October 2003 posts
OT:
A little poll about the end of the world -- Gyrus, 08:18:22
10/21/03 Tue
Since we are all are used to having an apocalypse every May, I
thought it would be interesting to hear your opinions on the subject
of the end of the world.
My question to you is: Will the world and/or human life come to
an end any time soon, i.e., in the next 200 years or so, if not
within our lifetimes? If yes, will the cause be (a) a natural
disaster (ex. a meteor strike), (b) a man-made disaster (ex. nuclear
war, toxic pollution), and/or (c) divine action (ex. a literal
Biblical Apocalypse)?
I ask because, personally, I tend to think that people are going
to be around for a long time to come. The two strongest human
instincts are survival and procreation, and I don't think that
even greed, political ambition, or immensely bad luck can entirely
overcome those. (My personal jury is still out on the possibility
of a genuine Apocalypse, but I figure if we've been allowed to
stick around for several thousand years, what are the odds that
the Being Upstairs will close the curtain on us in the next couple
of centuries?)
However, the responses I have gotten from others suggest that
I am very much in the minority in this opinion. Most of the people
I've talked to seem to think that human self-destruction is inevitable,
and if not, someone or something else will show up to wipe us
out.
What do you think?
Replies:
[> Re: For me the glass is always more than half-full
-- Brian, 08:58:54 10/21/03 Tue
I favor a Star Trek future.
[> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the world
-- Seven, 09:11:01 10/21/03 Tue
"The two strongest human instincts are survival and procreation"
----------------------
That is present in every species and there are plenty of DODO
BIRDS out there.
Personally, I thinks that we will be around for a while. At least
as long as the dinosaurs were (altogether). I'm not sure exactly
how long they were around, but i'm pretty sure we haven't reached
it yet. The x factor is what you said: our greed and ambition.
We right now have the ability to destroy the world hundreds of
times over. The dinosaurs never had that ability. However, they
most likely died from bad luck (meteor).
So what am i saying?
If we don't have bad luck, we have the ability to go on for a
looooonnnggg while after ATP isn't even a memory.
If we give in to our greed and ambition, we have the ability to
end the world tomorrow. Humans have always had the aggression
to kill the world, but now we have the means. I feel that if we
don't have bad luck (for us, maybe not the universe) we will probably
be the instrument of our own destruction.
There are too many variables to factor in though. We've had technological,
industrial and intellectual revolutions. We could someday have
a spiritual one that unites us. Who's to tell?
At this point however, my vote goes for self-annihalation.
JMHO
7
[> [> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the world
-- dmw, 10:14:42 10/21/03 Tue
Personally, I thinks that we will be around for a while. At
least as long as the dinosaurs were (altogether). I'm not sure
exactly how long they were around, but i'm pretty sure we haven't
reached it yet.
Mammalian species tend to persist for about 5 million years IIRC,
which is a much shorter span than that of many other species,
such as some insects, reptiles, and of course sharks. However,
we're decidedly atypical in many respects, so I don't think that
provides much of an indication about the duration of humanity.
The x factor is what you said: our greed and ambition. We
right now have the ability to destroy the world hundreds of times
over. The dinosaurs never had that ability. However, they most
likely died from bad luck (meteor).
It was hardly bad luck. It's an inevitability if you survive long
enough. The Earth gets whalloped every few tens of millions of
years by a large asteroid impact. The one that probably killed
the dinosaurs was far from the largest of those. We just saw Shoemaker-Levy
impact Jupiter with a force greater than that. If you need any
reason for space travel (which is looking up again with China's
entry into the space race), there's a clear one in those impacts.
[> [> [> jupiter the asteroid slayer! -- anom,
14:47:22 10/21/03 Tue
"It was hardly bad luck. It's an inevitability if you survive
long enough. The Earth gets whalloped every few tens of millions
of years by a large asteroid impact. The one that probably killed
the dinosaurs was far from the largest of those. We just saw Shoemaker-Levy
impact Jupiter with a force greater than that."
OK, not a slayer--technically Jupiter is a "sentinel planet."
It's believed to pull in 9 out of 10 of the comets & asteroids
that might otherwise strike Earth (or any of the other planets),
defending us against against threats most of us are oblivious
to. (But that wouldn't make such a great TV show, would it?) So
Shoemaker-Levy's hitting Jupiter is less an indication of the
degree of danger to life on Earth than of a reduction in that
danger. The comet's impact on the gas giant had so much more force
than meteorite impacts on Earth because, as befits an asteroid/comet
slayer, Jupiter's gravitational pull is so much stronger than
Earth's.
[> [> [> [> Re: jupiter the asteroid slayer!
-- dmw, 15:58:34 10/21/03 Tue
While Jupiter reduces the number of asteroids and comets that
reach the inner solar system, it generally doesn't do that by
being hit by them. Instead, it deflects them out of orbits that
intersect the inner solar system. While Jupiter has a greater
gravitational pull than Earth has, Shoemaker Levy's assembled
fragments had an estimated diameter of 1.8km, which is large enough
to create an impact in the tens of thousands of megatons. It's
smaller than the dinosaur-killer asteroid, but still large enough
to cause mass extinctions.
What Shoemaker-Levy's impact does indicate is that Jupiter hasn't
swept the solar system free of major impactors, and it's worth
noting that one the size of the K/T boundary asteroid that likely
killed the dinosaurs has hit the Earth every few tens of millions
of years through recent history. Every couple of hundred million
years a really big asteroid hits, like the one that marks the
Permian extinction over 200 million years ago, eliminating 90%
of sea species and 70% of animal vertebrate species. We're a long
way
[> [> [> [> [> we're a long way...what? the
end of your post got cut off -- anom, 21:57:05 10/23/03
Thu
And yeah, I oversimplified about how Jupiter keeps most asteroids/comets
from getting where they could hit Earth--I posted too hurriedly.
But it still does the job--otherwise-habitable Earth-type planets
in star systems without sentinel planets (is that specific enough?)
might never develop life on the level of the dinosaurs, let alone
intelligent life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: we're a long way...what?
the end of your post got cut off -- dmw, 10:09:00 10/24/03
Fri
And yeah, I oversimplified about how Jupiter keeps most asteroids/comets
from getting where they could hit Earth--I posted too hurriedly.
But it still does the job--otherwise-habitable Earth-type planets
in star systems without sentinel planets (is that specific enough?)
might never develop life on the level of the dinosaurs, let alone
intelligent life.
I agree with you on that. What I was trying to say is that Shoemaker-Levy
striking Jupiter isn't an optimistic sign that there will be fewer
asteroid impacts on Earth because the shielding effect of Jupiter
has always been present and thus is already factored into the
probabilities. On the other hand, Shoemaker-Levy's impact is a
reminder that dangerous large objects are still present in the
solar system and capable of destroying most life on Earth should
one hit our planet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> well, we may be able
to do something about that (ok, cjl, how'd you arrange this?)
-- anom, 00:10:30 10/26/03 Sun
There's an article in the November issue of Scientific American--now
at your local newsstand!--called "The Asteroid Tugboat,"
which describes how a "space tug" could alter the orbit
of an asteroid on a collision course w/Earth just enough to prevent
impact. It would be nothing as dramatic as in the movies--the
tug would land & exert enough force (how much it would take depends
on the object's size) to change the asteroid's velocity by only
~1 cm/sec, but over 10 years this would cause it to miss Earth
by, um, less than 5 minutes. OK, I guess that part would be pretty
dramatic. Anyway, the main things this would require are detection
of the asteroid at least 10 years before it would hit Earth & actual
funding of the project. The authors of the article think it's
both feasible & worth doing.
On a personal note, I was particularly interested in getting this
issue because it has the "50, 100 & 150 Years Ago" feature
that includes the latest scientific developments of note when
I was born! (That'd be the 50. Not the 100.) Those turn out to
be Jean Piaget's findings about how children learn to measure
& industry's adoption of the gas turbine/jet engine. OK, yeah,
that's cool. Maybe I'll buy another copy, cut out that page, & frame
it!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: well, we
may be able to do something about that (ok, cjl, how'd you arrange
this?) -- dmw, 13:55:46 10/26/03 Sun
There's an article in the November issue of Scientific American--now
at your local newsstand!--called "The Asteroid Tugboat,"
which describes how a "space tug" could alter the orbit
of an asteroid on a collision course w/Earth just enough to prevent
impact. It would be nothing as dramatic as in the movies--the
tug would land & exert enough force (how much it would take depends
on the object's size) to change the asteroid's velocity by only
~1 cm/sec, but over 10 years this would cause it to miss Earth
by, um, less than 5 minutes. OK, I guess that part would be pretty
dramatic. Anyway, the main things this would require are detection
of the asteroid at least 10 years before it would hit Earth & actual
funding of the project. The authors of the article think it's
both feasible & worth doing.
I think they're correct and that we need to better fund observation
of NEOs. Their plan sounds like the standard one I've read about
for decades (I need to tell SciAm for forward my subscription,
so I'm a bit behind.) What the movies portray is stupid and fatal--blow
up an asteroid that close to the Earth and you're just going to
drop half or more of its mass (depending on when and how you blow
it up) onto Earth with similar effects as the asteroid hitting.
Last summer, a 300ft wide asteroid (2002 NY40) passed within 75,000
miles of the Earth. That's well within the orbit of the moon.
It's also worth pointing out that we didn't notice that it had
happened until 3 days after its closest approach. However, the
JPL Sentry System performs some automated observations of near-earth
objects, and there's even the Torino
Scale for measuring the chance and impact of our planet being
hit by them. In fact, there was some media attention in early
September to asteroid 2003 QQ47's chances of hitting the Earth
in 2014 (it got a Torino of 1, revised now to 0 so no need to
worry.)
The other reason for watching NEOs is that they're a better place
to visit than the moon if we want to make space travel economically
viable, which we need to do in the long run to make space travel
more than a PR stunt like the American moon landing and its forthcoming
Chinese successor.
[> [> dinosaurs survived for ~70 million years --
anom, 14:26:53 10/21/03 Tue
"Personally, I thinks that we will be around for a while.
At least as long as the dinosaurs were (altogether). I'm not sure
exactly how long they were around, but i'm pretty sure we haven't
reached it yet."
Well, it depends on the terms of your comparison. Humans are one
species. There were hundreds, maybe thousands of dinosaur species.
Probably no single one survived for the whole 70 million years;
some may have lasted for shorter times than humans have (so far!),
others certainly lasted longer.
[> The end of what world? -- matching mole, 10:03:14
10/21/03 Tue
The end of the world is kind of a vague term so I will pose a
series of scenarios.
1) The end of existence (i.e. the universe) - I think this is
pretty unlikely and I'm not losing any sleep over it.
2) The destruction of the our planet or the entire solar system.
A super-nova or a collision with a very large asteroid would be
required. Again this is not haunting my dreams.
3) The extermination of all life while leaving the planet intact.
Probably beyond human capability even with an all out nuclear
war. However we are an ingenious species. Still I am an optimist
and don't think this is likely.
4) A major mass extinction event with the great majority (99%
plus) of earth's species going extinct (with humans being being
among the doomed). We could definitely achieve this. So could
a medium-sized asteroid. Much more likely than apocalypses 1-3
but still pretty low in the probability department.
5) A less universal mass extinction event (say 95% of earth's
species) with humans either succumbing or persisting in a miserable
Gollumesque existence eating worms and what-not. Certainly anyone
viewing the current trajectory of world affairs with a pessimistic
state of mind would have to say that this is not all that unlikely.
Still I believe the odds are in our favour.
6) A cataclysm that destroys civilization as we know it and a
very large proportion of the human population (along with the
majority of the earth's species). The infra-structure of modern
civilization is largely or wholly lost. The emergence of new diseases,
economic collapse, food shortages, etc. could accomplish this
without recourse to nuclear war or divine intervention.
7) Western civilization persists in a dramatically different form.
While the world may not literally end the experience of getting
through the next century or so may make many people wish that
it had. However our world, the way we see it now will be gone
forever.
I don't think that options 1-5 are likely enough to be worth considering.
Options 6 and 7 seem like very real possibilities to me (although
certainly not inevitable).
There are a lot of other potential threats to our existence -
plagues of vampires, hordes of hell, elder gods rising up out
of the deep in response to certain nameless rites, etc. However
these things always seem to get stopped by small groups of heroes
while the rest of us all live in blissful ignorance. So I will
continue in this proud tradition.
[> [> Hey! Mole! (and my thoughts on the End Of It All)
-- Rahael, 10:18:37 10/21/03 Tue
It's always good to see you.
As for what I think - the idea of apocalypse seems to be one that
persists at the back of the mind of many human communities. Especially
around the turn of centuries/milleniums. Millenarian fever.....
I tend to be optimistic (I know, out of character for me!) about
that simply because I've encountered it too many times in the
17th C to take it seriously when expressed, couched in much the
same language in the 21st.
However, I think we might be able to lose the trappings of civilisation
easily. This is a personal slant because, imagine: you lose normal
life. You lose the ability to go to work or to school. Then the
food supplies run out. You eat whatever you get. The electricity
supply gets cut. Lamplight from now on. Euphoric celebrations
whenever the electricity comes back on.
Is this the end of civilised life? Perhaps. Does it contain love,
joy, compassion, kindness, generosity and resourcefulness? Absolutely.
You get ingenious. You adapt to the end of school/work by spending
your day reading and talking to the people you love. (That was
my favourite part. No school, for years!) You make your own entertainment
- stories, singing, playing musical instruments.
You start growing your own food. You keep your own animals. You
get inventive with what you can get. You start using bicycle dynamos
to power your radios to keep in touch with the news......
Human beings are resourceful. And sometimes they show their best
side in the worst of circumstances.
[> [> [> Hey! Rah! (and I completely agree) --
matching mole, 13:52:29 10/21/03 Tue
It's good to be back - at least every now and then. Especially
when I have the honor of a response from Rahael
I've always had a fondness for the end of things, or rather what
happens after the end. The British post-war, post apocalyptic
sf novels of John Wyndham and John Christopher had an immense
appeal to me as a callow youth. And then I started reading J.G.
Ballard who treats the end of the world as a symbol of personal
psychological fulfillment. Of course this means that you have
to be one those that doesn't get wiped out right at the beginning...
I agree that personal happiness is not predicated on DVD players,
supermarkets, used bookstores and everything else we take for
granted. Even if we end up eating worm and wandering about in
a wasteland there will still be pretty sunsets, freindship, and
other manifestations of the beauty of life.
A side note on the practicality of thinking about the future in
certain ways. Warning rant ahead.
A lot of environmentalists are accused of being doom and gloom
types. However I think that is missing the point. If you blithely
assume that current problems are going to go away as part of the
progression of human society and this turns out to be true then
you are lucky. If you prepare for the worst and it doesn't happen
then you are lucky (and maybe a little bit poorer). However if
the worst does happen there is an obvious asymmetry between those
who prepare and those who don't. I find it extremely ironic that
those who style themselves as conservatives actually act (or propose
acting if they don't actually get their way) in a rather reckless
manner in the face of modest uncertainty and rather immense potential
consequences (I'm thinking of isues related to gloval climate
change here).
So if you want a Star Trek future I think that seriously considering
the lesser savoury possible outcomes is absolutely necessary.
Of course as a mole I tend to think that eating worms isn't such
a bad way to live
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey! Rah! (and I completely agree)
-- Rob, living in a material world, 15:44:48 10/21/03 Tue
I agree that personal happiness is not predicated on DVD players,
supermarkets, used bookstores and everything else we take for
granted.
You just blew my materialistic little mind! A future without absolute
necessities like my laptop, my DVDs, and my TiVO?!? Why that's
a future I want no part of!
So if you want a Star Trek future I think that seriously considering
the lesser savoury possible outcomes is absolutely necessary.
Even the Star Trek future does indeed have that post-apocalyptic
period (I believe--gulp!--in the latter part of the 21st century),
during World War III, that spawns the collapse of civilization
(for a time) and post-atomic horrors such as multititudes of people
being born horribly deformed.
But let's not deal with thoughts like that at the moment. Sit
back, make some popcorn in your microwave, watch some "Buffy"
and "Angel" DVDs on your laptop, record the new episodes
of "Angel" on your TiVO, and enjoy the bliss that can
only come from revelling in material possessions.
Rob ;o)
[> [> [> [> Re: Hey! Rah! (and I completely agree)
-- Rahael, 04:41:44 10/22/03 Wed
Agree with you on your rant. When I first arrived in the West,
I completely freaked out by how wasteful everyone was. Back home,
we didn't have big rubbish bags to be collected by the local authority.
We had very little waste - no plastic packaging. Everything except
leftover food was kept, and even the left over food was given
to the dogs. And as for paper! Why I still had until a year or
so ago the paper I did my primary school homework on! We never
threw paper away until every spare place had been covered. We
didn't have cars. We walked or went on bikes.
When I started my first job, I again freaked out about the mountain
loads of paper we wasted. for a year I went on this futile quest
of double sided printing (involving much ingenuity, concentration
and time) before I realised I was making a rod for my own back.
Every day I get daily intimations on the unsustainability of the
kind of life myself and my contemporary society in Britain has.
And, know also, that the majority of the people in the world don't
get to live like this.
So I try to waste as little as possible and appreciate a lifestyle
I fear isn't going to last forever. It's a worldview thing. On
so many levels.
[> [> Clarification -- Gyrus, 11:16:24 10/21/03
Tue
I suppose "end of the world" was a bit humanocentric
-- what I really meant was the eradication of the human species.
[> [> Mole!! woohoo!! -- LittleBit, 14:11:43 10/21/03
Tue
I just wanted to say nice post and good to see you here! And that
I like scenario 8 best. Apocalypses occurring at regular intervals
averted by small groups of heroes while I remain blissfully ignorant.
Hey! I bet that could make a cool TV show!
[> [> [> Nah, no one would ever buy that premise!
;o) -- Rob, 15:50:08 10/21/03 Tue
[> [> By elder gods rising up out of the deep --
fresne, 17:34:07 10/21/03 Tue
You mean the mole people right?
With their mighty, but uncolor cordinated, Mole King. Wait my
mind just went to a Queer Eye/Mole People cross over. Pause. Okay,
it's gone now.
Hmmm...time to go listen to my Apocalypse compilation that I put
together for the Y2K party. It was the end of the word as we knew
it, but we partied like it was 1999.
Or perhaps it time for another mole people adventure. Perhaps
involving the Avocado Jungle of Death/LA. Angel hasn't really
encountered them yet has he?
[> [> Hey, hey, Paula! Oops, wrong song... -- OnM,
nominally voting for mole scenario #7, 19:19:34 10/21/03 Tue
Been many a year now, but still the best answer to date:
*******
That's great, it starts with an earthquake, birds and
snakes, an aeroplane. Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn - world
serves its own needs, don't misserve your own needs. Feed
it off an aux speak, grunt, no, strength, Ladder
start to clatter with fear fight down height. Wire
in a fire, representing seven games, a government
for hire and a combat site. Left of west and coming in
a hurry with the furies breathing down your neck. Team
by team reporters baffled, trumped, tethered, cropped.
Look at that low plane! Fine, then. Uh oh,
overflow, population, common food, but it'll do. Save
yourself, serve yourself. World serves its own needs,
listen to your heart bleed dummy with the rapture and
the revered and the right, right. You're vitriolic,
patriotic, slam, fight, bright light, feeling pretty
psyched.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
Six o'clock - TV hour. Don't get caught in foreign
towers. Slash and burn, return, listen to yourself
churn. Locking in, uniforming, book burning, blood
letting. Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate.
Light a candle, light a votive. Step down, step down.
Watch your heel crush, crushed, uh-oh, this means no
fear cavalier. Renegade steer clear! A tournament,
tournament, a tournament of lies. Offer me solutions,
offer me alternatives and I decline.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
The other night I dreamt of knives, continental
drift divide. Mountains sit in a line, Leonard
Bernstein. Leonid Brezhnev, Lenny Bruce and Lester
Bangs. Birthday party, cheesecake, jelly bean, boom! You
symbiotic, patriotic, slam book neck, right? Right.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it.
It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel
fine...fine...
(It's time I had some time alone)
............ ( you know who! )
;-)
[> Optimism + End of Humanity: Not so Incompatible after
all... -- dmw, 10:27:37 10/21/03 Tue
I'm going to predict a fairly short remaining duration for homo
sapiens (less than 1000 years), not because I think a global
disaster capable of killing all of us is likely, but rather because
we are developing certain technologies that will enable us to
change what we are.
Our culture and technology change so rapidly compared to our generation
time that natural selection has little chance to operate on our
species. Our environment changes too fast for us to evolve to
fit it. However, we are developing technologies, in the areas
of biology and computation, that will allow us to change far faster
than natural selection evolves. I think intelligent life descended
from homo sapiens will exist in multiple species, perhaps
even in multiple kingdoms, by the end of the next millenium.
For example, cientists have already recoded the DNA of bacteria
to use a different set of bases than the standard A,T,G,C of animal
DNA. Recoding a human's DNA would give complete immunity to viruses
(your new DNA->protein translation machinery can't read viral
DNA/RNA so they can't hijack your cellular machinery to reproduce)
at the cost of being unable to reproduce with any human whose
DNA doesn't use your new set of bases.
I predict a bright future for intelligent life, if not for homo
sapiens, until the interstellar medium becomes insufficiently
dense to make new stars.
[> [> Re: Optimism + End of Humanity: Not so Incompatible
after all... -- auroramama, 11:13:09 10/22/03 Wed
"Recoding a human's DNA would give complete immunity
to viruses (your new DNA->protein translation machinery can't
read viral DNA/RNA so they can't hijack your cellular machinery
to reproduce) at the cost of being unable to reproduce with any
human whose DNA doesn't use your new set of bases."
When we have the ability to set up an artificial-DNA/RNA to protein
system that's as complex as the current one, as good at self-repairing,
and proven to be no more susceptible to cancer, I don't think
viruses will be a big problem. (Weirdies like brand new prions
might be, though.)
How would one create such a thing, anyway? You'd have to start
with something way simpler than a multicellular animal. Not having
Alvin Maker around to do a simultaneous alteration in every cell's
DNA, RNA, protein manufacturing machinery, feedback loops, and
regulatory processes, I'm baffled. But it's certainly an interesting
prospect.
[> [> [> Re: Optimism + End of Humanity: Not so Incompatible
after all... -- dmw, 18:12:06 10/22/03 Wed
I agree that it's a hard problem and we're a long way from doing
that for a simple animal, but we have done it for simple unicellular
organisms (bacteria) so it's possible. I suspect you'd need to
make it all work for a single body cell in vitro before contemplating
modifying sex cells to work out issues in embryonic development.
Of course, if we ever lost civilization after doing that, it would
give the creationists a lot of ammunition--humanity wouldn't be
genetically related to any other species on Earth despite obvious
physical similarities to our formerly close relatives, the chimps.
[> Every time I close my eyes -- mamcu, 19:04:09
10/21/03 Tue
[> [> with you there. I live in terror of nuclear warfare.
-- Alison, 19:06:32 10/21/03 Tue
[> [> [> Actually, more solipsitically speaking
-- mamcu, 11:29:46 10/23/03 Thu
I meant that the end of the world for me will occur when I can
no longer experience it. And also that many worlds end all the
time--the world I grew up in is just as vanished as it would have
been if they'd dropped the bomb while we cowered under our wooden
desks.
Sort of related to that question in another thread about how we
can balance one death and many.
[> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the world: Current
Event included -- sdev, 19:45:37 10/21/03 Tue
a man-made disaster-- nuclear war. This is a long-held fear due
to proliferation and the fall of the Soviet Union.
If I had to live through 4, 5, or 6, in Matching Mole's post I'd
rather just end it with 3. I guess I'm not much of a survivalist,
but the thought of living on in such circumstances is intolerable.
In the news there is much talk that Pakistan has secretly agreed
to station nukes in Saudi Arabia.
[> [> Here's what Frost said -- sdev, 22:11:35
10/21/03 Tue
Fire and Ice
SOME say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice, 5
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost 1920
[> [> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the world:
Current Event included -- auroramama, 11:23:08 10/22/03
Wed
>>If I had to live through 4, 5, or 6, in Matching Mole's
post I'd rather just end it with 3. I guess I'm not much of a
survivalist, but the thought of living on in such circumstances
is intolerable.<<
If you're strong and healthy, I agree with others that a low-tech
life can encompass most of the joys available to humans. But strength
and health are so uncertain.
[> [> [> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the
world: Current Event included -- sdev, 11:39:59 10/22/03
Wed
The most profound loss would be the death of so many others.
[> [> [> [> I agree -- auroramama, 21:38:04
10/23/03 Thu
[> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the world
-- jane, 22:16:09 10/21/03 Tue
I have to come right out and admit it - I'm your basic optimist.
I'm a child of the sixties, and did the back to the land hippy
thing in the early seventies. I really do believe that we will
get our act together, but we will probably go through some dark
times on the way. I think we are in our adolescence as a species,and
that we will manage to grow up.
[> Re: OT: A little poll about the end of the world
-- Ann, 07:40:12 10/22/03 Wed
The veil of civilization as we know it is very thin. I think if
you asked someone in Rwanda or North Korea or other places in
this world this question, where "our" view of civilization
has broken down, they might say the end is at hand. I am generally
an optimist but when one looks around and sees that the same issues
have been discussed through history and a whole lot has not changed
in a global way, I am not sure the outlook is good. Western culture
has the means to fix a lot of these problems and has the means
to destroy it all as well. Choices we make I guess. And the "being
upstairs" if there is one, is watching closely.
[> I'm against -- skeeve, 10:37:50 10/23/03 Thu
[> Results of the poll -- Gyrus, 08:22:16 10/24/03
Fri
Here is a tally of the results:
2 people are confident that we will annihilate ourselves.
3 people are optimistic that humanity will live on.
2 people believe that human civilization will self-destruct, but
that humans as a species will still exist.
1 person believes that humanity will survive, but will engineer
itself into something no longer recognizable as human.
1 person is undecided.
2 people look forward to the rise of the Mole People.
2 people think the planet Jupiter is great.
1 person wishes to cling to his DVD player regardless of events
in the outside world.
1 person doesn't care because he or she is going to end up worm
food no matter what happens.
Having read all of your responses, I have changed my opinion about
the future of humanity. I now believe that we will nearly annihilate
ourselves but go on to build impressive starships to combat the
genetically-engineered Mole People from Jupiter, who will invade
our planet in search of DVD players.
[> [> Re: Results of the poll -- dmw, 10:10:21
10/24/03 Fri
Having read all of your responses, I have changed my opinion
about the future of humanity. I now believe that we will nearly
annihilate ourselves but go on to build impressive starships to
combat the genetically-engineered Mole People from Jupiter, who
will invade our planet in search of DVD players.
Who knew? The recording industry was looking out for our best
interests after all. If we'd just bought the pay per view DivX
players instead, we wouldn't have unlimited view DVD's for the
mole people to take from us...
[> [> LOL! The rise of the Mole People -- Rahael,
10:19:33 10/24/03 Fri
Very funny. Post more.
[> [> love your tally--can I change my vote to the DVD
remaining extant? -- sdev, 15:02:16 10/24/03 Fri
[> Oooh, an excuse to post Edwin Muir -- Tchaikovsky,
06:46:17 10/25/03 Sat
Scary redemptive horses. It's like The Prom:
The Horses
Barely a twelvemonth after
The seven days war that put the world to sleep,
Late in the evening the strange horses came.
By then we had made our covenant with silence,
But in the first few days it was so still
We listened to our breathing and were afraid.
On the second day
The radios failed; we turned the knobs; no answer.
On the third day a warship passed us, heading north,
Dead bodies piled on the deck. On the sixth day
A plane plunged over us into the sea. Thereafter
Nothing. The radios dumb;
And still they stand in corners of our kitchens,
And stand, perhaps, turned on, in a million rooms
All over the world. But now if they should speak,
If on a sudden they should speak again,
If on the stroke of noon a voice should speak,
We would not listn, we would not let it bring
That old bad world that swallowed its children quick
At one great gulp. We would not have it again.
Sometimes we think of the nations lying asleep,
Curled blindly in impenetrable sorrow,
And then the thought confounds us with its strangeness.
The tractors lie about our fields; at evening
They look like dank sea-monsters couched and waiting.
We leave them where they are and let them rust:
"They'll molder away and be like other loam."
We make our oxen drag our rusty plows,
Long laid aside. We have gone back
Far past our fathers' land.
And then, that evening
Late in the summer the strange horses came.
We heard a distant tapping on the road,
A deepening drumming; it stopped, went on again
And at the corner changed to hollow thunder.
We saw the heads
Like a wild wave charging and were afraid.
We had sold our horses in our fathers' time
To buy new tractors. Now they were strange to us
As fabulous steeds set on an ancient shield.
Or illustrations in a book of knights.
We did not dare go near them. Yet they waited,
Stubborn and shy, as if they had been sent
By an old command to find our whereabouts
And that long-lost archaic companionship.
In the first moment we had never a thought
That they were creatures to be owned and used.
Among them were some half a dozen colts
Dropped in some wilderness of the broken world,
Yet new as if they had come from their own Eden.
Since then they have pulled our plows and borne our loads,
But that free servitude still can pierce our hearts.
Our life is changed; their coming our beginning.
TCH- whose hoping the epithet might make people believe he wrote
this ;-)
[> [> freaky, freaky stuff -- angel's nibblet, 18:46:58
10/26/03 Sun
[> Not with a Bang -- MsGiles, 03:53:46 10/28/03
Tue
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us -- if at all -- not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men.
II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.
Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer --
Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom
III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Waking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.
IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms
In this last of meeting places
We grope together
And avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the Shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For Thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
- The Hollow Men
T. S. Eliot (1925)
[> [> Re: Not with a Bang -- Gyrus, 08:35:56 10/28/03
Tue
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Hey, a poem about Texas! :)
From the Angel's Soul board: Angel S5 and Wagner's
Parsifal (WARNING! Spoilers up to 5.8) -- cjl, 13:02:14
10/21/03 Tue
An interesting theory proposed by always thought-provoking Ramses2:
**********
Last season Jeff Bell said in an interview that ME had intended
a retelling of Mordred/Arthur in the Connor/Angel storyline. I'm
wondering if in all the shanshu references and what happens in
episode 8, that we're getting a nod to Parsifal this season.
And not just any Parsifal--the opera set Angel and Spike fight
on in "Destiny," with all the religious imagery, sounds
like a delicious set up for retelling Wagner's Parsifal.
By using religious imagery Wagner went beyond religion itself
(Wagner had no use for organized religion) to examine the issues
people seek out religion for. Eternal justice, compassion and
redemption are the major themes of Wagner's Parsifal.
The story is rather simple. A group dedicated to the Holy Grail
finds itself in spiritual turmoil. The leader has succumbed to
temptation and is spiritually wounded. The group has gone into
the dark pathless forest where they try to regroup and find their
only hope. They need a new hero.
Enter Parsifal. He is described by Wagner as a cosmic fool. He
has grown up in the darkness, raised by a mother who loved him
but taught him nothing of the ways of knights. He's rash, immature
and prone to saying things that he shouldn't. When we first meet
him he's killed a swan, feels compassion for it, but cannot express
those feelings. When he meets the Leader and sees his pain, he
senses it but again doesn't respond correctly.
"Emerging from this sheltered childhood, not yet an adult,
he does not know the distinction between good and evil. He does
not even know his own name, who he is or what he is; although
he vaguely remembers that he has had many names, all now forgotten.
At this stage Parsifal's life lacks purpose; if he has had any
goal or mission, then it has been forgotten." (Note that
in the flashbacks and present, Spike is refered to as William,
Willy, Spike and is even told by Angelus that he needs a new name...and
to get over any notion of destiny...nothing is his.)
Amfortas, the Leader has been wounded by the spear that wounded
Christ. The Spear itself represents compassion. Only the spear
can heal the wound it gave. He has received this wound from a
temptress working for his enemy. "His compassion is not a
negative emotion but insight into the suffering of the world,
and the only consolation for it is recognition of the lack of
any consolation, in other words, resignation." Think Angel
taking the W&H deal from Lilah (Eve). Think the AI team setting
up shop in a pathless dark forest (W&H itself). The leader has
lost his heart, his search for redemption...for the grail itself
(shanshu) is threatened. Angel facing that the shanshu might not
be his.
Enter the fool, Spike. The shanshu is mentioned, but Spike is
dismissed. He could not possibly be the one (just as Parsifal
is dismissed). He is nothing like Angel.(Just a note, Wagner relied
heavily on symbolism of the spear. It's been noted that when the
spear is used as a weapon it only wounds the individual (first
Amfortas and then Klingsor) who wields it--that is, the aggressor.
Therefore it is possible to see the spear as a metaphor for what
Schopenhauer called eternal justice. This aspect of Schopenhauer's
philosophy can be found presented in another of Wagner's dramas;
it forms part of the Wahn monologue in Die Meistersinger:
Driven to flight he deludes himself that he is the hunter; does
not hear his own cry of pain; when he digs into his own flesh
he is deluded that he gives himself pleasure!
According to Schopenhauer our individual existence is only apparent
(in the world as representation), not real; there is no separation
of existence in the eternal world (as will). When we injure others,
we only harm ourselves; when we bite into the flesh of another
being, we dig into our own flesh."
So maybe the fight of the Liam/William, Angel/Spike with the rebar...with
harsh depictions of the woman they both love is actually ME's
way of showing that same concept. Angelus made Spike, fashioned
him in his own image. So there is perhaps more than sibling, or
father/son here at play...maybe self/self. Spike's 'I'm nothing
like you' could be Angel's own words to Angelus...even as Spike
appears to bring Angel/Angelus sides closer to one entity.
Now in act 2, Parsifal is tempted by Kundry as well. But he rejects
the temptation...he does however finally understand the longing
and suffering of Amfortas. He finally gets that the world is full
of guilt and a continuing circle of misery which can be broken
only by compassion. And by rejecting the will with its blind urging
and compulsion. (Perhaps a W&H deal is proffered to Spike?)
In act 3, we see Amfortas's healing, and the Grail given over
to Parsifal. Amfortas as the representative of a world of entanglement
and compromises (Angel's deal with W&H) cannot continue to
be the Grail King even though he is redeemed. The 'reward' is
now shouldered by another. "The act also presents a third
stage in the inner action: the compassion that is a dull sensation
in the first act, and widens into recognition, cosmic perception
[Welthellsicht] in the second, is at last directed outwards in
the third as a deed of redemption." Parsifal becomes the
Grail King, but Amfortas receives the redemption. (Spike may receive
the shanshu but Angel will know he's been redeemed.)
I think from episode 5.1 to 8 we see hints that Angel is suffering
from the deal he made, he fears what it has done to his heart.
He's trying, but each episode brings him up front and personal
with his issues. Conviction brought him the reminder of his deal
and his son. Just Rewards brings him Spike and the reminder that
he's just a dead body and soul who struggles never knowing if
he'll achieve redemption or not. Unleashed had him reflect on
what makes a monster, and his advice to Nina was a stark reminder
to us that Angel gave up those bonds for their own sake. But what
of his sake? Hellbound, while about Spike touches on a lot of
Angel's fears and issues as well. Epi 5, deals with splits in
personalities...what happens when you deny your various sides...this
was addressed in Unleashed as well. Episode 6 is the Cautionary
Tale of Number 5...the mail messenger from W&H, the one who
delivers Spike is discovered to be an old champion who has lost
his heart. As Angel fights the aztec warrior demon, it appears
uninterested in his heart. 5.7 is largely unknown but entitled
Lineage which interestingly brings us to 8 which has all sorts
of nods to destiny and lineage.
If the shanshu is given to Spike, it won't mean one vampire is
better than another...the story isn't about who's better...it's
about recognizing the sameness...it's about compassion and forgivness...something
that Angel has yearned for much longer than merely becoming human.
Replies:
[> Re: From the Angel's Soul board: Angel S5 and Wagner's
Parsifal (WARNING! Spoilers up to 5.8) -- Claudia, 13:20:43
10/21/03 Tue
Hmmmm, this sounds very promising. It would be quite interesting
if you prove to be correct.
[> Glad you brought this over! (WARNING! Spoilers up to
5.8) -- Ponygirl, 13:42:37 10/21/03 Tue
I noticed it on the ASSB, morgain's repsonse discussing Schopenhauer
and mercy was pretty interesting too.
I really do like this post and hope that a lot of it is borne
out. I've been thinking that the key to this season may be mercy
and forgiveness. Angel may have to forgive Spike and in that forgive
himself. Angel is struggling with his new role, the fact that
all of his structures and beliefs have been torn down, that there
may be no PTB, redemption or final judgement except what he himself
provides. And so we all of these scenes of Angel offering judgement
and punishment but very little mercy. Is Angel longing to be judged
and punished? Does he feel undeserving of mercy?
[> [> Forgiveness -- Claudia, 14:27:20 10/21/03
Tue
[Angel may have to forgive Spike and in that forgive himself.]
I believe that both really need to learn to forgive each other
for their past transgressions, and themselves. I'm beginning to
believe that Buffy was right about locking both vamps into a room.
[> Aren't we being cruel to the unspoiled? -- Doug,
14:43:26 10/21/03 Tue
I mean, posting this up and having a discussion right in front
of their noses seems a little harsh.
[> [> Re: Yes, you're being cruel to the unspoiled.
-- LittleBit [the uspoiled and pure], 15:15:50 10/21/03 Tue
[> [> If you think... -- Masq, 15:18:32 10/21/03
Tue
posting posts with big giganamous future spoiler warnings and
whispering about upcoming events on the show inside thee posts
is being "cruel", then you don't know the Spoiler-free
types.
Read my lips (typing lips, you know...)
We Dont Want To Know until ME shows it.
Hence with the not really caring what you talk about in your trollopy-threads.
Carry on.
[> [> [> Hear, hear! -- Rob (unspoiled, pure,
and smelling like a rose), 15:34:50 10/21/03 Tue
[> [> [> My Apologies -- Doug, 15:54:10 10/21/03
Tue
[> Adding some thoughts.... spoilers -- morgain, 15:11:21
10/21/03 Tue
I have only seen Parsifal once and know only a little about Schopenhauer.....
but....
1- about compassion-- One of the most powerful themes this season
so far has been the increasing violence towards individuals that
Angel has been perpetrating [Hauser, Hainsley, Royce and next
week Pavayne], and the [seemingly] decrease in his compassion
for some [most notably Spike]. Spike is also mirroring a lack
of compassion: little empathy for Nina, and future sides suggest
he is quite self-involved. What occurs to me is that both Spike
and Angel are representing two ends of a pole on a journey: One
who has lost it and one who has yet to acquire it.
Now, if I understand Schopenhauer, it is through compassion /
empathy for the suffering of others that the fool [Spike who is
still on The Fool's Journey-- see the most recent Tarot readings]
acquires wisdom and becomes a sage. It is through the perfection
of this wisdom that the sage [Angel] is able to bring about salvation
/ redemption.
Sounds as if some mutual teaching is going to happen....
2. Wagner is said to be inspired by WOLFRAM von Eschenbach (died
around 1230) generally regarded as the greatest of the medieval
German narrative poets. Wolfram left some brilliant poems but
is chiefly known for the narrative "Parzival. Wagner, however,
was quite dismissive of this influence. Wolfram and his patron
appear as characters in Wagner's Tannhäuser.
3. about Kundry-- This character is supposed to represent the
human predicament isimilar to Buddhism's samsara: the cycle of
birth, suffering, death and rebirth. She is first presented as
wild and restless, unable to help any one -- not even herself.
By the end, however, she is calm, peaceful, quiet. This is because
she has stopped stuggling to assert her will.
The Schopenhauerian message seems to be: stop striving and accept
that suffering is an inevitable part of life and that desires
can never be fully satisfied.
By the end of 8, Spike has part of what he wants, but not all
[shanshu], and possibly what he wants the most eludes him. He
is not cocky and gloating at the end... something has changed.
Angel also begins to doubt his assumed right to specialness. The
work must become worthy for its own sake... not the reward as
both vamps have been operating under or the assertion of their
own wills.
All things in the world are impermanent; nothing is secure [quite
a lesson for the permanently frozen state of a vampire]. But this
does not mean that we should not always seek the path of right
action, for the very reason that life is precarious.
Again, we have the image of Spike as at the "birth"
phase [the beginning of the soul journey] and Angel at the death
phase [losing heart and soul] and needing rebirth.
4. One of the cornerstones of Schopenhauer philosophy is that
the will is the transcendent thing-in-itself: that is self-interest
is curtailed through force of will [self-denial] for the sake
of others. Injure no one; on the contrary, help others as much
as possible. This is how redemption is possible.
The only purpose in life must be that of escaping the will and
its painful strivings. Schopenhauer's concept contains the foundations
of what in Freud became the concepts of the unconscious and the
id, and the foundation of civilization: sublimation.
Ah nuts, I was hoping for some RST.....
5. Is the Cup of Torment that Sirk [why do I always want to type
Sark?] alludes to, really Life itself and living it......
Schopenhauer was one of the first philosphers to speak of the
suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds
us, and of the nature of confusion, passion, and evil.
It is possible that Sirk is saying that one must engage with life
before shanshu is possible.... At first "shanshu" meant
"death" to Wesley [To Shanshu in LA]... and
Wesley: "What connects us to life is the simple truth that
we are part of it."
Now in the belly of the Beast, everyone seems to get further and
further disconnected from life while becoming addicted to work
at W&H....
Then [To Shanshu in LA] it means he is going to live... rebirth
from an unlife back into humanity...
Wes: life and death the same thing, part of a cycle
Now we have Spike and Angel, possibly at different points of the
same birth-life-death-rebirth cycle....
[> [> Dont I know you from somewhere -- RJA, 15:20:08
10/21/03 Tue
Interesting thoughts (as are ramses). Although I have to say,
with many of your points above, I am struck by its similarity
to the Slayer and Buffy.
Isnt the Slayer basically the embodiment of the cycle - birth,
death and rebirth. And Buffy herself is the personification of
the Slayer's cycle (links here to Yeats too). And when you say
By the end, however, she is calm, peaceful, quiet, it reminds
me of a certain blond in Chosen... but that wasnt a result of
not asserting her will, but there was acceptance of the realities
and suffering of life.
I know I took this post way OT, but the similarities struck me.
[> Re: From the Angel's Soul board: Angel S5 and Wagner's
Parsifal (WARNING! Spoilers up to 5.8) -- leslie, 16:45:39
10/21/03 Tue
Random free-association here:
The spear that wounds both Christ and the Fisher King = a stake
In the Welsh version of Parsifal, which is called Peredur,
the "grail" is not a cup (as in Chretien's version)
or a stone (as in Wolfram's version) but a severed head = another
way to kill a vampire
Spike has already burned up in light = the final way to kill a
vampire
The P-guy (Perceval/Parsifal/Parzival/Peredur) is not just a fool
but a Trickster. Unlike the standard chivalrous knight, dedicated
to one lady alone, he dedicates himself to at least two, sequentially.
He sees knights and takes them for Angels, but when he finds out
what they are, he wants to become one, too. In so doing, he kills
his mother by breaking her heart. He spends the first half of
his story trying to live up to what he thinks is the paradigm
of knighthood, and is very successful as a warrior, but he is
too careful to follow social convention and thus misses his chance
to save the Fisher King and redeem the Wasteland, but once he
realizes that he's screwed up, he gets another chance and this
time does it right.
The Fisher King is, depending on the version, an older, male relation--possibly
his grandfather.
But, if we're going to follow this line of thought, it's interesting
that what the P-guy most essentially is, is an innocent.
[> This isn't new cjl..... (WARNING! Spoilers up to 5.8)
-- Rufus, 18:28:17 10/21/03 Tue
Seems that someone has been reading some of my hints out there.......
Modred reference
Sun Oct 12, 2003 6:10 am
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/spoiler-crypt/message/12792
In spoiler-crypt@yahoogroups.com ,
"lurkyhasmysoul"
wrote:
> I'm guessing we're getting the liberal use of sire because
of what
> happens in Lineage. DB talked about Spike and Angel fighting
over a
> couple of prohesies...I think the shanshu and the one about
father
> killing the son are as linked as the amulet and angel 'killing'
Connor
> (but actually changing his history)
>
ramses,
It just so happens that I transcribed a portion of the Succubus
Club
interview with David Fury and Tim Minear, the Connor portion as
a
matter of fact so here is what I got.....
**********************************
Kitty and Candy asked about the Connor arc..was he supposed to
leave....
Tim: It was a thing that we had discussed long before he was ever
even cast the role. That perhaps Angel would end up you know....we
knew we were going to go to a Mordred place, we knew we were going
to that sort of epic, mythic, place with father and son. I think
it was in season three that I had that prophecy the father will
kill the
son, and that was a place we really were considering going. Now,
we didn't know it was going..
David: How it was going to end up...
Tim: that it was decided we didn't want Angel to kill Connor in
the way that he would
kill him, but we wanted to go to a Stella Dallas place.
There was a question on who decided the seasons ultimate ending....
DF: You mean Connor's new life?
K&C discuss how unhappy Connor was..
Tim: I don't remember who's idea it was but I think I would probobly
be safe in saying it probobly was Joss's idea...I know it was
a thing that we all had discussed and I just love the way it shook
out cause the Jasmine arc actually wasn't something we really
planned at the beginning. But the whole notion of taking away
free will for happiness and Angel fighting against that and ending
up doing that
for his kid, I just love the ironic....
DF: Those are happy accidents.. the whole Jasmine arc was an offshoot
of ...once we discovered that Charisma was pregnant..we knew she
was going to be the big bad of the season. We didn't know what
we were going to do. We knew she was coming back and that she
wasn't going to
be her...entirely...and we were going to do something with that..what
we didn't know was ...how are we going to climax the season with
a woman who is nine months pregnant fighting Angel. You know the
big fight with the nine months pregnant lady.....Um then of course
her knowing that she would be giving birth around episode 18 or
so....We
went...well we have to think of what are we gonna do now? And
you know the pregnancy...we debated for a long time about how
to work it in..we had done Cordelia pregnant "demonically
pregnant" so we ..
DF: But what we came down to, with Jasmine, was once we realized
she
was pregnant then whatever she was giving birth to must become
the
Big Bad...and it wasn't til fairly late so we were breaking the
stories that...I know..who's this decision was...Joss...that she
would be this...we were thinking the big bad would be this guy,
and
it was going to be this big powerful guy and it was later that
was....no...it's a woman and she's not some big evil woman, she
is
wonderful, she's going to bring peace and tranquility and with
that
was a great twist after the Beast cause how can you know...
Tim: We were so bored with the big giant Kung Fu fighting monsters.
DF: And my big plan is to destroy the world and create chaos.
Kitty and Candy mention they were waiting for Jasmine to do something
evil.
Tim: She did eat people.
There is a discussion about a few thousand for millions (ends
justify
the people buffet).
DF: I think she had a genuine argument to make, she was going
to
make. It was taking away free will, but she was providing....there
was a Garden of Eden, but WE make the rules, and you can't choose
to
eat this apple.
Tim: Initially we wanted Cordelia to come out of her coma in ep
18
Peace Out and put her fist through Jasmine's skull, but she couldn't
do it. She couldn't work the hours we needed..she could come and
be
in a coma, and I remember directing her and telling
her....."Inaction!"..and she was great.
DF: A lot of our..some of our best ideas just come out of
necessity....
Tim: Sometimes it's the Mother of.....
Kitty or Candy: Invention?
DF: Or of "inaction"
*************************************
I still see a lot of Paradise Lost and Second Coming in the
storyline. The gyre theory of history from Yeats figures into
what is going on with the timeline. Ancient history and gods such
as Jasmine are defeated (think Keats Hyperion and Fall of Hyperion)
and a new god takes it's place. We see Angel move from the old
world represented by that big old hotel the "Hyperion"
to the new chrome and glass modern building that is Wolfram and
Hart. You have to ask if Jasmine was a god, then what happened
to the seniority situation with the powers that be. I still stick
with the Marvel universe theory where there are old gods, newer
gods, but behind them all a supreme god or power that watches
them all. Angel has moved on in his journey as a hero from the
Hyperion or outdated ways and rules to the new playing field of
Wolfram and Hart, which just may be under some slightly new management.
Rufus/Leora
"Parzival" reference..
http://www.voy.com/48792/726.html
Date Posted: Thu, October 16 2003, 23:26:18 PDT
Author: Rufus
Subject: Re: Musings on drift and chaos: spoilers thru Unleashed
5.3
In reply to: Javoher 's message, "Musings on drift and chaos:
spoilers thru Unleashed 5.3" <725.html> on Thu, October
16 2003, 21:44:04 PDT
There are a few things going on that have me wondering what may
be going on. First off that little girl in the White Room mentioned
that she/they liked trouble but hated chaos. But what is chaos
in terms of the Buffyverse, myth, and science? From the s3 Angel
ep: Forgiving.....
FLASH TO:
EXT. STYLIZED PLACE - NIGHT
A demon who looks like SahJhan (but is not) raises a sword, slashes
at CAMERA. He bends down. We see a HUMAN FACE IN AGONY. It lifts
off the ground. The demon is holding the severed head he just
cut off. Dead soldiers abound.
GIRL (V.O.)
They were all about torture and death.
BACK TO THE GIRL IN THE WHITE ROOM
GIRL
(to Angel)
You can relate. Well, they caused a
lot of trouble. Don't get me wrong,
I like trouble -- but I hate chaos.
So we changed 'em.
ANGEL
You made them immaterial.
GIRL
Smart boy.
FLASH CUT:
EXT. STYLIZED PLACE
Same place. Same guy. Raises his sword. Charging enemy soldier
runs right through him. Shocking them both.
BACK TO WHITE ROOM
GIRL
Now they watch. And they can no
longer touch.
Now is this dislike for chaos the peculiarity of this one member
of the powers or does it tell something about the balance of power
that was upset last year with the Cordy/Jasmine arc? From 'The
Grail Legend' by Emma Jung and Marie-Louise von Franz......
The alchemists projected their transformative substance on to
him because, according to the Bible, he was created by God out
of clay. This clay they interpreted as a kind of massa confusa
or "chaos" out of which everything could be made. Through
the four stages of the process, or through separation into the
four elements, the original chaos then achieves order and inner
unity and a new Adam, in whom the four elements have become indestructibly
one, come into being in the stone.
I see the Hyperion as the old gods losing control over reality,
dying off (killed off), and a new place is found to start anew.
The Hyperion can be equated to that place that the old (Jasmine)
gave way to the new (?). The Hyperion is an old building and the
tower of Wolfram and Hart is made of chrome and glass. Of course
the Wolfram of Wolfram and Hart made me think of Wolfram von Eschenbach,
author of the poem "Parzival". Wouldn't the modern offices
of Wolfram and Hart make a great Grail Castle?....;)
[> Edited for the unspoiled - just the literary and philosophy
ref. - no mention of ATS characters -- shadowkat, 10:24:25
10/22/03 Wed
Hope this is okay cjl and morgain - but these posts have some
wonderfully inspiring ideas that I want to share with the unspoiled!
So I've spoiled myself more than I wished in order to extricate
them and post them here. I've removed all mention of ATS in the
post and edited in places where the loss of the mention makes
no sense. It shouldn't spoil anyone. Since it can be interpreted
in more than one way.
Hope it is okay. If not feel free to delete.
Spoilers for Wagner's Parsifal only.
*
*
*
*
*
"By using religious imagery Wagner went beyond religion itself
(Wagner had no use for organized religion) to examine the issues
people seek out religion for. Eternal justice, compassion and
redemption are the major themes of Wagner's Parsifal.
The story is rather simple. A group dedicated to the Holy Grail
finds itself in spiritual turmoil. The leader has succumbed to
temptation and is spiritually wounded. The group has gone into
the dark pathless forest where they try to regroup and find their
only hope. They need a new hero.
Enter Parsifal. He is described by Wagner as a cosmic fool. He
has grown up in the darkness, raised by a mother who loved him
but taught him nothing of the ways of knights. He's rash, immature
and prone to saying things that he shouldn't. When we first meet
him he's killed a swan, feels compassion for it, but cannot express
those feelings. When he meets the Leader and sees his pain, he
senses it but again doesn't respond correctly.
"Emerging from this sheltered childhood, not yet an adult,
he does not know the distinction between good and evil. He does
not even know his own name, who he is or what he is; although
he vaguely remembers that he has had many names, all now forgotten.
At this stage Parsifal's life lacks purpose; if he has had any
goal or mission, then it has been forgotten"
Amfortas, the Leader has been wounded by the spear that wounded
Christ. The Spear itself represents compassion. Only the spear
can heal the wound it gave. He has received this wound from a
temptress working for his enemy. "His compassion is not a
negative emotion but insight into the suffering of the world,
and the only consolation for it is recognition of the lack of
any consolation, in other words, resignation."
Enter the fool. Wagner relied heavily on symbolism of the spear.
It's been noted that when the spear is used as a weapon it only
wounds the individual (first Amfortas and then Klingsor) who wields
it--that is, the aggressor. Therefore it is possible to see the
spear as a metaphor for what Schopenhauer called eternal justice.
This aspect of Schopenhauer's philosophy can be found presented
in another of Wagner's dramas; it forms part of the Wahn monologue
in Die Meistersinger:
Driven to flight he deludes himself that he is the hunter; does
not hear his own cry of pain; when he digs into his own flesh
he is deluded that he gives himself pleasure!
According to Schopenhauer our individual existence is only apparent
(in the world as representation), not real; there is no separation
of existence in the eternal world (as will). When we injure others,
we only harm ourselves; when we bite into the flesh of another
being, we dig into our own flesh."
Now in act 2, Parsifal is tempted by Kundry as well. But he rejects
the temptation...he does however finally understand the longing
and suffering of Amfortas. He finally gets that the world is full
of guilt and a continuing circle of misery which can be broken
only by compassion. And by rejecting the will with its blind urging
and compulsion.
In act 3, we see Amfortas's healing, and the Grail given over
to Parsifal. Amfortas as the representative of a world of entanglement
and compromises cannot continue to be the Grail King even though
he is redeemed. The 'reward' is now shouldered by another. "The
act also presents a third stage in the inner action: the compassion
that is a dull sensation in the first act, and widens into recognition,
cosmic perception [Welthellsicht] in the second, is at last directed
outwards in the third as a deed of redemption." Parsifal
becomes the Grail King, but Amfortas receives the redemption.
1- about compassion--
Now, if I understand Schopenhauer, it is through compassion /
empathy for the suffering of others that the fool acquires wisdom
and becomes a sage. It is through the perfection of this wisdom
that the sage is able to bring about salvation / redemption.
2. Wagner is said to be inspired by WOLFRAM von Eschenbach (died
around 1230) generally regarded as the greatest of the medieval
German narrative poets. Wolfram left some brilliant poems but
is chiefly known for the narrative "Parzival. Wagner, however,
was quite dismissive of this influence. Wolfram and his patron
appear as characters in Wagner's Tannhäuser.
3. about Kundry-- This character is supposed to represent the
human predicament isimilar to Buddhism's samsara: the cycle of
birth, suffering, death and rebirth. She is first presented as
wild and restless, unable to help any one -- not even herself.
By the end, however, she is calm, peaceful, quiet. This is because
she has stopped stuggling to assert her will.
The Schopenhauerian message seems to be: stop striving and accept
that suffering is an inevitable part of life and that desires
can never be fully satisfied.
All things in the world are impermanent; nothing is secure [quite
a lesson for the permanently frozen state of a vampire]. But this
does not mean that we should not always seek the path of right
action, for the very reason that life is precarious.
4. One of the cornerstones of Schopenhauer philosophy is that
the will is the transcendent thing-in-itself: that is self-interest
is curtailed through force of will [self-denial] for the sake
of others. Injure no one; on the contrary, help others as much
as possible. This is how redemption is possible.
The only purpose in life must be that of escaping the will and
its painful strivings. Schopenhauer's concept contains the foundations
of what in Freud became the concepts of the unconscious and the
id, and the foundation of civilization: sublimation.
5. Is the Cup of Torment that Sirk [why do I always want to type
Sark?] alludes to, really Life itself and living it......
Schopenhauer was one of the first philosphers to speak of the
suffering of the world, which visibly and glaringly surrounds
us, and of the nature of confusion, passion, and evil."
Selections taken from morgain and Ramses2 posts first seen on
ASSB.
SK
[> [> Thanks s'kat! -- Masq, 10:33:50 10/22/03
Wed
This ads additional context to the shorter version you posted
over on LJ. And it lets me know the original poster and time of
this info in case I need to quote them on my site.
[> [> [> Oh to ensure accuracy -- s'kat, 10:39:29
10/22/03 Wed
The Parsifial parts are Ramses2, quoted by cjl, and originally
posted on ASSB board - yesterday.
The Schropenhauer portions are morgaine, posted both on ATPO and
ASSB, originally posted in response to Ramses2.
[> [> One more question, s'kat or cjl... -- Masq,
10:36:15 10/22/03 Wed
What of this is cjl's writing and what is someone he's quoting,
and who is he quoting?
[> [> [> Re: One more question, s'kat or cjl...
-- s'kat, 10:47:49 10/22/03 Wed
None of the information in my post is originally from cjl - it's
all quoted from Ramses2.
Ramses2 did a large post on ASSB (Angel's Soul Board, which is
a spoiler board) regarding Parsifial. CJL brought the post over
here to discuss. So the section on Parsifial is all Ramses2. (She's
posted here as well way back in 2002).
I didn't guote any of cjl's own writing in my edited version as
far as I know. (I've read the original on ASSB board.)
hope that clarifies.
sk
[> [> [> [> Oops...that may have been confusing
-- s'kat, 10:51:13 10/22/03 Wed
What I meant to say is -
My post is an edited version of cjl and morgain's posts above.
In cjl's post - he reposts intact all of Ramses2 post on ASSB
and credits her. The portion he reposts - is not his original
writting, he is quoting her. (Sort of like what I reposted isn't
mine.)
The section on Shorpenhauer is morgain's original writing, which
morgain posted above. I just edited out the portions dealing with
spoilers.
Hope that's clearer sorry for the confusion.
sk
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oops...that may have been
confusing -- Masq, 11:25:04 10/22/03 Wed
I wonder if cjl can tell me if the Ramses2 quotage is actually
Ramses2's own words or whether it is something they are quoting
from someone else. It sounds like a very academic analysis of
Wagner, which doesn't discount it being Ramses2's own words, but
it sounds like they are quoting a paper they found somewhere.
[> [> [> [> [> [> From what I saw on ASSB?
-- s'kat, 12:18:29 10/22/03 Wed
It's Ramses own words. She doesn't attribute it to an outside
source that I could find anywhere. Also having read many of Ramses
posts - that's just her writing style, very academic in nature
at least in the past year.
CJL? Agree? Disagree?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tend to agree.
-- cjl, 12:32:01 10/22/03 Wed
Give Ramses credit where credit is due.
I thought her particular obsession was Egyptology (hence the nom
de plume), but I don't feel it's my place to discount the possibility
that she has a broad background in philosophy and the arts.
[> [> really appreciate this, shadowkat--but i think
i'll still wait -- anom, 11:06:27 10/22/03 Wed
I don't want to be even semi-clued in (y'know, the way I spend
most of my life!) about what might happen or what parallels might
be followed or varied from. I'd rather form my own perceptions
& connections & then see how they fit w/others'. Sometimes if
I have expectations ahead of time, they limit the range of my
thoughts. (Now I have the Beatles song about "fixing a hole
where the rain gets in/& stops my mind from wandering/where it
will go....")
Okay...the original post is dated 10/21, & ep 5.8 should air 11/19
(please, someone correct me if this is wrong!)...lemme mark my
calendar so I'll remember to check the archives then....
Also, thanks to cjl for that clear & prominent spoiler warning.
Learned your lesson, have you? @>)
[> [> [> 'Learned your lesson, have you?' Yes'm. (bows
head) -- cjl, 11:23:39 10/22/03 Wed
No spoilers below, Masq. Promise.
I brought this thread over from Angel's Soul partially because
of the philosophical goodness (and thanks again to Ramses and
morgain), but mostly because I finally, finally(!) had an emotional
hook for the events of the season.
Let's face it--Angel may be the hero of the series, but it's not
very emotionally involving to watch him deal with MOTWs and bemoan
his sad, unhappy unlife from behind his big-ass desk or the wheel
of one of his muscle cars, gazing down from his luxurious penthouse
suite or bathed in the glow of his 64" high-def plasma TV.
(Poor creature! How he suffers so!)
Yes, he's dealing with the loss of Connor (and Cordelia); yes,
the Senior Partners have Something Bad planned for him. But all
this is either in the past or sometime in the future. Previous
seasons of ANGEL have had nasty s*** happening to him RIGHT NOW.
Darla/Dru. Holtz. Bratty Connor. Cordy/The Beast/Jasmine. You
could empathize with the guy.
The philosophical goodness of Ramses' post gives the current events
a bit of context. I'm feeling a little sympathy for Captain Forehead
again.
[> [> [> [> Re: 'Learned your lesson, have you?'
Yes'm. (bows head) -- Masq, 11:32:06 10/22/03 Wed
The philosophical goodness of Ramses' post gives the current
events a bit of context. I'm feeling a little sympathy for Captain
Forehead again.
Wish I knew why (I always feel sympathy for Captain forehead,
but that's my deal). Wish I knew what that Wagner stuff was in
relation to, 'cause it sounds like it's about Spike, not Angel.
But I suppose I'll have to save s'kat's post and wait for the
5.8 discussion whenever it comes (sometime around the end of November,
I think?)
*sigh*
Schopenhauer, Schopenhauer, grumble, grumble... Schopenhauer....
*pout*
[> [> [> [> Thank you for bringing it over!!
-- s'kat, 12:15:51 10/22/03 Wed
I wouldn't have read it otherwise, because the thread on ASSB
was filled with spoilers. And I'm trying to be good.
The philosophical goodness of Ramses' post gives the current
events a bit of context. I'm feeling a little sympathy for Captain
Forehead again.
It helped me in this regard as well. I was struggling. Now I finally
feel as if I have something to grasp hold of, to look forward
to.
MOTW episodes don't do it for me. I like the arcyness and the
operatic overtones. I enjoy the mythology.
So thanks again. I just posted Schoprehauer in my live journal.
And actually I think the information above can be interpreted
to reflect on all the characters of ATS not just one or two.
sk
[> [> [> [> Let's hear it for the Fishing kings
(not spoilery but a little sad) -- Ponygirl, 12:28:39 10/22/03
Wed
I really like the idea of Angel as the wounded/lost king concealing
his pain. It does give a wonderful emotional hook to the character,
plus I'm always a sucker for the Fisher King story. I thought
BtVS was trying for a little of it last year but it was pretty
muted. The role of Parsifal doesn't necessarily have to be played
by Spike, there's still Connor out there somewhere, now perhaps
the most innocent of all of them. If mercy and compassion are
indeed the big themes of the season who better to offer them?
So a little song for Angel and for the late, great Elliot Smith.
bottle up and explode over and over, keep the troublemaker
below
put it away and check out for the day
and in for a round of overexposure
the thing mother nature provides to get up and go
bottle up and explode seeing the stars surrounding you, red white
and blue
you look at him like you've never known him
but I know for a fact that you have
the last time you cried who'd you think was inside
thinking that you were about to come over
but I'm tired now of waiting for you
you never show
bottle up and go
if you're gonna hide it's up to you
I'm coming through
bottle up and go
I can make it outside
I'll get though becoming you
becoming you
becoming you
RIP
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, pg. Another sad, unexpected
death of one of my favorite musicians. -- cjl (RIP Elliott
Smith), 12:54:51 10/22/03 Wed
This has been an awful year for music.
***********
Singer Elliott Smith dead at 34
Oct. 22, 2003
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Elliott Smith, a singer-songwriter whose dark-tinged,
introspective songs and plaintive singing voice won universal
critical acclaim, has apparently committed suicide, his publicist
and coroner's officials said Wednesday. He was 34.
Smith's body was found by his live-in girlfriend Tuesday, Los
Angeles County Coroner Records Supervisor Marsha Grigsby told
Associated Press Radio.
He sustained a single stab wound to the chest that appeared to
be self-inflicted, she said.
Smith's New York-based publicist also confirmed his death.
Smith released five widely acclaimed solo albums that garnered
modest commercial success. His song "Miss Misery," recorded
for the film "Good Will Hunting," was nominated for
an Academy Award in 1998.
Smith's songs were often compared with those of Alex Chilton,
Nick Drake and the Beatles, his favorite band. They were marked
by intricate melodies written over unorthodox chord changes.
Lyrically, they addressed such dark subject matter as drug addiction,
troubled relationships and loneliness -- though Smith tried to
distance himself from the label of confessional songwriter.
"I don't feel like my songs are particularly fragile or revealing,"
he said in a 1998 interview in the Los Angeles Times. "It's
not like a diary, and they're not intended to be any sort of super
intimate confessional singer-songwriterish thing."
Smith was born Steven Paul Smith on Aug. 6, 1969, in Nebraska;
his mother was a singer and his father was a psychiatrist. He
spent most of his childhood with his mother in the suburbs of
Dallas and then moved to Portland, Ore., in high school to live
with his father.
Smith studied piano and guitar as a youth and began composing
songs when he was 13. He began calling himself Elliott in middle
school, he later explained to a reporter, because Steve sounded
too "jockish."
Smith graduated Hampshire College in Amhert, Mass., with a degree
in philosophy and later joined a Portland punk band called Heatmiser.
On the side, he recorded several solo albums -- "Roman Candle"
(1994), "Elliott Smith" (1995) and "Either/Or"
(1997), all on independent labels -- that won him a devoted underground
following.
In 1997, he moved to New York City, where film director Gus Van
Sant approached him with an offer to use several of Smith's songs
on the soundtrack to "Good Will Hunting." The movie
was a hit, bringing Smith's music to a mainstream audience.
Smith subsequently signed with Dreamworks Records and recorded
two albums with bigger budgets that featured denser arrangements
than his early work. "XO" (1998) and "Figure 8"
(2000) continued Smith's critical winning streak, and took him
to the middle reaches of Billboard's Top 200 albums chart.
"I don't really have any goals as a songwriter," he
once said, "other than to show what it's like to be a person
- just like everybody else who's ever played music does."
Smith had recently spoken in interviews about his struggles with
alcoholism. "When I lived in New York I was really a bad
alcoholic for a few years," he told Under the Radar magazine
in an interview published in June 2003.
In an effort to quit drinking, Smith told the magazine, he had
undergone treatment at the Neurotransmitter Restoration Center
in Beverly Hills, which administers an intravenous solution meant
to clear the bloodstream of toxins.
***********
Can't comment with any sort of eloquence. I'll just let Elliott's
"Waltz #2 (XO)" (my favorite ES song) take it out:
first the mic then a half cigarette
singing cathy's clown
that's the man that she's married to now
that's the girl that he takes around town
she appears composed, so she is, i suppose
who can really tell?
she shows no emotion at all
stares into space like a dead china doll
i'm never gonna know you now, but i'm gonna love you anyhow
now she's done and they're calling someone
such a familiar name
i'm so glad that my memories remote
'cos i'm doing just fine hour to hour, note to note
here it is the revenge to the tune
";you're no good,
you're no good you're no good you're no good";
can't you tell that it's well understood
i'm never gonna know you now, but i'm gonna love you anyhow
i'm here today and expected to stay on and on and on
i'm tired
i'm tired
looking out on the substitute scene
still going strong
XO, mom
it's ok, it's alright, nothing's wrong
tell mr. man with impossible plans to just leave me alone
in the place where i make no mistakes
in the place where i have what it takes
i'm never gonna know you now, but i'm gonna love you anyhow
i'm never gonna know you now, but i'm gonna love you anyhow
i'm never gonna know you now, but i'm gonna love you anyhow
[> [> [> [> aw, now--you can straighten up...as
long as you fly right! -- anom, who said that in unspoiled
appreciation, 21:12:23 10/22/03 Wed
[> [> [> Yes, that's exactly it -- Masq, 11:41:13
10/22/03 Wed
I don't want to be even semi-clued in (y'know, the way I spend
most of my life!) about what might happen or what parallels might
be followed or varied from. I'd rather form my own perceptions
& connections & then see how they fit w/others'. Sometimes if
I have expectations ahead of time, they limit the range of my
thoughts.
Beyond losing the fun of surprise of finding something out by
seeing it right there on the screen, one of the main reasons I
try to remain spoiler-free is I start seeing what's going on right
now on the screen in the context of my expectations about future
episodes (gleaned from the spoilers) and I lose my own unique
reaction to current and future episodes.
Hearing other's views is helpful and interesting in going back
after the fact and reassessing your initial response to an episode,
but having other people's interpretations color your view of an
episode as you are watching it, or even before you watch it can
color your own viewing experience in a way that lessens the impact
of the show for me.
[> [> Unspoiled speculation -- Masq, 13:16:24
10/22/03 Wed
At the risk of seeing the polite head-shakes and smiles of the
spoiled....
I've been reading this stuff of Ramses2 and thinking of it in
terms of the current story line and Angel's journey itself and
the question of exactly why Angel is in pain this season. He's
in pain because he put himself in the arms of his enemy, and he
did it to save his son, but I'm not entirely convinced, after
"Unleashed" that he feels he did the right thing for
Connor.
Oh, Connor needed to be lifted out of the situation he was in
in "Home", no doubt about that. And Angel found a way
to do it. But I get the feeling he feels guilty that Connor's
life ever had to get that bad. Knowing Connor is doing well in
a different life, with all the memories of his old life erased,
has got to make Angel think, "What if?" What if he'd
had the chance to give Connor a good life himself, or found a
way to reverse at least some of Holtz' programming after the fact
of it?
Driven to flight he deludes himself that he is the hunter;
does not hear his own cry of pain; when he digs into his own flesh
he is deluded that he gives himself pleasure!
The one thing that Connor and many fans have criticized Angel
for is his devotion to his mission, his single-minded "need
to fight". Connor thought, and perhaps there was some truth
to this assessment, that Angel loved the Good fight more than
he loved his son. This may not be true, but sometimes actions
speak louder than words.
Angel's determination to fight evil may have tipped over from
a mission into an obsession, and he's paid the price for it. He
gave up a happy mortal life with Buffy in "IWRY" in
order to regain his vampire strength so he could be a Hero again.
Ostensibly, he did it for the "future opportunity to save
Buffy from death", but her future death was so nebulous at
the time of IWRY that one suspects it might have been partly rationalization
on Angel's part. Rationalization to get back into the fight as
super-hero.
But now, in the past year, Connor and Cordelia have slipped through
Angel's fingers, and maybe he blames in part his devotion to his
mission.
And his desperate desire to fight evil has made him now bite off
more than he can chew. He sits in the "Belly of the Beast"
because he thought having Wolfram and Hart's resources would make
his fight just that more effective.
Or maybe that was a delusion.
[> [> [> Re: Unspoiled speculation...interesting
-- LittleBit, 13:47:40 10/22/03 Wed
Angel's determination to fight evil may have tipped over from
a mission into an obsession, and he's paid the price for it. He
gave up a happy mortal life with Buffy in "IWRY" in
order to regain his vampire strength so he could be a Hero again.
Ostensibly, he did it for the "future opportunity to save
Buffy from death", but her future death was so nebulous at
the time of IWRY that one suspects it might have been partly rationalization
on Angel's part. Rationalization to get back into the fight as
super-hero.
We've now seen a possible 'future death' that Angel may have given
up his chance to be human in order to prevent. Seems the oracles
view of the future didn't include wild cards. It wasn't Angel
who was needed to save Buffy, it was a vampire with a soul
and it turned out to be Spike. I wonder if that particular irony
has crossed Angel's mind yet.
Just a thought.
[> [> [> [> Except... -- Masq, 15:26:36
10/22/03 Wed
that there never was a prophecy on either show about "the
vampire with a soul will save the Slayer from death". All
the Oracles knew was that Buffy would die sooner rather than later.
What Angel wanted, and the Oracles gave him by rewriting the day
that had made him mortal, was an opportunity to be a vampire
with a soul when that day came. As it turned out, Buffy was in
Sunnydale and Angel was in Pylea and couldn't help her. Neither
did Spike, for that matter. Buffy died. And neither vampire helped
in her resurrection from the dead.
And Buffy will eventually die for good some day. Who knows which
vampire (if any vampire at all) will be there then?
[> [> [> [> [> The Shadow? -- LittleBit,
15:31:41 10/22/03 Wed
I hear he knows. ;-) And wouldn't it be funny if it turned out
to be Dracula? [Bad 'Bit...smap]
[> [> [> [> [> Good point that leads me to a
comment about season seven -- Rufus, 17:50:24 10/22/03
Wed
You're right Buffy is going to die like all of us. She will most
likely die fighting demons, that makes "Chosen" not
an end but a new starting point for her character. We just may
never get to see the "end" end....;)
[> [> Ummmm s'kat there is a spoiler in your post, so
those who are unspoiled may want to skip it. -- Rufus, 17:56:35
10/22/03 Wed
[> [> [> Where? -- s'kat, 13:21:47 10/23/03
Thu
I couldn't find anything - thought it was references to things.
I'm not that spoiled. So don't know everything, in which case
I may have missed something - thinking it was part of the philosophy
being mentioned.
[> [> [> [> Don't answer that question -- s'kat,
13:26:11 10/23/03 Thu
I don't want to know.
Darla's Attitude ('Fool For Love' -- Claudia,
13:36:16 10/21/03 Tue
In "Fool For Love", the Fang Four are hiding out in
a Yorkshire mine, when Angelus and William (Spike)are in the middle
of a . . . disagreement. Then Darla made this curious remark:
DARLA: (sing-song; to Drusilla) "I think our boys are going
to fight."
Now it is obvious from her words that she believes Angelus and
William are about to fight. What I don't comprehend is the attitude.
What was behind her sing-song tone? Was she looking forward to
William receiving a beating from Angelus? Or was there something
else behind her tone?
Replies:
[> Typical vampire sexuality -- KdS, 13:52:39 10/21/03
Tue
Chance to get off on the cool violence, and I really don't think
Darla thought there was the faintest chance of Spike beating Angelus.
Plus if Angelus kills Spike it gets rid of someone who I think
annoyed her at best. And she gets to reward the conquering hero.
[> Re: Darla's Attitude ('Fool For Love' -- LittleBit,
14:01:23 10/21/03 Tue
Maybe Darla, being the evil vampire she is, enjoys the conflicts
between the two. We already know she would consider the outcome
of the fight a moot point. After all, Angelus had surpassed her
in viciousness. Darla simply enjoyed conflicts. For what it's
worth, Drusilla also seemed to think the same thing, and wasn't
particularly bothered by it. I somehow think it was a fairly frequent
occurrence, given Angelus' irritability and Spike's ability to
irritate. ;-)
[> Re: Darla's Attitude ('Fool For Love' -- Lunasea,
16:35:01 10/21/03 Tue
It was Darla's Dear Boy against Dru's Fool. In some ways, it wasn't
just a competition between the male vampires, but that contest
reflected on their sires. Darla liked winning. Angelus was going
to win and watching Angelus win/fight was sexy to both his sire
and his sire-ee.
[> [> Re: Darla's Attitude ('Fool For Love' -- Claudia,
16:45:43 10/21/03 Tue
Then why didn't Darla simply indicate with pleasure that Angelus
was going to kick Spike's butt (in 19th century terms)?
I found both her tone and her words - "Our boys" rather
curious.
[> [> [> Re: Darla's Attitude ('Fool For Love'
-- Dlgood, 16:58:09 10/21/03 Tue
"Our Boys" seems to me to connote the kinship between
Darla & Dru. As in your boy and my boy. They are ours.
As is seen over the course of their interaction, Darla often treats
Dru with disdain - but she seems to treat everyone with disdain.
Though Darla still sees herself as the superior in that relationship,
I think there's a certain amount of female or familial solidarity.
After all, these are women who spent at least forty years together.
Of course, it's also noteworthy that Darla picks Liam out after
watching him in a bar fight. Maybe she just likes watching the
boys make asses of themselves.
[> [> [> [> Re: Darla's Attitude ('Fool For Love'
-- Claudia, 17:07:13 10/21/03 Tue
[Of course, it's also noteworthy that Darla picks Liam out after
watching him in a bar fight. Maybe she just likes watching the
boys make asses of themselves.]
This sounds logical.
[> [> [> [> Darla and Dru -- auroramama, 10:40:02
10/22/03 Wed
The kinship between Dru and Darla, and its limits, is summed up
so nicely in that exchange! Darla is sharing her pleasurable anticipation
of the fight with Dru - an unusually cordial gesture for her,
but I guess even vampires sometimes feel the need to have friends
over to watch their favorite shows. Dru responds in exactly the
same tone of voice (and same body language - bouncing with evil
glee), so that it takes Darla a second to register that what Dru
actually said was more of that mystic nonsense (from Darla's POV)
she's always spouting. You can see Darla's disappointment. She
wanted, at that moment, a fellow fan, but what she has is a fruitcake.
Not the best company.
Drusilla, on the other hand, doesn't notice that anything has
gone amiss in their little conversation. As far as she's concerned,
she and Darla have had a Moment.
Is Darla certain that Angelus is going to win? Probably. But it's
more exciting to watch a fight than a drubbing, so she puts it
in those terms. Besides, "My boy is going to beat the crap
out of your boy" isn't the correct approach to sharing the
fun with a fellow fan.
I have a lot of thoughts about Drusilla's role in the gang, and
why Angelus never does kill Spike, and so forth, but I've probably
said these things many times before.
[> 'Kay, were you paying attention to the Spike vs. Angel
match? -- HonorH, 17:30:59 10/21/03 Tue
There's something rather delectable about watching two gorgeous
guys get into it. Hence Buffy going to a Happy Place while imagining
a Spike/Angel oil wrestling match, and hence me re-watching the
Angel/Riley "The Yoko Factor" smackdown until I wore
my tape thin. I think Darla was in about the same place.
[> [> the Angel/Riley 'The Yoko Factor' smackdown
-- Masq, 19:16:17 10/21/03 Tue
"Reeerrooow". What a cat fight that was! The rest of
the episode I could take or leave, but all the Angel/Riley stuff
(and Buffy having to step in and break them up), fun! fun!
And I'm not even looking at it in a remotely slashy way.
[> [> [> What I loved? -- HonorH, 19:44:03
10/21/03 Tue
Two very large men (DB is 6'1" and MB is 6'2", and both
are heavily-built) getting shoved apart and verbally spanked by
this tiny (5'3") woman. Plus the little smirk Angel gives
Riley as he and Buffy go to talk in the hall.
"Not movin' a muscle." Heh. Poor Riley. I always liked
him.
[> [> [> [> Re: What I loved? -- Masq, 20:15:47
10/21/03 Tue
Two very large men (DB is 6'1" and MB is 6'2", and
both are heavily-built) getting shoved apart and verbally spanked
by this tiny (5'3") woman
And both of them taking her deadly seriously and sulking in their
respective corners after she did it.
This is the way the world should be.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What I loved? -- Dlgood,
23:07:19 10/21/03 Tue
That was great.
------------------------------------
This is the way the world should be.
------------------------------------
My favorite scene in the entire Whedon-verse is the alley scene
in "Go Fish" when big hulking wimmer-jock Gage meekly
asks little-bitty Buffy to walk him home safely 'cuz he's scared.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What I loved? --
Masq, 07:07:00 10/22/03 Wed
That's 'coz he knows she can kick Angelus' ass!
[> [> [> Definitely one of my favorite fights (and
another reason why S4 rocks) -- Gyrus, 10:09:16 10/22/03
Wed
Angel and his vamp-strength versus never-give-up gadget-guy Riley
-- how cool is that? Plus it plays up the whole "science
versus the supernatural" theme of that season.
Come to think of it, S4 had some of the series' best fight scenes.
Buffy vs. Sunday in "The Freshman" ("Let me answer
that question with a head-butt!"), Buffy vs. Faith in "This
Year's Girl", and Combo-Buffy vs. Adam in "Primeval"
were all pretty spectacular.
[> [> Obviously, there was oil involved... -- punkinpuss,
13:08:39 10/22/03 Wed
...at some point, and maybe some nibbling. Heh. Darla's no dummy.
Also, she seems like the type who'd scold them about ruining their
good suits by fighting...so obviously, they should disrobe, to
uhm, save their good clothes.
Spike Speculation (Spoilers for 5.4 promo)
-- Finn Mac Cool, 14:22:45 10/21/03 Tue
OK, tomorrow it looks like we'll be finding out more about Spike's
incorporeal state and the hell he's being drawn into, so this
is my last chance to speculate on what's really going on.
We know that Spike's incorporeal, which immediatly conjures up
memories of the First Evil. What if there's a connection? Maybe,
by being incorporeal, Spike now exists on the same plane as the
First does. This would mean that the First Evil now has the ability
to physically affect Spike, such as being able to pull him into
hell. After all, it's tortured Spike twice before; it would probably
appreciate a chance to do the job right.
Replies:
[> Yes, and maybe... -- Nino,
14:37:23 10/21/03 Tue
...this was all part of the First's plans? Maybe the FE wanted
Spike trapped in this amulet? This would explain a lot of the
inconsistencies in the FE's plan...why didn't it kill Spike in
"BOTN"? Why did it essentially allow Spike to walk into
the battle with the amulet...i dunno...pretty far fetched, but
just a thought
[> connections (spoiler spectulation s5) -- Deacon,
20:15:24 10/21/03 Tue
There are some good connections between the FE and what is currently
happening to spike. I am curious about how much they are going
to be playing the BtVS s7 storyline on this season of Angel, if
they are there are some good crossover possibilities, buffy in
europe probly faced with the task of setting up some sort of slayer
academy and shecould use some help from Wolfram & Hart, but I
think this is being to hopeful.
[> [> Do you really think, or have reason to belive
-- Mackenzie, 08:37:55 10/22/03 Wed
That as cool as a connection between the two shows would be that
it will actually happen? I know most would like to see it to help
sort of trail off Buffy rather than an abrupt end but I am hesitant
to believe that ME will do so. I guess I say that because even
though there have been crossover episodes before, correct me if
I am wrong, story lines really haven't crossed. Take last season
for example, Jasmine and all that weirdness didn't show up on
Buffy and in the real world, Buffy would have a least mentioned
it or seen a news story or something. Secondly, Angel did go over
the Sunnydale at the end to help deal w/ the FE but it went unmentioned
for the most part on his show. They were basically battleing two
opposite forces but it didn't even come up.
That is just my opinion and I would love to be wrong.
[> [> [> Well, the dynamic is different considering
two new factors (Spoilers 5.4) -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:21:24
10/22/03 Wed
One, the WB now has the right to show syndicated reruns of Buffy,
so the different network issue of the past two years is no longer
a problem.
Two, Buffy is now over. A storyline blend between the two shows
before would be deeply unfair to those fans who only watched one
show (not to mention making it very difficult for the writers).
They'd need to watch both to really understand what was going
on. However, now that Buffy's ended, Angel can treat the past
seven seasons of Buffy as backstory. You don't need to watch Buffy
to know what's going on; you just need to listen to some brief
exposition (like Fred at the beginning of "Conviction").
Of course, my theory's been blown out of the water, so what do
I know.
Lies MY parents told me -- Lunasea, 16:18:10
10/21/03 Tue
My mother has a serious problem with authority figures, and she
considers anyone who isn't herself an authority figure. My father
is beyond non-confrontational. The words that come out his mouth
the most are "why bother." These are the people that
taught me, both in word and deed, how to get along in the world.
I didn't listen very well to my parents, or did I? I went to the
opposite extreme. I have no problem whatsoever with authority
figures. This didn't come from a healthy respect of myself, but
an unhealthy disrespect of them. My relationship to them was based
on the same thing it was with my mother, how important they were.
My mother and I were just flip sides of the same coin. Same thing
with my father. Talk about confrontational. This board can attest
to my position about that. My father saw nothing of importance
to be gained in confrontation and I saw everything to be gained
there. These were lies based on a very black and white view of
the world, a view of a child and most children never grow up.
Because of these lies, I really haven't been posting much the
last couple of months. It wasn't the summer slump or that I had
nothing to say. I typed up lots of posts, I just didn't hit send.
I was immobilized by both the importance my mother places on authority
figures and what could be gained by confrontation that I learned
from my father. That said, I am going to get away from the lies
my parents told me and post any way.
I see the children in LMPTM to be in a very similar position.
In this episode the roles the characters play is not quite as
simple as being a child or a parent. Anne is William's mother,
but she is also an individual. William is son to both Anne and
Drusilla. Nikki is Robin's mother, but she is also Slayer/daughter
to her Watcher, Bernard Crowley. Robin is son to both Nikki and
Crowley, as well as being a principal/father figure. Giles is
Buffy's father figure, but he is also a child of the Watcher's
Council/Quentin Travers. In many ways LMPTM revisits "Helpless."
Buffy is the daughter of Joyce and Giles, but also mother to Dawn.
Xander and Willow, though not heavily featured in this episode,
are also children who will be affected greatly by the lies Giles
taught them the last 7 years.
The lies the children are raised with are the cause of their major
faults. Anne's lies lead to Spike being "love's bitch."
The lie Nikki is told leads to her death, shown in FFL. The lie
Robin is told leads to his vendetta. The lie Giles is told leads
to his feelings of being lost and not knowing what to do S7. The
lie Buffy is told leads to Generalissima. The lie the other Scoobies
are told will lead to their mutiny in "Empty Places."
Lies exist on many levels. It isn't quite as simple as uncovering
them and we are free. Even though I knew that I shouldn't fear
authority figures, I still exaggerated their relationship to me.
Even though I knew there was a reason to bother, I still saw how
effective I was as the deciding criteria for doing something.
In LMPTM Spike uncovers a lie, but also tells one to Robin. Robin
sees that he has committed a lie, but doesn't see what has informed
that. Buffy, having had the most complicated relationship with
her parental figures, starts to cut through some of the contradictory
messages she has received and ends up embracing a lie that won't
be discovered until "Chosen."
Anne lies to Spike in word and deed. This lie is best illustrated
by what Buffy tells Dawn at the end of David Fury's "Grave."
Things have really sucked lately, but it's all gonna change.
And I wanna be there when it does. I want to see my friends happy
again. And I want to see you grow up. The woman you're gonna become.
Because she's gonna be beautiful. And she's going to be powerful.
I got it so wrong. I don't want to protect you from the world.
I want to show it to you. There's so much that I want to show
you.
In her attempt to spare her child's feelings, out of love, Anne
ends up giving Spike a false sense of who he is and what love
is. "It's magnificent." All mothers say something to
this effect when their child shares something with them. Part
of a mother's job is to build up a child's self-esteem. However,
Anne's coddling is overboard and creates a William that does not
fit in his society. A mother's job isn't to raise her child to
conform to society, but she does have to show that child how to
relate to it.
Anne doesn't show William the world. She protects him from it
and her own feelings. Spike dismisses what Vamp!Anne says as "the
demon talking, not her." After 7 seasons of dealing with
Angel, Darla, Jesse and other vampires (including Spike) that
we saw pre-vamping, I hope that the audience recognizes this as
a lie. Spike tells this lie to Robin because William wasn't shown
that love is compatible with other feelings.
What Vamp!Anne said was harsh, but it was similar to what Joyce
reveals to Pat in "Dead Man's Party" or says to Buffy
in "Gingerbread."
From Marti Noxon's "Dead Man's Party"
While Buffy was gone, all I could think about was getting her
home. I just knew that if I could put my arms around her and tell
her how much I loved her, everything would be okay. Having Buffy
home, I-I thought it was gonna make it all better, but in some
ways, it's almost worse.
From Jane Espenson's "Gingerbread"
Since when does it matter what I want? I wanted a normal, happy
daughter. Instead I got a Slayer.
Being a mother is a hard job. A mother is still an individual
with her own desires. We are all raised with lies our parents
told us. Those lies tell us that everything will be okay if we
can put our arms around our children and them how much we love
them. Reality is that this isn't some panacea. We have feelings
that are less than motherly. What Vamp!Anne says is not a lie,
but brutal honesty borne from having to lie all those years. Spike
can't understand this because of that lie.
C.S. Lewis said in A Grief Observed "This is one of
the miracles of love: It gives ... a power of seeing through its
own enchantments and yet not being disenchanted." Spike's
relationship with his mother is very regressed and has not has
gained this power yet. Either the mother that coddled him loves
him or the vampire told the truth and she doesn't. The lie that
Spike is fixated on is does his mother love him. The lie he sees
through is that his mother did love him. He is still under the
lie of what love means. Because of this, what he tells Robin is
a lie.
Spike thinks the focus of Robin's life is love because that is
the focus of Spike's life. The opening scene of the episode is
Nikki battling Spike and young Robin watching this. His mother
is the opposite of Anne. Nikki is showing Robin the world. He
knows about her mission and plays with the spooky doodads at her
Watcher's house. Young Robin loves his Mamma and wants to stay
with her. Since he cannot, he picks up her stake, her mission.
He was raised to understand "the mission is what matters."
That is not to say that Nikki didn't love him or that he didn't
matter, like Spike asserts. Robin understands this. There is no
evidence in this or any other episode where Robin shows he doesn't.
Robin has shown himself to be a well adjusted man, just rather
dedicated to the mission. Until the vampire that kills his mother
walks back into his life, his desire is illustrated in First Date,
"Well, I actually do enjoy the work, but yeah. Yeah, you're
right. I maneuvered myself into that school, that office-just
like I maneuvered you there. The hell mouth draws the bad things
in close, and now we're headed for something big, Buffy. Really
big, and I need to be here when it happens. I want to help."
In the dinner conversation with Buffy, he decides that "he
is ready to jump into this fight...I don't have time to worry
anymore. I have to do something. "
He learned the importance of the fight, of the mission from his
parents, both in word and deed. A mission that is worth dying
for has quite an impact on a young child. Robin knew that he was
important to his mother. If the mission was worth dying for, it
was damn important. He mentions both "raised by a Watcher"
and that Bernard Crowley resigned after Nikki died, "took
me in...trained me." Robin is quite an impressive fighter.
He lacks the supernatural powers of Buffy, but he is obviously
well trained, in both hand-to-hand and weaponry as attested to
by his rather impressive collection of knives.
After young Robin symbolically picks up his mother's stake, we
see him fighting the good fight alongside her killer. This causes
him such conflict that he grips the stake so tightly it causes
his hand to bleed. Robin has opportunity to stake Spike, but he
doesn't "want to kill you Spike. I want to kill the monster
who took my mother away from me." He waits for his moment
and even creates it and betrays the mission in the process.
That mission isn't just to fight evil. Robin still believes that
Spike is a threat. Being raised by a Watcher and fighting vampires
his whole life would give Robin an outlook about vampires that
is similar to the one Xander has. Trying to remove Spike was not
a betrayal to the greater good on the part of either Giles or
Robin. It was still a betrayal because they betrayed Buffy, the
Slayer.
The mission simply put is (and please say it with me): In every
generation there is a Chosen One. She alone will stand against
the vampires, the demons, the forces of darkness. She is the Slayer.
The fight against the vampires, the demons and the forces of darkness
is stressed and everyone on the show (but maybe Spike) believes
in this fight. Underlying this, however, is the importance of
the Slayer to this fight. Giles, Robin, the Scoobies are the support
team. Buffy shows she doesn't need the Council in "Graduation
Day" and asserts her importance further in "Checkpoint."
From Day 1, she is told "you alone can stop them." This
importance of the Slayer is a great burden for Nikki and Buffy
to carry.
Giles not only passed this lie onto Buffy, but was raised with
it himself. In "Helpless" he gets beyond the attitude
of the Council that the Slayer is just a very powerful tool for
them to use at their discretion. He still sees the importance
of the Slayer though. She is so important that season 7, he looks
to her for guidance. He says in "Bring on the Night,"
"We could make plans as we always do, but the truth is, Buffy
was our plan. There is no back up." As Buffy has minor victories
throughout the season, including sealing the Hellmouth, Giles'
regains himself.
He is reluctant to go along with Robin's plan to kill Spike, but
he does. His first objection is "Buffy would never allow
it." The old order of the Council in charge of the Slayer
has been overturned, but the importance of the one girl who will
alone stand up is still there. He acts to protect her when he
can. In "Prophecy Girl" he is willing to face the Master
in her place. In "Helpless" he violates the Council's
directives and even rushes it to save her. Giles gets knocked
out a lot, but that is because he is trying to help Buffy. He
does more than Watch.
Their relationship is very complicated and it would be inaccurate
for me to say that this is Giles' sole motivation. He does love
Buffy as a father would love a daughter. It is this love that
gives him the strength to stand up to the Council. It is this
love that Robin appeals to in order to be able to kill Spike.
Still, Giles does see Buffy as the only one who can do things.
The times that Buffy refuses to do things, such as killing Ben
in "The Gift" or dealing with Spike in LMPTM, Giles
has to step in since no one else will. When Buffy shuts him out,
this wounds him greatly. He knows no other way to fight the forces
of darkness, other than in relation to Buffy. Even when he starts
to question her judgment, it is her judgment that matters.
The weight of this lie has been wearing on Buffy. As the season
opens, we see her being a good mother to Dawn in "Lessons"
and showing her the world. I'll admit that I don't react well
to being told I can't do something. Two summers ago, I was trying
to photograph the seagulls on the Promenade in Cape May, NJ. A
standard trick of nature photographers is to put a little food
where you want the animal to go. This allows you to set the focus
and background. My husband said "Don't do that." I did
that and what happened closely resembled something out of a Hitchcock
movie, as the seagulls decided they didn't want to wait for me
to throw out one french fry at a time. If he had explained to
me why I shouldn't do that, maybe I would have listened. Part
of the disappointment of season 7 comes from Buffy not doing this
any more. She wasn't showing anyone anything, just ordering them
around. This attitude was built on a lie she had learn from her
father figure.
As the season progresses, Buffy pulls more and more away from
Dawn, practically ignoring her by the time we get to "Potential."
In "Same Time, Same Place," Buffy has "so much
strength that she is giving it away" to Willow. As the season
goes on, she is less concerned with her best friend's feelings
and more concerned about getting her to do whatever magick is
needed. In "Get It Done," she treats everyone like a
tool that she can use. When Buffy talks to Robin in LMPTM, gone
is the compassion that makes Buffy a character we all love. She
turns into what we have termed Generalissima. This is because
"she alone...."
Buffy doesn't show people things any more. She orders them around.
She has gotten past needing Giles to rely on, but she has an exaggerated
sense of her own importance. This comes to a head in "Empty
Places." She is "willing to talk strategy...but this
is the plan." She needs everyone to "fall in line! I'm
still in charge here."
Everyone is still operating on the Slayer being alone. Either
Buffy is in charge or as Dawn says, "You can't be a part
of it. So I need you to leave." When Buffy the Slayer doesn't
see Robin and Giles as her trusted advisors who have her back,
Robin turns his loyalties to Faith and Giles tries to get Buffy
to see reason. When Willow and Xander start to doubt Buffy's capabilities
to lead, they too turn on her. All of this is built on an image
of what the Slayer is, which is built on a lie.
Buffy, being the central figure of the show, is more complicated
than either Spike or Robin. She is the intersection of their issues.
In LMPTM Buffy says that she would kill Dawn if she had to. When
it comes down to it, in "End of Days" Buffy has Dawn
taken to safety, just like Nikki brings Robin to safety before
she goes after Spike. Buffy not only learned the mission from
Giles, but from Joyce and him (and the Scoobies and Angel) she
learned about love and what it means to be a woman. In season
5, the mission and her ability to love collide on a platform high
above Sunnydale. In season 7 this happens again not in regards
to her sister/daughter, but the Potentials.
She sees her responsibility as protecting them. She alone can
protect them from the First and Its minions. In the end, she empowers
them to protect themselves. Until she gets away from the lie that
she alone has to do this, she continues to get more and more hardened,
more and more authoritarian.
Buffy's speech about "can stand up, will stand up" was
beautifully written by Joss, but it left off a part. Joyce gave
that part in "Dead Man's Party."
Buffy, you didn't give me time. You just dumped this thing
on me
and you expected me to get it. Well, guess what? Mom's not perfect,
okay? I handled it badly. But that doesn't give you the right
to punish
me by running away.
After Buffy felt that she had been betrayed by Giles, she didn't
have time to fully get it. She was still operating under lies
that where told to her by her parents. She did handle things badly.
I'm still working on things as well. At 32, I still don't get
it. I'm not perfect and it will take me quite a while before I
can find some sort of balance in the lies my parents told me.
So Buffy what are we going to do now?
Replies:
[> Re: Lies MY parents told me -- Claudia, 16:43:59
10/21/03 Tue
[The lie that Spike is fixated on is does his mother love him.
The lie he sees through is that his mother did love him. He is
still under the lie of what love means.]
Spike was right about his mother. Anne did love him. Only, she
was dishonest about certain things - his poetry and her desire
to stay with forever. She wanted to cut the apron strings, and
it took VampAnne's cruelty to cut those strings. But she did love
him. I believe that the expression on her face, after he had staked
her, told a thousand words.
[He was raised to understand "the mission is what matters."
That is not to say that Nikki didn't love him or that he didn't
matter, like Spike asserts. Robin understands this. There is no
evidence in this or any other episode where Robin shows he doesn't.
Robin has shown himself to be a well adjusted man, just rather
dedicated to the mission. Until the vampire that kills his mother
walks back into his life, his desire is illustrated in First Date,
"Well, I actually do enjoy the work, but yeah. Yeah, you're
right. I maneuvered myself into that school, that office-just
like I maneuvered you there. The hell mouth draws the bad things
in close, and now we're headed for something big, Buffy. Really
big, and I need to be here when it happens. I want to help."
In the dinner conversation with Buffy, he decides that "he
is ready to jump into this fight...I don't have time to worry
anymore. I have to do something. "
He learned the importance of the fight, of the mission from his
parents, both in word and deed. A mission that is worth dying
for has quite an impact on a young child. Robin knew that he was
important to his mother. If the mission was worth dying for, it
was damn important. He mentions both "raised by a Watcher"
and that Bernard Crowley resigned after Nikki died, "took
me in...trained me." Robin is quite an impressive fighter.
He lacks the supernatural powers of Buffy, but he is obviously
well trained, in both hand-to-hand and weaponry as attested to
by his rather impressive collection of knives.]
I find this a little difficult to believe, considering Robin's
reaction, when Spike confronted him with the possibility that
Nikki didn't love him enough to give up the mission. See below:
SPIKE: I wasn't talking to you. (Spike starts fighting, and from
now he has the upper hand) I don't give a piss about your mum.
She was a slayer. I was a vampire. That's the way the game is
played.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Game?
SPIKE: She knew what she was signing up for.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Well, I didn't sign up for it.
SPIKE: Well, that's the rub, innit? You didn't sign up for it
PRINCIPAL WOOD: You took my childhood. You took her away. She
was all I had. She was my world.
SPIKE: And you weren't hers. Doesn't that piss you off?
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Shut up. You didn't know her.
SPIKE: I know slayers. No matter how many people they've got around
them, they fight alone. Life of the chosen one. The rest of us
be damned. Your mother was no different.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: No, she loved me.
SPIKE: But not enough to quit, though, was it? Not enough to walk
away... for you. I'll tell you a story about a mother and son.
See, like you, I loved my mother. So much so I turned her into
a vampire... so we could be together forever. She said some nasty
bits to me after I did that. Been weighing on me for quite some
time. But you helped me figure something out. You see, unlike
you, I had a mother who loved me back. When I sired her, I set
loose a demon, and it tore into me, but it was the demon talking,
not her. I realize that now. My mother loved me with all her heart.
I was her world. (clicks the mouse, playing the recording again)
I believe that Bertrand Crowley specifically raised Robin in order
for the latter to seek vengeance against Nikki's killer. Or why
would he be so willing to accept the First Evil's information
that Spike was the killer?
[If he had explained to me why I shouldn't do that, maybe I would
have listened. Part of the disappointment of season 7 comes from
Buffy not doing this any more. She wasn't showing anyone anything,
just ordering them around. This attitude was built on a lie she
had learn from her father figure.]
How can this be a disappointment, when Season 7 brought up this
very problem, regarding Buffy, in the first place? Especially
in episodes like "Get It Done", "Lies My Parents
Told Me" (when the Potentials realized that she had failed
to tell them about Spike), "Dirty Girls", "Empty
Places" and "Touched". After the latter episode,
Buffy changed tactics and instead of acting the Generalissima,
she gave the Potentials the choice of fighting by her side, after
she had presented them with a plan.
I have a question. Are you saying that Season 7 was a disappointment,
because Buffy made mistakes of this nature? One has to remember
that Buffy is still just coming into adulthood. And like the rest
of us, she was bound to make mistakes. In fact, I'm certain that
she will still continue to make mistakes.
[When Buffy talks to Robin in LMPTM, gone is the compassion that
makes Buffy a character we all love. She turns into what we have
termed Generalissima. This is because "she alone...."]
Again, I disagree. She did display compassion to Robin, after
she learned that Spike was his mother's killer. But she also needed
him to realize that his vendetta was not doing anything for the
mission. In fact, I'm surprised that she seemed willing to forgive
him for conspiring behind her back, in the first place:
BUFFY: Spike? What happened? (Spike opens the door; Buffy sees
Robin sitting on the floor, slumped over) Oh, my God.
SPIKE: I gave him a pass. Let him live. On account of the fact
I killed his mother. But that's all he gets. He even so much as
looks at me funny again, I'll kill him. (exit)
(Buffy goes to Robin)
BUFFY: I lost my mom a couple years ago. I came home and found
her dead on the couch.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: (weakly) I'm sorry.
BUFFY: I understand what you tried to do, but she's dead.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Because he murdered her.
BUFFY: I'm preparing to fight a war, and you're looking for revenge
on a man that doesn't exist anymore.
PRINCIPAL WOOD: Buffy, don't delude yourself... That man still
exists.
BUFFY: Spike is the strongest warrior we have. We are gonna need
him if we're gonna come out of this thing alive. You try anything
again, he'll kill you. More importantly, I'll let him. I have
a mission to win this war, to save the world. I don't have time
for vendettas. (walks away) The mission is what matters.
[After Buffy felt that she had been betrayed by Giles, she didn't
have time to fully get it. She was still operating under lies
that where told to her by her parents. She did handle things badly.
I'm still working on things as well. At 32, I still don't get
it. I'm not perfect and it will take me quite a while before I
can find some sort of balance in the lies my parents told me.
So Buffy what are we going to do now?]
As I had previously stated, Buffy will probably continue to make
mistakes. But as I had also previously stated, one of the mistakes
that Buffy had confronted and dealt with, was her handling of
the Potentials. She did eventually realized that operating under
Giles' lies on how a leader is to behave was wrong. And she dealt
with it in "Chosen", by behaving differently.
[> [> Re: Lies MY parents told me -- Lunasea, 14:31:00
10/22/03 Wed
. But she did love him.
And I said as much in my essay. "In her attempt to spare
her child's feelings, out of love, Anne ends up giving Spike a
false sense of who he is and what love is." Do you contest
this? Just because it is a lie doesn't mean that it was done out
of spite. Her actions form a lie that goes beyond "That's
wonderful" and lying about her feelings. That lie forms what
Spike thinks love means.
I believe that Bertrand Crowley specifically raised Robin in
order for the latter to seek vengeance against Nikki's killer.
Or why would he be so willing to accept the First Evil's information
that Spike was the killer?
There is no support for this assertion other than wanting to demonize
Robin. In "First Date" Robin is about to make the transition
from avenging son to taking on the mission, the mission to be
support team to the Slayer. When the First appears to Faith in
"Touched" he tells her, "Well, you're really in
the game now, Faith. The First doesn't show itself unless it thinks
you matter." By avenging his mother, he remains a player
and not just support team. He is doing something the Slayer can't
bring herself to do. Also, Wood has just found out that one of
the support team members is a vampire. This goes against everything
he has been taught. When he finds out that is the vampire that
killed his mother, of course he goes after him.
How can this be a disappointment, when Season 7 brought up
this very problem, regarding Buffy, in the first place?
It was a disappointment for the same reason Season 6 was. In "The
Gift" Buffy has a great realization, but doesn't have time
to really act on it other than dying. She comes back and because
of her trauma, she doesn't really act on it. Big deal that she
can love. All that does is open her up to pain and make her numb.
At the end of "Grave" she had another realization that
she barely has time to act on. She does in Lessons and STSP, but
as the Potentials descend on her, she doesn't have time to really
show anyone anything any more and resorts to just protecting.
It fits the narrative, but it was not enjoyable to watch, at least
for me. Others greatly enjoyed the season. I can only speak for
myself.
Again, I disagree. She did display compassion to Robin, after
she learned that Spike was his mother's killer. But she also needed
him to realize that his vendetta was not doing anything for the
mission. In fact, I'm surprised that she seemed willing to forgive
him for conspiring behind her back, in the first place:
That may be how you see it, but other posters have criticized
Buffy for her lack of compassion at the end of the episode. This
wasn't the Buffy that held hands with Willow at the end of STSP.
This wasn't even the Buffy that believed in Spike in NLM. This
was a Buffy who acknowledged pain, but dismissed it.
As I had previously stated, Buffy will probably continue to
make mistakes. But as I had also previously stated, one of the
mistakes that Buffy had confronted and dealt with, was her handling
of the Potentials. She did eventually realized that operating
under Giles' lies on how a leader is to behave was wrong. And
she dealt with it in "Chosen", by behaving differently.
But why does she make mistakes? She makes them because she is
still laboring under a lie, a lie that she doesn't see through
until "Chosen."
[> [> [> Robin Wood and Revenge -- Claudia, 17:33:25
10/22/03 Wed
[I believe that Bertrand Crowley specifically raised Robin in
order for the latter to seek vengeance against Nikki's killer.
Or why would he be so willing to accept the First Evil's information
that Spike was the killer?
There is no support for this assertion other than wanting to demonize
Robin. In "First Date" Robin is about to make the transition
from avenging son to taking on the mission, the mission to be
support team to the Slayer. When the First appears to Faith in
"Touched" he tells her, "Well, you're really in
the game now, Faith. The First doesn't show itself unless it thinks
you matter." By avenging his mother, he remains a player
and not just support team. He is doing something the Slayer can't
bring herself to do. Also, Wood has just found out that one of
the support team members is a vampire. This goes against everything
he has been taught. When he finds out that is the vampire that
killed his mother, of course he goes after him.]
How did a four year-old boy learn that his mother was a Slayer
and was killed by a vampire? I can only assume that he was told
by Bertrand Crowley, whom Robin Wood revealed had raised him.
Why did Crowley, a single man, raised Robin? Why didn't he simply
arrange for Robin to be adopted by a family? Have you ever wondered?
And how does a four year-old boy develop into a man seeking revenge
for his mother's death? He did admit to Buffy in "First Date"
that he was on a vengeance thing in his 20s, but that he had recovered
from it. Judging from his actions in "Get It Done",
"Storyteller" and "Lies My Parents Told Me",
he didn't.
Why didn't Robin simply tell Buffy that Spike was the vampire
that killed his mother, after the First Evil informed him? Why
did he keep it to himself, until he admitted it to Giles? Why
didn't he simply confronted Spike once he had learned the news?
[> [> [> [> Re: Robin Wood and Revenge -- Athena,
00:06:48 10/23/03 Thu
Why did Crowley, a single man, raised Robin? Why didn't he
simply arrange for Robin to be adopted by a family? Have you ever
wondered?
We've seen through Giles that Watchers are capable of being affectionate
to their charges; therefore, isn't it possible that Bernard Crowley
could have formed an emotional bond with both Nikki and Robin?
NIKKI: Hey, how 'bout I leave you with Crowley? He's got those
spooky doodads you like playin'
Here Nikki seems confident that Crowley will take care of Robin.
The idea of Crowley letting Robin play with his stuff sounds a
bit like he has already become a father figure.
[> [> [> [> [> Why are we assuming Crowley was
single? -- Lunasea, 05:21:42 10/23/03 Thu
Giles had girlfriends. His single status was a result of his social
ineptness, not him being a Watcher. They weren't monks (well at
least one was, but that wasn't on the show). If we do go by the
Tales of the Slayer in addition to Giles, Watchers can be rather
affectionate.
Joss has done Tales of the Slayer and next is Tales of the Vampire.
I wonder if eventually they will move onto Tales of the Watcher
(other than Ripper). I would find them interesting.
Then again, I would find Joss' shopping list interesting :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why are we assuming
Crowley was single? -- Claudia, 11:30:15 10/23/03 Thu
Why? Did Robin mentioned that "the Crowleys" raised
him? Or did he say "Crowley"?
[> Really Interesting! -- Sara, 16:52:53 10/21/03
Tue
You did a great job of pulling things together - I still don't
like season 7 but this was as close as I've seen of making it
make sense. I totally agree with you regarding Anne and VampAnne.
I think the most interesting aspect of LMPTM was how Anne's love
for William could be true, and yet the vicious things VampAnne
said to him were also true. You gave me a bunch of stuff to think
about!
[> [> Thank you -- Lunasea, 14:42:41 10/22/03
Wed
The catalyst for it was an interview that Marti gave in the "Buffy
Magazine Yearbook."
She started as this isolated, reluctant heroine who wasn't
able to control or grasp her abilities. And by the end she was
someone who'd not only mastered her abilities, but was then able
to give them to others.
I started looking at the season from this perspective, how they
got her to a point where she could give her abilities to other.
The lie that she had to be alone was something the series focused
on in the past when it came to the Scoobies being a reason for
her to fight/live/die or needing their help to save the day. We
had seen how she had empowered everyone on the show. Now she was
going to pass on the one thing that made her unique. To do this
she had to see through the lie that it had to be this way. I think
they lost their focus at times, but the message is still there
upon reflection--what lessons did Buffy have to learn in order
to pass on her abilities.
I love Joss and Marti interviews. If ever there comes a time where
they don't have at least one show on the air, I will be happy
with at least a weekly interview from them about absolutely anything.
I'm glad you liked it.
[> great post -- Deacon, 19:43:54 10/21/03 Tue
Very very nice work, thanks for sharing.
There are some excellent connections here that make s7 make sense.
[> [> You're Welcome -- Lunasea, 14:43:44 10/22/03
Wed
It is a high compliment to say that I help make Season 7 make
sense. Thanks
[> Re: Lies MY parents told me -- Rendyl, 06:13:57
10/22/03 Wed
***From Jane Espenson's "Gingerbread"
Since when does it matter what I want? I wanted a normal, happy
daughter. Instead I got a Slayer.***
Er, poor baby. (Joyce that is) We don't always get the picture
perfect kids we think we want. Joyce is entitled to be a little
thrown but I never understand people wanting their kids to conform
to some preset idea of perfection.
***Being a mother is a hard job. A mother is still an individual
with her own desires. We are all raised with lies our parents
told us. Those lies tell us that everything will be okay if we
can put our arms around our children and them how much we love
them.***
This is a lie...why? Perhaps it will not fix all the problems
in the world but it does make them bearable. There is a sharing
of strength (fortitude maybe) that comes from knowing you are
loved. A hug may not solve everything but it gives people a sense
that solving is possible.
***She sees her responsibility as protecting them. She alone can
protect them from the First and Its minions. In the end, she empowers
them to protect themselves. Until she gets away from the lie that
she alone has to do this, she continues to get more and more hardened,
more and more authoritarian.***
***Buffy's speech about "can stand up, will stand up"
was beautifully written by Joss, but it left off a part. Joyce
gave that part in "Dead Man's Party."
Buffy, you didn't give me time. You just dumped this thing on
me and you expected me to get it. Well, guess what? Mom's not
perfect, okay? I handled it badly. But that doesn't give you the
right to punish me by running away.***
Once again 'poor baby'. Explanations are nice and time to process
(as the Blairbabe would say) is great but sometimes there is simply
no time for them. You can tell your child not to run into the
road and explain why but if they are about to step out in front
of a log truck all you have time for is a really loud 'No,' or
'Stop'. Then you hope they listen to you.
(as an aside, Joyce's speech was also extremely self-centered.
She can admit she handled the situation badly but she still views
it as Buffy punishing her instead of as Buffy freaked beyond words
at having sent Angel to hell. Parenting can be tough and failures
are allowed. Blaming your kids for your own failures is not.)
Ren
[> [> Re: Lies MY parents told me -- Malandanza,
13:25:18 10/22/03 Wed
"(as an aside, Joyce's speech was also extremely self-centered.
She can admit she handled the situation badly but she still views
it as Buffy punishing her instead of as Buffy freaked beyond words
at having sent Angel to hell. Parenting can be tough and failures
are allowed. Blaming your kids for your own failures is not.)"
I share your "poor baby" view of Joyce -- at the time,
Buffy was wanted for murder, had been expelled from school, had
been told by her mother never to come back if she left, and had
sent her first (and only) love to hell (granted, Joyce and the
Scoobies don't know that it was Angel, but even killing Angelus
would have been traumatic). Instead of welcoming Buffy back unconditionally,
Joyce and the Scoobies blame Buffy for their own suffering, such
as it is -- Buffy did this to them. So I'd add "Poor Willow!
Poor Xander!" to your "Poor Joyce". The half apology
-- Joyce's recognition that she isn't perfect -- is undercut when
she blames Buffy. Joyce's behavior in Dead Man's Party
left such an enduring impression on me that I never believed the
rehabilitation of her character in Seasons Four and Five, presenting
her as some kind of ideal mother. I get the impression Buffy would
have been better off had she bricked Joyce up in Restless.
In a sense, the big lie Joyce told Buffy is that Buffy's pain
is irrelevant -- she needs to concern herself with the pain she
inflicts on others. This is something Buffy has excelled at throughout
the series -- hiding her pain (so as not to hurt others) while
trying her hardest to make their lives painless -- which is not
the martyr's complex Spike spoke of (I see a martyr's complex
as someone wants others to know that they're suffering, Buffy
suffers like a martyr but does not want others to know). Instead
of blaming Buffy, Joyce ought to have given her a few more of
those hugs you mentioned.
[> [> [> Re: Lies MY parents told me -- Lunasea,
15:19:33 10/22/03 Wed
I can go back and show all the instances where Joyce was an inadequate/bad
mother. I think that just sweeping what was said in "Gingerbread"
under the rug because of magick was wrong. Those were her real
feelings. That doesn't for one minute make me go "Poor baby."
Even Buffy never stopped loving her mother. Joyce was a multi-faceted
character and a good person.
I will give Joyce props for confronting Buffy. She wasn't Anne
and didn't always bury herself and her feelings. DMP was about
everyone's feelings and Buffy just smashed hers by thinking that
no one would understand. Willow was rather supportive when she
found out that Angel had come back. Why not blame Buffy for not
trusting Willow enough to talk to her rather than run away?
The one thing that Joyce did teach Buffy is love. She taught her
what it is and why it is important. That is what "perfect
mother" Joyce was setting up. Mothers can do that. They can
be loving and still have negative feelings, like in Gingerbread
and DMP and even Faith Hope and Trick.
Buffy hides her pain, not so much to spare others, but because
she doesn't think anyone would understand. This comes from the
idea that she alone can handle things. It affects her on so many
levels.
[> [> [> Re: Lies MY parents told me -- Rendyl,
15:28:46 10/22/03 Wed
***Joyce and the Scoobies blame Buffy for their own suffering,
such as it is -- Buffy did this to them. So I'd add "Poor
Willow! Poor Xander!" to your "Poor Joyce"***
This was (and still is) a hard episode for me to watch. When Xander
starts in I just cringe. Buffy can be somewhat self absorbed at
times but this was an instance where she really seemed to be overwhelmed
by her actions. There are times in DMP where she looks even more
lost than she did in Anne.
***The half apology -- Joyce's recognition that she isn't perfect
-- is undercut when she blames Buffy. Joyce's behavior in Dead
Man's Party left such an enduring impression on me that I never
believed the rehabilitation of her character in Seasons Four and
Five, presenting her as some kind of ideal mother***
I try very hard to remember that Joyce is a single mom with a
daughter out every night risking life, limb and who knows what
else because of some uncontrolable twist of fate.
Being a single parent is rough. When you reach that 'aghhh, I
am selling my kid to the glue factory just so I can have five
minutes of peace' point there is no one to hand off to so you
can recharge.
But still many of the things she says bother me because they seem
so selfish for a parent to say. And...I think we reinforced Lunasea's
point about lies...grin
Ren
[> [> Parents are people -- Lunasea, 15:02:08
10/22/03 Wed
Er, poor baby. (Joyce that is) We don't always get the picture
perfect kids we think we want. Joyce is entitled to be a little
thrown but I never understand people wanting their kids to conform
to some preset idea of perfection.
Parents are people and people have desires. Anne and Joyce were
both women in addition to being mothers. Joyce's "preset
idea of perfection" was pretty vague. She just wanted a normal,
happy child. That is something most parents want. There was no
picture that Joyce really had, let alone an idea of perfection.
She was a pretty good mother.
This is a lie...why? Perhaps it will not fix all the problems
in the world but it does make them bearable. There is a sharing
of strength (fortitude maybe) that comes from knowing you are
loved. A hug may not solve everything but it gives people a sense
that solving is possible.
Sometimes that sense is false. It takes a lot more than hugs to
fix things. We are often raised that a hug will make everything
okay. It doesn't, especially from the parents' viewpoint, which
is who was talking and who I was talking about. The child may
be able to live under the illusion that everything is alright
when Mommy hugs me, but for the parent, that illusion often isn't
enough to cover up what is wrong. That is what Joyce was saying.
Having Buffy there, where they actually can work on things was
harder than having her gone. When Buffy was away, Joyce was powerless.
With her there, Buffy still won't talk, so what can Joyce do to
make things better? Hug?
Once again 'poor baby'. Explanations are nice and time to process
(as the Blairbabe would say) is great but sometimes there is simply
no time for them. You can tell your child not to run into the
road and explain why but if they are about to step out in front
of a log truck all you have time for is a really loud 'No,' or
'Stop'. Then you hope they listen to you.
Both women did things that were wrong. Why not just say "poor
baby" to Buffy for running away? Why is the mother the only
one culpable in this situation? Because she is older? Age doesn't
mean that we stop being people and don't stop living under the
lies we were raised with. I am 32 and working through some pretty
powerful ones.
(as an aside, Joyce's speech was also extremely self-centered.
She can admit she handled the situation badly but she still views
it as Buffy punishing her instead of as Buffy freaked beyond words
at having sent Angel to hell. Parenting can be tough and failures
are allowed. Blaming your kids for your own failures is not.)
So? She admits she isn't perfect. Parents do things that aren't
allowed. These feelings need to be spoken or else you get Anne/William.
The show isn't really about the parents. It is about the children
and the parents do things to mess up those kids for the narrative.
There was only one character with good parents in the Buffyverse,
Fred. Pylea messed her up enough that she didn't need the trauma
of having parents that mess up. Joyce was one of the best parents
in the Buffyverse.
[> [> [> Re: Parents are people -- Rendyl, 15:56:59
10/22/03 Wed
***Both women did things that were wrong. Why not just say "poor
baby" to Buffy for running away? Why is the mother the only
one culpable in this situation? Because she is older? Age doesn't
mean that we stop being people and don't stop living under the
lies we were raised with.***
Actually yes. As the parent Joyce has a responsibility to take
care of her child. This includes taking a mental step back and
not lashing out. It includes being mature enough to put her own
needs and hurts aside for the moment, and just be leaned on. It
doesn't mean Joyce should never say anything. Letting Buffy know
how it all made her feel is very important, but not in the middle
of a party and not as part of a big 'we all unload on Buffy' attack.
As for Buffy's culpability...she thought she had just murdered
Angel. I didn't see her as firing on all cylinders when she left
town. There were some very big things going on in her life and
yes, 17 is a little young to be great at handling them.
***Joyce was one of the best parents in the Buffyverse.***
Okay, no argument here. (evil grin)
Parents in BtVS are less than ideal. I do understand that parents
are human and will make mistakes. But there are mistakes and then
there are 'oh my gawd -- you are an adult-- how could you even
think that, much less do it' mistakes. This always struck me as
one of the latter.
Ren
[> Addendum: What is a lie -- Lunasea, 09:44:07 10/22/03
Wed
Lies. The word carries with it such strong negative connotations.
It is so big that it makes the 10 Commandments. No false witness.
The negation of truth. We know a lie in relationship to the truth.
Without there being truth there can be no lie. Is there such a
thing as the truth? We can debate that. It is an important issue
when discussing an episode about lies. There are the obvious lies,
where the speaker doesn't believe what they are saying. Even then,
the speaker could be speaking some greater truth without realizing
it. The ultimate veracity of the statement or idea cannot be determined
by the belief of the speaker. The speaker could be a liar, but
speaking a truth. Also, the speaker could really believe what
s/he is saying, but it could be a lie.
The underlying lies that are passed onto the children are believed
by the parents. The belief of the speaker is not what makes them
lies. What makes them lies is the harm they cause the children.
They are the cause of the children's' major faults. They are counterproductive.
I am going to define a truth as a beneficial perception. There
are many truths, some which contradict each other. A lie is a
harmful perception.
If you want Spike to be love's bitch, then the lie that Anne taught
him was not a lie. It only becomes a lie when what Anne teaches
Spike love is through her actions hurts him. What hurts him is
up to the viewer to decided. This viewer has decided that being
love's bitch is not a good thing. Other viewers may have different
perceptions. I am tired of defending my perception of love and
will not do this any more. It's in the archives if you really
want.
This lie that Spike believes must give him something. It starts
with a very human William. William's peers ridicule and reject
him. Mommy likes his poetry and thinks he is special, so he must
be. His mother is the sole source of his self-esteem, so what
she does has to be right, has to be the truth.
William is vamped on the heels of Cecily's rejection. Then Spike
is formed off of his mother's rejection. This Spike insulates
himself from this by defining love the way he does, a way he learned
from his mother's coddling. He is going to act this way and be
better than those who have ridiculed and rejected him. He transfers
this to Drusilla, both in how he treats her and how he interprets
how she treats him.
We first hear the term love's bitch in "Lover's Walk."
Drusilla has left Spike and he has come back to seek revenge on
Angel and Buffy. Angel and Buffy have what he really wants (another
thing I am tired of defending, Buffy/Angel and I won't do that
any more either). He uses "love's bitch" to elevate
himself above them. It is a way for him to protect his bruised
ego.
The chip has severely damaged Spike's ego as well. Even abusing
Harmony cannot make him feel better. Because of the chip, he needs
her protection. By being attracted to Buffy, who can hit the hardest,
he regains some of his self-esteem. It is just wrong for a vampire
to be attracted to a slayer, but since he is love's bitch it would
be more wrong for him to ignore his obsession with her.
Spike uses love to elevate himself above others, so he isn't beneath
anyone, especially Buffy. He doesn't see it as a lie, because
to do so would rock the very foundation he is built on. In LMPTM
he figures out that his mother did love him, but he does this
because he believes that it was the demon talking and not her.
He still doesn't understand the complexity of love. This hurts
him because it doesn't allow him to be complex. He has to be love's
bitch.
Robin was fed the same lie that the show is based on, she alone.
He lost his mother at a very young age. Spike sees love as demanding
total obedience, but Robin understands that you can love something
and still have higher priorities. In order for Spike's words about
Nikki to be a lie, what Nikki did must be damn important AND she
could be the only one to do it. Spike seems to think that if Nikki
really loved Robin she could have walked away from slaying. She
couldn't. She couldn't because "she alone." Robin never
questions this because to question it would question whether his
mother did love him. The answer is still that Nikki did love her
son, but just the question would shake Robin's world.
Because of the importance of the mission, after his avenging son
phase, Robin does take on that mission. This gives his life direction,
just like it did with Giles and his Ripper phase. It gives him
a way to help. It translates kill vampires out of vengeance to
kill them out of a desire to help the world and the Slayer. This
would seem like a good thing.
It becomes a lie because of the pressure he puts on Buffy. His
pep talk in "Dirty Girls" is what leads Buffy to test
the Potentials by bringing them to the vineyard. The importance
he puts on the Chosen One leads him to shift allegiances from
one Chosen One to the Chosen Other in "Empty Places."
The one the lie has hurt the most is Buffy. The series has been
about this young woman mastering her power and then at the end
being able to pass that on, in classic hero's journey form. Buffy
wouldn't have even started slaying if it wasn't "she alone."
She faces the Master and is willing to die because "she alone."
Season 2 she kills Angel because "she alone." Season
3, she isn't alone. She is ready to let Faith be Miss Sunnydale
in the Slayer Pageant. Then Faith goes bad and she is "she
alone" again.
The series has shown how not alone she is. Season 4, it takes
all the Scoobies working together, but they all work through Manus,
the Hand, Buffy. The First Slayer tells her that she must be alone
in "Restless," but Buffy still clings to her friends.
The play between "she alone" and "I get by with
a little help from my friends" has been evident from the
beginning. This play has been that the Scoobies are important,
but, and there is a but, Buffy is the one who has to do things.
Only Buffy dying season 5 would have saved Dawn.
Then we get season 6. Buffy doesn't save the world. Xander does
with Giles' help. Buffy is support team. Buffy has a very important
realization, that she doesn't want to protect Dawn, but show her
the world. By showing her the world, Dawn will be able to protect
herself. She alone doesn't have to protect Dawn.
The fate of the world is still her responsibility. She alone stands
up to the forces of darkness. In the season 7 premier, again it
is Xander who saves the day, but he does so under Buffy's orders.
She calls him and tells him what to do, thanks to Spike's info.
Why did the First go after the Potentials? Plot wise, it was to
make them her responsibility. She alone could protect them. In
LMPTM they don't even feel safe around Spike and he goes to Robin's
because of this. Willow's magick can't be trusted yet, so it is
up to Buffy to protect the Potentials. She creates her army, but
she is Supreme Leader, because she alone can lead them.
This is a tremendous burden on her. Being a guidance counselor
at the school is a relief from this and when Robin fires her,
she offers to make flyers. We see Buffy get more and more hardened
because of the responsibility placed on her. This reaches a peak
in "Touched" when Spike tells Buffy that she's "the
one." She bursts into tears because she doesn't want to be
the one. Season 7 is the only season where Buffy doesn't have
to reassert her identity as Slayer. Instead she has completely
accepted this. She alone. When the group fires her, she doesn't
have to take on that responsibility any more. It is Faith's turn
to lead them.
Because of this freedom, Buffy doesn't have to fight. Now she
can do it because she wants to. She is reenergized by a good night's
sleep and deals with things much better. From this vantage, she
realizes that she doesn't have to be alone. She realizes that
being Slayer isn't what has screwed up her past relationships.
She realizes that she has help and doesn't have to protect the
Potentials. They can protect themselves.
Buffy is really the only one that sees through the lie that everyone
has been laboring under. It is interesting that once Buffy figures
out what has to be done, it has to be done by Willow. Then Willow
gets to walk in Buffy's shoes, because now she alone can do this.
She can get help from the coven, but she alone has to do the actual
spell. Then Spike alone can wear the amulet. It is too dangerous
for Buffy to risk and she wants Angel gone. In "End of Days,"
Xander alone could take Dawn to safety, but Dawn took that safety
into her own hands. She wasn't empowered by the Scythe spell,
but by a taser.
That lie served a purpose once upon a time and wasn't a lie. It
was the truth, a truth that starts the show each week. This truth
is why Buffy took up the mission. It is why Angel is shown Buffy.
It is why Giles gets away from Ripper. It gives Xander a hero
to be like. It gives Willow a purpose. It creates Dawn. It is
why Spike "loves" Buffy. All these things were beneficial
earlier.
Season 7 it becomes counterproductive and a lie. It causes Buffy
to become Generalissima. It causes Giles to become lost when Buffy
can't defeat the First. It causes Xander to be blind to the faults
of Buffy. It causes Willow to rely on Buffy and not deal with
her own magick. Without empowering the Potentials, they didn't
stand a chance against the First. The season was about Buffy empowering
others, something she couldn't have done fully under this lie.
Empowering others acknowledges that it doesn't have to be "she
alone." By empowering others, we give people the power to
do for themselves. To do this, we have to admit that they can
as well.
It was a beautiful ending to a beautiful series. Truth became
lies in order to find another truth, a truth that changed the
world.
[> [> Re: Addendum: What is a lie -- Rendyl, 12:07:57
10/22/03 Wed
***I am tired of defending my perception of love and will not
do this any more. It's in the archives if you really want.***
I was not expecting you to and I am sorry if I was not clear earlier.
My point was it is -your- perception. Assigning it to everyone
else is presumptious. Using it as a basis in your essay about
characters we are all very familiar with is one thing (and brings
a unique perspective to both the episode and the series as a whole)
but declaring that your view of love and parents is the only valid
one is simply making unsupportable assumptions about the rest
of us.
***The underlying lies that are passed onto the children are believed
by the parents. The belief of the speaker is not what makes them
lies. What makes them lies is the harm they cause the children.
They are the cause of the children's' major faults. They are counterproductive.***
Once again you seem to be applying your experience and conclusions
to everyone, not just to the characters of BtVS. It may work for
the show but there is just not enough information to make those
kinds of conclusions for anyone (other than yourself) outside
the confines of the series.
I am not trying to dispute how you perceive love, just your assertion
that yours is the only accurate one.
(If I have misunderstood any of your post I apologize.)
Ren
[> [> [> Re: Addendum: What is a lie -- Lunasea,
12:31:46 10/22/03 Wed
What part of I am going to define a truth as a beneficial perception.
There are many truths, some which contradict each other. A lie
is a harmful perception. don't you understand?
I am tired of being told that my perception isn't fact or the
truth. I have one thing to say to that, in the words of Cordy
and pretty much every character on both shows at one time or another,
"duh."
All I have is MY perception. The title of this thread was "Lies
MY parents told me." It is about MY parents and MY perception.
That is all I have to share. Some seem to be getting something
out of this. If you don't, then you don't, but don't tell me that
I believe something I don't. That is YOUR perception and I am
most tired of defending myself against this accusation.
[> [> [> [> Re: Addendum: What is a lie --
Rendyl, 15:05:04 10/22/03 Wed
***I am tired of being told that my perception isn't fact or the
truth.***
And this applies to me...why? I never said that. I said yours
is your truth, not a universal truth.
***If you don't, then you don't, but don't tell me that I believe
something I don't. That is YOUR perception and I am most tired
of defending myself against this accusation.***
Once again I never said this, nor did I say anything you needed
to defend against.
(and I was polite in my postings to you- it would be nice to receive
the same courtesy)
Ren
[> [> Re: Addendum: What is a lie -- jane, 15:26:30
10/22/03 Wed
Very, very nicely put. You have summed up my feelings,but so much
more eloquently than I could have. Thanks!
[> [> [> You're Welcome :-) -- Lunasea, 15:28:39
10/22/03 Wed
I try.
[> Anne... -- angel's nibblet, 23:59:20 10/23/03
Thu
BTW does anyone else find it slightly TOO coincidental that Spike's
mother's name is also Buffy's middle name? It makes my Oedpius-complex-ometer
go DING!DING!DING! ;-)
[> [> It is supposed to -- Lunasea, 07:15:02 10/24/03
Fri
Though the name never made it to the screen (so it isn't canon),
that is what Goddard named her in the script. It is easier than
typing "William's mother" and "Vamp!William's Mother."
I think one of the purposes of this episode was to sort-of remove
Spike's oedipal issues so that "Touched" could take
place. By realizing Mommy did love him, he doesn't have to search
for that love any more.
Apocalypse Results -- Jay,
21:50:11 10/21/03 Tue
are
here
There are a ton of numbers that I've gleamed from this tournament
that I'd love to throw out there, but I'm just to tired. And I
wanted to get this posted as soon as possible.
I'm interested to see what people think. So, what'ya think?
Oh, and if you haven't, read the comments. They're awesome baby!
Dialogue Dandies! Prime Time Posters!
Hopefully someone got that.
Replies:
[> Awww . . . in a way they're BOTH winners! -- d'Herblay,
22:14:40 10/21/03 Tue
In another, more real way, Spike's the loser. :) (I hope you will
excuse the emoticon appended to what was meant as a simple Simpsons
reference; during the current climate I recognize that both the
pro-Spike and the anti-Spike have justification for feeling aggrieved.
I mean no disrespect or harm to anyone's feelings. De gustibus
non disputandum est, except, of course, in a contest where
the very subject of disputation is taste itself.)
I still think that the very fairness of the contest is called
into question by the undemocratic tiebreaker format (I would have
preferred counting comments). Yes, I realize that it is hypocritical
of me to publically express doubts about an arrangement I privately
participate in. On the other hand, that I cast, in effect, two
votes in this contest probably puts me on the low side of impacting
the outcome according to some suspicions.
In fact, it is now my suspicion that this whole "tie"
was in fact arranged by Jay to finally justify sending all those
emails. Hmmm . . .
But the recount should be interesting! I was confused by the butterfly
ballot! Or by the butterflies in my head that only I can see.
As always at this time of year, I would like to conclude by leading
a round of applause for the ringmaster of this circus. Jay, you
have enlivened our spirits and entertained our hearts. I thank
you.
[> [> Uh, what he said. -- Anneth, 22:29:11 10/21/03
Tue
My, that was a hum-dinger, wunnit? *sniff* I'd just like to take
this opportunity to thank Jay, for making all of this possible
- Jay, we couldn't have done it without you. And I really mean
that! Also, I want to give a big shout-out to the woman upstairs,
Masq, for giving us virtual life; Rub a Dub Doard, thanks for
the Board, etc. And, of course, I'd like to thank everyone who
participated - you guys rock! You're all really special, wonderful,
intelligent, creative people! I love you all! (bursts into tears,
stumbles away.)
[> [> [> The weird thing is... -- Anneth, 22:38:06
10/21/03 Tue
I actually wrote that as a response to d'H's message, which has
disappeared.
[> [> [> [> I had an attack of the guilties . .
. -- d'Herblay, 22:43:50 10/21/03 Tue
. . . not to mention that I screwed up the Simpsons reference.
[> The power!!! The power!!!!!!!!!!!! Mwahahahahahahaha!!!!!
-- Rob (preparing to end the world), 22:25:05 10/21/03 Tue
[> Thanks Jay -- Tchaikovsky, 04:07:09 10/22/03 Wed
An intriguing contest, and with Buffy the winner at the end of
it all, which is how it should be.
TCH
[> Bizzarely -- Celebaelin, 06:06:10 10/22/03 Wed
This also means that every single vote cast in the normal competition
was in effect the deciding vote, all other votes being cast remaining
unchanged.
Who says Democracy doesn't work?
Thanks again Jay.
C
[> Thanks, Jay. It's been a blast. -- cjl, 06:47:56
10/22/03 Wed
Buffy wins. In a tiebreaker. How appropriate. Almost as if you'd
written it that way.
Hmmmm....
[> [> Re: Thanks, Jay. It's been a blast. -- Jay,
20:33:29 10/22/03 Wed
In the rough draft of my thank you's I had an embarrassingly gushing
thank you for cjl's handicapper posts and how I regretted not
finding a place for them at the Apocalypse. But then I read it
and it made me sick. So I deleted it.
As for all the insinuations that I fixed the thing, I probably
could give the login name and password to everyone so they can
see for themselves, but then they could vote again. More importantly,
Exhibit A, no one wanted Angel to beat Spike more than me during
the email vote, and other than tossing out some next day votes,
I counted everything honestly. Oh Joss, I'm taking this too seriously,
ain't I. Never mind.
I appreciate all the kind words. You people are too nice. I'm
not sure what I meant with "you people", but I'm sure
it wasn't derogatory.
Wasn't anyone else getting sick of JBone?
[> Ah I was right! Wonderful -- s'kat, 10:34:44 10/22/03
Wed
I told you that if this was a real contest, they'd turn and stare
at us all and thumb their noses. He He.
Great conclusion to the battle, J-Bone. Works for me.
[> [> How come you never talk to me like that? --
Celebaelin, 16:29:49 10/22/03 Wed
[> [> [> Tempting fate -- Celebaelin, 01:34:05
10/23/03 Thu
Wierdness happens, woke up this morning to this message - check
your e-mail's working as it should s'kat.
This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.
A message that you sent has not yet been delivered to one or more
of its
recipients after more than 8 hours on the queue on fmailm1.svr.pol.co.uk.
The message identifier is: 1AC8Wd-0003My-M1
The subject of the message is: Re: Full Reference
The date of the message is: Wed, 22 Oct 2003 03:24:44 -0700
Delay reason: Connection refused
No action is required on your part. Delivery attempts will continue
for
some time, and this warning may be repeated at intervals if the
message
remains undelivered. Eventually the mail delivery software will
give up,
and when that happens, the message will be returned to you.
[> [> [> [> You have email ;-) -- s'kat, 13:13:31
10/23/03 Thu
Got it and responded! Thank you!
[> Re: Apocalypse Results -- punkinpuss, 14:44:00
10/22/03 Wed
Thanks Jay! That was a lot of fun! Thanks for all your hard work
on this.
[> [> Re: Apocalypse Results -- jane, 15:10:38
10/22/03 Wed
This was terrific, Jay! Lots of fun, great comments by all, and
BUFFY WINS! Well done, you deserve to take a bow.
[> Delayed thanks -- KdS, 13:02:17 10/23/03 Thu
Spectacular admin job. Pity the end results were so predictable,
but that's just a sign of fandom trends.
(Still trying to work out why Lilah v Spike caused such mayhem)
[> Thanks Jay -- Thanks Jay, 22:50:15 10/22/03 Wed
for all your work. Took us through the summer doldrums in style.
Current board
| More October 2003