the death when you can go for the pain."

Did Halfrek? I'm not sure. I think Halfrek lied to herself.
I don't know whether or not Hallie was Cecily, but the two characters remind me of each other. And in some ways remind me of Cordelia. They are vain. They believe they deserve great things. That they are "justice" demons for your FYI not "vengeance". While Anya looks at the world through a literal lense. Halfrek looks through the world via a mirror containing her own idealized image. Hallie can't imagine being killed by D'Hoffryn. She can't imagine being looked down on. She is a mighty vengeance demon.

So, yes, I think Halfrek was partly responsible for her own demise.

Was Anyanka? Yes. Anya made the choice to be vengeance demon. I don't believe we can blame Xander for that choice. That would be akin to blaming Tara for Willow's foray into dark magic in Wrecked and Smashed. Any more than we can blame Olaf for Anya turning him into a troll and becoming the vengeance demon. Anya may have gone back to what she knew? But she had other options. She could have chosen to take a trip to Aruba. Or jump off a cliff. Or drown her sorrows in alcohol. Xander's decision to not marry her did not in any way = vengeance demon. That was Anya's choice.

Just as it was Anya's choice to kill the frat boys. And to take it back. Is it her fault Hallie died? Not entirely.
That was an unforeseen consequence, true. But she knew that there would be a price. To assume, as D'Hoffryn tells her, that it wouldn't be a painful one? Is a little niave.

Is it Buffy's fault? No, I think we'd be hard pressed to blame Buffy. Buffy did her best under the circumstances.
Buffy is taking on enough blame as it is thank you very much. Buffy certainly could not have known about D'Hoffryn or that Anya could take it back. Buffy just knew she had to stop Anayanka and she did that to the best of her ability.
Also when Buffy first met Anya - she could not have foreseen that Anya would become a vengeance demon again.
Anya helped her on numerous occassions and assisted her in fighting Willow last year. It would have been out of line not to have given Anya some benefit of the doubt.

Willow? No...all Willow did is let Anyanka's boss know she wanted to quit. She couldn't have known what the consequences were either or that Anaynaka would go through with it.

So the only people responsible for Hallie's death? Are Hallie for choosing to be vengeance demon, Anya for reasons stated above and well D'Hoffryn for killing her.

Romeo and Juliet? I've always believed that the only ones responsible for killing Romeo and Juliet were Romeo and Juliet. Everyone else helped, yes. But no one made them commit suicide. That was their choice.
[> [> [> [> Re: Existentialist Responsibility -- Miss Edith, 04:54:00 10/29/02 Tue

"Buffy could not have foreseen that Anya would become a vengeance demon again"? This is pretty O/T but I always felt that the scoobies could have been more helpful in their attitudes towards Anya. She was constantly joking about her past crimes and the scoobies knew she lacked remorse. E.g at the senior prom she was telling Xander about causing heads to explode and people being forced to eat themselves, he just looks put off and changes the subject.

In BuffyVsDracula Anya talks of how sweet it is that Dracula has in the past told her that one of her victims is cursed forever. She chirperly notes "It's kind of sweet isn't it". And Xander sarcastically replies "adorable". In SB she tells Willow if she still had her powers she would burn Oz alive and Xander notes how sweet Anya is being.

In ITW Anya talks of having set a village on fire and killing all the inhabitants and Xander just shrugs it off as "Can you stop beign scary for a moment and listen to me". Basically changing the subject when his girlfriend brings up her mass murdering past. And then surprise is expressed when she makes the decision to return to vengeance after being left at the alter. In Pangs she is arguing "you know sometimes vengeance is justified" and I just feel personally that the scoobies were very irresponsible in the way they refused to address her past.

I know I have been known to comment on Spike being seen as a an evil soulesss thing with nothing good or clean in him being unhelpful. But at the opposite end of the spectrum Anya did have love and approvel but her friends who were introducing her to society utterly failed to judge her past and address what is right in todays society.

I just find it strange that Xander lectured Buffy on sleeping with Spike who killed half of Europe yet utterly failed to address his own girlfriends past.
[> [> [> [> [> Seeing -- shadowkat, 07:45:20 10/29/02 Tue

"I just find it strange that Xander lectured Buffy on sleeping with Spike who killed half of Europe yet utterly failed to address his own girlfriends past."

I think Anyanka address this flaw in Xander with the line:
"You've always seen what you wanted to Xander."

Which is true. Xander's flaw is that he "sees through his heart" whether that be in jealousy, envy, or love or fear.

Notice how many times people use the word see in this episode?

Spike: I don't trust what I see anymore.

Buffy: That's why you can't see this clearly (to Xander after he mentions how much he loves Anya)

Anya: I always saw myself this way...vengeance demon. (But never knew who I was)- not exact.
or "Xander you always saw what you wanted."

D'Hoffryn: (to Xander) and he looks through the eyeballs of love.

The characters see what they want to see. Whether it's themselves or others. And we the audience have the same flaw. The trick is try not to.
[> [> [> Re: Existentialist Responsibility -- Robert, 13:02:31 10/28/02 Mon

>>> "But who's responsible for Halfrek's death?"

If you are willing to take responsibility to such extent, then I suggest you haven't gone far enough.

Olaf -- if only he had kept his grubby hands off the bar maiden, there would have been no Anyanka, only Aud.

The frat boys -- if they hadn't crushed the girl in the first place then Anyanka wouldn't have been called, would not have murdered them, would not have felt guilt, would not have asked D'Hoffryn for the favor of fixing everything.

Angel -- if he had never met Buffy back at the start, then Buffy might not have been so quick to eliminate murdering demons, in rebound from her failure to deal effectively with Angelus.

Joyce -- let's face it, if she hadn't gotten pregnant with Buffy, then ...

and on and on and on ...

I would like to point out that I do not buy into this concept of infinite responsibility, especially when applied to legal theory.
[> [> [> [> Glad you don't -- Sophist, 13:50:53 10/28/02 Mon

The law doesn't buy into that theory either. The law distinguishes 2 types of causation: "proximate" cause, and "but for" cause. The latter is the sort of "the sun rose today, thus contributing to the murder" type of cause you (rightly) describe as infinite. The law does not impose responsibility for that.

Instead, the law looks to the "proximate" cause of harm. This generally means what we would think of as the immediate cause. Even then, a wrongdoer is not necessarily liable for all the immediate/proximate results of a bad act. The basic rule (with lots of nuance) is that the actor is responsible for the consequences of his/her acts that a reasonable person would foresee. What constitutes "reasonably forseeable" is generally for the jury to decide.
[> [> Fascinating -- lots to think about now. -- yez, 11:54:03 10/28/02 Mon

[> [> Spec on spec (not spoiled) -- verdantheart, 12:44:09 10/28/02 Mon

I find your speculation fascinating. But one thing is for sure: our split-personality vampire Spike is definitely shaping up as a Cerberus. He "guards" the Hellmouth, a gateway from here to, well, Hell, speaking of tickets and authorization at times. His psyche is split, perhaps into 3 personalities--it's hard to tell--but he did mention that it was "just the three of us," representing the three heads of Cerberus. And, of course, it's very apt, what with the dog imagery that has surrounded the character of Spike since his inception. He may say he has "nowhere to go," but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that his place is where he is--it's the place where he belongs--where his duty lies. Or perhaps he is "chained" there, like a dog, by "invisible chains."

We've had so little of Spike since "Beneath You," I'm looking forward to seeing how they follow up.
[> [> More unspoiled spec on your spec, thanks to alcibiades -- verdantheart, 13:05:00 10/28/02 Mon

You talk about a reality split that might go back to Spike's soul acquisition. How about going all the way back to Willow's ressurrection spell (see alcibiades post, ME anvil textual proof Something is Wrong with Buffy... (Spoilers 7.5))? This would explain the splitting of Buffy into Warrior!Buffy and Nice!Buffy. Does Spike, now in his maddened state co-exist in these two realities and see both Buffys?

Thanks, both OnM and alcibiades.
[> [> [> Thanks for bringing that up, vh! -- Rob, 13:08:23 10/28/02 Mon

I knew I read that post recently, but couldn't remember the name or who wrote it. But that is what I thought of, reading OnM's spec.

Rob
[> [> [> I just can't quite buy this. -- HonorH, 22:14:22 10/28/02 Mon

I did see a strongly Warrior Buffy in this ep, but at the same time, I felt her heart as well. She was doing what she had to with Anya, but it hurt her--she wanted any other option. There were no quips or verbal interplay during the battle, just Buffy doing her duty. Furthermore, when she countered Xander's accusations with her Angel experience, that wasn't her being defensive--it was laying herself bare in front of him, letting him see the deep hurt. So I just don't see enough textual evidence that Buffy's been "split" somehow, and one half is pure warrior and the other is pure sweetness.

Besides, something Sweet!Buffy said really chilled me. Remember when the First Evil was tormenting Angel? It kept telling him, "I want to help you." Sweet!Buffy told Spike, "I can help you." I'm very suspicious.
[> [> [> [> Re: I just can't quite buy this. -- Doriander, 03:14:03 10/29/02 Tue

Besides, something Sweet!Buffy said really chilled me. Remember when the First Evil was tormenting Angel? It kept telling him, "I want to help you." Sweet!Buffy told Spike, "I can help you." I'm very suspicious.

You too, huh? It's not exactly the First Evil that initially came to mind, but our late friend Holland Manners (Good ol days when W&H was actually menacing). Their persuasive tactics are similar (remeniscent of Satan's temptation of Christ). Remember "Blind Date", Lindsey's crisis of faith ep where in Holland persuades him to find his place in the world (Spike: "I don't have anywhere else to go.")? I've always contended that Lindsey and Spike follow parallel paths so I may be reaching. (I'm dubious about Lurky like everyone else is. More and more I think "they" granted Spike's wish so that he could be a player for the FoD. W&H similarly thinks of Lindsey as their golden boy. In any case, the FoD wants these two under their thumb and will do anything so they won't stray.) So, remember Angel's attitude towards Lindsey in that ep? Not much different from Tough!Buffy. Contrast this to the genial Mr. Manners, who flatters Lindsey, tempts him. Lindsey decides to save the seer kids anyway (didn't Spike (almost) save a seer of sorts recently?). Near the end we think Lindsey has finally chosen side of good/he's toast. But then W&H didn't kill him like they did Lee, instead they promoted him. Anyway, rewatched the ep, these gave me chills:

Holland: "You saved the children. That's very noble."

Holland: "Lindsey, - haven't you learned anything? No one has their own life. We're all part of something larger."

(MORPHING MONSTER (as THE MAYOR): "So what'd you think? You'd get your soul back and everything'd be Jim Dandy? Soul's slipperier than a greased weasel. Why do you think I sold mine? (laughs) Well, you probably thought that you'd be your own man, and I respect that...")

Holland: "Why did you come back? To return some disks? Take a moral stand? - I don't think so. You walked in that door and called me by my first name. - You never did that before. You wouldn't have had the nerve. - But you're different now. You stood up to us and won. - Do you know how many people have that much nerve? - I can count them on one hand. - I need people like that working for us."

(BUFFY: It's different. You're different. (..) Spike, it's me. It's you and it's me, and we'll get through this.)

Similar M.O., don't you think? They both stray, face up to the people they betrayed most. Betrayed parties (or the one that takes the visage of a betrayed party) play up the familiarity, acting all forgiving and helpful.

Finally, this:

Holland: "I handpicked you when you were a sophomore at Hastings - not because you were smart - not because you were a poor kid who had to do better than anyone else - but because you had potential - potential for seeing things as they are. It's not about good or evil - it's about who wields the most power. And we wield a lot of it here, and you know what? I think the world is better for it."

IIRC, some people were as frustrated with Angel's behavior then as they are with Tough!Buffy (How could he be so charitable towards Faith and not Lindsey? How could she forgive Willow and not Spike?). I admit to being frustrated myself, at the same time I understand.

Ultimately, whether Tough!Buffy/Angel's harshness will have/had influence on Spike/Lindsey's choice(s), still their choice, free will and all. And it shouldn't be easy for either of them.
[> [> [> [> [> Actually me as well.. -- shadowkat, 07:59:31 10/29/02 Tue

Have to say after re-watching Selfless four times, once with close-captioning and that scene six times. I agree with HH and Doriander on this one.

While alcibades and OM make good points. It's too complicated and the thing to remember with ME? Always make it simple. I also see Buffy has being both compassionate
and strong at the same time in the episode not split in the scenes with Xander and with Anya. Actually upon re-watching the episode, Compassionate/Counselor Buffy is beginning to give me the creeps. Particularly the "It's you and it's me" line.

Buffy tended to get tougher after Dawn was first introduced, actually. It's part of getting older, I guess and having added responsibilities.

I'm leaning towards the more rational explanations:
1. ME loves irony. And the most ironic would be compassionate Buffy is the Big Bad. Also hurts the fans the most...;-)

2. Compassionate Buffy gives Spike what he wants but not what he needs - that comes from Slayer Buffy. Who actually still doesn't come across that heartless. Heartless would be ignoring him entirely and never venturing into that basement.

3. What Counselor/Comp Buffy says to him isn't really helpful, except it does get him to open up a little.
But I think the BB wants that...false security.

No...I think it's much simplier. We have a BB that can get into our character's psyche's, transform itself to whatever form it wishes and provide all sorts of character revealing temptations. This isn't a plot heavy year so much as a character heavy one. Figuring out who we are and how we're connected. So if you're spec contains complex SciFi plots? I'm pretty sure it's off.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually me as well.. -- ponygirl, 08:44:49 10/29/02 Tue

I'm with you on this one. Kind!Buffy ties in perfectly with Selfless' theme of seeing what you want to see. Like Xander, Spike is seeing through the eyeballs of love, he wants Buffy's forgiveness so his mind or the Big Bad (which I'm leaning towards) provides it. The idea of a split while interesting, does kind of negate any growth Buffy would have had from the point of the split on. The idea of Buffy's emotional detachment, of her fears of becoming a bit hardened has been building since season 5. Intervention was on Space last night so I've been thinking about it, and in that episode Buffy talks about Angel as being the point where she starts to shut down. In Selfless she brings up Becoming 2, if there was a split in Buffy I'd say it occurred way back then-- not as a dimensional tear, but as a point when Buffy realized that her role as a Slayer was going to require her not only to give up her life, but to also to hurt people that she loved. From that point on she began to protect her heart.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Clarification -- alcibiades, 08:52:00 10/29/02 Tue

Just for the record, I'm saying something is off with Buffy the way something was off with Dawn, not that there are two Buffys or two universes. That is OnM.

And I am not saying I think compassionate Buffy is the real Buffy or the one I want.

Frankly, I would like a mix of hard Buffy and compassionate Buffy. Which is kind of the way Buffy used to be. Not that I want her to stay the same and never evolve. But I do want to be able to relate to her -- and the way she is currently, as a "reader," I don't relate to her at all. In fact, I can relate to everyone else in the show, but not to her. That may just be my problem (and the problem of everyone who shares this perspective), but the fact that she was more compassionate to Spike in Lessons and Beneath You than in STSP, Help and Selfless, I think points to something tangible about Buffy's emotional situation.

However, that is also different than what I was trying to point out, which was a purposeful cross reference made in Selfless to the way crazy people dealt with Dawn. There is something about Buffy that is off in some way spiritually or physically or on some plane that Spike can see. I don't think there is yet enough evidence to say what.

I don't think Compassionate Buffy is Spike's fantasy. I think it is a "real" vision. He may want a Buffy like that on some level, but he's not projecting it into the vision. That's the BB acting on him.

The one thing I think is good about compassionate Buffy is that her relaxed stance allows Spike the chance to reveal extremely articulately to himself and the audience that he is in trouble. He knows he is in trouble, he knows he needs help, but he doesn't feel he can ask Buffy, that he has any right to do that. He doesn't deserve it.

You may feel the other Buffy is "right" but her presence -- what she projects his way -- throws Spike back into incoherence. Not a good imo.

Although, of course, it must also be stated, she does manage to extract that he has nowhere to go but the basement. That may help him, or it may help her to help him in future episodes.

I am of two minds about that.

OTOH, I think, get him out of the basement -- it is driving him insane.

OTOH, I think, if he is the guardian of the hellmouth, Cereberus, getting him out of the basement and away from what he is supposed to be guarding -- which may be his duty -- is as much a trap as compassionate Buffy's. And it may also have a very bad effect on future events.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> okay I'll go along with some of this -- shadowkat, 09:38:50 10/29/02 Tue

Or at least most of it ;-) You make some very strong points.

The only one I'm on the fence with is:

1."However, that is also different than what I was trying to point out, which was a purposeful cross reference made in Selfless to the way crazy people dealt with Dawn. There is something about Buffy that is off in some way spiritually or physically or on some plane that Spike can see. I don't think there is yet enough evidence to say what. "

I need more information before I jump off the fence on this one. Still not unconvinced it's not a mislead. Like Tara being a demon was. And Buffy having no soul. Or the whole Willow addicted to magic thing - which granted was the longest mislead in Btvs history.

OTOH - I did see a difference in her behavior towards him in Lessons/BY and in STSP/HELP and SELFLESS. It urked me on the first two viewings. But that behavior can be explained as built up anxiety, inability to deal, frustration, or other problems on the brain as easily as the idea that there's something wrong with Buffy. It could also just be bad writing/direction.

So waiting on more info.

The rest of your post? I more or less agree with. Not sure if he's acting as Cereburus or not with the hellmouth, but it certainly appears that way.

Sometimes I just wonder if we're all reading way too much into this? And just confusing ourselves? I hope not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: O/T -- Miss Edith, 01:11:00 10/30/02 Wed

You say Willow being addicted to magic was a mislead but is that really the case? I know Willow is no longer addicted because magic is now part of her but she was during season 6 surely? Sam talks of other addicts and Willow is attending Magic Annonoymous so her addiction must have existed. Are the writers trying to play it as if it was always about power rather than an addiction? I haven't seen season 7 yet as I'm in the UK so do you really get the impression that Willow's past addiction was just a mislead? I am genuinely curious.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: O/T (Spoilers for 7.1-7.5) -- shadowkat, 06:47:43 10/30/02 Wed

"I haven't seen season 7 yet as I'm in the UK so do you really get the impression that Willow's past addiction was just a mislead?"

Yeah, I did. It was how they played it. Dialogue. Acting.
The filming of it. Also the fact that we have Willow do magic that does not result in black eyed Willow and magic that does. So I think the mislead was on the characters of Willow, Xander, Buffy as well as us. From Lessons - I got the feeling that Giles never saw magic as an addiction.
But his students who don't get magic did. Also remember, Sam knows zip about magic - she was responding to something she witnessed. I'd take Giles view over Sam's.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay thanks. -- Miss Edith, 06:58:45 10/30/02 Wed

I'm glad that't the case as I always found it a bit lame when Willow was gulping down water and getting the shakes. If only Giles had stuck around last year all the addiction melodrama could have been avoided.
[> [> [> [> Re: I just can't quite buy this. -- vh, 06:12:35 10/29/02 Tue

Not sure I'd run with it just yet either, but it is interesting!
[> [> Huh. That was weird. (spoilers for Haruki Murakami's Sputnik Sweetheart) -- ponygirl, 18:38:30 10/28/02 Mon

So I read OnM's post this morning, commented on it, read some more posts and had my usual work day. Heading home this evening, I pulled out my book to read on the subway. I was more than halfway through Haruki Murakami's Sputnik Sweetheart. I love Murakami, his work is full of deadpan surrealism, symbolism and fate. In Sputnik Sweetheart, a woman, Sumire, falls in love with an older woman, Miu. Where I'd left off reading Miu was about to explain to Sumire why she didn't return Sumire's feelings, why she couldn't in fact return anyone's feelings. When I opened my book up the first passage I read had Miu explaining how in a defining incident she had actually caught a glimpse of herself, living a slightly differnt life, a divergence that she never recovered from: "I was still on this side, here. But another me, maybe half of me, had gone over to the other side... And the half that was left is the person you see here... It's not like something was stolen away from me, because it still exists, on the other side. Just a single mirror separates us from the other side... Maybe someday, somewhere we'll meet again and merge back into one. A very important question remains unanswered, however. Which me, on which side of the mirror, is the real me?"

Sumire, in her desire to connect to this other Miu, disappears herself. Into another reality? We aren't sure. But OnM, if your speculation proves to be correct, I will not only applaud your insight, I will be seriously freaked out.
[> [> to speculate further -- gds, 19:36:54 10/28/02 Mon

think that some critical event-- whether it was Spike regaining his soul (my vote), Willow conjuring up the means to
destroy the Earth, or whatever-- has caused a dimensional split from which two new series of causalities are branching


If your split theory is correct, I think you missed the most likely cause. My bet is that the brief but total split in the fabric of the universes, was never completely repaired. It would also mean that key energy could be essential in the resolution of this split. This would mean that the world would need a much more mature Dawn. One who knows the score, who is in the fight and who can function as part of an effective team. So far, it looks like she's going to be available..
[> [> Good analysis - a few disagreements (it was SB not Wild at Heart!) -- shadowkat, 07:32:18 10/29/02 Tue

Read your analysis last night - and it got me thinking. So I decided I'd rewatch Selfless a fourth time to see if I agreed. I do on some points, but not all.

First what I do agree on? It is definitely a 9 out of a 10 episode. A all the way. I also saw the changes in film
and I think the episode shows a sort of duality in the natures of the characters - partly because this episode and to some extent this entire season is dealing with the theme who are we and how should we define ourselves.

Through others? By acting normal.
Through our professions? carpenter, student, counselor, witch, slayer, vengeance demon
Through our natures? vampire, human, slayer
Through our actions?
etc.

Now here's where I disagree - and it's really only in some of the comments you make in part two and some of the spec.

1. "Willow gets up, goes to her room and retrieves the talisman/pendant/whatever that D'Hoffryn had given her many
seasons ago when she nearly cast a spell to provoke vengeance on Oz, who had betrayed her with the she-werewolf
Veruca. (ME may be trying to get newbies into the show, but they never forget the long-term viewers, who are the
only ones who would immediately understand what was happening here)" Sorry wrong episode reference here.
It wasn't Wild at Heart that she got the tailsman in, it was Something Blue.

This is important btw. I can see why you think it was Wild at Heart - after all that's where she seemed vengeanceful, but if you think back - Willow didn't complete the spell.
She changed her mind - which put her at the mercy of first Veruca then OZ. She decided she couldn't hurt OZ in that way. Hence distinquishing Willow from Aud.

D'Hoffryn offered to make her vengeance demon based on a spell Willow did to "will" away her pain. Willow wasn't seeking vengeance against OZ in Something Blue, she was seeking relief. Much like Spike does in Entropy ("I need a thing, a spell, something to numb the pain." NOT like Anya, who "wants to do vengeance".) What is ironic about the "will it so" spell is it backfires on her - instead of willing away her pain - it projects her pain onto her friends and associates, acting like a vengeance spell which was never her intent. Just as Spike's actions in Entropy were meant to erase his pain, but instead projected it onto Buffy/Xander/Dawn in Entropy. The projection is interpreted by D'Hoffryn as vengeance. But as Willow states in Something Blue - that was never her intent. Demonstrating that Willow neither understood the source of her power nor could control it. This foreshadows her eruption in Season 6.
This is very different than Anyanka in the sense that Anyanka chose vengeance. The similarity is that Anya also did not understand the source of her demonic power nor did she realize that in the end she was not in control over it.

See? Very different meanings from if the tailsman had been given in Wild at Heart. Also might change your interpretation of Willow and her calling of D'Hoffryn.
Not to mention how we view D'Hoffryn.

2."I am wondering if it will
occur to Xander that it really wasn't Angel's fault that he was afflicted with a Gypsy curse, and that Buffy's love
unwittingly released the demon Angelus, while in his case, the 'curse' was largely of his own doings. While it's true
that Anya didn't have to choose demonhood, as Buffy correctly said, Xander knows only too well that none of
this would have occurred if he had had more faith in himself. His weakness led to her weakness, and the failings were
human, not supernatural ones."

Now I found myself agreeing with your analysis up to this point. Sorry Angelus was responsible for the Gypsey Curse.
He killed the gypsey girl. Granted Darla gave the girl to him. But he enjoyed raping and killing her and to this day does not feel much sympathy for her. What does he tell Buffy in Angel? I was cursed by gypsies. Killed their favorite. Girl was Dumb as a post.

Angel may not have been responsible for the loss of the soul. Yet? He did decide to give in and sleep with the sweet young thing. So that one's up for debate. And the renewed curse on Angel? That is Buffy and Willow's doing.
They recursed Angel. So once again not Angel's fault, but then again - Angel wanted to destroy the world. They may have left him alone if he just left Sunnydale.

Is Angel responsible for what happened to him? I think he is partly. But I can see how you can argue that he isn't.

Onto Xander. Sorry. I don't think we can blame Xander for Anyanka choosing to be a vengeance demon, any more than we can blame Olaf, Rannveig or the inhabitants of Sjornost.
We can blame D'Hoffryn for offering it.

Anya had numerous options open to her when Xander left her at the altar. Xander's actions in no way meant she had to go back to her former job nor did Xander have any way of knowing she would. Remember when Anya was first introduced and for at least one year after that - she wanted to be a vengeance demon again but D'Hoffryn refused. Why would leaving Anya at the altar make Xander believe she could go back? Anya decided to become a vengeance demon again not because of Xander - but because D'Hoffryn showed up and gave her a job. As she puts it "I've always clung to whatever came along." Anya herself has finally realized that it is not Xander's fault she became a vengeance demon.

We are responsible for our own decisions and destinies in this life. While i'm a little on the fence regarding the whole Angel thing. I think it's pretty clear, Xander is not quilty for Anya's actions.

3. "I think that some critical event-- whether it was Spike regaining his soul (my vote), Willow conjuring up the means to
destroy the Earth, or whatever-- has caused a dimensional split from which two new series of causalities are branching.
Having effectively two seperate Buffyverses that are diverging from the original event horizon could explain a lot of
things. Back when Willow was doing her invisibility schtick, I assumed that she was 'out of phase' with the Normal
Buffyverse, since this concept is a fairly common SF story device for quite a long time now. (The Trek folk use it
downright regularly). She is in the same universe, but 'out of phase'. "

Okay I don't see them doing this for numerous reasons. The first - it's too complicated. The second - in the interviews I've read they said they had decided they shouldn't do anymore AU universe stories since it complicated the story and plot and was to hard to track.

But if they did? The event that changed the Buffyverse and affected everyone the most happened at the end of Buffy vs. Dracula - the appearence of Dawn. If the Buffyverse split - it was Dawn's creation that did it. Think about it?
Because of Dawn: Buffy gives up school and moves back home and becomes even more distanced from Riley. Dawn reveals Buffy's close feelings for Angel to Riley.
Because of Dawn: Giles decides to stay even longer.
Because of Dawn: Buffy dies and Willow brings her back
Because of Dawn: Joyce may have died (on the fence on this one)
Because of Dawn: Spike may have developed romantic feelings for Buffy (probably not, but who knows)

You erase Dawn? How much do you bet will be different? You want to converge the Buffyverses? Erase Dawn from existence or sacrifice her. Done. Which is why I don't think this is the storyline.

4."So, when Spike sees first the 'compassionate' Buffy, and then turns and sees the 'dispassionate' Buffy, it's not a
delusion-- there really are two Buffys. In one of the causalities, Buffy is mostly SlayerBuffy. In the other, Buffy
is mostly HumanBuffy. This could really add to the strangeness to come (Not spoiled!-- there is always
strangeness to come in BtVS! ;-) if we as viewers did not know for sure which universe we are looking at at any one
time. Consider-- right now, in the other universe, Buffy may have chosen to be 'compassionate' to Anya, and did not
try to kill her. Anya takes advantage of the situation and leaves Sunnydale. Events change, the universes diverge
further. For better? For worse?"

Well, the more I watch this episode the more I find myself agreeing with the posters who don't think SlayerBuffy was really that heartless or lacking in compassion. She seemed frustrated and resigned, yes, but not lacking in compassion or pain or even heart. But maybe that's just me. Hey - I saw tears of pain in her eyes in BY, others saw disgust. (shrug) People are going to see what they want to see. I'm waiting for ME to tell which it is.

I do think that both sides of Buffy were shown to give us two possibilities of handling Anya as well as Spike. But I don't think there are really two Buffy's. I think that
Spike dreamed up the first one. I could be proved wrong, but
I'm going with that theory until something major happens.

I do however agree with you that Spike is NOT completely insane. That the big bad is not a hallucination or delusion or part of Spike. Nor is the big bad the first evil.
I think the big bad is something far worse and I think it's drawing it's power from the evil deeds and emotions in SunnyDale. I also think it is playing with Spike's mind.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if BB was playing Buffy to confuse Spike and keep him in the basement.

I think the mislead is the two buffys or the two universes or buffy is a heartless cold bitch view. I think what is really going on is actually far simpler and far more interesting. But that's just my take.

Great post btw. You managed to get me to watch the episode again with it.

And I love the trip through past quotage as well as the sympathy for the devil lyrics. coolness.
[> [> [> Great points -- Sophist, 08:58:26 10/29/02 Tue

Your take on the differences between Willow and Anya is particularly good.
[> [> [> Re: Good analysis - a few disagreements (it was SB not Wild at Heart!) -- Rufus, 02:34:03 10/30/02 Wed

I think the mislead is the two buffys or the two universes or buffy is a heartless cold bitch view. I think what is really going on is actually far simpler and far more interesting. But that's just my take.

Hmmmmm look at the halluci Buffy scenes carefully, if there are two Buffy's there are also two Spikes....one who is troubled but only a half a sack of hammers...then the one that is seen by the Black Buffy. 2 Spikes 2 Buffys......is it all a dream?
[> [> Still kicking arse, OnM! -- Dedalus, King of No-Text, 13:52:50 10/29/02 Tue

Current board | More October 2002