September 2002 posts
Vamp
individuals as metaphors for human traits. -- Darby, 07:46:23
09/09/02 Mon
It is accepted here that vampires act as metaphors for many concepts
ñ arrested adolescence, sexual predation, even rape ñ
but, do the vampires that weíve gotten to know really well
also have a specific individual metaphorical element? I believe
that the ìvampire possesses echoes of the human hostî
to have been used to represent certain basic personality traits
from the characters of the humans. And I'm not absolutely sure
that I'm using the concept of metaphor properly, but here goes...
Angel. We havenít been shown much of Liam, but he
seems to have been a womanizing neíer-do-well, a disappointment
to his family (or father, at least). Could he have been fearful
of being able to accomplish anything, leading to a deep resentment
for the world? If Angelus gives expression to such base personality
traits, we might expect to see a vampire who revels in exerting
control when he has the obvious advantage, but is basically a
coward, a type who strikes from the shadows on near-powerless
victims and manipulates his more threatening targets until they
are weak enough to be no longer a threat to him; a vampire who
exerts control over women without a real emotional connection;
a vampire who, delivered of a conscience and denied his animal
power, withdraws and hides from the world until given an opportunity
(after almost a century of cowering in alleys eating rats) to
atone and progress, although the echoes of Liam filtered through
Angelus are still present while Angel tries to find and live out
a larger Purpose.
Spike. Sorry, but he had to be discussed. William is a
romantic with enough presence to profess his love for Cecily;
he is the picture, to his mind, of the Romantic poet (minus the
tuberculosis), loving from afar. As Spike, that Romanticism finds
a stage in the Big Bad, the rough boy with a taste for ìfists
and fangs,î with presence enough to stand up to Angelus
and take on Slayers. The poet continues in Spikeís absolute
belief that he can see into the hearts and minds of his allies
and enemies, and he has some skill in that area (I donít
think we give him enough discredit for the times that heís
wrong). When faced with a chip that takes away any chance to play
out his great Romantic notion of vampirism (no wonder he knows
Dracula!), he shifts to a conflicted image of a Knight for his
new Lady, playing at being good while his own nature draws him
away. Itís a testimony to Spikeís single-mindedness
in this area that he has, although soulless, become as effective
a Champion as we have seen. However, his chip has been a boon
and a bane: when made ineffective against Buffy, so that his Knighthood
could advance from patronage to ìmarriage,î he lacked
the control to be trustworthy and needed a soul for the complete
package.
Darla. This is the woman mistreated by patriarchal society
but men in particular, forced into prostitution and abandoned
to illness. As a vampire, she is all about power over men while
still deferring to a protective ìsocietyî (a necessity
in Colonial America) in the form of her group with Angelus (where
she exerts some power but cannot completely control her ìmateî)
and with the Master. Resouled, she cannot deal with her powerlessness
(although remorse seems less an issue) and seeks a return to vamp
form. Is Darla a metaphor for empowered women or classic sexual
manipulators?
Drusilla. Most of what we know of Drusilla the human is
Angelís perception of her, a first impression from a confessional.
We know that she had some psychic ability, which she feared, and
seemed an uncertain young woman whose family had sheltered her
but who could not protect her from true Evil. Discounting the
early BtVS Drusilla as ill and possibly out-of-character, we see
after Whatís My Line? that Dru the vampire is childlike
but not fearful, whose main character trait is that she seems
absolutely certain of the world and people around her (again,
we accept her insights but maybe shouldn't always) and bent on
delivering pain to not just individual humans but humanity in
general, the Family of Man. What do those traits suggest about
the person she was?
Iím sure that there are things that Iím missing
in the core group of vamps that we really know. Iím not
sure how much of this can be applied to vamps whose human background
we do not know (but if the basic premise is true, one might guess
at the type of human Trick or others were) ñ were the fun-loving
Gorch brothers as humans just looking for diversion in mass murder?
What sort of family issues did Kralik have?
- Darby, wondering what aspects of my personality would erupt
as a Buffyverse vampireÖ
[> I enjoyed that immensely
- much to think about. Thanks. -- Dead Soul, 08:44:43 09/09/02
Mon
[> Ooops - forgot one!
-- Darby, 09:23:21 09/09/02 Mon
Probably because the situation is reversed - we have a smattering
of knowledge of the vamp but lots of knowledge of the host...
VampWillow. Still the power issues, but a big clue that
the inferiority covers a superiority complex. Who among us does
not believe that under the flustery, "Oh, I'm a geek and
no one likes me!" is a relaxed dominatrix in sensible shoes,
confident that everybody would be better off if she was running
things (did she really even defer to the Master)? It may be the
most disturbing aspect of Vamp- and Dark Willow, that offhand
way of taking over and the flippant cruelty. VampWillow is the
image of Cool, speaking often in Oz-sized bites or from a weary
distance. She even moves with more confidence, more purpose than
Willow (an underappreciated aspect of AH's characterization).
And she is not gay, because that would be too limiting
- all people are her playthings, because they ought to be, dammit!
No wonder Warren pushed her buttons, he was the repressed aspects
of her personality.
But doesn't it make you want to know what VampOz would be like?
- Darby, who's now second-guessing my problems with Cruel Willow...
[> [> What about Harmony?
-- Freki, 11:37:22 09/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> Harmony and
VampHarmony -- shadowkat, 13:11:03 09/09/02 Mon
Harmony gets a bum rap. She seems to be nothing but a vapid ditz
on the surface. But i think there's more going on here.
Harmony is the follower. She's Cordy's best friend. But notice
Cordy leads the pack in Season 1, Btvs, Harmony follows. She does
what it takes to be part of the group. If that means tormenting
Willow, ignoring Marcy Clark, or
sneering at Buffy - she will do it. She reminds me of numerous
people I knew in Junior High and High School.
But is Harmony really a part of the group? As Cordy puts it in
Out of Mind Out of Sight - she feels alone even with the group,
sometimes it's like no one is even listening to her.
But it is better to be alone with people then to be alone alone
in Cordy's view. This is an apt description of Harmony.
To Harmony's credit - she attempts to help the gang in Graduation
Day Part II, only to get bitten and turned as a result. In The
Wish - we see her obeying the rules, in a group. Harmony always
does.
She isn't like Buffy or Cordy - who lead the pack. Buffy lead
her pack in LA prior to becoming the slayer and Cordy leads her
pack in Sunnydale. In fact the reason Cordy and Buffy clash is
they both want to be queen bee - the leader.
Harmony has no desire to be the leader. She likes to be part of
the mob.
This is Harmony's main attribute. Follower. Being told what to
do. How to look. What to think. Who to love. You met them in high
school? They were the girls who dressed as the group decided.
They got their fashion sense from the leader of the pack and followed
suite, copying what they did. You never really got to know the
true Harmonys because they were to busy copying other people,
following the leader, playing the role.
So is it so surprising that when Harmony becomes a vampire - she
desires the same things. She latches onto Spike because he tells
her what to do, what to wear, how to behave, except he gets bored
of it quickly - so it doesn't really work. In The Real ME, she
tries to find her own path, her own course - but unfortunately,
the minions won't follow her. Because when she tries to be leader
she falls apart and loses focus.
Disharmony shows this trait the best - Harmony latches onto to
Cordy and the Gang as a follower. OOOh she thinks, I can copy
Angel and Cordy and be a good guy. She has no understanding of
what that means. She just sees it as a group to belong to. Until
she locates a much larger group, one that lets her get what she
craves and also makes her feel good about herself. The girls I
knew who were like this in high school and college had 0 self-esteem
outside the group, self-help cults (I won't name any by name in
case I offend) often grabbed these poor girls up like
a bunch of bees to honey. They also destroyed them - alienating
them from friends, family, everything important.
This is what happens in Disharmony. A self-help vampire guru ends
up alienating Harmony further from the people who might have helped
her. By betraying the Gange to the guru's group, Harmony is exiled
from her one remaining attachement to humanity.
Of the vamp's we've analyzed, Harmony is the saddest.
And the most amusing. Ironic that. The writers thought she'd be
hilarous as a vampire and she is. But she is also quite sad. Sadder
even than poor crazy Dru. She has no one
and doesn't really have a point outside of belonging to a group.
By becoming a vampire - that has in of itself been taken from
her. She can't move forward like Cordelia
and she can't find a place to really belong, besides being someone's
minion. PErhaps the SG and Cordy were cruel rather than kind in
not staking her.
Just my rambling ten cents for what it's worth.
[> [> [> [> Harmony/VampHarmony
and Riley -- cjl, 13:43:55 09/09/02 Mon
Harmony may indeed by the "saddest" case of arrested
development in vamps, but trapped in a perpetual midset as follower,
she still represents a danger, albeit a danger distinct from the
usual power-mad supervillains we see in BUFFY. We all know the
potential world-beaters like the Master are bad news, but they
usually needs flunkies and weak-willed disciples to execute their
plans. Harmony is the perfect example of the latter. As you said,
never happy unless she's being told what to do, what to say, what
to think, she's more than willing to sell Cordy and AI down the
river after two minutes of Vampire Amway sales pitch in "Disharmony."
As a human or a vampire, she is self-centered and vain in ways
that Cordelia could never match, and her complete lack of emotional
maturity and intelligence makes any attempt to appeal to her "better
nature" truly hopeless. (If she weren't so hilariously stupid,
she would be a lot more trouble--but then again, Cordy probably
wouldn't have let her off so easy...)
This (kind of) relates back to the thread on Riley below. As fans
of a TV show stocked with bold, witty, free thinking anti-authoritarians,
the follower doesn't hold a lot of appeal for us. Riley, despite
going through pure hell in S4, backslides off-screen, and slips
back into the role of follower in AYW--and yes, I hold that against
him. (Hence, his trouncing by Clem in JBone's Road to Sunnydale
tournament.)
I guess if you're going to be a drone, you'd better be a funny
one. Harmony makes me laugh, and I love her for it, but I find
her complete dependence on others for a personality scary at times.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Harmony and VampHarmony -- leslie,
15:13:01 09/09/02 Mon
I think the reason VampHarmony is so sad is because, while the
other vamps you've outlined found a way to retaliate against their
human-life victimizers once they'd become vamps, Harmony is still
exactly like she was as a human. I mean, face it, she seems to
have been the kind of girl who never ate food anyway for fear
of getting fat, so even living on a liquid (blood) diet probably
isn't all that different. Probably more nutritious, when you come
down to it.
This raises an interesting question, though. Harmony is the only
"modern" human we've seen as an on-going vampire (since
VampWillow only shows up twice, and she's from another dimension
at that). Does it say something about modern society, with the
whole "let it all hang out" philosophy and the extremes
of sex and violence in public culture, that there is no "repressed"
to "return" in the undead?
[> [> [> [> [>
Hmmm interesting points leslie and cjl -- shadowkat, 18:04:34
09/09/02 Mon
Hmmm...two interesting points I hadn't thought of:
leslie:
1. VampHarmony and dieting. In Disharmony she scoffs at pigs blood
not so much because it tastes horrid as it goes right to your
hips. (She seems surprised he's drinking it, what did she think
Spike was drinking? Or better yet, what did we think Spike was
drinking?) And way back in March, I think it was, don't feel like
looking it up, you mentioned how blood could be like chocolat.
VampHarmony seems to be the first to mention the richness and
flavor of it. So she clearly appreciates the flavor of things.
But she questions these cravings in DisHarmony. She doesn't want
to hurt Cordy. Even though her craving and evil nature overcomes
this desire not to hurt eventually.
2. Now that you mention it very few modern vamps have normal faces.
I've wondered about this. Is it just the writers attempt to save
on changing makeup back and forth or can we come up with a better
reason. The only ones I've seen in normal face that seem to be
modern vamps?
Two from All The Way, VampHarmony, (don't know how old Sunday
is - oh Dead Soul has written a fantastic fan fic on Sunday available
on fanfiction.net),VampWillow, VampXander in the Wish, and that's
all that come to mind.
3. agree with CJL...I too never forgave Riley for taking the easy
route and going back to the group mentality. And i see the same
danger with Harmony. I foresee her showing up next year in league
with the next BB. A groupie all the way. (Although it seemed less
like Amway and more like the 1980s Est to me..) But then I've
always followed my own drummer so that's sort of subjective view
on my part. After watching The I in Team again? Methinks it was
ME's view as well. Whedon isn't much for group dynamics either.
To get some insight on Whedon - there's a great spoilerfree interview
on www.slayage.com about Firefly and how overworked he is.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Thanks for the plug, shadowkat! -- Dead Soul, 18:57:54
09/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I'm seconding the fic recommendation -- go read it!
-- LadyStarlight, 12:02:03 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: I'm seconding the fic recommendation -- go
read it! -- shadowkat, 12:18:37 09/10/02 Tue
Don't know how to do links. I'm computer dumb, so sue me.
(A wonderfully talented fan set up my website for me, what you
thought I set that up??? yeah right. LOL!)
But the name of the story is SUNDAY GIRL. It's by Dead
Soul. You can access it by going to www.fanfiction.net
and she also has a short fic up about Spike trying to kill a slayer
in Spain, which is very good and from our fanged four fic. Just
go to fanfic site and hunt under Dead Soul.
Oh - Adults only. NC17
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Oh man, you guys! Now everyone's gonna find
out what a perve I am... -- Dead Soul, 12:53:53 09/10/02
Tue
Seriously, Sunday Girl is a HARD NC-17 - not for the squeamish
or faint of heart.
Fiesta Brava is a gentle rollicking PG-13 - just lots of peripheral
gore.
Dead (and computer dumb, too - went to the FAQ to try to figure
out how to do html links and ended up with letter salad and a
side of puncuation mark dressing) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> I'd love to find out. But -- Sophist,
13:10:12 09/10/02 Tue
When I started to read the story, I got constant popup ads. At
one point, some program started downloading without my permission
and I had to crash deliberately to prevent that from happening
(and then clean up my hard drive afterwards). How can I gain insight
into your perversions without all this happening?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Click on Ad Blocker -- shadowkat,
13:13:46 09/10/02 Tue
Finn Macool suggested this a while back. Just click
Ad Blocker and click enable then go back and search.
It will make it possible for you to read and search fanfic
for two days without pop-ups. Amazing device.
Had the same problem. That nasty ad made me have to shut down
my entire system and reboot twice until I discovered
Ad blocker.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd love to find out. But
-- Dead Soul,
13:15:01 09/10/02 Tue
Send me your email address and I'll be happy to send it to you.
Word attachment OK?
Also, click on "ad blocker" at fanfiction.net to get
2 ad-free days. I may be a pervert, but I'm not nearly as perverted
as whoever invented pop-ups.
Dead (and in too much of a hurry to come up with a new parenthetical
witticism (and there was much rejoicing)) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Possible solution. -- Darby,
13:16:34 09/10/02 Tue
I've used this under different circumstances: pop-ups that delay-load
but are unable to, replacing your page with an error message.
I make sure the text version is up and hit the "stop"
button, and the erroneous whatever doesn't try to load. Might
work with these other delayed pops.
- Darby, of the "try something" school of internet experience.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks all 3 of you. I'll
try all suggestions. And may DarkWillow curse the inventor of
popups. -- Sophist, 13:57:04 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Flaying and incineration
would be far too kind, IMHO. -- Honorificus (She Who Doesn't
Need Advertisements), 23:21:05 09/10/02 Tue
There's a special place in the deepest Hell for them. Right alongside
the inventors of CD packaging (how do you open those without breaking
a nail or the CD case?) and Muzak.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Repeating what I said last night --
'find out'? <beg> -- LadyStarlight, 15:03:37 09/10/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> I meant all the lucky people
who haven't had the misfortune of running into me in chat
-- Dead (and the world's most obnoxious chatter) Soul, 15:06:30
09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Re:
Harmony and VampHarmony -- Dochawk, 19:08:11 09/09/02 Mon
Harmony gets a bum rap. She seems to be nothing but a vapid ditz
on the surface. But i think there's more going on here.
Harmony is the follower"
Kat,
I agree with you that there is more going on with Harmony, but
I don't think she is a follower as much as a failed leader. In
"Real Me" She goes out and finds minions. She wants
to be the group leader, but just isn't smart enough to come up
with realistic plans and eventually her minions realie she is
likely to get themselves killed so they desert her.
But I think this is even better demonstrated in "The Wish".
Harmony has become the leader of the Cordettes after Cordy becomes
a Scooby through her relationship with Xander. After the end of
Cordander Cordy wants to go back to her former status, but harmony
does not want to give up the position:
"Harmony: God, Cordy, when I heard about... Well, I mean,
I couldn't believe it. But it was smart. You know, the injury
thing? You take a week off, let everybody forget about the temporary
insanity that was Xander Harris.
Cordelia: (raises her eyebrows) Xander who?
Harmony: Oh!
They all exchange a little fake nervous laughter.
Cordette: You know what you have to do. Start dating. Get back
on the horse.
Cordelia: Oh, absolutely! I am ready to ride!
Harmony: Then I have just the stallion. He's *so* you.
She leads her over to the outside stairs where Jonathon is sitting,
nursing a soft drink. He is taken aback by the sudden attention,
and looks around to see if they didn't really mean someone else,
but there is no one else. Cordelia realizes she's been had.
Harmony: (giggles) I'm pretty sure he won't cheat on you. At least
not for a while. Plus, he's got a kill moped.
Can you imagine Cordette Harmony talking to Cordelia this way?
cordy has lost her position and Harmony wants to keep her there.
I think she has much deeper motivations than we give her credit
for, but just doesn't have the capabilities to pull them off.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Harmony and VampHarmony -- leslie,
09:05:47 09/10/02 Tue
"I think she has much deeper motivations than we give her
credit for, but just doesn't have the capabilities to pull them
off."
Actually, this is the point I was trying to make above. All of
the other vamps we've come to know *did* acquire the capabilities
to achieve in undeath what they couldn't in life; Harmony's the
only exception. Why is that? Is it just that she's young? (Was
Spike a Harmony in the Fang Gang until he killed the Chinese Slayer?
Was Angelus an incompetent jerk for the first hundred years or
so?) Or is it that, as I said, living in a society that advocates
instantaneous gratification and the repression of *nothing*, there
isn't the kind of release of repression in vampirism that there
was in previous centuries? The thing is also, the other vamps
we know changed their desires after being vamped--suddenly realized
that what they'd wanted in life was not so much after all--yet
again, Harmony has remained exactly the same. It's almost as though
you have to assume, since having a "demon" take over
her soul makes no change in her, was there a demon in there already?
(A minor, rather petty demon who is looked down upon by all the
other demons.)
[> [> [> Harmony and
"Earshot" -- Darby, 13:18:13 09/09/02 Mon
My take on Harmony is similar to what we were shown about Cordelia
in Earshot (it was one of the best details of the episode
that all reading Cordy's mind got you was a split-second preview
of what was about to come out of her mouth), that what you see
is all that is or was there. There was no real baser side to render
archtypical, Harmony as a vamp has just changed her appetites.
That's why Cordelia couldn't tell the difference in Disharmony.
Strangely enough, though, VampHarmony seems to have developed
somewhat, matured a bit, since her introduction - is the arrested
adolescence of a vampire somehow undermined when the host was
already arrested?
I have no idea what that really means in the larger context here,
though.
- Darby, who remembered all of these vamps when he was planning
this post last night and yet managed to forget them by this morning.
[> [> Great Points!
-- Vickie, 11:47:05 09/09/02 Mon
I love your VampWillow commentary. IMHO, Willow has always thought
rules were for the "little people," though she certainly
didn't want to be caught. She said "I'm very seldom naughty,"
but broke into secure computers almost from day one. She tricked
Cordelia and Harmony into deleting their programming homework
(The Harvest). She broke into the morgue to examine a corpse and
see whether Oz had been the (unintentional) killer (Beauty and
the Beasts). She (and Buffy) snooped in Giles' journal (Halloween).
She sneaked in and read Gile's adults-only magic books (Becoming).
Willow has always thought she knew better than everyone else,
and it is this arrogance, coupled with her lack of self esteem
(yeah, I know, paradox, we humans do them) that built the disaster
that was the end of Season Six.
You did, however, leave a vampire out of this discussion:
Harmony. I admit it, she's a stumper. Practically the poster
child for the arrested-development metaphor. Harmony is so shallow
that it's hard to even wade in the pool of her being.
When we see the human Harmony, she is essentially Cordelia Jr.
Pretty, vapid, vain, and cruel. A little less socially ept (and
therefore the also-ran), and (as we see a little more of her),
not so bright. And what have we said about Cordelia?
She's what Buffy was, before Buffy was called.
So, can we see vampHarmony as a small image of vampBuffy, if her
turning occurred before she was called as the Slayer? I don't
think so.
vampHarmony is little changed from human Harmony. She loves clothes,
indulgence, attention. She's maybe more erotically focused--but
maybe we just didn't see enough of Harmony to know. She's still
socially ambitious, and still enept.
I cannot make this meandering make any sense. IMHO, vampHarmony
is the same as human Harmony, just no suntan. Maybe someone else
can make something of her.
[> [> [> Some important
considerations you left out -- Sophist, 13:15:25 09/09/02
Mon
IMHO, Willow has always thought rules were for the "little
people," though she certainly didn't want to be caught. She
said "I'm very seldom naughty," but broke into secure
computers almost from day one. She tricked Cordelia and Harmony
into deleting their programming homework (The Harvest). She broke
into the morgue to examine a corpse and see whether Oz had been
the (unintentional) killer (Beauty and the Beasts). She (and Buffy)
snooped in Giles' journal (Halloween). She sneaked in and read
Gile's adults-only magic books (Becoming). Willow has always thought
she knew better than everyone else, and it is this arrogance,
coupled with her lack of self esteem (yeah, I know, paradox, we
humans do them) that built the disaster that was the end of Season
Six.
I think you're leaving out some important considerations here.
I admit I've never understood these complaints about Willow. The
accusation that she's a hacker strikes me as just as plausible
as Snyder's belief that Buffy was always getting into fights or
"causing" trouble. Sure, there's an element of truth
there, but it conveniently omits why the activity might
be justified.
Every single instance of hacking we ever see Willow do is done
to help the SG, and it's usually done at the request of Buffy
or Giles. To blame Willow for this -- or, worse yet, to advance
it as evidence for arrogance on her part -- is fundamentally to
misconstrue the circumstances.
In addition, it's important to remember that the computer is specifically
used as a plot device. JW, in the S2 commentaries, expressly says
that they use the computer as a device to obtain information that
the SG needs but otherwise could never obtain. Obviously, such
use of a plot device tells us nothing about a character.
As for rule-breaking, well the whole SG stands convicted. Two
of the incidents you mention, B&B and Halloween, actually contradict
the point you want to make. In B&B, Giles gave the orders
(quote from Psyche):
Giles: Yes. Um... (thinks) Buffy. Uh, you, uh, you patrol the
woods. Uh, the others, um, check out the morgue.
Not only was Willow following Giles's orders, so was everyone
else. Xander and Cordy were standing next to Willow in the
morgue. If this incident is evidence of Willow's character, it
is no less evidence of Xander's.
Same with Halloween. This was a joint escapade by Buffy and Willow,
and Buffy forced the issue in the library when Willow would have
chickened out. Again, we'd have to be judgmental about Buffy in
order to cite this incident. I don't see it.
The claim that Willow "really" believes that she knows
better than anyone else is not a statement of fact -- Willow has
never said so, and neither has anyone else. That this assertion
has to be supported by admitting that it creates a paradox, strongly
suggests to me that there is an easier resolution -- there is
no paradox because the assumption is wrong. Occam and all that.
I don't get the inferences from VampWillow to Willow either, but
that's another subject.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Some important considerations you left out -- Darby, 13:32:34
09/09/02 Mon
My point here is that the qualities of the vampires are themselves
illustrative of repressed features of the host - that may or may
not be true, but it makes the superiority of inner Willow valid
by a bit of "reverse engineering."
Also, my take on Hacker Willow was that she made use of skills
she had already developed - it's not something you can decide
to do on a whim, which Joss would know. And the conscience in
those instances wasn't Willow, but Giles, who realized it was
wrong but pointedly chose to ignore it (but commented on it).
Willow had to have known it was wrong but showed no qualms - suggested
it, even.
Some of the rest I have to say treads on personal experience -
I don't know that any of my highly intelligent friends, no matter
what their surface esteem issues, have a potential megalomaniac
buried in them, but I catch glimpses occasionally. They may feel
inferior socially or physically, but intellectual superiority,
even when imaginary, is a powerful force that I've seen lead both
to success and ruin (in almost equal amounts). Adding that to
any sort of real power (computer industry, anyone-?) can produce
some monstrous and irrational consequences.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Some important considerations you left out -- Sophist,
13:56:04 09/09/02 Mon
the qualities of the vampires are themselves illustrative of
repressed features of the host - that may or may not be true,
but it makes the superiority of inner Willow valid by a bit of
"reverse engineering."
Perhaps. That's certainly one way to see it (though not the only
way). I had in mind the additional problem that I don't see VampWillow,
in particular, as telling us anything about Willow.
And the conscience in those instances wasn't Willow, but Giles,
who realized it was wrong but pointedly chose to ignore it (but
commented on it).
I think that the conscience of all SG members makes liberal use
of the "in a good cause" rationale. I don't see any
reason to single out Willow on this; they're all guilty as charged.
And if they all are, we can't reason from this to Willow's character
in particular.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Okay, can't agree here -- Scroll, 14:34:17 09/09/02
Mon
I don't think we can safely discount VampWillow from Willow's
personality. Villains took pains to draw the parallels
with "I'm busy", "Bored now", etc. Two
to Go and Grave also showed us hints of VampWillow's
flippant cruelty. Now, do I think Willow in her right mind would
ever say the things she said to Buffy, Dawn, and Giles? No. But
I do believe Willow, in moments of extreme frustration, could
feel them in her secret heart. Her "Daddy's home, I'm in
wicked trouble now" seems to be something that stems from
all the times Giles scolded her about magic. Her resentment of
Buffy being number one is probably real, though usually overruled
by her love for Buffy. But that's probably why ME gave us that
clunky magic-addict story line. Because the sweet, loving Willow
we know would never try to kill Giles no matter how much resentment
she felt.
VampWillow is playful, sadistic, cruel. She is scientific, experimental,
and almost poetic in her torture of PuppyAngel. She is favoured
by the Master over VampXander. When frustrated or thwarted, she
pouts. She makes her own fun. Willow is playful, but not sadistic
or cruel. But she can be petty, (no more than the average person),
and knows how to hold a grudge. She is scientific, precise, and
at times poetic. She is also favoured by Giles over Xander. When
frustrated or thwarted, she pouts/mopes. In Something Blue,
she decides to makes her will happen. DarthWillow is playful,
sadistic, and cruel. Her torture of Warren is exacting, not random.
When frustrated or thwarted, she didn't pout but lashed out at
everyone around her.
I'm not saying that Willow is necessarily cruel, sadistic, or
evil. Buffy, Giles, and Xander all tend to lash out in anger (though
perhaps in different ways). Buffy broods (which is moping but
less vocal). Xander tries to kill Spike for sleeping with Anya.
But I'd say they are all good, moral people. But I still think
Willow has within her the potential to be VampWillow, just as
she always had the potential to be DarthWillow. (Though, again,
I'm not saying that Willow was destined to be DarthWillow
or anything!)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Okay, can't agree here -- Shambleau, 16:45:17
09/09/02 Mon
I agree with Scroll, but would add Willow's sexuality to the list.
Prior to VampWillow's flamboyant bisexuality, there was no indication
Willow was anything but straight. I would say that VampWillow
probably portrays Willow's libido more accurately than "Hello,
gay now!" Willow is willing to admit. After all, VampWillow
would feel free to act on any desire her human personality has,
while Willow is more likely to suppress some parts of her psyche,
if only to make things simpler. A fixed sexual identity, with
its ready-made group member status, is easier to handle and less
threatening both for Willow and others than dealing with the fluidity
of her desires.
In fact, having watched Buffy vs. Dracula and Tough Love back
to back last night, I was struck by Willow's obvious attraction
to Dracula and Tara's nervous remarking on it. The issue was then
raised in their argument. Tara said that she was frightened by
how fast Willow was changing and growing in power. Willow immediately
leapt to accusing Tara of thinking she was just a LUG (lesbian
until graduation), which seemed odd to me at the time. Tara hadn't
even brought it up. Once it was in the air though, it was clear
that Tara wasn't totally certain about it. Also, Willow's vehemence
in denying it reminds me now of Buffys protestations that she
wasn't attracted to Spike. Protesting just a little too much.
ME may have been setting up the possibility, through these scenes,
that Willow was bi, for exploration after Tara was killed, not
realizing the firestorm that was going to occur. No way in hell
it can happen now, even Joss ain't that gutsy, but it would have
been truer to the character, IMO.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> But remember only Joss decides what's true
to the character, not us -- Slain, 17:18:57 09/09/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> clarification -- Slain, 17:22:07
09/09/02 Mon
Or rather I should say that we can have our own readings and interpretations
of the character, but Joss holds the only truth about them,
simply because they have no objective existences outside of a
fictional world.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: clarification -- shambleau,
18:11:27 09/09/02 Mon
Well, if Joss decides not to do something that he'd previously
decided to do, out of fear of adverse audience reaction, then
the audience is affecting what his truth is. I haven't seen the
interviews personally, but I've read other posters' reports that
Joss believes Willow is bi, and was thinking of exploring that
aspect, but isn't now, for fear of stirring up the hornet's nest
again. I wouldn't be surprised if he'd also changed his long-range
plans for Riley based on how people were reacting. So, yeah, he's
the ultimate arbiter of what goes into the story, but he doesn't
decide in a vacuum.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, shambleau may
be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- shadowkat, 18:31:45
09/09/02 Mon
Although I agree with Slain, the writer controls the character.
Our interpretations of the character should remain within the
context of the writer's universe to be truly valid. If Whedon
wants Willow to be bi, sadistic, whatever - it will happen. That
said, you lose your audience if you have the character do something
to much out of character. The writer can write whatever he/she
damn well pleases - but if the audience doesn't watch or care...the
story dies in a vaccume. So writer's care what audiences think
to a degree - if only to survive.
Whedon does a balancing act. He likes to push the envelope, give
the audience its shocks, show darkness. But it's a fine line as
he discovered this year, between thrilling the audience, which
he did with Angel and annoying it which he did with Btvs. Audience
doesn't like it? They won't watch it. That said, I hope and pray
he doesn't start catering to us because that would be really bad
and be the one thing that would get me to stop watching. I hate
it when writers cater to audiences and fans. ick.
On Willow's sexuality:
I read the interview where Joss states on www.slayage.com
- I think it's back in June, that he and Marti discussed Willow's
sexuality and decided that because they killed Tara as opposed
to just writing her out as they did OZ, they had to keep Willow
gay. If they made Willow bi or gave her a male love interest after
Tara's death? It would send a negative message they did NOT intend
to send to people that they like and admire. So they made the
decision to keep her gay. It didn't sound like he was lying here
and I think it was in response to a question by Wanda in her chat.
Writers do care what fans and readers and watchers think.
Being a writer myself and having posted essays that have gotten
a variety responses - I can testify to that. But when we start
altering our text too drastically to fit what we believe are our
readers demands is when we've truly sold out and our text/art
becomes paradoxically that of a hack and worthless. So I hope
Whedon and Company continue to do their tight-rope act. From the
most recent Whedon interview I read, I believe they are.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, shambleau
may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- shambleau, 19:04:15
09/09/02 Mon
I don't know if Willow being bi "sends a negative message".
I certainly wouldn't want to tell someone who's bi that there's
a negative connotation to that. I'd say that the decision was
catering and I wish Joss hadn't done it, but it's done now. Oh,
well.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually,
shambleau may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- Dochawk,
19:23:07 09/09/02 Mon
The message wasn't about being bi, the message was that if Willow
went back to a man it would further the evil lesbian cliche. Lesbian
goes evil, she goes straight and she goes good again. In addition,
ME had already told us she was gay, not bi "Gay now".
And I disagree with you regarding Joss being influenced by the
fans. Like Spike? He wouldn't be there except for the influence
of fans. And in this case, Joss really didn't realize that he
had fallen victim to the lesbian cliche and it wasn't the message
he wanted to send. So it wasn't so much what the fans wanted but
the message he wanted to send which in the end is a pro-openess
message. The fan interest just told him what was going on.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually,
shambleau may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6) -- shambleau,
20:38:44 09/09/02 Mon
ME did not tell us she was gay, Willow did. If Willow had been
asked if she was gay when she was with Oz, she would have said
no, she was straight. Her telling us means as little as Buffy
telling us she's not attracted to Spike. We don't know what her
level of self-awareness is. She certainly wasn't aware of why
what she was doing with magic was bound to lead to trouble. Again,
I go back to VampWillow, who liked both men and women. I think
they could have finessed the so-called lesbian cliche problem
in various ways, such as by having Willow have a few brief affairs,
out of misery, starting with a woman, then a man, then a woman,
for those who would howl if she was with just a man.
I'm not going to get into the evil lesbian cliche debate, because
that can go on forever. I'll just say that I'm with those who
think it was a valid choice and don't think Joss fell victim to
it at all. And I hadn't heard that he believed that he had. Is
that true?
As to whether I like Spike? Not much, actually. They've managed
to keep me on board and make an interesting story out of his journey,
for which I'm grateful. But it could easily have gone the other
way.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Actually, shambleau may be partially right (Spoilers Season 6)
-- Dochawk, 21:50:43 09/09/02 Mon
Willow repeats the statement in Tabula Rasa "you know I think
I 'm kinda gay". There is absolutely no evidence that Willow
has been attracted to anyone with a Y chromosome since she understood
her sexuality with Tara (really in Hush). Unless Willow discovers
a new attraction for men, she is gay.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Willow's sexuality - the practicalities -- KdS, 01:02:23
09/10/02 Tue
Sorry if this is lowering the tone of the discussion, but I would
say that Willow has very practical reasons for publicly identifying
as lesbian if she is in fact bi. I've been at university within
the last few years, and I would say that any bisexual female student
as attractive as Willow is would be very well-advised to publicly
identify as gay. Given the attitudes to bisexual women over here
in Britain (and from what I've seen, the States) if WIllow had
come out as bi, she'd spend every Friday night for the rest of
her time at college fighting off sleazy straight boys trying to
persuade her to have threesomes with them and their horrified
girlfriends, and who wants to do that?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Willow's sexuality - the practicalities -- Slain,
03:46:12 09/10/02 Tue
" if WIllow had come out as bi, she'd spend every Friday
night for the rest of her time at college fighting off sleazy
straight boys trying to persuade her to have threesomes with them
and their horrified girlfriends, and who wants to do that?"
I'm guessing that's a rhetorical question right? ;)
I don't agree that Joss had decided that Willow was bi, but then
decided not to explore that any further. Rather I don't think
he was decided as to her sexuality, had generally considered her
bisexual, but wanted to let the story dicate it. I think making
Willow bi now, aside from pissing off people, would make less
sense for her plot arc in general, and I mean including
Season 1-4. That's my reading, and it differs from other people's
sufficently to show that there's no clear or true path for any
character.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Well I agree with Slain. -- shadowkat, 07:26:46
09/10/02 Tue
That was what Joss said. He said, they hadn't really decided it
could go either way. But the story arc and the fact that Tara
died pushed it towards gay. He continued to emphasize that he
did what worked for the story. (Didn't mean to get us talking
about the lesbian cliche thing again which I really don't agree
with and have been avoiding discussing.)
All the characters in these shows fit the story first and formost.
Regardless of our personal feelings for the characters, i think
the story dictates their actions before our tasts do. (thank god.
Tara's death proved that. As did Angel's in Season 2 and the AR
scene. None of those things would have happened if ME listened
to fans as much as you think.) Spike is there b/c Whedon loved
the character and the actor. The writers loved to write for him,
which they've said in interviews. Actors loved to work with him.
And It helped that the fans also took to him. Same thing happened
with Angel, who had originally had a smaller role. And Jonathan,
and Harmony, and Cordelia, and Wesely... These things happen in
stories. I know when I write, a character I previously hadn't
thought much of, will often take over and I'll have to rewrite
to give him or her more story because it works.
At any rate, Btvs has more or less always worked for me story
wise, particularly now, or I wouldn't post on it or wast time
writing essays. And I loved the Willow arc as much as I love the
Spike arc.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Willow and VampWillow -- Sophist, 09:15:56
09/10/02 Tue
It is very common, in interpreting Willowís character,
to attribute to her hidden ìdarkî aspects. Those
aspects, we are told, can be seen in VampWillow from The Wish
and Doppelgangerland.
I have never shared this view. I think it should be clear, fundamentally,
that such a view is not a statement of fact at all. It is, instead,
a conclusion or interpretation drawn from selected elements of
the show and the view of Willow held by some viewers. There is
nothing inherently wrong with this, as long as everyone is careful
to label it an interpretation rather than a fact (and I expect
manwitch to challenge me here to distinguish between the two).
However, I consider that interpretation to be founded on a very
shaky chain of reasoning, so shaky that itís implausible.
In order to simplify the discussion a bit, Iím going to
focus on perhaps the most conspicuous attribute of VampWillow,
her sadism. Shadowkat treated us all to an excellent series of
essays on this topic recently. VampWillowís sadism is so
prominent that no one could seriously dispute it. If we canít
track sadism from VampWillow to Willow, itís hard to see
how we could legitimately claim to use VampWillow as an expression
of Willowís depths on any other aspect.
Letís start with alternate universe created in The Wish.
How are we to understand this alternate universe? I see 2 basic
possibilities:
1. The alternate world was created anew using Cordeliaís
interpretation of the world at that moment in time as a template.
This would be similar to what the monks did with Dawn. As Iíve
said before, Iíve always seen the episode in this light.
This interpretation has the advantage of explaining Anyankaís
statement that ìI had no idea this world would be so exciting.î
It also allows us to account for many of the continuity problems
that have bothered people about this episode. Still, itís
an interpretation and Iím not insisting on it. Iím
merely pointing out that this is one legitimate way to see the
episode. If we adopt this interpretation, then the characteristics
of VampWillow tell us nothing about Willow, but only about how
Cordelia, in her anger and pain, saw Willow at that moment in
time.
2. The alternate world was pre-existing, and Cordyís wish
merely transported her there. This interpretation has serious
logical problems (how did Cordy survive the Harvest? whereís
Darla? Luke? what happened to the Annoying One and the prophecies
in the Codex that are, in Gilesís words, ìnever
wrongî? was Xander vamped before the SheMantis got him?
since Xander had no interest in Willow at that time, when and
how did he and VampWillow become a couple? how did two newly risen
vamps become the Master's chief associates?). Itís not
my intent to debate this here; these difficulties make this interpretation
implausible but not impossible. My point is simply that the ìsadismî
charge rests upon a foundation not of fact or evidence, but merely
of one possible (and to me implausible) interpretation of an episode.
The next step in the argument involves the undeniably sadistic
behavior of VampWillow. How do we account for the behavior we
see in vampires generally and in this case in particular? Here
are the possibilities I see:
1. The demon soul adds something to the human base. If this happens,
we can never be sure if the characteristic expressed in the vamp
was there all along in the human, or if it was added later by
the demon. This interpretation means that we canít argue
that VampWillowís behavior necessarily tells us something
about Willowís personality (or, indeed, that any vamp behavior
necessarily tells us about his/her human predecessor). Instead,
the logic must move in the opposite direction ñ from human
characteristic to vamp behavior. VampWillow is no longer evidence
of Willow, though Willow could be evidence of VampWillow.
2. The potential for sadism is latent in all humans. Shadowkat
said so in her essay, and it may well be true. This, again, would
tell us nothing about Willow per se. If everyone is latently
sadistic, then thereís no point in saying Willow is. Under
this option, VampTara could be sadistic even though we never saw
any evidence whatsoever of sadism expressed in Taraís character.
3. The vampire expresses only those characteristics available
in the human, and either (a) only some humans are sadistic,
or (b) the vampire expresses dominant, not latent, characteristics
of the human personality. This appears to be the assumption underlying
the claim for Willowís ìsadismî. Again, I
wonít rule out this interpretation, but there are serious
problems with this view of vampires (why is Dru sadistic? how
do we get from William to Spike under this theory?). The point
is this: the claim about Willow now rests on linked interpretations,
each no more (and probably less) plausible than other available
interpretations, and is not a factual statement at all.
In sum, my view of Willow in S1-5 is that there is no hidden dark
side to Willow. What you see is what you get. Willow was sweet,
insecure, loyal, helpful, reliable. She was Buffyís best
friend and Buffy was her best friend.
I expect many responses to the effect: What about Willow in S6?
As I have said before, my view is that ME radically altered her
character in S6. To avoid misunderstanding, I hasten to add that
this is perfectly legitimate. People do change, especially under
traumatic circumstances. I also have no problem with changing
a character for dramatic impact (though it has to be transitioned
plausibly). I donít happen to care for the way ME handled
Willow in S6, but that doesnít mean they were wrong to
try. What it does mean is that we should not be ìbackshadowingî
Willowís behavior during S6 into her character in S1-5;
we should just acknowledge the change and take it from there.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Sorry, I don't understand -- Sarand,
11:49:15 09/10/02 Tue
I'm sorry but I don't understand your first point about how the
alternate universe was created using Cordelia's interpretation
of the world at that point in time. My feeling about it is based
on what Cordelia said in her wish: "I wish Buffy Summers
had never come to Sunnydale." I thought that Anyanka was
then able to go back in time, so to speak, and prevent Buffy from
coming to Sunnydale at that point in time just before "The
Harvest" and sent her to Cleveland (or wherever) instead.
Then, the events that we had seen in the following two and a half
years happened differently because Buffy was not there. Angel
came to help her but she wasn't there. He tried to prevent the
Master from rising (maybe killing Darla and Luke in the process)
but failed. At some point, Willow, the Willow who was the same
Willow we knew at the beginning of "The Harvest," was
turned and became VampWillow. Is this the same as what you were
thinking?
I guess I don't understand the comment that VampWillow is based
on Cordelia's interpretation of Willow at that point in time.
Do you mean, the point in time when Cordelia made the wish? Why?
Why wouldn't VampWillow develop out of the Willow who we saw at
the beginning of "The Harvest?" Honestly, I'm not trying
to debate the point with you, I'm just confused.
I'm sorry, I don't have time right now to develop my question
better. And I will try to go to the archives later and see what
continuity problems people saw with the episode. But since your
post seems to follow from this interpretation of "The Wish"
I thought I should ask for some clarity. Thanks.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I don't understand --
Sophist, 12:42:28 09/10/02 Tue
I'll try to clarify.
What I mean for option no. 1 is this: Anyanka created the world
from scratch. It never existed before Cordy made the wish. In
order to create that world, Anyanka needed information to create
the inhabitants. She took that information from Cordy's view of
them at the moment in time when Cordy made the wish. Thus, Cordy
saw Xander and Willow as a predatory and evil couple, so they
became such in the wishworld. Etc.
As a result, the characters in the wishworld do not represent
"real" characters in Sunnydale, but rather those characters
as filtered through Cordelia's thoughts and impressions.
In fact, it makes a good deal of sense to think of the wishworld
as transpiring entirely within Cordy's head and never actually
existing in "reality". We could debate this as endlessly
as Normal Again; my point is that there are alternative ways to
view The Wish, that which one you choose is purely a matter of
interpretation (not fact), and that the rest of the argument about
Willow rests on this shaky foundation.
The interpretation you suggest is (I'm sure) the one most people
have. If you think through the continuity problems I suggested,
you'll see some of the difficulties with it. Just for example,
Luke was the Vessel for the Harvest. If Luke completed the Harvest,
how can Cordy be alive in the wishworld (she was in the Bronze
and was Luke's next victim when Buffy intervened)? If Luke did
not complete it, how did the Master rise? Etc.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Once you take Buffy out of the
picture... -- dream of the consortium, 13:35:08 09/10/02
Tue
doesn't that imply that all sorts of things could be different?
To use a completely absurd example, let's say Cordy's parents
had promised her a trip to St. Croix if her grades were high enough.
Buffy never showed up, so Willow wasn't feeling quite so cocky
when she told Cordelia and Harmony to delete their assignments.
Willow helped them instead (like the sweet thing she is). Cordelia's
grades are that little bit better - Cordy is off to tan, conveniently
enough missing the Harvest. Comes back to find several former
classmates all fang-y. I really don't see any continuity problems
for an alternate universe, as long as the time frame is after
the change. (If Willow and Xander had never met before, that would
be different, because presumably, Anyanka responds to the literal
wish only and doesn't screw around with what came before.) More
to the point, I don't see anything that specifically indicates
that we should interpret the WishWorld as being a creation of
Cordelia's mind, and it seems a rather complicated explanation
compared with the simple interpretation that the world was what
it seemed to be, an alternative universe based on a simple change
of events.
I don't want to get into the Willow thing at length right now
(actually have work to do before five), but I think we are definitely
supposed to make connections between the vamps we see and their
human counterparts. Are these links one-to-one? No, of course
no. But Drusilla's madness and visions, Angelus' swaggering arrogance,
Spike's romanticism all seemed to lend credence to the assumption
that we are supposed to look for qualities exhibited by the vamp
in the human. To ignore all aspects of VampWillow's character
as irrelevant to Willow's character seems to be willfuly disregarding
a basic way in which the show examines character - the imagination
of the perverted character, in which normal traits are drawn as
exaggerate evil. The question of which of VampWillow's traits
are meant to belinked to Willow I'll have to leave for another
time.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I don't understand
-- Slain, 14:07:01 09/10/02 Tue
That's a really interesting point, Sophist. I'd always considered
the Wishverse simply as a "what if", a kind of twist
in time. But of course 'Dopplegangland' wouldn't exist, then,
as that Doppleverse exists in parallel to the normal Buffyverse,
and has its own objective existence.
I think the Wishverse is, as the name suggests, a universe created
around a Wish, an alternate universe created by Anyanka, in which
Cordy was deposited. The Wishverse was created through a combination
of Cordy's perceptions of characters and the classic cautionary
tale of a wish gone horribly right. Anyanka clearly believed
in a certain amount of punishment for Cordy, perhaps because she'd
wished ill of a woman rather than a man.
So the Wishverse is, to an extent, Cordy's nightmare. But, however,
she does die in it, and it continues. So clearly it's more
than an illusion, it's a fully functional world. But the characters
aren't all based on Cordy's nightmares; otherwise Giles would
be ten times more boring and Buffy would be kicking vampire ass
with perfect hair and fashionable clothes. So clearly the Wishverse
does have basis in reality, and is drawn from it; even if the
eventual aim is the "be careful what you wish for" fairytale.
The precise nature of the Wishverse is very hard to grasp. We
can safely assume that it carried on existing after the end of
The Wish or Dopplegangland, with Vamp Willow slain, even though
that was all we saw. So we can also assume that it would still
exist now, as clearly the destruction of Anyanka's amulet didn't
destroy it, otherwise that would have meant reconstructing the
whole Wishverse for Anya to go back through magic to retreive
the amulet. If the Wishverse's existence was purely temporary,
then it wouldn't have been around in 'Dopplegangland'.
This is beginning to get confusing. "Beginning?"
I hear you cry. Anyway, to return to the original point; can we
understand anything about Willow from Vamp Willow? I'd say yes
and no. I think to a large extent she represented Cordy's image
of Willow, a cute big-eyed torturing sadistic temptress. But because
everything in the world didn't come from Cordy, she was also a
large part real Willow. I don't think, therefore, that we can
be sure of what Vamp Willow says about Willow; she might well
shows us that Willow is capable of cruelty and non-S&M-type
sadism, but no more so than any other person. Perhaps the difference
is that Vamp Willow, like Willow in so many things, happens to
be good at it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> "...happens to be
good at it." LMAO! -- Dead Soul, 14:12:17 09/10/02
Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Good points. -- Sophist,
14:22:15 09/10/02 Tue
I have no problem seeing it this way.
The continued existence of the wishworld as an alternate universe
after The Wish doesn't pose a problem for my theory (I
don't think). However we see that world, though, there is that
nagging plothole about the destroyed necklace and time travel
paradoxes involved in retrieving the necklace. It's the creation
of that world that's important.
Very funny last line.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> wishverse's (non?)existence
-- anom, 00:34:54 09/12/02 Thu
"The precise nature of the Wishverse is very hard to grasp.
We can safely assume that it carried on existing after the end
of The Wish or Dopplegangland, with Vamp Willow slain, even though
that was all we saw. So we can also assume that it would still
exist now, as clearly the destruction of Anyanka's amulet didn't
destroy it, otherwise that would have meant reconstructing the
whole Wishverse for Anya to go back through magic to retreive
the amulet. If the Wishverse's existence was purely temporary,
then it wouldn't have been around in 'Dopplegangland'."
There are at least 2 ways it could be possible to bring the objects
& characters in the Wishverse into the normal Buffyverse without
the Wishverse's having to exist beyond when Anya's amulet was
smashed.
1. Anya & Willow's spell brought vamp!Willow forward in time from
the moment before she was staked, i.e., its effect in the Wishverse
took place earlier than when the spell was done in the Buffyverse.
She was returned to the same instant, got staked, & the amulet
was smashed, ending the Wishverse --> it no longer exists.
2. The Wishverse was frozen at the moment the amulet was smashed.
It still "exists," but time has stopped there.
Either way, Willow is pulled from a time before the end of the
Wishverse, & it was still destroyed. No need for reconstruction
('cause the original construction wasn't shoddy!).
Hmm...2 things occur to me based on this:
1. Does it matter that v!W was slain when she got back? If the
Wishverse no longer exists, then neither does she, whether undead
or dust. If it's frozen...more of an open question.
2. What happened to the real Buffyverse while the Wishverse was
in effect? Did it still exist? Did time advance in it parallel
to time in the Wishverse? Did it "replace" the normal
Buffyverse for the short time it existed? When Giles destroys
the amulet, everything returns to when Cordelia made her wish.
Apparently nothing happened in the Buffyverse "meanwhile";
time doesn't have to reverse there to pick up where it left off,
just as time hasn't advanced in the Wishverse when v!W is sent
back. Then she's staked, presumably Giles smashes the amulet in
the library as we saw in Doppelgngland, & the Wishverse either
vanishes or is frozen--all at an earlier time than the events
v!W participated in in Doppelgngland.
Possibly.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe it goes to
the crazy melty land? Or the land without shrimp? -- Slain,
14:59:34 09/12/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wishes -- Cleanthes, 12:45:16
09/14/02 Sat
Were I ever offered the chance to make a wish by a powerful genie
or vengeance demon, I would wish as follows (with a nod to Hofstadter):
"I wish that my wish not be granted"
Because any universe in which wishes get granted will eventually
have a smartass like me in it, there MUST be a reset button to
keep things going. When Cordy makes her wish she fouled everything
up. When Giles broke the amulet, he restarted the whole universe.
VampWillow, though, was so damn cool that her glimmering glamour
could still be called from the potentiality plenum.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wishes
-- Ete, 14:26:54 09/14/02 Sat
"I wish that my wish not be granted"
isn't that a paradox ? You know, like the "I'm saying a lie"
thingie.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A paradox,
a paradox, a most delightful paradox - yes it is -- Cleanthes, 17:49:43
09/14/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: wishverse's (non?)existence
-- meritaten, 17:24:36 09/14/02 Sat
A real scientific theory, often expanded upon in the Star Trek
world, is that there are a multitude of realities, existing on
different planes, that result from bifurcations in reality. These
bifurcations are results of minor decisions or random variations
in both common and uncommon events. The series "Sliders"
is another example of this. This goes beyond the linear notion
of time that we perceive in our daily lives. While this has never
been proven (and might never be), it is an actual theory which
has received much attention in the sci-fi world.
Of course, magic doesn't usually enter into the sci-fi storied,
so I'm not sure how that would affect the point of bifurcation.
...Or the possbilty of a finte reality for that matter.
One point I did notice was the the action in Dopplegangland did
not show anything in the alternative reality either before the
curse was enabled or after it was broken. VampWillow was brought
to "our" reality just before Oz staked her and was later
returned to the same point in the alternative reality. The spell
involved the folding of time, right? Something like that. Anya
was trying to alter time so that she could retrieve her talisman
before it was destroyed. VampWillow was accidentally retrieved
instead.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Sarand, 16:21:55
09/10/02 Tue
Okay, now I get it. Thanks. Not sure I agree but it gives me something
more to think about. Hmmm. I'm going to be up all night thinking
about continuity problems. Arghh.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, I don't understand
-- meritaten, 15:26:12 09/12/02 Thu
WHere do you get the idea that Anyanka created this alternate
world out of Cordelia's head? I just don't understand what lead
you to that. Especially when in Dooplegangland, Anya and Willow
did a spell to fold time in order for Anya/Anyanka to retrieve
her talisman. This seems to me to confirm the fact that this alternate
reality was a result of temporal tampering, not Cordelia's thoughts.
If it was based on Cordelia, why didn't they need her for the
retrieval spell?
As for continuity, once you change an event in the past, everything
that occurs thereafter is laible to alteration. Perhaps Willow
didn't say to press "DEL" and Cordelia was so thrilled
to have her computer assignment doen that she wnet to LA for the
evening rather than going to the Bronze on the night of the Harvest.
OK, stupid alternative, but changing once small event can have
multiple reprecussions.
As for VampXander and VampWillow and representations of darker
aspects, how then would you explain Xander in The Pack? I think
episodes like the Pack, THe Wish, Dopplegangland, etc. work together
to strengthen the idea that the writers are trying to make us
see that we have darker sides and darker urges. Add to this Liam/Angelus/Angel,
William/ Spike, Unvamped Darla/DArla, unvamped Dru/Dru......
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Look at it this way
-- Sophist, 16:44:09 09/12/02 Thu
Is there any reason you can think of why it's impossible
to interpret the wishworld as either
1. Taking place entirely within Cordy's head,
or
2. Taking place in a separate reality created with information
obtained from Cordy's brain?
I have never argued that anyone must interpret it either
of these ways. I have merely pointed out that it is possible to
do so. The consequence of the fact that there are multiple possible
interpretations, and my only real point, is this: Because it's
possible to interpret the wishworld in non-traditional ways, the
assertion that VampWillow tells us something about Willow is not
as secure as people think.
Personally, I prefer the alternative interpretations. I think
they cause fewer problems than the standard one. But it's just
an interpretation and you're free to disgree.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Look at it this
way -- meritaten, 18:07:30 09/12/02 Thu
NOT disagreeing that there can be multiple interpretations...
Also NOT trying to be argumentative....
...But what makes you think Anyanka can see into Cordy's mind?
That ability has never been even hinted at.
...I can't see Cordy, at this point, focusing enough on others
to see how different they would be in this reality. For example,
she already thinks of Buffy as as friendless loser, so why would
Buffy from Cleveland, who is friendless like Kendra, have such
a different personality?
...If it were in Cordy's head, how do you exlain the spell AND
the consequent appearance of VampWillow in Dopplegangland?
I still think that there are more problems with your explanation
than with the standard one. I don't think the continuity is a
problem for the reasons I stated above (and I didn't realize that
I was using almost the same example as someone else had - I just
hadn't read their post yet).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Sue me, I'm gonna interpret! -- Darby,
13:37:58 09/10/02 Tue
Um, maybe I shouldn't invite someone in your line of work to sue,
huh? Kinda like saying, "Bite me!" to Spike...
Anyway, I can find some consistency here. If the vamp personality
is a twisted version of the inner recesses of the human host,
the sadism of Willow's Dark side could be based on a common aspect
of "sensitives:" they may feel, in their heart of hearts,
that the world would be an easier place to deal with if they
just didn't care about hurting people. That makes VampWillow's
sadism (and possibly Dark Willow's cruelty) not so much an exaggeration
as much as a reflection of dark urges that she would never act
on - kind of like the idle thought that put The Weight of the
World on Buffy. For just a fraction of a second, Buffy wondered
if she didn't really want Dawn dead and might have hesitated to
take on Glory when she stole Dawn, and her whole self-image crumbled
around that doubt.
I find that I like the idea (supportable by various dialogue lines
from pretty early on) that Joss and the writers consciously write
the vamp versions in ways that reveal hidden or repressed aspects
of the human characters. I imagine it produces interesting discussions
in the writers' room (they gotta be talking occasionally about
more interesting things than which Bond was better!).
And sorry, but I see no indication of the Wishverse being either
predicated on Cordy's expectations (she was pretty surprised by
everything) or played out in her head (why not wake up once you're
"dead"?). To me, it played much more as a legitimate
"what if?" with a certain critical aspect of history
changed.
And keep in mind, a universe where Buffy never made it to Sunnydale
may have altered the calling order of Slayers - we can't know
that the Master didn't rise by killing a fairly inept Sunnydale
Slayer. And why would Giles have been there? He Watched that Slayer
(it was his turn). Maybe that's why Buffy's Watcher was so resistent
to sending Buffy there (and it did get her killed!).
- Darby, toying with a combination of Continuity Heaven and Hell.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Roger Moore should get an Oscar and
beat Sean Connery over the head with it! -- Slain, 14:12:56
09/10/02 Tue
Or was it the other way around?
See my other post for a confusing explanation, but basically I'd
argue that, to an extent, the Wishverse was based around Cordy;
it was her own fairytale "be careful what you wish for"
scenario.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- Sophist, champing at the bit (or frothing at the mouth), 14:13:40
09/10/02 Tue
You and dream both made one point that I want to clarify. I absolutely
agree that, in every case except wishworld, humans tell us something
about the vamp personalities. Even in the wishworld, this could
remain true depending on how you interpret the newly created world.
However, that interpretation of vamp/human personality still has
the issues that I identified in the second half of my post: is
it the vamp or the human that supplies the characteristic; is
the characteristic one common to us all instead of just Willow;
which human characteristics are expressed and why.
Neither am I saying that the continuity issues can't be solved
if we choose to see the wishworld as a pre-existing reality. However,
neither your suggestions nor dream's will work. Just for example,
it is clear from the Wish itself that Giles was not the watcher
of any slayer in Sunnydale and never had been. It'll require a
lot of work and explanation to solve these problems. And all the
while I'll be on the sideline chanting "Occam, Occam, Occam"
because it really is a lot easier to see the whole episode as
Cordy's nightmare. Wasn't that the point of the episode in the
first place?
Again, I'm not insisting that anyone must see this my way. I'm
just pointing out we're piling Ossa on Pelius in our interpretive
schemes here (don't you love obscure classical references?).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Giles sent to SunnyD for Buffy,
but Buffy never showed -- Scroll, 14:45:04 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> No, that was Angel's line.
-- Darby, 19:11:01 09/10/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- aliera, 18:41:20 09/10/02 Tue
"Ter sunt conati imponere Pelio Ossam."
No frothe, I beseech thee!!!
"I would have you call to mind the strength of ancient giants,
that undertook to lay the high mountain Pelion on the top of Ossa,
and to set among those the shady Olympus."--Francais Rabelais:
Works, book iv. chap. xxxviii.
Indeed.
"They were setting on
Ossa upon Olympus, and upon
steep Ossa leavy Pelius."
Geo Chapman: Homer's Odyssey, book xi. 426.
leafy not heavy...
And yet..."the omnipotent Father with his thunder made Olympus
tremble, and from Ossa hurled Pelion." Ovid: Metamophoses.
i.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- Darby, 19:29:54 09/10/02 Tue
We don't know from the script that Giles had not been an active
Watcher - he certainly was a Watcher, and seemed to think that
he was supposed to be Buffy's (depends on the line reading, really),
but nothing precludes his having briefly and tragically been active
- it lends some poignancy to the statement about how "some
had tried" to kill the Master.
Keep in mind, too, that Occam's Razor does not stand up to testing
- and it's one of those concepts that almost anybody can test.
Have disinterested people pick a number of natural phenomena at
random and see if the operative explanations are either the most
likely or the most reasonable (a tremendously tricky term to define
in such a context anyway). It does appear on Buffy whenever Joss
has something happen that doesn't appear logical or doesn't adhere
to continuity: "It's magic!" Certainly the simplest
explanation, and most reasonable to some. And it doesn't have
to apply as an answer to, "How can one arrange the universe
to keep Buffy out of Sunnydale?" I would think an OR application
would be to pick an alternate universe where things happened that
way and shift there, rather than create one from scratch, except
that infinite alternate universes probably fail the OR test.
As Ashleigh Brilliant has said, "Your reasoning is excellent;
it's just your basic premises that are wrong!" I don't feel
quite that strongly, but I like the quote.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- Sophist, 09:31:33 09/11/02 Wed
I think the focus on the continuity problems is causing some of
my points to be overlooked. My basic point was that the evaluation
of VampWillow depends, in the first instance, on an interpretation
of the episode that is merely one possible interpretation. My
second point was that such an evaluation then goes on to make
unstated assumptions about the effect of vamping and the interplay
between human substrate and demon possession. The whole edifice
is shaky.
Having said that, I will lay out the contours of the continuity
problem:
1. Buffy failed to come to Sunnydale when she was supposed to.
2. The Master rose (obviously, without killing Buffy in order
to do so).
3. Angel saw Buffy called as the slayer (he recognized her) and
came to Sunnydale to fulfill his destiny (presumably as we saw
in Becoming).
4. Giles came to Sunnydale to be Buffy's watcher (this is the
most obvious reading, though perhaps not the only one).
The trick is this: how did the Master rise? The most obvious solution
is to have him rise at the Harvest. This accounts for his rising,
Angel, and Giles. The problem is that Cordy would have died at
the Harvest because Luke was about to drink her when Buffy intervened.
Then, of course, we'd have to explain why Luke and Darla aren't
there, how Xander escaped the SheMantis and didn't become a hyena,
how Willow avoided Moloch, why Giles didn't have his brain taken
out, the lack of slashes on Cordy's face, why the Annoying One
prophecy didn't happen, etc.
I'm not saying the problems can't be solved. At some point, though,
the explanations become so complex as to be implausible. And even
if there is a simple solution, it would only establish that there
is indeed a plausible alternative interpretation (see my point
no. 1 above). You still need to deal with the second part of my
original post.
I like the quote too. To bad it's such a double-edged sword....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm going to break
the code. -- Darby, 11:15:32 09/11/02 Wed
I'm a guy, I'm lost, I've floundered around for a while, and I
guess I'm going to ask for directions. Don't report me to the
union, okay?
You say we haven't addressed the second point of your original
post, but I can't figure out which one that is, or if I should
be looking at the original in this subthread or the original by
posting time. Or whether I can even figure out which point that
is if I was to find the proper post.
Could you consider giving the point again?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Confusion is
my specialty -- Sophist, 12:53:11 09/11/02 Wed
Of course, in my hands it's a boomerang.
I was referring to the post that started this sub-thread. I posted
it on 10 Sept. at 9:15.
Sophist, facing North and pointing East with his left hand and
West with his right.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay,
I think I've got it... -- Darby, 19:53:07 09/11/02 Wed
...the "how much of the vamp is the demon?" question,
right?
I do think we've been given most of this answer. The strongest
evidence was Angel's transformation in Pylea. The were-beasty-thingy
was assumed to be (by the characters, whose opinions I never completely
trust, but let's give them the benefit here) his vamp-demon in
its near-pure state.
I think several of Maggie Walsh's "id" scenes were thematically
linked to vampdemons themselves, implying (to me if no one else)
that they had a purity of intent, "evil," that gave
them little humanistic personality. I see them as influencing
baser motivations but not more complex personality traits.
Man, this would be a much more powerful argument if Angel's VampDemon
looked like the beasty from Forbidden Planet...
- Darby, whose references might be obscure but can't be considered
classical.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oo!
Oo! Oo! I've got it again! -- Darby, 21:49:06 09/11/02
Wed
The clearest evidence that the Wishverse is place with a unique
physical existence is that Anya lost her amulet there.
It doesn't seem to be rattling around in Our Girl's skull.
To get it back, she needed a witch but she didn't need Cordelia.
In fact, did Cordelia even appear in Willow's vision of the place?
I think that if Joss or whoever had meant the Wishverse to be
somehow connected to Cordy, she would have had to play
a larger part in Dopplegangerland. Their game, their rules,
their obsessive need to acknowledge such things.
- Darby, who seems to think that there's some sort of prize involved
in this. But isn't that a piece of objective evidence?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
We'll never be normal again -- Sophist, 09:04:09 09/12/02
Thu
The trouble with alternate realities is that there are too many
possibilities. For example, all of Cordy's interactions with Anyanka
in The Wish occur from Cordy's POV. Cordy sees a necklace, then
it's gone. There is nothing about this which is inconsistent with
the entire sequence taking place inside Cordy's head.
DAWN: Buffy ... look at me. (Buffy blinking slowly) I'm right
here. You're my sister. (getting tearful) I need you and love
you. Somewhere inside you must know that's real.
BUFFY: (sarcastic) Sure it is. 'Cause what's more real? (starts
walking toward Dawn) A sick girl in an institution...
DAWN: Don't. Please. Listen to me.
BUFFY: Or some kind of supergirl ... chosen to ... fight demons
and... (Dawn looking around anxiously) save the world. (pauses,
looks to one side, smiles a little) That's ridiculous.
As for Doppelgangerland, the use of magic pretty well eliminates
any assurance of objective evidence of "reality".
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: We'll never be normal again -- meritaten, 18:49:22
09/12/02 Thu
...But as Darby pointed out, the talisman had existed and was
now gone. Anya and Willow attempted to retrieve it, but did not
neeed Cardy for this. GRanted magic was used in Doplegangland,
but I think that that confirms the reality of the curse within
the Buffyverse. If it was only in Cordy's mind, why would it have
consequences for Anyanka and her talisman? Also, as we saw in
Hell's Bells, the results of Anyanka's curses were not confined
to a mental state. SAme with the birthday epsidoe curse (Older
and Far Away?).
Normal Again. I agree with you on this one. This was a wonderful
episode because it left open the possibility that the last six
years were all a product of a disturbed mind!We are left, like
Buffy, having to chose which reality to accept. Wonderful!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I
didn't see -- Sophist, 09:16:45 09/12/02 Thu
the part of the Pylea episodes that you refer to. I only watch
AtS episodically, so to speak. My utter ignorance on this topic
will by no means deter me from expressing some thoughts about
the subject, however.
The basic issue is this: if the demon provides any aspect
of the vamp personality, then we can never be sure if a particular
characteristic came from the demon or was in the human all along.
The only way we can say "Angelus was sadistic, therefore
Liam must have been sadistic" is if we know that Angelus
is Liam with a conscience subtracted but nothing whatsoever
added. I don't think we do know this.
I'm not sure whether sadism is a complex trait or a baser motivation,
but I'd be inclined to see it as the latter. Especially in Angelus.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Pylea -- KdS, 09:35:48 09/12/02 Thu
Quick recap for Sophist:
In Pylea, Angel is attacked by a bunch of demon knights and vamps
out. However, instead of the vampface we know and love he turns
into a far less humanoid green spiky thing (think a cross between
the Incredible Hulk and the demon assassin in Homecoming). This
creature then proceeds to go completely berzerk, growling, ripping
peoples' arms off and showing no sign of sentience whatsoever.
Fred finally manages to make some kind of connection with it,
and calm it down until it turns back into Angel, but only on the
level on which a human could connect with a not-very-bright dog.
Hence the suggestion that all of a vampire's characteristics come
from the original human, as the "inner demon" shows
no sign of any kind of higher mental functioning.
And hence the suggestion about vamp personalities. The vamp is
the human minus conscience and plus demonic predatoryness, but
the manner in which the predatory urge is expressed is wholly
the result of the conscienceless human personality. And while
I've no doubt you could make points about feline behaviour I can't
see the type of premeditated cruelty that Angelus showed coming
from anything that wasn't sentient.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Forbidden Knowledge Girl -- Malandanza, 10:58:43 09/12/02
Thu
"The basic issue is this: if the demon provides any aspect
of the vamp personality, then we can never be sure if a particular
characteristic came from the demon or was in the human all along.
The only way we can say "Angelus was sadistic, therefore
Liam must have been sadistic" is if we know that Angelus
is Liam with a conscience subtracted but nothing whatsoever added.
I don't think we do know this"
I think that the (non-sentient or barely sentient) demon provides
some basic drives but doesn't really contribute to the personality
in any significant manner. VampHarmony seems to be the best example
of how little a personality can change -- essentially, there is
no difference. Looking at William vs. Spike, the change is huge,
but remember that VampWilliam set out almost immediately to completely
transform his own personality.
The new vampire seems to be defined more by what's missing than
what's added. Not just the conscience -- the loss of a conscience
suggests an inability to distinguish between right and wrong or
a willingness to do wrong regardless. Vampires seem to lose more
than their moral sense -- they lose, to a great extent, their
fear of punishment or censure so are free to act on their baser
impulses (much as Bufy found being invisible liberating, Spike
found becoming a vampire liberating). Inhibitions also seem to
be gone -- things people refrain from doing not because they view
it as immorality, but out of fear for what the community might
think. All those layers of learned behavior that prevent a person
from acting on every whim are gone. With Harmony, the loss of
what few inhibitions/conscience/fear she had was inconsequential
-- there weren't many inhibitions present to begin with so VampHarmony
really isn't that different from Harmony.
Willow is different. She one mass of inhibitions and subconscious
fears and desires, half hidden even from herself. Consider Willow
from Season One and Two -- before Buffy arrived, she was a competent
hacker. Afterwards, she became obsessed with magic -- always searching
for forbidden knowledge, whether in books or protected behind
the firewalls of the Internet. Now consider how interested she
was in sex -- from the beginning she desperately wanted a boyfriend
-- almost dying in her quest on at least two occasions. When she
began dating Oz, her most frequent complaint was that Oz wasn't
moving quickly enough for her ("I'm ready already!")
Put her thirst for knowledge (sexual and otherwise) together with
the Internet and what sort of sites might Willow have been visiting?
It's easy to find examples of S&M relationships on the Internet
(just read some Spike fic or Faith fic) even without being able
to bypass adult verification services or nanny software. I have
no trouble imagining that Willow had read extensively of de Sade
and his imitators before being vamped in the Wishworld -- not
that she'd ever act on that knowledge -- it would be wrong. Remove
the inhibitions, though, and you get VampWillow playing with the
puppy.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Great Insight! -- Darby, 12:56:58 09/12/02 Thu
It's fun when someone takes something that you've put a lot of
thought into, believed that you had a full grasp of, and then
throws out a couple of aspects that have you saying, "Of
course! Why didn't I see that?"
Your take on the removal of inhibitions was in that neighborhood,
but the concept of no fear of punishment is huge! We are so used
to seeing the Buffy and Angel-types that we can forget that to
people not "in the know," which is the vast majority
of humans, a vamp is essentially unkillable and not that easy
to hurt. Add that to not really caring about what humans think
or feel and it explains a lot about vampires - it almost completely
explains the whole "moral compass set to evil" thing
without getting all metaphysical.
Nicely done!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> The demon within -- Sophist, 13:43:12 09/12/02
Thu
Thanks to Kds for the summary of the Pylea scene. I went back
to TtLG and read the transcript. Is there another scene in addition
to this?
Assuming this is canon for BtVS, and putting aside some really
abstruse quibbles I could make, this does seem to eliminate the
first of my 3 options in the second step of my original post.
That leaves options 2 and 3 to choose from in the interpretation
of vamp behavior.
Mal's point about loss of inhibitions seems well taken. However,
unless I'm missing something, the specific argument about Willow
is circular. The original question was: Are there hidden depths
in Willow revealed by VampWillow? Mal has assumed that there are
such depths ("She one mass of inhibitions and subconscious
fears and desires, half hidden even from herself."), and
then argued that the removal of inhibitions led to the expression
of these.
Much as I love the image of Willow secretly accessing DeadSoul's
wonderful fanfic and playing Mistress of Pain with Oz (no scary
visuals for me), I'm still not convinced about the logic here.
Oh, and one other point for Darby about the "real" existence
of the amulet. If the destruction of the amulet undid the wish
and all its consequences, why was the amulet itself not still
on Anyanka's neck when the scene shifted back to Sunnydale? Isn't
there a time travel paradox here, in which, if the wish was never
made, the world in which the amulet was destroyed never existed,
etc.?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Which may no longer have a home... -- Dead
Soul, 14:15:48 09/12/02 Thu
***Thread highjack and OT rant warninng***
Sophist wrote:
"Much as I love the image of Willow secretly accessing DeadSoul's
wonderful fanfic and playing Mistress of Pain with Oz...."
The story to which he is referring, "Sunday Girl", as
well as all other stories rated NC-17 will be removed from fanficiton.net
at some time in the near future (they say April 12, 2002 - which
of, of course, is impossible, but do they mean April 12, 2003
or the 12th of a month in 2002?), nor are they accepting any more
NC-17 stories.
Those are the facts; now comes the rant portion of this post:
I feel literally sick to my stomach about this. This pushes so
many of my buttons:
1. the free speech button - yes, it's their site and they can
make whatever rules they like, but their slogan is "unleash
your imagination and free your soul." Hypocrisy, thy name
is fanfiction.net.
2. the "we've got to make everything safe for the children"
button - Raising YOUR childen is not MY responsibility and if
there are things you don't want them to see, then try supervising
them a little better rather than penalizing the people, the adults,
who believe in free speech and enjoy some it's more controversial
fruits.
I don't, in principle, have any problems with people who have
children, so long as they realize that it's not my job to raise
them and I don't want to be forced to live in their baby-proofed
world.
3. the button that wants to say to anyone complaining about anything
- "if you don't like it, don't watch (or read, or do, or
whatever) it." Fanfiction.net says they've gotten the highest
number of complaints about the NC-17 stories even though they're
only a small percentage of the stories posted. Well, how about
they tell the complainers to:
a.) don't read things that offend them,
b.) if they're complaining about children perhaps reading something
they shouldn't, suggest perhaps spending some quality time with
their children while they're at the computer rather than using
it as a glorified baby sitter in much the same way television
is used, and
c.) if they have complaints, they should have the stones to write
a review and post it or, if an email address is given on the poster's
profile, email the poster directly.
I could probably find even more ways this is pissing me off, but
the above should certainly suffice for now. And I don't know if
I'll even be able to finish Sunday Girl there. I feel horribly
betrayed.
I'm going to have to go out hunting for sites that might accept
Sunday Girl and any future things I write - might not be all that
easy. It's not B/S and probably won't ever be, it's not redemptionistic,
but it's not entirely evilistic either. It's not S/D 'shippy,
although she'll probably be at least a peripheral character, if
only to explain why she's *not* around. Ficbitch maybe? Bugger
This would be great, but they seem awfully exclusive. At those
and so many other places, whether or not something is posted or
archived is up to the whim of a particular person or persons and
that's what I respected about fanfiction - anybody could post
anything there without having to be vetted by someone's taste
police. They weren't being judgy and now they are - in the worst,
most hypocritical kind of way.
Rant over, although the feeling of being kicked in the stomach
lingers on. I now return you to your regularly scheduled brilliant
and on topic discussion of everything wild, wacky and wonderful
about the world of BtVS and AtS.
Thanks for allowing me to vent.
Dead (-er than usual) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> An idea -- Etrangere, 16:29:18 09/12/02
Thu
Why don't you post your fic on the mailing list the Gutter and
ask them if anyone know where you could host it ? It's a Spike-with-anyone
NC-17 fic list, so yours shouldn't be unwelcomed and since it's
a very good fic (just read it, it's great :) though for some reason
i couldn't access to chapter 16) you shouldn't have too much trouble
finding a host.
At worse, you could propose it to the Fictionnary Corner, no ?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: An idea -- Dead
Soul, 16:49:35 09/12/02 Thu
Thanks, Ete. I didn't know about The Gutter. How does one get
in contact with them?
And for anyone who has read it and wants to get the additional
chapters as I write them (or chapters they couldn't access) or
who wants to read it from the top through the latest chapter without
messing with fanfiction.net (insert preferred expletive here),
just email me at the above address and I'll send it to you. Easiest
for me is as a Word attachment, but I'm somewhat flexible (to
the limits of my abysmal computer illiteracy).
Thanks so much!
Dead (and somewhat calmer - hope I didn't offend anybody) Soul
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> My mails sent to you are being
returned -- Ete,
18:04:56 09/12/02 Thu
Anyway I was saying :
It's a Yahoo mailing list, you should be able to subscribe here
:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BA_Gutter
and I'd be interresting in being mailed the rest of the chapters
:)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ack! Correct email address
-- Dead Soul,
18:19:32 09/12/02 Thu
The hazards of posting while angry! Thank, Ete.
DS
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I think that I can handle this... -- Darby,
15:37:35 09/12/02 Thu
It's magic!
No, huh?
But it does make sense that, whatever Anya's powers brought about,
she was largely immune to the effects - once the wish was made
Real (whatever way that was - and here's another point for a "real"
wishverse: Anya's history is of VERY reality-based vengeance.
No imagined twisted intestines for her!), she was Out Of There.
But reality-twisting demons could very easily possess an essence
that is in several dimensions simultaneously, all bound in this
case through the amulet. Remember, she wasn't hanging around the
Wishverse, Giles had to call her (which seems another point against
the in-Cordy's-head thing, but perhaps not against the based-on-her-expectations
thing). Once her power center (a specific item represented by
the amulet but not necessarily synonymous with it) was destroyed,
she "snapped back' to the point of space and time at which
the revoked wish occured, but she was not unchanged. You could
make the case that such a paradoxical but not impossible trip
disoriented her - she only later seems to understand what had
happened. Makes perfect sense to me, but I'm kinda loopy.
From a thematic standpoint, I remember being a bit annoyed on
first viewing because no one but Anya (whom we had no hope of
seeing again) was actually aware of what had happened, so no character
development had occured. It would be doubly troubling to think
that we weren't being given some insight into the inner world
of the actual characters either. You mean "it was all a dream"?
The best we get is "be careful what you wish for"? I'd
have to start a Bad Plotting thread, and that way lies madness!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: I think that I can handle this...
-- meritaten, 18:33:27 09/12/02 Thu
I agree. Anyanka was outside of the sphere of things affected
by her spell.
...although Halfrek being unable to leave the Summer shouse does
shed doubt on this. ...but I think that was written to provide
a way out of that problem.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Wow! -- meritaten, 18:22:45 09/12/02 Thu
Brilliant!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I'm missing
something... -- dream of the consortium, 11:17:11 09/11/02
Wed
I'm clearly deeply confused. What I don't get is why everything
else in the Wishworld should have to follow the Buffyverse model
exactly, minus Buffy. If Buffy had shown up in Sunnydale and the
VERY FIRST THING that she did was save Cordy from Luke, then okay.
But wouldn't removing Buffy from Sunnydale produce more effects
that the successful removal of a jackstraw? Considering her importance
in that world, wouldn't it be closer to removing the table the
jackstraws were sitting on? Everything would be jumbled, the effects
would be far-reaching, and though certain elements would be recognizable,
we wouldn't expect events to correspond exactly to those in the
Buffyverse.
Or is there some part of this discussion I'm just missing entirely?
(I never want to rule that out. I can be quite slow on the uptake.)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, you're
not missing anything -- Sophist, 13:03:29 09/11/02 Wed
Clearly, lots could change. OTOH, a lot of stuff clearly remained
the same: Giles, Angel, The Master, Harmony, John Whatshisname
(the guy who asked Cordy out after dissing her in the "real"
Sunnydale).
The trick is to come up with a logical explanation for why so
much is the same while still accounting for the differences. Since
alternate universes are infinite, I have no doubt it could be
done.
My point was simply to show that treating the wishworld as an
existing reality is simply an interpretation, not a given fact.
The consequence is that the conclusions drawn about Willow based
on the behavior of VampWillow are not as securely grounded as
people seem to assume.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't sue me, but
I am going to interpret, too! -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:17:51
09/11/02 Wed
Here's how I see it:
1) Cordelia was chosen to be a victim because Jesse had his eye
on her. And Jesse wouldn't have had his eye on her if he hadn't
been turned into a vampire. And he wouldn't be turned into a vampire
if Darla hadn't picked him up in "Welcome to the Hellmouth".
Meeting Buffy that day may have made him not stray into Darla's
line of sight (while there may seem to be no direct link, remember
that a butterfly flapping it's wings in Japan can cause a tornado
in the United States).
2) Darla and Luke. My guess is that either they were killed by
Angel (who reluctantly took up the job of fighting the Order of
Aurelis after Buffy didn't show up). Either that, or Giles and
his White Hats managed to kill them some time after the Master
rose.
3) If a butterfly can cause a tornado, then an ancient vampire
rising to take control of a town can alter all the things you
listed happening to the characters.
My view of Vamp Willow is that it is and was intended as an exploration
of Willow's dark side. Now, to make myself clear, while I believe
that Willow has a dark side, everyone has a dark side, especially
the characters on Buffy. If everyone has a dark side, you may
ask, then why do Vamp Willow and Darth Willow matter? Because
they show us what Willow's dark side is like. While everyone has
darkness in them, what form it takes is different for everyone.
Willow's inner darkness is playful and sadistic. Buffy's dark
side (from what we've seen and heard about it) would probably
be a kind of pure, undiscriminating warrior, reveling in the kill.
That's part of the point of Darth Willow: everyone, even the sweet
and kind like Willow, has enough darkness in them to be capable
of horrendous acts.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Reductionism contra Buffyism
-- Cleanthes,
13:59:29 09/11/02 Wed
Ockham's Razor does not stand up as a principal under the application
of Ockham's Razor, as many have noted over the centuries. In fact,
the razor pretty much demands a truly elaborate form of mysticism,
al· Pythagoras, to function, so the complexity is merely
shifted from one level of understanding to another, rather than
reduced.
The Buffyverse, especially as shown in `The Wish` and `Doppelgngland`,
positively favors the rococco. When faced with two explanations,
sometimes Giles gives in to the anti-complex, anti-magical (he
scoffs at magic in `Tabula Rasa`, and he thinks Buffy is wrong
that her roommate is a demon or that there's an invisible demon
that only fevered children can see, frex). The anti-complex explanation
is *always* wrong.
So, even disregarding the problems with the razor, I'd say that
whenever a person is tempted to apply the razor to Buffy interpretation,
that temptation should be regarded as proof of error.
But then, I'm religiously married to the many versus the one.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sue me, I'm gonna interpret!
-- meritaten, 18:40:02 09/12/02 Thu
Ok, if Angel was told that Buffy was coming, it was apparently
PLANNED for her to come. Giles could already have been placed
in Sunnydale High when plans changed.
Cordy's wish was not for Buffy to have never existed, not
for Buffy to have never been called, but for Buffy to have never
come to Sunnydale. An averted arrival fits with that.
Plus, consider practicalities. They couldn't effectively introduce
an new cast for this episode.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Ret-con vs. Character Exploration --
Scroll, 14:37:09 09/10/02 Tue
Ignoring Willow/VampWillow for now, I think we need to take into
consideration the driving purpose behind "The Wish",
which is to explore the characters' personalities, specifically
the darker aspects. Your interpretation of "The Wish"
puts the focus on Cordy's mindset: 'then the characteristics
of VampWillow tell us nothing about Willow, but only about how
Cordelia, in her anger and pain, saw Willow at that moment in
time.' Although Cordy probably did see Willow and Xander as
an evil, predatory couple, I don't think we can assume Anya used
Cordy's vision of X/W as the basis of the Wishverse. I believe
(this is JMO) that Anya used "I wish Buffy Summers had never
come to Sunnydale" the same way Halfrek used Dawn's "I
just wish people would stop leaving" for the House Arrest
spell in OaFA. Vengeance wish curses are pretty straight-forward
to start with even if the results spiral out of control.
You wrote: '1. The alternate world was created anew using Cordeliaís
interpretation of the world at that moment in time as a template.
This would be similar to what the monks did with Dawn.
IMO, the "Dawn" spell isn't based on anyone's interpretation
of the world, other than the monks' attempt to giveBuffy a sister.
Whose interpretation of the world is the Dawn-world based
on? Dawn's? The monks? Glory's? Buffy's? I see everything post
B vs. D as Buffy's Regular World + "Dawn". It's a what-if
world -- what if Buffy had a little sister? Kind of like, what
if Buffy had never come to Sunnydale?
I agree with you that "The Wish" has numerous continuity
problems -- but I think we have to accept that in order to write
this episode, Joss had to ret-con things a little, as with "Fool
For Love". But like FFL, we're so busy enjoying the character
revelations that we don't quibble the logic. I don't think anyone
can argue that William and Spike are all that different, despite
the differences (yes, I'm sure that sentence makes sense!). FFL
shows us how William became Spike. "Darla" shows us
how a prostitute became a powerful vampire, how Angelus first
became Angel. "The Wish", IMO, shows us what Willow,
Xander, Buffy, Giles, Oz, and Angel would've been like if Buffy
had never come to Sunnydale. Willow and Xander are vampires, acting
out those darker urges we humans suppress because of morals/souls.
Giles and Oz are tough guerilla fighters, Angel is a beaten slave.
Buffy is a mix of Kendra and Faith, hardened without the love
of friends. I don't think Cordelia's vision of her X/W world could've
produced these complexities.
I think I agree with Shadowkat's take on sadism being latent in
everyone, to greater or lesser degrees. Which is why I have no
problem seeing sadistic VampWillow as a What-if of regular Willow.
The Willow of S1-5 is "sweet, insecure, loyal, helpful,
reliable". But 'Buffy' has always shown that everyone has
a dark side (Giles-Ripper, Buffy-slayer, Oz-wolf), and I think
Willow has a much darker side than we ever gave her credit for
when she was still dressed in the Softer Side of Sears.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- Sophist, 19:27:34 09/10/02 Tue
I'm not arguing that there was a ret con here. I don't think there
was. I just start by asking "What was this episode intended
to show us?". I get a very different answer than you do.
You suggest that the wishworld existed to explore the darker sides
of certain characters. I believe it existed as a moral lesson
to Cordelia. I see it as essential to her development towards
her decision to help AI after Graduation. And since I start from
this point, I see the episode as telling us a lot about Cordy,
but not so much about any other character. (Much like The Zeppo
tells us about Xander and how he sees the world -- e.g., Buffy/Angel
melodrama).
the "Dawn" spell isn't based on anyone's interpretation
of the world
I agree. I didn't mean to suggest that it was, but I didn't say
it clearly enough. I meant that the monks created Dawn out of
Buffy, using Buffy as a template. In a similar way, Anyanka created
the wishworld using Cordy's thoughts and impressions as a template.
If you don't like the analogy, just ignore it. My point does not
depend on it.
I think I agree with Shadowkat's take on sadism being latent
in everyone, to greater or lesser degrees.
In that case, the mere fact that VampWillow was sadistic tells
us nothing we didn't already know about Willow, so there's no
reason to refer to VampWillow in making "hidden sadist"
argument.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- Darby, 19:40:57 09/10/02 Tue
But the problem (and a dramatic weakness of the episode) is that
Cordelia is totally unaware of any lesson - only Anya knows what
happened, and her lesson was of the "don't get caught"
variety. This was a writers' funhouse tour, a way of taking familiar
characters and having them develop along different arcs to new
and interesting places. I suspect that even they found the ending
unsatisfactory, and so begat Dopplegangerland.
But it was probably the leather - I don't think "Mistress
of Pain" took them to a scary place at all!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry. I've got to start
reading other replies before jumping in..... -- meritaten,
18:25:09 09/12/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Anya - "She's newly human
and strangely literal" -- Scroll, 20:08:20 09/10/02
Tue
I agree with Darby that "The Wish" couldn't really have
been serving as a lesson to Cordelia of 'be careful of what you
wish'. I think, however, that it serves as such to the viewers,
perhaps better than Dawn's wish in OaFA.
Okay, I get what you're saying about Dawn being made out of Buffy.
I totally forgot about that. : )
One aspect of "The Wish" that I find relevant to interpreting
it is the demon who makes it all happen: Anya. Granted, Anya in
Season 3 wasn't very complex and the Anyanka of "The Wish"
is very different from the Anya of "Dopplegangland",
"The Prom", etc. But Anya is above all direct, blunt,
and literal. She doesn't go for Angelus' psychological manipulation;
you want a guy's entrails liquified, she's gonna give you liquified
entrails.
But again, just my take.
Scroll : )
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Cordy's lesson -- Sophist,
08:51:33 09/11/02 Wed
I agree with Darby that "The Wish" couldn't really
have been serving as a lesson to Cordelia of 'be careful of what
you wish'.
From Psyche:
Cordelia: Listen to me. We have to find Buffy. She'll figure
out a way to save us. She was supposed to be here, and as much
as it kills me to admit it... things were better when she was
around.
***
Cordelia: No. No! No way! I wish us into Bizarro Land, and you
guys are still together?! I cannot win!
***
Cordelia: (frantic) Giles! It's all my fault! I wasn't... I made
this
*stupid* wish...
Giles: Come on. Please lie...
Cordelia: No! You have to get Buffy. Buffy changes it. (Giles
lets go of her) It wasn't like this. It was better. I mean, the
clothes alone... (Giles takes off his glasses) But people were
happy. Mostly.
If that ain't a moral, Aesop should burn his stories.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy's lesson
-- acesgirl, 10:03:06 09/11/02 Wed
The problem I have with "Cordy's lesson" is that once
the amulet is shattered, neither Cordelia nor the Scoobies remember
the wishverse so the lesson is lost to all but the audience.
Also from Psyche, the last line of the shooting script:
"BUFFY, XANDER and WILLOW
Who stand where we last saw them in act one - talking, laughing.
As Giles joins them..."
I do not see how the wishverse could have had any impact on Cordy's
decision to join AI.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cordy's
lesson -- Sophist, 10:57:53 09/11/02 Wed
I suggested somewhere in my plethora of posts above that the episode
could be seen as taking place entirely inside Cordy's head. In
that interpretation, she did learn the lesson, albeit perhaps
subconsciously.
Again, I'm not insisting on this interpretation, just pointing
out that it's possible.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- shadowkat, 06:56:10 09/11/02 Wed
Since my name keeps coming up in this discussion, I'm going to
give you my take. Was staying out of it. Mostly because i think
everyone is complicating the Wish beyond belief.
For whatever it's worth, I agree with Scroll. Sorry. But if it
was all about Cordy - why did Cordy have the smallest role? She
dies pretty quickly in the episode. We aren't in her pov, really.
We're in Giles and VampWillow's a good portion of the time.
This is a standard technique in sci-fi, fantasy, comic books (especially
marvel comic books which these writers read) where you do a what-if
issue. The What-if is a means of seeing the darkest side of every
character.
What would Willow be like with 0 conscience? As a vampire?
Created by the Master? Would she be like Dru? Darla? Something
else? This is the question Marti Noxon asked herself when she
wrote the episode. VampWillow was her answer. You may not agree
with her answer, but hey that's it. Why is it so hard to believe
a sweet kind person could be a cruel sadistic vampire? Drusilla
was a sweet kind innocent girl. Mosters live in all of us. But
actually whether you have troubles accepting that isn't really
relevant because the writers don't. Whedon has said in numerous
interviews - latest I think can be found on slayage, that what
he finds the most intriguing is when the outwardly sweet person
does something sadistic and the outwardly ugly cruel person does
something sweet. He loves the irony. The whole show is first and
foremost about the mislead, the irony. Look at Larry? Big obnoxious
wolfish oaf = whoa turns out to be actually a sweetheart and is
gay in Phases, while sweet calm OZ is the untamed werewolf at
heart. The title itself is an ironic play on words. Just because
they didn't obviously or clearly show aspects of Willows darkness,
doesn't mean they aren't there.
We don't see all her acts, only a portion and she may choose not
to go there, which makes her a far more stronger and interesting
character than if she was a saint and did not have those aspects
present at all.
Willow is not the only one examined in the Wish in this way.
Marti also tells you that dark side of Xander. The dark side of
Buffy. The only characters whose dark sides not explored are HArmony,
Cordelia, Giles, OZ, Angel - because we've already seen them,
we don't need to explore them. MArti is most interested in examining
the dark sides of the three main SG, the dark side that hasn't
been explored and that the writers are afraid to explore too much
in fears of alienating their audience. They waited until they
felt more secure in Season 6 to do that. (From what I've seen
on the internet, turns out they were right to be afraid. Their
audience doesn't seem to like to see darkness in the three leads...
which probably disappointed them. Can't say I blame them.)
I actually found VampXander to be as interesting as VampWillow.
They were the Spike/Dru of the Wishverse.
And I bet you money if the show ever decided to make them vampires
= that would be the characters you would see.
(IT won't happen, the closest we'll ever get to VampWillow is
DarkWillow = but DarkWillow proves my point.)
Why is it so hard to accept that there are dark aspects to these
characters? There is darkness in everyone. Just because we choose
not to go there, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And Whedon like
myself, likes to explore what would happen if we did. What happens
if someone like Willow decides to ignore her conscience and let
it rip? Well we saw what Whedon believes will happen. It may not
fit with your view, but you don't know Willow as well as Whedon
does. Whedon knows what Willow does when we aren't watching.
And what he shows us? He chooses to show us for his own reasons.
Oh as an aside which actually is oddly relevant to my point -
it is an eerie September morning here in NYC, the sky looks exactly
the same, clear blue, pretty, as it did exactly one year ago at
8:43 am. And I hear planes, traffic, nothing amiss. Reminds me
of a Gilbert and Sullivan line : Nothing is what it seems, skim
milk masequardes as cream.
Believe me when I tell you - just because the pond looks calm
and serene does not mean there isn't something nasty bubbling
underneath. Last year taught me that. It's not a lesson I will
forget. And Whedon wisely echoes this in his pieces of work.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm disappointed, s'kat
-- Sophist, 08:32:09 09/11/02 Wed
I thought we were in agreement -- don't listen to what the writers
say, watch what they show us. ;)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm disappointed,
s'kat -- shadowkat, 09:39:38 09/11/02 Wed
Which I'm doing. We just are interpreting what they are showing
us differently. ;-)
Just read an analysis of Lock recently. He makes the point that
we interpret what we see, hear, tast, smell, touch differently.
Ie. We agree the show is BTVS and it stars a girl killing monsters.
But the layers we're discussing can be interpreted in a variety
of ways.
Note on Willow - I don't think they are going with Willow being
an inherently sadistic person, just that she has these tendencies
which would come out if taken over by dark magic or being turned
into a vampire. Willow herself is not sadistic. Anymore than well
most of us are. I think that's
the crux of the arguement.
LAst night Buffy made it clear - DarkWillow wasn't Willow.
It was a possessed version.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ret-con vs. Character Exploration
-- meritaten, 18:20:17 09/12/02 Thu
If this was to be a lesson to Cordy, if it was to guide her in
later decisions, wouldn't she have had to been able to remember
it? When the spell is broken, Cordy returned to the same point
in time when she made the wish. She has no idea that her wish
was anything but a statement made in anger.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow -- Miss Edith,
06:08:57 09/13/02 Fri
I think it is easy to fanwank past events based on the current
evil Willow. E.g pointing out Willow was using magic she shouldn't
have in Faith, Hope and Trick when Giles told her off for doing
powerful spells she couldn't control. It is easy to say she liked
power by using examples such as The Dark Age when Willow starts
ordering Xander and Cordy around telling them if they can't behave
they will "get the hell out of my library". Or Earshot
when Willow wants a questionare done and tells her friends "today
people". But people could just as easily say that the writers
intended to show Willow becoming empowered by magic, and her thrist
for knowledge being disaproved off by Giles who was a stuffy fuddy
duddy in the early days. And examples of Willow finding some inner-confidence
are surely to be praised? E.g fans loved the incident in The Dark
Age or in Reptile Boy when Willow uncharacteristically speaks
up for Buffy in an angry tone, condemning Giles and Angel's expectations
of Buffy.
Is it really clear that Willow always had the potential to go
evil? I would say no personally. If Willow had become truly corrupted
by power and I did think she had become arrogant I would reassase
her past behaviour. E.g when trying to kill Buffy, if she was
doing so because she wanted Tara back and felt bringing Buffy
back had caused Tara's death karmicly that would make sense to
me. I would see Willow playing god, and trying to organise peoples
lifes and I would look at past instances. But the writers choose
to play Willow as an addict. She was possessed by black magic
at the end. Hence her torturing of Giles, her mocking of Dawn,
her homicidal urges etc. Dawn asks if Willow is back on the magics.
Willow talks of herself in the third person saying she is the
magics and "Willow doesn't live here any more". I did
see a possibility for Willow to become corrupted by power when
she used spells on Tara, and then dismissed Tara's reasons for
leaving as "no good reason". But it was later presented
as Willow becoming hooked on magic, and Tara returned to Willow
once she had gone cold turkey. She lost it after Tara's death,
and became possessed by magic. Does that suggesete anything to
me about her behaviour. Not really. If the story arc had been
handled in a more interesting way I may have studied Willow's
past behaviour. But aren't we really only supoosed to be looking
at Willow's reasons for using magic as a crutch? Was Willow possessed
by black magic and bouncing Giles of the ceiling really meant
to tell us anything about her?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow -- Miss
Edith, 06:39:11 09/13/02 Fri
Basically Willow's worst enemy was not herself, but magic according
to the story arc in season 6. It was Willow's use of magic that
had corrupted her character. It makes sense to look at the reasons
she may have been interested in using magic. But IMO her behaviour
whilst under the influence off dark magic is not relevent to her
prior character. JMHO.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Very good points -- Sophist,
08:38:17 09/13/02 Fri
Well, of course, I agree, so naturally I think they're good.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow
-- celticross, 08:57:41 09/13/02 Fri
But here, Miss E, is where we run into the problem of viewer interpretation.
I, personally, could completely see Willow becoming a Big Bad
entirely on her own, no magic addiction needed. I thought that
was where the story was heading up until Tabula Rasa, and I was
eating it up. Not because I had my list of all the slightly grey
things Willow'd done in the last five seasons (for me, the hints
didn't begin until the middle of the 5th season, and that was
only in retrospect), but because that seemed to be the direction
of the storyline. It really looked, to me, that Willow's growing
desire to fix things would lead to conflict with Buffy and the
rest of the Scoobies. So I felt cheated by the Magic Crack storyline.
I was *deeply* disappointed. (And on a side note, I think that
if Willow had been portrayed doing the wrong things for the right
reasons, rather than as a pitiful addict, it might not have been
necessary for Tara to die, thus avoiding months of controversy)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I may be wrong here,
-- Sophist, 09:39:04 09/13/02 Fri
but I think Miss E. might agree with you. IMHO, the story was
going the right way through TR. That doesn't mean I think Willow
has had latent evil in her for years; quite the contrary. It means
that her character was being developed in S6 in an interesting
way. That was all lost with the magic/drugs nonsense.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I may be wrong
here, -- DEN, 12:17:45 09/13/02 Fri
Sophist, I'm really on board with your approach to Willow. In
past postings I've suggested that her behavior in s6 is not "out
of character" in the accepted sense, but is a consequence
of five years' worth of stress experienced by someone extremely
sensitive to stress. I've also argued that poor development of
the story arc in the end made the addiction metaphor the only
way to explain her behavior in the final three eps as she progresses
from Vengeance Willow to Darth Rosenberg to Kali herself. Initially
Willow amps up on dark magic the way someone might do coke to
enhance performance. Then she hits the crack den, drains Rack,
and promptly starts behaving like a caricatured crackhead: paranoid
and hostile, especially to those closest to her. Finally she puts
Giles's borrowed magic on top of the residues of the first two
hits, and embarks on a bad trip right out of a Cheech and Chong
movie--or a Saturday-night emergency room in a college town during
the late 60s. I agree that it's as lame as hell--but IMHO it's
the only halfway convincing means of pushing a collapsed story
arc across the season finish line.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe ME would
hire us? -- Sophist, 13:26:50 09/13/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow
-- Miss Edith, 12:11:41 09/13/02 Fri
I saw potential for Willow to become evil after she went up against
Glory in Tough Love. I love Willow so I was thrilled when she
started taking control, afer Buffy's collapse, and telling Xander
and Spike if they started fighting she would get "very cranky".
However I can see how an evil Willow story could have developed.
I thought the writers were going that way when Willow resurected
Buffy, threatened Giles, killed the deer etc. Big step-up from
the previous season when she pleaded with Giles "don't hurt
the horsies" whilst they were in a battle situation. And
her behaviour with Tara was also disturbing. But I just felt at
the end she was presented as an addict.
E.g she wanted to kill Buffy, talking of how she had loathed being
the sidekick and wanted to take Buffy on. She threatened to kick
Buffy's ass, and talked of what a rush the power was. I see no
evidence that Willow was harbouring jealousy of her best friend.
Yes Willow felt inadequate. In The Pack Xander was cruel to her
and she believed that was because she wasn't good enough compared
to Buffy. I buy that. But I saw no evidence of any repressed rage
when Willow was crying, and telling Buffy "maybe threes a
crowd". Willow admired Buffy and wanted to be a superhero
too. She revealed that in Wrecked and her lack of self-esteem
was obvious. But were there any subtle hints that Willow desired
to take Buffys place and was bitterly resentful. Well if there
were I never picked up on them.
Was Willow previously sadistic? Again I say no. So her toruring
of Dawn doesn't tell me anything new about her. Dark Willow mocks
Dawn "Hey cutie" terrifies her by revealing she can
read thoughts, tells Dawn she wasn't always human, and mocks the
constant whining "waah Mum, Buffy, Tara". She then reveals
her plans to kill Dawn. That has no relation to the Willow character
I have followed for 6 seasons.
Basically I believed the real Willow was herself whilst on black
magic in Tough Love and Villians. Willow was traumitised in Villians
and her actions, whilst morally wrong, made sense to me. She saved
Buffy's life gently greeting her "Buffy hey". She plans
to kill Warren in revenge and offered the robat Warren a quick,
painless death. She gradually builds up into wanting torture.
Anyone who had lost their lover in such a horrible way I could
buy becoming vengeful and half crazy. I wasn't sure what her motives
were for pursuing the other nerds. But we are given some explanation
when she tells Xander she isn't coming back. She was suicidal
and neded to keep lashing out, to avoid facing up to her pain.
I felt we lost the real Willow once she absorbed Rack's magic
and became scary veiny Willow. Willow attacking the people that
love her, wanting a knockdown fight with Buffy, wanting Dawn's
death because she was a whiny pain, wanting to torture Giles to
prove her superiority. That was a Willow possessed with Racks'
magic in my mind. And I agree the arc could have been more interesting
as it did start promsingly. I just didn't see the link between
Willow losing Tara and wanting revenge and Willow wanting to torture
her friends.
The writers didn't take the story in that direction, which is
why I don't find it valid to try and find explanations and motives
for Willow's behaviour in the finale two episodes.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow
-- DEN, 13:52:11 09/13/02 Fri
Exactly---there is no logical plot connection among Willow's search
for vengeance, Willow's turning on her friends, and Willow's trying
to destroy the world in the eps as presented. The drug metaphor
at best only papers over the worst holes. Dark Willow could have
been done, I think, but not the way ME chose to go. And Sophist,they
could have done worse than hire us! What surprises me is the apparent
fecklessness with which ME burned two of their most popular characters,
and a very significant relationship, for such a small payoff.
Was Joss THAT obsessed with his "money shot" of Tara's
blood splattering Willow's shirt?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow and VampWillow
-- celticross, 14:04:34 09/13/02 Fri
Oh, I agree with you that Darth Willow was Willow's bad side (cause
we've all got 'em) on Magic Crack. It was definitely the Magic
Crack talking for most of TTG/Grave. I do think that Willow's
remarks to Buffy were not *totally* out of place; I've been very
jealous of very dear friends before, of course that jealousy was
never pure vitriol like what Darth Willow's...
I suppose what I was mostly reacting against was the Magic Crack
storyline itself, which never felt like it truly fit into Willow's
story arc or into the realm of Buffyverse magic as we thought
we knew it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow
and VampWillow -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:25:24 09/13/02 Fri
There is one small saving grace, at any rate:
Willow took the dark magic in willingly, knowing that it was dangerous
and evil and would do nothing but cause pain. So she doesn't get
off scott free for Two To Go and Grave. Also, I think that Willow
was possessed in a similar way to how Xander was possessed in
the Pack. She was taken over (though, in this case, voluntarily)
by a separate, evil entity, but one which based its evil around
Willow's emotions. This would explain her continuing her pursuit
of Andrew and Jonathan, as well as her envy of Buffy turning into
anger, and as for Dawn, well, do we really know what Willow was
thinking while she was with Dawn?
I do believe Willow had latent evil in her, but I believe that
of everybody. The things people bring up about Willow being a
sadist or a megalomaniac aren't so much proving that Willow had
evil in her, but showing how Willow would manifest evil.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did anyone
like the magic crack storyline? -- Miss Edith, 06:35:44
09/14/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Did
anyone like the magic crack storyline? -- DEN, 08:49:35
09/14/02 Sat
I didn't LIKE it--but as I've argued elsewner it was the only
way for ME to get themselves out of the trap they were in. On
one level, the s6 story line to SMASHED/WRECKED had not succeeded
in "turning" Willow. I think Sophist at the start of
the thread and Finn a couple of posts above combine to nail it.
Willow has dark aspects, like all the show's characters. For five
seasons Willow had also established herself as loyal, honorable,
loving, and sympathetic. That persona could not be erased in a
few weeks unless the process became the season's focus--a place
already occupied by Buffy's return journey. At the same time Joss
wanted his "money shot" and the ensuing vengeance arc--and
also wanted a traditional Big Bad. There is, however, no obvious
connection among revenge against Warren, turning against the Scoobies,
and detroying the world. Such a connection can be established,
but doing so in three episodes would be extremely difficult, even
with massive retconning of Willow.
As a postscript, Alyson Hannigan was disturbed at the prospect
of destroying the character she had created. She was no less skilled
than James Marsters at highlighting Willow's sympathetic aspects
even when the story line might have profited from a darker characterization.
Thus we are left with the drug/crack metaphor--IMHO, as clumsy
a deus ex machina as any the Greeks ever employed (Rahchel, help?),
but no less necessary for that in the overall context of s6.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dei
ex machina -- Sophist, 10:26:04 09/14/02 Sat
The Greeks could be quite arbitrary about solving a dilemma with
divine intervention. Perhaps the best example is in The Eumenides
by Aeschylus.
The Furies were known to track down a wrongdoer and inflict vengeance.
The play involves a vengeance cycle which ends with Athena intervening
to convert the Furies from terrifying agents of arbitrary vengeance
into harmless kitty cats. In the hands of a less skilled playwright,
this would be seen as cheap. Most commentators, however, see it
as Aeschylus's way of saying that the cycle of vengeance must
end; yes, the ending may be arbitrary, and yes the last one seeking
vengeance will never get it (and in that sense justice may not
be done), but society requires the rule of law.
Lots of playwrights lacked Aeschylus's sophistication, and when
they tried to end a play with a similar divine intervention, it
became laughable. As a result, a device legitimate if used carefully
became discredited in virtually all cases.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Crucibles of Change -- Rahael, 10:53:39 09/14/02 Sat
I'm no classicist, so I'll keep my comments restricted to Buffy!
I think there was a definite tendency in Season 6 to present us
with crucibles of change, where characters underwent metamorphosis.
Hence, I think the importance of the imagery of fire, and as I
have talked about before, the idea of 'trial' not only in Villains,
but in Grave.
Whilst Willow was conducting her grotesque version of a trial
of Warren, she was undergoing her own moral trial. Will she come
through her own cruciamentum? Would she pass the test of maturity,
to enter adulthood?
I think it's legitimate to put characters through a transformational
device, to utterly test what they are made of, and to show us
interesting turning points. Of course, the richness of the devise
will vary!
I'm waiting to see how well they can enrich what they did to Willow
in Season 6 - because so far, I've not found all that much to
discuss and commentate on in the idea of addiction. Mostly because
I have no experience of drug use, or any kind of addiction, and
cannot verify it from my own experience.
I think that the best example of a crucible is Spike in that cave.
Being beaten and tested - not morally, and perhaps not even physically.
The real metamorphosis, the cracking happened when he was given
a soul. How he will bear that, how he will proceed - that's his
test. But he had to steal it, not be given it, he had to go through
the rigmarole of a physical trial so he would feel as if he were
making a real choice. I think at the heart of the paradox of soul
in the Buffyverse is a peculiar transformational alchemy, and
that's its real purpose. It signifies the process of fundamental,
painful change.
The Cordelia demonisation could be linked in here.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Was "Willow" tried? -- Sophist, 14:59:36
09/14/02 Sat
I agree with the view that BtVS involves repeated moral trials
for the main characters. I think this has been present from the
beginning.
However, I'm not sure how to apply this notion to Willow in Villains-Grave.
My difficulty stems from trying to figure out how to "try"
someone on "drugs".
If Willow was "possessed" by magic, then of course "she"
was not making the relevant decisions (except the first one --
taking in the magic). If Willow was not so possessed, then it's
clear she failed any imaginable test. This, in turn, raises other
problems that have been pointed out often (by DEN and others in
this thread, and by many in previous threads), so I won't repeat
them here.
Perhaps the best way to fit the S6 ending under the test rubric
is to treat Willow as "possessed" and the test as Xander's,
not Willow's. And despite dream's invitation far above in this
thread, I am not making another Xander post at this point.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> She retained moral responsibility throughout.
-- Rahael, 16:20:55 09/14/02 Sat
It was made quite clear in OaFA that she knew the seriousness
of dabbling in Magic
And I think the metaphor was addiction, not drugs as such.
She was making decisions? she's culpable. How we act, no matter
how grief stricken we are, or how 'possessed' - we are still responsible.
And Angel showed that. But then we disagree about the metaphoric
nature of Angelus though.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Yes and no -- Sophist, 17:15:48 09/14/02
Sat
Take the example of someone who kills another while drunk. There
clearly was a crime committed; if you voluntarily drink alcohol,
that won't excuse you from a murder you commit while under the
influence. However, it may very well mitigate the degree
of murder. That is, it's difficult, if not impossible, to prove
"malice aforethought" in the case of someone who's drunk
(unless the person forms the requisite intent before becoming
drunk).
The magic/drugs issue thus prevents us from making any clear assessment
of Willow's moral behavior. We can surely say she's guilty of
murder one when it comes to Warren, but after that we have to
know her degree of "magic intoxication" at a given point
in time to know whether and to what degree she committed other
crimes.
This is, of course, the standard of the criminal law. I'm not
sure the same standard applies to purely moral tests. I will say
that there's no having it both ways: if Willow was "possessed
by magic" and therefore gets excused, then we would have
to agree that it wasn't "really" Willow doing the acts.
The converse of this is that if we believe Willow did the acts,
then the "magic possession" gives her no excuse.
I know that we differ about Angel/Angelus, but his situation is
different than Willow's in any case. In Angel's case, the "drug
use" was involuntary. The law would excuse him in
that case.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no -- DEN, 20:38:39
09/14/02 Sat
Having Rah and Sophist in the same location place on this thread
emboldens me to raise a possibility I have not seen developed
in our archives, or on other boards. When Willow makes her initial
turn to dark magic after Tata's death, is she not arguably insane?
(That is, in a lay sense of the term--I understand "insanity"is
a legal concept).Consider: Willow has spent five years under extreme,
indeed life-threatening stress. In s6 she faces the traumas of
the resurrection spell, her own sense that something is very wrong
with Risen Buffy, Giles's reaction, the breakup with Tara, and
(as the two subsequent posters emphasize), a traumatic, cold-turkey
recovery from addiction. Then Tara returns, they have that one
perfect day, and--we know the rest.
I submit that even making fiull allowances for a fantasy tv show,
that combination of events would send far coarser-fibered, more
mature, people than Willow out of their minds. To be sure, she
does not gibber or foam at the mouth. But her behavior in "Villains"
invites interpretation as a case study in dissociative reaction--"irresistible
impulse." Even if that is dismissed as psychobabble, I believe
it possible to make a strong, perhaps a prima facie case that
Willow, from the beginning of the last three episodes of s6, is
not in her right mind, not able to process questions of right
and wrong in a legal, a philosophical, or a moral sense.
To borrow a phrase from another distinguished poster, take it
and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Is Willow insane -- shadowkat,
21:21:14 09/14/02 Sat
It's been a while since I studied the legal definition of
insanity as it applies as defense. But I think you could make
a good defense for Willow.
1. Willow as you state had just gone cold turkey from a supposed
magic addiction. An Addiction that SAm pointed out, few if anyone
had managed to overcome. Sam said she had known several shamans
with power like Willow's who weren't able to give it up. (AYW).
2. Willow has been using powerful magics which Giles and others
state don't leave her, for quite some time. These drugs stay in
her system. This reminds me a lot of what people have told me
heavy dosages of hallucingenics drugs do to you. Several friends
who dropped acid said that after you do over 100 hits, it never
quite leaves your system, they've been known to experience flashbacks
years later and it is still visible in the bloodstream. Acid was
used by Timothy LEary in the early 60s to change the personalities
of patients in a government sanctioned program. (See Robert Anton
Wilon's biographical book on Sex and Drugs.) Willow's
magic addiction reminds me a lot of the symptoms Anton Wilson
described and often uses magic as metaphor for.
3. Willow in the space of 24 hours- regains the most important
person in her life and loses her. She is understandably overcome
by rage and grief. She feels she has no one to comfort her. Xander
is busy with Buffy. On top of that
her best friend is also on the brink of death for the third time.
A friend she loved so much, she brought her back from the dead.
Both are hurt or wounded or taken from her in violent and sudden
manner by a foe that she had opportunities to stop but didn't.
Guilt must be a factor here. They'd been tracking Warren for months,
but not taking him very seriously, after all he's no Glory.
4. Willow overwhelmed with rage and grief - goes to fill herself
with weaponary which also acts as highly powerful drug.
Yes, I think I could make a strong defense on these points alone
that Willow is not quilty by reason of temporary insanity. Willow
was not herself when she killed Warren, she was possessed by rage,
grief, and dark magic which caused her to lose her mind.
Problems? The weapons are still inside Willow. She is still insane.
So should we commit her? There's no guarantee it's temporary nor
that it won't happen again. Also even if we were to drain all
the magic out - what guarantee do we have that Willow wouldn't
do it again? Wouldn't go back on the magics? This is similar to
the decision a court makes when someone kills someone as a result
of mental illness, under the influence of drugs or temporary insanity.
After all the primary purpose of imprisonment or punishment is
not to rehabilitate the person but to protect society from any
further acts by that person. That is Buffy and Giles main responisibility
regarding Willow - ensuring that she does not endanger the world
again. Everything else is secondary.
Sounds cold...but that's the way it works.
Of course I may be remembering it wrong, like I said it's been
a while.
Just my ten cents.
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Remove the Buffyverse Elements...
-- Darby, 07:17:21 09/15/02 Sun
Make Willow that addict to a persistent drug.
Have her get all ragey, get a "fix," kill the pusher,
and then track down the killer of her lover, subdue him, tie him
down, drive a bullet slowly into his chest and then skin him alive
before setting him on fire.
If that happened in your community, how credible would insanity
be as a defense? I wouldn't have any trouble accepting that she
was nuts - I kinda think that you have to be nuts to kill another
human being - but I don't see it as in any way mitigating her
guilt.
I assume we're not talking about the common American legal definition
of insane, whose important distinction is "unable to distinguish
right and wrong." Does anyone think Willow was insane by
this definition?
- Darby, who can't remember a thread getting this far "right"
before...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points --
Rahael, 08:13:22 09/15/02 Sun
I think you can certainly argue that Willow was insane. She was
already pretty unstable by the time she decided to consume those
dark magics. But as Darby points out, is it going to help her
any? She might get locked up in a secure mental hospital here
in Britain.
I like to think of it as a parallel with the Macbeths. Willow
killed sleep when she killed the deer. Then she couldn't get the
blood out all season. She slid down the slippery slope, aided
by her ambition and hubris. She replaced the milk of human kindness
with gall, very deliberately. She transformed herself to battle
with the world. Can we really say she couldn't distinguish right
from wrong, when her entire vocabulary after going dark was about
right, and wrong, justice and punishment?
How can she tell Warren that he was evil for killing Tara without
knowing that killing is evil?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I did a post on this
earlier, but I can't find it in the archives -- Sophist, 08:21:49
09/15/02 Sun
I do not believe CA law would recognize an insanity defense for
Willow. Basically, you can't voluntarily render yourself incapable
of telling right from wrong and then plead insanity. In addition,
when drug use is involved, the rule is that the "temporary
insanity" must last beyond the effect of the drug
in your system.
DEN's suggestion won't work on the technical level, but a jury
might very well be sympathetic to Willow under the circumstances.
Warren was pretty awful, and if the jury were allowed to hear
everything that he did, it might well let Willow off pretty easily.
The trick for defense counsel would be getting all that juicy
stuff into evidence; turn it into a trial of Warren rather than
Willow.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh yes..I remeber
this discussion -- shadowkat, 10:35:39 09/15/02 Sun
We did discuss this back in May. I think it's in the May to early
June archives? Or possibly right after Villains?
We came up with how impossible it would be to get the facts into
evidence. In Fact I think cjl or someone wrote a script with Anya
as the defense lawyer and the prosecutor
asking Buffy: 1) How two people got shot in her house.
2) what she was doing running around the forest. 3) where was
the proof. No bodies...IT was actually hilarous.
Darby is correct, it is impossible to throw a real world boundary
around this one. (And yes I do remember a thread going this far
to the right - The Misogyny Thread. Oh look there Sophist - that
might have been part of the post.)
OTOH there are quite a few horrible crimes in our society that
have a feeling of unreality about them. I've seen half on the
news, read about half on this board and saw one in September 2001...
I guess this is a question that has already been asked on another
thread - but it comes down to this: is magic an addiction? or
was Willow possessed? or did Willow just lose control of her power
as she did in smaller degrees in Something Blue and Fear Itself?
To the extent that it wasn't Willow controlling the power but
the power controlling Willow. I'm thinking it's the third. Willow
isn't insane. Willow isn't necessarily addicted per se.
It's more that Willow was naive and somewhat arrogant in thinking
she could control the power she accessed. She didn't respect that
power - partly because she was able to access it too quickly.
There's something else that keeps nagging at me right here.
It's a question someone asked me way back in 1994 when Kansas
was arguing about reinstituting the death penalty.
They asked: "If I killed your family, wouldn't you want me
dead?" So I ask you - if someone shot the person you loved
most, your soulmate in front of you and you had the equivalent
of a loaded gun in your hand at the time - what
would you do? And is this a good analogy for Willow? Since she
didn't really have the loaded gun in her hand - she had to physically
leave the house and find one. So better analogy - if this happened
to you and you had to go to the corner gunshop? Now the state
of Kansas would have considered this premeditated murder. And
not sure temporary insanity would have figured in to it. So let's
go back to Buffyverse...Willow can't bring Tara back to life -
because Warren's bullet killed her. She could have brought Tara
back if Glory killed her or something supernatural took her life,
but a bullet is man-made and considered natural order. (Did that
strike anyone else as odd? It did me. I don't see guns and bullets
as natural order - there's nothing natural about a gun...)Then
Buffy tells Willow almost the same thing the Osiris messenger
did. You can't kill Warren because he's human. If he was a vampire
or a demon, sure no problem.
So let's see:
1. If a demon or supernatural force killed Tara - Tara could be
brought back
2. If a demon or supernatural force killed Tara - Willow or Buffy
could kill them, rip them to shreds, no questions asked.
How incredibly frustrating. The fact it is a nerdy ex-fellow student
and human who does it - means a) Willow can't bring tara back
and b) she can't kill him without serious repercussions.
No wonder she went ballistic. I would have.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Natural
Order -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:04:50 09/15/02 Sun
If the gun had been fired by a demon or a vampire, it would have
been an unnatural death, and Tara probably could have been brought
back. Osiris said "it is a human death by human means".
Humans killing each other is part of the natural order of the
world, and Osiris could not (would not?) go against the natural
order. Demons, vampires, and magic, on the other hand, are unnatural,
and thus reversing the evil done by them plays into nature's order.
So, it wasn't the gun that made it a natural death, it was the
person using the gun.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no -- Rahael, 10:25:53
09/15/02 Sun
In my mind, there is a difference between legal culpability and
moral responsibility. Since this is the Buffyverse, for me, the
latter is more important. Would Willow be convicted by a court
of law? I leave that to your expertise. Is she morallly culpable?
Yes.
Even if she was 'possessed' by magic, she is still responsible,
because she made the choice to be possessed. And I like to think
of possession by dark magic in a metaphorical way, describing
the murderous rage she fell into. She crossed the boundary, and
showed she was aware of the choice she was making. We should always
be responsible for the choices we make, good or bad. Which is
why it might be important that Spike knew all along that he was
asking for a soul.......Willow chose to 'lose' hers, Spike asked
for his back. There seems to be a parallel here.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no -- Sophist,
11:02:20 09/15/02 Sun
I don't necessarily disagree. I'm hesitating, though, and here's
an analogy to explain why:
Suppose you are about to take an IQ test. Shortly before the test
is to begin, you take LSD. Now, you probably will do quite poorly
on the test. In one sense, that failure is your own fault -- you
chose to take the LSD. On the other hand, does the test itself
really tell us anything meaningful about you? Or was it only the
events leading up to the test itself that lend themselves to that
judgment?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> I object to IQ tests anyway
-- Rahael, 12:05:02 09/15/02 Sun
I'd argue that IQ tests don't tell us anything meaningful whether
taken under the influence of LSD or not!!!
One could see the taking of LSD before such a test as a rebellion
against that kind of testing of human beings, or just an act of
monumental stupidity (if one were really trying to do well).
But to be serious, it would be your own fault if you sat any kind
of exam having impaired yourself that way. It wouldn't have done
you justice. But then only you'd know that. Either way, your responsibility.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes and no -- Darby's
Wife, 12:49:09 09/15/02 Sun
I have an answer to your analogy - if the test is only to be used
to evaluate your IQ, then the drug use invalidates the test completely.
Since IQ has nothing to do with common sense or good judgement,
the test becomes meaningless. However, if this IQ test was to
be used for acceptance into college, job advancement, or some
other purpose, then the results of the test have to stand. If
you know that your actions are going to lead to certain consequences,
then even if you weren't really hoping for those consequences
you are responsible.
Take the drunk driving analogy, I really believe, and I know this
may sound harsh, but that anyone who has been in a DWI caused
accident, and drives drunk again is morally guilty of premediated
murder for any deaths caused by future DWI's. If you know that
something you do has a possiblity of killing someone, and you
do it anyway with no other motive than "I want to",
how have you not chosen to potentially murder someone? I hate
to say this, because it's Willow, but she has to be responsible
for Warren's death. There are just two scenerio's that I can see:
1. Willow knows that magic changes her behavior, and removes her
moral compass, but in her anger uses magic. She then totally loses
control of her sense of right and wrong and in that confused state
kills Warren. She knew that she would lose her ability to make
judgements before she started the magics, and is therefore responsible
for any acts committed under the influence of the magic.
or
2. Willow wanted to kill Warren, really, really, really wanted
to kill Warren and so grabbed up as much dark magic as she could
and probably killed him in a crueler way than she might have as
herself, but basically accomplished just what she set out to do.
Cross that one off her daily to-do list, and hold her completely
responsible.
It's really hard to see someone you love changed by external forces
that could be avoided, so we really don't want to blame Willow,
because how do you not love Willow? But, I really don't see how
we can let her off the hook. She made her decision with complete
understanding of the ramifications at the crucial point.
- Sara
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't misunderstand
me, -- Sophist, 13:02:06 09/15/02 Sun
I am not arguing to let Willow off the hook. She is guilty
and I will be very upset if ME tries to let her off.
My reaction was to Rah's suggestion that Willow failed additional
moral tests along the way. To me, that's less clear because of
the analogy I made. I like your comparison to the purpose of the
test. My point is that Willow manifestly did fail the test if
we evaluate her conduct from the beginning. It's less clear if
we take a later point in time and try to evaluate from that later
point. The reason it gets confused is the magic/drugs nonsense,
and is just one more reason I dislike that storyline.
And Rah, I'm skeptical of IQ tests too. It was just an analogy;
think of it as a driving test if you like. You'll fail the test,
and deservedly so, but does that failure tell us anything meaningful
about your ability to drive when unimpaired?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> Maybes---Spoilers for end of
Season 6 -- Arethusa, 12:02:50 09/15/02 Sun
Willow's rage is key to explaining her behavior. Willow's repression
and desire to maintain a "good girl" facade has been
well-discussed. But after she left her parents' home, it slowly
began to leak out. Now, I'm sure that for every instance of anger
on Willow's part someone can give me five examples that demonstrate
the constancy of her faux meek demeaner, but there are at least
three examples of truly contradictory displays of anger that show
how Willow's rage was spilling over her well-established boundaries.
To use an inelegant metaphor, she's like a balloon with a slow
leak, which is then stuck with a pin, and goes BANG.
1. Willow yells at a student who bumps into her while walking
down the university halls.
2. Willow yells at a customer dressed as a witch on Halloween.
3. Willow's argument with Giles.
The drugs/magic don't just ease her insecurity, they remove the
inhibitions against releasing anger. When Tara died, her last
inhibition fell, and the rage (and grief) were so great she had
to scream like a banshee to release it.
The same, in reverse, happens to Spike. When he realizes that
his potential for a killing rage means he'll never get Buffy's
love, he seeks the ultimate inhibition to evil-a soul. Willow
and William seemed to have similar attitudes towards suffering-deny,
deny, deny. Wiliam sniffs that he prefers not to dwell on ugly
things, and Willow wants the pain to go poof. So they both temporarily
lose their souls. What is Wedon is saying about dealing with pain
and fears, and the consequences of denying their long-term effects?
They are, after all, the monsters everyone is fighting, and like
in "Fear, Itself," the are debilitating until they are
finally faced-and sometimes the reality is so insignificant that
it can be squashed like a bug.
Willow is responsible for her decision to both repress and release
her anger. She has total responsibility for all her actions, including
using black magic and bought power. The most meaningful punishment
she will receive is the realization of her own actions. How could
Willow, daughter of Sheila Rosenburg, PC liberal extrordinare,
not feel immense guilt and remorse for nearly wiping out every
indigenous culture in the world? Not to mention her friends and
family. Traditional justice is not an option. The CoW, which registers
and moniters witches, didn't even know what went on. Only witches
themselves, who do seem to have some kind of governing organization,
are able to punish and/or rehabilitate her.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> similie, not metaphor.
bad english teacher -- Arethusa, distractedly, 12:08:34
09/15/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> Stealing souls and metamphorsis -- shadowkat, 21:00:54
09/14/02 Sat
Whoa...interesting post, Rah. (As an aside, I do agree with DEN
and Sophist on the magic/crack problem and how it
should have been done differently and why it wasn't.)
What interests me is the comments you make about metamorphsis.
"I think that the best example of a crucible is Spike in
that cave. Being beaten and tested - not morally, and perhaps
not even physically. The real metamorphosis, the cracking happened
when he was given a soul. How he will bear that, how he will proceed
- that's his test. But he had to steal it, not be given it, he
had to go through the rigmarole of a physical trial so he would
feel as if he were making a real choice. I think at the heart
of the paradox of soul in the Buffyverse is a peculiar transformational
alchemy, and that's its real purpose. It signifies the process
of fundamental, painful change."
Did he steal the soul? Or fight for it? I felt he fought
for it. The Lurker demon tells him at the end - we will return
your soul to you.
Angel's soul on the other hand - felt stolen. Willow takes it
from the ether and curses him with it. Neither the soul, the PTB
or Angelus choose it. And I still believe that Willow's act was
the beginning of her trip into the darkness.
Cordy as well. Did she steal her demonization? While I admit,
I don't believe she truly earned it, she certainly didn't steal
it. It appeared to be freely given, possibly by a not entirely
reputable source, Skip. Just as Spike's soul may have been returned
by a less than reputable source.
Are you speculating that Lurkee and Skip stole those gifts or
souls and gave them to Cordy and Spike?
If so, does this somehow link to Willow - who may have stole her
power - taking it from a dark source and speeding up her abilities,
instead of patiently growing like Tara.
After all Willow does steal her powers from both Rack and Giles
- forcibly taking it in an action that feels like a rape.
Spike in contrast appears to fight for his and is given it.
Just as Cordy appears to fight for hers and is given it.
Or did I miss something?
SK
PS: Welcome Back! Hope your trip went well!
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> I was referring to a Joyce quote -- Rahael,
03:36:24 09/15/02 Sun
The stealing I was referring to was metaphorical than actual.
A paraphrase of what James Joyce said, something along the lines
that people don't value what you give them - they value what they
steal from you. I always took it to mean that he was talking about
stealing meaning, and value.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Stealing souls and metamphorsis -- yabyumpan,
03:37:29 09/15/02 Sun
shadowkat wrote
"Cordy as well. Did she steal her demonization? While I admit,
I don't believe she truly earned it, she certainly didn't steal
it"
I must admit this has got me confused. I haven't come across the
idea of Cordy 'earning' her demonisation before.
You say that you feel that she hadn't truely earned it, does this
mean that she should have just died or possibly become the wealthy
star? If she hasn't 'earned' her demonisation, then they seem
to be her only two options.
I don't see Cordy becoming a Demon as some sort of prize to be
earned like Spike getting a soul after a few tests. We still really
have very little idea of the effects of the transformation apart
from the fact that she gave up part of her DNA (which I think
is a pretty big deal) and she floats and glows. I've said before
that I think Cordy becoming a Demon was handled badly by ME, i.e.
not at all, but I hope that will be addressed next season.
I think there are to many unanswered questions about the whole
deal she's been landed with but I find the idea of her not having
'earned' the right to carry on living, or not having 'earned'
not knowing what was going to happen to her, or not having 'earned'
the possibility of tail and horns, quite strange.
Maybe you can explain further what you meant.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> Re: Stealing souls and metamphorsis --
shadowkat, 10:43:10 09/15/02 Sun
Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean her ability to continue
living. (Of course she earned that.) I meant her ascension at
the end of the year. (That whole glowy white thing.) If the demonization
had merely meant she could live while having visions - that would
have been one thing - but it appeared as if she had suddenly become
Saint Cordy.
I agree she earned her life. She did not deserve to die.
And her choice to not be the wealthy film star added to
that. But did she earn the rest?
Like you I'm holding out for next season because I suspect that
she may not have gotten what she was led to believe.
Actually I think Skip may have tricked her.
There seems to be a heavy message of be careful what you wish
for in these shows.
Sorry for the confusion...should have been clearer.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not me!
-- yabyumpan, 15:03:57 09/14/02 Sat
One of the many problems I had with S6 was the whole 'magic addiction'
stuff. I have seen addiction from nearly all angles, I've never
done Heroin myself (although I've smoked Opium, so I understand
the buzz) but I did have a lot of experience of most other drugs
from my fun but misspent youth and have loved, worked with and
buried way to many junkies, so I think I have a pretty good handle
on it.
IMO, if you really feel the need to do an addiction story, then
you've got to go the 'Trainspotting' route, otherwise you just
end up with 'Reefer Madness', which IMO is sadly what we got.
I don't know whether it was the writing, directing or AH's acting,
probably a mixture of all three, but I laughed my way through
most of Willow's story lines to the point where, by the time we
got to the end of the season's grief psychosis, I just didn't
care. Tara's dead, oh well, time for AH to over act some more!
Sorry if that's really offensive to people but that was the way
I felt.
I couldn't believe her addiction or her cold turkey so by the
time we got to her grief and DarthWillow, she'd just become laughable
to me.
That's the problem with doing 'addiction', it's either got to
be done well or not at all. It's a shame that AH didn't feel comftable
with her character 'going dark', we might actually have had an
interesting and believable story line then.
Waiting in trepidation for S7 in the hope that ME can restore
my faith, I hated hating what used to be my favorite show.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re:
Not me! -- celticross, 15:41:03 09/14/02 Sat
Agreeing with you here, yabyumpan. Where we might have had a gradually
darkening character convinced she's doing the right thing (but
in the wrong way), we got pale, pitiful Addict Willow, pining
for Tara, water bottles in hand. I wasn't impressed.
[> [> [> [> [>
well put! I agree -- meritaten, 19:08:15 09/12/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> I agree,
Sophist -- Scroll, 13:45:17 09/09/02 Mon
While we can certainly see how Willow's past factors into her
meltdown in Season 6, I don't think her downfall was inevitable.
I don't see Willow as someone who believes she knows better than
everyone else; she certainly takes charge when Buffy and Giles
are out of commission, but has always deferred to those two first.
However, Willow does have a degree of arrogance mixed in with
her inferiority complex. In her desire to prove her worth, she
takes offence to any implication that she can't handle herself.
She can't stand people saying that she is taking on too much responsibility
or power, or that she somehow can't understand or doesn't have
the experience necessary to relate to someone else (I'm thinking
"Tough Love" when Tara tries explaining Buffy to Willow).
IMO, Willow takes it as criticism that she isn't "good enough".
[> [> [> [> [>
More existentialism. Yay. -- Slain, 16:06:27 09/09/02
Mon
IMO, Willow takes it as criticism that she isn't "good
enough".
I think this is because she views magic as her preserve, and sees
it much in the same way as she viewed her academic career; that
there are no limits to her knowledge, and that she is always capable
of more. I don't think this is arrogance, so much as inexperience.
Willow likes to figure things out for herself, and is usually
mostly self-taught in anything she does. I don't think she believed
that, as Giles said, magic was potentially dangerous, and that
there should be limits on power. She didn't believe it until she'd
found out for herself. Perhaps that could be construed as arrogance,
but I think that's overstating the case; Giles called her arrogant
in anger, but if anything he was partly to blame for not
teaching Willow the rights and wrongs of magic, aside from a few
vague cautions.
Giles was all too willing to have Willow deal with powerful magic,
just as long as he felt they were justified, without really
explaining why they were. I think he was angry in 'Afterlife'
because Willow had disobeyed him, as much as that she was dabbling
where she should not. I think it's understandable that Willow
should react by telling Giles to piss off; after all, it seems
to her that Giles is hypocritical, and perfectly willing to accept
consequences, just as long as he feels the cause is just; without
considering that Willow might be just as qualified to weigh up
the alternatives. Clearly she isn't (though I think she was right
to resurrect Buffy), but Giles is attiude of "I know better,
I just do" doesn't convince her of this.
Going back to existentialism, she's not wrong in this, from
an existential point of view. If no one else can help her
through her own life, and all morals and decisions must come from
the self, Willow isn't wrong in wanting to find out for herself.
Ultimately, she does find out for herself, and the decision
to leave magic comes from her. Equally, in the end, the power
to choose to decide to destroy the world or not comes from her.
It's in Willow's nature to question, and to want to help. Both
of those, coupled with her insecurity, led her towards darker
and more powerful magic. I think the events of Season 6 were inevitable,
as Willow couldn't live by Giles' unspecific code. I'm fervently
hoping that in Season 7 she'll have grown from the experience,
and have forumulated a way of using powerful magic without crossing
the line between it being a tool, and an escape.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: More existentialism. Yay. -- leslie,
16:16:44 09/09/02 Mon
"Willow likes to figure things out for herself, and is usually
mostly self-taught in anything she does. I don't think she believed
that, as Giles said, magic was potentially dangerous, and that
there should be limits on power."
This is an interesting point. One of the problems with being a
really smart kid in a public school is that, since you can figure
things out and other kids can't, even if you are in accelerated
or "honors" programs, you tend to spend an awful lot
of time learning things on your own. You really don't get the
amount of teacher time that students who need more help do. A
side-effect of this is that one the one hand, you are constantly
being praised for teaching yourself and learning that "dangerous"
things are not quite so dangerous as all that if you just follow
the directions, but on the other, you *do* start to feel kind
of overlooked and left out, not getting enough attention. It's
also frustrating because people assume that since you're smart,
you can figure out *everything* yourself, and some things you
just can't. (God, projecting much?) I think Willow's mix of intellectual
I-can-do-anything-ism and her insecurity and feelings of being
overlooked are completely consistent.
[> [> [> [> [>
I think I can safely say -- Sophist, 17:19:50 09/09/02
Mon
that every one of us "takes it as criticism" when we
are told we "aren't good enough".
I don't have time tonight to set out in detail why it's wrong
to extrapolate from VampWillow to Willow. The archive gods willing,
I'll do it tomorrow morning.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I should've been more clear -- Scroll, 17:33:08
09/09/02 Mon
'every one of us "takes it as criticism" when we
are told we "aren't good enough".'
I meant that Willow takes things people say as criticism, even
when they aren't intended as such. When her friends say "be
careful", "magic is dangerous", "slow down",
Willow takes them to mean "you aren't good enough."
I'm not saying she always assumes her friends are criticising
her (and sometimes they are criticising her) but usually
when it involves magic, Willow's initial response is to take her
friends' concerns as criticism rather than simple worry or natural
concern.
[> Re: Vamp individuals
as metaphors for human traits. -- SableHart, 14:55:27 09/09/02
Mon
Your characterization of Spike reminded me of the popular image
of Lord Byron, the rake, the poet, and the lover of romantic causes.
(The Greek War for Independence) I really enjoyed your post!
[> [> Re: Vamp individuals
as metaphors for human traits. -- leslie,
15:19:59 09/09/02 Mon
And of course, the first vampire novel was written by Byron's
minion, Polidori.
[> [> Loved your post
too Darby. And agree definitely Bryon. -- shadowkat, 19:03:19
09/09/02 Mon
Beautiful half-crazed Lord Bryon...the poet
I've always had a crush on, rather wise or not. Never thought
of Bryon as Spike but it fits and leslie's right Polidori predated
Stoker's Dracula.
Interesting Bryon's friend Polidori wrote first vampire novel
and his best friend Shelley's wife Mary wrote Frankenstein.
[> [> [> "Byron,"
please! -- vh, 06:36:33 09/10/02 Tue
Sorry to be nit-picky, I just think that the names of revered
personages should be spelled carefully.
[> [> Spike=Byron, William=Shelley?
-- matching mole, 08:25:58 09/10/02 Tue
The pre-vampire William seems to be similar to Byron's good friend
Shelley in his rather impractical idealism. Shelley and Byron
both seem like good models for vampires in that, however brilliant
they were as artists, they definitely both seemed to suffer from
arrested emotional development.
Spike is also similar to another figure from English Romanticism,
Charles Lamb, in having a romantic partner who is dangerously
insane.
Angel has always struck me, especially in the brief glimpses we've
had of his ensouled, but pre-Buffy period, as being an almost
archetypal Byronic hero. He has a tragic past that he doesn't
want to talk about. He is full of remorse. And he broods. A lot.
[> [> [> How about
Spike=Byron, William=Keats? -- Sophist, 09:19:48 09/10/02
Tue
[> [> [> Re: If Spike=Byron
and William=Shelley... -- CathSith, 10:32:48 09/10/02 Tue
does that mean that Cecily=Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley? and would
that make D'Hoffryn=William Godwin? (it's too late, I've already
got the visual...)
[> [> [> [> Re:
If Spike=Byron and William=Shelley... -- SableHart, 19:38:13
09/10/02 Tue
Then would that make Drusilla Caroline Lamb, Byron's mistress
who went slightly nuts when he left her? I guess with Dru it was
the other way around.
Samual Tayler Coleridge's opium addiction is a good parallel to
the way Joss views Angel's blood lust. Angel and his constant
battle to control his demons can be compared to Coleridge's attempts
to control his opium addiction.
Current board
| More September 2002