September 2002 posts
Why
isn't Anya Anyanka? -- Darby, 06:55:46 09/19/02 Thu
No, I'm not wondering why she isn't all vengeancey, I think that
we know the reason for that. But why isn't she a demon?
Are her demon powers linked to her willingness to go postal when
called upon (apologies to postal workers everywhere)?
When Giles summoned her to the Wishverse, she seemed confident
that she could physically overcome him, and came close to doing
it. When Halfrek was run through with a sword, it only momentarily
phased her. So why is our girl Anya, now that she's a demon again,
so easily knocked out and around?
- Darby, who has admitted to his evolution addiction and is now
looking around for a good 12-step program, comparing fitness...damn!
[> Er, I thought she was...
-- CW, 07:11:21 09/19/02 Thu
Seriously, her zap-herself-around-town act is pure demon. Getting
tossed around is just a reflection of how tough Willow was supposed
to be, isn't it?
And speaking of addiction, the guy, who studied lingusitics for
real, stayed out of the linguistics discussion in that thread.
Linguistics free for umpty days. I'm so proud of myself. ;o)
[> For Anya, is demonhood
a state of mind? -- cjl, 07:33:36 09/19/02 Thu
I'm not sure who said it (S'kat? rufus? leslie? Sophist?), but
someone here suggested that Anya's state of mind is a significant
factor during the demonization process. The first time around,
she was 17 years old, royally pissed at Olaf, the men in her village,
and the entire male population of the planet. She was an enraged
adolescent, without perspective or an understanding of the ways
of the world. Hence, we get Anyanka I, the beast of the east,
patron saint of scorned women. Much mutilation and exploding genitalia
follow.
After spending 1100 years frozen in a perpetual state of rage,
Anya starts to "thaw out" in Doppelgangland. She falls
for Xander, and learns that a relationship between the sexes doesn't
have to be endless, bloody warfare, but something beautiful and
even transcendent. When Anya and Xander made love in Forever,
she felt connected to the circle of life in a way she never could
have imagined her first time around as a human.
Of course, it all ended badly. Xander had his own issues about
love and commitment, and they exploded in poor Anya's face. She
went back to D'Hoffryn, the only family she's known for the past
millennium, and he brought her back into the fold. But she's not
the same person she was three years ago. The blind rage essential
for a top quality vengeance demon is gone. She's experienced too
much, empathized too much with other people to fully inhabit that
role again.
And if a vengeance demon needs to tap into that rage in order
to fully utilize her power, then Anyanka II might not be as powerful
as Anyanka I.
[> [> Re: For Anya, is
demonhood a state of mind? -- Robert, 08:00:58 09/19/02
Thu
>>> "And if a vengeance demon needs to tap into
that rage in order to fully utilize her power, then Anyanka II
might not be as powerful as Anyanka I."
In addition, the more mature Anya doesn't hate the dark Willow
and doesn't want to hurt Willow, merely protect her friends (and
maybe even humanity) from Willow.
[> [> [> Re: Speculation
about Anyaís status -- Just George, 16:30:06 09/19/02
Thu
cjl: "And if a vengeance demon needs to tap into that rage
in order to fully utilize her power, then Anyanka II might not
be as powerful as Anyanka I."
There is a chance that Anya is not quite a vengeance demon yet.
While she has teleported, we donít know about her other
powers. For example, she told Willow that "mind control doesnít
work on vengeance demons" and then it did. As Darby pointed
out, Anya got knocked around pretty easily in Grave, even though
she was physically tough in Doppelgangerland. Maybe this was to
demonstrate how powerful Willow was. Or maybe it was to demonstrate
how weak Anya still is.
As far as we know, Anya has not executed any vengeance wishes
yet. Perhaps she doesnít assume her full mantel until she
executes vengeance on behalf of someone. Or perhaps the more vengeance
she executes (and the more chaos she cases) the more powerful
she will become.
Might make for an interesting story if she has to choose between
gaining power and hurting someone. It also might explain why vengeance
demons execute such "over the top" vengeance. Maybe
the "lower beings" might give them an incentive for
doing so. Like a bonus for doing good work!
-JG
The Postmodern
Thing -- Slain, 18:22:50 09/19/02 Thu
Preamble - I was watching a TV documentary on Wagner, specifically
the Ring Trilogy, which is a fantasy opera based on the sames
myths as Lord of the Rings. The presenter jokingly said that the
opera could be referred to as "an extended version of Conan
the Barbarian, or Buffy the Vampire Slayer the muscial",
his tone of voice telling us what a preposterous idea this was
- Wagner, comparable to some TV series!? He then
went on to say that that would be missing the point of the piece,
as it was much more complex and deep than that. This annoyed me,
and got me thinking on my familiar postmodern vein; that is, how
serious and deep does Buffy need to be appear, and is it ever
bit the equal of opera and classical music (I don't like opera,
so I'm biased)? From this followed on the reworking of a brief
piece I'd written about Buffy and postmodernism a year or so ago.
Although frankly I'm surprised I can think about anything, what
with Season 7 impending. Preamble ends.
+THAT POSTMODERN THING+
The first thing anyone notices about Buffy is, well, it's called
Buffy the Vampire Slayer. A first and obvious criticism
of the show is that it's 'not serious', that Buffy is fluffy and
generally silly. In a way, it is, because Buffy is a show which
is intrinsically postmodern, in which the idea of 'taking yourself
seriously' is not always relevant. Another first impression is
that the show is not 'original', that it's cliched, and recycles
any old horror or sci-fi. Again, in a sense it's not 'original',
but this is because it's postmodern.
For a potted history of postmodernism, it's a movement which emerged
in the late 20th century, largely as a reaction against the elitism
of high-art Modernism. No one can say exactly when postmodernism
started, but the general agreement is that it comes after modernism
(which flourished in the 20s and 30s). Modernism was the movement
which encapsulates many people's ideas of what Art is; namely
that art constitutes things which are not commercial or made as
entertainment, and that the more confusing and oblique something
is, the more artistic is it. High culture is better than low culture,
and mediums such as TV, pulp fiction, pop music and Hollywood-style
movies are not art. Modernism also believed that art is always
progressing, that history is less relevant than the future, and
that the past should be swept aside when necessary in favour of
'artistic progression'; which is not to say that Modernism embraced
new mediums, it certainly didn't. Modernism believed in the advancement
of some 'high art' mediums (primarily poetry, difficult prose
and abstract art) and that anything that was a popular, or 'lowbrow',
medium was not suitable for art, but was merely suited for entertainment.
For Modernists, entertainment and art were mostly incompatible.
In contrast to the clear manifestos of the Modernists, no one
can really define postmodernism. Which is pretty much the point;
it defies strict definitions or categorisations, in the same way
that postmodern texts do. But the main thing that's clear is that
it's a reaction against modernism, against elitism and the idea
that the more opaque something is, the better. Postmodernism is
a way of looking at things which is relevant to the modern day,
in which there are a huge amount of different forms of art and
culture, and postmodern texts reflect this.
FLUFFY BUFFY
You'd have been forgiven for thinking, on first viewing, that
Buffy is fluffiness to the extreme, and deliberately not 'deep'.
That meaning is all on the surface, as opposed to underneath it.
Postmodernism rejects the idea that art is better if less people
understand it, and rejects the idea that something which is entertaining
has less worth to it than something which is confusing but very
'artistic'. Film and TV is a very postmodern medium because it's
very surfacey. And postmodernism loves surface; it loves things
which don't have more to them than what we see at first glance.
Style over substance, even, where the outward appearance is as
important as the inner meaning.
How much of Buffy is style over substance? Quite a lot, really.
Just look at the opening credits. Buffy begins each episode by
embracing all the tackiness and exuberance of pulp horror movies;
and, of course, with the all-pervasive theme tune it embraces
punk rock, a musical movement which sought the smash up (what
they saw as) the pretentiousness and obliqueness of progressive
rock, through straightforward, surfacey rock 'n' roll means. Buffy
is often just about the casual quips and one-liners, and many
earlier episodes are deliberately designed to be almost pastiches
of the uncomplex horror genre:
The First: You think you can fight me? I'm not a demon, little
girl. I am something that you can't even conceive. The First Evil.
Beyond sin, beyond death. I am the thing the darkness fears. You'll
never see me, but I am everywhere. Every being, every thought,
every drop of hate.
Buffy: Alright, I get it. You're evil. Do we have to chat about
it all day?
('Amends', Season 3)
But the horror genre usually takes itself pretty seriously, because
it relies on the audience getting involved with the characters
in order to be scared. But in this quote, there's a perfect example
of the show not trying to be scary or deep; Buffy rejects all
mystical seriousness of the First Evil in favour of a quip that
releases the tension rather than building it. Other episodes,
such as 'Band Candy', 'Teachers' Pet' and 'Go Fish', for example,
seem to be deliberately stylistic and not very substantial; they
are designed to be light and mostly funny.
But while Buffy does frequently rely on simplicity, and style
over substance, this isn't the way the whole show is constructed.
Lightness is important, but the surface is never all there is.
'Band Candy' seems like a jokey episode, but in fact it has depth,
and gives new insight into the characters. But is this not postmodern?
Well, not really. While postmodernism does insist on the value
of style over substance, it doesn't reject substance. Rather,
it might be better to say that postmodernism rejects the idea
that meaning must be injected into art, that there isn't meaning
unless the art is complex and outwardly forbidding and confusing.
Modernism sets more value by art and literature that tries to
be art or literature, whereas postmodernism insists that there's
as much, if not more, meaning to be found in something which doesn't
compromise style in favour of substance. For postmodernists, something
doesn't have to be unstylish or unconcerned with surface to have
substance.
'Restless' seems to be an example of the show wholly going against
the idea of simplicity and surfaceyness. The episodes tries to
be oblique, opaque even, and tries to have a great deal of hidden
meaning. But is 'Restless' not postmodern, then? Is it in fact
modernism? Not at all. 'Restless' seeks to be complex, but it's
also very stylistic; not everything in 'Restless' has a specific
intended meaning, and much of it is done for its own sake. In
the DVD commentary, Joss Whedon talks about the films which influenced
him, and the effects he was trying to achieve; while the hidden
meanings in the episode are important, the style of the episode
is central. Postmodern texts are almost never purely stylistic,
purely about the surface, and 'Restless' is no exception. Unlike
modernists, postmodernists don't insist that the viewer,
listener or reader deciphers their work. You can decipher
'Restless', and it's doubtlessly intended that you could, but
it also works as an entertaining and funny piece of television.
'Hush' worked on many levels, but chiefly it worked on the superficial
TV-episode-without-talking level; complexity is there, but 'Hush'
doesn't need to be 'deciphered' to work.
PASTICHE PASTICHES
Another key postmodern feature that 'Restless' includes is allusion,
and pastiche. Postmodernism looks back as well as forward, and
doesn't feel that art needs to 'progress' in some way. The past
is unavoidable, and sometimes the Freudian idea of the return
of the past (the repressed) is a key feature in postmodern texts;
certainly the past never stays buried in Buffy, even if has been
killed and laid to rest. Alluding to or pastiching other things
is a key element of postmodernism.
In 'Restless', Joss references a number of films and styles, some
more obvious than others, such as the Apocalypse Now pastiche
with Xander. Joss also alludes to many styles and techniques,
ranging from the style 'The Limey' or 'Eyes Wide Shut', to 'Rear
Window'. Postmodernists don't feel that art should be, or can
be, separated out from other texts and the world around it; in
fact, there is no join between art and pop culture. They're both
the same thing. Allusions to and pastiches of other things are
a way postmodern texts establish themselves are part of a wider
world. In Buffy, this ranges from casual references to TV shows,
comic books, music, consumer products, all the way to Indian cinema.
When Buffy says her spider-sense is tingling, she's establishing
herself as a part of pop culture, not as something apart from
it or superior to it; in postmodern texts, allusions aren't to
obscure literature, but to the everyday.
Buffy exists are a part of the horror genre, but it also seeks
to pastiche it. Unlike satire, which represents something satirically
in order to make a specific point about it, pastiche pastiches
something purely for the sake of it; because they can. In its
time, Buffy has done the creature from the black lagoon, werewolves,
Frankenstein, the mummy, the bionic man, Dracula and of course
the classic head-teacher-that-turns-into-a-giant-snake. Perhaps
the last one may be original. Each time a new, Buffy twist is
put on the story, but generally speaking the intent is to pastiche,
rather than to satirise. Buffy is never soley a satire on the
horror genre; while it does somtimes seek to make observations
about horror (or science fiction or fantasy) through satire, generally
speaking pastiche is the aim: as pastiche doesn't criticise what
it's pastiching.
Postmodernism is always interested in stylistic plurality, in
the mixing of popular styles and genres, such as Joss' mixing
of styles in 'Restless'. But on the more regular basis, the show
mixes genres. In an earlier DVD commentary, Joss talks about the
way that the show needed to use many different lighting techniques
and direction, sometimes within just one scene. This is a symptom
of the way the show is constructed; it isn't comedy, horror, romance,
drama, science fiction or fantasy, it's all of these, frequently
at the same time. Often, it's a genre-clash, horror suddenly undercut
with drama, or romance undercut with comedy. Postmodernists recognise
that any work of art is influenced by many genres, and that no
one genre is more valid than another; pulp horror and serious
drama can go hand in hand. Equally, it's completely impossible
to ignore other genres and styles; it's not unoriginal to use
them, it's merely a natural produce of living in the postmodern
age. Genres are not artistically invalid, in the same way that
no pop culture is invalid.
BUFFY ISN'T REAL
Another aspect of postmodernism is the idea of fiction recognising
its own fictionality; that is, of a book realising it's a book,
or of a film understanding that it's a film, drawing attention
to this fact through devices which make it seem artificial, undermining
the illusion of reality. Does Buffy do this? At first glance,
this seems like the one postmodern feature the show doesn't adhere
to at all. Buffy exists within its own uniquely constructed world,
and believing in this world and in its characters and morals is
key to enjoying the show. But Buffy has subtly drawn attention
to the fact that it's TV. Many TV shows follow a common, almost
invisible, style of directing, in which style isn't supposed to
get in the way of the events on screen. While you obviously know
you're watching a TV show, the program tries to keep the directing
as inobtrustive as possible, in order that the storylines and
characters can seem more plausible and less like a construct.
In episodes such as 'Restless' and 'The Body', the show does deliberately
draw attention to its own artifice. However, at no point in this
episodes do the characters know that they're in a TV show; the
illusion of some kind of reality is preserved, merely the means
of portraying it (through directing and editing) is made a feature
of the episode.
However, there are instances in which Buffy has called into question
the 'reality' or plausibility of the Buffyverse. At times, there
is a suggestion that there is some kind of real world (the world
the viewers live in), in which vampires aren't real. In 'Tabula
Rasa' and 'Halloween', some or all of the Scoobies revert to this
state. Quickly this new reality is exposed as ignorance of the
truth, but it seems to imply that the supernatural elements of
the show are fictional, taken from comics, myths and films, rather
than 'real'. The familar nature of the monsters in the Buffyverse
further suggests a certain fictionality, as if the characters
were living in a world where its very unreality is central.
This fictionalised world seems fragile. In the episodes 'Superstar'
(Season 4) and 'Normal Again' (Season 6) the whole elaborate world
of the show was torn down; in Season 5, Dawn was introduced, history
was rewritten with apparent ease. Many postmodernists, while acknowledging
the importance of history, have made a feature of the fact that
history itself is a construct; Season 5 and 'Superstar' showed
us that memories were constructs and easily changed. Whether or
not this is an example of the show drawing attention to its own
fictionality, or an example of it making a point about the nature
of reality, is debatable; but this view of history is very postmodern.
'Normal Again' presents the possibility that Buffy's world is
itself a construct. For a while, the audience is expected to wonder
how 'real' the show is; it's very significant that the new world
Buffy finds herself in is more conventionally 'real' than that
of the Buffyverse (vampires and demons are no longer real), similar
to the group amnesia in 'Tabula Rasa' and 'Halloween'. This makes
the audience wonder if Buffy is 'real'. Of course, it isn't, it's
a TV show, but 'Normal Again' makes us question the believability
of vampires and demons, and question whether or not we should
'believe' the show, and find it plausible. The ending of the episode
seems to tell us that, while Buffy is never real, it's interesting,
and exciting; so while it is a fictional construct, 'reality'
is itself often no more real. Postmodernism always understands
that texts are fictional, but also recognises that whatever we
call 'real' or 'realistic' is often a construct itself.
COMPLETELY UNSERIOUS
While Buffy, in some way, fits in with many postmodern features
(allusion and pastiche, anti-elitism, stylistic plurality), one
key feature which Buffy seems to generally oppose is that of playfulness
over seriousness. The show is often playful, but it frequently
requires an involvement with the viewer which a complete lack
of seriousness, of taking itself seriously, doesn't give; to work,
Buffy has to take itself seriously.
Is seriousness not postmodern, then? Postmodernists often believe
that no TV series, or any art, can take itself too seriously.
I'd argue that's the better phrase, then; Buffy take itself seriously,
but not too seriously. We're expected to believe, as Buffy
and the Scoobies do, in the fight of good against evil, and in
loves and romances in the Buffyverse. But, when it succeeds most,
the show is always able to see and lighter perspective; even at
the most intense moments, there are always jokes. This isn't really
a lack of seriousness, but rather recognising that no piece of
art can ever take itself entirely seriously. Not so much playfullyness
over seriousness, as a use of both.
But no postmodern text is expected to be completely light and
unserious; even case studies in postmodernism usually take themselves
seriously to some degree, and see themselves as unique rather
than purely as a produce of pop culture and postmodernity. Buffy
still remains postmodern, because postmodernism is very broad-ranging.
The term can't be defined in any narrow way, as it's in its very
nature to be obscure, and defy categorisation. Buffy is a supremely
postmodern text, because it sees itself as part of a postmodern
world, rather than as an isolated piece of art.
[> *That* Postmodern Thing,
I should have written! Silly me. -- Slain, 18:24:37 09/19/02
Thu
[> Re: The Postmodern Thing
-- Darby, 19:47:50 09/19/02 Thu
Just to avoid confusion, the postmodernism that pops up in my
posts from time to time is only loosely linked to the artistic
movement, which I feel unqualified to discuss. In science and
a few other areas, the postmodernist movement focuses on the creators:
at its most extreme, that all science is poisoned by the inner
biases of the scientists, that all science is a product of the
culture and psychology of the individual scientists. I don't buy
into the extreme viewpoint, but I always try to keep an eye on
researchers' motivations when I'm reading about research. And
how often do we filter our impression of Buffy through
our knowledge of Joss' background and inclinations?
Don't mean to hijack the thread - just figuring that the next
time I bring up the subject, it'd be useful to have made the distinction.
Now back to what should be an interesting discussion...
- Darby, being unusually obsessive today.
[> [> OT to Darby
-- redcat, 12:50:59
09/20/02 Fri
Hey, Darby, if you're still feeling a tad obsessive, or even just
still a tad interested, I think that, despite myself (grin), I
may have found some ammo for your side of The Great Meme Debate.
'Course, if you want to read it, you'll have to wade through a
long ramble about genocide, but if you want me to send it on to
you, reply to the address above.
aloha nui,
redcat
[> Self-awareness --
Humanitas, 20:27:52 09/19/02 Thu
While the characters in BtVS don't really seem to be aware that
they are in a TV show, there a are occasional allusions. I seem
to recall at some point this season Buffy saying something along
the lines of "Dawn's in trouble - it must be Tuesday."
[> [> It's in Once More,
With Feeling -- Dead (but still pedantic) Soul, 20:34:00
09/19/02 Thu
She also broke the fourth wall in this episode and sang directly
to the camera, the audience "and you can sing along."
Dead (and just rewatched OMWF about three times night before last)
Soul
[> [> [> Re: It's
in Once More, With Feeling -- Slain, 10:25:54 09/20/02
Fri
I deliberately left that out, just to see if someone would pick
up on it! Actually I was going to make a point about OMWF in general,
and the way that there seems to be an invisible audience, but
I forgot. Anya & Xander break the fourth wall also, in their dance,
and I think there may be some other instances of it - Anya mentions
something along the lines of "It's like there were four walls,
not three like usual". Is if this was the episode when the
characters became aware of the audience.
[> Re: The Postmodern Thing
-- AzRahael, 02:43:43 09/20/02 Fri
Thanks for pointing out your essay! I'll have to read it properly
later today.
I'm glad I missed that programme because it would have irritated
me utterly. Mostly because while I think Wagner's music is divine,
his ideas are a load of old cobblers, and somewhere less worthy
of consideration than Conan the Barbarian.
Who was the presenter??
[> [> Presenter --
Lurker Becoming Restless, 03:05:30 09/20/02 Fri
Howard Goodall - wrote the music to Red Dwarf and Blackadder among
other things so he can't be all bad.
Actually he makes some very good points in his factual programmes
but he has always had a kind of irritating, get- the-audience-my-side-with-jokes-about-things-I-don't-
understand kind of thing going on.
[> [> [> Thanks!
-- Rahael, 05:57:13 09/20/02 Fri
[> Re: The Postmodern Thing
-- Lurker Becoming Restless, 03:02:00 09/20/02 Fri
Thank you for such a clear account of what can be a confusing
topic.
I also saw that programme on Wagner and got very annoyed at the
comment he made (though it was satisfying to see that some of
the things he was praising in Wagner later on are actually present
in 'Once More With Feeling').
When I first encountered the idea of postmodernism I was quite
hostile towards it, noting immediately that it defines itself
by what it isn't and taking this to be representative of its parasitic
nature. Although I now enjoy postmodern texts, this early notion
of them is still valid (to a certain extent) in the case of Buffy,
which often defines itself by setting itself apart from something
else.
In Buffy many episodes, scenes or lines start with a cliche and
then move on from it. Since the writers start with a cliche, there
is no danger that they will slip into using it in a boring way.
This is demonstrated most clearly when a character interrogates
a commonly used saying eg Willow wondering why people say 'sticks
out like a sore thumb' in 'Lie to Me'.
Buffy's postmodernism comprises not only self-awareness but also
awareness of other shows, movies, books and anything else (as
I now realise you say in your final sentence - oh, well, came
at it from another direction I suppose).
Hope that adds something anyway. I think the idea of Postmodernism
covers such a wide range of texts (eg Tristram Shandy, the parables
of Borges and even Shakespeare) that it is difficult to group
them together in any meaningful way but you have demonstrated
that the term is very useful when employed as a tool of analysis.
Eastern Philosophy
& vampires -- maribeth
martell, 19:40:41 09/19/02 Thu
In most Eastern philosophies (Buddhist, Hindu, Yoga Sutras etc)
the karma which follows one from life to life has to be worked
out in one form or another. When one becomes a vampire one loses
one's soul, so do they stop incuring karma? When they regain their
soul (okay, that has just happened for just the second time in
the history of vampires, but still) do they then have the opportunity
to pay off past karma? Angel (and or Joss) evidently feels that
his actions as the evil Angelus have burdened his soul with additional
bad karma. Will Spike agree? Philosophically how do we determine
this?
[> Re: Eastern Philosophy
& vampires -- Wolfhowl3,
20:55:50 09/19/02 Thu
I think that Spike would not spend a hundred years brooding and
feeling guilty about what he did as a Vampire. Spike would take
the route that it was all pre-soul, so it was his demons fault.
About Karma, I personally think that all evil done by the Demon
in the person's body is what take's Karma Backlash. The soul was
not present, so it can't be held responcable. Now that doesn't
excuse evil that Angel did when he was all soul-having, and yet
Dark. (Like torturing the Head of Wolfram & Hart, letting the
Demon in the Hotel eat all the guests during the 50's, Letting
Darla and Dru suck down all the Layers, etc, etc, etc.)
Just because a creature has a soul, doesn't make him/her nice!
Wolfie
[> [> But the Problem
is... -- Harry Parachute, 22:58:46 09/19/02 Thu
...that an ensouled Vampire still has the monster inside of him.
Think back to "The Dark Age", "Amends", and
"Graduation Day". The Demon "soul" remains,
though it is now buried under and controlled by the human conscience.
So, yeah, since the creature that's responsible for all that evil
isn't in any way banished retribution's gonna come a knockin'...and
the human soul's gonna suffer along with the demon. Doesn't deserve
to...but when a stone's thrown into a lake, the ripples are gonna
come right back at the point of origin.
Karma ain't Justice, it's just how things go.
[> [> [> Re: But the
Problem is... -- Wolfhowl3, 23:14:57 09/19/02 Thu
I just think in Spike's case, the Demon soul is not going to be
giving too much trouble to Spike, because IT was the one what
went looking for a soul, not Willam, but Spike.
Yes there is going to be a demon in the Man, but I think Spike
is more then Man enough to take it.
Wolfie
[> [> [> [> Re:
But the Problem is... -- Arethusa, 07:45:05 09/20/02 Fri
But can he take the soul? Will it nearly drive him mad, like Angel
at first? Will he be able to shrug it off and say, "That
wasn't me, I was a good man and am not responsible for what the
demon did with my body when my soul left it."? NewSpike won't
know who he is anymore. He's not William, the Victorian gentleman
(or gentleman wannabe- my theory) who lived 120 years ago. He's
not Spike, although he has Spike's memories and physical lusts,
God help him. He's not anybody, and since neither Spike nor William
handled frustration terribly well, the results should be--interesting.
Splinter Group
of Disenfranchised Revolutionaries. -- Rochefort, 22:37:49
09/19/02 Thu
Having been aliented, marginalized, othered, and disenfranchised
by the system of "democratic" voting, I'm forming the
people's republic of marginalized, othered, lovers of Jenny. or
M.O.L.O.J.
We were the minority in the last three elections mysteriously
decided by one vote, and so we have given up on the system as
a corupt, patriarchal, colonial manifistation of capitalism. We've
taken Jenny's defeated body away to Avalon with Dawn and Mrs.
Summers to be comfortadors and conquistadors in our own little
land. And once we develop industry we will deny you access to
our natural resources, earn global sympathy, and over throw whoever
gets "elected" as ruler of Buffy-verse. Then we'll establish
a 200 year reign of multicultural feminist techno gypsy peace.
Consider this my RESIGnation.
Rochefort
p.s. We welcome anyone to join us as we are pro- immigration.
[> Techno-Gypsies RULE!!!
-- Apophis, 22:45:56 09/19/02 Thu
Though isn't the P.C. term "techno-Rroma?" Anyway, I'll
come with.
[> [> Our techno-Rroma
power is doubled by the addition of your strength. -- Rochefort
of the repubublic of M.O.L.O.J., 22:49:43 09/19/02 Thu
[> "You're sorry? For
me? Don't bother. I'm dead. I'm over it." ;P -- Harry
Parachute, 00:31:37 09/20/02 Fri
[> [> Well call me Willow
cause I'm bringing you back for the greater good. -- Rochefort,
01:12:24 09/20/02 Fri
[> LOL -- Rahael, 02:52:15
09/20/02 Fri
Current board
| More September 2002