September 2002 posts
The
Key and the Monks -- meritaten, 10:26:31 09/02/02 Mon
I was watching a rerun of an early S5 episode last night, the
one where Buffy learns that Dawn is the Key. What is bothering
me is that I've never understood why the Monks felt the need to
protect this Key. If the Key just opened a portal to a hell dimension,
why not destroy it as the Byzantine army people wanted to do?
Why had they protected it for centuries? Why risk the destruction
of the world to preserve it? Does the Key perhaps have another
function?
[> In "Spiral"
-- HonorH, 10:34:47 09/02/02 Mon
General Exposition told Buffy the monks had hoped to use the Key
for good. Unfortunately, whatever that good might be hasn't ever
been discussed. I'm hoping that the power of the Key will be readdressed
at some point.
On a side note, I wrote up a story about that monk. If you're
interested, take a look:
Aurora
[> [> Re: In "Spiral"
-- Random Bystander,
12:02:06 09/02/02 Mon
The Key is energy and the first thing i learnt when studying energy
was that, and i quote 'energy can not be made or destoryed it
can only be transferred from one thing to anyother'
The monks must have knew that even if someon killed Dawn the Key
would still exist (probably as a big ball of green energy)it just
wouldnt have a human body and would be probably be easily to find
and hard to protect. So if they made it human and made it the
sister of a warrior, who would protect it to the death it would
be less likely that Glory could use it.
After all there 6 billion humans on earth, GLory wouldnt have
known which one it was even if she knew it was human. so it was
well guarded by that fact and for more protection a superhuman
fighter of evil. I think wat the Knights were tlakin about was
that if they killed Dawn she would cease to be human and become
the energy ball thingy so they could use the energy from it and
so it would be useless
that is just my viewpoint and the thing with the knights was total
jibberish i no but i think the key cant be destoryed wat ya think?
[> [> [> Re: In "Spiral"
-- Finn Mac Cool, 12:36:21 09/02/02 Mon
You say the Key is energy and therefore it can't be destroyed.
However, all things are energy. All matter (and possibly anti-matter)
is made of energy, and yet can be destroyed. If the Key were destroyed,
it's energy would have to go somewhere, undoubtedly, but it would
not be in the form of the Key, which would mean the Key was no
more, and thus destroyed.
[> [> [> [> Mass
and energy -- Sophist, 13:02:01 09/02/02 Mon
Random Bystander is correct: mass and energy can be converted
into each other, but energy cannot be "destroyed" per
se. However, energy can be made less usable. Maybe that's what
they had in mind. You have to wonder if gods can violate the Second
Law of Thermodynamics, though.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Mass and energy -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:07:29 09/02/02
Mon
I'm just saying: the Key is made of energy. However, if that energy
is no longer gathered together in the proper fashion, it ceases
to be the Key. If the Key were destroyed, I imagine the energy
would dissipitate (hope that's the right word) into the energy
that buzzes around us every day.
[> [> [> [> Re:
In "Spiral" -- meritaten, 19:23:09 09/02/02 Mon
Thank you. This is what I was attempting to say in my clumzy response
to the same post.
[> [> [> Question:
-- luvthistle1, 16:18:17 09/02/02 Mon
When Buffy did a pull back the curtain Spell. She stated she wanted
to see what was causeing her mom's illness. Did she do a spell
to "see spells" or a spell to see the cause of her mom's
illness.?
Also, the monks wanted to use Dawn powers for good, but it can
be used for evil as well, as stated by Glory /Knights.
GREGOR: The key ... is almost as old as the beast itself. Where
it came from, how it was created ... the deepest of mysteries.
All that is certain is that its power is absolute. Countless generations
of my people have sacrificed their lives in search of it, to destroy
it before its wrath could be unleashed.
The knights weren't talking about Glory releasing the key's power.
They said before "IT"S POWER CAN BE UNLEASHED".
[> [> [> [> Re:
Question: -- Rufus, 17:33:49 09/02/02 Mon
As the energy form of the key, Dawn could be used by whomever
got their mitts on her...but the monks did a smart thing by making
her human. As a human, and more importantly part of Buffy, Dawn
could interact with the beings that would be most affected by
the use of the key in season 5. As the key in pure energy form,
Dawn existed in a way that was neutral and could not interact
with those who would use her, she couldn't use free will. As a
human, and part of Buffy, Dawn can feel, can care...can see the
consequences of her use. Her shining moment was on that platform
when her first impulse was to attempt to close the portal that
had been opened with her Summers blood. She felt she had to because
the world she had grown to care for would no longer be. The monks
may not have intentionally changed Dawn to the slayers sister
just to get the end result that we saw in The Gift.....but I'd
like to think that the monks understood that for Dawn to be used
as a force for light, that her perspective had to be tranformed
from that of neutrality, to that being, Dawn who learned what
love was because of her "mother" and her sister....and
with that love she couldn't allow others to be harmed, even if
that meant she had to sacrifice herself.
[> [> [> [> [>
interesting point -- meritaten, 19:32:39 09/02/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
Terrific point! -- HonorH, 23:51:07 09/02/02 Mon
I like to think that they picked Buffy's family not just so that
the Slayer could protect the Key, but so that Dawn would be "raised"
with the love of Joyce and Buffy (and Hank, too, as long as he
stuck around). She would also gain their moral center, strong
will, and all those other lovely attributes of the Summers women.
I still really want this explored, darnit!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Terrific point! -- Rufus, 01:05:41 09/03/02
Tue
Well, heck.....if I were a monk and wanted to give humantiy the
best chance I sure wouldn't make Dawn out of say...Harmony or
Warren...I'd be looking for the material that has an inate quality
that would predispose the resulting Dawn with not only a keen
fashion sense, but compassion and the ability to love. Dawn has
been able to cultivate more than a three octive scream, she has
been a "baby" person who has not taken long to catch
onto the love of life as a person. Her actions in season six weren't
bothering me much as I could see that she would act out as long
as her need to be included and loved were being neglected.
In Grave Buffy not only found a new love of life, but for the
first time in awhile saw in Dawn that part of herself she thought
was missing, and it wasn't Buffy was only closed off to experiencing
it. Dawn is the key, not only to the portals between dimensions
but to that quality of light the monks hoped to give to the world.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Growing up fast -- CW, 07:27:28 09/03/02
Tue
One of the themes with Dawn has been 'let me grow up and I will.'
Yes, many of us were weary of her whiney behavior. But, what choice
did she have? Her mother babied her in a motherly way. Buffy treated
her as a little kid when she needed to be taught adult ways of
thinking just to stay alive as the slayer's sister. Once Joyce
died, Buffy's supermom act didn't work at all. Dawn wanted to
mature, but Buffy refused to let her. Children who aren't allowed
to grow up can act very childish, indeed. From OMWF we learn in
an instant that Dawn has been stealing to attract attention, but
no one seems to notice or care. Dawn has whined just to get Buffy
to listen at all. Now that Buffy has been forced to fight back-to-back
with Dawn and to rely on her for once, we can hope that with the
path to adult-like respect open, Dawn's whining days are mostly
over.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Growing up fast -- CW, 07:43:35
09/03/02 Tue
Oops! Kind of got carried away and forgot my tie to this thread.
The point is that Dawn's mindset has been developing from that
of a pre-teen toward that of an adult very quickly since she was
introduced into Buffy's life. She has noticeably matured, and
grown beyond being just the product of the monks' imagination.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Question: -- meritaten, 19:34:45 09/02/02 Mon
I pretty sure that it was a spell to see other spells. That is
certainly the way it worked!
About the Knights.... Did they fear the power in a general sense,
or fear what Glory would do with it? Did they see any potential
for good to come of the Key? While I hadn't understood why the
monks sought to preserve the Key, it was clear by the time Gregor
made the above statement that Dawn, at least, was good and worth
preserving. THe knights refused to consider this. They seemed
(to me at least) to be stuck with the mindset that Key=Evil.
[> [> [> Re: In "Spiral"
-- meritaten, 19:20:00 09/02/02 Mon
Two questions that I have:
1. Perhaps destroy is an inaccurate term. WHy did the monks not
divert the energy to another purpose, thereby dissipating its
potential for evil? An analogy for my question is why didn't they
detonate the bomb in a deserted area, thereby preventing its use
for opening the portal?
2. Is the Buffyverse held to the same rules of physics as the
real world? I mean, magics, the undead, very different take on
evolution, etc. - this leads me to believe that Joss could find
a way to do most anything. Just call it mystical.
[> [> [> [> Answering
your questions -- Scroll, 10:10:56 09/04/02 Wed
1. The monks believed that the Key could be used for good and
thought that its potential for good shouldn't be destroyed just
because Glory could also use it for evil. So they tried to hide
the Key. The Byzantium knights (also good guys but with a different
agenda) refused to take the chance that the Key could fall into
the hands of evil (i.e. Glory). I don't think the knights ever
saw Dawn/Key as 'evil' -- rather Dawn was like a nuclear weapon.
She had the power to destroy all life, and so the knights were
trying to 'defuse the bomb' by killing her. The monks knew the
Key was powerful, but hoped that this power could be used for
good instead (though we never find out how since the monks are
all dead).
Even after the knights learned the Key was just a teenaged girl,
they had to weigh the possible destruction of the universe against
the life of one girl. Giles, as a Watcher, agreed with the knights
(though reluctantly). He would've killed Dawn if that was what
had to be done, even though it would've destroy Buffy. And though
Buffy loved Giles, she promised she would kill him if he dared
to go near Dawn. Ultimately, Giles didn't have to make that decision.
2. I have no idea what the rules of physics in the Buffyverse
are. Apparently Joss makes it up as he goes along!
Hope that helps,
Scroll.
[> [> Re: In "Spiral"
-- meritaten, 19:11:39 09/02/02 Mon
If SMG leaves the show after S7, this might be a way of making
DAwn an interesting slayer. Dawn thinks her powers are no longer
active, but when I watched the monks struggling to save her, I
had to wonder why. Maybe Joss was planning for the possibility
of SMG leaving? Maybe Dawn will be an uber-slayer in an attempt
to retain the audience?
I'm having trouble seing Dawn as a slayer, but it would make sense
to have someone we know take over. Dawn does have some good qualities
(I believe there is another post on this now).
Randon thoughts after spending the weekend engrossed in books
on theoretical debates and middle paleolithic hand-axes. (thus,
I have an excuse if this is all non-sense.)
[> Re: The Key and the Monks
-- Cleanthes,
20:01:45 09/02/02 Mon
How did the key come into existence in the first place? Perhaps
destroying it wantonly, as the Knights of Byzantium wished to
do, would piss off the creator(s) of the key.
Really, however did there come to be such a key? Surely knowing
the origin and the purpose would help in deciding what should
be done. The Knights knew nothing of this, but instead decided
to destroy what they couldn't understand. This is the false hope
of a return to Eden.
The monks didn't really know what they were doing either, as far
as I can see, but at least they didn't worship ignorance the way
the Knights did. The monks intended to find out, only Glory
intruded.
I've always felt that the power of the key was used to create
Dawn, because the amount of dimensional shifting necessary seems
too great for some monks. The dying monk didn't have time to explain
in detail, and that's good from a dramatic standpoint. I don't
want to know too soon, nor do I like long expository tellings
anyway.
[> From 3/27/02: Dawn, Pandora
and the Key (Part I) -- yes, again... -- cjl, 18:16:52
09/04/02 Wed
My views on Dawn, the Monks and the origins of the Key should
be well-known by now (God knows I've repeated this essay like
a bad beef burrito), but just in case you've forgotten....
* * * * * * *
Prologue: And thus, after one thousand times one thousand years,
the battle ended and the Beasts were defeated. The Great Powers,
victorious yet exhausted, once again called upon the living flame
of their immortal spirit, the Emerald Fire, and sealed the Old
Ones into the dark recesses of the Netherworld. The Beasts [Baal,
Aurelius, Baphomet, Mephistopheles, Glorificus and her brothers]
vowed to stand at the gates of Hell until their moment of vengeance
would arrive. And then they were gone.
The Avatar of the Powers came before the Shaman with the Emerald
Fire. The Shaman averted his eyes, fearing he was not worthy to
stand in the purity of the flame; but the Avatar smiled and bid
the Shaman to look into the heart of the Fire--and in so doing,
see the fire of his own heart reflected within.
"Our time is done," said the Avatar. "We have battled
the enemy around the court of creation, scattered the stars across
the night sky, and turned the space between the stars as cold
as death. The universe is safe for our children to flourish--but
there is nothing left of the home that we once knew. It is time
for us to leave."
The Shaman fell to his knees and begged the Avatar not to abandon
the race of Men. "As long as you keep the Fire," said
the Avatar, "there will always be a part of us with you."
The Shaman reached out his Hand, and the Emerald Fire came to
him, whispered gently into his ear, and was bonded to his spirit.
The Avatar was pleased. "There will come a day," he
told the Shaman, "when the enemy will grow strong again and
all our work may yet be undone. The bond between the Hand and
the Fire must be kept holy." The Shaman cried out in confusion:
how was the race of Man to keep this covenant? How will they know
when the time of crisis arrives? "You will know," said
the Avatar.
The Avatar ascended to rejoin the Great Powers, and the Shaman
was alone.
* * * * * * * * *
According to Greek legend (and to quote from Bullfinch's Mythology),
"before the earth and sea and heaven were created, all things
wore one aspect, to which we gave the name Chaos--God and Nature
at last interposed, and put an end to this discord, separating
earth from sea, and heaven from both." (Taking a Buffy-centric
view of the legend, right from the beginning, we had the two ultimate
forces of the Whedonverse in opposition: Chaos and Order.) After
the earth was formed and the natural landscape established, the
Titans took up residence, and set about to create a custodian
for the natural wonders of the Earth. The task fell to one of
the greatest of their race: Prometheus.
"Prometheus took some of this earth, and kneading it up with
water made man in the image of the gods. He gave him an upright
stature, so that while all other animals turn their faces downward,
and look to the earth, he raises his to heaven, and gazes on the
stars." (Very important point in distinguishing vampires
and demons from humans: Man is special to the Gods because the
human race eschews animal instinct and can look upon the face
of the divine.) To ensure Man's exalted place on Earth, "Prometheus...went
up to heaven, and lighted his torch at the chariot of the sun,
and brought down fire to man. With this gift man was more than
a match for the other animals. It enabled him to make weapons
wherewith to subdue them; tools with which to cultivate the Earth...and
finally to introduce the arts and to coin money...the means of
trade and commerce."
Not for nothing is Prometheus known to mythologists and poets
(Milton, Tennyson) alike as the Father of Civilization. His role
is cherished all the more because of the heavy price he supposedly
paid for his generosity. (Jupiter, the all-father of the Titans,
felt that fire was the exclusive property of the Gods, and that
Prometheus' gift was too dangerous to leave in the hands of Mankind.)
But Prometheus, despite that eagle picking at his liver for all
eternity, never recanted, never regretted his actions. He knew
that if Man was to do the work of the Gods on Earth, the Gods
would have to step back and let them struggle, stumble, and ultimately
triumph on their own.
My excerpt from the Buffy Book of Genesis above is pretty much
the story of Prometheus in Joss' clothing. The Powers that Be
acknowledged that there was now a balance in the universe between
Order and Chaos, and that continued meddling in the day-to-day
workings of the universe would upset the balance. So they passed
the torch--the Emerald Fire--to the children they made from the
clay and water of the Earth, and took their leave.
The Emerald Fire, of course, eventually came to be known as The
Key.
"Ah," I can hear some of the veteran posters saying,
"I get it. The Shaman figure is supposed be something like
the original Watcher. The Hand symbolically represents the line
of Slayers under his tutelage. Eventually, the Hand and the Fire--in
this case, Buffy and Dawn--are supposed to unite during the Ultimate
Crisis, and knock the Old Ones back into Hell." Something
like that, yes. But that's not the whole story. There are a number
of puzzling aspects to the history of the Key; and if we extrapolate
the entire back story from the events of Seasons Five and Six,
maybe we can clear those up...
Puzzling Aspect #1: It's Always About the Blood
It was so very dramatic--Glory had Dawn tied up on the tower,
and following the ancient ritual, was about to bleed the poor
kid to death in order to open the dimensional gateways. I think
we all felt a little emotional when Buffy...uh, wait a minute.
I think Spike has a question. Yes, Spike?
"Y'know, I never thought about it before, but...how the bloody
hell could there be an 'ancient sacrificial ritual' for the Key?
I mean, the sodding Key was nothing but a glob of green sunshine
for eons until the monks turned it into the Li'l Bit. I've heard
about foresight, but not even Dru was that good." A point
for the vampire with the peroxide fetish. I wondered about that
myself. Yes, you could make a case for prophecy--but for once,
I'd rather go for a simpler and much more satisfying explanation:
"The Gift" wasn't the first time the Key was used as
a blood sacrifice.
It's part of the Promethean legacy that Mankind abused the gift
of fire and brought down the wrath of the Gods. (The Great Flood
as punishment for Man's transgressions with fire is a common myth
in many civilizations.) So why should anything be different in
the Buffyverse? Imagine that the Shaman and his descendants slowly
evolved into the rudiments of what we now know as the Watchers
Council. I find it highly unlikely that the Council, even in its
formative stages, could resist using a weapon like the Key against
the demons plaguing mankind. So--since we're still talking about
Early Man here--they must have shaped the Key into an animal sacrifice
and offered it up to the Gods in exchange for power against the
Enemy. Naturally, the attempt ended in disaster. The fabric of
time and space was badly damaged and only the strongest of the
mystics among the ur-Council could prevent the dimensional barriers
from shattering completely. The end result? A bleeding wound in
the time/space continuum...
Yep. The first hellmouth.
I admit, a lot of this is pure speculation, but it fits, doesn't
it? Through the ages, there must have been more attempts, equally
disastrous, creating more of those interdimensional anomalies
that Buffy and Star Trek love so much. I'm guessing a schism developed
in the Council around 1100 A.D. (the founding of the Order of
Dagon), and a renegade faction took off with the Key to the eastern
part of the Roman Empire, hoping to keep it safe from further
tampering. The Council, to its frustration, lost track of their
renegades and the Key, but rumors spread around Constantinople
about a mystical ball of energy with apocalyptic power. With the
blessing of the Church, a legion of holy warriors set out to find
the Key and destroy it. This ancient sect scoured the Earth for
centuries, until their quest finally ended in late 2001--when
Glory wiped out the last of the Knights of Byzantium ("Spiral"/"Weight
of the World").
Puzzling Aspect #2: Why Dawn?
Ever since Dawn almost literally popped into existence at the
start of Season Five, Buffyphiles have been debating the nature
of her existence, her relationship to Buffy, and her ultimate
purpose in the series. But the one aspect of Dawn's creation that
seems to have baffled everyone is her humanity. Why did the monks
make her human? Since Glory apparently needed blood to shatter
the dimensional barriers, why didn't the monks transform the Key
into, say, a bicycle pump (or a spacious, but comfortable living
room sofa)? Would've been much easier to protect, less cleanup--and
a lot less whining.
Let's try to analyze the monks' line of thought. October 2000:
the remnants of their order were holed up in a lamasery somewhere
in the Czech Republic, and they knew Glory was going to track
them down within days, if not minutes. Three facts weighed heavily
on their minds: 1) they were all going to die; 2) Glory was going
to get the Key; and 3) the arrival of the Beast on Earth was most
likely a sign of the upcoming Ultimate Conflict or...The End of
Days (cue dramatic music).
Obviously, their first and only priority was to get the Key to
safety. Since they couldn't trust the CoW (and that's a disturbingly
common problem in this series), they decided to send the Key to
Buffy, who had already broken virtually every precedent in Slayerdom
with her first resurrection, her defeat of the Master, and her
well-deserved reputation for not taking crap from the Council
or anybody else, living or dead, on this planet.
But more than that, they sent the Key to the Slayer because the
Key belonged with the Slayer. Without the Emerald Fire, the Hand
is only dust and water; and without the Hand, the Emerald Fire
is without form or focus. Only the Hand and Fire, working in unison,
could stop the End of Days. And this is where the humanity part
of the equation comes in. If the monks were custodians of the
Key for centuries, they must have been doing more than taking
shifts guarding a glowing green ball of sunshine. ("Two a.m.,
Ralph. Bathroom break.") I can imagine a long series of philosophical
debates over sacred texts, interpretations of portents, and analysis
of historical events, all centering on their precious burden.
They must have asked themselves, over and over again: How could
Mankind keep its covenant with the Powers that Be? What did the
Council do wrong when they wielded the Key all those times before?
And how would they shape the Key when the moment of crisis arrived?
Their answer to all of these questions was both elegant and poetic.
The great gift the Powers That Be bestowed upon Mankind was twofold:
the capacity for Free Will and the freedom to use it. They entrusted
humanity with the Emerald Fire, and despite all the screw-ups
along the way, they had faith that Man would eventually learn
from its mistakes and earn that trust. What greater way to honor
the first covenant, the monks must have thought, than to return
the blessing. Mold the Key into human form, infuse it with hopes,
memories and dreams. Instead of endless non-existence as a cold,
lifeless tool manipulated by the Council, the Key would have Free
Will, and it would decide its own future. The risks, of course,
would be great: in human form, the blood of the Key could be spilled
and open the gates to Chaos again. But the monks were sure they
had the answer for the crisis to come: Human. Sister to the Slayer.
Young, so her powers would blossom at exactly the proper moment.
With the love of sisters, The Hand and the Fire would hold off
Eternal Night, and there will be a new morning.
A new Dawn.
Questions
about Spike's chip (spoilers) -- Quentin Collins, 23:53:05
09/02/02 Mon
In rewatching "The Initiative" I noticed that at first
Spike's chip seemed to prevent only his biting humans. He seemed
to be able to do physical harm to them without triggering the
chip. Much of what he did in escaping from the Initiative's holding
area would have seemingly triggered the chip as it functioned
in later episodes. Was this merely a plot revision devised in
later episodes for a certain creative purpose or is there a likely
explanation for it (maybe the chip's signal wasn't at full strength
or couldn't be received inside the Initiative)?
Spike's chip will still be functioning at the beginning of season
seven according to seemingly reliable spoilers. It seems that
from an artistic point of view that it has to cease functioning
at some point, doesn't it? His restored soul would not amount
to much without him having the freedom to choose his own path
-- which includes choosing whether to prey on humans or refrain
from doing so.
So do you think the chip will stop functioning or be removed this
season? If so, how and under what cirumstances do you speculate
it might happen? Could ME make some sort of clear or even subtle
conceptual connection with the themes of "A Clockwork Orange"
with Spike's path?
[> My pet theory: --
HonorH, 23:56:19 09/02/02 Mon
The chip was only activated after he escaped. Therefore, the Initiative
lab was his last chance for a good meal before going cold turkey.
Or cold pig. Whatever.
[> Re: Questions about Spike's
chip (spoilers) -- Rufus, 00:51:17 09/03/02 Tue
So do you think the chip will stop functioning or be removed
this season? If so, how and under what cirumstances do you speculate
it might happen? Could ME make some sort of clear or even subtle
conceptual connection with the themes of "A Clockwork Orange"
with Spike's path?
Doug Petries comment on Spike in The Initiative was "we Clockwork
Orange'd Spike"....they did screw up visually in his getaway
the fact that the chip should have kicked in...also in the hallway
at the school he didn't seem to always react....so I think of
that as oversights more than an indication of the chip not doing
it's job. As for this season, I'm trying to figure out how they
are going to deal with the chip.
[> Re: Questions about Spike's
chip (spoilers) -- luvthistle1, 01:38:13 09/03/02 Tue
I always wonder about "the chip". If the chip prevented
him from harming humans,how was he able to fight his way out of
"The Initiative "? In "as you were" how was
able to pull on Riley, without the chip working?
[> Joss quote on ATPoBtVS&Ats
-- Quentin Collins, 01:49:49 09/03/02 Tue
There is a Joss quote about the "Initiative" episode
provided by Masquerade in the text about the chip. I hadn't noticed
it before.
[> Please indulge me in
one more chip question -- Cigarette Smoking Vampire, 02:01:37
09/03/02 Tue
I know that "Buffy" is not "Star Trek" and
the science of how things work is not meant to be obsessed over
too much. But how exactly does the chip work? I don't mean on
a neural level, but how is it powered? Is there any real world
device that is powered in a similar way (like a heart pacemaker
or something)?
In "Smashed" Warren concludes that there is "no
deterioration of the signal. It is coming through on a steady
pulse."
Is there some sort of tiny battery in the chip? Might it run down
like the bloody batteries in my watches always do at an inopportune
time? Or does the chip receive a signal from some external source
from satellites or some device at a secret government location?
While I am no Luddite and do know how to program my VCR, I know
next to nothing about how most things work. I am sure that many
on this board have some insights about this.
Man alive, I am starting to sound like a possible replacement
for Warren in the "nerd herd". Where is my magic bone
when I need it?
[> Possible answers
-- Darby, 09:50:09 09/03/02 Tue
It's quite possible that the chip had to integrate itself into
Spike's "wetware" and so did not fully function right
off the bat (so to speak). That is commonly true for real-world
implants, not that there's anything all that comparable. And early
on, it reacted to big inputs (intent to kill) but was inconsistent
on lesser acts. As many people here know, my pet theory is that
it reacts solely to processes it picks up from Spike's subconscious
and sensory centers, which it likely would have taken a while
to analyze.
As for power, it's theoretically possible for it to run on the
brain's electrochemistry (assuming vamps have that) and to produce
"shocks" that are really modified pain sensations, which
would require much less energy than actually administering a shock
to the brain. It would run until the salts in the tissues corroded
it - again, if vamps have that.
- Darby, who is right now remembering a neuromuscular shock experiment
when a group of students were attacked by a headless frog. Fun!
[> [> Re: Possible answers
-- leslie, 11:43:04
09/03/02 Tue
I've been operating on the "adaptation to wetware" hypothesis
myself. It's an interesting proposition, that the chip could be
corroded by tissue salts, though. I can't imagine that the Initiative
would have taken the time and energy to construct a long-term
chip--they would want to test it out and then kill the subject,
I would imagine. I suddenly have very hilarious images of the
possibilities for when the chip goes wonky. Inexplicable pain
ensues whenever he turns off ("kills") the television,
for instance. He *can't* pick flowers. He gets a high-pitched
ringing in his ears whenever he's around kittens.
[> [> Re: Possible answers
-- shadowkat, 12:11:36 09/03/02 Tue
This is actually very similar to my own pet theory.
I decided that it didn't activate until he actually tried to kill
someone. Prior to biting Willow, the worst Spike did was knock
a few people around and misdirect a syringe meant for him. But
once he tries to bite Willow - wham! OW!
So two things - one it needed time acclimate itself to his brain
like most implants and two it needed an extreem violent act to
trigger it.
Now...like leslie, I've been wondering what they are going to
do with it next. Will it short out? Will some new big bad figure
it out and rewire it to hurt people? So he feels pain when he
hurts demons and not people? Or feels pain when he doesn't try
to kill people? Or did it short out way before he got the soul?
Just curious as to why the writers decided to let him keep the
chip.
Personally I like leslie's theory best. LEt the thing slowly short
out and plague him at the oddest times. I think I recall DeKnight
saying that the chip has a way of acting up when he goes through
security detectors at the airport. LOL! Poor Spike.
[> [> [> Re: Possible
answers -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:35:23 09/03/02 Tue
Actually, if you pay close attention, there is a scene in the
Initiative labs where, when Spike is escaping, he hits one of
the doctors and for the first time clutches his head as the chip
gives him a jolt. However, other than that, he simply shoved and
threw the doctors, which apparently doesn't register as violent
behaviour.
I agree the chip eroding would be a fun storyling, but before
that happens, here's something I want to see:
Spike, utterly miserable and depressed as is typical of souled
vampires, hooks up with a human woman for the night. However,
in the process of sex, the woman naturally feels some pain, causing
Spike's chip to go off right in the middle of the act.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Possible answers -- leslie,
13:09:21 09/03/02 Tue
"However, in the process of sex, the woman naturally feels
some pain..."
Naturally? Are you implying that women can't have sex without
feeling pain, or that Spike is incapable of having sex without
inflicting pain? At least one of these propositions is debatable.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Possible answers -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:19:50 09/03/02
Tue
By naturally I meant that it occurred during the normal process
of sex, not through some S&M thing. From what I've read, women
experiencing pain during intercourse is not supremely unusual.
It may not happen all the time, or even often, but if it doesn't
happen occasionally then I have been supremely misinformed.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Possible answers -- leslie,
15:09:16 09/03/02 Tue
Being a copy editor just takes all the fun out of life, you know?
I would advise saying "woman feels pain naturally" rather
than "naturally feels pain."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> o/t--how many copyeditors do we have on the board
anyway? -- anom, 21:56:39 09/03/02 Tue
leslie, HonorH, & me--anyone else? We could start a club! Or a
fanfic editing service?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> does technical writer count? -- Vickie,
22:29:39 09/03/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: o/t--how many copyeditors do we have
on the board anyway? -- Darby, 05:45:59 09/04/02 Wed
Does editing selected textbook chapters get me in the club?
Or correcting research papers - I do lots of that.
Is anybody out there still teaching English composition?
WorldCon:
All Things Do in Fact Lead to BtVS -- Buffyboy, 02:27:24
09/03/02 Tue
A specter is haunting WorldCon, the specter of the Buffyverse.
During much of my stay at WorldCon the specter of the Buffyverse
and just as often the specter of its creator Joss, like some uncanny
apparitions, refused to be put to rest. Hardly a panel meeting
went by without the invocation of either the Buffyverse or its
creator echoing throughout the room.
Yet ConJose began for me at least with a resounding thud. Since
the atpobtvs dinner was scheduled for 5:30 PM and there was an
explicitly Buffy panel beginning at 4:00 PM I decided to show
up early and take in the panel entitled: "The Buffy Season
Pattern." To call the presentations at this panel disorganized
would be to do a great disservice to the disorganized. Though
mercifully short, the panelists rambled on without ever saying
what the alleged patterns were or how any of the Buffy seasons
actually fit into these ill-defined patterns. Within minutes after
the panel commenced both Vicki and Fresne walked out, while Dochawk
and I stayed to the bitter end. Actually, once the audience began
asking questions things improved to some degree for many of the
audience members were avid BtVS fans and seemed often to know
more about BtVS than the panelists. So went the only panel I attended
on Saturday and as of yet there was no evidence of the specter
of the Buffyverse.
Being a glutton for punishment as well as being told by a number
of people that some of the Buffy panels prior to Saturday afternoon's
were actually fairly good, I decided to return to ConJose on Sunday
morning to take my chances. The first panel I attended on Sunday
had the inauspicious title: "The Future of the Future."
It was during this panel that I first began to suspect that the
conference was haunted by the Buffyverse. From two of the panelists
I learned that very soon we human beings would no longer have
to die. The process of aging would soon be brought to a halt and
disease too would no longer be a threat to human life. The only
threat to human life would then be death by accident. The more
"pessimistic" member of the panel propounding this view
believed that since the mean time between accidental death was
400 years we could expect to live on the average for that long,
while the more "optimistic" member thought we could
theoretically live forever. They both believed that all of this
was absolutely wonderful. "To live Forever, only subject
to accidental death" I thought, "just like Vampires!"
As I sat there wondering whether to laugh or gag at this notion,
one of the other panelists seemed to share my dismay and recounted
a short story she had read as a young girl-- she couldn't remember
either the name of the story or its author. In this story human
beings could only die by a fairly extreme accident like being
blown to pieces or being dismembered. This lead these future humans
to expend much of their energies avoiding any type of situation
that might give rise to one of these extreme accidents. Instead
of living, all that concerned them was not dying; in a word they
became the Undead. She then went on to point out that the unintended
and sometimes-unknowable social consequences of such a development
would be truly staggering. And it would surely be a good bet that
not all of these consequences would be beneficial for human beings.
Such a facile technologically induced utopianism has a long history
in modern Western thought but my jaw dropped in amazement to hear
such position openly articulated in these cynical "post-modern"
times-not that I would want to defend these still all too fashionably
"post-modern" position either. After this first panel
I really needed to get some strong coffee to ready myself for
the next intervention of the Buffyverse.
The second panel I attended on Sunday was entitled: "Getting
a TV Series Off the Ground." Here I was confident that the
Buffyverse would make appearance and I turned out to be right.
This panel was composed of one member who had created a TV series
that actually made it to the airwaves and three members who had
attempted but failed to create their own TV programs. Just before
the panel was about to begin, upon hearing that one of the panelist
had once actually been successful in creating his own TV series,
one of the wannabe TV series creators suddenly began to do his
best impression of Season 6 Dawn. He banged his head slowly on
the table and began to loudly whine about how network TV executives
never paid enough attention to his ideas or really listened to
what he had to say. After this remarkable impersonation the panel
surprisingly proved to be both interesting and informative. Yet
the specter of the Buffyverse was far from satiated. As the one
panelist who had succeeded in creating a TV series began to describe
his current attempt to create a new TV series, he explicitly called
upon the powers of Buffyverse to aid him in his new endeavor.
He described his new project as "1930's SiFi with Buffy sensibility."
It mattered not what, if anything, was meant by the phrase "Buffy
sensibility," for it was indubitably an incantation meant
to harness what he hoped was the magic power of the Buffyverse
and its creator Joss. For according to each of these panelists
there is no rhyme or reason whatsoever to the decision-making
processes of network executives. When it comes to trying to decide
which series proposals might ultimately become hits, these executives
have no reliable criteria with which to determine the more likely
candidates and thus their decisions are made on a whim or in an
entirely capricious manner. In such an imponderable situation
the wannabe TV series creator seemed to need to resort to magic
and what seemed to be the most powerful magic around was the Buffyverse.
My penultimate Sunday panel was entitled: "Computer History:
From Homebrew to Corporate R&D." In this panel the haunting
by the Buffyverse appeared to have ended for no one had so much
as even mentioned Willow's computer acumen and all the panelists
remained content to tell stories about their own involvement in
the birth of PC without once invoking the Buffyverse. Yet much
to my amazement it turned out that the Buffyverse was not completely
inactive even in this panel. Sometime after the panel concluded
I found out that the moderator of the panel is a big Buffy fan,
though he claims that his favorite episode is "Go Fish"--
go figure. The Buffyverse moves in strange ways.
The next panel would be the only explicit Buffy panel on Sunday,
the dreaded "The Dead Lesbian Myth-Buffy and the Death of
Tara." This panel was held in a fairly large meeting room
and I would guess there were 200 persons in attendance. Both the
presentations of the panelists and the reaction of the audience
were actually remarkably restrained. Many who spoke indicated
that they found Tara's death not only disturbing but also part
of an extremely problematic story line with one of the panelists
maintaining that the death of Tara story arc should receive a
grade of C+. Most in fact expressed significant reservation about
Season 6 as a whole though there were a few who defended it. In
the end the content of the discussion was not surprising-- readers
of this board would have head absolutely nothing new. What was
remarkable was the entirely civil tone. No one, even the Kitten
Board members sitting near the front of the audience, expressed
overt hostility to Joss or ME. No one called for a boycott of
ME, screamed out that Joss was a homophobe or wished eternal damnation
on everything Buffy. Whether tempers have cooled over the long
summer or the restrained manner of the panelists set a civil tone
that was too difficult to contradict I do not know. Perhaps the
specter of the Buffyverse was simply working its magic.
Overall BtVS seems extremely popular among those attending the
convention. Throughout the convention there were six panels dealing
exclusively with things Buffy, by far the largest number concerning
one specific topic. A significant minority of those attending
the convention can cite Buffy chapter and verse and a number of
the organizers of the convention fall into this category. Since
I'm not a big SiFi fan and knew nothing of the make-up of the
SiFi community, I was surprised to find so many who passionately
love BtVS in this community. I was quite taken by the fact that
so many people who were devoted to a serious consideration of
SiFi literature as well as a number of the authors of this literature
itself were interested in a serious consideration of BtVS. Much
like this board, its nice to have one's judgement confirmed by
people whose opinions deserve respect.
On my way home I needed to take the light rail to where my car
was parked, but about halfway through the rail trip I decided
to get off for a bite to eat. After I ate I walked back to the
rail stop to sit on a bench and wait for the train. Since the
strong coffee I had consumed that morning had by then worn off
I was feeling rather sleepy and closed my eyes. The clanging of
the approaching trolley gently warned me of its arrival and encouraged
me to open eyes. As I opened by eyes I saw that across the street
there was a bail bonds office with a sign announcing: Buffy/Sparacio
Bail Bonds Inc. Established 1950. So the next time you're in San
Jose California and find yourself in jail all you need to do is
call Buffy. All things do in fact lead to BtVS.
[> Your report is appreciated
-- CW, 06:21:56 09/03/02 Tue
[> Re: WorldCon: All Things
Do in Fact Lead to BtVS -- rc, 08:45:04 09/03/02 Tue
"... the moderator of the panel is a big Buffy fan, though
he claims that his favorite episode is "Go Fish"-- go
figure."
Hey, maybe he's that infamous friend/not-friend of Bachman who
gave him..... wait, never mind......
Interesting review! Thanks, Bb.
[> "Buffy Sensibility?"
Whoa! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:22:53 09/03/02 Tue
As the one panelist who had succeeded in creating a TV series
began to describe his current attempt to create a new TV series,
he explicitly called upon the powers of Buffyverse to aid him
in his new endeavor. He described his new project as "1930's
SiFi with Buffy sensibility."
Am I the only one who finds this significant? That a phrase like,
"Buffy sensibility" can be tossed off without comment
or explanation, in the expectation of complete understanding?
Okay, granted, it was at a Con, but still.
What struck me about it was that, while it might be ultimately
undefinable, "Buffy sensibility" is something I grok
immediately, that all of us here grok, and that it is a unique
phenomenon. So I start to think: What constitues "Buffy sensibility?"
What is it?
Things that come to mind: fantasy, metaphor, hero's journey, humour,
wit, sarcasm, snappy dialogue, female empowerment, youth, fashion,
etc, etc, etc.
Help me out here...
;o)
[> [> Re: Once More with
"Buffy Sensibility?" -- Buffyboy, 22:50:38 09/03/02
Tue
When I first heard the wannabe TV producer say "Buffy sensibility"
I actually didn't think too much of it. Later that day when I
was telling Vicki about this panel she said something to the effect
that what the phrase meant wasn't so important, what mattered
was what the phrase alluded to. This conversation and a bit more
reflection convinced me that both the Buffyverse and Joss really
haunt the wannabe TV producers and writers. The phrase "Buffy
sensibility" carries intimations of the Buffy/Joss success.
From the TV producers point of view Joss is both deeply admired
and deeply envied. (1) He is God almighty. When they discussed
how poor wannabe TV producers are chewed up and spit out by the
network executives they added, except Joss of course, he can do
whatever he wants. After all Joss has somehow gotten Fox to put
Firefly on the air, a series idea that a couple of the panelists
thought was absolutely stillborn (2) He is just another guy with
a wacky story idea, just like them, who somehow got real lucky.
From this point of view, wrapping one's idea in the Buffy-flag
makes a perverse sort of sense for either the magic of the Buffyverse
or some of Joss' power might rub off. The bottom line is that
at least in this context the phrase "Buffy sensibility"
is seen as a possible shortcut to success where the right direction
to head is completely up in the air.
[> [> Re: "Buffy
Sensibility?" Whoa! ;o) -- Rahael, 04:27:47 09/04/02
Wed
Agree with you - I do think it's unique - but then i watch so
little television, and even less American television so is it
that unique?
Are there any other programmes that share its sensibility?
Age and CJL have mentioned 'The Prisoner', (a show that I mean
to purchase and haven't yet). Does the Prisoner share in the 'Buffy
sensibility'?
To me it is characterised not only by what WW has suggested (though
I'd take out the bit about 'hero's journey' lol) but by it's determination
to take on huge themes - life and death. Not only female empowerment,
but a systematic questioning of grand narratives and structures
of authority. Many tv shows have snappy dialogue and humour, but
Buffy also acknowledges that humour and hope can be found in the
midst of a hell(mouth). More than all of this, for me, is a kind
of sadness, a melancholy alleviated by wit and laughter. It cuts
through schmaltz and sentimentality. Plus, as Joss remarked, it
has rocket launchers as well.
[> [> [> The Prisoner
-- Cactus Watcher, 06:08:00 09/04/02 Wed
The show had very little in common with Buffy. It was, however,
like Buffy, fairly unique for it's time. The Prisoner relied much
more on symbolism than the average show of it's day, but that
symbolism was not at all of the subtle variety. More often than
not it smacked the hero in the face. The only real connection
with Buffy, other than it's uniqueness, was than it's season (and
series) conclusion was startling and made sense of everthing that
happened before it. That is not something shows of that day bothered
to do. Unlike Buffy, it was from Britain. Unlike Buffy, it was
not a big success in its day.
The Prisoner was virtually a one-man-show. It shared much with
the serious spy genre in books of the time. The hero was almost
as mysterious as his captors. We got to know almost nothing about
him except his desire to escape. The villains, straight from Brave
New World, were all but faceless and completely interchangeable.
The episodes before finale did not have a step-by-step relationship
to each other. That was something that was just starting to be
seen in long-running shows then.
[> [> [> [> Ahem!
"Prisoner" fan would like to add something here...
-- cjl, 08:23:40 09/04/02 Wed
If the symbolism wasn't always "of the subtle" variety,
the MEANING of those symbols wasn't easy to pin down, either.
At its best, "The Prisoner" worked on three levels:
the story of the British spy trying to escape the Village; the
symbolic struggle of Man against Society; and the struggle of
Man against Himself in the modern world. (One theme or the other
would predominate in any given episode, but all three were in
play.) Trying to definitively pin down the symbolism in such a
multi-leveled structure was just as fruitless with "The Prisoner"
as it is with Buffy.
I would stack up the top episodes of "The Prisoner"--the
pilot, "Free for All" (a hilariously cynical political
satire), "Hammer Into Anvil," "Living in Harmony"
(the Western episode), "Many Happy Returns," and, of
course, the mind-blowing series finale, "Fall Out"--with
anything on TV today, including Buffy. In fact, CW, go to my Prisoner
thread in the archives (if you can find it) and read my commentary
at the end. You might find that Buffy and The Prisoner have more
in common than you think.
(O/T: Is anybody else upset that the Prisoner DVD box set is a
bloated ten disks, priced at an ungodly US$110.00? I mean, I love
the series, but how can I possibly justify this on my budget?
Why didn't they put three episodes to a disk, and price it to
go at $50, just like the Buffy S2 box? It's unfair, I tell you.
This smacks of a Village conspiracy...)
-- cjl, sulking
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Fan would like to add something here... -- CW, 20:19:11
09/04/02 Wed
It's not surprising that you found specific similarlies between
Buffy and The Prisoner. But, implying there is much overall similarity
between the two series in tone, content, theme or ideology would
be misleading to say the least.
It's fine that you like and recommend The Prisoner. I saw it all
in it's first run in the US. I certainly didn't hate it. But,
unlike Buffy, it was never a show I looked forward to. As I said
in the thread you mentioned above, in many ways the final episode
made the whole series worth watching.
The Prisoner wasn't particularly groundbreaking in theme (Huxley
and Orwell were all the rage in those days), and I think it can
be argued successfully that for the audience it was intended for
in the 1960's the symbolism was obvious in form and transparent
in meaning. We'd seen all of that before, and there isn't so much
story (or scenery) in one of the half-hour eps that you'd miss
much in the way of symbols. It was in the presentation that the
series was remarkable for its time.
[> [> Buffy Sensibility
-- Darby, 07:07:49 09/04/02 Wed
I would expect "Buffy sensibility" in a tv pitch would
be shorthand for...
- A blend of witty dialogue and action.
- Perhaps a fuzzing of genre lines.
- The ability to succeed even though everyone knows that
your premise and name is absolutely not going to be successful.
If Firefly hits at all, this part will become gospel.
We know that there's lots more to Jossvision, but I don't expect
the subtler elements to be expected in a "Buffy sensibility"
as far as other producers as concerned.
[> An entertaining review
about bein unentertained! Thanks! -- Rahael, 09:58:02 09/03/02
Tue
rc - LOLOL re the friend.
[> Some World Con, some
other stuff -- fresne, 10:29:03 09/03/02 Tue
Well, I'll admit for my part I was struck by, of the two Buffy
panels I made it to (mostly I followed Lois McMaster Bujold around.
So, my Con experience was that all paths lead to Lois, and quite
possibly the dinner scene in "A Civil Campaign") was
how many of the speakers and audience members were new Buffy viewers.
I mean it was hilarious, at the Buffy Innovative?/Buffy in the
SciFi Ghetto? panel, one the panel members didn't want to be spoiled
because he's seen season 6 and (I think) season 1.
Which is kind of interesting, when as Buffyboy points out, the
majority of panels about a television show were about Buffy (6
versus 1 Trek discussion). This may have something to do with
World Con's focus, books.
There weren't very many movie/television panels, demonstrations,
previews. There were tons of publishing reps, agents, panels on
how to write, how to get published, literary dissection of trends
in books, author readings, coffee klatches with authors, and of
course the Hugos, which have a Dramatic Presentation category,
but focus primarily on books, novellas and short stories. I mean,
they have a Fanzine Editing Category.
I'd say more re: the Con, but I'm still working off the sleep
deprivation thing. I'll try and think of something relevant to
say in a bit. By which time, quite possibly, relevancy will be
long dead.
So, since I didn't have an opportunity to do so earlier (and now
it's gone), shadowcat, Great essay! Much to chew on.
And with regards to the whole, discussion of witches (FYI: one
of my costumes this weekend was Persephone, my reasons for mentioning
this will become clear in a moment.)
"Wherefore her voice is like the song of the Sirens, who
with their sweet melody entice the passers-by and kill them."
While, I can't be too sure how familiar the writers were with
Greek mythology, the Sirens can be a reference to a despoiled
Edenic existence.
The Sirens, in some Greek myths, were originally nymphs who served
as handmaidens to Persephone (Kore). When Persephone was kidnapped
by Hades, Demeter partially in anger over their inattentiveness
and partially because she was panicked and needed information,
turned the Sirens into bird women. Demeter sent the Sirens flying
all over the earth looking for her daughter. As they searched
and searched, they gained the knowledge which created the seductive
power of their song.
Once Persephone was found and the time share deal was struck,
creating fall and winter, the Sirens resumed some of their duties.
So, while they may sometimes be found on sea shores tempting sailors
to their deaths, they also spend a considerable amount of time
in the underworld, which is why they were frequently depicted
on Greek funerary urns.
What the Sirens offer is not carnal knowledge, but the seductiveness
of knowledge itself. Leap froggingly, which reminds me of a comment
a teacher of mine made about Eve eating the fruit (apples are
more common in Northern climes, but not so much in the Middle
East) because it would gain her knowledge, while Adam ate it because
it was fair (as in it came in a pretty package) and would gain
him knowledge.
And entering briefly into the discussion of the biblical definition
of a witch, who shouldn't be suffered to live, with no actual
textual backup, I had always heard it referred to someone who
communicated/spoke with the dead. Thus King Saul went to (I believe)
the witch of Endor to communicate with Samuel the dead and buried
prophet. As I think about it. King Saul (man) talks to witch of
Endor (woman) who channels/summons/talks to Samuel (dead man/)
who, as a prophet, speaks to God (gender not to be defined by
a quip in brackets).
[> [> Re: Some World
Con, some other stuff -- LadyStarlight, 11:10:24 09/03/02
Tue
And entering briefly into the discussion of the biblical definition
of a witch, who shouldn't be suffered to live, with no actual
textual backup, I had always heard it referred to someone who
communicated/spoke with the dead. Thus King Saul went to (I believe)
the witch of Endor to communicate with Samuel the dead and buried
prophet. As I think about it. King Saul (man) talks to witch of
Endor (woman) who channels/summons/talks to Samuel (dead man/)
who, as a prophet, speaks to God (gender not to be defined by
a quip in brackets).
I've been standing by a definition that I read oh, maybe 10 years
ago? Longer? in that 'witch' can/could be translated from the
Hebrew to 'poisoner'. Which to me makes much more sense
[> [> Re: Some World
Con, some other stuff -- shadowkat, 11:34:16 09/03/02 Tue
Thanks for the compliment fresne! Was wondering what you thought
- particularly about my Faith/Buffy portion.
Of Course it wasn't nice of me to post it all during world con...so
I can't complain. Bad timing.
On the witch stuff...I know very little about this topic.
But I do remember reading a book about Dinah this past year that
touched on this:
The Red Tent - in this retelling of the biblical Dinah story by
a female jewish scholar, (it's somewhat controversial fictional
retelling), the women in the story practice a religion separate
from the men. They worship
the goddesses. Ruth is an oracle. And the women are herbalists.
It's an interesting book. PArticularly in how it shows that the
women, while going along with the more patriarchial religion,
celebrate their own in private.
According to this author, who I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember
the name of, this was something that occurred in biblical times.
I'm wondering if this practice may not have been the root of that
saying in Exodus? Maybe a way of doing away with it? No clue.
Been avoiding the thread since know very little about it and don't
want to be flamed.
[> [> [> I think the
author you're thinking of is... -- BunnyK., 07:56:45 09/05/02
Thu
Anita Diamant, but I'm not sure. I read that a really long time
ago =)
[> [> Re: Some World
Con, some other stuff -- redcat, 12:29:45 09/03/02 Tue
Just a few (very minor and totally OT) notes spurred by
musings on witches, costumes and
putative authority:
As educated Dominican scholars, the authors of the Malleus Maleficarum,
Kramer and
Sprenger, were as familiar with the Greek and Roman classics as
were any other European
elite intellectuals of the 15thC. Their text makes thousands of
references to the selected group
of scholarly works from antiquity that were common in European
ecclesiastical courts and
universities at the time. These include Aristotle, Plato, Cicero
and Seneca, all of whom are
referenced in the long section in which the "Sirens"
quote appears, as well as a whole raft of
major and minor 1st/ 2ndC Roman essayists and 4th/5thC saints.
Although speech and sex have long been linked in the western cultural
construct of "the witch,"
the notion that a witch's "seduction" of a man is primarily
a sexual enticement of him is itself a
relatively new and more explicit linking of older sets of images
and fears about women's
sexuality with equally ancient images and fears about the power
of women's speech. For
Kramer and Sprenger, "seduction" generally meant to
seduce a man's mind away from God
*using words.* Their use of the term "seduction" is
generally placed within the context of the
serpent's speech seducing Eve and Eve's words doing the same to
Adam, seducing him away
from his fealty to God.
17thC American Congregationalist witch-hunter Cotton Mather, who
had a Protestant version of
the Malleus in his library, claimed that witches indulged in the
eight "sins" of witchcraft, in his
"Memorable Providences Relating to Witchcraft and Possession,"
(1689). According to
Mather, these were, in order, Discontent, Anger, Envy, Malice,
Seduction, Lying, Pride and
Blasphemy. These represent a hierarchical linear progression from
being "discontent" with
one's (female, subservient) position in life to actually blaspheming
against the One True
Master, God. "Seduction" marks the active center of
the hierarchy, when a woman moved
from Envy-induced Malice ("maleficium" by this time
had come to mean simple "black magic"
spells cast against people or animals) to becoming an active agent
for the Devil by trying to
recruit others to his cause. Thus, at Salem in 1693, 71-year-old
Rebecca Nurse could be
accused of trying to "seduce" 11-year-old Abigail Williams
into becoming a witch herself
without a single sexual overtone (much less pedophilac one) seemingly
in sight.
To Mather and his contemporaries, then, seduction still meant
very much what it had to Kramer
and Sprenger two centuries earlier, i.e., seduction by a woman's
tongue/speech of another
person's mind. Although the colonial American Puritans saw witches
primarily as seducing
other women and young girls into joining them in serving the Devil
against God and man, while
the German Dominicans focused equally on witches' verbal enticements
of men and other
women against Christ, both understood seduction primarily in its
less sexual and more
classically psychological aspects. A witch's tongue was one of
the Devil's best weapons in his
war against Christ's Kingdom on Earth, the True Church (although
Mather and the Dominicans
differed about the definition of that entity, of course).
Seduction seems to have become more firmly identified with sexual
enticement as a result of
the modernist turn away from considerations of witchcraft as an
heretical affront to God and
toward a conception of the witch as an often-sexualized agent
of harm to humans. Which
may be why at least some of the audience saw DarkWillow as much
sexier ("Hottie!" was, I
think, the commonly-applied term) than regular Willow......
[> [> little worldcon,
some biblical stuff -- anom, 15:05:12 09/03/02 Tue
Thanks for the report, fresne--I still want to see pictures of
you in costume!
"What the Sirens offer is not carnal knowledge, but the seductiveness
of knowledge itself. Leap froggingly, which reminds me of a comment
a teacher of mine made about Eve eating the fruit (apples are
more common in Northern climes, but not so much in the Middle
East) because it would gain her knowledge, while Adam ate it because
it was fair (as in it came in a pretty package) and would gain
him knowledge."
Wow...never heard this about the Sirens. As for the fruit (what
kind is never specified in Genesis) from the Tree of Knowledge,
I'm not sure where your teacher got the idea of Eve & Adam's different
reasons for eating it. The story in Genesis gives both reasons
to Eve, as well as that it was good for food. Actually, it says
these things about the tree itself (Jewish Publication Society
translation, w/my notes): "And when the woman saw that the
tree was good for food, & that it was a delight [the Hebrew word
is used for appetite, for example, when the Israelites wanted
to eat meat in the wilderness] to the eyes, & that the tree was
to be desired [oddly, the Hebrew word here is more often translated
as "delightful"] to make one wise, she took of the fruit
thereof, & did eat; and she gave also unto her husband [literally,
"her man"] with her, & he did eat." No reason at
all is attributed to Adam. Maybe your teacher's version is from
a later interpretation.
"And entering briefly into the discussion of the biblical
definition of a witch, who shouldn't be suffered to live, with
no actual textual backup, I had always heard it referred to someone
who communicated/spoke with the dead. Thus King Saul went to (I
believe) the witch of Endor to communicate with Samuel the dead
and buried prophet."
Translation is a funny thing. I've always heard her called the
"witch of Endor," but the Bible (in 1st Samuel 28:7)
calls her "a woman who divineth by a ghost" (Hebrew
eishet ba`alat 'ov; a literal translation might be "a
woman who is a master of ghosts"). It never uses any of several
words that could be translated as "witch." Interestingly,
"woman" is clearly specified. In the rest of the story,
she's called simply "the woman" & comes across (to me,
at least) as a fairly sympathetic character. The famous verse
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:17)
uses "m'khashephah," also in the feminine. It comes
from the root "kashaph," which has meanings like "practice
sorcery, bewitch, charm, enchant." As LadyStarlight mentions,
it has also been interpreted as "poisoner"; I've read
somewhere that it may be a bit broader than that, including many
other kinds of formulas for good & evil purposes--more of a "potioner."
The Torah uses several words for various prohibited magical & related
practices, for which my JPS translation uses different English
words; many of these are synonyms for "witch" in English.
As for not suffering them to live, the Torah doesn't use a word
that means "kill," as it does in many other places.
Lo t'chayeh means, literally, "thou shalt not cause
to live." It's been interpreted by come as meaning "don't
provide them a living," i.e., don't patronize them (in the
sense of being a paying customer).
"As I think about it. King Saul (man) talks to witch of Endor
(woman) who channels/summons/talks to Samuel (dead man/) who,
as a prophet, speaks to God (gender not to be defined by a quip
in brackets)."
Hmm, yeah...sounds almost Buffyesque! Well, the 1st 3, anyway.
There's a lot more to say about witches in the Bible, but I don't
have time right now. I was hoping to put it in the relevant subthread
of shadowkat's amazing thread, but I got a freelance job to do
over the holiday weekend, & the thread was gone by the time I
finished it. I'm not sure this Worldcon thread is the right place
for it. But I'm sure it'll come up again.
[> [> [> More worldcon
report -- fresne, 12:33:05 09/04/02 Wed
I'll (hopefully) be posting pictures within a week. After all,
I have Thursday and Friday board meet pictures as well as World
Con to put up. On the other hand, I tend to do a lot/a great deal/an
incredible amount of tweaking to my pictures. However, since the
majority of the costumes were repeats, I'll link if I already
have an extant picture.
And somewhat tangentially, yeah, I want to continue the discussion
of Sirens, witches, Faith, Buffy, the Other, once I've had more
time to cogitate, ruminate, and remove the fine layer of costumes
currently covering the floor of my room.
Let's see one panel that was Buffy linkable was the He's Dead
Jim, but what Killed Him? Panelists, Teresa Edgerton, Lois
McMaster Bujold, Irene Radford, Cordelia Willis
The discussion focused mainly on ways to kill characters and the
impact of those deaths. The discussion focused on two types of
deaths, thematically.
Red shirts/spear carriers, whose function in the work is to demonstrate
the seriousness of the threat. My favorite Buffy example is in
Prophecy Girl when the students are killed on campus. It brought
home the seriousness of the situation and the real danger to Buffy.
Also, these were, to a certain extent, characters that we had
seen over the course of the season. Going from Cordelia nattering
about her boyfriend to the realization that that boyfriend is
dead gave the death's emotional gravity. As Willow parphrasingly
says, "It was our world and they made it theirs." Also,
looping back to the beginning of the season where Giles explained
that it was their world and we made it ours.
The second kind of death is the death of a beloved character,
which serves to push another character in a new direction or forces
that character to grow/feel miserable. In a couple of instances,
the panel authors mentioned creating characters far in advance
with the intention of killing them when the plot reached such
and such a point.
Since Lois McMaster Bujold was on the panel
(******spoilers for anyone who has not read The Warrior's Apprentice)
the discussion touched on the death of Sergeant Bothari, a scene
that causes me to cry every time it. Bothari's death (in the abstract)
was the central plot pivot of the book. Bothari is not a red shirt
and the influence of his death is still felt books later.
(end spoilers ****)
Getting back to Buffy, the deaths of Buffy's mother and of Tara
fall into that category. Given the nature of the show, their deaths
have both an immediate impact and I believe will have a long term
effect.
Oh, and there was a third kind of death. Instances where authors
kill their main character to shut them up so other characters
get to say/do something. Heh, we've never seen that on Buffy.
Nope. Never on Buffy the she's died twice Vampire Slayer or on
Angel, he went to hell and bought no t-shirts.
* Costume-Fire elemental/fire bird. We have Earth, Water and Fire,
but Air has been a little hard to see. For previous incarnations
here or at
the bottom here. It's odd though, I don't have my flamingo
croquet mallet in either picture and hmm... a typo.
The Buffy Season Pattern
Jim Mann, Ben Yalow, Michelle Sagara West, Nicki Lynch
This was a very annoying panel. I didn't get the impression that
anyone had prepared for the discussion. I wanted to raise my hand
and say, "Hey, lets all log onto the Philosophy Board essay
section."
Thus we left to go shopping.
Board Dinner
This was much more pleasurable. We (myself, a couple friends of
mine, D'herb, Masq, Vicki, Vicki's hubby, Buffyboy and Dochawk)
met in the hotel lobby, where we started by complaining about
the previous panel.
You know I wish I could recapture the flavor of the event, but
basically we chatted On Topic and Off Topic.
There was a brief discussion, about how people post and discussing
our board, which got me to thinking about the nature of on-line
communities and this one in particular.
Personally, I write my posts in Word (Spell check is a close personal
friend). My posts meander towards long. I very rarely post more
than one post a day, because they take too long to write. Often
since I read other responses as I write, they shape what I write.
I don't go to chat for the same reason I don't like talking on
the phone, I rely on body language when talking to people. Posting
has a different comfort level.
Other posters discussed how they post, quick sneak attacks, or
long and researched, etc. A predilection for NT posts or OT digressions.
Many board members were already familiar with each other because
they went from posting, to chat, to email. It was also interesting
to hear that there are a large number of people who chat, but
don't post. There was side discussion about lurkers and why people
feel intimidated about posting.
Let's see what else, Liquidram caught up with us at the restaurant
and brought her children. Her daughter, with whom I had a chance
to talk, (she quite right mindedly likes Sally from The Nightmare
Before Christmas) was utterly adorable. Unfortunately, the table
was long and it was a little difficult to hear/talk to people
at the other end.
After dinner, Buffyboy, Dochawk, my housemate and myself went
to the Masquerade (in no way affiliated with Masq)
There were some great costumes. I particularly liked Alien Elvis
(which was very funny) and the Alien Conference (which was amazing
and pulled off non-humanoid aliens. Just some beautiful craftmenship.)
After the Masquerade, parties.
* Costume - Catwoman (Sunglasses after dark, ah the sacrificing
I make for my art.)
For previous incarnations.
Sunday
* Persephone (new and not quite finished.)
* Flapper (new and odd re: dancing to Victorian and then Goth/Industrial
music)
Monday
* Costume - Come on that's enough already.
Breaking Ground in Buffy
P.C. Hodgell, Chris Garcia, Nicki Lynch, Eric M. Van
Much better than the other Buffy panel we attended. Although mainly
it boiled down to episodes that we liked and why.
SMG
married Sunday -- Cheryl, 13:07:25 09/03/02 Tue
The announcement even made the Top News on the CNN home page.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/News/09/03/people.gellar.prinze.ap/index.html
[> Re: SMG married Sunday
- Live long and prosper! -- Pegleg Pete, 13:11:38 09/03/02
Tue
[> Mazeltov! Guest list
check much? -- pr10n, 13:42:13 09/03/02 Tue
[> Hmm...I wonder if Alyson
caught the bridal bouquet... -- cjl, 14:44:12 09/03/02
Tue
[> [> Check to see if
Alexis is hyperventilating. -- HonorH, 15:02:16 09/03/02
Tue
[> Congrats to the bride
and groom! -- Wizardman, 15:58:23 09/03/02 Tue
[> Since I believe in the
sanctity of marriage... -- Apophis, 16:10:39 09/03/02 Tue
...I'll refrain from making any derogatory comments about her
husband. I wish them luck.
[> Here's another Mazel
Tov for them! -- Rob, 19:34:47 09/03/02 Tue
Additional
Worldcon review -- Dochawk, 13:53:14 09/03/02 Tue
I also attended Worldcon and attended 4 Buffy panels (which were
not the same ones as other attendees, since I got there on Thursday).
The reason there was so much Buffy is twofold: last year at worldcon
the biggest panel was a Buffy panel, people had to be turned away
so they thought thy would schedule more, and secondly one of the
con chairs is a major Buffyaholic (and eh was on several of the
panels). The Buffy mythology panel was by far the most interesting
and for the most part dealt with Dawn. Nothin that hadn't been
covered ehre before though.
There are two things I want to bring up, but because they were
on such varied (and explosive topics) I figured I would post them
seperately.
the first (and less controversial?) regards Xander and his motivations
for jilting Anya at the alter. We all believe Hell's Bells shows
that Xander cancelled the wedding because of fears that he would
end up like his parents. Easily believable given his known history
and his parents behavior at the wedding. But, we are given an
earlier episode, Once More With Feeling" where all the characters
are supposed to sing the truth. Yet what does Xander sing that
he is worried about "The vibe gets kind of scary Like she
thinks I'm ordinary,Like it's all just temporary" and "She
clings,
She's needy She's also really greedy""But there's these
fears I can't quell Is she looking for a pot of gold?""Will
our lives become too stressful If I'm never that successful?"
"Am I marrying A demon?". These are not the same fears.
Were we handed a bill of goods in Hell's Bells?
[> Re: Additional Worldcon
review - Spike Info (not spoilers) -- Dochawk, 14:44:20
09/03/02 Tue
The second interesting topic came up in the Spuffy panel. One
of the panelists had written a Spike novel. ME apparantly has
a guide for writers to keep the novels somehwat consistant with
the show. Also they approve novels before they are published.
When it comes to the character of Spike, at least for the time
period she was writing for Dawn already present (unclear if Joyce
was still alive) Spike is to be presented as an evil, soulless
thing who can be motivated to do good things when he thinks Joyce,
Buffy or Dawn will benifit from them. Specifically that love was
not antiethical (sp?) to being a soulless thing. There was a great
deal of discussion about this point at the panel, but it was clear
from what this panelist was saying that according to ME, vampires
can love and be motivated by love and this doesn't change their
evil bearing.
[> [> requested spelling
-- anom, 21:41:57 09/03/02 Tue
Antithetical. "Antiethical" would be a whole different
thing!
[> Humbly asking . . .
-- Finn Mac Cool, 20:09:55 09/03/02 Tue
. . . what's Worldcon?
[> [> Re: Humbly responding
. . . -- Buffyboy, 22:56:29 09/03/02 Tue
WorldCon is short for World Science Fiction Conference. This year's
WorldCon called ConJose (held in San Jose, CA) is the 60th anniversary.
The web page is still up: www.conjose.org.
[> Xander & Anya --
Darby, 06:45:16 09/04/02 Wed
My take was that the song misgivings were the Buffyverse slant
on the questions almost everyone has going into marriage, the
doubts that only the more secure couples admit to. I would have
thought X/A to have been the sort to admit such fears without
the musical cues, though.
I think we're also supposed to accept that Xander's realization
that he might be headed down his parents' path grew as the wedding
got planned and family & friends arrived, with the added trigger
of the vision. Again, one might hope that he would have recognized
such tendencies as they arose - I sure notice negative aspects
of my parents when they pop up in me, not that I can always do
much about it.
However, as wiser heads here have suggested, Xander's mating choices
have suggested at least a subconscious resistance to his father's
pattern - he picks women who wouldn't put up with the abuse. It's
hard to believe that if he sees his father in himself, that he
doesn't see how little like his mother Anya is!
- Darby, who originally had "wider heads" above. What
sort of weird Freudian slip is that?
[> [> Jacki had a post
on this topic earlier. It can be found -- Sophist, 08:02:20
09/04/02 Wed
starting a thread on OMWF on 4 Aug. 2002. For some reason I can't
access that page and can't link to it.
[> [> [> archive troubles...
-- Masq, 09:01:03 09/04/02 Wed
Hopefully will be cleared up soon....
[> [> [> archive troubles...
-- Masq, 09:05:39 09/04/02 Wed
Hopefully will be cleared up soon....
[> [> [> [> About
the same time as that double posting problem? :) -- Sophist,
09:53:32 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: About the same time as that double posting problem? :)
-- Masq, 09:57:14 09/04/02 Wed
Not much I can do about that except play board janitor and go
around mopping up after people. But I'd have to be REALLY bored
at work to do that. : ) : )
Seriously, though, I do have a chat scheduled tomorrow with the
board archivist zargon to discover what's up with the archives...
[> [> Re: Xander & Anya
-- JM, 20:46:07 09/04/02 Wed
Hi, all. Not really back after long summer drought but couldn't
help specualting. Aren't OMWF and HB really the same set of fears
(except for hairy toes, maybe)? His big fears, as we learned in
OMWF, were that Anya is a little mercenary and that she will be
frustrated if "he's never that successful" and that
they could be "making marriage a hell"? He's got complaints
about her more and manners, but they're not the same things that
have him petrified. He's terrified that he won't be interesting
or successful enough to satisfy, support her, and possibly keep
her faithful. And that's what we saw in HB. He's unemployed, disabled,
and unable to keep her faithful.
The different spin in HB is why he's so fearful of it all going
wrong. We see that even in a horrible marriage he doesn't think
he'll be man enough, or cad enough, to call it quits. He'll be
stuck or committed enough to a relationship that will bring out
the very worst and eventually the very cruellest in him. What
HB gave us are the unarticulated assumptions that are backing
his doubts: marriage is forever and if it goes wrong you turn
most viciously on those you can't escape. Those are really the
lessons that his parents have taught him. For all their misery
they are still together. (Think how very different that is from
Buffy's chronic fear of abandonment.) And Xander may very well
fear physically hurting Anya because his model of manhood, his
father might not never have taken a swing at his own chief tormentor.
(Not that I think Mrs. Harris deserves that designation, but that
seems to be Mr. Harris's view.)
[> Go "American Gods"
winning the Hugo!! -- Rob, 08:03:32 09/04/02 Wed
[> [> Yeah, Big Surprise
:) -- Ete, 16:19:31 09/04/02 Wed
But at least it's not Harry Potter stealing it from George RR
Martin ! grr argh !
congrat' Neal Gaiman :)
[> [> Gaiman Quotes,
uncensored. -- Darby, 21:32:16 09/04/02 Wed
From his website, posted the day after winning the Hugo:
....AMERICAN GODS won the 2002 Hugo Award for Best Novel!
(Memo to self: even if you don't think you're going to win, write
a speech. Otherwise you will wind up on the stage in front of
several thousand people, finishing an impromptu speech with "Fuck,
I got a Hugo.")
So I'm working with Robert Zemeckis on the Fermata script today,
in the San Jose hotel that the World SF con was in. Which means
that every time Bob Z and I go to eat, people come up to me in
the corridors and say "congratulations on writing such a
good book" and I say "Thank you so much". I shouldn't
have told Bob I won the Hugo last night. I bet I could have convinced
him that random people in hotels always congratulate me for writing
good books.
link at
http://www.neilgaiman.com/journal/journal.asp
Vampires and cemetaries -- Quentin Collins,
00:41:07 09/04/02 Wed
Having seen so many vampires get dusted by Buffy upon rising from
the grave, some thoughts have occurred to me. Why are these vampires
turned in the first place? It is common knowledge that there is
a Slayer in Sunnydale and that she patrols regularly. If she will
likely just dust these newly created vampires, what's the point
of turning them in the first place?
If a vampire decides to turn a victim for a certain purpose (to
make a mate, to build a gang, etc.), then why not have an area
in his or her lair where the newly turned vampire can emerge safely
rather than face the Slayer upon "birth"?
It may be impossible, but I also wonder why Giles or Willow have
never tried to cast a spell over entire cemetaries that would
somehow prevent vampires from coming from the ground there. I
know that this question is in the same league as the question
about why the SG don't use holy water super soakers, and it is
probably a matter of suspension of disbelief. But the other questions
to me are more legitimate ones.
[> Procreation and vamps
-- Darby, 05:43:34 09/04/02 Wed
There's an old semi-rule in biology that the number of offspring
typically produced is related to their survival chances - the
lower the odds, the more offspring. Sunnydale supports that for
vamps. If other towns generated the same number, they'd either
wipe out their food supply or, probably more importantly, be unable
to remain hidden from the public (gotta hate those Czech mobs!).
There is also the possibility that vamping works a bit differently
at a Hellmouth. It may take less ritual to turn someone - how
else to explain Harmony, who was bitten in the middle of a battle
but got vamped? Anyway, most vamps just seem to be following a
procreational imperative that has little "parental"
follow-through. No protection of the "kids:" when a
new one rises, it's driven by hunger and only eventually seems
to seek out others of its kind.
And you're right, it's one of those items that has to be
a particular way for the show to exist. For instance, we see the
possible Anointed One and a girl vamped by Angel rise at the mortuary
because the plots required it, but if bodies disappeared that
way regularly (and wakes are often done at night, so it would
happen with witnesses), how long would it be before someone had
to notice? Maybe we should start a thread on the things that really
stretch the suspension of disbelief for the viewers.
[> [> Suspension of disbelief
-- Cactus Watcher, 06:16:30 09/04/02 Wed
That could take an entire website of it's own: All Things Requiring
Suspension of Disbelief on BTVS and Angel ;o)
[> [> Re: Procreation
and vamps -- Apophis, 10:56:01 09/04/02 Wed
What effect would embalming have on a proto-vampire?
[> [> [> Re: Procreation
and vamps -- Darby, 11:35:26 09/04/02 Wed
It must be a given that, seeing how common embalming is (is it
legally mandated, barring religious objection, in California?
-it is in some states), the vamping process must be able to ignore
it "just because." Maybe it's an important cultural
difference between our world and Buffy's.
But now I'm wondering what effect autopsies would have, which
I think are mandated in murder cases and which often remove the
organs (they may be replaced, but not in their original positions
- for more wacky vamp-staking fun!). Will you transform if your
heart is missing? Will you quickly die, possibly still in the
grave, a la the vamp on Angel who had his heart removed?
Hmmmm....
[> [> Wouldn't it be
a good diversionary tactic? -- Sophist, 12:41:22 09/04/02
Wed
Instead of thinking in terms of reproduction, perhaps we should
think in terms of military tactics. Vamps could keep the slayer
off their own backs by forcing her to spend all her time staking
out (pun intended) cemetaries for the newly risen.
[> [> [> Well, it
would, but... -- Darby, 13:15:12 09/04/02 Wed
Vamps in general don't seem so big in the strategy department.
Spike's like, a big time warrior, and his planning is usually
none too deep. The biological strategy kinda works that way, though,
without any real intent - the more of your type out there, especially
when offspring fit the same niche as parents, the less vulnerable
any individual is, including you. Except when humans make a concerted
effort to wipe you out because there are too many of your kind.
Vamps, mosquitos, whatever becomes too big a bloodsucking threat...
[> [> [> [> Maybe
vampires vamp because they're lonely -- Slain, 13:30:31
09/04/02 Wed
Which is kind of sad. Well, not really.
Presumably vampirism in Sunnydale is a bit like childbirth in
the 15th century, with a very high child morality rate combatted
by a very high birth rate. So perhaps, because vampires are drawn
to the hellmouth, Buffy's patrols stop the town from becoming
overrun, a bit like a demon pest-controller who knows she can't
kill all the rats, but keep plugging away at them nevertheless.
I kind of like the way little is explained in the show; not only
does it give us something to talk about, it safely removes the
show from being too plausible. Plausibility seems to me
to be the preserve of science fiction, whereas horror is innately
impropable; even the science fiction elements of BtVS are more
rooted in Hammer Horror and Frankenstein than in sci-fi.
[> [> [> [> [>
allow me to make an analogy -- leslie,
14:52:41 09/04/02 Wed
I have two cats who have lived their entire lives indoors. These
are actually the first cats I've ever had, in a lifetime of cats,
who have never gone outdoors and have never hunted real animals
and birds, so I am pretty familiar with feline hunting behavior.
What completely cracks me up about these two is that they exhibit
absolutely stereotypical, instinctual hunting behaviors, only,
well... you know how cats make this kind of chirpy, "I've
got a mouse" call when they've caught something and are about
to deposit it on your doorstep, and how they usually do this shortly
after sunset when they go out for their first hunt of the evening?
Well, one of my cats does this, except she does it immediately
after I have turned off the light to go to sleep (the sun's gone
down!) and the "mouse" she is dragging into the bedroom
and depositing on the door threshold is a piece of raffia string
that came wrapped around the paper that morning. But damn she's
proud of it! This same cat has sat in the kitchen and watched
a real mouse run across the floor without even a twitch of her
tail. I can tell you from personal experience that she doesn't
know what to do with a real mouse even when you present one to
her.
So, my suggestion is that, just as cats continue to be cats even
when their environment is completely nonferal, vampires retain
their procreative instincts even when there's a Slayer around.
I'd say that they only really start thinking about who they're
going to turn (like Spike's initial refusal to turn Billy Fordham)
when they've been around for a while and had a chance to experience
what it's like being immortal. Harmony, for instance, does not
seem to have exhibited such choosiness about creating her "minions."
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: allow me to make an analogy -- shadowkat, 07:24:31
09/05/02 Thu
"So, my suggestion is that, just as cats continue to be cats
even when their environment is completely nonferal, vampires retain
their procreative instincts even when there's a Slayer around.
I'd say that they only really start thinking about who they're
going to turn (like Spike's initial refusal to turn Billy Fordham)
when they've been around for a while and had a chance to experience
what it's like being immortal. Harmony, for instance, does not
seem to have exhibited such choosiness about creating her "minions.""
I was agreeing with you until I remembered Darla's difficulty
trying to get someone to change her in Ats Season2. She goes up
to a fledgling and has to really work at it. It isn't immediate.
He doesn't really see the point at first. She says he can have
his way with her. He says he isn't into commitment. She says she
promises to leave him the moment she's changed. It's quite amusing
actually.
So I think they discuss it.
Agreeing with Slain, very happy they leave all these unanswered
questions. Because it they didn't? I'd have to find something
else to get obsessed over. And yep, one of the reasons prefer
fantasy to sci-fi, is fantasy leaves more gaps. Sci-fi has this
annoying tendency to provide all the details.
[> [> [> [> [>
the real reason vamps vamp: -- anom, 21:13:48 09/04/02
Wed
Because the idea scares us.
[> [> Testing Darby's
theory -- Rattletrap, 14:24:45 09/05/02 Thu
I ran across this website where a biologist (or ecologist perhaps)
over at Stanford actually ran the vampire population numbers through
his computer to determine how many Sunnydale could support. It
is a bit heavy, but if you're interested, you can find it here.
Enjoy,
'trap
[> [> [> Joss' worst
nightmare -- Darby, 16:34:02 09/05/02 Thu
Buffy filtered through the nightmare of calculus! Someone
should send this to him and tell him the quiz is tomorrow!
It is interesting, and pretty understandable (I try to avoid higher-order
mathematics if I can, and even with that rustiness I followed
the argument), and highly entertaining, in case anyone glanced
at it, said, "Eeek! Math!" and scampered to the Back
button. Go back! Read! Say "La la la!" through the math
details and they won't bite you.
On the honest-to-goodness, let's-treat-this-legitimately front,
I have to say that the vamp reproduction rate has to reflect the
presence of the Slayer and have changed when she showed up, or
Sunnydale would have been a ghost town long before.
Or maybe the Mayor had an anti-demon force working undercover?
Maybe that's why the Initiative set up shop in Sunnydale, and
maybe they'd been there for a while but only got noticed when
they expanded from pest control to let's-create-a-wacky-jigsaw-guy.
Riley had been a student at UC Sunnydale for a while before Buffy
got there, right-?
- Darby, who's going to e-mail the ecologist and let him know
we're talking about his stuff.
[> [> [> [> Alligators,
etc... -- Malandanza, 21:00:51 09/08/02 Sun
"On the honest-to-goodness, let's-treat-this-legitimately
front, I have to say that the vamp reproduction rate has to reflect
the presence of the Slayer and have changed when she showed up,
or Sunnydale would have been a ghost town long before."
I saw a documentary on alligators once that talked about the remarkable
comeback of American alligators, once hunted to the brink of extinction.
The documentary said that the biggest predator of young alligators
was adult alligators, so with a low adult population, many more
young alligators survived, explaining the population explosion.
Vampires also have a "don't play well with others" problem
and I could see current (adult) vampire population having a major
impact on the rate at which the vampire population increases.
Young vampires reproduce frequently, for older vampires it is
rare. Sunnydale's current population is mostly juvenile so has
a much higher reproductive rate (and a much lower self-predation
rate) than the Sunnydale of the Master's era (and, perhaps, vampire
activity in UC Sunnydale is higher without Sunday hunting down
the competition).
Back when I was in college, we had a predator-prey project to
do and after we had built a good working model (that produced
spirals eerily reminiscent of the one from the ecologist's web
page) we added in some indiscriminate hunting (a set number of
kills per year not based at all on the prey population), just
to see what effect it would have on the prey population -- expecting
to send the prey into a downward spiral of extinction. Instead,
while the prey population initially dipped, it quickly returned
to a new equilibrium point not far from the old one. It was the
predator population that took the biggest hit -- essentially,
hunting replaced the predators. If this model is correct, perhaps
the demons of Sunnydale that prey on humans also help keep the
vampire population down by competing for the same resources.
Preferred prey for Sunnydale vampires is probably transients,
street kids, recent immigrants. Killing upper or middle class
people or even lower class people who have roots is the type of
behavior that generates angry mobs or vampire hunter vigilantes.
Between the Master and the Mayor, vamps of this sort would have
the type of life expectancies that wolves and mountain lions that
stray into domesticated pastures have. By eliminating some of
the natural controls, Buffy may have turned Sunnydale into a vampire
breeding ground (with the smart ones leaving).
[> [> [> [> can
someone tell me... -- anom, 23:09:10 09/08/02 Sun
...why the vampire equation involves multiplying the vamp population
by the human population? Just not getting why the growth rate
is based on the product of the two. (& I minored in math! [which
is probably why I care enough to ask this!])
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: can someone tell me... -- Malandanza, 06:55:38 09/09/02
Mon
The baHV part of the vampire growth equation represents the number
of sirings -- the a is the proportion of feedings and the b is
the proportion of feedings that results in a siring. It makes
sense the number of new vampires would depend upon both the vampire
and human population -- if the human population is small relative
to the vampire population, there will be less incentive for the
vampires to reproduce (too much competition). If the vampire population
is small, there will be fewer vampires to do the siring. In the
model, ba is 1/72,000, so in a city of 72,000 with one vampire,
we would expect a one vampire growth rate (not counting other
factors) while in a town of 7,200 with ten vampires, we'd expect
the same one vampire growth rate. If vampire reproduction happened
independently of the food supply, small towns would quickly become
ghost towns.
[> [> [> Someone has
a lot of time on their hands. -- Masq, 16:44:42 09/05/02
Thu
Although.... who am I to talk??!!
[> [> [> [> Re:
Someone has a lot of time on their hands. -- Slain, 16:53:46
09/05/02 Thu
Although.... who am I to talk??!!
*L*, I was just going to say the same thing!
[> [> [> That's interesting,
even to a dedicated math hater. -- Lilac, 07:48:25 09/06/02
Fri
[> [> [> Pretty darn
cool -- matching mole, 09:53:53 09/06/02 Fri
Although, unfortunately, the page does not seem to have been tested
out for use by Netscape and/or Mac users as one of the equations
and the final figure were superimposed on the text on my screen.
Like Darby my math skills are a little rusty (although better
than my students and my TAs apparently). Like most theoretical
works all the math happens offscreen to spare our delicate sensibilities.
The presence of the Buffy and the Scoobies is explicitly factored
into the model so that the population dynamics would have led
to one of the other, less interesting equilibria (vamps wipe out
humans and then go extinct due to lack of food) in the pre-Slayer
days unless something else changed (echoing Darby once again).
Perhaps vampires are like Passenger Pigeons and other organisms
- they need a particular cue to commence reproduction. In the
case of the Passenger Pigeons they needed to around vast numbers
of their own kind to start breeding. Maybe vampires need to be
worried about being staked?
The model is highly deterministic without much in the way of random
events. Slayer activity is probably not constant (e.g. it has
probably declined in several summers) and therefore the vampire
population probably fluctuates around the equilibrium point quite
a bit.
[> [> [> [> "Math
happens offscreen" -- Darby, 11:01:20 09/06/02 Fri
I thought that was because it's too expensive to make it look
realistic.
Maybe that's just statistics.
[> [> [> [> [>
I'm sorry, but this sub-thread doesn't have enough math. It
should be math-ier. -- cjl, 12:02:24 09/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I always thought it was, "This could be math year!"
Ooops! -- Darby, feeling dumbed-down by television, 12:12:31
09/06/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> Works
just fine for this Mac user -- Masq, 11:35:54 09/06/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
It appears to be Netscape -- matching mole, 14:05:14
09/06/02 Fri
Or perhaps whatever version of Netscape is on this computer. I
just re-opened it in Explorer and it looked fine.
Makes a lot more sense now that I can see the whole thing.
[> [> [> Just what
I thought, Mathematicians are so FUNNY -- Sarand (busily trying
to avoid work), 12:15:20 09/06/02 Fri
Someone should e-mail this article to Joss so he knows that, at
least innately, he doesn't suck at math.
[> Re: Vampires and cemetaries
-- ASorcerousFreak, 15:07:47 09/04/02 Wed
Maybe its a test thing,like "if you can rise from the grave,get
out of the grave,and avoid getting dusted,you are worthy or vampirism".Vampires
are predators,and have got tihngsl iek the slayer to worry about,and
so it would make sense that there would be a kind of "screening
process"to weed out those too weak.
TNT
Cancelled Witchblade (off topic) -- Robert, 14:18:24 09/04/02
Wed
I just read the bad news about "Witchblade" at scifi.com.
After the way TNT mishandled "Babylon 5", it doesn't
surprise me that TNT could screw up "Witchblade" as
well. However, I would like to direct your collective attention
to the following quote from the scifi.com article.
[BEGIN QUOTE]
Our criteria for this show was really fourfold," he said:
that it be advertiser- and cable operator-friendly, that it differentiate
the network from its competitors, that it build ratings and that
it lay groundwork for the network to be in the summer series business.
"Witchblade did all of that great for two years," Koonin
said. "We just felt to stretch it to a third year could hurt
some of those areas."
[END QUOTE]
What the hell does that mean?
Apparently, two seasons of success has made TNT skittish; afraid
that the third season might not be a success. It is clear to me
that this is not the real reason for cancelling the show. The
cost of creating a new show and bringing it to market must be
high, otherwise we would see much more new material each year.
How can it make economic sense to kill a successful show, because
it might become less so next year? I think some mercurial executive
is showing us (the viewing public) that he has more power than
we do. What do you think?
[> Re: TNT Cancelled Witchblade
(off topic) -- Arethusa, 14:22:05 09/04/02 Wed
It's possible Yancy Butler's well-publicized addiction problems
weren't resolved to the network's satisfaction.
[> [> Re: TNT Cancelled
Witchblade (off topic) -- Robert, 14:32:51 09/04/02 Wed
>>> "It's possible Yancy Butler's well-publicized
addiction problems weren't resolved to the network's satisfaction."
Possibly, but then why can't they just say so? It would not be
unprecedented for a show to be cancelled due to illness or other
needs of the lead actors. To drop a cock and bull story on us
is highly disingenuous.
[> [> [> Re: TNT Cancelled
Witchblade (off topic) -- Pegleg Pete, 14:39:29 09/04/02
Wed
Well, don't that just fry the cat's whiskers. Another favorite
gone to oblivion.
[> Can you say "sophomore
slump"? -- Vickie, 16:21:17 09/04/02 Wed
I watched both seasons of Witchblade, and (IMO) the first season
was really worth while. The second season, as Xander would say,
not so much.
Did anyone here watch S2 of Witchblade, but not S1? If so, did
you enjoy it, understand it, find yourself able to follow it?
So much of S2 involved sly visual jokes on what happened (then
got rewound) in S1, that there was little enough screen time for
original story.
I loved S1, but I can understand why the network cancelled the
show it had at the end of S2. As always, you mileage may vary.
[> [> Gotta agree with
you, Vickie -- Dead Soul, 16:26:43 09/04/02 Wed
I was deeply into Season 1 of Witchblade, but Season 2 failed
to grab my attention at all.
Dead (but not burned at the stake) Soul
[> [> Re: Can you say
"sophomore slump"? -- Robert, 23:17:06 09/04/02
Wed
>>> "I loved S1, but I can understand why the network
cancelled the show it had at the end of S2. As always, you mileage
may vary."
Apparently my milage varies a lot!
I do not object to them cancelling the show for good reasons.
But they appear to give no reason at all, except to say that the
show might not do well next season. That is ridiculous. They received
acceptable ratings in its second season, and since when is the
quality of a show more important that the ratings.
I agree with you that season two has not lived up to season one.
I had a strong suspicion that this might happen after viewing
the closing episode for season one. They writers boxed themselves
into a corner with the time re-wind plot element. Regardless,
I enjoyed some of the story telling and found the cinematography
to be compelling. The whole theme, of the witchblade as a sentient
device in control of its wielder, proved very interesting to me,
and I wanted to see more development on it.
[> [> [> Certainly
ratings are usually paramount in such decisions -- Vickie,
08:33:59 09/05/02 Thu
But since when are TV execs required to give us their reasons?
They tell us something they want us to hear. I've never really
trusted what they say around these decisions. If Ms Butler's problems
really did contribute, they were probably being unusually kind
to keep that part private.
As for the show, I partly agree. The way the show was filmed was
very compelling, the use of music was amazing, and I loved the
actors. Would have liked to see more development around the Witchblade.
IMO, we saw NONE in the second season--one reason for my disappointment.
[> Re: TNT Cancelled Witchblade
(off topic) -- Apophis, 17:51:28 09/04/02 Wed
I saw the pilot movie and wasn't terribly impressed. It occurs
to me that maybe it wasn't such a good idea to make a TV show
out of a comic book whose main draw is the lack of costume on
the female lead.
[> A lot of that going around
-- Grant, 18:04:14 09/04/02 Wed
In what seems like a similar move, A&E recently cancelled Nero
Wolfe, a great detective show, after its second season. There
also was similarly no obvious reason for the cancellation. The
show had a good deal of critical support, which it richly deserved.
The writing, sets, and general production were all great, and
the acting was incredible. Maury Chaykin and Timothy Hutton perfectly
captured the essence of Nero and Archie, so much that when I read
the books now I actually have them playing the characters in my
head. The show was never huge in the ratings, but it did pretty
well for A&E in a rough timeslot (Sundays at 8) and A&E even admitted
that it hadn't been cancelled because of poor ratings.
All they would say was that it was impractical to keep the show
on in the current environment, whatever that means. What I have
heard is that A&E has a new programming director who wants to
go after a more youthful audience. However, he is doing that by
putting reruns of Third Watch, a show that is not even that highly
watched in its first run, in the timeslot.
Oh well, there is still hope that A&E might bring the cast back
together to make a Nero Wolfe movie every now and then. And maybe
if the movies get high ratings and the replacement shows do not,
A&E will wise up and bring Wolfe back. Not likely, but I'll take
what little hope I can get.
[> [> Re: A lot of that
going around -- Robert, 23:21:01 09/04/02 Wed
>>> "In what seems like a similar move, A&E recently
cancelled Nero Wolfe, a great detective show, after its second
season."
Yes, I sympathize with you. I viewed Nero Wolfe a few times, but
was never able to really get into it. However, I could see the
quality work that went into the production.
>>> "Oh well, there is still hope that A&E might
bring the cast back together to make a Nero Wolfe movie every
now and then."
Let us hope so.
O/T
- I'm Back -- Rattletrap, 17:59:54 09/04/02 Wed
Hi gang! Just dropping a note to say my move (and, therefore,
my internet drought) has ended. Aside from the usual move-related
travails, everything went fine. I'm still catching up on the board,
lots of juicy philosophical goodness while I was gone.
Missed you guys, it's good to be back.
'trap
[> From one recent "drought"
victim to another, welcome back. -- Apophis, 18:16:03 09/04/02
Wed
[> Good seeing you, trap.
-- mundusmundi, 18:17:46 09/04/02 Wed
[> Been there, done that,
never moving again! -- LadyStarlight, 18:49:52 09/04/02
Wed
Good to see you back.
[> Welcome back, 'trap!
:-) -- OnM, 19:42:02 09/04/02 Wed
[> Howdy, 'trap! Oh my God,
did I just say "howdy"? -- Rob, 20:08:49 09/04/02
Wed
[> Welcome back, welcome
back, welcome back... -- Masq, 22:41:32 09/04/02 Wed
[> Welcome Back (in echo
voice) -- neaux, 04:36:51 09/05/02 Thu
Current board
| More September 2002