October 2003 Archives

October 2003 posts

September 2003
More October 2003

NEW ANGEL TONIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Wolfhowl3, 08:24:24 10/01/03 Wed

Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Yaaaa!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! Woo Hoo!!! etc...

Can you tell I'm excited!

Wolfie

Replies:
*Yawn* Excited? Where? Who? ;o) -- deeva, 08:46:51 10/01/03 Wed

Re: NEW ANGEL TONIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Night, 08:55:41 10/01/03 Wed

I.... have no WB, anymore. I am tempted to go to the next town over and commandeer a stranger's television.

A new who? Michael Landon? Roma Downey? Henry Travers? WHO?!?!? -- Random, 08:56:30 10/01/03 Wed

So. Freakin'. What? -- HonorH (the WB-deprived), 09:16:22 10/01/03 Wed

[> this is tragic -- cougar, 10:03:39 10/01/03 Wed

Really you won't see Angel tonight?! Won't Honorificus be angry? Half the fun of anticipation was looking forward to a season of super evil reviews, and I know I'm not alone!

[> [> Isn't this why Honorificus is super-evil in the first place? -- Gyrus, 12:24:38 10/01/03 Wed

"cowboy guy" adds another Woo Hoo!!! -- Miyu tVP, 10:28:29 10/01/03 Wed

I'm right there with you!!!!

I assume there will be mad chatting after the ep? My hubby is not into the whole Jossverse thing, so I *need* an outlet for my new season of joy. And since I'm spoiler free (mostly), I'm sure my head will be spinning by the time it's over.

:)

*sniffle* -- celticross, 11:02:59 10/01/03 Wed

*wail* I have class tonight!!!!

[> Re: Tonight's the night! Let the howls last til dawn! -- Brian, 11:46:27 10/01/03 Wed

[> [> I don't think Dawn will be on Angel, so that will be one long howl -- Diana, 13:10:06 10/01/03 Wed

Or Thursday night, depending... -- mamcu, 12:25:59 10/01/03 Wed

For those of us who get WB through the same channel as UPN, and have to be damn glad to get it at all.

Tonight, tonight, won't be just any night... -- dub 15:15:50 10/01/03 Wed

Can you feel the magic in the air?

[> Just because it's so appropriate...:)) -- Arethusa, 16:10:10 10/01/03 Wed

Today the minutes seem like hours,
The hours go so slowly,
And still the sky is light...
Oh moon, grow bright,
And make this endless day endless night!

[> [> Re: Ah, Dawn the Night Stalker - Bringing a new kind of justice to LA -- Brian, 16:12:21 10/01/03 Wed

[> [> Arethusa, that was lovely! -- Scroll, 23:15:37 10/01/03 Wed

[> [> [> West Side Story's my favorite musical. :) -- Arethusa, 05:11:13 10/02/03 Thu

Buffy's Greatest Love -- Claudia, 08:40:43 10/01/03 Wed

I just came from a James Marsters forum, in which someone had recapped the BUFFY saga in great detail.

In the category for Ten of the Greatest Moments, one selection was for "Becoming, Part 2", in which the author declared that Buffy had to kill her greatest and truest love, Angel.

Now, let me explain something. I'm a Spuffy. I'll always be a Spuffy. I preferred the sometimes messy and complex relationship that Buffy had with Spike, over the idealized and fantasy-like romance she had with Angel (besides, the B/A ship strongly reminded me of the Buffy/Riley ship).

But it just hit me. If so many people believe that Buffy's romance with Angel was "it", I might as well accept it. Grudgingly. I wasn't thrilled about a possible Spike/Fred relationship on ANGEL, but I think I will change my mind. I wouldn't mind seeing Spike find happiness with someone.

Replies:
Spoilers for Angel Season 5 above -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:03:20 10/01/03 Wed

Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Dlgood, 09:18:37 10/01/03 Wed

It's hard for me to see Buffy's relationship with Angel as an idealized fantasy. I think the Idealized fantasy slips away when he lost his soul and started killing. If you watch S3, episodes like "Gingerbread" or "Choices", her relationship is actually far more nuanced and complex than the idealized fantasy a lot of people would paint it as, in order to just dismiss it.

The thing is, Buffy did have something with Angel, she's never been shown having with Spike or Riley - complete and true happiness, and moments free of burdens and despair. And the 17 or 18 year old Buffy wasn't a child. To call that idealized and fantasy-like, I think does her a disservice. The girl was happy.

[> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Claudia, 13:36:41 10/01/03 Wed

[The thing is, Buffy did have something with Angel, she's never been shown having with Spike or Riley - complete and true happiness, and moments free of burdens and despair. And the 17 or 18 year old Buffy wasn't a child. To call that idealized and fantasy-like, I think does her a disservice. The girl was happy.]

Seventeen or eighteen year old Buffy was a child. Even by the time she was 20 or 21, she was still harboring beliefs and ideals that were more fitting for a teenager. You saw the Buffy/Angel romance as sometime beautiful and tragic in an idealized storybook/fantasy way. I'm sure that you're happy.

However, I thought it was simply annoying in an adolescent manner. And I stick to my opinion, especially after seeing them together in "Helpless". I swear to God that their interaction strongly reminded me of Buffy's relationship with Riley.

Many people have described the B/A romance as a "grand passion". Interesting words to choose, considering that Buffy had told Spike in "Seeing Red" that a relationship meant more to her than some grand passion.

[> [> How does it strike you as similar to B/R? -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:01:28 10/01/03 Wed

Also, while she may describe her relationship with Angel in a "storybook/fantasy" way, it was a fantasy, quite literally. Being in love with a mysterious older man who turns out to be the only good member of a species she's sworn to destroy, but can never be with her because he might return to his original nature? That definitely fits tragic/romantic fantasy requirements, so Buffy describing it in similar ways is only fitting.

Finally, can you give examples of 20-something Buffy expressing adolescent ideas or beliefs?

[> [> [> Re: How does it strike you as similar to B/R? -- Claudia, 15:09:09 10/01/03 Wed

Which question do you want answered? The one regarding B/A and B/R? Or Buffy's lack of maturity at 20?

[> [> [> [> Preferably all of them. I can't ask more than one question per post? -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:20:38 10/01/03 Wed

[> [> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Dlgood, 15:57:22 10/01/03 Wed

-----------
You saw the Buffy/Angel romance as sometime beautiful and tragic in an idealized storybook/fantasy way.
------------
Actually, I really didn't. There's a scene in S2, when they're sitting on a bed together, looking in her mirror. And he's not there.

Now that may be storybook/fantasy to the viewer, but it's not a storybook to them. For them, reality is that they can't have a family. If she makes him happy enough, she may have to kill him. He's going to be young forever, while she's going to age and die. Again - that storybook fantasy for the viewer, just like Spike's conversion from bad-to-good, All for Her, is a storybook fantasy.

But it's reality for the characters. And reality is, that she can't have all the things she wants out of life, as long as she's with him. And that's an issue they both have to deal with, all the time. And I think it stopped being fantasy when she had to shove a sword through his chest. Reality is, with the curse and with her mortality - it's a relationship that doesn't work. And they both know it well enough not to try to force it. That doesn't mean it wasn't love - it leads me to think they both take their relationship quite seriously.

----------
Interesting words to choose, considering that Buffy had told Spike in "Seeing Red" that a relationship meant more to her than some grand passion.
---------
Those aren't my words, and I'd argue that there was a lot more to it than "grand passion". Which is why she can recognize that Spike's passion and her lust are hollow substitutes for the type of loving relationship that can build something. Upon which, Spike sexually assaults her - in attempt to show his "Passion" is enough for both of them - and proving her analysis of him and their relationship to be correct.

If you watch Buffy and Angel's interactions in "Ted", "Gingerbread", or "Forever" there's a whole lot more going on than just "Grand Passion". He's also a very trusted friend, who cares as much about her relationships with her friends and her duty as her does relationship with himself.

--------
However, I thought it was simply annoying in an adolescent manner.
--------
And I guess your annoyance is why you don't want them to be together, or see it as a great love or serious relationship. But I also saw people who were fundamentally, and honestly happy with each other. And happier with each other than they've ever been around anybody else. And not because it was storybook (because I think storybook romance is crap) but because of the people they were. Calling Spuffy "Messy and Complicated" is just as much of an idealization of a relationship that was frequently brutish and cruel.

Personally, I'm not going to concretely say that Buffy's actually met the "love of her life" yet. And, personally, I find the concept of "soulmates" to be complete bunk. But I don't think it's fair for either character to dismiss that relationship as an idealized childish fantasy.

[> [> [> ageing and dying -- skeeve, 08:15:15 10/08/03 Wed

Ageing and dying may be Angel's destiny, but is it Buffy's?
According to TPTB, Angel will eventually be made human.
Angel could make the change now, but there is something he has to do first.
Buffy, on the other hand, is a slayer. She has slayer healing powers.
She might be killed (again), but this one doesn't think that she would age.
Angel and Buffy will be able to make babies.

[> [> [> Very much agree, and... -- Random, 13:52:14 10/02/03 Thu

I find it interesting but startling how some people praise the B/S relationship for its realism and accuracy -- certainly, abusive relationships are realistic, but I hardly consider it a reality to be praised or identified with. I have never been personally involved in one, so maybe I'm missing some attraction, but I cannot understand what made such a depressingly destructive relationship redeeming. To me, the B/S relationship only became something worth considering in any sort of positive light about the middle of Season 7.

[> [> [> [> Re: Very much agree, and... -- Rufus, 17:07:40 10/05/03 Sun

To me, the B/S relationship only became something worth considering in any sort of positive light about the middle of Season 7.

Yes, season seven was about love, love between Buffy and Spike....now that doesn't necessarily mean love in the getting married having kids sense, but Buffy did love Spike in "Chosen".It was a love that came from a new trust between the two. I don't care who Buffy ends up with in the end. My caveat would be that the person be human so they could grow old together and have a family...but that's me.

[> [> [> Excellent points -- LittleBit, 14:14:27 10/02/03 Thu

I find it intriguing that whatever reasons for liking the Buffy/Angel relationship or the Buffy/Spike relationship, and whatever reasons for thinking that one or the other is the great love she should be with, that in the end the reasons that Joyce and the Mayor gave for why the relationship could never truly work apply equally well to both.

Spike and Angel, souled or not, are still vampires. Neither can have a family. Neither will grow older physically. Neither can take her to the beach on a nice sunny day or do any of the out-of-doors activities that we caught glimpses of her doing with her friends such as picnics. As Spike put it in Something Blue "Warm breeze tosses the leaves aside, and again ... you're registering as Mr and Mrs Big-Pile-of-Dust." When Buffy was with Angel she simply refused to acknowledge that these problems were ultimately insurmountable. With Spike in Season 6 she was in a depressive state and the dark seemed to suit her. But in the reality of the Buffyverse neither relationship could last. And while Joyce was just looking out for her daughter, the Mayor was speaking from direct experience with his obviously beloved wife. And Angel knew that, which is why he left.

In the end though, for either relationship, it is up to both parties to determine not only what is best for him/herself but what is also best for the other. When the 'great passion' or the 'messiness and complications' eventually subside, there are still all the mundane issues of the reality of the relationship to be faced.

[> [> [> [> So very true -- Dlgood, 15:09:17 10/02/03 Thu

When looking at Buffy's depressive state in S6-7, her relationship with Spike seems rooted in a belief that she can't have what makes her happy in life, so she's just settling for Spike.

It's interesting to see her light up around Wood - not because Wood is the perfect guy - but because she gets excited about something. When she never appeared to be exicted or happy with Spike. The prospect that she can have a real career to be proud of. The knowledge that a slayer can have children. That she wants more out of life than demons and darkness. These things matter deeply to her.

Amidst all the various flaws of her relationship with Spike, there remains Spike's fantasy and delusion that he's all Buffy should really need or want out of life - if only she would just let herself see that. Buffy's behavior throughout the series has indicated, quite clearly, that she wants far more than that. And that's still a problem even if she can trust and forgive Spike after he sexually assaulted her.

The merit of her relationship with Angel, as we see reaffirmed through their encounters post-breakup, is that they aren't blind to those realities. That doesn't mean it'll work, because as of now it won't. But neither of them are deluded by some romantic fantasy. They got that part out of the way a long time ago.

[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Claudia, 14:55:32 10/03/03 Fri

"Those aren't my words, and I'd argue that there was a lot more to it than "grand passion". Which is why she can recognize that Spike's passion and her lust are hollow substitutes for the type of loving relationship that can build something."

If that is the case, can one say that Buffy's "grand passion" for Angel was just as hollow in its adolescent fashion?

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Dlgood, 07:30:03 10/05/03 Sun

---------
If that is the case, can one say that Buffy's "grand passion" for Angel was just as hollow in its adolescent fashion?
---------
One can say that, but I'd expect that person to back that assertion up with some examples from the show which revealed their relationship as hollow and adolescent passion. Given that episodes like "Ted", "Gingerbread", "Enemies", "Choices", "Forever", and "End of Days/Chosen" seem to indicate that it isn't.

[> [> Spuffy reminds one of Buffy/Riley -- Dlgood, 17:26:31 10/02/03 Thu

-------
I swear to God that their interaction strongly reminded me of Buffy's relationship with Riley
-------
Well, Spike does leave Buffy behind with the realization that she may care for him, but doesn't love him as much as he loves her - or as much as he wants her to. And that he can't really make her happy, particularly when he sees her gaze happily at another man the way she never looks at him. Even though she's reluctant to let them go.

But we do see, that given some time, Buffy doesn't seem so torn up that she can't go on with her life and still be happy. And she does seem happy knowing that she's no longer burdened, and free to find out and pursue what she really wants in life.

[> [> [> Re: Spuffy reminds one of Buffy/Riley -- Claudia, 14:53:50 10/03/03 Fri

1) Spuffy reminds you of Buffy/Riley? In what way?

2) "Well, Spike does leave Buffy behind with the realization that she may care for him . . ."

How do you know that Spike is correct about Buffy's feelings for him? Because Buffy was more outgoing when she was around Angel? How can you compare the feelings of an adolescent girl with that of a young woman in her early twenties, who has dealt with a lot of pain?

[> [> [> [> Re: Spuffy reminds one of Buffy/Riley -- Dlgood, 08:10:41 10/05/03 Sun

--------------
How do you know that Spike is correct about Buffy's feelings for him?
--------------
Did you believe Riley when he told Buffy she wasn't in love with him?

Because if Buffy were in love with him (as oposed to just caring about him), then she wouldn't be gazing adoringly at other men when she thinks no one else is watching. As a young woman in her early twenties, who has been through pain. (As if she hadn't been through significant pain when she was a teen).

Because he doesn't make her happy, and she doesn't smile when he walks in the room.

Because Spike had seen Buffy, as a young woman who'd dealt with a lot of pain, when she was in love with somebody. And because Spike has been deeply and obsessively in love. And he can recognize that what Buffy's showing him isn't love.

Because Buffy doesn't argue with Spike, or seem particularly hurt when he says she doesn't love him.

Because I'm not completely invested in Buffy being in love with Spike or Riley or Angel or the cheeseman, so I don't have to be biased.

You know, Claudia, you seem awfully keen to keep harping on Buffy's supposed adolescent immaturity, as a way to discredit her feelings for everybody she dated before Spike. Isn't it possible that after all her suffering, her feelings for a previous lover are still true and more mature now that she has suffered, and that it still isn't about Spike?

Because, clearly Spike's feelings for Buffy were incredibly immature in S5-6. Should we therefore disregard his feelings for Buffy in S7 as immature. I think it's rather arbitrary to say Buffy's feelings for Angel come to a stop and are frozen at "adolescent" when he left town. (If they were adolescent then) That they can't have continued, and that her continuing feelings for him must be a "bad thing".

Spike's feelings for Buffy continued after she dumped him, and you don't seem to be excoriating Spike for not moving on.

Finally, if Buffy were in love with Spike and wanted to be with him, she would have told Angel and broken things off with him. She wouldn't have told him she still thinks of having a future with him.

For a young woman, in her early twenties, whose been through a lot of pain - Buffy's conversation with Angel seems fairly grounded. She recognizes the clear problems with their relationship, recognizes that it might not work, but then reaffirms that she does still want to have a future with him. That seems awfully mature.

And if she's so ambivalent about Spike that she's discussing her interest in having a future with someone that isn't Spike, why would you want this girl for Spike anyway?

Methinks there might be a gap between the reality of Buffy Summers, and the Buffy in Spike's head back in S6 when he was so insistent that she loved him.

[> [> [> [> [> Totally agree with you here, Dlgood. -- jane, 00:15:04 10/08/03 Wed

[> [> No matter how much Riley/Spike try to remake themselves to be what they think she wants... -- Dlgood, 17:27:46 10/02/03 Thu

[> [> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Laura, 02:03:09 10/03/03 Fri

[Seventeen or eighteen year old Buffy was a child. Even by the time she was 20 or 21, she was still harboring beliefs and ideals that were more fitting for a teenager.]

It really depends on how you describe a child. Most people are immature at times. A while back, I was talking an incredibly shallow woman who was engaged. Does this make her qualify as a child, incapable of serious love?

For the most part, Buffy has been quite adult-like. She puts other people's lives ahead of her own in a heart beat. She enjoys stuff-animals and partying, but such things have no real significance in assesing her maturity level, plus having indulgences like that keep her mentally healthy making her a more effecient fighter. Yes, she complains a bit, but she's only human.

[...beautiful and tragic in an idealized storybook/fantasy way]

I don't completely disagree with you here, B/A does have huge portions of that; at the same time, but they had a closeness that many ignore, showing more than the passionate love most remember. They both have been dragged into the shadows, neither belonging in the human world or the demon world. People like Willow, Cordelia and Spike chose this path, but in many ways predominately live in one world or the other.

Whether this was love can be argued until the cows come home. I believe it was, both because Buffy and Angel have demonstrated that they are full of love; thus, if it was real, the word "idealized" doesn't properly describe it. In a perfect relationship, people don't face the problems they did, nor do they break up.

[> [> [> Adult/Childlike Behavior -- Claudia, 15:07:00 10/03/03 Fri

"For the most part, Buffy has been quite adult-like. She puts other people's lives ahead of her own in a heart beat."

Yet, for all of her adult-like behavior, Buffy continued to harbor childlike views on morality (her insistence that Spike is automatically evil and incapable of love, due to his lack of soul is one example). Her idea of acting like a parent or another kind of authority figure is to mimic adults like Joyce, Giles and members of the Watchers' Council (see her relationship with the Potentials).

And listen to her dialogue with Angel - especially in Seasons 2 and 3, sometimes. I was watching "Helpless" and could not help but compare their conversation with something out of a teen romance (ugh). Not only that, her conversations with Angel also reminded me of her interactions with Riley (at least before "Into the Woods").

[> [> [> [> Re: Adult/Childlike Behavior -- skeeve, 08:30:21 10/08/03 Wed

by Claudia:
Yet, for all of her adult-like behavior, Buffy continued to harbor childlike views on morality (her insistence that Spike is automatically evil and incapable of love, due to his lack of soul is one example).

Regardless of the answer obtained, contemplating the significance of a soul does not strike me as harboring a childlike view.

It's interesting that no one pointed out obvious exceptions to the soulless implies evil notion: Bunnies, ice cream cones, and dachshunds are generally regarded as non-evil. Even demons like kittens.

[> [> [> [> Maturity doesn't make someone a good authority figure -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:57:02 10/03/03 Fri

There are plenty of mature people who suck at leadership simply because they have no experience with it. It doesn't make them immature, just not very knowledgable.

Also, regarding Spike, one could also argue that not seeing Spike as evil is a sign of immaturity, since it's both naive and putting what she wants to believe over what the evidence shows. Hypothetically.

Lastly, could you please clarify what you mean by something out of a "teen romance". Technically speaking, that's just a romance involving teenagers, so some more specifics would be good. I'm guessing though that you meant Angel telling Buffy how he loved her ever since the moment he saw her. Well, isn't that more about what Angel thinks than what Buffy thinks? Also, I don't recall Buffy or Riley mentioning themselves having any sort of similar connection.

Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Arachne, 14:21:09 10/03/03 Fri

This will always be one of those topics. I prefer the S/B relationship-- for all of its flaws and violations. There was more learning there and maturing.

The A/B relationship seemed static to me. Stuck in its own cycles of I love you, but I can't have you. And what is "right" seemed to be the main concern. What is right for Buffy, what is the right thing for Angel to do.

Hey, the right thing for Angel, the 200 hundred something vampire, to do would have been to not pursue a relationship w/ 16 year old Buffy in the first place. He was older, he knew what he was doing. But a really good vampire makes for boring tv.

Spike was in love w/ doing the wrong thing. Clearly, in love w/ it. And it was time for Buffy to feel some of that love.

You can't learn from being good all the time.

Of course, there's risk when you're bad. That's part of it.

And that's why I prefer Spike and Buffy.

Of course, on-screen, it seems like Buffy prefers Angel. I can accept that too. Even though I think it's blah.

And as far as a new love for Spike. I think it's pretty lame if after all that professed love for Buffy, he would launch immediately into another relationship.

So give him a year or something. Let's not make this a Willow/Kennedy thing.

[> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Dlgood, 07:50:55 10/05/03 Sun

-------
Of course, on-screen, it seems like Buffy prefers Angel. I can accept that too. Even though I think it's blah.
-------
That's pretty much the point isn't it?

---
And what is "right" seemed to be the main concern.

You can't learn from being good all the time.
---
But trying to do the right thing, is what makes Buffy who she is. And it's not like Buffy was some repressed prude that didn't know about doing the wrong thing. Remember her relationship with Faith? Maybe what Spike really wanted, was a person with Buffy's body, but who acted like Faith.

Spike was happiest with Buffy, when she was most unhappy with herself. And what they wanted out of life and relationships (even after he got the soul) are fundamentally and vitally different. I think that's a major obstacle to any long term prospects for their relationship. If it's just a short term fling about the hot-sex, well then things are great. If it's about people finiding happiness together over a long term, they never will be. Because the things that make Buffy happy would never satisfy Spike, and vice versa.

Maybe if Spike could just get over his immature hang-ups that Buffy is supposed to be totally in love with him, and just be happy getting the hot sex...

[> [> Re: Buffy's Greatest Love -- Arachne, 10:25:58 10/07/03 Tue

But how can you learn what is right without doing wrong? And Buffy seemed tortured by the thought of doing the wrong thing. When she was with Faith, she did get a glimpse of being "bad." But then she pulled away from it when the most extreme thing happened-- Faith killed someone. And I think in Buffy's head, a complex was set up. Being bad leads to very bad things.

And is that always true? It doesn't always work like that. We survive our bad deeds. No one has to die.

Of course, I realize that in Buffy, it's all for dramatic effect. The struggle to be moral, to be the hero of the story-- you have to have these extremes.

But I think the story of Buffy/Spike could have gone in another direction-- Buff could have learned about "darkness" and realized that it's a part of everyone including her. Instead of just flat out hating herself through the entire experience and rejecting it completely in the end.

[> [> [> Buffy's darkness -- Diana, 11:05:27 10/07/03 Tue

Isn't the lesson that darkness is a part of all of us/that we are all capable of it, but that we don't have to be? Why should we embrace this darkness? It's called dark for a reason. It seems that Buffy (and Angel, Willow, Wesley, Giles, ect) had to learn to accept that she could do bad things but "It doesn't touch you...it doesn't change what you are. And you are one hell of a woman."

You can learn right without doing wrong. You can learn it just seeing it. You don't have to be the one doing it. Buffy sees plenty of wrong, a lot of it done by people that she cared about--Angel/us, Giles, Faith, Willow. Why does she have to do wrong to learn anything? Buffy knew what was wrong. She saw it so much, she needed to find something to sing about. Spike could not help her find this. Dawn could and did.

Buffy and Spike in another direction is best summed up in "Something Blue" "Let's see Ñ do I want you to give up killing all my friends? Yeah, I've given it some thought."

What is dark accepting Buffy supposed to do?

[> [> [> [> Exactly. Well said. -- jane, 00:17:46 10/08/03 Wed

[> Spingel? -- skeeve, 08:37:23 10/08/03 Wed

[> Between Tara and Kennedy -- Claudia, 15:13:22 10/03/03 Fri

Actually, eight months had passed between Tara's death and Willow becoming a twosome with Kennedy. She had waited a lot longer between those two than she had between Oz and Tara in Season 4.

Political Philosophy and BtVS -- Dlgood, 09:31:00 10/01/03 Wed

I figured I'd look at group dynamics of the various Slaying Regimes in terms of basic, intro style political philosphy. If somebody wants to run with this, that would be cool.

Regime A - The Council of Watchers:

The CoW model for slaying seems to be heavily reminsicent of Plato's Republic. The field watcher operates as "Philosopher King", with authority derived from superior knowledge and understanding of the true reality, developed through years of specialized training and study. The slayer acts as Guardian, fighting the day-to-day war at the behest of the watcher. On occaision field support might arise to support this effort, but all should be under the direction of the Watcher. The general public, (Artisan Class) need not ever be aware of the group's activities or consent - as it is the purpose of the Watcher to ensure their well-being backed up by the slayer's force. Consent of the goverened isn't an issue - all should follow the dictates of the CoW because of it's claim on superior knowledge.

Regime B - Sunnydale, the early HS years:

Giles quickly discovers the CoW model will prove untenable, because the efficacy of the Philosopher King is severely restricted if the Guardian chooses not to buy in. Early on, Giles determines that Buffy isn't going to accept the Council defined role. Instead, the group begins to function more democratic lines. Buffy and Giles are recognized as having far greater clout, due to their superior power and knowledge, but state action is generally determined as a collective effort produced by input from all members. The system operates in the absence of Buffy, as the remaining scoobies collectively patrol Sunnydale in her absence.

Regime C - Latter Season 3:

Leading up to the Ascension, Wesley arrives and attempts to rule according to CoW tenets. He is generally disregarded as irrelevant. In the pre-Graduation strategy session, Buffy acts as an executive heading a board, while Giles serves to facilitate the meetings - perhaps modeled on the Arthurian Round Table. Group members offer and refine ideas, but final strategy is decided by Buffy with agreement from the group. Generally uninvolved students, revealed to be "in the know" about supernatural weirdness, are recruited to become part of Buffy's army. Her cabinet ministers transformed into lieutentants. Essentially, in times of crisis, the Athenian style-democracy becomes an Athenian style, benign tyranny. Apocalypse averted, the group returns to the democratic model.

Regime D - The Initative:

The Initiative follows a hierarchical, military model. Politically, such models are essentially akin to Plato's. Here, though, we consider the issue of citizenship. Whether or not some random demon is to be protected is less important to the scoobies, than stopping a supernatural threat. For the Initiative, Demons are not considered citizens and are not to be offered protection.

Regime E - The Crumbling State:

After the scoobies go to college, the gang begins to operate more and more independently and with less of an eye toward how the group interacts. There's no real model to apply, as action is far more reactive in nature. When dealing with Glory, the group returns to the S3 Crisis model with Buffy as executive, but as this seems more dependent on personal relationships than a political arrangement. Further, the group interaction is less regulated as Giles functions less and less as a facilitator for the group. His departure in S6, results in the model imploding altogether. By S7, there is little in the way of collective action, and far more fragmentation and ad hoc initiatives by individuals.

Regime F - Willow is the Boss of Us:

Xander, in crafting that plaque, creates the first "social contract" for the scooby gang. With Giles retreating, and Buffy gone, Willow, with her resolve face and magical power is tabbed to lead the group. Upon Buffy's resurrection, Willow seeks to cede to official title, but seems to like having the power.

Regime G - Fighting the First Evil

In S7, the citizenry is redefined by the influx of potential slayers at 1630 Revello. The State, as it were, has crumbled largely to dust. The gang has had trouble maintaing cohesiveness, and faces a severe security crisis. In "Bring on the Night/Showtime" the group turns to Buffy to be leader. Essentially, she has become a Leviathan. Unlike classical models, such as Plato's Republic, the autocracy exists in reaction to a situation of crisis, and the selection of Buffy is rooted in a social contract with the Leviathan rather than because it is self-evident. And, Buffy is given complete power. For several episodes, the group follows Buffy's orders and there is very limited discussion or debate.

The SiT mutiny against Buffy does not indicate a rejection of the Hobbesian model. Buffy is cast aside because she is viewed as ineffective in the role, and because the citizens do not recognize her authority as rooted in Divine Right of slayer lineage. Essentially, they determine that Buffy has not lived up to her end of the Social Contract, and replace her with Faith, whom is selected to become the new Leviathan. Confirmed when Faith asserts autocracy instead of debating with Kennedy.

Replies:
Preserving... -- Masq, 16:46:07 10/03/03 Fri

Doing my part to support and preserve this thread.... -- Masq, 10:11:53 10/01/03 Wed

So it won't get inadvertently washed away in this evening's tide....

[> Oh, and DL.... "Good" to see you here! -- masqthephlsphr, 11:31:40 10/01/03 Wed

Those are punny quotes, not irony quotes. ; )

Chosen -- mamcu, 10:13:47 10/01/03 Wed

Well and good, but what about the final evolution in Chosen, where the authority is dispersed even beyone the known group? Democratic socialism? Anarchy? I'm not a political philsopher, but maybe someone wiser could bring Hegelian dialectics into this...

[> Re: Chosen -- cjc36, 05:58:52 10/02/03 Thu

**Note, I have no Pol Sci background. Mea Culpa in advance**

One could assume the end of Chosen would lead to a new mission for the core Scoobies: finding and educating the newly empowered Slayers the ways of say, not killing the bully down the street. Politics asside, super powered women are still human, with all the faults therein. To suddenly give super power to countless numbers, sans guidance, could be a bit dangerous.

So what would this new mission represent? A form of evangelical religion, with the Scoobies in the role of the Apostles? Would they then become the New Watchers, the New Order? New Boss, Same as the Old Boss?

Wow, a thread worth preserving...will reply soon. Great stuff. -- Random, 10:25:36 10/01/03 Wed

Very interesting. -- Arethusa, 11:04:06 10/01/03 Wed

Welcome to the board.

Where does Buffy's decision to share power with the Potentials fit in with political models?

(I knew I should have finished that book on political philosophy. ;))

[> Re: Very interesting. -- Dlgood, 11:17:13 10/01/03 Wed

It's hard to say, in the absence of much followup.

Under Hobbes, the citizens band together and seek a Leviathan, because they are terrified for their security and believe the Leviathan (in the form of an individual or group) is necessary to keep the peace, maintain social cohesion and order, and safeguard property.

But with all of these young Potentials now chosen as slayers, the conditions that serve as justification for a Hobbesian model no longer exist. From a political perspective, it's maybe like an nation granting statehood or independence to protected territories.

In a certain sense, one could view the scoobies as classical Sparta, and the Potentials as Spartan protectorates during the Pelopennisian war. I'm not sure about the analogy, though...

[> [> For purposes of historical accuracy... -- Dlgood, 11:48:50 10/01/03 Wed

Athens during the Persian invasions is a better analogy. Sparta, unlike the "Scooby City-State", has a written constitution, and which was markedly different from Scooby Dynamics.

Essentially, the slayers can now be viewes as independent city-states within a federation. IMHO, that would lead me to think Buffy would rule her city-state in a more democratic fashion, and that the federation would be more democratic, and that each Slayer would be free to choose her own model for those individuals that choose to work with her, but it's future speculation.

[> [> [> Interesting discussion! Must dig out those old history texts... -- jane, 18:43:53 10/01/03 Wed

[> [> Closest approach is to present-day libertarian individualism -- KdS, 02:11:26 10/02/03 Thu

I wouldn't say communism, because the implication of the deep logic of the story is that the new Slayers will be specifically conceived as acting independentally and not as a collective system working to one consensus objective, and indeed the idea of a monolithic consensus objective has been discredited. I think if we apply a direct unmetaphorical political parallel, certain forms of libertarian individualist right-wing politics fit better than left approaches.

[> That's what I meant to ask -- mamcu the unclear, 12:15:11 10/01/03 Wed

Buffy & the CA recall -- Miyu tVP, 13:01:04 10/01/03 Wed

I was pondering your post and trying to articulate some of my own thoughts, and the it dawned on me.... Buffy as Govenor Gray Davis. (N.B. I consider myself polically neutral, so I am not saying this in support or against Davis.)

Think about it... The CA economy is collapsing, rolling blackouts, jobs and the stock market are being sucked into the Hellmouth, and then... the citizens demand a recall.

:)

What got me onto that bizarre train of thought was that in S7 Buffy is riding everyone, telling them they're going to die, etc. Whereas Faith gets them drunk and shows them the town (or what's left of it). The group then revolts and chooses Faith. But Faith proves to be no better a leader than Buffy. With all the media hullabaloo about the recall, I am reminded of how much I HATE campaign rhetoric and the lying and ass-kissing. And I wonder if Buffy is meant to comment on this? That in times of crisis people will cling to a leader who tells them what they want to hear and makes them feel good, even though that leader can't fix anything?

Not that our beloved Faith was campaigning - she specifically says she didn't want 'this.' But as S7 is about power, and there are politcal messages being sent.... well, what do you guys think?

[> the governator -- Miyu tVP, 14:15:26 10/08/03 Wed

I don't know what the Buffyverse equivalent would be for Arnold winning the election (I was trying to come up with something clever...)

What a freakishly fitting end to our little circus.

[> Re: Buffy & the CA recall -- Dlgood, 15:26:18 10/01/03 Wed

--------
That in times of crisis people will cling to a leader who tells them what they want to hear and makes them feel good, even though that leader can't fix anything?
--------
If anything, that best describes Buffy's leadership in "Showtime". It's not so much that she tells the potentials what they want to hear, but she acts how they expect a Slayer should act - even if it's not going to prove effective for the circumstances they're facing. And it's part of a calculated strategy, with Willow, Xander, and Giles' backing.

One of the lesson of recalls (and mutinies in general) is that toppling a one leader isn't necessarily going to solve the crisis as there may be other factors you need to address.

Theory aside, I think Buffy was doing a poor job of administration - even if one felt the autocratic leadership style could have worked. So, I think removing her was the correct decision. How you choose a replacement, and how you determine and administer future policy, is a separate question.

In the case of the BtVS mutiny, I think the SiT's weren't ready to fire Buffy until presented with Faith as an alternative, but regardless - they weren't really looking to direct policy, seeing as they acquiesced to Faith's autocratic leadership style. Mostly, I think they no longer trusted Buffy, and also wanted to at least feel like they had a greater amount of input before the leader made decisions - even if it was still an autocracy.

[> [> Re: Buffy & the CA recall -- Rufus, 16:03:42 10/01/03 Wed

So, how does the sharing of slayer power fit in with what you have been saying?

[> [> [> Sharing the Power - read my to Arethusa above -- Dlgood, 16:24:03 10/01/03 Wed

Read my reply to Arethusa, a few lines above. Feel free to discuss and disagree or come with something entirely different

[> [> [> Re: Buffy & the CA recall -- Miyu tVP, 16:28:44 10/01/03 Wed

IMO (I'm sure Dlgood will have a more articulate and better-informed response)from a political standpoint, it seems like Joss is suggesting a politcal system beyond democracy. The mutiny and "election" of Faith, as well as the "campaigning" seems to play out our modern day democracy. But the end of Chosen suggests that the solution is not for the people to pick the best leader, but for the people to *become* leaders. It definitely has a feminist/matriarchical tone, and to me seems almost communist. It wouldn't be pure communism since only the chosen female potentials now have the power, but overall the message seems to be 'power to the people.'

As mentioned above, we don't have much to go on because the series ends there. I think it's interesting that the others turn to Buffy out of habit "where do we go from here?" But she doesn't answer. She no longer gives them answers/orders. It is up to each of them to figure it out.

[> [> [> [> With the potentials becoming full Slayers it's 'power to the elite' surely? -- Celebaelin, 06:39:04 10/02/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Rule of the many is impossible -- Doug, 07:47:14 10/02/03 Thu

Ultimately in any society there are only 3 ways things can go:

Rule by One.

Rule by the Few.

Rule by None. (Anarchy)

Play the computer game Deus Ex if you want to see a good illustration of this principle.

Apparently at the end of "Chosen" Joss figured that rule by an elite oligarchy was better than rule by dictator.

[> [> [> [> [> Agree. Slayer Aristocracy -- sdev, 09:30:23 10/02/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- anom, 11:47:25 10/02/03 Thu

Athenian "democracy" was limited to a minority of the population--adult male citizens (which excluded slaves as well as foreigners). Within that group (& it could be said it was too large to be called an "elite"), the system was very democratic, but more people--even within the adult population--were excluded than included. However, I think Slayers in the Buffyverse constitute a far smaller proportion of humans.

On the other hand, I disagree w/Doug's statement: "Apparently at the end of 'Chosen' Joss figured that rule by an elite oligarchy was better than rule by dictator." Power isn't necessarily the same as rule, & I think Dlgood was originally talking about the politics of the "Slayer system" rather than world politics in a world that has a Slayer system. The Potentials became empowered in that world, but that doesn't imply they'll try to rule it (although some may try to rule at least locally). And Buffy was acting like a "dictator" (to whatever extent she was) only over the Potentials. You can't change the group being ruled in the middle & still have your analogy hold. Within the Slayer system, Miyu's "the solution...is for the people to *become* leaders" is valid.

BTW, I love Miyu's comparison to the California recall! (That's about the only thing I like that's come out of it....) In that post, the comparison does stay within the Slayer system; I don't think it holds when the whole population is included.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- RJA, 13:30:55 10/02/03 Thu

I agree with that. If we are to consider the power structures of the Buffyverse, it can only ever be focused on that of the Slayer circle themselves.

While my opinion/theory of the power structure of the Buffyverse was extremely simplistic, I always thought that in many a way, Joss was slyly (and most likely unintentionally) advocating communism over other forms of political and social structures.

We had the Council who were essentially dictating the lives of the Slayers, what they could and could not do, and what they were and what they were not. The Slayers could be seeen to be the common people - directed from above. With Buffy, the power was seized so that they could rule themselves. It would be akin to the people storming an unelected parliament/government, and deciding to rule for themselves. Although thats only the starting point, the practicality could be vey different, and I half suspect thi communist ideal wont fall prey to the same traps as existing communist nations have.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- DLgood, 14:55:35 10/02/03 Thu

I don't think the Communism metaphor applies. At least not the Marxist. Buffy isn't the common people - she's an elite. The "Proletariat" are the citizens of sunnydale, many of whom know nothing about Vampires. And Buffy has no intent of ever informing the populace.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- RJA, 15:09:49 10/02/03 Thu

Well thats what I was referring to in the sense that the power structure only applies to the Slayer circle themselves.

Because in what sense does the decisions and actions of Buffy actually impact the rest of the population? All she does is make them safe, not dictate how they live their lives, or what the rules of society are. Buffy still to some extent has to live by the laws around her, i.e. she is prepared to go to prison if she kills a human, pays taxes, get a job and so on. And as Slayer, her role has absolutely no impact on the rules and laws of society. As she says in Selfless, she's there for the things that are outside it.

So in terms of the Slayers and the power structure involving them, the Potentials and the Council, then I think the Communist metaphor is pretty apt, of not perfect.

Because if we extend the power structure wider than Buffy and her gang, then it still ends up in America, a nominal democracy that Buffy has to be involved in.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- Celebaelin, 02:33:39 10/03/03 Fri

Couple of things.

The original Athenian democracy was extremely limited in terms of the numbers of people who were granted democratic rights. Yes elitist, exactly so, but more so than has as yet been suggested in this thread. In addition to being male and not a slave to have the rights of a citizen it was necessary that you be a man of leisure, wealthy in other words. I don't have any information as to whether this was a formal requirement or merely a consequence of the demands placed as regards attending debates but the whole caboodle is at any rate equivalent to the Roman Senate of the Republic.

Arguably there has never, and possibly will never be a true democracy but representational democracy is a fair approximation as long as the representatives adhere to the wishes of the electorate. Best to leave that train of thought at that point I think.

Because in what sense does the decisions and actions of Buffy actually impact the rest of the population? All she does is make them safe, not dictate how they live their lives, or what the rules of society are. Buffy still to some extent has to live by the laws around her, i.e. she is prepared to go to prison if she kills a human, pays taxes, get a job and so on. And as Slayer, her role has absolutely no impact on the rules and laws of society. As she says in Selfless, she's there for the things that are outside it.

The decisions that Buffy makes by definition must impact on the rest of the population or there is mo point to the existence of the Slayer(s). Dismissing the significance of safety to the public makes little or no sense. You might as well say that there is no political consideration concerning the police force or the armed services and in fact the public would not notice if they did not exist at all.

On a day to day basis this is of course generally the case but from time to time a significant proportion of the population wants or needs these 'arms of state' to perform a task in the name of the people. To compensate for the citizens abdication of 'right' to law (actually, with Bentham here but let's keep it managable for now) certain bodies are empowered to act in ways that individual members of a community are not. In that in a broad societal view of the Buffyverse Buffy does not have any form of mandate to act in the way she does, which regularly involve her breaking certain laws (thraetening behaviour, assault, tresspass, arson, an array of terrorist offences concerning the destruction of public buildings by explosives, and probably others, certainly in the instance of UK law). These forms of action, whilst on balance they are 'pro bono publico' undoubtedly impinge upon the lives of the general public (whoever they are).

If the CoW still existed I would equate the dominance of the Slayer elite, ie their continued ability to function in their role unhindered by the normal rules of society, continuing to combat the 'things outside', with a militocracy or a police state. I cite the use of the words 'Slayer army' and also the S3 suggestion that she might find her metier persuing a career in law enforcement.

Buffy moves to Cleveland and stands for Sherrif, all those in favour say 'Aye'.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- RJA, 08:25:56 10/03/03 Fri

I'm thinking this thread has taught me not to ge involved with serious discussion of political structures after a cerain time of day and level of alcohol. Despite this though...

I agree that Buffy's actions in saving the world has a huge effect on the population, no matter how much or little they are aware of what she is doing.

I actually also agree in general term as to the function of the Slayer in terms of society. An army is probably the best comparison, although one which has no apparent ties to soceity as it is recognised and no mandate to operate by te authority in that society. The closest analogy I can come u with is perhaps a UN peace keeping force. I'm being slightly faecetious here, but it seems the closest approximation to how Buffy and the gang operate within (or not) society.

My overall point was that I dont think a lot of the political structures mentioned here are satisfactory when they view SLayers as some elite with an exalted position in society, above the general 'common people'. I dont think they even operate in that sphere, and their actions effect people s a byproduct, rather than a right. I think that could be best explained by saying that I dont think the analogy of a police state works because that would imply some superiority and authority over the rest of the population, when in fact, in real terms, they have none.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: isn't that what the 1st "democracy" was really like? -- Celebaelin, 10:31:42 10/03/03 Fri

Quickly, and not as articulately as I'd like as I'm rushing out.

If you are talking about the place of Slayers in a society which for the most part isn't consciously aware of their existence then the analogy of the police state, or secret police holds water. Even if the Slayer structure is a good deal more benign than most peoples' idea of a secret police.

If you are talking in terms of just the extended family that is the scoobies and their allies then the model must perforce be a good deal more egalitarian. To the point of approaching, but not quite achieving, an ideal democracy. I'm not sure that this has any real meaning however as it discounts so many individuals that calling the method of operation a democracy is really not on. Ignorance of the facts is not a bar to enfranchisement, if it were then only the higher echelons of government and the civil service would ever be allowed to vote. There are some people who think this is the way things should be done but I wouldn't call them democratic irrespective of their grasp of the matters of importance.

C

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> hate to say this but... -- sdev, 12:15:10 10/03/03 Fri

vigilante comes to mind, or a private militia, if you are considering Buffy and the Scoobies in relation to society as a whole. The UN is not apt because they operate under a mandate, arguably the largest mandate in the world.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Mandate? -- Dlgood, 12:20:42 10/03/03 Fri

That's true.

Buffy & Co may believe they have a mandate, but it doesn't come from a contract with the Community they see themselves as defending.

In the early seasons of AtS, one might have felt that the PtB gave Angel a divine mandate to do his work. Given the events of S4, I think that's very quesitonable.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hate to say this but... -- RJA, 13:18:29 10/03/03 Fri

Yes, thats true. I was trying to think of something which didnt have too many negative conotations, and wasnt explicitly linked to the state. But the UN wasnt a great analogy (I think I'll try and stop making them now).

I like the private militia one though, that seems most apt.

On the subject of mandates though, its interesting to consider whether the Slayers do in some ways have an ancient mandate. Consider that it was the ancient tribal chiefs who created the Slayer in order to fight demons. And that was presumably explictly tied to society, in that it was the leaders doing something to ensure the safety of their tribe. So somewhere, centuries ago, there was a explcit mandate for the role of the Slayer in society. I wonder how far that holds?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> *Not* communism -- KdS, 04:54:38 10/03/03 Fri

The Communism analogy seriously misunderstands either Communism or the message of S7. Under Communism the people are seen as moving forward in unison along a single clearly defined path to a single detailed objective in a collectivist manner. (Whether this is a good or bad thing or not depends on your attitude to said path and goal.) However, the tendency of the whole of BtVS is to denounce monolithic organisations and grand narratives in general. The new Slayers will have one fairly nebulous guiding objective (protect humanity, stop apocalypse) but I think the example of the Watchers' Council has convinced them that a libertarian and decentralised approach to this would be better.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fair enough -- RJA, 08:15:48 10/03/03 Fri

It was late and I was reaching, although I resent the term 'seriously misunderstanding'. How about seriously misusing ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fair enough -- RJA, 08:34:06 10/03/03 Fri

Just so I can try and salvage some shred of dignity, when I mentioned Communism, I was talking about the general concept of a society in which people would co-operate voluntarily, rather than being utilisied by a State in which they had little control or self-determination. The analogy was meant to be very broad, and overlooking those pesky ideals such as common ownership. I was more talking about the general concept or ideal, rather than making anything more than a superficial assessment of the situation.

Which is where I thought there was some comparison with what happened in Chosen, assuming that there would be some sort of co-operative between Slayers who would have the chance of self-determination (which we would have to wait and see, ultimately).

*Backing slowly out of thread*

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fair enough -- Dlgood, 19:02:20 10/07/03 Tue

No need to back out. It's not like there aren't different shadings of Communism, from small community variants to Leninism and so on...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> defining the problem -- Miyu tVP, 16:05:56 10/02/03 Thu

it depends how we are defining the society we are discussing. As anom pointed out, Buffy acted as dictator only to the potentials, not to random people on the street. Within the slayer world, it was a dictatorship. Once the potentials became her equals in power... the system becomes either a democracy or communism, or whatever, but it does't make sense at this point to drag in the people on the street not concerned with slayer activity, at least for this discussion. I think this is the distinction they are trying to make. Not trying to to structure the whole wide world, just the slayers as an isolated politcal system.

We can certainly discuss how slayers will interact with normal folk, but I think the communist point is intended only in reference to the slayers interacting with each other. In which case it does make sense.

or am I misconstruing???

[> [> [> [> [> [> agree! -- Miyu tVP, 14:18:04 10/02/03 Thu

BTW, I love Miyu's comparison to the California recall!

merci! Amazing how many ways Buffy applies to the real world.

I also address the Athenian democracy in my "greek" post below. couldn't agree more.

[> [> [> [> [> [> giving dictators a good name -- sdev, 14:57:19 10/02/03 Thu

And Buffy was acting like a "dictator" (to whatever extent she was) only over the Potentials.

If Buffy is the model of dictatorship how do you explain her walking away and not attempting to impose control? As dictatorial in speech as she may have seemed, she was really most often the model for consensual government (The Gift noted as an exception). When she lost consensual power she walked away. When she was 'reelected' leader, in End of Days, she took control again.

I don't think the model only included the slayer system since SG were included as well.

Also I don't know if it was so much that Joss wanted to share the power as much as Buffy wanting term limits, a unique event I suppose in the history of term limits, being sought by the incumbent.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Retiring Dictators? -- Dlgood, 17:20:55 10/02/03 Thu

That's not entirely unique. There are historical examples, such as George Washington and Cinncinatus, both turning down power or accepting limitations, because they don't want to have it beyond a certain time set.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I accept the correction -- sdev, 17:58:26 10/02/03 Thu

and thanks for the info

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> funny thing happened on the way to the forum... -- Miyu tVP, 13:27:48 10/03/03 Fri

Dictator... this office was originally built into the political structure of the Roman Senate (like having a Treasurer, etc.) In times of normalcy and peace, the Senate would handle all normal matters of state. But in times of war or strife, when quick decisions need to be made, it's more efficient to have one person in charge. for this purpose, the office of dicator was created. The dictator was given unlimited power to see Rome through it's time of need, and when the crisis passed would go right back to whatever he was doing before. This is the classic tale of Cinnicinatus who went back to plowing fields after serving his term.

Flash forward a bit to a weakened Senate and the voracious Julius Caesar. He had the power to crush Rome, but would prefer to appear "appointed" into power. And Rome, having survived the brutal tyranny of kings ("rex")in the past, was loathe to yield to him but powerless to escape. So they created a new office, falling just short of naming him "rex" and called him "Dictator in Perpetuum" - Dictator for life.

The reign of Julius, Augustus and the rest of the Caesars eventually turned into the "kings" problem all over again, and now "Dictator" has its negative connotation of oppressive tyranny.

So, in a classical sense, Buffy is sort of dictator. When things get hairy, she takes the reigns. She certainly didn't stick around when she knew her services weren't wanted, and in a fashion that would bring a tear to the eye of any good Roman, rather than gather power to herself, she restored it to the people of Rome... er, Sunnydale.

Q.E.D.

S.P.Q.R

;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> hence the quote marks... -- anom, 23:35:40 10/02/03 Thu

"And Buffy was acting like a 'dictator' (to whatever extent she was) only over the Potentials."

...& the part in parentheses, & come to that, the "acting like." I said this in response to Doug's statement, "Apparently at the end of "Chosen" Joss figured that rule by an elite oligarchy was better than rule by dictator," which I don't really agree with. The point was to define what group was being ruled.

"I don't think the model only included the slayer system since SG were included as well."

Whether they were included is an interesting question. The SG had in effect "included themselves in"; their participation was not approved of by the Council of Watchers, but over time they were incorporated, although Giles may have been reluctant about this at 1st. I have no idea what kind of political system might correspond to this. Has an outside group ever had the kind of influence in a political system that the SG has in the Buffyverse, without coming in as conquerors? Maybe they're immigrants who rise to positions of power, like being named to President Buffy's Cabinet. Then again, their influence doesn't extend to the rest of the Slayer system, which until season 7 is still mostly run by the CoW.

I'm not sure how well the "term limits" analogy applies. Sharing the power doesn't mean Buffy gives it up...well, maybe in a relative sense. But I agree w/DLgood, it's more like stepping down than like setting a time limit.

[> [> [> [> That's why I think Anarchism -- mamcu, 06:52:36 10/02/03 Thu

or some other 19th or 20th century theory accounts for the sharing of power better than the 18th century or ancient Greek models that Dlgood suggests. But that is just MHO.

[> [> [> [> [> Feel free to chop me, or add more -- DLGOOD, 08:15:47 10/02/03 Thu

Okay. Would you want to go ahead and put them out there. I stuck primarily to the Greek models because they are specifically aimed at describing the small-scale city-state, whereas contemporary theory tends to deal with far larger structures.

But again. I'm not claiming authority. Feel free to add more or bring more into it. I was just dropping a rudimentary starting point.

[> [> [> [> [> [> greek to me -- Miyu tVP, 09:24:38 10/02/03 Thu

First - I love Greek models... after pondering this a bit more, I'm thinking that at the end of Chosen, with a mass number of equally empowered slayers, this is perhaps more like a state of *pure* democracy, as practiced by Athens back in the day. The representative democracy the USA employs necessiates all the bloody campaigning, special interests, and other shenanigans that we see all around us and in S7. But a pure democracy is a system whereby all qualifying citizens have an equal say in what happens, and there is no one leader. However, as in Athens, only certain people qualify as citizens. Then it would have been free Greek males of age, in Chosen it would be our Slayers. They are one step ahead of the rest of us mere mortals, just as the Greek men were ahead of their wives, slaves, etc. I think this works better than communism.

Also, I *really* think, since the whole point of Buffy existing at all is that it is a feminist exploration... definitely the key is a switch from patriarchy (whether monarchy, aristocracy, or democracy) to matriarchy.

Lastly, since I got Greek on my mind, I am reminded of my days studying the Iliad. Here we have "King Agammemnon" but 'king', Basileus in Greek is a far cry from 'divinely chosen monarch who will rule without question.' In this era the 'king' was merely first among peers. the Greek citystates valued their independence and uniqueness, and were too proud to bow before anyone. But in war, as in life, it is more practical if someone is in charge, so whoever seems to be a bit more rich, strong, etc. gets to hold the reigns, but it is a tentative position, dependent on him doing a decent job and not pissing anyone off too much. [which Agammemnon does, triggering Achilles's rage and setting in motion the horrific tragedy of Patrokles's death and Achilles subsequent berserker frenzy of grief - which I belive may be the archetype for Willow in S6... but that's another story...] Aaaaaaanyway, I think this sort of system may have bearing on a society of Slayers. Given that they are scattered across the globe, and bound to be very different individuals. Yet, dominant slayers (like Buffy) may yet appear, to help keep things moving in a less than anarchic manner.

Very interesting -- fresne, 17:16:04 10/01/03 Wed

IÕm afraid that one semester of politic science taken over ten years ago and that brief glorious obsession with Civilization (where I learned a Fanatical government with me as high priestess was the best way to wage war on five other civilizations at once.) doesnÕt really qualify me to say anything more than hmmmÉ(steepling fingers) very interesting.

But, welcome and congratulations on jumping in feet first.

Must think of something else to say. CanÕt possibly be this short winded.

Okay, where would you place the role of the First Slayer sleeps on a bed of bones, fights the demons, but has no watchers in their ultimate incarnation?

Given the explicit parallel drawn between Faith and the Spartans (just because Ms. Glovefantastic was an evil watcher, didnÕt mean she didnÕt know her history), I wonder if I want to posit Buffy as FaithÕs co-ruler (in the Spartan style) or as an oppositional Athenian. Buffy certainly is known for her Lyconian remarks. Actually, wait, no that would be Oz, never mind.

[> First Slayer, Buffy & Faith -- Dlgood, 17:49:27 10/01/03 Wed

No problem. I'm four years removed from Grad School, and it's not like I've got dog-eared copies of the Great Works lying around, so folks are free to run with what I laid out.

Is the First Slayer Rousseau's man in the state of nature? Maybe.

I think Buffy and Faith in Spartan co-ruler fashion could have proved a possible arrangement. I could sort of see Buffy and Kendra as Roman Consul-Proconsul. But I don't know that there's a specific parallel for what actually happened - somebody else can feel free to add.

[> [> First Slayer and feminism -- mamcu, 07:01:52 10/02/03 Thu

Rousseau's man in the state of nature was assumed to be good, and subsequent problems are all the corruptions of civilization. I think the First Slayer is not the ideal, especially once we see how she was created and controlled by the proto-COW, who are not admired in any incarnation. To me, the journey from the FS to Buffy's acts in Chosen is a movement away from authority of one or a few and towards the empowerment of many.

Perhaps the reason I have a problem with the models is that they are all models of hierarchical masculine states, with no role for women (in their historical realizations at least) except somewhere at the bottom, whereas the final state in Chosen is a state of women freed from men, and, idyllically and unrealistically perhaps, sharing power equally. I took that to be one of the main points of Chosen. So maybe we need to look to feminist theory for a real model--but I also don't know anything about feminist theory!

And earlier eps like Primeval also bear out the sharing of power motif.

[> Having racked up 1750% on Deity level... -- Celebaelin, 07:55:37 10/02/03 Thu

playing Civ II I promise you democracy is the way to go. Put as much as you can into tech advances and don't forget to build those Temples, Colosseums, Cathedrals, Courthouses, Police Stations, Wonders etc.

btw It always seemed strange to me that there were no Hospitals.

C

Re: Political Philosophy and BtVS -- frisby, 19:04:06 10/01/03 Wed

Political philosophy is a matter of how to Plato. In his _Laws_ there is the rule of the one, the few, or the many, and each of those has two forms, one in which law holds the title to rule and one in which it doesn't. Therefore there is monarchy (and thus royalty or tyranny), oliarchy (timocracy or plutocracy), and democracy (representative demo or anarchy). But, that entire system is merely analytic and second rate, compared to his _Republic_ in which aristocracy (which aims for virtue and nobility) decays into timocracy (which aims for victory "or" honor), oliarchy (which aims for wealth and power), democracy (which aims for liberty and equality), and tyranny (which aims for order and security). The notion of property changes with each devolution which manifests in generational differences. The key to all of these regimes though is the role of the philosopher and in particular the political philosopher. Buffy is the political philosopher (the changling child who learns the terrible burden of the willing lie and who therefore saves the regime as it moves from mountaintop to moutaintop via the noble lie). What provides her special dignity is her power to know when something is or is not of the good.

Nietzsche renames Plato's political philosopher as the superman or the complementary human being or the sovereign individual -- but it's still all Buffy the Vampire Slayer!

[> Re: 'Divine Right' Oligarchy? -- Liam, 09:16:05 10/02/03 Thu

My own view is that the 'political' situation post-'Chosen', with the empowerment of all the other potential slayers as slayers, appears to be that of a 'divine right' oligarchy. Buffy and Faith had their slayer powers because of some 'divine right'; and, while their powers are now shared by all the other potentials, why are the powers only restricted to that group? Is it because the (all-female) potentials have a share of 'divine right', having been chosen as potential slayers? Why shouldn't any person (male or female) have the chance to be a slayer?

I would not be surprised if a number of slayers did not argue that they constituted an 'aristocracy' (rule by the best people), on the grounds that they _are_ superior to the average human being, and should therefore be treated differently.

What do people think?

[> [> Agree -- sdev, 09:37:06 10/02/03 Thu

It remains to be seen how the slayers deal with their power vis-a-vis the unempowered vast majority.

[> [> [> Re: Agree -- frisby, 12:08:21 10/02/03 Thu

The new chosen people, priests to their flock, or elitist wolves? Sounds like the old buffy/faith dilemma regarding the law.

[> [> Re: 'Divine Right' Oligarchy? -- Miyu tVP, 09:45:20 10/02/03 Thu

excellent point. Faith herself seemed to believe in her own superiority back in the day.

While I think Joss intends the empowerment of the Slayers overall to be a positive, feminist statement, it would not be much of a stretch to find one or more Slayers who abuse their power. But somehow I imagine it more as an isolated bullying incident here and there, rather than a full blown oligarchy.

We'll have to see if we get any indication in Angel as to the state of the Slayer world.

[> [> [> Good Point! -- frisby, 17:39:58 10/02/03 Thu

"the state of the new slayer world on Angel" -- very good thought! Or perhaps the two worlds will be kept separate as Plato's _Republic_ and _Laws_ are?

[> [> Re: 'Divine Right' Oligarchy? -- frisby, 12:06:19 10/02/03 Thu

Season six depicted Buffy's resurrection, completed only with the final 22nd episode, in which she managed to live in the world with joy, while season seven is the beginning of Buffy's church (to employ a christian metaphor). Yes, those who now share in Buffy's power constitute an aristocracy (or rule of the few best), a regime superior to democracy (except with regard to the political philosopher). The new slayers, like the Japanese samurai, will ensure justice and usher in a new order of virtue.

Ain't it grand?

postmodern politics -- manwitch, 09:11:39 10/03/03 Fri

Groovy fun post. Smoked me out of my cave.

You sparked some thoughts, which aren't really meant as disagreement in any way, just some thoughts you sparked.

Regime A - The Council of Watchers:

The CoW model for slaying seems to be heavily reminsicent of Plato's Republic....Consent of the goverened isn't an issue - all should follow the dictates of the CoW because of it's claim on superior knowledge.

What's interesting about this is that not only is the consent of the governed not an issue, but the "interests" of the governed are not to be considered either. The interest of the Watchers Council seems to be largely one of self-preservation. They have powerful institutions, such as the cruciamentum and the wet-works teams that ensure compliance from both within the structure and without. Not only should everyone agree because of the CoW's claim to knowledge, but the CoW's institutions will coerce and enforce compliance. Its significant that they are NOT involved in the actual war against evil so far as anyone can tell. Only the active watcher is, and the cruciamentum goes to great lengths to coerce his/her allegiance to the council as opposed to the dynamic and charismatic slayer that he works with in life or death situations every day. There's a real sense of Stalinist Totalitarianism here, in my humble view. While superior knowledge might be the legitimating claim for their power, the power they hold is actually held through violence and terror. Support us, or lose your right to play the game.

Regime B - Sunnydale, the early HS years:

Giles quickly discovers the CoW model will prove untenable, because the efficacy of the Philosopher King is severely restricted if the Guardian chooses not to buy in...Instead, the group begins to function more democratic lines. ..state action is generally determined as a collective effort produced by input from all members.

Buffy is interesting. She seems to perform a variety of political functions. In terms of the local Sunnydale regime, its almost like liberal parliamentarianism. Or at least Nietzsche's view of it. Power is held in a very small place. Buffy and Giles. Buffy is going to do what she's going to do. Giles can have very strong influence, sometimes even bordering on veto power. But the others are made only to feel that they are contributing to the political agenda. Their skills and knowledge are given free reign and put to use, but they do not set the agenda. They are allowed to feel they contribute only when they hit on a permitted view anyway. That said, their participation is voluntary. They can come and go as they need or please.

But in terms of the CoW, Buffy is their raison d'etre. They claim to rule in her righteous name. Not Buffy per se, but slayers. In this sense, they have a lot in common with the Medieval church. But Buffy, as someone who actually carries within her the divine blood, can claim independence from them, when she finally has the political power to make the challenge. She's kinda like Henry the 8th, only better looking.

Regime D - The Initative:

Whether or not some random demon is to be protected is less important to the scoobies, than stopping a supernatural threat.

I agree in general on the Initiative, but I think this question of whether or not the scoobies will protect some random demon is very important to them. Buffy rules for the benefit of those she rules over. That includes those whose lives she must occasionally take. So I think these are very serious considerations for her. She's not going to kill a demon who doesn't deserve to die just to further her agenda. That was already a difference between her and Kendra in SEason 2, and her and Faith in SEason 3.

Regime F - Willow is the Boss of Us:

Xander, in crafting that plaque, creates the first "social contract" for the scooby gang. With Giles retreating, and Buffy gone, Willow, with her resolve face and magical power is tabbed to lead the group. Upon Buffy's resurrection, Willow seeks to cede to official title, but seems to like having the power.

This is fascism. At least as the postmodernists define it. The key to fascism is both a dominant hierarchical leadership structure, and, more importantly, the desire of the governed to be lead. Those who will be governed don't participate in leadership, they don't ignore their leadership, they actively abdicate any authority over the agenda to be set and choose to follow the leadership wherever it goes. Their support of Willow seemed to be sharply in contrast to the way Buffy ran things. While Buffy was in charge, she was inclusive, and she worked for the benefit of all. She allowed others to come and go, to participate according to their abilities. Once Willow is "elected" leader, she will not allow you to back out of it. No secession here. "Nobody's backing out." And she mainlines her commands and her agenda into their very brains, erasing them and resetting them if necessary. That's fascism. Believe, obey, combat.

And that is, of course, what the postmodernists are so against. Fascism, and the tendency of all leadership structures to move in that direction. Leaders aren't leaders if there aren't followers. People are taught and encouraged to follow, rather than to set their own agenda.

What Buffy does in Chosen is the ultimate in Postmodern leadership. She surrenders her power and authority. She chooses not to be the leader. I mean, obviously, she kinda was and all, but in terms of the sharing of slayer power, she has dispersed the legitimating claim to her authority throughout the populace, thereby removing her legitimate claim to rule. The agenda must now be set locally, wherever an individual slayer is. And Buffy changed the followers to leaders. She reset not only the governing structure, but the fundamental unit of identity that is governed. She sort of annihilated the set of identities that make the relationships of governor to governed.

An awesomely cool thing to do. Very feminist to be sure, but beyond it too, I think.

[> Great analysis! -- Dlgood, 12:22:28 10/05/03 Sun

[> who wants the power? -- sdev, 13:17:11 10/05/03 Sun

Can you explain how this:

She surrenders her power and authority. She chooses not to be the leader

Equals this:

Very feminist to be sure

I think I must be missing something fundamental because I really donÕt see it.

[> [> subject positions -- manwitch, 16:10:01 10/05/03 Sun

Some of the current currents in feminism include the postmodern critique of "subject positions." The concern is over how we allow, and even participate in, the determination of our identity, the places from which we can speak. The argument is, at least in part, that in our culture identities of "white" and "male" have become priveleged, resulting in a sort of alienated subjectivity. This process is not altogether unlinked to the state, although it is far more complex. (Obviously, I'm not going to do justice to it in this post. I would recommend reading Foucault and works on postmodern feminism.)

So some feminist criticism, following this line, focuses on rejecting the kinds of subjectivity that seem fundamental and finding new ones, forging new relationships, and even overcoming the sense of individuation that subjectivity attempts to commandeer. Buffy rejects her identity. She rejects what she knows about that identity. That there can only be one. She rejects the notion that she, as the unique one, as the warrior, as everything she has been taught and has experienced a slayer to be, must dominate others. Instead, she unhinges the whole system.

She doesn't just make other people kick ass fighters. She rejects the notion that they need leadership at all. She undermines the very feature that gave legitimacy to the leadership. Now everybody has it. So who has the right to lead? Who requires the leadership?

She has not just empowered a group of young girls, she has challenged a structure of domination, gendered masculine in this particular show I would argue, that all of them, up to that moment bought into.

I think a significant part of feminist criticism is about this sort of challenge. I see why people would consider it feminist, as I myself do. If you would prefer to leave gender out of it and focus simply on its, I think, postmodern critical stance, I have no issue with that at all.

Or actually, if you want to think or say anything else, I have no issue with that either. I'm just expressing my own thoughts. But I hope I've offered at least some hint of how I made the leap in question.

[> [> [> rejecting power -- sdev, 01:34:52 10/07/03 Tue

Thanks for answering. I have no problem addressing this from a gender point of view, something I probably do automatically, but I keep coming up with an anti-feminist message.

In my world view, women have always been taught to surrender their power. That is what I see here. It would be less problematic for me if Buffy had reconciled her woman self with her power self. but the image of her getting out from under her power, escaping, is quite disturbing.

Furthermore, if as you say Buffy overcame:

"the sense of individuation that subjectivity attempts to commandeer. Buffy rejects her identity."

If that was her goal, then why is it okay to subject another group, still a vast isolated minority, to the same indviduation she rejects?

Also, this concept of no leadership sounds like anarchy. Is that what you mean? Is it effective?

[> [> [> [> My take on this -- Rahael, 07:05:23 10/07/03 Tue

One of the reasons I thought Whedon's solution in Chosen was so clever was that Buffy doesn't reduce one iota of her Slayer Power.

What she does reduce, in one fell move was her isolation. By being the only one, she was trapped into a variety of roles that constrained her, and slowly turned her numb. Her superiority complex came about because of the whole 'one girl in all the world' identity. And yet, her isolation slowly suffocated her. She simultaneously thought herself beneath everything, even the things she killed. She punished herself by relinquishing all the positive aspects of her power in a vain attempt to free herself (S6) and in S7, she embraced the very worst aspects of her role.

By being many, she acknowledged others; she shared both the positive and negative sides of her duty. Furthermore, to raise this above gender, to consider the human condition, and how alienated and lonely we all can be, Buffy, in a number of symbolic ways, overcomes her fears about death. How one can stand to lose those closest to us, and keep on seeing a world worth living in. How one can reconcile having had to kill your lover, asking him to close his eyes, sacrificing him to save the world (in contrast, Spike went willingly, eyes open - Buffy revisits the trauma of Becoming, and yet it is completely different. She leaves Sunnydale in a Bus, once again, but this time, she isn't running away from other people).

Buffy is still the Slayer. She finally realises that it wasn't her power that corrupted her, turned her into the killer, burdened her with a brutal combination of shame and authoritarianism. It wasn't the Slayer inside her. It was the circumstances she was in. She saves her successor going through all this again, alone, the one girl in all the world, when she eventually dies. She makes sure that not only she, but all the other potentials have the possibility of not being alone.

[> [> [> [> [> Very well said! -- Ponygirl, 08:29:55 10/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Agree, well said. -- Arethusa, 09:11:44 10/07/03 Tue

And BtVS showed over and over again that it was Buffy's lack of isolation that made her different and more powerful than other slayers. She didn't surrender any power-she multiplied it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for pointing that out (one little quibble) -- Rahael, 10:04:52 10/07/03 Tue

Great point. That really ties Chosen,even more strongly thematically, to the past seasons.

But the thing about Buffy being the bestest Slayer ever distresses me. When I heard one of the writers say it I was like: No! Don't say it! Don't say it! Damn. You've said it.

Why affirm Buffy's superiority at the very same time as point out what a destructive way of thinking it is? Doesn't that just reinforce a teleological progression from first Slayer to Buffy. I had feared that there might be elements of this viewpoint when I saw Primeval, but I was reassured when I read 'Tales Of The Slayer'. From the Whedon penned forward and epilogue stories, to the various snapshots of Slayers through the ages, we are shown that these are all very human, and special (in the right ways, not in terms of superiority). They are fixed in their historical contexts - they all have their battles to fight, and often, it's not the Vampirse they have to worry about. They are as courageous and compassionate as Buffy is. They are all as interesting, and they have all formed social bonds to other humans, to the world. There would be no sadness, no pathos, no joy, no narrative power if they hadn't. Even the First Slayer was given an incredibly sympathetic portrayal. She isn't only about the Kill, after all.

What's the point of destroying the metaphorical hierarchy, only to reinforce it at one fell swoop? If Buffy is still the Greatest Slayer Ever, then the power she shares out has no metaphorical value. It's simply physical strength, and she retains all the specialness. (I'm thinking here of the Cordy/Connor 'We're Special').

(this rant really is aimed at Joss Whedon, not at yourself, Arethusa! Sorry!)

I am open to more positive readings of this, though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's all about power. -- Arethusa, 12:18:43 10/07/03 Tue

I haven't read Tales of the Slayers (yet), so I just think of Buffy compared to Kendra and Faith, who were much more isolated slayers, rather than Buffy as the apex of slayer evolution and all the unpleasant things that can imply. But Buffy was the only slayer who decided that when you don't like the game, you kick over the board. She certainly may not be better than her predecessors, but she was truly unique in her approach to her power.

I see Buffy's power issues as part of her developmemt as a person. In Season 5 Buffy started to learn the extent and source of her power. In Season 6 she rejected her power, and in Season 7 she wrestled with the dilemma of how to accept and use it without letting it overtake her. Which, for part of the time, meant she made mistakes. But she got over her fear of it, and helped others do the same.

One of the interesting things about the potentials is how they dealt with Buffy's power, as well as their own latent power. They were terrified of it, or denied it existed, or reveled in it. One gave up her power so completely that she ended taking her own life. Everyone, including Giles (sob!) was confused and uncertain. They floundered a lot before they chose to be strong. But they finally did choose. So I can forgive a lot.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Kicking over the board game -- Rahael, 14:51:31 10/07/03 Tue

Yes, Buffy changed the whole Slayer thing forever, she freed them. But I feel, (because I loved the 'But you're just a girl' - 'That's what I keep telling them') that all the previous slayers did what they could, to kick over the board game as presented to them.

Buffy wasn't a failure in Seasons 1-6 (Indeed, she was a considerably more entertaining character!), she found ways to fight back against the rules of the game. If Chosen hadn't been the finale, she wouldn't have kicked over the board. If she hadn't been the title character, she wouldn't have been the best ever. If Faith had got a spin off confirmed midway through the Season, there would have been a completely different board game going on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, I agree. And disagree. Can I agree to disagree? ;) -- Arethusa, 15:33:35 10/07/03 Tue

The demands of the format dictated some of the action. And I don't know what other slayers did. I especially don't see Buffy inherently above all others, all that is good and loving and noble! In fact, I thought that S 7 frequently showed Buffy's approach to the coming battles was very wrong. I didn't see Buffy win when the Potentials fell into line with her. She won when she relinquished leadership to Faith. I saw Spike's offer to kill Faith just as serious as his offer to "thin the ranks" after her resurrection. I hate noble sacrifices-the only thing I really liked about Spike's death was that he could finally feel his soul. And realized that it hurts.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And I can agree with all that! ;) -- Rahael, 15:46:40 10/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> questions beget questions -- sdev, 16:30:02 10/07/03 Tue

I am trying to discern whether the difference in our views stem from a perceptive difference in the way Chosen ended or an idealogical difference.

What was Buffy's goal in opening up the Slayer power to all Potentials now thus creating many Slayers? Was it to continue to work in tandem as the Slayer with the newly made Slayers or was it to be able to walk away from being the Slayer, knowing there are others, and live a normal life?

I saw it as the latter. How did you see it?

Logistically, how many Slayers are we talking about? Was it enough to end the isolation, particularly if they are spread throughout the world? It certainly would not have changed the emotional dynamices of the superiority/inferiority complex. Buffy would still be surrounded by the vast majority of people who did not have her role and power. At best it would have created a peer group, a Slayer elite as suggested elsewhere in this thread.

The route to ending many of Buffy's problems with her power, guilt, isolation, and disconnection was internal not external as suggested in the episode Conversations With Dead People but never resolved. Certainly multiplying the Slayer power was a boon to the world in terms of increased ability to fight the forces of evil This I'm sure would be the Giles view. Was this Buffy's view? In terms of personal fulfillment, making dough into cookies, I don't know that it really helped Buffy unless this was her road to retirement.

It is the retirement goal that I have trouble with idealogically.

Not that I have no sympathy for her fatigue. I do.

Ah Sun-flower! weary of time,
Who countest the steps of the Sun:
Seeking after that sweet golden clime
Where the travellers journey is done.
Where the Youth pined away with desire,
And the pale virgin shrouded in snow:
Arise from their graves and aspire,
Where my Sun-flower wishes to go.

[> [> [> [> [> [> No idealogical difference here -- Rahael, 16:44:48 10/07/03 Tue

I would hope that BUffy continue to be the person that she is. That living life requires us all to exercise the real powers Slayers do - to be honest, to face the things in the shadows, to retain our humanity, to do the hard things, the right things. To look into the darkness and have the courage to not run away, but to alleviate the cruelties of life. And that can only be relinquished by death, or by irresponsibility.

THis is made explicit in OMWF: Buffy smiles sadly and tells us: 'and you can sing along'

In Chosen, it's a question: "Are you ready to be strong?"

Who amongst us hasn't had to be strong? How can any of us escape that moment, that question?

As you can see, I have a very particular interpretation of 'The Slayer', and it influences my interpretation of the Series as a whole.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: questions beget questions -- Dlgood, 18:59:00 10/07/03 Tue

What was Buffy's goal in opening up the Slayer power to all Potentials now thus creating many Slayers? Was it to continue to work in tandem as the Slayer with the newly made Slayers or was it to be able to walk away from being the Slayer, knowing there are others, and live a normal life?
---------

I actually think it's a bit of both. Buffy's dealt with this question because of both Kendra and Faith.

Long term, I don't think Buffy will ever bring herself to quit completely, even though she'd like to. I think her sense of duty is too strong. But over the short term, having all these new slayers around gives them all opportunities to take sabbaticals to focus a bit more on the mundane aspects of life, and to help recharge when they are otherwise in danger of burning out.

In the long run, it think that option would make them better slayers and better people.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: questions beget questions -- sdev, 19:19:35 10/07/03 Tue

Really enjoying this thread.

"I don't think Buffy will ever bring herself to quit completely"

Is this what you saw in the episode or what you believe from the character? Or are they inseparable?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: questions beget questions -- Dlgood, 20:40:16 10/07/03 Tue

Is this what you saw in the episode or what you believe from the character? Or are they inseparable?
------------
More of a Gestalt of who Buffy Summers is through the course of S1-7. It's like Michael Corleone - "every time I think I'm out...."

[> Good to see you posting - Some thoughts on Power -- Rahael, 09:54:16 10/03/03 Fri

I'd be interested in your reading of how 'power' as a theme was tackled in Season 7 (now that I've kind of got some distance from my year knee jerk reaction.

I loved the idea of Chosen (I was spoiled for it, and it was the one thing that kept sustaining me for ep after ep). I saw the sharing of power as a metaphorical one - if we are to read BtVS as if we are all confronted with the choices that Buffy is confronted with, if being a 'slayer' is nothing more than being a human being willing to see the things in the shadows, being willing to have the kind of courage and compassion that Buffy had. So I didn't see her sharing of power as sharing of power within an elite, but really, a rather clever way of resolving some deep seated themes within BtVS - when she makes that decision, she heals a faultline (or the 'Hellmouth') in the Buffyverse.

But, I didn't get to enjoy this so much because of, what I felt was, a rather impoverished view of power. It seemed to be equated, uncomplicatedly with 'force' and 'authority'. Power seemed to be portrayed as a posession belonging to one person, rather than to all of us. Buffy, at the top dribbles the power down.

I would have preferred to see a more complex reading of 'power'.

(this, compares unfavourably to one of my very favourite S5 eps, where Buffy unequivocally exposes the lie that the Watcher's Council has power over her. It's the very opposite. It is not theirs to regulate, and the claims they make on her are a lie. But in S7, we find that everything that is powerful about a Slayer was brutally forced into her, like Yeats' Swan/Zeus....

Being so caught up,
So mastered by the brute blood of the air,
Did she put on his knowledge with his power
Before the indifferent beak could let her drop?

What I would have given for the First Slayer to confront them and say: "I have enough, of my own, already". Instead, this is left for Buffy to say, which does kinda accomplish that theme that the "Power" which is on offer is no real power at all - do we become powerful because someone thrusts it on us in the form of a mystical force?

They avoid the echo of this in Chosen by making all the recipients 'Potentials' - it's in them already, Buffy simply wakens it.

Anyway, these are nebulous thoughts, nothing set in concrete, and nothing fiercely held. I'm open to reading a favourable reading of the working of Power in S7.

One other thing that I liked - throughout S7 there was the constant emphasis that the Potentials can only inherit through death. Le roi et mort, vive le roi! It is indeed very much like a hereditary (Queen)ship. Buffy changes all that, changes the loneliness at the top - everyone can inherit their 'God'-given Power right away. No one has to wish for her death, to inherit.

(And maybe I'm expecting too much of BtVS. One of my obsessions is political languages, the negotiation of power between the 'powerful' and the 'powerless'. One can assert one's divine status, one's God given, mystical power. But that is only part of a negotiation - why would one have to assert it at all if it wasn't taken for granted?)

[> [> Thinking about this. -- manwitch, 13:20:42 10/04/03 Sat

Its probably no surprise to you that my views on power are largely shaped by Nietzsche and Foucault. So I agree with you (at least I think this is what you were suggesting) that power is not a thing that is possessed. Its is exercised. Everyone, even the least priveleged, has some. It exists only in relationship, perhaps to another person, or to knowledge, or to one's self.

The brute force, I'm in charge, punch, fight, kick, style of power is, I think in fairness, one of power's expressions. I'm not sure its ultimately the most impactful, and I think BtVS was trying to make that point. I agree with you about the metaphor and think you expressed it beautifully. The fight with the Turok-han was really an afterthought as far as the whole power issue went. They didn't beat up the Turok-hans, they healed the hellmouth.

I also liked very much that Buffy's most powerful act of leadership was to surrender it, to share her legitimating feature with anyone who wanted it. One of Foucault's great insights was the way power acts to create identity, to produce, rather than constrain or negate, our sense of subjectiviy. He calls it individuation and argues that it is linked to the state's mechanisms of domination, which exert great force on our sense of self and the kinds of knowledge we can have about ourselves. He argues for a practice of "deindividuation," to say new things, to change, to speak from different positions, to relentlessly challenge the knowledge, the experiences, the potential, the selves that we are permitted to have. I think Buffy did that in Chosen, just as she did in Primeval. She challenged her sense of individuation and offered a new sort of identity and relationship to the self that neutralizes the threat.

I haven't really thought coherently about how it was addressed throughout the season. I thought the character of Caleb was detestable, not because he was evil or mysoginist, but because he was so one-dimensional, boring, and contrived. Arguably the worst character creation in the whole Buffyverse. But I think the season did hint at what you are hoping for. Dawn's recognition that she is merely a custodian of the power is one of my favorite moments in the whole series. Because her ability to express power is so clear. She saves amanda, not the other way around. But Dawn lacks title and creds. She doesn't have the right papers. So she bows out due to rituals of truth created by the Watcher's Council. But her awareness that we are temporal and that power simply passes through us is utlimately one of the keys to Buffy's victory.

I have no coherent view, I guess, as to how power was used as a theme throughout Season 7. But if I attempted to find one, I expect I would search for it along these lines. The fact the Buffy made herself generalissimo was not a vote for that conception of power, but rather an illustration of its insufficiency.

As for the slayer powers being forced on the slayer, well,we are all that. We are all who we are as a result of forces that act upon us, forces that act upon the domains of knowledge that are knowable, forces that act opon our vision of ourselves. None of us will get through life without being the object acted upon by some force. Will we allow that to be the sum of our identity? Buffy's powers are forced upon her. They are taken away by force in Helpless. But she doesn't become a coward, she doesn't cease to love her mom, she doesn't stop standing for what is right, she doesn't lose her resourcefulness. It turns out those weren't Slayer powers. She was able to find a sense of self that didn't rise and fall with the force applied to her.

I seem to recall Buffy's concluding lesson in Lessons to be "You'll be alright if you stick together." Danger comes from isolation, separateness, individuation. That's pretty much the theme of the season. The power spoken of in the episode, is the power to deindivinduate, to lose yourself in others and in the world.

And I don't think its just cheezy let's be happy together hollywood stuff. I think its very aware of Foucault's formulations of power, and its saying one of the most powerful things you can do is to be someone else, in every sense of the phrase.

I know none of this made sense. I'll keep thinking about it though.

go cubs.

[> [> [> Very interesting post. It made lots of sense. -- jane, 16:46:04 10/04/03 Sat

[> [> [> Nice analysis (Vague casting spoiler for Conviction) -- Rahael, 08:31:44 10/05/03 Sun

It was indeed what I was suggesting - my views on power are heavily influenced by Foucault too.

I like what you had to say, especially about Dawn. The stumbling block I face whenever I try hard to find coherency in S7, thematically, is that I encounter incoherency of theme and image. Caleb is one of the best examples - he just seems to disrupt so much of the powerful work BtVS has done. But there still remains much that is intriguing, and reading thoughtful analysis certainly makes me feel more kindly toward it.

I'll look forward to any further thoughts you might have in the future - you talked a while back about Spike having to overcome his soul. I'd be interested in your continuing views on this. Especially, of course, as I cannot see any of the new eps.

[> [> [> [> Glad you're back Rah (above spoiler is well known casting spoiler) -- Celebaelin, 08:58:23 10/05/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks Celebaelin -- Rahael, 06:50:39 10/07/03 Tue

I'm always loitering with intent around here, even if I don't post!

But it has been a while...it's very nice of you to notice!

[> [> [> [> Well, actually... -- Tchaikovsky, 10:42:33 10/06/03 Mon

Especially, of course, as I cannot see any of the new eps.

That's not strictly true. I could send Conviction on to you if you like...

TCH

[> [> [> [> [> That would be super....... -- Rahael, 06:47:24 10/07/03 Tue

And I would be happy to repay any expenses. At the moment I am between addresses (it's all very exciting!) but you could always send it to my work......

You'll have email soon.

[> [> [> Power and S7 -- Dlgood, 12:21:04 10/05/03 Sun

------------
But, I didn't get to enjoy this so much because of, what I felt was, a rather impoverished view of power. It seemed to be equated, uncomplicatedly with 'force' and 'authority'.
------------

For me, my conceptions of "Power" are framed by political theory. Machiavelli, Sun Tzu, Kenneth Waltz, Henry Kissneger, Joe Nye...

Power is a tool. Something not inherent in the person, but rather, something that one cultivates and brings to bear in order to accomplish an agenda.

So the Mutiny in Empty places is All About Power. It's not simply about the "insuficiency" of Buffy's slayer power. True - Buffy cannot further her agenda by using physical force. More importantly, it's about Buffy's failure to recognize and cultivate less obvious and indirect sources of power by which she could have moved the group to follow her.

Compare this to Buffy's lecture to Dawn in "Lessons". The vampire is physically stronger than Dawn, so Dawn uses technique and finesse to defeat it. Buffy tells Dawn that she doesn't have the power, but this is incorrect. Dawn's knowledge and skills, are assets that can rapidly be used to further Dawn's agenda - namely defending herself from the Vampire.

They may not be physical force, but these assets can be converted into power. They are power.

Buffy does not have the physical power to fight the mayor and all of his vampire minions at the same time. However, using her leadership skills, and the managerial talents of her core of supporters, Buffy raises an army to battle the Mayor's minions during the Ascension.

Leadership skills. Charisma. Economic might. Cultural influence. Superior knowledge and technique. These can all be potential sources of power, and it's a lesson Whedon and Buffy ignore in S7, even as we talk about how great it was for Buffy to share her physical strength with all the potentials.

[> [> [> [> I thought Dawn lost to the vampire in "Lessons"? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:29:10 10/05/03 Sun

Also, since the physical strength is a metaphor, we can't really say that they were ignoring it, just not addressing it directly.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I thought Dawn lost to the vampire in "Lessons"? -- Dlgood, 20:09:26 10/05/03 Sun

Nope. She staked it. Missed the heart the first time.

But in S7 physcial strength stopped being a metaphor for other types of strength. Buffy began behaving as though physical strength were the only form of strength, and acted as though physical strength was her only form of strength.

As the old saw goes: "To a man with a hammer, every problem is a nail." One of Buffy's failings, was that she looked into her very full chest of tools, and only saw a hammer. And that she looked at a complicated set of problems, and only saw a nail.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn may have staked the vamp -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:00:32 10/06/03 Mon

But she never got a chance to get him in the heart. After missing the heart, she pulled the stake out, the vamp attacked her, and would have bitten Dawn if Buffy hadn't cut off its head with a sword. Also note that every other time Dawn fought a monster in Season Seven ("Never Leave Me" and "Potential") somebody else had to come in and kill it.

[> [> [> [> Power and S7 Continued (Realism) -- Dlgood, 13:36:16 10/05/03 Sun

Basically, in Political Philosophy, this is the Realist paradigm.

The government, however it is formed, has a set of programs and agendas. The reasons behind those agendas, and who decide on them are not necessarily material. In any case, the primary mission of the governing, is to safeguard and cultivate power, so that it might be put to use in the furthering of the State's programs. And in general, one looks at other states to behave in a similar fashion.

So when you deal with other states, It's About Power - as both Buffy and the FE say in "Lessons". Although, not every state adheres to a Relaist paradigm. Leaders might not be rational. They might be driven by ideology, whether it's Secular Humanism or Religious Fundamentalism.

But, it's still a useful way to view interactions. Sometimes states go to war because they have competing goals, such that their agendas invariably come into conflict. Other times, because leaders miscalculate what is necessary to accomplish aims and conduct policy erroneously. Or perhaps, because the calculations are weighted by preference-changing ideological considerations.

The parallel between Buffy and the FE, could have been a good way to show how a Realist approach can be good or bad for the state, depending upon the intentions and competence of the leaders. As is true of almost any system in real life, though some have more flaws than others.

Unfortunately for me, I can't do a Realist analysis of the "It's About Power" theme in S7. As I noted above, Buffy seems to have a such a limited and misguided view of what power is, that I can't view her as a competent "Realist" leader for much of the season - and there seems to be no acknowlegement on Buffy's part. With the FE, it's agendas and programs seemed so incoherent, non-sensical, and purposeless that I have no idea on how I can evaluate it.

Which is too bad. It would have been fascinating to me, to compare and contrast two states (FE, Scoobies) both informed by the similar paradigm.

[> [> [> [> Buffy and Power and S7 -- Rahael, 03:22:53 10/06/03 Mon

At the heart of Season 7 is this huge paradox. Is it the incoherent text that Whedon has previously invoked?

What some parts of Season 7 wanted me to believe, I think, is that Buffy is a faulty, incomplete person. (And we're back to the cookie dough thing, a metaphor that hasn't exactly enthralled me).

I didn't regard Buffy as perfect before S7, and yet, as in Primeval, I had always thougth of Buffy as someone possessing Heart, Mind, Spirit, Hand. She found them when she came to Sunnydale in S1. She doesn't always draw upon each as she should do, but in Primeval, she showed that when she does, she is powerful beyond comprehension. She turns bullets into doves, stunts Adam's technological arm, pulls out his radioactive heart. It draws heavily upon Alan Moore's Promethea, a creation which is pointedly based on culture and narrative. Promethea is a concept, a metaphor, the personification of narratives.

Buffy and her friends when they are alienated show the divided self - together, they are complete. On a literal level, it shows the powers of friendship. On a metaphorical level, they are what a person with intelligence, compassion, strength and courage can be.

And so in Season 7, with doubt, suspicion and even the rumblings of mutiny, we have cookie dough Buffy. Driven out of her home Buffy. As she emphasises her alienation from everyone, more and more (her superiority-inferiority complex), the more rigid and authoritarian she becomes. The more she relies on the Hand alone.

The problem with this is that there are many instances where S7 goes out of their way to prove that Buffy is right to do what she does. That she is vindicated. That in a war, the soldiers need to take orders, and not start questioning, or quarreling. That Spike is justified in offering to kill Faith for Buffy, that Buffy is right to call the potential who committed suicide a weak person. Everyone else really is subordinate to her, morally, physically. She wins when they fall into line.

Giles (or some unrecognisable version of him) is clearly in the wrong. It's a caricature of his former self, of his way of thinking. Nothing about the way he reprimands Buffy over her lovelife contains the power of his S2 rebuke. What happened to the Giles of Suprise/Innocence? I feel that his character was not done justice, a straw man, easily knocked down. As was Wood.

If we were going to have the season that lead to the message of Chosen, we should have had more of the Potentials. Because all human beings are important, and interesting, and rich, not just the titular ruler. Instead, we were shown that they were indeed canon fodder. Uninteresting canon fodder (I was intrigued by the brief glimpses, but I'm speaking more about the reaction of the fanbase at large). In Him, we were shown how redundent and impoverished the grand gesture, the dying in the name of the loved one, was as an illustration of love. In Storyteller, we were shown that tears, not blood was the way to atone. All of this was completely reversed by the end.

So - Season 7 had two completely contradictory strands running all the way through. I'm still going with my pet theory - Anya could have worn the amulet. Spike dies the noblest death when he dies away from sight, quietly, unshowily, undramatically. No longer playing a part, all grand illusions, all claims to such gone. Anya dies to save humanity, telling Xander that she knows he doesn't love her but that's okay. Doesn't that fit better than the Spike/Buffy conversation? The Fury transformed into the Kindly One, vengeance to mercy. It would have subtly concluded the Wood subplot too. Buffy doesn't save the day, but the person who truly grows to understand and appreciate humanity does... the person who was saved by Halfreks burning, unwilling sacrifice, balances the scales of justice by burning up through a willing, ethical choice. The person who was so afraid of mortality in S5, embraces it willingly. And it would provide a commentary on Willow's path back to redemption from great transgression in the name of vengeance.

Well, that's the S7 that I'm trying to pretend actually happened.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Power and S7 -- Dlgood, 11:34:13 10/06/03 Mon

The painting of dissenting voices as straw men, and the vindication of Buffy's wrong behavior, for me ultimately undermine the story.

The realist/liberal interpretation does depend, at least in part, upon a recognition that the Potentials were justified in ousting Buffy. But the framing of the kitchen scene in "Touched" undermines that as well. The story paints Spike as Hero of the scene, despite his wildly inaccurate arguments, and the only person who speaks against him was Faith, who played minimal part in the actual rebellion. Just as Buffy never counters Spike's threat to kill Wood for so much as "looking at him funny". Nor does Spike ever express any regret to Wood for killing his mother.

Are we to take from that scene that it was okay for him to have killed the slayer, basically because he could? And that's it's okay if he wants to kill Wood now? And that the only reason Wood shouldn't have killed Spike, was because Buffy found his physical power useful to the mission?

If the message was supposed to be that Force isn't a sufficient legitimating claim, even if sometime effective in reality, these scenes undermined that message.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Unsurprisingly, -- Rahael, 06:39:33 10/07/03 Tue

I agree completely with the above.

[> [> [> [> [> [> So many errors, so little time -- Sophist, 10:38:52 10/07/03 Tue

The realist/liberal interpretation does depend, at least in part, upon a recognition that the Potentials were justified in ousting Buffy

I don't understand this statement. I don't see any such dependence. I think you're mixing two different, though related, issues: how Buffy should defeat the FE; and how Buffy should interact with the SG and the Potentials.

IMHO, the Potentials (and the SG) were wrong every which way possible when they ousted Buffy. That does not make Buffy right, but it does highlight the limits of the paradigm under which they all were operating.

The story paints Spike as Hero of the scene, despite his wildly inaccurate arguments

Here are Spike's statements. I don't know which one(s) you consider inaccurate, but they all appear to be either correct or a matter of opinion.

Uh huh, I see. Been practicing that little speech long, have you? So Buffy took some time off right in the middle of the apocalypse and it was her decision?

Oh yeah, you all decided. You sad, sad ungrateful traitors. Who do you think you are?

Oh that's ballsy of you. You're her friends and you betray her like this.

You know, I think I do Rupert. You used to be the big man didn't you? The teacher, all full of wisdom? Now she's surpassed you and you can't handle it. She has saved your lives again and again. She has died for you. And this is how you thank her?

Finally got what you wanted, didn't you? Where is she?

I see no inaccuracies there. You can disagree with Spike's characterization of the motives of Faith and Giles, but both are defensible matters of opinion, not statements of fact that could be characterized as "inaccurate".

the only person who speaks against him was Faith

Willow, Xander and Giles all spoke before Faith did.

(Faith) played minimal part in the actual rebellion

I don't think this fairly describes the scene in EP at all. Faith played a very significant role. We can argue all day about who was most important in that scene, but I hardly think it fair to describe Faith's role as "minimal".

Just as Buffy never counters Spike's threat to kill Wood for so much as "looking at him funny".

I think Buffy understands an emotional blast as distinguished from a real threat. Compare Spike's statement in LMPTM to Xander's in WSWB: "If anything happens to Willow, I'll kill you (Buffy)." Both statements are indefensible as statements of intent, but neither is intended to be taken literally. And if I had to choose which one was less offensive, it would be easy to choose Spike's.

Nor does Spike ever express any regret to Wood for killing his mother.

I don't see the point of this in the context of the discussion. However, as many have pointed out, neither Wood nor Giles ever expresses regret for severely beating Spike in the course of trying to kill him.

Are we to take from that scene that it was okay for him to have killed the slayer, basically because he could?

Again, I don't understand how this point is relevant to the discussion. In any case, I can't imagine how you could draw that conclusion unless you deliberately sought the most unlikely and prejudicial conclusion.

And that's it's okay if he wants to kill Wood now?

This rhetorical question is unworthy of the quality of your other posts.

And that the only reason Wood shouldn't have killed Spike, was because Buffy found his physical power useful to the mission?

I don't think anyone understood that as the "only" reason. It certainly was a reason, but hardly the only one.

If the message was supposed to be that Force isn't a sufficient legitimating claim

I'm not sure what you mean here with the word "force". Are you using it as a synonym for "power"?

In any case, I don't see the point. I don't think that your sentence characterizes the message of the season. If that were the message, I don't see how the scenes you mention would undermine that message.

[> [> [> [> [> I like your vision -- sdev, 01:42:21 10/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 06:31:38 10/07/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, oh yes -- Ponygirl, 08:23:30 10/07/03 Tue

The last of my desperate optimism that s7 was going to come together left the building along with Buffy in Empty Places. Why spend so much time showing that Buffy is going down the wrong path in terms of her leadership and then show that in her absence Faith and the Potentials are ridiculous and ineffective? Touched is ultimately a complete muddle, especially in the context of Chosen, because we see the others being punished for trying to empower themselves, while Buffy succeeds on the strength of a good night's sleep and a re-affirmation of her unique position.

I completely agree with your comments on Giles and Anya, and I'd add that while I enjoyed Storyteller it really should have been told from the perspective of an unknown Potential. We needed to feel what it was like to be unwillingly thrown into this strange world of destinies and death and secrets. In short to see them as they were intended to be: Buffy in season 1.

Ah well. Just when I think I'm over s7... We should form a support group.

[> [> [> [> [> [> We so should! -- Rahael, 09:36:57 10/07/03 Tue

I'm glad you mentioned Touched. Just hearing about the ep has made me unable to watch anything in between Lies and Chosen. I know, I know, I shouldn't pass judgement on eps I haven't seen. But I tried to give Lies a fair viewing and that just traumatised me!!

Maybe with the help of the Support Group (We wanted to like S7! It doesn't want to be liked. It wants to beat us up and show us who's the boss of us!) I may one day be able to view these eps. One step at a time, eh?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: We so should! -- Ponygirl, 10:02:24 10/07/03 Tue

Touched actually works better on paper than viewing - there was some questionable blocking and editing. I was watching some of it just the other day when I was going through some old tapes and was still struck by how unclear the writing was in many scenes. I don't want to beat up on the episode (but I do! I do!) 'cause I know it's been discussed here before but it seemed to me that there was a definite goal - that of Buffy asking to be held, various other characters having sex - but no real understanding of how to get everyone to that point. The emotional throughline wasn't there, or got lost in the demands of the plot, which kind of sums up many of my problems with the season.

In my dream season 7 Marti Noxon would have written Touched with all of the emotional fearlessness she showed in The Prom or IOHEFY. But perhaps with the help of the support group I'll learn to let go of my fantasies. Every day we get stronger!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, oh yes -- Dlgood, 09:54:20 10/07/03 Tue

*Touched* isn't just muddled because it shows Faith & the Potentials as wrong, wrong, wrong. But also, because it shows the mutineers as so chastened by Spike, even though his accusations and assertions are wildly off-base. There's no point where the story looks at Spike, in that episode, and says "this guy isn't 100% right about what he says".

It also would have helped if we'd seen Buffy identify herself with the potentials, by sharing with them how she felt when she became introduced to the Slaying. And if there was anything she had learned about herself when she was a potential.

[> [> [> [> [> By the Power of Non-Sequitur -- fresne, 12:52:25 10/07/03 Tue

I donÕt know, the biggest problem with Buffy right/not right, is that I was so annoyed by everyone kicking Buffy out of the house that sheÕd mortgaged her soul at the DMP to pay for that Spike could have come in yelling ÒBy the Power of Non-Sequitur you all should walk the plank, argh.Ó and IÕd have nodded, ÒYou go Grrr.Ó

ÒSpike dies the noblest death when he dies away from sight, quietly, unshowily, undramatically.Ó

This reminds me of something my grandfather always said. That charity should always be anonymous, that way you knew that you were doing it for the right reasons.

As to the vision of the Fury transformed into kindness. Yes, as I look with cybernetic pointedness, it would be nice if there were a story that, while not contradicting the large brass canon of S7, followed up on that theme. HmmmÉbut who among us shall write this already vaguely outlined story.

Ahem, exercising my power to nag. I never said I was nice. Merely non linear.

ItÕs always interesting to discuss power on a day when I vote. Exercising my power as one voice among many. Checking my yahoo to see how thatÕs going. Waiting. Pondering the sheer number of people who choose not to exercise their power in what I believe Schoolhouse Rock referred to as a 3-Ring Circus. Ponders going home and watching the Schoolhouse Rock tape tonight. MmmÉhow a bill becomes a law. SufferinÕ for Suffrage. Rattle that tambourine.

The strangely moving moment in the Simpsons when the power plant workers protest, strike and Lisa leads them in song. They are in the dark. They have the power.

You know I should probably say something concrete about power. Consider the power of the oak and the rock and the sea. That dripping water coming from my tea pot. Drip. Drip. Drip.

S7 Buffy. ItÕs all about Power. ItÕs just that, as with everything, we can only see the definition in the application.

If only I had a lever and place to put itÉbut then we return to the physical and ignore the meta of it all.

I like the idea of the ultimate resolution as the healed wound. The mouth that is no longer hungry and gaping. Teeth pulled. The beneath devoured itself.

I want to come some sort of neat resolution, but the text is somewhat occluded from tidy. So, IÕll merely say that when I played Civilization, I always played high priestess, not because it got me a high score, but because then I could bend my civilization to my will at my whim. My lever containing multitudes and not unlike the central message of Conan. Although, as I reflect on the day and the waiting, weÕll see what the multitudes who show up decide.

Something of a non-sequitur itself to a non-Californian, but what can I say, where we are is always where the center and the fulcrum will be.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Heh heh re the pointed hinting -- Rahael, 15:03:41 10/07/03 Tue

I don't know if it will work. Getting any prose out of me is like wringing blood out of a stone, or that's what it feels like whenever I attempt it. I usually desist immediately.

Good luck with the voting. I fear you'll need it.

I think I would feel much the same re Buffy getting kicked out. My blood would boil. But it would also feel like another blatant manifestation of what I'd call the Giles syndrome. Take a sympathetic character. Have them espouse an argument that is controverial but thought provoking. Discredit them by making them behave like asses. I will admit that they probably did that to Spike too.

I will end with this quote from you:

You know I should probably say something concrete about power. Consider the power of the oak and the rock and the sea. That dripping water coming from my tea pot. Drip. Drip. Drip.

Lovely!

[> [> [> [> [> When beggars die there are no comets seen; The heavens themselves blaze forth the death of princes. -- Sophist, 13:41:39 10/07/03 Tue

I guess Shakespeare wouldn't agree with your statement that

Spike dies the noblest death when he dies away from sight, quietly, unshowily, undramatically

Personally, I doubt the nobility of anonymous death. Far too many people in this world, most of them poor and many abused, die anonymously. It's kind of like a tree falling in a forest -- is it noble if there's no observer to judge it so? I'd say that's exactly the reason for the Quaker doctrine of witness.

Putting all that aside, though, I'd say Spike very nearly met your challenge. Only Buffy (and maybe Faith) stayed underground long enough actually to witness the full effect of Spike's amulet. Only Buffy knew that Spike didn't get out alive. Hence Giles: "I don't understand. What did this?" Billions of people on earth, but only Buffy knew the answer.

Anya could have worn the amulet.

The glory of Anya's story was that she both understood and embraced her humanity. Unless the story line were changed, that humanity disqualified her from wearing the amulet --"Someone with a soul. But more than human."

[> [> [> [> [> [> The discrete charms of subversion -- Ponygirl, 14:25:36 10/07/03 Tue

For me at least, part of the appeal of Rah's alternate ending is that it undercuts our expectations. Spike's sacrifice was very much telegraphed the entire season, perhaps even from Grave. We had seen him draped on a cross, strung up, framed next to a statue of the Virgin Mary, something obviously was coming. Anya on the other hand was pretty much forgotten by the end of the season, she was probably literally the last person, even after Andrew, that I would have expected to make a grand heroic gesture. I'm not denying that Chosen as it aired wasn't effective but the sheer unexpectedness of a reversal could have caused us to question our assumptions about sacrifice, heroism and the roles of princes and beggars.

Beyond being a fan of the character I'm glad that Spike's story is continuing because by that fact it attacks our ideas of the tragic hero. He made the sacrifice, demonstrated self-knowledge ("no you don't"), got the efflugence and the last laugh, but he's still not done. It's imperfect, it's messy, and that makes it interesting. At least I'm hoping for the best!

I'm not familiar with the Quaker doctrine you mention, I'll have to check it out, but I wonder in the instance of a drama if the audience fulfills the role of witness?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or, what Ponygirl said -- Rahael, 14:42:28 10/07/03 Tue

And I wish I could take back the word 'noble' in reference to death. It was a bad choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Prescience -- Sophist, 15:56:49 10/07/03 Tue

For me at least, part of the appeal of Rah's alternate ending is that it undercuts our expectations. Spike's sacrifice was very much telegraphed the entire season, perhaps even from Grave.

I had no such expectation for Spike. I expected him to survive the season. Thus, having him die undercut my expectation.

This line of reasoning is dangerous: if ME generates expectations in order to undercut them, and if we know that ME does so, then we'd expect the undercut and it would no longer work.

I wonder in the instance of a drama if the audience fulfills the role of witness?

Not in the sense I understood from Rah's point about Spike. See my response to her below.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I should have said -- Rahael, 14:38:47 10/07/03 Tue

that it would have been the noblest death for Spike (I regard death as the great leveller - it's terrifying for everyone, and I think death was the great enemy in S7, in many ways.)

I meant to say was, Spike, with his grand gestures, with his created persona, Spike, (Andrew provides a comic/melancholy commentary on him in S7 too) that he would have grown past the big gesture.

And BtVS is a tv show that is *always* aware that it has an audience. So the others didn't see it. We did.

As for the rules of the Amulet - it's hardly a plot device that's been hanging around from the begining of the season, with rules that are a long established part of canon (A slayer dies, a slayer gets called, the Slayer is female, etc etc). It gets brought in by Angel near the end. In my vision, the rules of the Amulet could fit Anya.

I have no idea whether Shakespeare would agree with me or not. Calpurnia may! Caeser replies:

Cowards die many times before their deaths;
The valiant never taste of death but once.

Of course, in the Buffyverse, vampires, cowardly or brave die more than once. Especially if they're going over to another tv show ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I should have said -- Sophist, 15:48:48 10/07/03 Tue

that he would have grown past the big gesture.

We always are who we are, no matter how we may appear to have changed.

A romantic poet forbear the grand gesture? Not likely.

And BtVS is a tv show that is *always* aware that it has an audience. So the others didn't see it. We did.

That's not playing fair. If you count this, Buffy's deaths were both grand public gestures. I think we have to view the death within the 3 walls of the play.

In my vision, the rules of the Amulet could fit Anya.

I thought about it, but I don't see how. If humans could wear the amulet, you'd have 2 problems, one relatively simple, the other very difficult.

The first one is, why would Anya be the one to wear it? If I were choosing from the SG, Xander would be the obvious choice. I realize there is no certain answer to this, but that's the heart of the problem.

The second is more difficult. The message of The Gift was that Buffy would sacrifice herself rather than let an innocent human die. Any human who wore the amulet might be a volunteer, but would be none the less innocent for that. Buffy, or another slayer, would pretty much have to step forward in place of this person, or we'd have to question the whole premise of S5.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I should have said -- Rahael, 16:08:34 10/07/03 Tue

'More than human' is pretty vague. It could fit Anya. Or a vaguer pronouncement. It's not as if Anya was saved from having to make that sacrifice. And she's been an immortal, she's been something more than human. (I mean, "She has my blood, I can stand in her place" wasn't exactly obvious either)

And yes, I would count Buffy's deaths as grand gestures. I think they've frequently been referred to as such. I do not think that they are unnoticed, quiet. These are prophecised about. Heroic. I think BtVS can pay homage to the heroic, but also subvert it.

I wouldn't mind so much about Spike's final grand Romantic gesture, except the ones he dressed in, in his past, were assumed, empty.

Or as Andrew muttered to himself under his breath, composing his own heroic, epitaph: "cut down in his prime, before he could achieve redemption!".

Of course, Spike isn't really being cut down, and it wasn't the final word. So maybe ME are storing it up. I hope so.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I should have said -- Sophist, 21:14:30 10/07/03 Tue

And yes, I would count Buffy's deaths as grand gestures. I think they've frequently been referred to as such. I do not think that they are unnoticed, quiet. These are prophecised about. Heroic.

They are to us, the audience. Within the confines of the show they are the heroism that comes from doing one's duty almost unnoticed. No grand gesture at all, unknown to all but a few. That's how I believe we are to understand them --we preserve our suspension of disbelief.

I wouldn't mind so much about Spike's final grand Romantic gesture, except the ones he dressed in, in his past, were assumed, empty.

Maybe. Depends on whether killing a slayer, from the perspective of evil, counts as a grand gesture. His behavior in Intervention might count also. As might OMWF.

Whether you count these or not, in the end I don't think it matters. Spike always sought the grand gesture; no surprise that he would seek it at the end. Even if, or maybe especially if, Buffy was the only one who saw it.

I infer from your post disappointment that Spike didn't "deserve" the grand exit, that he hadn't gone far enough down the path toward redemption. If the act itself was redemptive, that doesn't matter. If it wasn't, the only loser is Spike himself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually -- Rahael, 01:10:47 10/08/03 Wed

I think he deserves better. I think the writers could have done better. I believe they were going for an emotive ending. I have to admit that I am heavily influenced by hating how the character ended up in S7. One could have controversial views of Spike in previous seasons. But he wasn't some kind of boring enigma, whose characterisation changed ep by ep. Looking back, the empty gestures are full of interesting meanings. The supposed meaningful torment and guilt and eventual hardening have nothing of that power or charisma.

(and the writers spent S6 subverting 'The Gift'. Stop with the hero trip, Spike tells Buffy).

Spike in Intervention was amazing. And I think he definitely saw killing Slayers as status symbols.

[> Sparta -- Sophist, 10:11:27 10/03/03 Fri

The interest of the Watchers Council seems to be largely one of self-preservation. They have powerful institutions, such as the cruciamentum and the wet-works teams that ensure compliance from both within the structure and without. Not only should everyone agree because of the CoW's claim to knowledge, but the CoW's institutions will coerce and enforce compliance.

Ancient Sparta actually provides a good example here. The Spartans organized their society for the sole purpose of military excellence. Male children were trained and indocrinated from childhood to be soldiers, and female children to support them in various ways. The males underwent a lengthy period of testing -- a cruciamentum, if you will -- to prove their worthiness. The Spartan leadership maintained a "secret police" which specialized in assassinations as a method of eliminating dissent.

The comparisons of the WC to Plato's Republic strike me as pretty apt, since Plato was vehemently pro-Spartan and used Spartan society as a starting point for his ideal society.

From a purely functional view, we'd have to say Spartan methods worked. They did create the finest soldiers in Greece, probably the world. They failed in the long run for a couple of reasons: their society was too rigid to deal with the remainder of the world without corruption (a great story line for the WC); and, for reasons not fully understood, the Spartan birthrate fell drastically between about 480 b.c.e. and 360 b.c.e., so they lacked the manpower to supply an army of the necessary size. Maybe they needed some of that linoleum Ms. Giles keeps mentioning....

Or maybe they needed Buffy to solve that problem for them in Chosen.

[> [> Re: Sparta -- Dead Soul, 23:09:21 10/03/03 Fri

They failed in the long run for a couple of reasons: their society was too rigid to deal with the remainder of the world without corruption (a great story line for the WC)

I think it already has been a story line for the WC. Ex-watcher Gwendolyn Post, who made a point of using Sparta as an example for Faith, had been corrupted by the the remainder of the mystical world that the Council was unable to shelter her from, or rather, give her the wherewithal to resist the temptation...of.

"Just a guess. Some guys from Spart?"

Current board | More October 2003