September 2002 posts


Previous September 2002  

More September 2002

Did Xander finally make the Hellmouth work for him? (Or is that vice versa?) -- cjl, 10:12:27 09/26/02 Thu

In BBB, Xander blackmails Amy into casting a love spell on Cordelia, because (a) he's pissed, and (b) he sees nothing wrong with letting "the Hellmouth work for me" for once. He is quickly disabused of (b) when (a) goes disastrously wrong.

But did our beloved Zeppo learn anything from this experience?

In S6, he summoned Sweet in OMWF--and no matter how lame I think the "Xander did it" twist turned out to be, it's now an integral part of the character, and we have to deal with it. In a time of stress, Xander obviously felt he could still bend the rules a bit with magic to get what he wants. Or thinks he wants. Of course, after that ep, he probably learned his lesson and CUT IT OUT.

Or has he?

Here we go again: sometime after the end of S6, imagine that the Sunnydale City Council sent out a call for contractors to rebuild Sunnydale High. I can imagine the Scoobs and most of the union workers who actually SURVIVED the first Sunnydale High thinking, "this is freakin' insane." Not a lot of bids. But obviously, Xander (either working as an independent contractor or encouraging his boss) literally got himself in on the ground floor of the project. Perhaps Xander wanted to be in charge of the rebuilding because he wanted to be ABSOLUTELY SURE that nobody else sneaks any architectural quirks into the building that would come back to bite the town later...

But hey, come on--even if he put demon-proof insulation in the windows, is there anything he could do to make this a GOOD idea? It's a school on top of a Hellmouth. It's pure badness. But Xander goes ahead with the project, earns the big bucks, and comes out smelling like a rose. For now. I get the uneasy feeling he's invested so much work into the reconstruction that he might be tethered to the school in ways he never could have dreamed possible.

TROUBLE....
[> Now that you've brought this up... -- Wisewoman, 10:45:35 09/26/02 Thu

Can someone explain the "contracty goodness" line to me? Xander walks into the girls' washroom, sees a big hole in the floor and says that.

If he built the new high school, wouldn't he be responsible for the repair? Seems to me a brand new floor shouldn't just collapse like that. Surely there must be some kind of guarantee on the workmanship that lasts longer than opening day?

Why would he think it a good thing that the floor collapsed?

Colour me confused. ;o)
[> [> Re: Now that you've brought this up... -- newlurker, 10:53:58 09/26/02 Thu

I think that comment was supposed to have a touch of the sarcastic outsider's observation to it, but it didn't come off that way since we know Xander's not an outsider to the re-building of the school.
[> [> I think that what Xander was thinking -- HonorH, 11:06:31 09/26/02 Thu

was that if the school's already in need of repairs, it'll probably provide Xander with plenty of steady work, and thus, money. Or, if you will, "Contracty goodness."
[> [> [> HonorH has the right explanation -- CW, 11:53:06 09/26/02 Thu

Xander isn't a business owner, and builders' warrantees in Sunnydale probably have 'except in case of unforseen bizarre occurences' clauses. One way or the other Xander can expect a share of the pay for fixing it.
[> [> [> [> Not a chance...Sunnydale is a seller's market -- Charles Phipps, 19:32:43 09/26/02 Thu

The people in Sunnydale have to pay through the nose to keep people here, the insurance rates have to be insane and frankly I'm sure that they can just say

"Well it's not our fault. Looks like sabotage..."

"That's ridiculous...."

New Mayor: We'll pay it.

Princible Wood: But why?

New Mayor: Trust me...just pay it
[> [> Re: Now that you've brought this up... -- LadyStarlight, 11:07:29 09/26/02 Thu

I thought the exact same thing!

The only explanation that comes to mind right now is, if the floor had been put in by a subcontractor, Xander's company may be able to withhold payment for substandard work. Or make them repair/replace it at their cost.

Or is this too logical? ;)
[> [> [> I can hear that conversation now... -- cjl, 11:20:00 09/26/02 Thu

(Xander's office.)

XANDER: $65,000? Absolutely not. The floor collapsed on the FIRST DAY OF SCHOOL. Kids could have gotten hurt. What did you use? Burnt sugar?

SUBCONTRACTOR: I don't know what happened. I built those floorboards myself.

XANDER: Uh huh. Next, you're going to tell me zombies ripped out the floor to feed on human flesh.

SUBCONTRACTOR: Look, Mr. Harris, the guys and me...we need this work. Please, I'll redo the bathroom for free if we have to, but--

XANDER: Nope. Sorry. You're done. I'll give you $10,000 for the work already done, and you're lucky to get that.

SUBCONTRACTOR: But--

XANDER: Did I ask for another opinion?

(Subcontractor reluctantly leaves.)

SHADOWY FIGURE: Excellent, Mr. Harris. You're going to come out of this a very wealthy man...and a big man in this town. And I have wonderful plans for you...
[> [> [> [> Ooh! Xander the Big Bad! -- HonorH, 12:00:41 09/26/02 Thu

That'd be a twist!
[> [> [> [> [> On a totally different note... -- Rob, 12:14:17 09/26/02 Thu

Is it just me or has NB slimmed down considerably this year?

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> Ack! Rob, you fool! Discussing NB's physique? I'll never get my thread back! -- cjl, 12:17:58 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OK, everybody, ignore my last point...Move back to the Hellmouth dealy... -- Rob, 12:29:39 09/26/02 Thu

Although, in an attempt to bring the subject back, can we perceive the slimming-down as part of his pact with the Hellmouth? Hmmmmm?

Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ~"Nothin' to see, move it along . . ."~ -- HonorH, 12:37:48 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OK, everybody - I am a sucker for this -- Rendyl, 13:27:48 09/26/02 Thu

On one of the fanfiction sites there is a pic of NB that almost makes me drool. (no easy thing)

Swooshing over to the topic at hand - hmm..a beneficial side effect? reward for saving the world? result of eating his own (or Buffy's) cooking?

Ren
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Xander the builder -- Desperado, 15:17:07 09/26/02 Thu

Until it is stated in the show, I don't think that Xander's construction crew built the school. They are part of the sub-contractors putting the finishing touches on the science center and the gym. Someone else built the main building, and when Xander sees the collapsed floor, he believes his crew will get the job, as they are the construction contractors on site.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow, an explanation...Thanks! ;o) -- dub, 17:46:25 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> I was thinking, way to go Xander -- Vickie, 22:29:23 09/26/02 Thu

who coaches your workouts. Does s/he have a free slot in the schedule?
[> [> Re: Now that the floor's come up... -- pr10n, 11:09:36 09/26/02 Thu

I think it goes like this: Xander et al. got the contract for building the school; they also got a maintenance clause; the [school district] signed off on the finished school; [beasties] made a maintenance opportunity; Xander gets a new tie and some shoes.

I don't think the construction company can be liable for occasional hellmouth wackiness. Rather, that's why Xander bid the job -- the potential for long-term work.

See cjl's post above of course: the hellmouth is Xander's butt-monkey.
[> [> [> Shouldn't that be "now that the floor's gone down"? ;o) -- Rob, 11:13:16 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> Note to self: type faster to appear less derivative -- pr10n, 11:14:15 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> Quote of the week! -- Masq, 14:33:21 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Now that you've brought this up... -- anom, 15:34:58 09/26/02 Thu

"Can someone explain the 'contracty goodness' line to me?"

Not me--my 1st thought was "What about the lawsuity badness?"
[> Who has the power...and temptation of success (7.1 spoilers) -- shadowkat, 11:53:12 09/26/02 Thu

"But hey, come on--even if he put demon-proof insulation in the windows, is there anything he could do to make this a GOOD idea? It's a school on top of a Hellmouth. It's pure badness. But Xander goes ahead with the project, earns the big bucks, and comes out smelling like a rose. For now. I get the uneasy feeling he's invested so much work into the reconstruction that he might be tethered to the school in ways he never could have dreamed possible."

I think Xander has been roped into the Hellmouths web. It has all the Scoobies actually. Scoobies being defined as Spike, Xander, Willow, Buffy, Dawn, Anya, and possibly Giles for this post. (For how it has Spike see my posts
further down). I love the way Giles line to Willow about
her always being Willow and how in the end people are who they are no matter how changes or masks they put on - leads us to Xander getting out of a beautiful shiny new car, in a nice suite with blue prints looking like 00 Xander as Dawn puts it. (Made me think back to his custom in Fear Itself - playing 007). He has everything he wants - what he was afraid he'd never have as recently as OMWF when he sings his fear of not having enough money or sucess to please Anya. So if i was an evil entity who wanted to get my sly hooks into Xander, how would I do it??? I'd go through his ego, that's the way. It was in the Zeppo, The Replacement
and in BBB. I think Xander's sucess may backfire.

On Contractedy Goodness? When you build a school and forces of nature tear through it - this means your hired for repairs. Also contrast this with Xander complaining in IWMTLY when he had to rebuild that window, and how much it would cost. Now he is pleased as can be, actually grins when he sees damage to a building = money!!! yippee.
Makes me think a bit of Anya, who Xander used to criticize for enjoying the idea of making money off someone else.

And Xander as you point out is not beyond using magic or other means to get what he wants. I think that may be another weakness the evil entity will work with.

OOOh come into my parlor said the spider to the fly...and the flies are flocking. It really is about power. But it's more about who we choose to give ours too. We all have power. We're only powerless when we let something say a job, or a person take it away from us. And the biggest power we have is the power to choose our own destiney or fate. Keeping that power and not giving it up to someone else, not letting them control us - that's the trick.

(yes...I'm waxing philosophically about my own life again can't you tell ;-) )SK
[> [> Re: Who has the power...and temptation of success (7.1 spoilers) -- Slain, 16:54:02 09/26/02 Thu

Xander seems to be dealing with his loss of Anya in the American way - but getting more money and a big car, which doesn't really deal with problems, so much as avoid them. I don't neccessarily think he's tempted by power and money for its own sake, like the Mayor for example, but rather that he's using it as escapism. Perhaps, like Willow, he might want to escape through power and resort to magic to get things done - but that wouldn't be a very surprising development. And I'm confident that Season 7 will have "surprise viewers" right at the top of its Things To Do list.

I thought he was the only Scooby character who was almost overlooked in the opener. He was back to being quippy Xander from Buffy Year One - except without the loves and fears which define him. Give them time, you might say, but I think Xander has been a somewhat underwritten character of late - in Season 6, he didn't come into his own until 'Hell's Bells', and before that could be summed up as 'the guy who works for a living and worries about commitment a bit'.

Or perhaps the root of it is that, like Wesley, I prefer the character when he's rootless, jobless and unsure of his place in the world. Viewers can be so cruel.
[> [> [> Re: Who has the power...and temptation of success (7.1 spoilers) -- JBone, 18:40:08 09/26/02 Thu

I think the Xander stuff was in the details. Like the way he's basically the man of the house, even though he's not IN the house. Did you notice how Buffy checked his watch for the time and the hand signals between them when it was time to give Dawn her present? At the job site he's clearly some kind of foreman, if not the superintendent. And even though Buffy doesn't have many options at the moment, and Xander is conveniently nearby, it was him that Buffy called (his number was programmed in) for help. I know it's not the speeches that Giles and Willow had, or the dramatic departure that Spike had, or even the lying share of the scenes that Buffy and Dawn had. But he had some moments establishing him as THE man. I'll admit that it would have been nice for him to have a line or two about what's going on in his head about Anya, Willow, Spike or whatever, but that'll come.
[> [> [> [> Buffy, Dawn, and Xander as a nuclear family (7.1 Spoilers) -- HonorH, 21:32:23 09/26/02 Thu

I think you're onto something, JBone. Over the summer, without Giles, Willow, Anya, Tara, and Spike, Buffy, Dawn, and Xander have bonded into a family. No doubt they've spent a lot of time together, just the three of them, and they've built a new dynamic without the others they love. Xander is indeed the "man of the house." When he stops by, it's very much, "Dawn, Dad's here to pick you up!" He's taking on one of the roles Giles used to have. Buffy knows she can count on him. More than that, Xander knows he can be counted upon--after all, he did save the world. It'll be interesting to see how Willow reintegrates into the gang when she comes back from England.
Spike's Chip Spoiler -- Angelica, 11:55:43 09/26/02 Thu

Now that Spike has regained his soul does that mean the chip is out of his head? I hope we have an "explaing Spike" ep coming up real soon.
[> According to Himself -- HonorH, 12:06:44 09/26/02 Thu

(that is, Joss), the chip still functions. So now he's got a soul and a chip. I believe that puts him slightly ahead of Angel on the Nancy Scale.
[> [> Re: According to Himself -- Angelica, 12:22:55 09/26/02 Thu

Well, that is really interesting! I would love to read Joss's explanation for this redundant neutering. I mean, didn't the Demon Who Returned His Soul say he was going to return Spike to the way he was "before"....now, to me that means Spike would: a) no longer have the chip and b)return to William, who was, hmmmm, human? This is killing me. I can't stand it. I mean, I love the show, I sincerely do, but I really feel too much emphasis is being put on Dawn. Dawn is OK as a secondary character, but I don't see the reasoning in giving Dawn so much screen-time, with her own little posse and all. Frankly, I don't think MT is up to the job, acting wise, and I think more due should be given to JM, who is a fantastic actor who could be "chewing up the scenery" if given the time on-screen. I would much rather see Spike in his current manifestation seriously examined. Enough with the Dawn already. Whine Whine Whine. And...quite frankly, I hated the two new "kids". Are you people really thinking they are the new Scoobies? No, you are all just shell-shock from the first ep.
[> [> [> For the love of Pete-- -- HonorH, 12:33:25 09/26/02 Thu

Give it some time! Aside from me totally disagreeing with you on Dawn (first, the only whining thus far this season is coming from her detractors, and second, MT is one of the finest young actresses I've ever seen), you can have all confidence that Spike's situation will be fully explored. Joss was teasing us with this ep. He was setting up a great number of questions, and among them is: What's happening to Spike? You'll get your fix. Just hang tight and enjoy the ride.
[> [> [> Re: According to Himself -- Angelica, 13:00:37 09/26/02 Thu

Oh HonorH, I will try, but it is very difficult. My brain is pumping out the Questions! Bty, I really enjoy all of your posts. You are the brightest multiple personality ever. Thanx.
[> [> [> [> We aim to please! -- HonorH (& Co.), 13:18:05 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Re: We aim to please! -- Luna, 19:16:30 09/26/02 Thu

True, true about Dawn--the innocence is as annoying as the whining. Buffy and the Scoobys have a more devilish wit--Dawn reminds me of somebody on a teen show. Also (I just found this board so maybe this is beat to death in another thread)--Buffy back in high school? This can't be good.
[> [> I need a definition ... -- Robert, 12:53:31 09/26/02 Thu

of the Nancy Scale.
[> [> [> The Nancy Scale -- HonorH, 13:16:26 09/26/02 Thu

Take the following quiz:

1. Do you wear lots of black? (2 points)

2. How often do you brood?
a) monthly (1 pt)
b) weekly (2 pts)
c) daily (3 pts)
d) hourly (4 pts)
e) Is there a time when I *don't* brood? (10 pts)

3. What's the gel status of your hair?
a) lightly springy (1 pt)
b) I scoff at the weather! (2 pts)
c) The last girl who ran her fingers through my hair now has a prosthetic hand (3 pts)
d) Who can think of hair when one's soul is in such torment? (10 pts)

4. I don't hurt humans because:
a) It's wrong! (1 pt)
b) The girl I've got a crush on doesn't like it (5 pts)
c) I'm supposed to help the hopeless . . . or something like that (10 pts)
d) I'm my own man! I don't have to be evil anymore! It's the chip! And quit changing shapes like that! (20 pts)

5. Award yourself 5 extra points if you've got a British accent.

1-10 points: You've got a nominal amount of Nancy-ness, but it's nothing to worry about.
10-20 points: Worry. You may not be a Nancy, but you're almost positively a Wanker.
20+ points: Welcome to the Nancy Tribe.
[> [> [> [> Ahh ... very good! -- Robert, 13:26:17 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> Re: The Nancy Scale -- Angelica, 13:34:20 09/26/02 Thu

That was hilarious. But I don't think it answered Robert's question. I think he needs to actually know what a "Nancy" is, before he can understand the scale.
LOLOLOL
[> [> [> [> [> We aims to please: possibly offensive quotes herein -- pr10n, 13:42:26 09/26/02 Thu

From "A Dictionary of Slang" http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/

Nancy
Noun. 1. An effeminate male. Derog.
2. A homosexual. Derog.
Adj. Effeminate, weak.
[> [> [> [> [> [> So is Angel a "poofter," a "wanker" or a "nancy boy"? -- cjl, 13:45:07 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike as Beta wolf to Angel -- Scroll, 13:50:53 09/26/02 Thu

Spike seems kinda defensive (IMHO) whenever he calls Angel names. Every jibe directed at Angel's sexuality or masculinity just seems like Spike's insecurities rearing their ugly heads. After all, Angelus was the leader of the pack for Spike's "formative" years. All the important females in Spike's life (Buffy, Dru, and Darla) always preferred Angel over him. It makes sense that Spike feels the need to make derogatory comments in order to puff himself up as the Big Bad.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So is Angel a "poofter," a "wanker" or a "nancy boy"? -- pr10n, 13:54:07 09/26/02 Thu

[NOTE: One suspects cjl of knowing the answer and yet asking the question... "just to see."]

But "poofter" and "nancy" describe effeminent men, whereas "wanker" is more specifically "useless" as when The Edge says "Wankers!" on the Simpsons U2 guest shot.



Yes, "wank" is masturbation slang. There I said it!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nah. I just like saying "poofter," "wanker" and "nancy boy." -- cjl, 13:59:21 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So is Angel a "poofter," a "wanker" or a "nancy boy"? -- yabyumpan, 15:57:20 09/26/02 Thu

"So is Angel a "poofter," a "wanker" or a "nancy boy"?"

Well lets just analyze this a bit:

Poofter: There is always the possability but we've only seen him have sex with women and he now has a child so probably not

Wanker: Given the contraints of his curse, very likely (but aren't we all at times ;-) )

Nancy Boy: Doesn't seem to be on the surface although some would say (not me) that his love of Ballet shows there is some underlying Nancy boyness going on


More interestingly, do we have some underlying closetness happening with Spike? Has Spike's journey actually been about trying to be like his 'Yoda'?

Taken from 'In the Dark' AtS S1

Spike in high voice: ìHow can I thank you, you mysterious, black-clad hunk of a night thing? (low voice) No need, little lady, your tears of gratitude are enough for me. You see, I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse defanged me. Now Iím just a big, fluffy puppy with bad teeth. (Rachel steps closer to Angel, and Angel steps back warding her off with his hands) No, not the hair! Never the hair! (high voice) But there must be someway I can show my appreciation. (low voice) No, helping those in needís my job, - and working up a load of sexual tension, and prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough! (high voice) I understand. I have a nephew who is gay, soÖ (low voice) Say no more. Evilís still afoot! And Iím almost out of that Nancy-boy hair-gel that I like so much. Quickly, to the Angel-mobile, away!î

Marcus lays his hand on Angelís heart: ìHeís known love.î
Spike: ìYeah, and with a Slayer no less. How is that for perversion?î
Marcus: ìAnd he has a soul.î
Spike bored: ìRight, vampire with a soul. Cursy-cursed to walk the earth trying to do good. Thatís not going to be a problem, is it?î
Marcus: ìOn the contrary. Creatures with souls have something to lose.î

Spike: ì..... - Itís called addiction, Angel. We all have it. - I believe yours is named Slutty the vampire Slayer. (music ends and Spike breathes a sigh of relief) Thank you! - Speaking of little Buff, I ran into her recently. Your name didnít come up. Although she has been awful busy jumping the bones of the first lunk-head that came along. Good-looking fellow - used her shamelessly. - She is cute when she is hurting, isnít she?î
Angel: ìI think sheís cuter when sheís kicking your ass.î

taken from Psyches site

Re-watched the episode the other day and the funny had doubled given the now souled state of the Blond one
[> [> [> [> I resemble that scale! -- Masq, 13:35:25 09/26/02 Thu

On a variety of levels.

Since I score slightly lower than Angel

and since my name is Nancy

"Welcome to the Nancy Tribe." --Giles, Tabula Rasa
[> [> [> [> [> Well, seeing as we're all on *your* board-- -- HonorH (the Nancy), 14:48:18 09/26/02 Thu

I'd say we all belong to the Nancy Tribe.
[> [> [> [> Angel, a man, his box (spoilers for BtVS-E1) -- fresne, 14:02:14 09/26/02 Thu

Well, technically speaking at present Spike is a
Insane
no hair care products
British
Used to write bloody awful poetry
Black Clad
Vampire
with a soul
and a chip
lurking in a HS basement
7 personal demons optional

While Angel is a
Sanity unknown
His hair care products are mildewing as we read
Irish
Reads poetry
Black Clad
Vampire
with a soul (10)
welded into a box at the bottom of the ocean
by his son
while his Oracular-squeeze floats into higher being hood and longer skirts (Coincidence? I think not.)
Broods, contemplates happiness, broods again. See box.

I can make the math be a toss up as to the Nancy factor. I have Excel and Iím not afraid to use it.

Now presumably, once AtS starts up again, Angel will get out of his box and the Nancy scales will tilt once more.

Although, all of a sudden, what with the Upper Echelon changes, Iím taken with a new vision for Angel the Series. The story of one vampireís philosophical and metaphysical meanderings while locked in a box.

Some episodes will be all black or perhaps a faint ambient gray green with dim shapes moving outside the box. As time passes, mollusks. There will be voiceovers by Angel in which he discusses Passion, Redemption, and the Nancy Boy Hair gel (you know the kind that he loves so much). Occasionally, weíll see what the Fang Gang is up to, but itís in some question as to whether or not those arenít just dreams or ephemeral visitations. The episode where Angel reenacts Platoís cave will be hailed by some as the cinematic rival to the Black and White Mole people episode on Buffy.

Okay, must stop now. I need to write a description of our logical network and it keeps coming out very Zen and all ìThere is no data.î and "The data must want to change."

Spoon.
[> [> [> [> [> Feeling much love for the board--thanks Masq and everyone -- pr10n, 14:09:27 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> Man, that is just too deep for me! -- HonorH (in awe), 14:45:20 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> gotta be deep--i mean, he *is* underwater! (ps: loved it, fresne!) -- anom, 15:30:39 09/26/02 Thu

Article on ME Writers no season 7 spoilers..Bring it On, Baby: Kings of Pain -- Rufus, 12:05:07 09/26/02 Thu

http://www.scoopme.com/tv/articles/default.asp?article_id=71381

Mutant Enemy Mine


Bring It On, Baby: Kings of Pain
by Allyson
9/26/2002



"I killed Doyle and Iíd do it again!"
-Tim Minearís tagline at Salon.com

Before Tim Minear took the reigns at Firefly, he was the Executive Producer of Angel, and he would frequently visit message boards ëround the ënet. Blessed with a wicked gallows humor, his tagline at Salon.com was a deliciously evil response to the avalanche of letters he received after he sent Doyle off to pick the pockets of The Powers That Be.

Such is the way for the Kings of Pain: David Fury (BtVS Co-Executive Producer), Steve DeKnight (Angel Producer), Joss Whedon (BtVS, Angel, and Firefly creator), and Minear have legendary reputations for their interactions with the Internet fandom over the years.

Theyíre simultaneously friendly, gracious, and brutal ñ and why not? Would we want them to be public relations cyborgs? Weíre talking about the people who slaughter and maim and torture our favorite characters, week after blissfully bloody week.

These are twisted shows in which the heroes sometimes go bad and eat people, or send their lovers to Hell. Hey, didnít Buffy watch herself get drawn and quartered by a group of gang-raping demon bikers in the season six premiere? You think the minds that gave you that image are going to be fuzzy wuzzy huggle wuv bears?

How about we take a few moments to delve into those very twisted minds and see what the hell they could possibly be thinking? The following posts have been collected over the years by the Bronze VIP archivists for your masochistic pleasure. Keep both hands on the keyboard, please.

Letís start with my favorite Sovereign of Slaughter, David Fury. The night before his BtVS episode "Crush" aired in the U.S., a handful of fans visited the now defunct Bronze posting board on February 13, 2001 to slash Fury to ribbons for his portrayal of Spike as a pathetic panty-sniffing stalker with a thirst for blood. "Hack!!!" they cried. Never one to shy away from criticism, Fury responded by telling his detractors:

"...To those who feel my conviction that Spike can never be redeemed and cannot someday end up with our heroine, shows a lack of imagination of my part, I say you're right. It is beyond my limited imagination to see a strong, independent, female character end up falling for a murderer who would be killing innocent people were he not suffering from chip afflictionÖ"

"ÖFor those of you who fault my thinking, I can only say I'll try to be more open-minded in the future.

In the meanwhile, S/B shippers, you can go back to writing your pen pals, Richard Ramirez and the Hillside Strangler, and I hope they finally accept your marriage proposals.

Your simple-minded pal,

David Fury"

Of course, realizing that he may have offended a great many people he later apologized.

"Ösorry, if you think I'm insulting to the fans. In the future, I'll refrain from posting to those more sensitive."

Bring it on, baby. Rip my heart out, douse it with butane, and light it on fire. Iíll beg for more. Thatís why I watch these shows. Doesnít everyone?

Mutant Enemy writers have opinions about the shows they produce, and arenít afraid to write it all down for posterity. They stand by their work, hothouse flowers be damned. If you prefer shows produced by a Hollywood widget factory that have had their minds douched by a PR Machine, watch some Aaron Spelling and call it a day.

Take Tim Minear, for example. The man knows no mercy. In a May 15, 2002, Zap2it interview, the Moppet of Mayhem is quoted as saying:

"There will be an occasional happy, so that it might be crushed under the boot of the writer."

And still, some fans react with venom when a favorite character goes off the deep end, or gets slaughtered like an Easter pig. What shows have these people been watching? For those just tuning in: If you really, genuinely, love a character, and that character appears to be having a moment of joy, expect that the character will be beaten to death with their own spleen.

Or maybe the character will just move to Tibet.

Or maybe the character will get a spin-off show.

Or maybe the characterís chest will explode by way of an incredulously unlikely bullet trajectory.

Sheesh. Six YEARS people. Have you learned nothing?

Take it straight from Jossí first post at the Bronze after "The Body" aired:

joss says: (Sat Jan 29 16:43:16 2000 205.188.192.163): I tell the actors I'm gonna kill their characters all the time, and they NEVER LAUGH. I just don't get it.

Why would anyone think a character would ever be safe? Popularity and politics be damned, Mutant Enemy does stick to their guns and produce the kind of show that they want. Itís hard to argue with that.

Now, granted, there are different kinds of pain. When Wesley got his throat slit, that was a good kind of tingly pain. Nipple clamp pain. Hour-long circuit training class pain. Ice cream headache pain. You know what I mean.

Itís completely different from the pain caused by Saint!Cordyís ascension to heaven after a season of holier than thou goodness and light. Or Spongebob Leatherpants sinking to the depths off the Santa Monica pier.

Thereís the pain of episode after episode of Spikeís money shots on Buffyís chin. Was anyone else expecting the "Very Special Porn Episode, Starring Ron Jeremy as the Spooge Demon"? Just me then? Yeah, itís disgusting, but so was that scene with our heroine bent over on the catwalk.

Thatís bad pain. Thatís the sort of pus-filled-boil, leaking-a-yellowish-ooze-onto-your-collar, and-causing-your-co-workers-to wretch pain. You should see a doctor about that kind of pain. Or maybe tune into That 70ís Show, which is a pretty damn fine sitcom opposite Buffy. But donít bloody whine about it. Youíve been warned, and itís not like pain and torment havenít been a theme since Buffy shoved Angel through a portal to Hell, since Angelus snapped Jennyís neck, or when Angel tried to smother Wesley with a pillow.

Aside from the sneering brutality of the shows we love, weíre pretty damn lucky as a fandom. The people that have created these stories that we devour every week ñ like a novel that we canít put down on the train, missing our stop, until we reach the end of the line ñ actually take the time to hang out with us in these electric walls. They know the names of the regulars, they chat about work and life and just chill with the fans. Of course, they get bombarded with spoiler questions, every time. "Whoís the next big bad?" "Is Buffy really dead?" "Will Spike and Buffy get married and argue over property taxes?" "Are BuFfY + AngEL 4EvAh???"

To the spoiler whores, um, er, spoiler companions, Steve DeKnightís post at The Bronze on April 14, 2001 describes the careful guarding of future plots.



"ÖYou do know of course that you can't believe anything I tell you about what's coming up. Spike dying, Spike moving to Angel, Spike making Xander his little love monkey -- some of these might be true, some of them might not. But let me ask you this-- if we were going to kill Spike in the season finale, don't you think I'd deny it? He he he he he...."

Still, when DeKnight posted a year later that Tara would be killed "OVER MY DEAD BODY," he was greeted with a chorus of angry fans screaming, "Liar!!" He also said heíd leave Buffy if Tara died. True to that particular promise, he took a promotion at Angel.

THAT is comedy. That is good pain.

However, if the pain gets to be too much, if the shows are making you feel like ripping your own eyeballs out in chronic frustration, please heed the words of Steve DeKnight, posted at the Bronze Beta, March 11, 2002:

"ÖBut let me make it clear to everyone: feel free to complain that you donít like whatís happening on BtVS. Heck, I complain about movies and TV shows every day. Just understand that making a TV show is complicated business. We try our best, but weíre not always going to get it right. And for the love of all thatís sweet, if you hate what youíre watching, turn the channel. I do it all the time."

Amen.

Writerís note: Many thanks to the kind folks that keep lighthouse running at the Bronze VIP Archives; collecting posts from Mutant Enemy writers since 1998.
[> It's all fun and games until it's your favorite character's turn -- Masq, 12:22:22 09/26/02 Thu

Funny how people can be absolutely blind to the pain, death or bad writing of some other character, and then when it's their favorite, they scream, "No fair!"
[> Lie To Me -- Arethusa, 12:47:06 09/26/02 Thu

I agree with "Allyson." ME can rip out my heart and stomp on it with hob-nailed boots, as long as they keep churning out more shows. You want "Spikey Loves Buffy"? Write a fan fic. Hate Dawn? Pray for her untimely fictional demise. Think Giles doesn't get enough air time? Well, there you're perfectly correct, 'cause I say so. But take the good with the bad, because even the bad's better than the rest of the junk on tv.
[> "Spoiler Companion." I like it! -- HonorH, 13:00:02 09/26/02 Thu

Has a nicer ring than "Spoiler Whore" or even "Spoiler Trollop." Sounds . . . respectable. Yes, I'll be a Spoiler Companion!

(Says the girl who just got a whopping load of perfectly delish AtS spoilers this morning.)
[> [> Glad to hear they're delish! -- Masq, 13:07:34 09/26/02 Thu

But don't tell me what they are!

puts fingers in ears La la la la la la laaaa....
[> [> [> Being WB-deprived, -- HonorH, 13:20:13 09/26/02 Thu

I subsist on AtS spoilers until I can get tapes.
[> [> [> [> Oh, right... -- Masq, 13:29:10 09/26/02 Thu

You were the one who was going to have to wait until the end of the 6th episode before you saw the premeire!

Now I don't feel so sorry for myself missing the premeire due to my faboo Mediterrean vacation....
[> [> [> [> [> To quote Buffy: "Bite me." -- HonorH (who won't be seeing the Mediterranean anytime soon), 14:41:08 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> A very nice person would post their Shiny new Angel Spoilers on the Trollop Board..*hint hint* -- Rufus, 15:31:11 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> The spoilers were off another board-- -- HonorH (Spoiler Companion), 19:19:49 09/26/02 Thu

The Angel's Soul Spoiler Board, to be precise. Dunno what the rules on cross-posting are. A friend alerted me to them via email.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The spoilers were off another board-- -- Rufus, 19:40:36 09/26/02 Thu

I cross post unless they specifically say so...I always paste in the addy where the spoilers came from. Most people are happy with getting the proper credit, as some people try to pass off spoilers as their own stuff.

So post away.
[> [> My personal favorite... -- Apophis, 15:34:11 09/26/02 Thu

... was "Very Special Porn Episode, Starring Ron Jeremy as the Spooge Demon." But maybe that's just the kind of person I am. And I agree with Rufus; I wanna see spoilers!
[> [> [> I guess that would make me the Senior Companion... -- Rufus, 15:47:37 09/26/02 Thu

Not to be confused with a W&H senior partner...;)
[> Beating a horse of a different color.... -- Rendyl, 13:20:04 09/26/02 Thu

***In the meanwhile, S/B shippers, you can go back to writing your pen pals, Richard Ramirez and the Hillside Strangler, and I hope they finally accept your marriage proposals.***

It is exceedingly bad taste to trash your fans just because you did not write clearly enough to put the character concept across. I expect Fury was annoyed that night and gave into a moment of being human but it does not change the basics. If you write a character ambiguously then you are going to get multiple interpretations of him/her. That is not the fault of the viewers but of the writers. 'Crush' was even his episode and he still balked at making Spike's evil clear enough. Perhaps Fury should have spent less time grouching at the Bronze and more time working on characterization.

Don't get me wrong, I like Spike all murky and evilish. I like most of Fury's writing. I even liked 'Crush'.

(actually I like bad Spike but that is a topic for another thread-grin)

I have a daughter as well and I get where Fury wanted to go. I just don't think he got there and insulting the fans for his inability to clearly get the point across is just rude.

Ren
[> [> A la Shatner saying "Move out of your parents' basement and get a job." -- pr10n, 13:35:09 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> Re: Beating a horse of a different color.... -- Arethusa, 13:53:05 09/26/02 Thu

I prefer ambiguous characters-some good mixed in with the bad, and vice-versa. Any interesting character will be open to many interpretations. Fury was very rude, but I can see that it is frustrating to be criticized because some viewers have twisted the character into something he's not, out of admiration for the actor. It's not bad writing or wrong characterization-it's creating a romantic hero where there is none. I enjoyed watching B/S's danse macabre, but I'm perplexed that anyone would think a killer on a leash was a good person, or would make a good boyfriend. (Obviously, you are not one of these people.)
[> [> [> Re: Beating a horse of a different color.... -- Rendyl, 14:57:50 09/26/02 Thu

Well, even while looking at the fab cheekbones (and other body parts-agghh...bad Rendyl, bad bad Rendyl, whaps self) from the other side of 30 I can see why love with a proper (or improper) vampire is not a good thing. But if I was honest I would likely not see it the same way from 18, 19, 20 etc. Maybe that is JM's acting but I still tend to think the writers do not do as complete a job of showing just how dangerous he can be. In making Spike a very 'human' character they stretch the line between his being evil and his maybe being more/better/etc.

And not to stereotype but many women have the idea that men are just waiting to change. The love of a good woman, etc, ect, and the bad boy will magically transform. That particular problem is not DF's fault, but I suspect it is a trait the writing staff is aware of.

Sigh. Spike is just dead sexy. (grin) At 19 or 20 (during my death/authority defiance period) I would have gone out with him without a single thought. Now, being wiser and generally more sane I would run screaming at the sight of the Sunnydale sign and thus avoid even being near him. But, that is all a matter of time and perspective.

Ren
[> [> [> [> Re: Beating a horse of a different color.... -- Arethusa, 16:39:43 09/26/02 Thu

True, they stretched that line like it was a bungee cord. And in all honesty, I thought Ripper was pretty cool. Maybe some day all women throughout the land will learn that, without the passing of many years, the only changing bad boys do is their clothing. ;)
[> [> [> [> Re: Age Presumptions or "Hey, young person who's not irresponsible here!" -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:39:37 09/27/02 Fri

I couldn't tell you what the deal with the Romanticize Spike epidemic was. But I can, however, tell you that as someone who's turning twenty in... is it seven?... months, I'm not one for unhealthy relationships.
Not everyone in the age bracket's got a mad on for the dangerous and self destructive : )
And there are several who are even in their thirties and feel that Spike's a really sweet guy who gets mistreated by "that bitchy Slayer".
It goes deeper than age, and it differs for everyone. Some don't like Buffy and project their dislike onto the B/S relationship by elevating him. Others base their liking a character and their assumptions about their demeanor upon their alleged sexiness (yes alleged. To me those cheek bones are scary.)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Age Presumptions or "Hey, young person who's not irresponsible here!" -- Rendyl, 10:56:26 09/27/02 Fri

Never said everyone that age was into danger and self destruction. I said -I- was.

My comment on changing/saving bad men was not age specific either.

As for the last, I love his cheekbones (eg) but I base my liking of his character (or anyone else's) on how well they are written and how well the actor portrays them.

As for the romanticism, there is (for me at least) a certain attraction in a man who is very honest and who is willing to say what you need to hear, whether you want to hear it or not. For others you need to hit the archives for the many reasons and theories of everyone else.

Ren
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Age Presumptions or "Hey, young person who's not irresponsible here!" -- celticross, 11:07:18 09/27/02 Fri

Ok, stepping in here to defend the Spike fans. I was 21 when Fool for Love first aired, but I'd been a fan of Spike for as long as he'd been on the show. I thought he was a great villain, and found the gradual greying of his character fascinating. James Marsters is a very attractive man, in my opinion, but I do not like Spike and his relationship (or lack thereof) with Buffy because I think "he's a hottie". Nor do I like "bad boys" or "destructive relationships" and I think it's a disservice to fans of a character to so narrowly define that character's appeal to them. In real life, I find the "bad boy" type undesirable, but I also do not catagorize Spike merely as a bad boy type. I like him because he's a multi-faceted (and yes, sympathic) character. And I don't think my age has anything to do with that, either.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Age Presumptions or "Hey, young person who's not irresponsible here!" -- mrfh, 12:27:28 09/27/02 Fri

As another on the other side of 30, I do have to credit Buffy with recognizing the "badness" of her boyfriend, even if she doesn't act on the knowledge by staying away. I dated plenty of bad boys in my 20s but would defend their goodness vehemently. Only later did I look back and say "I should have seen it then." Maybe conversely Buffy will look back some day at her relationship with Spike and say "I should have seen that he wasn't *all* bad" and the ironic circle will be complete. That said, I think that I would prefer that she discover that domestic bliss and coupledom is not part of her calling. Viva la single woman!

back to lurking...
[> [> [> Re: Beating a horse of a different color.... -- Miss Edith, 20:32:34 09/26/02 Thu

Fury should not have critisicised all fans of a B/S fantasy relationship on tv just because a minority were giving him a hard time about what they were interested in seeing as entertainment. Most Buffy forums do not allow groups to be sterotyped in the way that Fury did and such comments are perceived as bashing. Maybe I am oversensitive but I remember all the sneering put-downs from other Buffy fans after Fury dismissed B/S shippers as serial killer lovers. Bottom line is Spike is a fictional character and no one has the right to judge others based on the fiction they are interested in. I found his comments offensive then and still do.
[> [> [> Exactly! -- Earl Allison, 02:27:21 09/27/02 Fri

A niggling little point to ponder (BtVS 7:1 spoiler) -- HonorH, 14:56:13 09/26/02 Thu

Did anybody else notice that the final shot in the credits--traditionally the "push in on Buffy" shot--this season is the pan up Ersatz Buffy in the basement with Spike? I found that very interesting. Last season, it was also an Ersatz Buffy--the BuffyBot. This season, it's the Big Bad Whatever disguised as Buffy. Now, the options are: 1) somebody thought it was a cool shot to end the credits with, or 2) This Means Something.

Questions? Comments?
[> Sometimes a shot is just a shot -- Apophis, 15:24:38 09/26/02 Thu

I think they just picked it because it looked cool. They use the coolest full shot of Buffy they have as that last sight of the credits. Last year, it just happened to be the Buffybot. I think it's just a coincidence. One thing I did notice is that they included a lot of shots that have yet to appear in the opening, more than any season before (save season 1) in my opinion. Am I wrong?
[> The Opening Credits -- Dochawk, 16:19:01 09/26/02 Thu

I'm not sure I am putting too much emphasis on the shots used in the opening crdits, cause I agree its a cool shot. But there are two other shots in the credits that make me wonder. The first is the shot of Dawn raising the sword (against the earthmonsters). The shot and the expression on Dawn's face is exactly the shot used in previous years credits of Buffy lifting the axe in Anne. I find those two shots hard to believe they are serendipity.

The second one, which really needs explaining is a 3 second clip of a computer screen: it says "Demons, Demons, Demons". Well the clip is from Angel, The Ring. Has nothing to do with any of the characters. Has nothing to do with Buffy. What the h*ll is it doing there? I would love to hear some ideas about this one.

Since I think these two shots have some significance, I have to admit then the closing shot must also. Not sure what the significance is though.
[> I was thinking about this too -- Slain, 16:37:02 09/26/02 Thu

I was paying special attention to the title sequence, as I remember Joss spent a lot of time talking about it in the various DVD commentaries. Even if it was to comment on Emma Caulfield's hair.

I think coolness and style is the main consideration, but the choice of shots are clearly important. I was surprised to see new shots from later in the season (is this a new thing?), which would lead me to think they were trying to draw a line between Season 6 and 7. I definitely think there's an essay called something like "The Buffy Title Sequence: A Macro Representation of the Season" in there somewhere!
[> [> Agree -- Arethusa, 16:47:10 09/26/02 Thu

The promos, Whedon interviews, and opening credits all emphesized that this year will be very different from last year.
[> [> Re: I was thinking about this, three (*Spoiler* for title of next week's ep) -- OnM, 18:31:51 09/26/02 Thu

Watching the show during the original airing, I was struck by the shot exactly the same way that it struck Rob-- it was a portrait of a calm, confident looking Buffy, and I remember thinking-- 'Neat! She finally gets to do something other than the warrior stare!'

Then came the ending shot of the ep, and after that the thought was more along the lines of 'Whoa! Wait a minute now-- Haven't I seen that before somewhere?'

So, to once again employ the ever popular numerical listing technique:

1) Yes, 'coolness' comes first, and it is unquestionably a cool shot.

2) Yes, I think there is meaning, but before I could really comment, I would want to check out each of the previous season's opening credits, and see if there was any significant pattern that would emerge.

3) Is the clothing Buffy is wearing going to show up anywhere else except in this one instance, where the First Evil is (possibly)using her visage to appear before Spike? If so, what will be the circumstances of that other appearance?

4) As far as I know, the last time that clips from upcoming eps were used in the title sequence, it was in Season 1. After that, I believe all clips were taken from the preceding year or years. (Going only by memory, not certain, so clue me in if I'm wrong, someone). I would therefore suspect (if indeed this is the case), that it is being done to make a link between this season and S1.

5) Ponderable item: Why would the First Evil choose this particular visage to show Spike? To depict Buffy as powerful and confident, emphasising that she is 'beneath him'? (Which as I recall is the title of next week's ep). Or of course, if you think that Spike is the one having an hallucination, and it's not the work of the First Evil, would the same thing still apply, i.e. does he think that he is still 'beneath her'?
[> [> [> Re: #5 (*Spoiler for Lessons, specs for future) -- mundusmundi, 19:30:46 09/26/02 Thu

5) Ponderable item: Why would the First Evil choose this particular visage to show Spike? To depict Buffy as powerful and confident, emphasising that she is 'beneath him'?

Could be. The First is known for its whimsical sense of humor. I was thinking, though, since "Buffy" appeared on the heels of "The Master"'s comments that "It's not about right, it's not about wrong," and that, "We're all going to learn something about ourselves," that we were getting clued into the nature of the Slayer. That the lines between "good" and "evil" are going to be further blurred. That it's not necessarily about "Buffy" specifically,\ -- though I could be wrong -- but The Slayer in the universal sense. Herself.
[> [> [> Beneath You -- alcibiades, 00:48:30 09/27/02 Fri

5) Ponderable item: Why would the First Evil choose this particular visage to show Spike? To depict Buffy as powerful and confident, emphasising that she is 'beneath him'? (Which as I recall is the title of next week's ep). Or of course, if you think that Spike is the one having an hallucination, and
it's not the work of the First Evil, would the same thing still apply, i.e. does he think that he is still 'beneath her'?

Actually next week's title is Beneath You, not Beneath Him.

Secondly, I don't think it is clear that the shot of Buffy is part of the morphing series of Big Bads.

It could just as easily be Spike's subconscious projecting the antidote to what the big bad is telling him externally into a vision of Buffy in Checkpoint, the point where she learned this lesson.

It is not yet clear whether Buffy is in the series of morphing figures or not. We don't see them morph into her the way we see the others do.

Thirdly, why would a superconfident and powerful Buffy, standing above him, with him crouching below her, emphasize she is beneath him?

Missing your logic there.
[> [> [> [> Sorry, I plead the lateness of the hour! -- OnM, 12:12:50 09/27/02 Fri

The paragraph should have read:

5) Ponderable item: Why would the First Evil choose this particular visage to show Spike? To depict Buffy as powerful and confident, emphasising that he is 'beneath her'? (As I recall, Beneath You is the title of next week's ep). Or of course, if you think that Spike is the one having an hallucination, and it's not the work of the First Evil, would the same thing still apply, i.e. does he think that he is still 'beneath her'?

Note that the second part of the paragraph was phrased correctly, he is still 'beneath her'.

My apologies for the confusion!

*** It could just as easily be Spike's subconscious projecting the antidote to what the big bad is telling him externally into a vision of Buffy in Checkpoint, the point where she learned this lesson. ***

BTW, I like this! Not sure if it's right-- I want to review the tape again, but I still really like it. Good thought!

:-)
[> [> [> Re: I was thinking about this, three (*Spoiler* for title of next week's ep) -- Slain, 13:40:28 09/27/02 Fri

4) I think it's possible, but of course remember in Season 1 they didn't have any choice; they had to use clips from upcoming episodes.

I'm pretty sure the image of Buffy was intended as a replication of Season 2 promo shots, and of probably the most famous image of Sarah - her standing with arms folded, wearing black.

I think her appearance was making the point that, before all the big bads which come and go, there's always Buffy the Vampire Slayer - that the villains are all beneath her. Of course that's a general stylistic point, which isn't exactly relevant to the narrative.
[> Re: A niggling little point to ponder (BtVS 7:1 spoiler) -- Rob, 16:40:26 09/26/02 Thu

I don't think there's a much a meaning pertaining to the fact that this wasn't really Buffy, but the fact that this was a picture of a confident Buffy, who seemed sure of herself, secure, and at peace. That's what came to mind the first time I saw the credits, before I knew that it wasn't really her. On my first view of that shot, I (1) thought it was the best end-of-credits-zoom-in-on-the-Buffster shot yet and (2) was happy, since Buffy finally seems, in this picture, to accept her place in the world and feel complete.

Rob
[> [> Plus, her hair looks nice -- Slain, 17:08:21 09/26/02 Thu

[> [> Wow, I had a very different take on the shot... -- Humanitas, 21:14:14 09/26/02 Thu

I thought her expression was pretty grimly worldly, in the sense of having seen too much.
[> Speaking of wicked cool -- Arethusa, 19:28:07 09/26/02 Thu

in the opening credits there is a scary, very Nosferatu-looking vampire that I could only see by using slo-mo. Like Giles, I love the classics.
[> [> Umm, spoiler about opening credits for 7.1 above -- Arethusa, 19:33:15 09/26/02 Thu

Not sure I'm being spoilery, but what the heck....
[> Re: A niggling little point to ponder (BtVS 7:1 spoiler) -- Isabel, 20:52:05 09/26/02 Thu

I agree that #1 It's a cool shot. Very Usable.

I don't think it was a coincidence that the cool shot of the Buffybot, looking very tough and together, was the final shot for the 6th season credits. Last year Buffy was going through the motions. She was dead inside. For part of the year, she didn't think she was totally human. It was definitely 'Ersatz Buffy' year.

So #2 I also think it means something. What? I have no idea. I'm leaning, with 1/22 of the season behind us, towards it being more of a red herring than we think. ME's got boulders up their sleeves. (I hope)

One other thing I like about the credits is the group shot that reflects the Scooby dynamics that always precedes the Buffy alone shot. In seasons 1 & 2, Giles is leading the gang (B,X&W) out of the library, leading to that power shot of Buffy (glaring at Luke in the Bronze) from the Harvest. (Giles leads the gang.) Season 3 & 4 they have Giles & Buffy leading the gang down the hallway of the school with the rocket launcher leading into the shot of Buffy with the hammer and sickle in Anne. (Giles and Buffy are more equals.) Season 5-7 has Buffy leading the gang (G,X&W) into the Initiative complex to fight Adam in Primeval for the group shot. (Buffy's in charge.) I can't remember what the solitary Buffy shot was for season 5, maybe the same as 4. And we've talked about 6-7 already.

If I remember correctly, in Superstar, the last 2 shots were Jonathan leading the gang and then walking coolly off into the darkness alone. Don't forget Angel's credits seem to run the same way.

All of this is out of my memory. If I've remembered wrong let me know.
Reply to Indri, re: Spike and postmodernism -- Slain, 15:46:51 09/26/02 Thu

I never had a thread archived before I could reply!

I was trying to avoid plugging my own essays, but you've given me a good excuse. ;) So, postmodernism and existentialism. There's a definiton, of sorts, of postmodernism in the first of these.

To answer your question about postmodernism and elements outside the self, I'd compare an existential and postmodern text. In an existential text, the character is insulated from the outside world (or, from any genre conventions), or at least the outside world isn't seen as relevant; the struggle is often with the outside world. In contrast postmodernism is, firstly, more interested in all things superficial and surfacey, and secondly it always believes that it's impossible to escape from the outside world. Usually this takes the form of genre, pop culture and other texts becoming mixed in the main text.

I didn't mean that it's a case of a struggle with elements outside the self - that's existentialism, with the outer world impinging on the self. It's rather than you can't have a work of fiction in which the individual is central, because fictional characters are unreal, and can't be separated out from the fictional world. The world impinges, but it's not a bad thing; it's inevitable and interesting.

That's the difference; existentialism is a way of looking at the world which applies to real people, and existential texts are dramatisations of this. Whereas postmodernism, in this sense, rejects the idea that any fictional text can ascribe to be real, and to dramatise reality.

I completely agree about how Spike has been portrayed in Seasons 2 through most of 5 - I should have said that he was an existential character in Season 6 (though possiblity 'Fool For Love' marked his separation from genre). Whereas Season 5 will, presumably, mark the return to a 'less serious' Spike, and perhaps to some form of reinterpreted stereotype (the tortured poet, maybe?).
On the specifics of Spoiler Warnings -- Q, 19:10:21 09/26/02 Thu

I like to stay spoiler free-- Totally spoiler free. But I obviously don't mind reading about an episode I have already seen. Unfortunately, a lot of people lable SPOILERS on an ep that has already aired, and I don't dare read the post for fear of being spoiled for future eps. On this board, what are the recomendations for spoiler posting-- having aired EVERYWHERE, having aired ANYWHERE or as some boards have done, after the first night of original airing?

If it is the rule to post Spoilers until it has aired EVERYWHERE, can't we lable which ep, or seasons, the spoiler is for specifically, and not just say SPOILERS unless it is info that has NEVER aired? That would be better, I think.
[> Re: On the specifics of Spoiler Warnings -- vandalia, 19:26:00 09/26/02 Thu

Thank you, Q! I've been avoiding this board all summer because of the horrendous spoilers posted here even with the spoiler trollop board to post in (really, people!) and I've just plain refuse to read anything with the word spoiler in the subject line unless its specific. So I second this -- spoilers for what? (My suggestion: ep number i.e. Spike's Hair?! (SPOILERS for ep 7.1))
[> [> my post is not a spoiler, but a speculation. -- luvthistle1, 01:55:00 09/27/02 Fri

I mark it spoilers because it makes reference to Lesson. and some people haven't seen "Lesson" yet. Maybe , we should make a tread for episode 1 of season 7.
[> Re: On the specifics of Spoiler Warnings -- Slain, 19:26:38 09/26/02 Thu

There's some general info in FAQ, but I was going to ask about the labelling of Season 7 references and of actual not-yet-aired spoilers.

Clearly the best thing is to write, for example, '7.1 Spoilers' or rather than just 'Spoilers'. 'Season 7 spoilers' is no good, either, because that could refer both Season 7 episodes that have already aired, or to spoilers for later on in that season.

If you just write a vauge warning on your thread I'll certainly be wary of reading it, in case it contains actual spoilers - and I know there are others who'll do the same. I'm not reading any more threads which are labelled with nonspecific warnings this season.
[> this is all in the FAQ -- tisk, 19:35:15 09/26/02 Thu

it says pretty specifically that you've gotta use ep name/number in post titles, not just "spoilers", and that if you're going to post spoilers fro upcoming eps you've gotta use "spoilers for upcoming episodes".

i guess that ***SPOILER POLICY*** isn't written big enough.
[> Re: On the specifics of Spoiler Warnings -- luvthistle1, 01:51:06 09/27/02 Fri

I think we should be about to label it, by the episode. But I guest some people might feel spoiler by the title.
[> [> Re: On the specifics of Spoiler Warnings -- Isabel, 07:06:14 09/27/02 Fri

Titles of episodes that have already aired should be ok. Most people don't know the names of Future episodes and they are considered spoilers. Just call those 'future spoilers' or '7.x spoilers'.

I'm trying to remain unspoiled and every now and then I learn things I don't want to know. It helps to know which posts to skip.
[> Please be careful about Spoilers! -- JCC, 07:18:55 09/27/02 Fri

I too want to stay totally spoiler free. It was much better watching Lessons (I was in the US for a week) without any knowledge of what was going to happen.
I'm watching Buffy in the UK and the new season doesn't start until January over here, so please try to watch your spoilers. I've already seen several posts with Lessons Spoilers in them without a warning.
[> What is a spoiler? -- Sophist, 10:41:26 09/27/02 Fri

There seems to be a lack of common understanding about what might "spoil" someone. JMHO, but I consider each of the following to be spoilers:

1. Future episode titles.

2. Previews.

3. Cast news (guest appearances, contract renewals, etc.).

4. "Speculation" by those who are themselves spoiled. The fact is, such speculation tends to be too good; the spoiling infects the spec.

I won't read a post unless I'm reasonably confident that this information (to say nothing of more obvious spoilers) will not appear in the post. This is too bad -- I very much enjoy the Board, and I like to be able to contribute. Those who post presumably want feedback. I want to contribute to the dialogue. Everybody loses when spoilers aren't labelled properly.

The spoiler label has to be specific. Board policy does not require spoiler labels for previous seasons. For the current season, however, courtesy suggests that spoilers indicate the episode number (NOT the title) under discussion. If you are spoiled but speculating, say so (I know many of the spoiled, but can hardly keep track of them all). Indicate the type of spoiler (plot, cast, preview, etc.) -- not everyone takes my more extreme view, and more people will read a preview spoiler, say, than a plot spoiler. In fact, if the post appears to be good and the spoiler minor, even I may read it. There is such a thing as "nearly virginal" isn't there?
[> [> Yikes! The Title? -- dream of the consortium, 11:58:30 09/27/02 Fri

I just made an error a few threads up. Personally, I don't even normally watch the preview, but I never thought a title could bother anyone.

Whoops.
[> [> [> Personally... -- Rob, 12:09:04 09/27/02 Fri

I don't consider a title a spoiler, especially on "Buffy" since the titles on "Buffy" episodes are usually more metaphoric or symbolic than revealing what the episode will be about. This isn't like Friends, where the episode titles are, "The One Where Rachel Finds Out," or "The One With the Birth," or "The One Where Dr. Ramorey Dies."

"Restless," "Entropy," "Grave," "Lie to Me," "Hush," "Life Serial," "Tabula Rasa," "Spiral" to name a few...Do any of these really reveal anything about specific episode details? What I think is brilliant about the names of the episodes is that they make sense once the episode has already been viewed, and, many times, add even more layers to the episodes.

With that said, I will definitely go along with everybody else and not spoil the title, if that's what everybody wants. But I just think that calling a title a spoiler is pushing it a little...

Rob
[> [> [> [> I agree.... -- mundusmundi, 12:15:41 09/27/02 Fri

Though admittedly yesterday, after carefully posting my spoiler with the title (WARNING! SPOILER!) "Lessons" (END SPOILER! PLEASE RESUME READING!), I wondered whether even that was more info than people wanted to know. From now on I'll try to remember to do our Dewey Decimal equivalent...7.1., 7.2., etc.

Meantime who else can't wait for the next eppy, titled "The One Where Buffy Stakes Spike"?!;)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree.... -- matching mole, 12:28:07 09/27/02 Fri

I'm already less spoiler-free than I would like to be although anything I know is extremely vague. So I would reiterate Sophist's point. Label your spoilers as specifically as you can. If you have a future spoiler I don't want to have the slightest hint of what it's about. If you're talking about the episode that just aired I'd like to know so that I can read your post. And presumably you want an audience.

I don't care that much about episode titles. As Rob says they are generally not very informative without advance knowledge. And if people didn't post them I wouldn't know what the titles were (until Masq. adds her analysis to her site of course).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Mind you (spoiler for 7.2 title) ... and a suggestion for Masq -- Slain, 13:57:11 09/27/02 Fri

I now have a vague idea what 7.2, 'Beneath Me' is going to be about. This doesn't bother me, as chances are it won't be what I expect - but I can understand why people don't like to hear the pre-aired titles. I'll stick to the 7.1 system too.

And as a suggestion, maybe the FAQ could be made a teensey bit clearer? I can see how, from skim reading it, people might think it's acceptable to label references to last night episode with just 'spoilers'. Instead of "Thoughts on this week's episode (*Spoilers*)" I'd suggest "Thoughts on this week's episode (7.1 spoilers)" instead, as that makes it clearer that the episode number is important.

Anyway, I'm still ignoring all posts which are only labelled 'spoilers'!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Extremely trivial hairsplitting, but....(SPOILER for 7.2. title) -- mm.1, 14:12:31 09/27/02 Fri

Is it "Beneath Me" or (as I previously thought) "Beneath You"? Just wondering.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mind you (spoiler for 7.2 title) ... and a suggestion for Masq -- Masq, 14:12:57 09/27/02 Fri

Made some changes to text of spoiler policy. Check it out and let me know what you think!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very good. :) -- Slain, 16:05:26 09/27/02 Fri

[> WHY ARE PEOPLE POSTING FUTURE SPOILERS ON THIS BOARD??? -- vandalia, 14:40:35 09/27/02 Fri

I could be wrong, but wasn't that WHY the spoiler trollop board was originally created, so that people could read this one without being spoiled for future episodes? Its downright rude and inconsiderate, to my mind, to blithely ignore the spoiler rules just because the main board has a bigger audience and certain people have to be sure of getting responses. If we want to read future spoilers, we can all see the spoiler trollop link at the top of the board. I remember near the end of last season people kept posting things like 'SPOILERY SPECULATION on blah's appearance next week, see spoiler board!' We see the link to the spoiler board and if we want spoilery speculation, we already know where to find it, thanks. In the meantime, you've just spoiled everyone by mentioning 'blahs' return in your SUBJECT HEADING. This is why I stopped reading this board.

I'm sorry to be so harsh in my tone, but it just really burns my britches that I can no longer read this wonderful board because certain people just can't keep their forbidden knowledge where it belongs: on the spoiler trollop board. I'd call for NO spoilers on the main board, however labeled, unless the show has already aired in the US on UPN at the normally scheduled time (8pm EST Tuesdays) and if it has, label them as such. I too consider episode titles spoilery, because sometimes they DO give it away (As You Were is a pretty good indication that something military is going to crop up and one could extrapolate that that meant Riley was coming back, being as he's the only militarily-inclined recurring character). I can understand why some might find this a bit extreme, but I do ask for understanding the other way 'round.

Please for the love of all that's holy, post your future spoilers ONLY TO THE SPOILER BOARD so that everyone can enjoy ATPOBTVS.
[> [> Sorry to respond to my own post, but ARGH! -- vandalia, 14:50:42 09/27/02 Fri

From this board I now know, due only to skimming subject lines, that there will be some kind of special guest star for the ending and that something's going to happen with Clem! Do you see why I'm so adamant about NO FUTURE SPOILERS being posted on the main board? Even if you the person starting the thread are circumspect in your header, people responding aren't always so careful (lots of good examples on this very page) so when you have

What's Going To Happen (SPOILERS 7.9)
I Don't Believe Clem Would Do Something That Evil! (spoilers 7.9)

Do you see how quickly it gets out of hand? Am I just being stuffy? If so tell me and I'll retreat back to TWoP, where, while the discussion might not be so illuminating philosophically, its not so illuminating with regards to spoilers, either.
[> [> [> No But Since Those Were Speculations and Theories and NOT Spoilers -- The first menace, 15:39:26 09/27/02 Fri

You are reading into the lines and deciding whats going to happen. Thats your problem. For your information that was people speculating. No information about "special guest stars" for the end of the season nor about Clem has been released.
[> [> [> Re: Sorry to respond to my own post, but ARGH! -- Masq, 15:39:26 09/27/02 Fri

I'm with you on this, vandalia. I started feeling a little guilty going through and erasing posts that had spoiler subject lines, but I might just get nazi about it again...

You know, after I return from my vacation and all!
[> [> I'd be happy to have anyone post spoilers on the Trollop Board.. -- Rufus, 17:45:33 09/27/02 Fri

There is no reason with a Spoiler Board to have Spoilers being posted on this one.
[> Re: On the specifics of Spoiler Warnings -- Sarand, 20:33:11 09/27/02 Fri

Thanks for posting this, Q. I agree with the specifics in Sophist's and Vandalia's posts. I was considering starting a similar post because I've been so frustrated trying to pick and choose among posts. Once a post with a vague spoiler warning goes up, everything in response is tainted even without a spoiler heading. If you are going to speculate on future episodes not based on spoilers, say that. Speculation not based on spoilers. If the opposite, say you are speculated based on the spoilers you know. It would be greatly appreciated. And now I have a few names to add to my spoiler-free fellow travelers list. I enjoyed the first episode so much better than the end of last season.
[> [> Personally, I feel that future episode titles are spoilers -- Dead Soul & fellow traveler, 23:27:12 09/27/02 Fri

I accidentally saw the titles of the first three eps about a week ago and have felt soiled ever since - although now I feel a third less soiled.

Spoilers I saw here in subject lines last year greatly lessened my enjoyment of the last few episodes. Even Masq of the magic fingers can't make them disappear before at least some people see them who don't want to (I'm adding this parenthetical clause because I don't want to end this sentence with a preposition).

Dead (because being spoiled was a fate worse than) Soul
Probably insignificant, but ... (spoilers for BtVS 7.1) -- Cheryl, 19:35:30 09/26/02 Thu

Was there any significance to the order the Big Bads appeared to Spike at the end, other than the fact that they were in descending order from Season 6 to Season 1 (Warren (S6), Glory (S5), Adam (S4), Mayor (S3), Dru, in lieu of Angelus since he's on another network now (S2), and the Master (S1)? Probably nothing, but you never know.
[> Re: Probably insignificant, but ... (spoilers for BtVS 7.1) -- luvthistle1, 01:46:46 09/27/02 Fri

Why was the last figure Buffy? If you think about, there is one thing they all had in common....They all "Have Killed or tried to Killed a "slayer".I think it's a reference to someone out to kill slayers in training.






Note: Dru killed Kendra. Buffy killed herself when she jump. it was indirectly because of "Glory".
[> [> Re: Probably insignificant, but ... (spoilers for BtVS 7.1) -- Alvin, 02:31:24 09/27/02 Fri

Would that also imply that Spike is afflicted with them because he also has killed a slayer(s)? That would be one difference between Spike and Angel in the vampire-with-a-soul catagory.
[> my take was... (spoilers for BtVS 7.1) -- tim, 09:36:09 09/27/02 Fri

The "countdown" took us, as the Master said, "back to the beginning." And the beginning is the Slayer. Creepy, in an "oh-my-God-this-is-the-coolest-thing-I've-seen-in-a-long-time" sort of way.

--th
[> Very trivial observation, but when you watch a day late... -- dream of the consortium, 11:43:48 09/27/02 Fri

All you can offer up are crumbs. All the important points have been made.

I liked how some of the Big Bads referenced one of the themes/motifs of his/her season. Glory mentions blood, Warren flesh, the Mayor talks about the slipperiness of a soul (his season was the first in which we dealt with human evil in a big way). The thesis falls apart a bit when we hit Adam and the Master, but one could argue (and watch me do it, albeit weakly) that the Drusilla speech about Spike belonging to her and loving their songs was related to the way that Angel and Buffy remained connected even after he became Angelus (ìYouíre still the only thing he thinks about.î)

Oh, it was all so juicy.

And since Iím posting, a few random thoughts:

Loved the comment about being caned ñ whoís up for William backstory, the abused child who became the nervous man who became the Big Bad?

Giles on horseback is so sexy I could die.

And, completely unspoiled ramblings regarding next episodeÖ. (unless you consider episode titles spoilers, in which case you are even crazier when it comes to this show than I am) ñ youíve got to love a show in which a single episode title offers so many possibilities. I mean., thereís the Cecily/Halfrek angle, and the Buffy-Spike relationship, and the Hellmouth below the hot new principal an d probably below Spike and it can all tie in with the roots/earth/cave stuff that started with Buffy and Dawn in last yearís finale and was used in a million different ways in Lessons. Yummy goodness.

Oh, and was I the only one to thank god that there was finally a high school student who smoked? Not that we want to encourage smoking, of course, bad, bad ñ but half the people I knew in high school smoked, particularly among ìthe ones nobody notices,î and it was an almost startling bit of realism. (Next we'll have overweight, acned kids in metalhead t-shirts and ripped jeans. Well, maybe not.) Oh, should I make anything of the fact that Buffy made that comment about the dangers of smoking?

What the hell is going on? -- alcibiades, 00:54:02 09/27/02 Fri

So, is the Big Bad shape shifting thingy at the end the same thing that created the talisman?

If so, why did it go out of its way to attract Buffy down to Spike's location by hijacking Dawn while acting like it was trying to keep Buffy from entering?

Did it want Buffy visiting Spike prematurely? Before Spike was ready to deal with her? So that Buffy would reject Spike out of hand and Spike would fail and be alone and forever in the dark with the shape shifter and thoughts of vengeance and soul hatred?

Or does the Big Bad thingy want Spike and Buffy to get back together short term one assumes for nefarious reasons of its own. Perhaps for Spike to drag Buffy into the dark successfully this year -- or to undermine and destroy Buffy in some way while undermining and destroying Spike's soul to feed its own power source?

If the talisman spirits were raised to seek vengeance and were not sent by the shape shifter -- are they sent by vengeance demony types -- Hallie or D'Hoffryn or the lower spirits as part of the effort to fill quotas and to get on board with the evil that is coming? Though dead, two of the manifest spirits were children with vengeance needs and children with vengeance needs is Hallie's specialty.

Anyone got a theory what the hell is going on?

[> Re: What the hell is going on? -- luvthistle1, 01:37:13 09/27/02 Fri

I think the Spirit was protecting William. Spike seemed to
know a lot about "witchcraft" and the "black arts",but I think that was because it's a personalty trait of William.
Buffy did not follow the spirit into where Spike was, she follow "Carlos". She past a sign Saying "students are not allow into the basement". Why did Carlos need to go into the basement to smoke? why not the men room or outside?
William had said they can't enter here,no one ever come in there. But after the "talisman" broke we see the "shapeshifter" (or first evil, or what ever you call it)
I think what ever it was knew,Buffy would break the talisman.

[> [> Is this an implication that... -- TRM, 15:42:19 09/27/02 Fri

...since Carlos went into the basement, he may have been responsible?

Actually, it makes very good sense for Carlos to go to the basement to smoke. Primarily, most high schools (if not all) have a no smoking policy, regardless of age. Secondly, Carlos wasn't only smoking, he was also skipping class (which is why he was in the hallway when Buffy came by) so he probably didn't want to be too visible. Being outside is fairly visible and who knows if they put smoke alarms in the bathroom. Since the basement is officially verboten to students, it seems logical that if you don't want to be found, you'd go there. Arguably, he could smoke in many places... I don't think his choice of the basement was that significant.

Maybe Carlos is somehow related to Laura from Nightmares. After all, she went into the basement to smoke too.

[> Re: What the hell is going on? -- Harry Parachute, 02:55:38 09/27/02 Fri

I always like to think it's about Spike. Often I'm wrong, but...oh well. Fun all the same.

But I was pretty certain that the talisman, the vengeance spirits, the whole shebang was about keeping Buffy AWAY from Spike, not getting them together.

I thought that the FE (supposedly) wanted the spirits to drive Buffy out of the school so it could spend quality time torturing William...but vengeance demons, having their own agenda, wanted to take out a few students while they were at it. ESPECIALLY the Slayer's sister.

They were trying to block the door where Spike was. I don't think that was reverse psychology...I don't think spirits that are incredibly vengeful can pull that off. They seemed fairly straightforward and single-minded entities.

The Vengeance Demons? They could be involved. They're panicking. They probably are desperate to strike a deal with whatever's behind this new evil force so they're not torn to shreds in the months to come. I'd say Anya's gonna have to make a choice and stand with the Scoobies.

With any luck, we'll see a different, violent, and frightening side of Anya when she goes toe-to-toe against the order that'll make her appearance in "The Wish" look like Miss Congeniality.

Just some thoughts. Mandingo pudding at seven.

[> [> The right hand knows not what the left hand is... -- alcibiades, 10:35:38 09/27/02 Fri

But I was pretty certain that the talisman, the vengeance spirits, the whole shebang was about keeping Buffy AWAY from Spike, not getting them
together.

I thought that the FE (supposedly) wanted the spirits to drive Buffy out of the school so it could spend quality time torturing William...but vengeance
demons, having their own agenda, wanted to take out a few students while they were at it. ESPECIALLY the Slayer's sister.

They were trying to block the door where Spike was. I don't think that was reverse psychology...I don't think spirits that are incredibly vengeful can pull that off. They seemed fairly straightforward and single-minded entities.

You could be right. That is what I thought first. Except that everything they did seemed to draw Buffy straight to Spike. Which is really odd -- and makes you wonder what the hell is going on.

The spirits purposefully targeted and kidnapped the Slayer's sister, which sent Buffy to the basement in search of Dawn. And then the spirits hovered outside of Spike's door, guarding it from Buffy, instead of leading her to Dawn -- or leading her through the basement maze to get her all confused and haring after them away and away from both Spike and Dawn.

Can't help thinking here about Shadowkat's left and right hand interpretations of Spike and Dawn. Maybe the BB wanted both Buffy's symbolic left hand and right hand captured down in the basement because then Buffy would be -- handless, i.e. powerless, so to speak. And who has got the power is the point of the whole episode.

So, either we got two power sources whose actions work to cancel each other out.

Or a really stupid evil entity with an unintelligible game plan which cancels itself out.

Or a confused and ambivalent evil entity.

Or all of this is "connected" and not distinct, and for some reason the BB wanted a premature? meeting between Spike and Buffy before Spike is able to articulate whatever it is he meant to say in his speech.

Or something else I haven't figured out yet? Any other thoughts?

It is also very interesting to me that the search for Dawn leads inevitably to Spike. Just like it did repeatedly in Season 5, the time of Checkpoint.

Even though, in this case the right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. And ditto for the left. Which does not work to enhance Buffy's power.

[> [> [> Re: The right hand knows not what the left hand is... -- luvthistle1, 11:08:35 09/27/02 Fri

She did not follow the spirits, she follow "carlos".

[> [> [> [> Re: The right hand knows not what the left hand is... -- alcibiades, 11:23:23 09/27/02 Fri

Actually she doesn't.

She follows Carlos in the beginning, and that time leads her to the talisman, but not to the basement

She follows Dawn once Dawn calls her on the cell phone - and then she descends to the basement.

[> [> [> Re: The right hand knows not what the left hand is... -- Harry Parachute, 22:07:30 09/27/02 Fri

So, either we got two power sources whose actions work to cancel each other out.

Or a really stupid evil entity with an unintelligible game plan which cancels itself out.

Too early to tell, but I'm leaning towards a synthesis of these two ideas.

I'll guess that the Vengeance Spirits were in some way lackies for the BB. Maybe the BB got Spike to bring the talisman to seal himself off, hence his knowing EXACTLY what they were. Maybe the Vengeance Demons had a part in it, hence Halfrek's cryptic last line in her scene with Anya. I dunno.

But it seems that creatures of vengeance incarnate tend to act impulsively and, sometimes, act stupidly. There are countless Anya examples. There was Halfrek's blunder in "Older and Far Away". So I'm guessing when Buffy noticed the Vengeance Spirits were blocking her from the door and Buffy made mention of it, their resulting look was a genuine look of "Aw, crap."

Was the beeping cell-phone a way of leading Buffy to Spike? I can see how it would be, but in hindsight I'm guessing no. It was leading her to Dawn. The Vengeance Spirits wanted to impede her search. They appeared, and inadvertantly lead her to Spike.

All in all, I think the spirits wanted to have their cake and eat it too. Keep the Slayer away from Spike and kill a few students with the Slayer's sister to boot. Ambitious, but poorly executed. A few years of rotting doesn't help those neurons to fire much either.

[> [> [> [> Cryptic line -- parakeet, 00:04:13 09/28/02 Sat

Interesting. I hadn't thought of Halfrek's last line as being cryptic (assuming my memory is correct about what that line is); I just assumed that she was telling Anya that she was Anya's only "demon friend". Something else to think about...Too long till Tuesday.

[> [> The right hand knows not what the left hand is... -- alcibiades, 10:53:10 09/27/02 Fri

But I was pretty certain that the talisman, the vengeance spirits, the whole shebang was about keeping Buffy AWAY from Spike, not getting them
together.

I thought that the FE (supposedly) wanted the spirits to drive Buffy out of the school so it could spend quality time torturing William...but vengeance
demons, having their own agenda, wanted to take out a few students while they were at it. ESPECIALLY the Slayer's sister.

They were trying to block the door where Spike was. I don't think that was reverse psychology...I don't think spirits that are incredibly vengeful can pull that off. They seemed fairly straightforward and single-minded entities.

You could be right. That is what I thought first. Except that everything they did seemed to draw Buffy straight to Spike. Which is really odd -- and makes you wonder what the hell is going on.

The spirits purposefully targeted and kidnapped the Slayer's sister, which sent Buffy to the basement in search of Dawn. And then the spirits hovered outside of Spike's door, guarding it from Buffy, instead of leading her to Dawn -- or leading her through the basement maze to get her all confused and haring after them away and away from both Spike and Dawn.

Can't help thinking here about Shadowkat's left and right hand interpretations of Spike and Dawn. Maybe the BB wanted both Buffy's symbolic left hand and right hand captured down in the basement because then Buffy would be -- handless, i.e. powerless, so to speak. And who has got the power is the point of the whole episode.

So, either we got two power sources whose actions work to cancel each other out.

Or a really stupid evil entity with an unintelligible game plan which cancels itself out.

Or a confused and ambivalent evil entity.

Or all of this is "connected" and not distinct, and for some reason the BB wanted a premature? meeting between Spike and Buffy before Spike is able to articulate whatever it is he meant to say in his speech.

Or something else I haven't figured out yet? Any other thoughts?

It is also very interesting to me that the search for Dawn leads inevitably to Spike. Just like it did repeatedly in Season 5, the time of Checkpoint.

Even though, in this case the right hand knows not what the left hand is doing. And ditto for the left. Which does not work to enhance Buffy's power.

[> Not convinced.... -- cjc36, 05:20:08 09/27/02 Fri

That the Tailsman folks and the entity doing BigBad Review were related. Could they be? Sure. But I'm not going to guess this one until I find out more.

Someone posted elsewhere that for all we knew, the new principal cool-young-guy might have planted the tailsman as a test for Buffy. Of course thats utter speculation....

We don't have enough data yet.

[> Another possibility I noticed.. (spoilers for 7.1) -- Dyna, 11:38:53 09/27/02 Fri

After the line of Dawn's (or was it Buffy's? Must rewatch!) about who might have put the talisman in the bathroom, the shot immediately cut to Kit, picking up her books. It might not be anything, but in an episode full of significant cuts, it seemed worth noting.

Since Kit is established as something of a goth girl and social outcast, I thought it was possible she made the talisman. At one point the zombie girl says to her (paraphrasing) "You wanted to get out of school? Well now you'll never leave." As a kid who's apparently ostracized by others, it's not impossible that Kit might have summoned spirits for vengeance, not realizing what the consequences were.

Note to luvthistle: Buffy didn't follow Carlos into the basement. She walked past the basement door, and didn't go into the basement until Dawn called her. Then she jumped into the hole, and was led around by various things--the sound of Dawn's cell phone, Dawn's scream, Dawn's report via phone about where she was, and the apparitions.

I didn't think it was so very odd for the apparitions to try to keep Buffy away from the door to the room where Spike was--I assumed it was because the Big Evil was in there too. The apparitions don't have to have been summoned by the Big Evil to take an interest in protecting it. I could see any minor baddies, when in the vicinity of a big one, just kind of instinctively doing its bidding.

[> [> Re: Another possibility I noticed.. (spoilers for 7.1) -- alcibiades, 12:26:45 09/27/02 Fri

I didn't think it was so very odd for the apparitions to try to keep Buffy away from the door to the room where Spike was--I assumed it was because the Big Evil was in there too. The apparitions don't have to have been summoned by the Big Evil to take an interest in protecting it. I could see any minor baddies, when in the vicinity of a big one, just kind of instinctively doing its bidding.

Well that is all very true, but then you still have the unsolved problem of who she was attempting to do vengeance on and why they turned on her. And of course, it is left "unsolved" and dropped. I suppose it could resurface -- that Kit, like Willow, is into the witchcraft. But it is dismaying that she doesn't fess up. And kind of a too perfect symmetry.

Although in the outside of the welcome to school shot, there is that interesting cut to Kit when Buffy says to Dawn, "if you see anything strange or dead..."

[> [> [> Re: Another possibility I noticed.. (spoilers for 7.1) -- HonorH, 18:08:17 09/27/02 Fri

Count on it being brought up again, alcibiades. Buffy's still wondering who did it at the end of the ep. Joss wouldn't have left it at that if he hadn't planned to pick it up again sometime. It was too purposeful.

[> [> Re: Another possibility I noticed.. (spoilers for 7.1) -- leslie, 18:11:48 09/28/02 Sat

I think if the spirits were trying to lead Buffy *to* Spike, they wouldn't have whopped her over the head with a piece of pipe after she had found him.

How Spike situation differ from Angel (some spoilers) -- luvthistle1, 01:05:40 09/27/02 Fri

Joss and company had publicly stated that spike receiving a soul, would be different from Angel getting a soul.
Well, I understand how it would be different, with Angel we saw a human soul dealing with a demon inside him,considering we were introduce to a soul vamp-angel. Now we would get to see a demon dealing with a human soul,considering the fact that we all grew to love the vampire Spike. we will not see the struggle of a human dealing with his evil side,but evil dealing with his human counter part. there were a lot of talk about Spike burning himself, trying to cut out his soul, etc. ....I don't think so, he went all the way to Africa to get it. What we saw or will see is William, who is trying to get rid of Spike! everyone forgot that William is new to sunnydale. William haven't meet Buffy(prior to the basement seen), he never saw Dawn,willow, or Giles and William has no reason at this point to hate Xander. he more than likely to be afraid of everyone. It was William, who asked Spike "why did he stay here?", (he was talking about "Sunnydale", in which Spike reply that, he belong here.( in Sunnydale with Buffy)If spike haven't left the school, it's because William will not let him. William is probably afraid to go out. William might be the one who left the talisman.
it was protecting him from all the other evil around sunnydale.(that could be the reason the spirits were in front of the door).

Spike knew a lot about magic,witchcraft etc. that was probably a personalty trait of William. he might have studied it. I do not believe either are bad , nor truly evil. ......

It was Spike who told Buffy to Duck.
It was Spike who open the door.
It was Spike who laugh, when Buffy ask was he real.(ironic, considering she never thought of him or his feeling as real)

It was William who said he was busy.

It was William who ask Spike why do he stay here. (by here he meant Sunnydale)
Spike said that he belong here. He meant Sunnydale with Buffy.
William probably would Ventura out when he see Cecily/Halfrek.
although Spike knows she is a vengeance demon,I do not think William ever knew.
Cecily was "always" been a vengeance demon, that is probably why she was so mean to William.
he was probably interrupting her. I do not think her vengeance was against him,he was just in her the way.


We were introduce to Angel,while he was already souled. Eveyone Angel met,Angelus met also. That was why Angel was about to go after the scoobie. William on the other hand ,do not know the same people Spike knows. He never been to Sunnydale and probably doesn't know he's living above the hellmouth. It's as if William woke up with this demon inside of him. he is more than likly to try and rid himself of what he thinks is a invader, aka Spike!
so, instead of seeing A human dealing with his demon side, we will get a demon dealing with his human side, that trying hard to get rid of him.
[> Re: How Spike situation differ from Angel (some spoilers) -- verdantheart, 06:46:53 09/27/02 Fri

From what you say, it seems you are separating William and Spike as though William does not know what Spike knows--but, in fact, they are in the same body and share Spike's memories, which reside in the same mind. Angel--the human part--remembers and, moreover, feels extreme guilt over, the actions of Angelus. This could not happen with such intensity if Angel did not share Angelus' memories--memories imprinted when the demon alone inhabited the body. It is, in fact, this combination of William the gentle human and Spike the demon which has resulted in Spike's current madness. It might be a good question who was trying to cut out whom ... but it's clear that, right now at least, the two are completely incompatible and having a very hard time coexisting in coherent form in the same body.
[> [> Re: How Spike situation differ from Angel (some spoilers) -- luvthistle1, 10:59:12 09/27/02 Fri

They do not share Spike's memories. Spike (the demon) shared
William memories. people forget, that upon meeting angel, he already had a soul. So, his demon side knew everything he did. Angel was curse with a soul. Spike went about recieving his soula different why. William wasn't aware of spike prior to spike recieving a soul. The demon takes the body, they do not get the soul. so, we can assume the soul is somewhere else, while the demon takes it over. The suol person"william" although aware of spike's present,and the fact that Spike is a demon, probably do not know why Spike is inside him. Angel remembers everything Angelus done because it was part of his curse.

The New Principle and Buffy's Slayage -- Sniper404, 05:35:43 09/27/02 Fri

I don't biu this yound councelor(sp) crap. My opinion?
Well, let's see - Snyder knew that the weird events on the school are more that meets the eye. He knew the frightening side of Sunnydale. I think Snyder was appointed as a principle from the goverment or something - they know about the hellmouth and the supernatural world.
Now, they won't be stupid to leave the new Sunnydale High unwatched, right?
In my opinion, the new principle, like Snyder, knows about the spooky stuff. He also knows that that odd girl, Buffy Summers, saved the school multiple times. And that's why he's hiring her. He needs a Slayer to protect his hellmouth high.

So, watddaya think?

[> Re: The New Principle and Buffy's Slayage -- JCC, 08:39:07 09/27/02 Fri

It did seem strange. She's hardly qualified. But remember, Wilkins appointed Snyder to keep Hellmouth-y activities under wraps. A new Mayor might not be so aware about this. The principal could be clueless. But if he's not evil, then he's a dead man.

[> Spoilers for 7.1 above -- Finn Mac Cool, 12:00:16 09/27/02 Fri

[> Princi-PAL -- HonorH, 12:34:44 09/27/02 Fri

Just trying to nip a potentially aggravating misspelling in the bud before it drives us English majors batty all season. A "principle" is something else entirely.

Remember: a principal is never your pal.

[> [> Does this mean I get to snark about "its"? ;) -- Arethusa, 12:38:12 09/27/02 Fri

[> [> [> I think that one may be set in stone by now. -- HonorH, 12:45:29 09/27/02 Fri

God knows I've made an effort to dislodge the its/it's confusion, as well as less/fewer and a few others, but it's (did it right!) an uphill battle. Godspeed, dear.

[> [> [> [> Another English major here! -- Rob, 12:50:33 09/27/02 Fri

Grammar problems drive me batty.

Just to once more make the its/it's thing clear...

It's is short for "It is"; For example: It's raining; It's hot.;It's Monty Python's Flying Circus!

Its is the possessive noun. For example: I loved all of its music. You can't judge a book by its cover.

Here's a combined example: If you think it's ugly, you should see its mother!

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Its and it's -- dream of the consortium, 13:05:35 09/27/02 Fri

I once made my boss reprint some documents because he had made the its/it's error on the cover page. He didn't entirely believe me ("But an apostrophe makes it possessive!" "Not in this case. Trust me."), but ultimately I convinced him. So we packed all these documents into a bag and headed to the airport for our shuttle to New York, where he was going to present to a bunch of bigwigs on Wall Street.* We get to the terminal, and hanging there is an enormous banner, something to the effect of "Delta offers it's customers it's best deal ever!" He swore at me and probably still believes I screwed up.


*The story of how the hell this English major ended up working in finance for one terrible year is too long to include here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Its and it's...Aieeeeeee! -- mundusmundi, 14:26:00 09/27/02 Fri

What gets me is, like you, I'm seeing this blunder everywhere now, from ostensibly reputable institutions, most recently on an FX television ad. And don't even get me started on there, their and they're.

They're going to their favorite ice cream parlor, which is over there.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Another English major here! -- celticross, 13:38:20 09/27/02 Fri

Ok, English minor, but I'm still marginally qualified to remark on how the your/you're problem is reaching epidemic heights...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, your right there - its terrible -- Slain, 14:00:08 09/27/02 Fri

Sorry. Also with the English degree.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The magical power of linguistics -- pr10n, 14:32:44 09/27/02 Fri

I'm a Linguistics major working as a technical writer in an office full of biologists and geologists. Some days my head spins around ("Literally?") because of The Message vs. The Rules.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> "You're". ;P -- Harry Parachute, 21:17:52 09/27/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops. Humor was lost on me. -- Harry Parachute, 21:24:49 09/27/02 Fri

I used to be a quick one...then it was booze, whores, and fur flying.

Well, maybe not the last one, but give it time.

Tomato, the other female empowerment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And you missed the "its" ;o) -- Slain, 07:01:12 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cuz me is the big impulsive smart. Tomatoe. -- Harry Parachute, 11:25:56 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> lest we forget lay/lie and who's/whose and which/that and sentences ending in prepositions. -- SpikeMom (eye twitching), 16:28:05 09/27/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: lest we forget lay/lie and who's/whose and which/that and sentences ending in prepositions. -- Cleanthes, 18:21:36 09/27/02 Fri

I'm with Churchill on the preposition thing - up with which I will not put... {smile}

[> [> [> [> You're my kind of Grammarian! -- SpikeMom, 23:43:13 09/27/02 Fri

[> [> I want to scream every time I see "wreck havok." -- Isabel, 20:10:17 09/27/02 Fri

The term is "wreak havok!" You know, cause chaos, destruction, mayhem. They may 'wreck' things, but it doesn't go with havok. Wrecking havok would be bringing order to destruction. Like your parents coming home from vacation early and throwing all of your friends out of your party and making you clean up the mess.

Re: Apostrophes... There's a funny site that deals with apostrophe usage. http://www.angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif

And don't even get me going on then and than.

[> [> [> And lose/loose! And IMPROPERLY PLACED APOSTROPHES!!!!! -- HonorH (channeling Honorificus), 21:08:54 09/27/02 Fri

Apostrophes are for POSSESSIVES and CONTRACTIONS, not, repeat, NOT PLURALS!!!!!!!!!!!

i feel better now . . .

[> [> [> [> piqued/peeked/peaked & discreet/discrete -- Dead Soul, 02:41:11 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Oh, and " free reign" instead of " free rein" -- Dead Soul, 03:36:51 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> Re: I want to scream every time I see "wreck havok." -- BunnyK., 19:46:59 09/28/02 Sat

I always thought "havok" was in fact spelled "havoc"?

[> [> [> [> and you're right--it is "havoc" -- anom, 22:13:38 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> Ahhh! I must hang my head in shame! -- Isabel, 11:09:14 09/29/02 Sun

That's what I get for looking up 'wreak' to make sure I knew the meaning and spelling of the word before I embarrassed myself. I didn't check 'havoc.'

Although my dictionary did have 'havok' as an Anglo-French derivation of the Old French work 'havot' meaning plunder. But it's not common usage.

Unless you read X-Men comics. sigh.

I just occurred to me that I now have another reason to wince when I see that phrase now. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> speaking of what dictionaries list... -- anom, 22:15:22 09/29/02 Sun

...a few weeks ago I was working in a client's office & read a sentence in a newsletter I was editing that said something like "We might be willing to forego (x) to achieve (y)." I deleted the "e," because I knew that "forego" & "forgo" are 2 different words & MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS!...er, 'scuse that little outburst....

I was back there the week before last & checked the newsletter in a later stage, & guess what? It still said "forego"! NGG! GAAA! YARRGGHH!!!...I'm OK now.... I pointed this out to the person who'd called me in to work on it, & she said, "Oh, we looked it up, & the dictionary said it was correct." Well, yeah, it's the correct spelling...of a DIFFERENT WORD!! There are 2 prefixes, "for-" & "fore-" (well, OK, there are other prefixes too, but you know what I mean). "For-" means "so as to involve prohibition, exclusion, omission, failure, neglect, or refusal," as in "forbid," "forswear," "forsake," & "forgive." "Fore-" means "occurring earlier/beforehand" (both have other meanings, but these are the relevant ones), as in "forecast," "forewarn," "foreshadow" (a favorite here!), & "foretell." So it's important to preserve the distinction!

I was told that the project director had approved it but that I could talk to her & show her what the dictionary said. So I checked the dictionary myself & was shocked to find that "forego" is now accepted as a "VARIANT SPELLING" of "forgo"!!! How could they?! Even Merriam-Webster!! SOMEBODY has to uphold standards!

>mutter<...going to lie down now....

Oh! The good news is, they changed it...now to convince the dictionary publishers....

[> [> [> And let's not forget ... -- LadyStarlight, 09:54:03 09/29/02 Sun

the whole 'lighted/lit' thing. I automatically use 'lit' for the past tense of 'light'. However, I've seen 'lighted' used more and more, causing me to throw books across the room and scream at them.

Which frightens the cats to no end.

(I know 'lighted' is in the dictionary, but it just sets my teeth on edge. And sounds horribly wrong.)

[> [> Re: Princi-PAL -- Random, 07:04:30 09/28/02 Sat

And (yes, starting a sentence with a conjunction) let's not forget the whole "(he/she) and (I/me)". Once Buffy messed it, and I came this close (picture thumb and forefinger millimeters apart) to swearing out loud at the TV. Then Giles made a similar mistake (sorry folks, can't access my encyclopaedic knowledge of Buffy eps to give you the specifics right now) and I did swear at the TV. I'm not even going to go into the whole usage issue of when to use he/she and when to use her/him. It's a subject/object issue. ~Random the former English TA with a Masters in English Lit. and a PhD in Pedantic Dialectical Didactism.

p.s. regarding the preposition at the end of a sentence issue mentioned above, I once wrote (no joke!) a thirty-four page paper on the history and rationalizations of that very rule. The upshot? Grammarians back in the 19th century had to do something avoid looking like a group of slackers that out to be put to work plowing fields. So they sat around making up rules so they could have a long, if not lucrative, career enforcing them. The preposition rule is just an issue of aesthetics. Sometimes putting the prep. at the end sounds fine, sometimes it sounds awful. You'll know what's right when you see/hear it.

[> [> [> from an editor & Spanish major -- anom, 23:27:28 09/28/02 Sat

Hey, I already knew English.

"Giles made a similar mistake...." Say it ain't so! Um, isn't so? But it's hard to believe--I mean, Giles? If anyone on the show knows correct grammar, it's Giles. OK, & Wesley. Even Spike. And mainly, of course, Joss.

"regarding the preposition at the end of a sentence issue mentioned above, I once wrote (no joke!) a thirty-four page paper on the history and rationalizations of that very rule."

Personally, I have no objection to using a preposition to end a sentence with. I even have a button (on my home office door, no less) that says "A sentence is a fine thing to put a preposition at the end of." But who am I to disagree with so eminent an authority as Mr. Language Person (aka Dave Barry)? Especially when he has the perfect solution:

-------------------------------
DEAR MR. LANGUAGE PERSON: Some business associates and I are trying to compose a very important business letter, and we disagree about the wording of a key sentence. My associates argue that it should be: "Youse better be there alone with the ransom money, on account of we don't want to have to whack nobody's limbs off." I say this is incorrect.
A. Tell your associates they'd better bone up on their grammar! The sentence they're suggesting ends with the preposition "off," and should be corrected as follows: "... don't want to have to whack nobody's limbs off with a big knife."
-------------------------------

Interestingly, Mr. Language Person came to the same conclusion about grammarians you did, Random:

-------------------------------
When Chaucer's poem was published, everybody read it and said: "My God, we need some grammar around here." So they formed a Grammar Commission, which developed the parts of speech, the main ones being nouns, verbs, predicants, conjectures, particles, proverbs, coordinates, and rebuttals. Then the commission made up hundreds and hundreds of grammar rules, all of which were strictly enforced.
-------------------------------

This is from a column published over a decade ago--maybe closer to 2 decades. It's up on the wall of my office, & I still can't read through the whole thing w/a straight face. The version posted here has a few typos, but it's well worth reading. The column is a little more than halfway down the page--easiest way to find it is to search on "crock" (which gives you some idea of what you'll be getting).

[> [> My personal favorites -- Rattletrap, 06:38:22 09/29/02 Sun

I'm a history person, not an english person, but I just graded 100+ essays from freshmen, so I've seen all of these and more.

My personal peeves:

* Amount vs. number--I had this beat into my head in grade school, so I'm touchy about it; even educated people seem to get it wrong.

* Led, not lead, is the past tense of "to lead" -- this is a very common one on freshman essays.

* "I am supposed to go to the store after work" not "I am suppose to go to the store after work"

[> [> How about "excape?" And a puzzle... -- Wisewoman ;o), 09:34:20 09/29/02 Sun

More often heard than seen, but I have seen it in print. And Sarah McLauchlan actually sings it in one of her songs. Aaarrrggghhh.

Now the one that puzzles me more every day:

"Sylvia Plath was a writer (who/that) committed suicide."

"Mike said he was the one (who/that) took it."

My mind automatically inserts "who" but I see "that" used constantly in the press, magazines, even novels. Which is correct?

[> [> [> "who" is for people/"that" is for things -- SpikeMom, 14:45:56 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> Good god, as someone who's probably made ALL of these mistakes... -- yuri, 00:53:19 09/30/02 Mon

I just really want to apologize for any eye-twitching and snarking and exessive hair-pulling I may have caused.

Hah, one of you english folk should compile a little wallet-sized list that can be carried around and studied while you're on the bus or in line, it'd be great!

And if ANYone has a good way of remembering lay/lie, share the wealth, because I have been trying to figure it out for years and my grandmother never comes so close to disowning me as when I misuse those words.

[> [> [> can't have you being disowned! -- anom, 15:28:14 09/30/02 Mon

"And if ANYone has a good way of remembering lay/lie, share the wealth...."

"Lay" is a transitive verb--it requires a direct object. You lay something (before someone else says it: or someone): the baby in the cradle, your case before the court, carpeting, your cards on the table (literally or figuratively), your body down (for sweet release see 1st parenthetical comment),...eggs. "Lay" is the present tense; "laid" is used for past & past perfect.

"Lie" is intransitive--it doesn't take a direct object. The baby lies in the cradle, your case lies before the court, carpeting lies exactly like a rug, the cards lie on the table (probably not figuratively), you lie on the bed...or the couch...or in your crypt.... Oh, & the eggs lie in the nest. "Lie" is the present tense; "lay" is the past tense & "lain" the past perfect.

Obviously, the fact that "lay" is the present tense of "to lay" & the past tense of "to lie" causes a lot of confusion. The other meaning of "lie" (the dishonest one) adds to the confusion. "I lay the book on the table [now]." "I laid the book on the table [then]." "The book lay on the table [then]." "The book lies on the table [now]."

The history of this confusion is interesting. Merriam-Webster's site (m-w.com) says, "LAY has been used intransitively in the sense of 'lie' since the 14th century. The practice was unremarked until around 1770; attempts to correct it have been a fixture of schoolbooks ever since. Generations of teachers and critics have succeeded in taming most literary and learned writing, but intransitive lay persists in familiar speech and is a bit more common in general prose than one might suspect. Much of the problem lies in the confusing similarity of the principal parts of the two words [no kidding!]. Another influence may be a folk belief that lie is for people and lay is for things. Some commentators are ready to abandon the distinction, suggesting that lay is on the rise socially. But if it does rise to respectability, it is sure to do so slowly: many people have invested effort in learning to keep lie and lay distinct. Remember that even though many people do use lay for lie, others will judge you unfavorably if you do."

Like your grandmother...think it'll help any to tell her "lay" has been used that way since the 14th century?.

[> And ending sentences with prepositions!! -- Rob, 23:05:24 09/27/02 Fri

It can't be done!

You can't say, "You're someone I'd like to spend time with." The correct way to say that would be, "You're someone with whom I'd like to spend time."

Rob

[> [> "You can't say, 'You're someone I'd like to spend time with.'" -- um, didn't you just? -- d'Herblay, 17:25:02 09/28/02 Sat

I'm with Cleanthes and Churchill on this one. In English, a preposition is a perfectly fine thing to end a sentence with. (In Latin, not so much so.) Occasionally, ending sentences is what prepositions are for.

Hmmmm . . . I feel a flame war coming on. I probably shouldn't mention that I think it's all right to once in a while split an infinitive.

I gnash my teeth against your puny prescriptivist pedantry!! Bwahahaha!!

[> [> [> Oops! I rotated personae but forgot to change the name -- d'Horrible, 17:26:45 09/28/02 Sat

[> [> [> [> LOL...and...speaking of split infinitives... -- Rob, 18:59:01 09/28/02 Sat

"Split Infinitives" is the name of the literary magazine that I work on at college. And I named it. (yay me)

So a split infinitive is fine with me.

It's something I like to, on a regular basis, do. ;o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Of COURSE it's alright... -- Whipwoman, 22:41:49 09/28/02 Sat

To boldly go where no split infinitive has gone before.

;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Heh heh. ;o) -- Rob, 00:34:13 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> "Alright," on the other hand, is right out! -- d'Horrible, 05:48:37 09/29/02 Sun

Unless you are, in fact, Pete Townshend.

Speaking of music, the bit of grammar that drives me absolutely nuts occurs in "My Girl," by The Temptations. When David Ruffin intones, "I'd guess you'd say, what can make me feel this way?" I shout at the radio, "'Ask'! It's a question!" I think that this one visceral response accounts for my idiosyncratic beliefs that Dennis Edwards was a better lead than Ruffin and that Norman Whitfield was a better songwriter/producer than Smokey Robinson.

Of course, "ask" wouldn't rhyme.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ROFL! And how are things in Old Blighty? ;o) -- Envious dub, 09:38:44 09/29/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Misplaced modifiers on the London Underground -- d'Herblay, 09:59:46 09/30/02 Mon

Seems like this would be the thread for this story. On each train of the London Underground, there is posted a schematic of that train's line and its stops. On the Piccadilly line, the hash mark for Covent Garden has been stickered over with the notice: "Exit only from 1300-1700 Saturdays." This disturbed me, the thought of the Covent Garden station a Sartrean hell except for four hours each weekend, until Rahael (whose office is at Covent Garden, and who exits from that very station five days a week) explained to me that the notice did not mean, "You can get out of this station only between 1 and 5 pm each Saturday," but rather, "No entry on Saturday afternoons."

[> [> I guess you'd say it's something up with which you will not put? -- vh, 06:29:22 09/30/02 Mon

[> wow, some discussion i started here -- Snyper404, 05:20:11 09/28/02 Sat

Anyways, sorry for the mistakes. English is not my main language.

[> [> Don't worry, Snyper404, you had a good question -- Scroll, 06:27:29 09/28/02 Sat

We just tend to get fixated on one little thing, and the whole board goes ka-plooey.

As for the principal, I truly hope he is one of the good guys. I can see your point that he could have been hired to keep an eye on Sunnydale High School the way Snyder was, but I think since the Mayor is dead, there hasn't really been anyone in power with knowledge of the supernatural. I could be wrong, of course, we'll see how the season goes. But I do like Principal Wood, and hope to see him integrate with Buffy and the Scooby Gang on a "friends" level. It's about time Buffy made some friends outside of her tight-knit Scooby circle.

Scroll =)

[> [> [> Re: Don't worry, Snyper404, you had a good question -- Cecilia, 16:11:19 09/28/02 Sat

I totally agree with you.

Principal Flutie was a good guy who got eaten. Principal Snyder was a bad guy who got eaten. I say Principal Wood should not be eaten!

Let's hear it for a principal free diet!

[> [> Don't worry and on your question -- shadowkat, 06:13:02 09/30/02 Mon

English is my first language and I make typos all the time.
Or Freudian slips. And pray the grammar police won't notice if I post before editing them out.

Not sure about the Principal, but I wouldn't put it past ME to have the shapeshifting entity kill him midseason and take his place. Would be a nice twist. Have no clue if that will happen. But they've certainly done stuff like that before.
Heck - in first three seasons every adult, outside of Giles and Joyce, who was nice to Buffy? Got eaten or killed.
It was almost getting predictable. One thing never to forget about watching Angel or Btvs - is that they are horror shows whose principle intention is to scare you or at the very least disturb you. You're not supposed to feel warm and comfy and happy at the end of Btvs. If you are - than ME feels they are doing something wrong. They want to
knock you for a loop, which is why so many people go online hunting for spoilers - they want to protect themselves.
Last year I decided I preferred being knocked for a loop to being protected. If you don't watch the show with a bit of dread? They aren't doing their job. And if you hate that?
You're watching the wrong show.

Hmmm I've managed to use both principal and principle in a Buffy related sentence. Yay me. Hopefully the grammar/spelling police won't slap me down with their word batons. ;-)

[> [> [> padded word baton... -- anom, 10:54:18 09/30/02 Mon

...so it won't hurt, I hope.

"Hmmm I've managed to use both principal and principle in a Buffy related sentence."

Sorry, but not exactly. You said, "One thing never to forget about watching Angel or Btvs - is that they are horror shows whose principle intention is to scare you or at the very least disturb you."

As an adjective, the word is spelled "principal." "Principle" can only be a noun. And actually, you didn't use them in the same sentence, unless you meant the 1st one I quoted! If so, that's very self-referential of you. @>) I've read writers whose sentences are the length of your entire post who might indeed use both "principal" & "principle" in a sentence of that length, but you're not one of them (& I'm glad!). And you're by far not the only one on this board who has confused these 2 words. They both have multiple meanings, & they can be confusing. This is what m-w.com (the Merriam-Webster site--a great one, w/lotsa cool links for word nerds like me) says about it:

"Although nearly every handbook and many dictionaries warn against confusing principle and principal, many people still do. Principle is only a noun; principal is both adjective and noun. If you are unsure which noun you want, read the definitions in this dictionary."

So the distinction isn't even simple enough to be stated as a general principle; the principal thing to remember is that there is a difference & you can look it up!

[> & to answer your other question... -- anom, 22:58:17 09/28/02 Sat

...it's "counselor," one who gives counsel. Not to be confused (though it often is) with "councilor," a member of a council.

Lessons on Lessons: General ramblings, thoughts and questions. (Spoilers for 7.1) -- JCC, 08:34:56 09/27/02 Fri

Well, first of all, I didn't think it was a great Episode. Not the usual Joss standards, but he did have a Firefly premiere to worry about, so I can certainly forgive him. Firefly is his new baby, and he has to give it attention. Buffy is old enough now to leave home and survive without Joss' full attention. It certainly was brighter and has shaken off that Marti Noxon feel to it. I think Marti has been given a bad rap by the fans. Depressing writing is her thing and she has taken a lot of criticism for it. The simple fact is; she can't dominate and hold power over ME like Whedon can. But the ending did make up for itÖ and then some!

Istanbul
My first thought was that this had something to do with Spike. Maybe he had wandered there. I figured that this scene would be explained later in the Episode. The girl did seem pretty sprightly. I was watching the Episode with a group of non-Buffy fans and they noticed this and cheered her on.
I've read some of the posts on her that say she could be a Slayer whose powers aren't manifest. This brings up an interesting theory.
Perhaps the robed figures were eliminating a future Slayer. And the spirits in the school were trying to get rid of another threat, Dawn. And the big bads are back for Buffy. Could all these events be linked? Who's behind it?

Training
Dawn's got the moves. The monks made her from Buffy's blood. Does this mean that Slayer powers are mixed in there? Buffy's taken on the teacher role, as Dawn's watcher. She certainly doesn't have Slayer strength yet.

Spike
Is Spike's near insanity a result of the soul or the torture from the Big Bads? He does show flashes of incoherence: telling Buffy about the spirits and talking about his prepared speech:
"Everything is... I had a speech. I learned it all. Oh, god, she won't understand, she won't understand..."
What did he mean by "just the three of us"? I figured he meant William, Spike and Buffy. Maybe he was saying himself, Buffy and whichever Big Bad was present.

The Spirits were all about Buffy confronting the fact that she couldn't save everyone. She's expierinced this before with Jenny, Kendra, Tara and to some extent her mother. Although that was more about an evil she couldn't fight.

Willow Well, she's still using Magic. The scenes with Giles were just painful to watch. He was doing his whole Chuck Norris weeekend get-away thing. And it looks like the Hell-Mouth is going to open again. Maybe she'll open it. I mean, can you imagine what will happen when she sees Warren? That whole druglike-addiction thing was still in there. It had a distinctive Rehab-y feel to it. No sign of the Watchers Council. What are they up to?

The Big Bads
First of all, I gasped when I saw Warren. A perk of my spoiler abstinence this season after last year's ridiculous spoiler leaks all over the place. Personally, I feel it is much more gratifying to watch the show without already knowing what happens. I tried to remain spoiler free last season, but the damn things were everywhere. I've already seen some unmarked spoiler posts this week, so please, for the sake of us pure spoiler-virgin souls, be careful. And not just for a few weeks, but for the rest of the season. For the non-US fans among us.
Anyway, back from that tangent. At first, I thought it would be just Warren, but when he morphed into Glory, I saw where this was going. I yelped with joy when I saw the Mayor, my favorite Big Bad. He's everybody's favorite uncle one minute, the next he's probably the scariest of them all. He's got such an unpredictable insanity about him.
Drusilla was the only Big Bad the non-Buffy fans recognised. I've grown a great love for Dru while writing the (UgghhÖ How low can we sink?) Sensational Fanged Four Fic!!!! All the other Bads were dead. Has Dru been killed without us knowing?
And The Master seemed so much scarier now than he did in Season 1.Why was Buffy thrown in? Who knows?
Was Spike just hallucinating? Possible, but doubtful. We don't know if he's ever met Wilkins or The Master.
Warren: "Of course she won't understand, Sparky. I'm beyond her understanding. She's a girl... she's sugar and spice and everything... useless unless you're baking... I'm more than that. I'm more than flesh..."
Glory: "more than blood. I'm... you know, I don't think there's a human word fabulous enough for me! Soon my name will be on everyone's lips, assuming their lips haven't been torn off. But not just yet... but that's alright, though...."
Adam: "... I can be patient. everything is well within parameters. She's exactly where I want her, and so are you number 17. You're right where you belong..."
Mayor Wilkins: "So what did you think, you'd get your soul back and everything would be Jim-Dandy? A soul is slipperier than a greased weasel, why do you think I sold mine? Well, you probably thought you'd be your own man, and I respect that..."
Drusilla: "But you never will... you'll always be mine, you'll always be in the dark with me, singing our little songs, you liked our little songs, didn't you? You always liked them, right from the beginning... And that's where we're going."
The Master: "BackÖ back to the beginning. Not the Bang, not the Word, the true beginning. And the next few months are going to be quite a riot, and I think we're all going to learn something about ourselves in the process. You'll learn you're a pathetic shmuck, if it hasn't sunk in already... Look at you, trying to do what's right, just like her. You still don't get it.. it's not about right... it's not about wrong..."
Buffy: "... it's about Power..."

"and I think we're all going to learn something about ourselves in the process"
I imagine we will. All our questions will be answered.

Current board | More September 2002