September Archives

September 2004 posts

Previous September 2004
More September 2004

A book recommendation -- manwitch, 13:36:15 09/01/04 Wed

If any of you are interested in literary analysis, I just wanted to offer an interesting title. This is an academinc/scholarly book rather than a pop culture book.

Looking for God in Harry Potter by John Granger (no relation to Hermione).

The author is a devout Christian who does not watch television, and is also a professor of Classical Literature. His eleven year old daughter was given the first Potter book by her pediatrician, and Granger took it from her and read it so he could explain clearly to her why she wasn't allowed to have it. The next day he bought all the others, required all his children to read them, and ultimately, it produced this book.

He brings to bear his education in Latin, Greek, the Classics, the Great Books, and Christianity to show the strongly Christian currents running throughout each story.

For my taste, he's a little too stuck on "life in Christ" being what we're all seeking, but that's just cuz I would phrase it differently (I agree in principle that people crave spiritual nourishment, I'm just not stuck on that particular metaphor). Once past that language, his insights into the books are pretty impressive.

Just in case you or someone you know thinks they're kids books, or anti-christian. Or just if you're interested in seeing how much is going on in those stories that you didn't know about.

If you already know about it, well, never mind.

Replies:

[> question -- frisby, 11:10:05 09/02/04 Thu

I called the book up and thought about it, but I must admit I think I might have too much trouble translating "life in Christ" into the spiritual life or whatever. I agree that Christians' perhaps worst aspect or most disagreeable habit is their (not all but probably most or at least very many) insistence on the exclusivity of Christ as the "only" way. Do you think Jesus 'really' studied i Tibet during his twenties, learning perhaps of the seven chakras? I wonder if Moses or Jesus or Mohammed themselves would consider themselves exclusive and singular and so forth???

Anyway, for these reasons I held back from purchasing Granger's book, but I'll continue to consider it ....

[> [> Re: question -- manwitch, 08:44:34 09/03/04 Fri

What is totally justifiable in his argument and his use of Christianity, Christian symbols, and "life in Christ" in describing the books is that they do make reference to and use of great works and great traditions in English literature. Obviously, until very recently, English literature by and large meant Christian literature.

I therefore think its possible to recognize Christian references and their significance without thinking that it means if you don't take Christ as your personal saviour you are damned for all time.

I'm not sure Granger would allow for that distinction.

That said, there's maybe six paragraphs that will really bug the crap out of you, if you're like me. The rest is just an examination of symbols and themes, and its really pretty spectacular.

It does a great job of reminding us as readers, and I hope will show young people, that author's really do think about all this symbol crap when they write. That there are clues here that as readers we are being asked to and expected to work for. In that sense, I think it fights the Great Dumbing Down of our times, where people read everything literally, seeing just a story where there is so much more. Everything's a metaphor, as I'm sure you agree.

And this book certainly is a testament to the embarrasment the New York Times Book Review should feel for creating a separate best-seller list for Childrens Books to house the Harry Potter books. They show merely that they lack the skills to find the treasure in these books. Children don't know latin and greek, they don't know alchemy, they don't recognize christ symbols or doppelgangers. They don't evaluate a story's structure, or compare it to other stories. And sadly, many of us don't seem to either. I am certainly a trifle chagrinned at how much was going on in Harry Potter to which I was oblivious.

But I think Granger's book serves as a reminder that this stuff really is there for us to find. That its the reader's responsibility to search for it and decipher it, rather than the author's responsibility state it in denotation.

Personally, I don't think of Moses or Jesus as historical figures. I think Granger is just a little too stuck on Christ being real and true, rather than Christ being a metaphor for what is real and true, the same as Buddha. Beyond that I don't quarrel with his analysis of the books at all.

So there's my answer, in which I include a mild little rant. Perhaps you would feel better getting it from the library.

[> [> [> Response -- David Frisby, 11:19:47 09/08/04 Wed

Good point on the relation of English literature to Christianity, but I still wonder how hard it will be to read an author with whom I disagree on such a thing as a personal savior, especially when the stakes are eternal damnation although I do of course agree on the ubiquity of the metaphor (I published a poem back in 78 titled Aphorisms for a Metamorphosis of Language as Metaphor although I ve learned since then that according to Nietzsche metonymy and synecdoche, or tropes generally, are just as fundamental to language as metaphor). The Great Dumbing Down dates from the mass revolutions of 1848, according to Leo Strauss, and includes the philosophers of the second wave of modernity (Rousseau, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and even Schopenhauer), and he adds that a good liberal arts education is the best inoculation against that tendency teaching one instead to learn to enucleate a text. Of course, a recent book I ve read by Shlain called The Alphabet and the Goddess (which I highly recommend) suggests that literacy itself has proved highly dangerous to humanity over history if not complemented by the languages of the face, gesture, and tone (centered today on photography and film). I also do so like books (or movies for that matter) that children can enjoy but which also contain subtexts for the adults also. Hmmm! I suppose I do think Moses, and Jesus, and even Buddha were historical, even if our present accounts go far beyond the facts but then again Aleister Crowley says the entire myth of Jesus Christ is a watered-down version of the legend of the supergod Dionysos. As for Christ or anything else being real and true I might add that the philosophical problem I ve grappled with for decades is whether to give priority to the good and noble (or beautiful) over the real and true or not but that s another long complex story. I really do enjoy reading your posts, and have been looking at a couple of recent books on the chakras (a friend of mine teaches eastern philosophy and religion and our conversation has turned that direction also). As for Granger, I plan to purchase a copy (especially since my wife and son have read the Harry Potter books and simply love the anti-christian and pro-pagan orientation nuf said). By the way what part of the world do you post from? Britain?

[> My objection to Potter has always been the exact opposite. . . . -- Briar Rose, 16:43:32 09/09/04 Thu

I am a practicing witch.

Most of my 41 years has been dedicated to living a pagan lifestyle and practicing magick. I believe in the Earth and the Power of the Universe, and I have as much of theology as any Christian does, and am expected to stick to it more than some Christians are.

I'm not the first in my family. Nor will I be the last. I learned these beliefs from those that came before me and will pass them on to those that come after me, whether of my own blood line, or simply those drawn to me to share them.

I read three of the Potter novels, and every time I was miffed and disappointed with the complete LACK of a belief system and theology concerning the entire Hogwarts/magical story line that was being written and passed on to readers.

I watched the PBS documentary hoping that J.K. Rowling would pass on some idea of it. I even gave the books more than one chance, combing them for some clue that would show me that the author had any idea as to magic/magick having a theology.....

I came up empty. I came away dismayed and with little tolerance of these books being so widely available to people that might read them, believe them, try the spells and incantations in them and harm themselves or others. Thankfully, most of the spells are pretty much useless, because they aren't based in real incantational theory, much like Willow's weren't in BtVS.

But I am definitely not impressed with Rowlings knowledge of mythology, metaphysical knowledge or even historical knowledge after reading these books, nor in interviews with her. In fact, after the PBS documentary, I have to wonder if some of her mythological figures having actual/historically accurate prototypes and metaphysically right definitions were purely accidental!

She is a very imaginative woman. She writes rather well. The movies are beautifully produced. But it all rings rather hollow if you are trying to find any theological truth in them, of any religion.

[> [> well, there's something to the magic -- manwitch, 09:18:10 09/11/04 Sat

This guys interpretations of what's being done in these stories as references to christian themes is both interesting and reasonably convincing. And in those terms, the spells do count for something.

So I think your wrong about it ringing hollow regardless of the religious tradition. It rings hollow because we aren't taught the literary skills and vocabulary anymore that she's using. But its there. I find that kind of stuff interesting and think its worth checking out.

But you will find this author very distasteful, as he is really a shameful bastard on the subject of paganism and wicca. When he sticks to point, he's got some insights. But when he attempts to broaden his comments he's an intolerant, closed-minded jack-ass.

Anyways, if you read the book, be sure to skip the last chapter, or at least steel yourself for some aggravation.

Alexis Denisof on Wesley (from Q&A at Slayercon) -- JudyKay, 14:08:00 09/01/04 Wed

Here's a really good transcription of the Q&A session with Alexis Denisof this past weekend at Slayercon in Oakland. He has a lot of great insights into his characterization of Wesley.

Alexis Denisof at Slayercon

JudyKay

Replies:

[> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley (from Q&A at Slayercon)-- Link to pictures inside -- Antigone, 15:19:41 09/01/04 Wed

Thanks for posting this!! What a great transcript. I was there actually and just reading it brought back the amazing feelings that went through all of us during that Q&A. By far the very best presentation of the whole week-end (not that the other ones weren't great; they were but this one was very special). There was magic in the air and I don't think one person in the room could stop smiling or giggling. Not only is Alexis a true gentlemen, humble and VERY funny but he showed nothing but absolute respect to all the fans who where there. Other actors may be a bit sarcastic at times during Q&As (especially when answering the "porn star name" and other "favorite color"-type questions). Alexis was as true and honest and grateful as you read there, taking the time to answer each question seriously and thoroughly. There was not a point were you felt that he was jaded or bored or unhappy to be there. He really "gets" Wesley and his insights were truly fascinating. It was an hour of pure joy. All of us fell under Wesley's charm all over again!!

Another note on Alexis: he also charmed everyone at the autograph sessions, making a point to pay a compliment to about everyone, from the pictures they presented to their shirt color! The organisers complained that he was taking too long but I tell you, none of us minded because he really took the time to speak to each one of us, look us in the eye and [sigh] smile. :-)

BTW I was the "you in blue" who asked the question about the "infamous ballet scene"! ;-)

Also I wanted to fill in the blank in the transcript about 2/3 down the page, the part where a girl told him he was "brilliant." What she said is that she thought he was amazing at drama but was truly brilliant at comedy and then she went on to ask about the Joker role.

Final note: we learned the next day that apparently Alyson was there with him "in an undisclosed location." No wonder he sounded so happy being here!! ;-)

Other than that I hope it's OK to post this but I found this great site with pictures from the various Oakland presentations. You'll see from the Alexis pictures that he was very animated any looked truly happy (the "dance" photo is #47):
http://gelatinous.com/ttyan/gallery/Oakland-Vulkon-2004

[> [> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley (from Q&A at Slayercon)--Adding something -- Antigone, 15:29:17 09/01/04 Wed

One last thing: the consensus among everyone I spoke with after the Q&A is that Alexis is a truly gifted speaker/orator. There may have been 600+ people in that room and he looked as comfortable and relaxed as if he were in a friend's living room. He took the time to answer each question thoroughly and openly and seemed very well aware of not only debates and arguments among fans (and fanfic!), but also episode names. He spoke like a fan of the show himself, not just like it was "another job" for him. As he has not really done conventions before so he was the true revelation of the week-end for a lot of fans.

[> [> [> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley (from Q&A at Slayercon)--Adding something -- JudyKay, 16:27:29 09/01/04 Wed

Thanks for the additional description of the Q&A session. I debated many times about going down to Oakland last weekend, but since I'm currently unemployed, I just couldn't justify the expense. Thank goodness I get to live vicariously through these great reports and pictures! Sounds like it was a great con! And my love for Wesley and Alexis has grown leaps and bounds reading about how wonderful and gracious he was. Hopefully he'll do more cons. (Maybe with his wife next time?!)

JudyKay

[> [> [> [> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley (from Q&A at Slayercon)--Adding something -- Antigone, 17:25:26 09/01/04 Wed

I understand. I live in Oakland and, even so, the week-end ended up being quite expensive. I'm sure all of you will read posts about the MANY organisation glitches at that Con; I may not even go to a Vulkon-organised event again. But Alexis and Tony, expecially, made it all worth it. Another really interesting speaker was Lee Stringer, a special effect guy who works for Zoic, the company that did some effects for Buffy and Angel (including the puppet morph) and most effects for Firefly (both the series and the movie). His 3 presentations were absolutely fascinating; he even did a slide show of certain specific scenes, commenting image by image on how they did the CGI effects (specifically the train heist in the Train Job and the scene in the Angel finale when Illyria punches Vail's face "off" at the end). He was not only incredibly articulate and knowledgeable but also very sweet. I think he made us "SF geeks" all very happy!

[> [> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley (from Q&A at Slayercon)-- Link to more Oakland photos -- Antigone, 15:51:33 09/02/04 Thu

Found this other site with photos from the Oakland Convention (with a few of Alexis):
http://www.munnphotography.com/conphotos.htm

[> [> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley -- I agree!! -- PurpleYoshi, 15:05:37 09/04/04 Sat

I was also lucky enough to go to the con, but I wasn't able to record anything. I must say that I agree 100% with everything you said about Alexis and his Q&A. I was honestly FLOORED by how intimately he spoke, and I practically had tears in my eyes by the end from being so moved (I'm a huge Wesley lover to begin with). Seriously.

Also, if anyone's interested, I wrote up a entire con report (not transcript) based on notes I took and my personal experiences there. It's posted at my LiveJournal, here.

[> [> [> Re: Alexis Denisof on Wesley -- I agree!! -- JudyKay, 15:52:48 09/04/04 Sat

Thanks for the link to your con report -- I just love reading them! I miss going to them and the camaraderie you feel being with other fans (like you said in your last paragraph). I need to get me to another con soon!!

BTW, this page http://gelatinous.com/ttyan/buffy/Oakland_Vulkon_2004/ has links to the video clips mentioned above, and two of those clips are of Anthony Stewart Head singing! He's so great! That page has links to more transcripts of Q&A sessions too.

[> Hey, I got a question.... -- Seven, 06:50:25 09/03/04 Fri

In the transcription linked above, someone mentions Alexis' work on Highlander. My question is, was this the series? I am a fairly big fan of that show as well, but I don't recall ever seeing Alexis and I would love to know what season and episode he was in if this is the case. Anyone know the answer?

[> [> looks like he was in this ep.... -- curious, 07:10:29 09/03/04 Fri

From tvtome.com

http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-306/epid-55220

Highlander - Steve Banner - Diplomatic Immunity (1997)

Embezzler, charmer, and con man extraordinaire, Willie Kingsley has a knack for turning up dead... and profiting from it handsomely. But when one last con goes horribly wrong, resulting in the death of his mortal wife, Willie turns to Duncan MacLeod to help him track down her killer. MacLeod wants justice... Willie wants revenge.

[> [> [> Re: looks like he was in this ep.... -- mac, 17:21:27 09/04/04 Sat

Poor Alexis. Judging from his interview, he has never realized that Fred would have never been the right woman for Wesley. I think that the episode, "Players" told us that.

Previously on Buffy experiment -- Ames, 13:41:59 09/02/04 Thu

Ok, I'm going to try posting my initial experiment in compiling the "Previously on Buffy the Vampire Slayer..." clips missing from the Region 1 DVDs. Below is the information on how you can download the initial file Pob7.avi, which is the complete set of 22 PoBs for Season 7, in one sequential avi video file of about 80 Mbytes.

To download the file, go to http://www.torrentbox.com and look for "Buffy the Vampire Slayer S7 Previously Ons [Eng]" in their available torrents list. If your system doesn't recognize torrent files when you click on the link, you need a Bittorrent client (see below). If you can't play the avi file successfully once you get it, you probably need an XVid codec (see below).

Caveats:

1. This is an experiment. The file is not of the highest quality - it is an initial try at a compromise between size and quality. It's > 80 Mbytes. Don't even try if you are on dial-up. The video is encoded with XVid. If you don't have a video codec installed on your system to play XVid format yet, try here: http://www.xvid.org/

2. I assume that the PoB clips are of interest only to people who already own the Region 1 DVD set (or plan to - sorry I started with S7 for reasons I won't go into). In other words, there is no good reason why anyone would want the compiled PoB clips unless they already own a copy of the original source material on DVD, so don't get me into trouble with Fox Video!

3. You will need to use Bittorrent to download the file (ftp is proving a bit too unreliable for a file this size at the moment). If you don't have a Bittorrent client yet, try here: http://bitconjurer.org/BitTorrent/. I'll seed it via Torrentbox.

I have added episode titles for a couple of seconds at the start of each clip to clearly identify them. Do the titles distract or help?

Replies:

[> Additional source -- Ames, 07:41:17 09/03/04 Fri

You can also try downloading from http://amesdp.spymac.net/Pob7.avi now, but it's likely to be much slower than using Bittorrent.

Rants on the Final Episode of Angel *spoiler* -- BuffyObsessed, 18:51:21 09/02/04 Thu

I don't know about you but I have a few rants on the final episode of Angel. Mostly though I want to know why Angel had to kill Lindsay. Lindsay (i think thats how you spell it at least) had finally turned around and was ready to accept working with others for the greater good. Also, he had just helped Angel by killing some bad guys for him. Anyways, if Angel still was going to kill Lindsay he should have done it himself instead of having Lorne kill him, it would have at least been more honorable.
Another rant... while I don't mind that Wesley died because I was suspecting that he probably would they shouldn't have made him be so weak and stupid. I would have thought that Wesley would at least put up more of a fight and no leave so quickly.

Replies:

[> Re: Rants on the Final Episode of Angel *spoiler* -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:20:19 09/02/04 Thu

Keep in mind, (Lindsey?) had that discussion with Angel where he never denied Angel's implications that he wanted to take control of Wolfram & Hart's LA branch after Angel waged his little war. Given that and his willingness to use highly ambiguous means, Angel probably figured he couldn't leave Lindsay around to pick up the pieces of an empire he hoped to injure.

As for Wesley, he was going up against a guy who could create a one-way mirror wall with a wave of his hand a perform massive, reality-altering spells. Wesley's only real hope was to catch Vail off guard, which didn't happen.

[> honorable wasn't the point (spoilers, Not Fade Away) -- Seven, 19:28:18 09/02/04 Thu

Lindsay wasn't really turning around. He's supposedly done that twice in the past. Once in Blind Date and again in Dead End. In both these stories, We see a Lindsay that seemed to see the light. A Lindsay that had morals which he was willing to fight for. But it never lasted. Lindsay would get bored with the whole thing and eventually go after the power again.
Angel knew this. Angel was through playing games. Lindsay was never Angel's arch-nemesis. However, Angel was Lindsay's. That's why he took Lorne killing him so personal. Angel was dealing with everything at that point. he knew that Lindsay would betray him. Maybe not that night, but eventually he would need to be dealt with, and Angel didn't think that he was walking away that night anyway so it had to be done then. He didn't have time to deal with it so he had someone else do it. If you didn't notice, Angel was through with honor. It wasn't about that. It was about doing the job. Doing everything one can. That's what he did.
As for Wesely, I sort of agree but not really. Wes was my favorite ME character of all time. I hated seeing the character...(pinky to mouth) Fade Away.... but I see why it was done. Read the post below and read Alexis Denisoff's reaction to Wes's death for that. Was he weak? He was only human. He was battling a being quite possibly as strong as Willow. I wouldn't say that he was weak. He just didn't have the firepower. I think it sucks that his final blow didn't kill Veil, but it works that way, especially with the whole "lie to me" ending that he had. He at least believed that he had succeeded. Don't think so much of Wes being weak. Try to think of it as Wes being extremely brave.

7

[> [> Re: honorable wasn't the point (spoilers, Not Fade Away) -- mac, 17:19:14 09/04/04 Sat

So, are you saying that is was OK for Angel to order Lindsey's death, because the latter would have eventually betray him?

Frankly, that doesn't sound like much of an excuse. And I still view Angel (and Lorne) as nothing more than murderers. Actually, Angel's attitude reminded me strongly of the Watcher's Council - especially Giles in "Lies My Parents Told Me".

[> [> Re: honorable wasn't the point (spoilers, Not Fade Away) -- BuffyObsessed, 14:59:03 09/07/04 Tue

Thanks for the explanation about Lindsay. I haven't seen that many other non-season 5 episodes. Just various ones from different seasons and like 1 with Lindsay actually in it. Though I do want to know what happened to Eve. She kinda just disappeared when she found out what happened to Lindsay. Also, I feel sorry for her. I was starting to warm up to her near the end!

[> Re: Rants on the Final Episode of Angel *spoiler* -- q 3, 19:52:07 09/02/04 Thu

Wesley may have failed in battle, but he finally succeeded in his role as Watcher. His young/ancient protege came through in the end.

[> [> Re: Rants on the Final Episode of Angel *spoiler* -- auroramama, 11:42:02 09/14/04 Tue

What a lovely point:

Wesley may have failed in battle, but he finally succeeded in his role as Watcher. His young/ancient protege came through in the end.

Even if it was mostly because of who he was, not what he did. Or perhaps the most remarkable thing he did was to remain in some sense himself, enduring feelings no one should ever have to confront to deal with a creature older than humanity, with incredible power, for whom want-take-have was the only conceivable existence. Perhaps Faith was just a practice run by comparison. What's a little torture between humans?

[> noreascon, angel panel, angel puppet -- anom, 22:58:28 09/02/04 Thu

Hi from Worldcon! There's already been a panel on the last ep of Angel. (Internet access here is limited, so I'll hold off on supplying details for now.)

But I had to let you know that a woman in one of the front rows at the panel had a working replica of puppet!Angel! I took a picture of it & then (since I was wearing my Chicago Gathering T-shirt--thanks, Sheri!) asked someone to take my picture w/it. I'll get them sent for posting when they're developed if they come out OK. (Also, my pics from Chicago are back--look for them to be posted, courtesy of LittleBit, soon after I get back home.)

And yes, cjl, I did ask the woman w/the puppet about getting a similar copy of puppet!you made. But she made the Angel puppet for herself; she doesn't do them for hire & doesn't know anyone who does. I even tried playing the birthday card, but no go. Sorry.

WSWB Buffy's Spiritual Journey 2.1 (part one of two) -- manwitch, 08:49:46 09/03/04 Fri

(These will get shorter soon, I promise.)

Season Two doesn t take long to tell us what it is about.

Xander and Willow open the first episode of the season playing a game and wondering about Buffy the day before school starts. And in their symbolic function, Willow as spirit and Xander as the heart--the organ of desire--they suggest Buffy s inward struggle between selfish desire and spiritual commitment.

Willow s offerings in the game (The Terminator and Star Wars) are movies in which spiritual commitment trumps selfish desire. And the lines she offers are lines that empitomize that triumph. In each movie a metaphor exists for human beings in selfish pursuits, who in their desire only for self gratification and preservation become soulless machines on the inside (The Terminator and Darth Vader with his team of mechanical looking soldiers). And in each movie a character is able to set aside their own self-gratification to invest in something more and thereby save the world. This is what is on Willow s mind, Buffy s spirit. She wants the energies of the heart to be channeled in the direction of spiritual aims. To love without the desire to cheat death, to trust the force that binds us all together. The heart in service to the spiritual life.

But Willow has cause for concern. She has not heard from Buffy since the start of the summer, and we recall that was Prophecy Girl when Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with both a human and spiritual dimension, was baptized and felt the power of the spirit infuse her, and in fulfillment of prophecy sacrificed herself for the rest of the world and rose again. Buffy the Christ-figure was most certainly in contact with her spirit then. And in terms of Eastern religion, she had awakened herself to the spiritual journey by letting go of her normal childish ego (the first chakra in hinduism s kundalini yoga) and she had arguably faced and dispelled one of Maya s temptations of the Buddha, that of being moved by fear. In all aspects, Buffy is engaged and communicating with her spirit.

But since then, Willow has heard nothing, and this should give us pause. What is Buffy doing, that she no longer communes with her spiritual life, and what does that bode for the rest of the season? (The answers will be endless shopping and nothing good).

Xander as Buffy s heart gives us the clues to Buffy s disposition. For Xander is both over Buffy and yet still interested. Buffy s heart no longer desires Buffy in a narcissistic way. We saw her put an end to that in Prophecy Girl. But she is still the focus of interest of her own heart. Her heart (Xander) says I still have desires, needs. And those desires are still in the interest of Buffy. As a metaphor for Buffy, he is suggesting Buffy s selfish desire.

The movie Xander offers in their game is Planet of the Apes, a story in which the human desire for their own gratification and their own power and advancement at the expense of a compassionate commitment to humanity produces nuclear holocaust and an upside-down world ruled by apes. Taylor selfishly and cynically searches for a better world than earth out in space. But it was the world he already had that would have been the better world had he tended to it. A heart interested in one s own gratification is a very dangerous thing. And yet that s where Buffy s heart seems to be. No wonder it has fallen out of touch with Willow.

Buffy s issue this season will be desire.

Desire and love are not the same. Desire is materialistic (think Buffy s shoes), love is spiritual. Christ did not seek his own gratification nor desire the preservation of his material form. Instead out of love for humanity he chose death, and thereby gave us all access to new life spiritually. The world of selfish desire is the world of materialistic self-preservation. It s a world without love, without humanity, without spiritual renewal, and without death. While Buffy s fate in season one was death, in season two she faces a fate worse than death. The world of selfish desire is the world of those who would preserve their lives at the expense of their spirit, a world of the walking dead and the soulless, threatening to suck the world into hell.

In Kundalini, the second chakra is at the level of the genitals and is about the energy of desire. In this tradition, the importance of sexual energy and desire is acknowledged. This passion is important. There is no life without it. And yet this energy is not the ground, end, or sole motivation of life. It must not dictate our lives, but be put in service to higher aims. The goal of the yogi at this stage is to feel this passion, but not be ruled by it, and allow it to pass through oneself and be channeled in the direction of other, higher pursuits. In kundalini, this chakra and energy is associated with the element water, and is symbolized in the chakra iconography by the moon. Water has long been used in our culture to symbolize the subconscious, particularly subconscious sexual drives. The moon represents water because of its effects on the tides, i.e. the ebb and flow of our subconscious, and because it fills and empties as it waxes and wanes.

(As an aside, is it possible that the line from Planet of the Apes, It s a madhouse! A madhouse! is given as Taylor is locked in a cell being hosed down by a fire hose as Nova, his woman-thing is taken away from him? I don t recall, but if it is that, it would lend even more significance to Xander s choice of line).

In the story of the Buddha, the first of the Buddha s temptations is actually desire. The second is fear. But for our purposes we can note that they are both initial temptations that the Buddha must pass before achieving enlightenment. Fear was the test of Buffy s first season, and it appears that desire will be the test of the second. How to pass that test?

Well, after their brief conversation about Buffy, Xander thinks of another movie, although he doesn t actually give a line from it as much as describe a scene. But Xander, as a heart apparently in the wrong place, aligns himself to the role of a character who mocks and abuses spiritual commitment for his own amusement and desires, much to Willow s irritation. That character takes a beating in the movie, literally. The movie is about a little Amish boy who, when in Philadelphia with his mother, witnesses a murder at the train station. The police officer, played by Harrison Ford, in order to protect mother and child, must flee with them back to amish land to escape the corrupt police who committed the murder. The murderers are, of course, selfish desire. They have been collecting money from a drug scam. Self gratification at the expense of their obligation to serve and protect. Murdering others to protect themselves. The amish, obviously, live a spiritual life based on love, commitment and community. And the title character, the witness, is not the boy.

At least it isn t just the boy. The title refers also to Harrison Ford, who is witness to this way of life and is transformed. And ultimately, to preserve that way of life and to protect the mother and boy who live it, he must surrender his own selfish desire for the woman, as she stands naked bathing in water. And the title refers also to the Amish community itself, which by its very existence and in its chosen way of life, bears witness to a spiritual world. In the last scene, Harrison Ford drives away, leaving this spiritual community that he has saved, and the woman he desired, but loved enough to part with. He elevated his desire to love, and let it pass through him to support higher aims.

And as if in a moment of recognition, Xander s desire seems to turn towards Willow. He leans in, hesitantly, but seeming to desire the kiss we all know Willow has been longing for, the kiss that will put the heart in line with the spirit (rather than the body) by elevating desire to love. But as he hesitates, they are interrupted, as a representative of the walking dead comes between them. Buffy returns at the same moment.

The teaser tells us an aweful lot about the coming season.

Replies:

[> WSWB Buffy's Spiritual Journey 2.1 (part two of two) -- manwitch, 08:53:53 09/03/04 Fri

The episode revolves around the immament resurrection of the Master. That has a symbolic meaning that infuses the whole episode and is a jumping off point for the whole season. It will become clearer as we go on, but it is essentially the idea that through selfish desire Buffy is abandoning her spiritual path and risking a return to the childish ego, frightened of death, that she had overcome in the first season.

The theme of desire is repeated in the Principle s inspirational talk to Giles and underscored by Giles meeting of Ms. Calendar. Their pointless desire to exist Snyder calls it, a desire he associates with hormones and lust.

The gang meets Cordelia in the hallway, and she asks them if they fought any demons over the summer. Xander immediately proclaims they fought their own personal demons like lust, then nodding to willow, and thrift. The message is that Buffy is going a little too big on the lust, and a little too thrifty on the spirit. But they tell Cordelia that she must not speak of such things, other people can t know. Cordelia, in a rather insulting fashion, says, You re secret is safe with me. Buffy responds, That s great. You don t tell anyone I m the Slayer, and I won t tell anyone you re a moron.

But Buffy is speaking to herself. If Buffy conceals her spiritual commitment she will just be a moron, devoid of spiritual concerns, immersed in the material world. And at the end of the episode, after all she had done, she realizes that she was exactly that moron throughout the episode. I was a moron she tells Giles. BtVS uses repetition a lot. This is an example. Buffy doesn t say, I was an idiot or a doofuss. She uses the exact same word she herself had used to describe Cordelia earlier. In selfishness she became the moron without spiritual commitment. Buffy the series does this a lot. Two different characters will use or be referred to as the same word, a word that is not otherwise very common in the series. It always tells us something about Buffy and her relationship to her spiritual calling.

The sequence at the Bronze is one of the best ever. Xander and Willow have gone to hear Cibo Matto. Rarely has a band been so prominently mentioned or so well advertised around the school. I think we are meant to sit up and take note. Willow attempts a reprise of the situation that nearly led to the kiss with Xander, but this time Xander is oblivious. He s looking for Buffy. The band is good, says Willow. And they are. The song they are performing is Spoon. Only the first line is really audible to us: Though the water boils. And one thinks instantly of the boiling waters of subconscious energy, in this case the energy of desire. Though they only do the first verse and refrain during the scene, here are the lyrics in full.

Though the water boils,
Don't turn off the heat
Can't find the spoon that we once had,
The sugar cubes will melt no more

We belong as two together,
We belong as two together...

How can you take my soul?
Stop...I need a new beat
Can't find the spoon that we once had,
The sugar cubes will melt no more

We belong as two together,
We belong as two together...

It s a song about desire, with great relevance to the coming season.

The next song they play is called Sugar Water, and again we hear the first line clearly (well, as clearly as Cibo Matto can make it): The velocity of time turns her voice into sugar water. Water again. Enter Buffy in full deliscious desire mode. She spurns Angel, saying I m sorry if I was supposed to be mooning over you, but I didn t. And then she does the sexy dance with Xander. It matters that Xander is the target of this. Buffy is backsliding. She is, for her own selfish purposes, tempting Xander, her own heart back into desire for her. Back into the narcissism of season one. Hence the immanent resurrection of the Master. It s the utlimate symbol of selfish desire. And the consequences are shown powerfully and beautifully in the uncomfortable look of Xander (heart), the devastated look of Willow (spirit) as Buffy seems to abandon the spiritual path, the angry look of Angel (Buffy s desire for the spiritual path), and even the pissed off Cordelia (who is still what Buffy would be without spiritual commitment. Their similarities are again brought home as they campaign for bitch of the year. But even Cordelia recognizes that, while she should be bitch of the year, Buffy should be more).

The cues in the editing of this song are really nice. Each time Buffy moves in on Xander, at the start of the dance and later when she moves in close to say Did I ever thank you, we hear the line When a black cat crosses my path. In our culture having a black cat cross your path is not an auspicious omen. In early folklore, the black cat was compared to a serpent, as the cat lay coiled on the hearth. So here is a suggestion of the serpent of kundalini that is stirring in Buffy and approaching the desire chakra, but also of the serpent of temptation and sin. (Black cats were also thought to carry the souls of the dead to the other world). Not that I think Cibo Matto wrote this song for Buffy. Obviously they didn t. But it was edited into the episode in a very specific way.

As she dances with Xander, and it s a really nummy dance, we hear in the song A woman in the moon is singing to the earth. The moon again represents the waters of our subconscious drives, including sexual drives. I suspect Buffy is the woman in that moon. The earth is the ground, the foundation of our being.

While the events of the Bronze are taking place, the Annointed One, the child, has his minions dig up the bones of the Master, which had been buried in the earth at the root of a great tree in the cemetary. The first chakra in kundalini, which is associated with the element earth and for which season one could be seen as a metaphor, is called the root support. It is the foundation for the spiritual axis, the tree of the spirit, that runs through the subtle body and through each chakra that sakti will arouse. The Buddha sat at the root of the Bodhi tree when tempted by fear and desire and touched his hand to the earth, calling upon the earth as mother of us all to testify to his right to be there unmoved. I think of these things whenever I see a prominent tree.

But when I see the vampires uncover the skull through the steaming sanctified ground, I can t help but think of the Cross of Christ planted on the Hill of the Skull in Calvary. The cross is planted where the skull of Adam is buried. When the blood of the saviour flows down the cross it sanctifies the ground and baptizes the original patriarch and redeems the past of mankind as well as its present and future. The Master is the patriarch of vampires, and Buffy is the self-sacrificed saviour. The Master represents the sinful past that Buffy s sacrifice in blood redeems.

Symbollically, the Cross is the Tree of Eternal Life, the second tree in the Garden. When Adam and Eve were tempted by the serpent, Adam reacted in fear, Eve reacted in desire. As they ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, everything was divided into pairs of opposites. Good/Evil, Man/Woman. God cast them out of the garden, lest they eat of the other tree and live forever. So since Adam, men and women have lived in sin, viewing some things as good, others as evil, desiring each other, and fearing death. This is the world of selfish and sinful desire. The material world. But when we taste of Christ, the fruit of the tree of eternal life, which is love, the desire to preserve our material lives and the fear of death fall away in the face of spiritual eternity.

This symbol is again a statement about what is coming in Season Two. When Buffy sees the Master s bones are gone, she is getting a message about backsliding. If Buffy is going to indulge her selfish desires, living in the material world, she cannot be the saviour. The blessing she bestowed with her sacrifice will be gone and past sins will appear again, unredeemed. Likewise, in Kundalini, the energy of the second chakra, desire, is associated with water for its tendency to flow downward. Pour some water somewhere, anywhere, and you ll see what it means. In kundalini, it means that desire can have a tendency to bond you again to your ego, the ego that you had escaped at chakra one. It can in essence pull you back to where you were before you started. And this is what we see happening in this episode. Its why the master is coming back, and the Annointed One, the child metaphor, is still active.

In many ways this episode exactly foretells Becoming. Buffy is fooled into meeting the vampire alone. Her conversation with Angel foreshadows the coming conlict. She returns to the library to see it smashed, and Xander, her heart just waking up to the fact that Willow, her spirit, is once again endangered by Buffy s recklessness. The difference is that at this point Buffy still does not elevate desire to love. She does what she must though. She goes to the factory, finds her friends, kills the vampires and in a very poignant scene, destroys the bones of the Master. Buffy will not go back to where she was before. It will be hard, but she will go forward, hoping to find a way to change lust to love. She turns into the arms of her desire for the spiritual path and weeps, as Willow casts a last hopeful look towards Xander.

The Top Ten Percent (so far)

1. Prophecy Girl
2. When She Was Bad
3. Nightmares
4. The Puppet Show
5. Angel
6. Never Kill a Boy on the First Date
7. Out of Mind, Out of Sight
8. I, Robot, You Jane
9. Witch
10. The Pack
11. Welcome to the Hellmouth
12. Teachers Pet
13. The Harvest
14.

[> [> Don't shorten them on my account. -- Sophist, 13:04:37 09/03/04 Fri

I'm lovin' every word, Mr. Dickens.

Only 131 episodes left.

[> [> [> Or on mine. -- Jane, 20:49:53 09/03/04 Fri

I enjoy these so much, they could be much longer and I'd be happy! I continue to be blown away by how much there is to see in this show, and thanks to essays like yours, I see them in a different light each time I watch them. Let me see now, I think I'm watching the whole cycle again for the 20th time...at least.

[> [> [> [> Re:Or on mine. -- angel's nibblet, 16:34:44 09/06/04 Mon

Don't even think about making these shorter!

I eagerly await your posts like a little child at Christmas :-D

Thank you.

[> I'd like to reply to this by email -- Lunasea, 17:25:51 09/03/04 Fri

I have some things I would like to discuss with you regarding this wonderful series of posts, but prefer to do so off-board. If you would email me at lunasea16@yahoo.com, we could continue this dialogue in a more hospitable environment.

Fray, twins and the writer (Spoilers Fray) -- Ann, 08:54:31 09/03/04 Fri

Well, because sometimes ones life is reflected to brightly to dismiss not doing something, I give you my thoughts about Fray as twin.

We meet Melaka Fray as girl looking down from atop a building, gun at the ready, aiming at arms reaching towards her. This sets up the theme of striving, gaining, reaching upward; life a stuggle, a common theme from Mr. Whedon. The world she lives in, apocalyptic in nature, appears to offer nothing. The world has died, and she is still trying to fight back. We know she is a slayer, we share the secret, but it is news to her. She is discovered by the demons, and sought out by all. Because these are comics, she has been made more superhero-ish than Buffy. She swings through the sky on chains, has amped up guns, and wears Dr. Martins. I am glad they never went out of style. The future is conceived with flying cars, cute kick-butt women and demons, but what else would be expect from JW.

As we see her first fight happens, she falls. With humour and grace. Her hero s journey begins and unlike Piggy who would not rise again, Melaka does. With that, we are introduced to her courage, strength and wit. Then we and she get the back-story, and as with all Whedon projects, there is much to mine. She is thief; she has many siblings, a dead twin brother named Harth, and a sister named Erin, a cop, the face of order. Melaka thinks herself as not being very good at taking care of anyone , but we learn almost immediately she takes care of a one armed girl named Loo (I couldn t help but think of Dr Suess Cindy Lou Who in How The Grinch Stole Christmas who puts the Grinch on the correct path). Hints of Lyndsay and Spike not withstanding hee. These first few chapters set up her loss of her twin brother with flashbacks to his death while setting up her discovery of herself as slayer. These flashbacks are black and white drawing, so contrasting with the intense colour of the rest. The colour went out of her life on that day, so great is twin loss. From CLIMB (Center for Loss in Multiple Birth): One of the hallmarks of grief is the feeling of isolation, and the lack of special support has made it more likely for each family to feel "alone" or like "the only one" in the devastation they face.

We learn her slayerness is not what we expected from our knowledge of past slayers. She never had the dreams , although she has the strength. Her twin brother was older than her by about twenty minutes making him Baby A, her Baby B. This designation is made for multiple pregnancies, the Baby being lower in the uterus is Baby A and so on moving up naming Baby B and so on. There are personality traits associated with these designations as well as medical aspects. Baby A s traits generally include being larger at birth, fewer birth defects, fewer deaths, and in terms of personality tend to be the more aggressive twin. They have more of the first born traits attributed to older children. Baby B s otoh, tend to be smaller, resulting in more medical problems including birth defects and death. Because they are born second, their birth can be more traumatic given they are in the mother longer and sometimes their births need to be c-section even if their twin was vaginal. Their personality traits tend to be the mellower child, less athletic and less aggressive. However, these generalized traits are not necessarily reflected in Mel and Harth.

Harth was the one saddled with the dreams. She received the superhero strength. I think this lends much explanation to slayer mythology. She and her brother were fraternal twins resulting from two separate eggs of their mother. Only identical twins once were one egg. Therefore, I think that the slayerness is a result of a magical implanting rather than genetics. Not identical twins but may have a mystical, magical quality that endows them both with partial slayerness. It also could represent the connection between twins that is already present regardless of their slayerness. That is unless the mother is a carrier and can pass it to boys, which we have never seen. (Wood being the only other male example we have been shown and he showed no signs of slayerness) Perhaps that was Harth s birth defect, so much more common in twins. We have never seen a male slayer so Harth s inheritance becomes very important. Being chosen was offered twice in this pregnancy, neither being the whole. Whedon does this twinning with all his characters, but here he makes it flesh, makes it real.

Then Whedon kills it, makes it evil and throws it back into the face of the slayer. Melaka s guilt for her brother s death is understandable but not justified. Given the twin bond, this was devastating. Her apocalyptic world reflected her own struggle to exist in this loss. And when she finally meets him again, he is set above. He is on a platform that is very reminiscent to me of the Anointed One back in WSWB. Harth is destined for greatness he believes, because he knows what we will become . He also says I loved her. I killed her. The very same words spoken by Buffy about Angel. Sigh. I find is interesting that her twin is the one who reveals so much about her to her. The mirror if you will. They fight and he flings her into the water, ala Prophesy Girl. However, she can swim, and rises again. No Xander necessary this time. She is shattered, but her mission clear. Whedon makes flesh the fight against ones nature, the fight for self.

There is also a tie to the twin gods Apollo and Artemis (Diana). She goddesses of the hunt (slayer) and protector of young animals (Loo); he god of archery (the piercing of the vampire), prophesy, music and healing.

I also think this is a meta narration on Whedon as writer, split from his creations, he makes them much like a vampire makes another vampire. He creates these creatures, torments them much like a vampire does. He has made slayers, something he so dearly loves, and then kills them with his torments. Her male half torments Melaka, Harth is Whedon. But the slayer will never die, they are always called, so it is twisted round and Melaka surrenders to her calling, Whedon surrenders to his craft.

But what of the fans? Harth says I loved the way you blamed Mel for my death. The way you shut her out It was rocketship, watching her bleed for your love You joined the laws, I almost died again laughing. You just couldn t get further away from her. How did watching her die feel? Big Rush? Little rush?

I wonder about Whedon s view of his fans. Does he blame us for wanting more? Is the obsession we share scary to him? As much as he provides us with the dope, he must wonder. We are the twin he is trying to understand. So he kills us. He sees himself in us. We are the vampires, always wanting more of him, his work. He slays us. Literally and metaphorically. Mel and Harth are only half a slayer each, because the reader and the writer share a connection, and only together they, we, become whole.

Replies:

[> Re: Fray, twins and the writer (Spoilers Fray) -- Pony, 13:40:52 09/03/04 Fri

Very neat analysis. I'm hoping that your view of how Joss sees fans isn't true though...

What I find interesting in Fray in light of your analysis is how vampires are portrayed. The "lurks" are not very human looking and certainly in no way attractive - we're in a very vampires as monster mode rather than the representation of desirable Other that we got on early BtVS. But then we get Harth, always in human face, and of course Mel's literal twin. It's not simply vampire as dark reflection but vampire as part of herself. All the parts that are missing as it turns out to be.

I still feel like Fray wrapped up too quickly (though with all the delays between issues it certainly took a long time), but there's lots of juicy stuff in there.

[> [> Reader, writers, vampires, slayers, spoilers -- Ann, 04:56:57 09/04/04 Sat

Pony: I took your response and wrote this as addendum and more explanation.

Yesterdays essay veered off from twins to writer/reader, which in fact is a similar thing. I have been thinking a lot about this subject for a few months now. A while back, there was an article written that was discussed in lj by Orson Scott Card. It was very misogynistic and I was shocked that he actually wrote it. He did. It began me thinking about how the personal lives of writers may or may not come across in their writing. His writing, which I have loved for years, and in fact, his family has shared some of the family experiences that I have, never came across as misogynist at all. He did have a more traditional slant to his characters; family was the source of strength but pain too. He never whitewashed the difficulty of families and their struggles. I thought he captured them with honesty and beauty. Women were strong. Men were strong. Children were vulnerable and needed protecting and that was always the highest goal in his stories. But this article put women firmly back into the only role he thought that they should be employed mother. It scared me that I put so much of my self into reading him, that I may have completely misread him. I don t like that. I pride myself on finding the tone of the author in all that I read. Sometimes, as a great writer, that tone can be hidden pretty well. But that tells us something too.

I have read Shakespeare lately, as you know. His genius was his ability to see all of humanity and never allow the reader to lose respect for them. No matter what they do. And he was completely in touch with the reader/viewer as they were sitting in front of him every night of his plays. He couldn t help but realize they were there. He heard their claps, hisses, or (I can t imagine) boos. He may have written alone, but he got feedback pretty quickly. He challenged his readers, may even have gently mocked them, but was always fair to them.

I have been reading Carol Ann Duffy lately also. Her genius I think is that her poetry is very deceiving. She writes simply, but it is filled, just filled, every line, to allusions to other poems. The commonness has brought her readers. Her poems don t scare on first reading, but then they do. They are sharp and cutting, and will cut you apart if you are not careful. It happened to me walking across campus one day while having my nose stuck in her book. This is a game with the reader maybe. She teases us in, and then throws it all at us. Her view of love is genderless I think. Not the pain of action that women have experienced from men in their love, but her description of the emotions of the feeling. Not the cultural expression, but from the inside. Although gay, her descriptions are so true; they are for all of us of any combination.

So back to Whedon of course, because it always goes back to him. Yesterday s essay gave the impression maybe, that I put a judgment on the word vampire in relation to how the writer/reader thing happens. I didn t mean to. Maybe that is why he chose the word lurker to describe them. Although they are in monster face always, except Harth, their description is less dangerous. Someone who watches. Hmm. Makes us rethink the watcher s council, or maybe this was just one more verbal explosion against hierarchy. As to reader, could we call those that watched Shakespeare s plays lurkers? Someone who hangs around for more? Whedon needs us, he wants us or he wouldn t write and make it public. When it is made public, it is for consumption. Consumption has many levels, and I mean all of them. Consumption in as to eat, blood for vampires, books for us, consume as in a public commodity and maybe even as sickness. Hee. However, the fact remains that he gets feedback in many ways. The kazillion websites devoted to his work hopefully gives him some feedback. The word lurker may be a hello to his fans on discussion boards, even those that fear speaking. Everyone apologizes for being a lurker. Is there weakness in that? I don t think so. I was one for very long. I hope Whedon intentionally used that word for all of these reasons. I hope this relationship makes him happy, that he sees the joy he has given us all, because I know it is true for me. But there is a dark side to every relationship, and our expectations, especially on a board like this, are great. Spike is hot/Angel is hot boards do not have high expectations. He needn't fear those. lol.

His slayer/vampire relationship shows they are tied forever to each other. A slayer has to slay, has to find the vampire, seek them out. They get antsy if they don t. A vampire is drawn to a slayer, shown so well depicted with Spike and Angel. They have to have her; they have to kill her. Those that don t fear her still want her. Whedon gives us this relationship. I could exchange the words slayer/vampire with writer/reader (in any combination) and the sentences would still mostly hold true. Writers that are lucky enough to be published are putting themselves out there. Readers want to read and may be lucky enough to find a writer that speaks to them. Whether lurking in a bookstore, trolling the web or a library, we seek it out. Whedon knows that because he has admitted he writes for people like himself.

There now I have coffee. Better. This post has been rolling around in my head since 4 this morning.

More on the twin stuff in Fray later. There is a whole lot more, but I got sidetracked.

How would the new slayers/W.C. attitude will be against good demons? -- megaslayer, 17:20:53 09/03/04 Fri

From the Scooby Gang will teach the new council/slayers that they should only go after evil demons/entities. Consider also each member has dated a supernatural creature/demon.

Replies:

[> Re: How would the new slayers/W.C. attitude will be against good demons? -- Wizard, 22:36:48 09/03/04 Fri

The Scoobies would teach the new Slayers to try to avoid going after non-harmful demons. I get the impression that that has always been the WC's SOP, as seen by their tolerance of vampire brothels.

[> [> Re: How would the new slayers/W.C. attitude will be against good demons? -- skpe, 07:53:16 09/04/04 Sat

And they became friends with Clem, (despite his taste for cats)

[> [> [> Thanks! I knew I forgot something! -- Wizard, 23:50:07 09/04/04 Sat

a couple of questions abt Lie To Me -- ghady, 04:27:35 09/04/04 Sat

1) "Run and catch; the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch." Is this is REAL rhyme or not?

2) There's a very bright, dream-like scene where Ford tells Buffy to go meet him somewhere. Was the dreaminess of the scene intentional or not?

Replies:

[> Re: a couple of questions abt Lie To Me -- DorianQ, 11:52:15 09/04/04 Sat

1) possibly is all I can say.

2) I think what Joss was going for there was to make it bright and sunny and pretty, not foreboding at all. It serves as a counterpoint to Billy's dark intentions and the rest of the darkness surrounding Buffy at the time (the lies her friends told her, the revelations of Angel's past). It might also be connected to Billy's later confession, but I'm not exactly sure.

the First seriously is DUMB -- ghady, 10:17:59 09/04/04 Sat

how THICK can the oldest evil be??
see, if IIII were the First, i wouldn't have BOTHERED with a couple of wimps to open the seal of whoever.
i would've told my MINIONS to do it.
instead of taunting poor little andrew, i would've gone like "hey, you, bringer. i command thee to kidnap a young hapless mortal and slit his throat above the seal of whatshisface." (it didn't even HAVE to be a MORTAL!! i'm suuuree the bringers could easily have slaughtered a PIG!!!)
couldn't the writers have given like a teeeny tiiiiiiny explanation as to WHYY the First did not use any of his devoted disciples to do Its dirty work for It??

Replies:

[> Re: the First seriously is DUMB -- DorianQ, 11:45:20 09/04/04 Sat

I think because he/she wanted someone on the inside of the scoobie gang. They would have just killed any bringers they found. But the scoobies didn't really view Andrew as a legitimate threat, and so they let him into the Summers home, giving the First the chance to have someone do ALL his dirty work there, although why he chose Andrew instead of Jonathan still eludes me and pisses me off.

[> [> because Jonothan was serious about giving up being evil -- Majin Gojira, 14:15:05 09/05/04 Sun

Andrew was still plyable for its purposes...sorta. Jonothan was not.

[> [> [> Re: because Jonothan was serious about giving up being evil -- DorianQ, 20:50:38 09/06/04 Mon

ALL of the characters were plyable by the First and often without their knowledge and with good intentions of thier part (Buffy, Faith, Spike, Angel). Really, it nearly got Willow to kill herself. They couldn't have done the later subplot where he wears a wire, but I thought that was dumb anyway (basically a plot device to give the characters who weren't Spike or Buffy something to do during the episode). Jonathan was already holding Andrew at swordpoint at the end of Season Six, and it would have been a piece of cake to get him to kill him over the seal, especially using the Star Wars metaphors.

[> [> [> [> How well do you remember "Conversations with Dead People"? -- Majin Gojira, 05:25:34 09/07/04 Tue

Because if you listen to Jonothan's dialogue in that episode, you'r understand what I mean:

From the Final Act:

JONATHAN
We almost got this thing uncovered.

ANDREW
Yep.

JONATHAN
I hope Buffy'll know how to destroy it. (stops digging) 36-19-27! That's it! That was my locker combination. (digs) God, it's been bugging me all night.

ANDREW
Dude, we spent the last few years trying to forget about high school. Why are you trying so hard to remember it?

JONATHAN
I don't know. I guess I miss it. Don't you?

ANDREW
Yeah, I really miss it.

JONATHAN
(stops digging) No, I'm serious. I really miss it. Time goes by, and everything drops away. (Andrew stops digging, looks at Jonathan) All the cruelty, all the pain, all that humiliation. It all washes away.

Andrew looks over Jonathan's shoulder and sees Warren standing there, staring at him.

JONATHAN
I miss my friends. I miss my enemies. I miss the people I talked to every day. I miss the people who never knew I existed. I miss 'em all. I want to talk to them, you know. I want to find out how they're doing. I want to know what's going on in their lives.

ANDREW
You know what? They don't wanna talk to you all those people you just mentioned. Not one of them is sitting around going, "I wonder what Jonathan's up to right now." Not one of them cares about you.

JONATHAN
Well, I still care about them. That's why I'm here.

That really hits home my point right there illustrating the differences between Andrew and Jonothan and why the first chose him instead of Jonothan.

[> [> [> [> [> That's the point -- DorianQ, 18:45:09 09/07/04 Tue

He was written that way in CWDP because the character needed closure (since he had been involved with the show since the beginning) and Andrew needed some sort of depth to his character to justify his continued existence on the show. I guess I'm talking less about the First choosing Andrew over Jonathan as Joss choosing A over J, which flummoxes me. It works well as written and is a good end for Jonathan, but it felt premature; like it was just closure for closure's sake. Plus, I just can't imagine him being written as slapsticky or held in such continual disregard as Andrew outside of Storyteller.

None of that was my main point, which was that everyone can be manipulated into doing something; everyone has buttons that can be pushed, even if you know where they are.

[> [> [> [> Re: because Jonothan was serious about giving up being evil -- Rook, 15:12:55 09/07/04 Tue

>>Really, it nearly got Willow to kill herself

I'd call that a radical interpretation of the text:

CASSIE: So go. Be with her. Everybody will be safe, and you'll be together again. It's not that bad. Really. It's just like going to sleep.

Willow suspects that something's wrong. She stands cautiously.

WILLOW: Who are you?

Instantly standing and asking "Who are you?" when suicide is mentioned is a far cry from "nearly" being talked into suicide.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: because Jonothan was serious about giving up being evil -- DorianQ, 18:53:03 09/07/04 Tue

True, I was exaggerating a little to make my point. But, the First had definitely moved her pretty far in that direction. But he/she misread her and did push too hard and too soon with the suicide advice. But before that, Willow didn't suspect a thing. Another hour, she might have been more receptive, which was what made it so scary even after you knew Cassie was being malevolent.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I think that just disproved that the first could manipulate anyone -- Majin Gojira, 05:50:43 09/08/04 Wed

Furthermore in regards to Jonathan, there are several lines in "Two to Go" and "Grave" that further support the reasons why Andrew was Chosen.

ANDREW: (scared) Stop it, just stop! (to Jonathan) Why is she doing this? Tell her, we didn't do anything.
JONATHAN: Yes we did. We signed on, we teamed up, we wanted to see where our plans would take us, well take a look.

Here, we see him taking some responsibility for his actions as compared to Andrew.

Jonathan gets up, walks a little closer.

JONATHAN: Could I take a look at it?
BUFFY: Shut up.
JONATHAN: Right.

Jonathan starts to turn back to his seat, pauses, addresses Buffy.

JONATHAN: I just thought, you know, as long as you're protecting us, the least I could do is-
BUFFY: I'm not protecting you, Jonathan. None of us are. We're doing this for Willow. The only reason it happens to be your lucky day? Is because Willow kills you, she crosses a line, I lose a friend. (gets right up in Jonathan's face) And I hate losing.
JONATHAN: I get that. It's just ... you know she's running out of power, right? I can tell. I can practically feel it. (quietly, embarrassed) I've dabbled in the magicks.
XANDER: I think Willow's in a league of her own about now, dabble-boy.
JONATHAN: But still, running that hot for that long, it's just a matter of time before you gotta re-charge, no matter how juiced up you are.
BUFFY: Thank you. Now you remember that thing we talked about?
JONATHAN: About me shutting up?

There, we have Jonathan activly trying to help the gang, even though they won't let him.

ANDREW: (softly) Why are you helping them?
JONATHAN: Because they're saving our lives, you moron.
ANDREW: Uh-huh. And what then? Even if they kill that Wicca bitch, you think they're just gonna let us walk? They own us.
JONATHAN: So what do you want me to do?
ANDREW: Look around. You know magic. We're in a magic shop. We can take them.

Jonathan looks at him incredulously.

ANDREW: The books are sucked dry, but so what? There's still like tons of supplies all around us. This is the best chance we're gonna get to make it out of here.
JONATHAN: And do what?
ANDREW: Start over. We can be a Duo. You and me. You can even be the leader, I swear, I'll take orders. (Jonathan looking contemplative) I like taking orders. Just tell me what to do.

Jonathan looks like he's considering it.

JONATHAN: You want an order?

Suddenly Jonathan jumps up, grabbing Andrew by the front of his shirt, and slams him against a bookcase.

JONATHAN: Grow up.

Look at Andrew. Look at Jonathan. Who is going to be the easier to get to follow orders?

XANDER: If you wanna keep breathing, you gotta keep moving.
ANDREW: (to Xander) This is bogus. We gotta get out of this town. (realizing something, turning to Jonathan) Mexico. We should go to Mexico.
XANDER: Hey. You're not going anywhere. We just gotta find a place to hide you two until we get the all-clear from Buffy.
ANDREW: Yeah, and what if the Slayer's dead already? (Dawn looking alarmed) We're just supposed to sit around waiting for Sabrina to show up and disembowel us?
XANDER: You do what I say to-

Andrew suddenly lifts his sword, putting its point to Xander's throat.

ANDREW: I don't think so.

Xander stands very still with the sword point at his chin.

XANDER: Whoa, whoa. Okay, Andy. Let's just put the sword down.
ANDREW: Oh, no way. I'm not gonna die because of something I didn't even do.
XANDER: You're not gonna die.

Dawn steps forward.

DAWN: (firmly) Leave him alone.

Jonathan extends his own sword, putting its point on the back of Andrew's neck.

JONATHAN: Let him go, Andrew. (beat) You heard me.
ANDREW: You let me go first.
JONATHAN: Uh-uh. Him.
ANDREW: It's your move.
JONATHAN: No. Yours.
ANDREW: I'm not moving. (Dawn watching tensely) I'm not gonna budge 'til...

Jonathan pushes his sword into Andrew's neck.

ANDREW: ...right now. (whiny) Ow!

Andrew lowers his sword and glares at Jonathan.

JONATHAN: Xander's right. We're not leaving Sunnydale. When this is over, you and I are going back to jail to do our time.

Again, more setup for the "Conversations with Dead People" scene.

Sure, the first COULD have chosen Jonathan, but it would have been much harder, and much LESS believable. I think you're just upset that they killed Jonathan so quickly.

But, just because I'm curious, how WOULD the First manipulate Jonathan?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess I'm missing something... -- DorianQ, 21:29:58 09/09/04 Thu

Are you saying that only evil people can be tricked into doing things? Because I would totally disagree with that. I don't think that Jonathan wasn't tring to duck responsibility or anything to that effect. I'm just remembering the adage that the way to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for a scenario, Jonathan is told that which he already knows, that Andrew isn't a nice guy that "needs to be stopped." Like you said, Jonathan already dug a sword into Andrew's neck and it isn't a huge stretch to think he could carry out the full act of stabbing him. The First tells Jonathan that such an act of valor over the seal of Danzathar would destroy it or deactivate it.

The messenger matters a little, but it's okay as long whoever it is has a personal connection to him, like a deceased member of his family (which I don't think we've ever met), or to feature Warren and the full trio together again, they could make it like another Star Wars reference, where Darth Vader was turned good at the end of ROTJ after he died (Yes, I know he killed the emperor before he died, but they could make that into a joke too, like in the present version).

All I'm saying is that it was a definite option and a direction they COULD have gone in.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> But Andrew's so much easier -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:00:38 09/09/04 Thu

I wouldn't even call him an evil person, just an incredibly weak willed person. His nature is to attach himself to someone and become their little lapdog. He is much, much easier to manipulate than Jonathan. I mean, after appearing as Warren, the First probably needed twenty minutes tops to get Andrew to agree to kill his best friend, sell his soul, and do pretty much anything else the First felt like having him do. Jonathan would require a lot more time and effort, not to mention that he poses the threat of waffling out when the big moment comes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I guess I'm missing something... -- auroramama, 09:19:45 09/13/04 Mon

I hypothesize that it makes a difference to the First what kind of manipulation is necessary. It likes to hit people's weak points, especially their darkness, and it's fond of death wishes, which certainly aren't restricted to evil people. I may be forgetting something, but it doesn't seem to favor total misinformation, where the illusion removes any need for a motive -- for example, making you think you're flipping an omelet when you're really decapitating your buddy. It wants people to have a reason, and that reason should be evil, painful, or sad.

What ould happen if these people wrote and/or directed an episode of Buffy? -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:38:17 09/04/04 Sat

Quentin Tarantino

Kevin Smith

Stephen King

Anne Rice

George Lucas

Sam Raimi

Stephen Spielberg

Stanley Kubrick

Neil Gaiman

Andy Kauffman

Larry David

Wes Craven

Imagine if each of them wrote or directed an episode of [I]Buffy[/I], if given complete creative control? What do you think would be the result? I have some of my own speculations, but I'd prefer to see what others think first.

Replies:

[> Darn it! You beat me to such a post! -- Majin Gojira, 16:34:06 09/04/04 Sat

[> Re: What ould happen if these people wrote and/or directed an episode of Buffy? -- littletrigger, 16:44:28 09/04/04 Sat

wes craven sure would give us some good spike.

[> My take on Sam Raimi... -- SS, 18:27:21 09/04/04 Sat

I think he would have shown more skin...like more mini skirts and he would have had more musical episodes.

:)

SS

[> How about which episode each of these people should have directed? -- Ames, 18:28:35 09/04/04 Sat

e.g.

Stephen King - Killed By Death

Steven Spielberg - Chosen

[> My takes -- Ann, 19:38:16 09/04/04 Sat

Quentin Tarantino Bad Girls

Kevin Smith - Hush

Stephen King Into the Woods

Anne Rice Harm s Way

George Lucas There is no place like PG.

Sam Raimi Hellbound

Stephen Spielberg Seeing Red

Stanley Kubrick - Restless

Neil Gaiman Lies my Parents told me

Andy Kauffman The Ring

Larry David - The Girl in Question

Wes Craven The Gift, or The Body

[> [> Re: My takes -- skpe, 07:18:37 09/05/04 Sun

How about Sam Peckinpah for 'Chosen' (and yes I know he's dead)

[> [> Re: My takes -- Loki, 07:26:17 09/05/04 Sun

Kevin Smith relies almost solely on witty dialogue for his flicks. He couldn't have pulled off hush.

[> [> [> Re: My takes -- Ann, 07:35:20 09/05/04 Sun

Very true, but he did write Jay and Silent Bob strike back. Hee

[> [> LOL! "Larry David - The Girl in Question" -- cjl, 08:40:31 09/05/04 Sun

That might have saved the episode in my eyes.

SPIKE: So what's this all about anyway?
ANGEL: We're here to save Buffy.
SPIKE: Slayer doesn't need our help. Never has.
ANGEL: We're supposed to bring back the demon head.
SPIKE: You call that a sub-plot? I've seen trained monkeys do better.
ANGEL: Then...I guess we're here to demonstrate how we've become trapped in our patterns and can't move on.
SPIKE: You mean arguing like a couple of bloody fishwives over the minutiae of our lives?
ANGEL: Pretty much.
SPIKE: In other words, it's about nothing.

[Beat.]

SPIKE: Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[> [> Neil Gaiman--great choice for "Lies My Parents Told Me". I could totally see that. -- Rob, 17:43:11 09/05/04 Sun

[> Some Better, Some Worse... -- AngelVSAngelus, 10:57:55 09/05/04 Sun

Quentin Tarantino - much more gritty violence. I find it hard to imagine him writing Buffy, but he'd be able to try his hand at Angel, where moral ambiguity and anti-heroes are more the order of the day.

Kevin Smith - Definitely relegated to Buffy for his usage of pithy dialogue and humor. He'd make the show more humor based than dramatic, though, and I wouldn't enjoy that as much.

Stephen King - He's never had a good track record for screenwriting. The good adaptations of his wonderful novels are written by someone else, like Frank Darabont.

Anne Rice - More homoerotic subtext between Angel and Spike, Wesley and Gunn, and just about every other male pairing you could think of. Less monstrous vamps, more sensual.

George Lucas - All the metaphor and symbolism would get wicked-obvious to the point of bludgeoning you over the head. And he may cast that awful Hayden Christensen in an ep too. No thanks.

Sam Raimi - I have nooooo idea. I'd hope that Spidey and Evil Dead would be more indications than Xena as to what he'd do.

Stephen Spielberg - He'd be good for fifth season Buffy, as Spielberg is always at his best when he's dealing with the theme of lost childhood.

Stanley Kubrick - Man, Angel no doubt. But don't expect anything to be said about heroism. Kubrick's world would be a dark, dirty, and ultimately cynical.

Neil Gaiman - Mythic scale and allusions galore. I think he'd be more suited to Buffy than Angel.

[> [> Some of us rather liked Xena. -- skeeve, 07:31:21 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> Darn tootin'! I had my own Xena Yahoo! Club (when they were called "clubs" there) back in the day. -- Rob, 17:29:54 09/09/04 Thu

[> [> Xena -- skeeve, 08:15:07 09/13/04 Mon

Xena had the combination of deadly seriousness and humor that made Buffy so wonderful to watch.

Xena had much better flora. Greece imported it from New Zealand.
Xena's fauna was about as pretty and there was more of it.

[> My Takes, plus some added ones -- Majin Gojira, 13:51:29 09/05/04 Sun

Quentin Tarantino - Definitely an "Angel" Guy. He's done Vampires before in an Over the Top Manner with a good friend (see: "From Dusk Till Dawn"). Whatever the episode's story would be, it would be extraordinarily violent and over the top. With the same stuntwork from "Kill Bill".

Kevin Smith - Buffy. He'd probably tell a Xander and/or Dawn centered adventure, showing the two major non-powered characters doing great because they are just human.

Stephen King - Shouldn't write it as a TV show, but do a Novel. It would be a horror-story. Either cast or both could be involved fighting some dark, unnamed force. And they'd eventually come across some Graphiti that reads "Yog-Sothoth Rules!".

Anne Rice - Would be to Joss Whedon what August Derleth is to H.P. Lovecraft. Nothing more to say.

George Lucas - Either show. He would only DIRECT the Episode, however. Someone else would write it based on his idea. That idea would likely involve inter-dimensional travel and an "Epic" scale.

Sam Raimi - Would bring Bruce Campbell's "Ash" to the Buffyvese. And there would be much Rejoicing. A plot involving the Necronomicon would be the clinch.

Stephen Spielberg - Is to busy to direct it, so he Produces it instead. Someone else writes it, but his visual style pervades. It would likely invovle Dawn or Conner to some degree.

Stanley Kubrick - is Dead. Willow Raises him to direct an Angel episode...the plot is anyone's guess. But whatever he'd do, it's be extraordinarily dark and thought provoking (and, sadly, rather ponderous)

Wes Craven - Buffy vs. Freddy anyone? (What!? It would work metaphorically as a demonic mysoginist fights the current metaphore of female empowerment!)

Ang Lee - The story is extraodinarily emotional and downright "French" in how everything is pent up. The stunt work would be done by the team that did "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". It's probably have a focus on Buffy's Lovelife (and how much it sucks).

Neil Gaiman - As far as I know, he has yet to direct something. But given "Sandman" and an the upcoming "Sin City"...it would be complex, metaphoric and visually amazing

Tim Burton - His visual Style would pervade the film. The plot would vary, but there would probably be a sympathetic monster in it at some point.

Andy Kaufman - I have no idea what he'd do. But it'd certainly be strange and humorous from the right angles

[> [> Re: 2 cents, not much more -- Buffalo, 00:34:22 09/06/04 Mon

Ann beat me to Kubrick doing "Restless."

"Fool for Love," was intentionally done as though Tarantino would've directed it.

BTW, I think "Hush," could've been made by Fritz Lang

[> David Kelley -- skeeve, 07:34:49 09/07/04 Tue

Someone should show us Sunnydale from the legal system's point of view.
Even now, there are still all the insurance claims.
What happens when legal investigators find Buffy's grave?

[> [> Re: David Kelley -- skpe, 12:18:30 09/07/04 Tue

Buffy s gravesite is now a big crater. But before 'chosen' what if those investigators had found Chloe and Annabel s graves. Two young girls in unmarked shallow graves in Buffy s back yard would have caused all sorts of commotion

[> [> [> Re: David Kelley -- skeeve, 09:22:50 09/08/04 Wed

My recollection is that Buffy's grave was farther out of towm than most.
Are you sure that Buffy's grave went the way of most Sunnydale graves?

I hadn't remembered that Chloe and Annabel were buried in Buffy's back yard.
That would have caused a commotion all right.

Even without the graves, there are still all those insurance claims.

If a Old One were to die on earth and not come back, would its essence vanish? -- megaslayer, 20:09:49 09/05/04 Sun

If a old one wasn't put in the deeper well would its essence dissapate to nothing or be destroyed when its body is dead.

Replies:

[> Certainly not! -- an_old_one ;o), 23:10:48 09/05/04 Sun

[> The Old Ones Were. The Old Ones Are. The Old Ones Shall Be Again! -- Majin Gojira, 06:46:15 09/06/04 Mon

That is not dead which can eternal lie
And in strange eons even death may die!

[> Re: If a Old One were to die on earth and not come back, would its essence vanish? -- Alistair, 14:26:07 09/07/04 Tue

I think that the life essense of the Old Ones could never dissipate, because matter and energy cannot be destroyed, only moved from one place/form/time perhaps to another. It is likely that all the Old Ones who died were put in the deeper well, and the ones who are dying in different dimensions have similar storage facilities. Otherwise, they would be rampant across the multiverse everywhere.

happy birthday, marie! -- anom, 12:48:06 09/06/04 Mon

I was gonna wait till I got home from Worldcon ('cause then I could post it in Welsh!), but by the time I'm back your birthday might be over. So [something] hapus--hope you have a great celebration, w/cake & presents & all!

Replies:

[> Re: happy birthday, marie! and Arethusa too!!! -- Ann, 13:57:00 09/06/04 Mon

Happy birthday to you both!!

[> [> Re: happy birthday, marie! and Arethusa too!!! -- Jane, 16:02:51 09/06/04 Mon

Joining in to wish you both the happiest of birthdays! **Cuts them both a slice of Angelfood cake**

[> Happy birthday to Marie and Arethusa!! -- Masq, 16:31:50 09/06/04 Mon

[> Happy birthday, Marie! -- Cactus Watcher, 19:13:57 09/06/04 Mon

[> Happy Birthday Marie and Arethusa! -- LadyStarlight, 19:48:41 09/06/04 Mon

Hope you both had a wonderful day! (sends chocolate)

[> got it now: penblwydd hapus to marie & arethusa!! -- anom, 21:16:36 09/06/04 Mon

[> A very happy belated birthday to Marie and Arethusa -- Pony, 07:49:02 09/07/04 Tue

[> A very happy birthday to Marie and Arethusa! (And to my niece.) -- cjl, 08:23:35 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> your turn, cjl! happy 45th birthday! -- anom, 10:03:02 09/07/04 Tue

Is it a midlife crisis yet? Is the party rescheduled yet? And did you know it's also Google's birthday?

Hope you have a great birthday. Somehow, I'm sure we'll hear about it....

[> [> [> Oh yeah - Happy birthday cjl!!! -- Pony, 10:34:22 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> [> The midlife crisis: I've bought the Ferrari. Anybody want to provide the 22 year-old trophy wife? -- cjl, 11:24:54 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> Too late -- anyone that age will have seen you punked. -- Sophist, 12:42:14 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Ow. True, but....ow. -- cjl, 12:58:31 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> [> Have a great day!! Happy Birthday -- Ann, 15:47:16 09/07/04 Tue

I'm still working on the icons!

[> [> [> [> Many happy returns, cjl! Happy birthday! -- Jane, 19:56:53 09/07/04 Tue

[> [> Happy Birthdays to Aresthusa, Marie, and cjl -- s'kat, 16:18:01 09/07/04 Tue

[> Happy Birthday to all Birthday people! -- O'Cailleagh, 22:22:49 09/07/04 Tue

[> Hey, everyone's older now! -- OnM, 05:47:24 09/08/04 Wed

By an entire day, too! Whoa!

See you tomorrow...

:-)

[> [> "Older," by They Might Be Giants -- cjl, 09:29:17 09/08/04 Wed

OLDER (words and music: Flansburgh/Linnell)

You're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're even older.
And now you're even older.

You're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're older still.

TIME! Is marching on.
And time...
...is still marching on.

This day will soon be at an end and now it's even sooner.
And now it's even sooner.
And now it's even sooner.
This day will soon be at an end and now it's even sooner.
And now it's even sooner.
And now it's sooner still.

You're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're even older.
And now you're even older.

You're older than you've ever been.
And now you're even older.
And now you're older still.

[> [> [> Hummm... I sense a theme here... ;-) -- OnM, 14:03:42 09/08/04 Wed

[> [> [> They did that at the concert, too. I forgot about that one! -- Rob, 12:26:36 09/11/04 Sat

[> Happy Birthday, Marie and cjl, and thanks to everyone for the birthday greetings!! -- Arethusa, 08:18:23 09/08/04 Wed

[> Happy Birthday everyone! Here's a virtual chocolate cake and fudge ripple icecream for all! -- Briar Rose, 16:26:17 09/09/04 Thu

Joss musings on labour day -- Ann, 09:49:41 09/06/04 Mon

which were closer to his heart, he falls into them. SK. From down below in another thread.

What lies beneath? The quest to discover the soul of a girl, the soul of a dead man and the soul of a writer. I think Shadowkat captured this very well in the sentence above. Whedon may not be unemotional when it comes to his characters for they are him. He takes it personally. I think that is why he chose both a girl/woman and a man for his larger voice. Together they form a whole. A hole he can fall into. They are the hole in his world that he falls into to find his own way. Manwitch describes the spiritual journey so well, and it is Buffy s and Whedon s. As Buffy could not deny her calling, Whedon can t deny himself in them. They are his coil.

It may be that Whedon is too close to his characters, and loses his way when he is. When he is stepping back, not trying, I would agree that he finds his way a little more strongly. When he did issues , when he did the lifetime trauma of the week, the episodes came off a little less strong. Girlfriend beating, school shootings, magic crack, they always seemed a little less sincere and earnest to me, and are never at the top of the list for my favorites. However, when the Buffy or Angel s story was allowed to speak for itself, they were the strongest. Prophesy Girl, Lullaby, The Body. In these, there is not a wasted moment, a wasted character. They are the tightest episodes, delivering on the arc. Whedon is pushing the story forward, but not forcing it. No matter how much he loves Fred for example, he was forcing the princess imagery, which was lovely and a nice contrast to Angel s history, it denied much of Fred s strength. Same with Cordy. When she became goddess-y, even she was bored. He wanted to give Cordy a reward, but on this show, there are no outside rewards. That isn t the point. So she died, sort of. He wanted to give her Angel, but pulled back (arc-tus interruptus as plot control) on that for the sake of the child, Connor s arc. A good decision I think. Maybe that is why Angel went to the bottom of the sea; Whedon was stuck unable to find a way out of their love relationship. Therefore, he drowned it. He killed it. The pain is something he is always able to deliver to his viewers and his characters. His imagination is on view in Restless. The confines of logic be gone I say and one of the best episodes results. He was able to be boundless.

His characters are the front for his offerings. His pain, his journey manifest in his characters, is offered to us. Xander appears to be closest in type to Whedon, closest viewer/watcher to the slayer, but he is all of them. The heart, the mind, the intellect, the strength all comes together in Whedon. Angel was the more adult show, the gathering of the forces of his ability and of his confidence. Despite being mowed down in the midst of the story, the sword is still raised. He, like Buffy and Angel, refuses to give up.

I wrote this elsewhere but feel it is still true. Whedon: is exploring himself through Buffy, is mostly Zander, is tempted to know the overwhelming power of Angelus, feels the pain of Angel, fantasizes about the exploration of the poet, the writer, through Spike, wanting to be that free in word and deed, repulsed by the small power of Parker, and the larger power of Adam and Hamilton, wishes for the calm of Oz, worries about the sick powers of Caleb, truly wishes for the good in Doyle, never wants to be silenced by the Gentlemen (hey WB hear that), fears the pain of Holtz as parent, disgusted by Lindsay and Knox, wants peace for Riley and Connor and fears he is Giles.

So he falls into them and we are glad.

Replies:

[> Re: Joss musings on labour day -- dub, 09:57:38 09/06/04 Mon

Oooh, this is lovely, ann. A keeper, for sure.

I've mused long and often on exactly what BtVS, AtS, and Firefly say about Whedon, not only as a writer, but as a human being. It's a fascinating subject.

;o)

[> Re: Joss musings on labour day -- RJA, 14:11:28 09/08/04 Wed

There's some great points you make there, and Whedon's relationship with the characters is a fascinting one, but at the same time he is not the only one involved with these characters.

For instance, you criticise the movie of the week episodes as being weaker and not as tight as the ones you mention, but Joss didn't write these inferior episodes. Perhaps a reason then, for their flaws, is that he is the superior writer?

That however, does not invalidate your comments on how it relates to the themes and characters and plots throughout seasons. I like these a lot. Great reading.

[> [> Re: Joss musings on labour day -- Ann, 14:30:36 09/08/04 Wed

Thanks. Agreed. I realized the other writer's role as I was writing and I do think he is the superior writer, but the buck stops with him. It is his vision so he approves all that is written by others. Just imagine those meetings lol. Now that all of the seasons are done, grrr, we can evaluate the whole picture. I am not counting Firefly here, because luckily their voyage is not yet over. What this tells us about him, may all be speculation, but I think the whole canon reveals. Joss' intent, whatever that is discovered to be (if it ever will - please write an autobiography Joss!!) is seen through our eyes, the viewers eyes and all of its individual interpretations.

Dumb Question -- DickBD, 11:07:44 09/08/04 Wed

I hope this doesn't sound as stupid as I think, but I can't figure out how Angel got that name--or Angelus, for that matter! I know that in one of the episodes, his sister called him her "angel," but that wouldn't explain "Angelus." Could someone take pity on me and enlighten me? How did we get from "Liam" to "Angel"?

Replies:

[> Re: Dumb Question -- Ames, 11:23:13 09/08/04 Wed

"Angel" was intended to be an anagram of "Liam" (Angel wasn't a very good speller in those days).

No, seriously, nobody knows for sure. In addition to the incident you mentioned with his sister, historical records later referred to him as the demon "with the face of an angel". This was mentioned by Giles when he first looked up Angel in his books in BtVS season 1, and again by Kate on AtS when she looked him up. It's only speculation, but apparently Angel (or maybe Darla?) liked this description and he took it as his new name. With his Irish religious upbringing, he apparently preferred the Latin form - or maybe it was just that they travelled a lot in Europe, and he preferred to use a more common form than the English version.

Notice that Angel, Spike, and Darla all preferred to take a new name when they became vampires, wanting to make a complete break with who they were before.

[> [> Re: Dumb Question -- ghady, 11:43:48 09/08/04 Wed

I've always been under the impression that Darla gave Angel his name. I guess it's because of this quote from the ep Darla:
Master: "Angelus - the Latinate for Angel. (Laughs) It's marvelous." (but i could very possibly be wrong)

As for Darla, she didn't choose a new name, the Master did (again from the ep Darla):
Angel reading from a book: "Darla, Anglo-Saxon derivation, meaning 'dear one' - huh, didn't come into common usage until more than a 100 years after she was born. (Closes the book) He must have given it to her." ('He' being the Master.)

BTVS: Chaos Bleeds (PS2 Game) (off-off topic PLUS *game spoilers*) -- Sebastian, 11:23:17 09/08/04 Wed

(WARNING: Game spoilers ahead.)

Hi All.

I'm playing BTVS: Chaos Bleeds for Playstation 2 - and I'm having a serious problem making it through one of the levels.

Its the final part of the level where Willow is in the Sunnydale Mall and she is fighting Vamp Tara.

For the life of me, I do not know what to do to beat Vamp Tara. I've played this part of the game in the past three days and it has continually kicked my ass. It's impossible to defeat the vampires she sends, plus try to dust her with magic.

Is anyone on this board familiar with this game or this level? Does it anyone have any tips (or know of online tips) in terms of getting bast this level?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

-S-

Replies:

[> Re: BTVS: Chaos Bleeds (PS2 Game) (off-off topic PLUS *game spoilers*) -- Tymen, 12:31:38 09/08/04 Wed

Try using Willow's possesion spel on some of the Vampires she sends and Fireball her, while she fights them. Keep doing that and eventual, you take her down.

[> [> Re: BTVS: Chaos Bleeds (PS2 Game) (off-off topic PLUS *game spoilers*) -- Tymen, 12:33:14 09/08/04 Wed

That should be eventually.

[> [> Re: BTVS: Chaos Bleeds (PS2 Game) (off-off topic PLUS *game spoilers*) -- BrianWilly, 17:59:40 09/09/04 Thu

It's also possible to use the homing missile spell on Tara at certain points, I believe. That's how I beat her.

If you run low on stamina, just kill some of the vamps for their big blue balls. Yes, I totally just typed that.

Current board | More September 2004