October 2001 posts

September 2001  

More October 2001


Alias... (OT) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:15:34 09/30/01 Sun
It ain't Buffy, but it's daaaaaaaaaaaaaaammmnnn good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alias... (OT) -- OnM, 19:45:58 09/30/01 Sun
We were talking about the rise of 'women warriors' in the fiction of modern western culture a couple threads down, and now here we have yet another one, and a very good one by the looks of things so far. Of course it remains to be seen if they can sustain this level of energy over the course of the season, but I'm certainly gonna tune in next week.

Anyone else see this as the real American remake of (the movie) La Femme Nikita? Incredible fight scenes, intelligent and capable actors, twisty-turny plot, all that good stuff in spades.

James Cameron, please take note-- this is what 'Dark Angel' should have been, which BTW is not to slight Jessica Alba in any way. I truly think she does her best, but the writing is where Dark Angel really suffers, IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Andy, 20:23:15 09/30/01 Sun
Yeah, I liked it and La Femme Nikita was definitely in my head as I watched. I admire that the show, while certainly playing to our fantasies about glamorous super-spies, is also seemingly unafraid of punishing the audience with some unpleasant developments. I guess James Bond once lost a wife, but I don't think we've ever seen his teeth get yanked out (at least not in the films) :)

My big complaint is that I didn't like the soundtrack :)

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- OnM, 20:34:59 09/30/01 Sun
Know what you mean-- one the one hand, they had some good artists providing the tunes, but they seemed just a little too foregroundish to me. I think 'Miami Vice' was the last show to successfully pull this technique off, and even then it wore thin after the first season.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Sofdog, 14:56:02 10/01/01 Mon
Ditto on the music. It distracted you from the action rather than enhancing it. They should refer to "Witchblade" on this point. That show's music editing is flawlees. Inspired, even.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hell yeah! -- Deeva, 21:34:10 09/30/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Cactus Watcher, 21:46:40 09/30/01 Sun
Must have been a different show than I saw. What I saw was dog do-do on a stick! An anorexic, second-generation double agent? She's been in grad school how long and gets D's??? If you've ever seen a spy movie, any spy movie, this first episode stole something from it. Throw in some Death Wish and Rambo scenes and you've got Alias. Never seen such a horrible mish-mash of cliches. The bad guys make Wolfram & Hart look like the Salvation Army, but the heroine is gonna out fox 'em? Yeah, right! Gadzooks, it was bad! Very odd running time. I suspect it was cut down from two hours with commercials, which would mean they cut out 20 minutes or so of God knows what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Drizzt, 22:40:32 09/30/01 Sun
I missed it, but because of these extremely different oppinions I am now curious:)

If it is good...cool.
If it is full of bad cliches as Cactus Watcher says; cool also, because I will consider it to be a parady of La Femme Nikita, and I LOVE parodies!

I really doubt anything will aproach Nikita in quality in the genra of "female spy", but I would be happy to be wrong about that;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's not a parody, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 05:49:50 10/01/01 Mon
if you're in 'I want to see a really bad glitzy movie' mode, it's a fine example.

Samples: Sydney (name stolen from Relic Hunter) like all great secret agents has a special talent that sets her apart from the rest... She writes really fast!

Sydney, as linguistic genius, notices odd writing on a document displayed at a briefing. She asks if it is hieratic (an old Egyptian writing system). The Boss says, "Actually it's Demotic," and goes on to explain the agent who wrote it loves ancient writing systems. Unfortunately Demotic is MODERN Greek, so modern, it wasn't considered classy enough to be used in Greek newspapers until the last few decades!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Demotic script... -- Tanker, 07:30:29 10/01/01 Mon
... is, in fact, an ancient Egyptian writing system. It was used on the Rosetta Stone.

Here's a Yahoo search, which just happens to confirm my last sentence:

http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=demotic
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> OK, I'm not perfect either ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:59:09 10/01/01 Mon
But, use a good dictionary. You'll see my definition is a correct one, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Stupid things I like. -- Drizzt, 10:58:36 10/01/01 Mon
Thanks for the example of sillyness:)
I did not mean to imply it is a parody; but if it is really dumb(to me at least) I would still enjoy it if I THINK of it as a parody...vs just going "Are they serious? This show is stupid!"

Stupid things I like:
Beavis & Buthead
Three Stooges
ANY Leslie Neilson movie...
Celebrity Deathmatch
Banjokazookie Man...this is a Troma film, and is REALY STUPID! Has an average joe white guy with the super power to turn into a japaneese superhero, complete with white face paint and a traditional japaneese outfit. His weapon of choice is CHOPSTICKS. Also they do a weird lip-sink thing when he is in his japaneese superhero mode. Kind of a sillier version of the fork guy from that film(?) with the skull in a bowling ball, super-fart-guy, and MR RAGE played by Ben Stiller.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I know a movie you might like -- Cactus Watcher, 18:31:17 10/01/01 Mon
It's called Plan Nine From Outer Space and it is available on video. It is just about the worst movie ever. (Not just my opinion). If you've seen it before, go ahead treat yourself and watch again! It's a dumb-movie lover's dream. It also marks the last movie appearence of Bela Lugosi, the original Dracula.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Seen it twice! Will rent it again sometime:) -- Drizzt, 20:04:27 10/01/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Stupid things I like. -- Shaglio, 06:47:33 10/02/01 Tue
Mystery Men. I saw it for the first time about a month ago.

"You must learn to master your rage . . ."
". . . Before my rage becomes my master? that's what you were going to say, wasn't it?"
"Not necessarily."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Alias... (OT) -- Brian, 03:19:47 10/01/01 Mon
Man, I agree with you 100%. I turned it off about 1/3 of the way through the show. It rang my "this is just stupid bell" way too many times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Alias... (OT) -- Sue, 06:35:28 10/03/01 Wed
I don't know.

She's no Nikita.
tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- dan, 19:11:56 10/01/01 Mon
hey gang,

was anyone else sketched out when angel killed mr. exposed bulgey-brain guy with that thrown piece of rebar? It seemed really dodgy to me - premeditated, not in the heat of battle, etc. Why is it okay for Angel to kill that guy and not, say, Lilah? (answer: it's better tv that way.) and the thing is, the show didn't seem to take any note of the killing. i.e., this particular act is not going to send angel on a downware spiral, and will probably not be referred to again. troubling. did this bug anyone else?

on the upside, though, it looks like Darla's Unholy Bun in the Oven is going to provide some great plot fodder. I love that she's been trying to get rid of the baby, and that she's just as confused as we all are as to how this could happen.

-d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Angel Spoiler Chat on Ivyweb right now -- WW, 19:23:44 10/01/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Angel Spoiler Chat on Ivyweb right now -- Brian, 19:30:32 10/01/01 Mon
What's the link to that chat site?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Angel Spoiler Chat on Ivyweb right now -- d'Herblay, 19:40:32 10/01/01 Mon
http://ivyweb.com/chat/.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> thought those were supposed to happen the *next* night -- Solitude1056, 21:05:38 10/01/01 Mon
So the PST and EST folks wouldn't be up too late nor on too early?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I think we're taking a more laissez-faire attitude towards it -- d'Herblay, 21:40:51 10/01/01 Mon
That is, if two people happen to head to the chat room at the same time, there's a chat. Those who have seen the episodes can join in; those who don't want to be spoiled would do so only at their own peril. It's not the huge freewheeling deconstruction that having an organized chat with the whole board would be, but it's pleasant.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Is there a transcript from this chat? -- Masq, 22:16:59 10/01/01 Mon
'cause I was like, busy, being on the west coast at the time. : )
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I tried to transcribe it . . . -- d'Herblay, 22:37:57 10/01/01 Mon
. . . but:
a) Control-A for "select all" wouldn't work in the chat window, so I had to manually set the cursor, and then shift-down arrow to highlight before I could paste into Microsoft Word. This constituted one pain in the ass, and I found I couldn't do it and be part of the conversation. Conversation won.
b) It wasn't as juicy and theoretical a chat as last week's. Lady Starlight and I were there the longest, and as I had seen "The Vision Thing" and she hadn't, but she had seen "Bargaining" and I hadn't, a lot of the chat involved me trying not to spoil her while she tried to tempt me into giving up my spoiler-free ways.
c) It wasn't as juicy and theory-inducing an episode as last week's. Pretty much, everyone liked Skip. Dan's questioning of Angel's murder of Fez got some discussion, and we played with the Fred-Gunn thing a bit, but no major speculation.
d) Transcribing was (have mentioned?) too much of a pain in the ass.

So, sorry, no transcript, but while I quite enjoyed the chat, I won't say that you missed much.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- change, 03:49:04 10/02/01 Tue
> Why is it okay for Angel to kill that guy and not, say, Lilah?

> this particular act is not going to send angel on a downware spiral, and will probably not be referred to
> again. troubling. did this bug anyone else?

Angel can kill the brain guy becaue he is obviously a demon. Angel kills demons all the time. Angel can't kill Lilah because she's human. I know it's racist, but that's the way the show works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- Rattletrap, 05:00:14 10/02/01 Tue
In addition, the pulsating brain guy was the direct cause of Cordy's problem, he was the one sending out the brain waves giving her the visions. By eliminating him, Angel makes it at least more difficult for Lilah to do it again, but by killing Lilah, PBG is still alive and W&H can still use him. Secondly, I'd argue this won't send Angel on a downward spiral or anything because he was doing it selflessly--he wasn't killing out of blood vengance but to protect Cordy from future harm.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- celticross, 06:21:57 10/02/01 Tue
Good point...you could almost say it was self-defense, except it wasn't Angel's self he was defending. Two questions, though...What did Angel mean about Gavin letting him into the W&H building? And why couldn't he smell the blood on Cordy when she in the bathroom after the first attack?
(personal thought on Charisma's performance...the make-up looked fake, but that raspy little in-pain voice? On the mark...great acting)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- Solitude1056, 08:33:50 10/02/01 Tue
I was wondering the same thing, about Angel not (apparently) smelling any blood. On the other hand, I got the impression he wanted her to want to tell him what was going on, and he wasn't going to call her on it, yet. He did, later (not about the blood, but about being injured), but he wasn't going to push her too hard. I mean, the guy's a dork, but he's not totally stupid. And I agree about her performance - Joss is finally letting her show her stuff.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- Humanitas, 13:33:07 10/02/01 Tue
The law in several states actually extends the notion of self-defence to the defence of another person. By that measure, Angel's actions can reasonably be considered legal. That doesn't automatically imply moral, of course, but it does provide some evidence of what our society considers 'right.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Obviously...? -- Masq, 11:03:01 10/02/01 Tue
Where do you get "obviously"? He seemed to me to be a human being with some magick channeling capacity who'd had an operation to remove his skull cap, perhaps to increase his abilities. What exactly about him was demony?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Obviously...? -- Wisewoman, 14:50:05 10/02/01 Tue
It never occurred to me that Fez was human. I just figured, Hannibal notwithstanding, the human brain wouldn't last long exposed to the atmosphere. And I'm pretty sure our brains don't go burbling and popping around when we're thinkin' hard. Also, just the extent of the damage he was able to do with his exposed grey matter seems to point to at least a demon/human hybrid.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm with Masq on this one -- Cactus Watcher, 15:00:30 10/02/01 Tue
I thought Fez was a human with some major magic work done on him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> That raises an interesting metaphysical point. -- Humanitas, 15:13:01 10/02/01 Tue
At what point is someone sufficiently altered so as to be no longer human? Vampires start out as human, but they are clearly demonic. Giles got transformed into a Fyarl demon, but the change took some time to affect his mind. Was he a man in Demon's clothing until then? And if so, at what point would the transformation have crossed the line? At what point did the Mayor cease to be human? Yeah, I know, when he turned into a big snake, but how human was he before that, what with the Box of Gavrok and all? Was he still in possession of his soul at that point, or had he already traded it away like a bit of political patronage?

Boy, that's a lot of questions, isn't it? Have fun!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: That raises an interesting metaphysical point. -- Masq, 15:29:04 10/02/01 Tue
I think it's when they becoming psychologically a demon who acts against human beings without remorse that we can take actions that will kill them. I'm thinking not only of Giles, who _really_ only started to lose his human capacities when he chased after Maggie (not after he physically turned), or the boyfriend that Anya turned into a troll. Once he started enjoying the being a troll and decided to kill babies and rape women, he was over the line.

Not that these transformations were the fault of the humans who came to be transformed, but we still have to do away with the demons/trolls they've become for our own protection.

As long as they are willing to live among humans peacably, they haven't crossed the line (e.g., Doyle, The Host, etc.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> the part that bothered me more - *SPOILER* -- Solitude1056, 16:36:28 10/02/01 Tue
With a half-hour to go before the premiere, I'm gonna jump in and finally say what really bothered me about last night's episode: the fact that it dawned only on Cordelia and Wesley, exactly how tenuous the visions are. Cordelia spent a lot of time voicing how vulnerable she felt, given that her only assumption was that the visions came from the PTB, and yet this was happening to her. Wesley is the one who figured out that the old Chinese couple, and the slimey demon, were all on the side of the Good - so it wasn't a surprise that Skip was a good guy, too. This isn't the first time that Angel has acted on a vision without considering that there's more to the picture; he killed that Prio Motu and found out afterwards it was one of the White Hats.

My point is that Cordelia's visions may be useful, but the episode revealed exactly how vulnerable they are, given that these are the gang's only connection to the PTB (well, most of the time). Cordelia gets the image, but not the context or intention, in terms of the creature's bias towards good or bad. It's just assumed that these messages are from the PTB, thus the images must show bad guy doing bad things. The ease with which her visions could be manipulated (not in the sense of lack of difficulty from the manipulator, but the ease in getting her to believe the visions) points to the gang's vulnerability when it comes to filtering the visions for more information other than through her observation.

So while yes, I agree that Angel's first priority was to stop the drain on Cordelia, it also seems to me that one should be asking whether her visions are really the most efficient way to do this. Insisting she keep the visions because of their benefit is a dubious claim, in my mind, because we've now seen how questionable they are, given she has no adequate means to filter those visions for their veracity or completeness. So going all out and saving Fire Guy seems like a short-sighted thing to do, given that it's a means to keep getting visions that aren't certain in the first place.

Jumbled, but hopefully you get what I'm saying here...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Does cordy have a choice ? -- bible belt, 18:33:07 10/02/01 Tue
could she just give up the visions if she wanted too? or give them to someone else? if they could get more reliable visions somewhere else, yeah, but where?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: tonight's angel ep - some troubling ethical stuff - *SPOILER* -- Raven Eye, 22:44:26 10/02/01 Tue
"was anyone else sketched out when angel killed mr. exposed bulgey-brain guy with that thrown piece of rebar? It seemed really dodgy to me - premeditated, not in the heat of battle, etc."

I can't believe you picked out that part to have ethical problems with. The fact is that he took out a threat. A weapon of war that had been used again him to harm his friend. Had he not done that there was the very real and present danger that bulgey-brain guy would have used his powers again to harm Cordy and make Angel do Lilah's bidding.

The real ethical quandary was Angel letting that evil guy out of Hell. Only real evil people get that type of punishment. I don't think he was there for cheating on his taxes.

What Angel did will harm people. Innocent people will suffer greatly for Angel's act. Please understand that. SUFFER. Innocent people. Many of them. All because Angel was "selfish" enough to think of a friend before thinking of the obvious consequences (actually he did think of them - he just didn't care). I find that difficult to handle. The torment that people will go though because of Angel letting that monster out.

It's a tough call, but I will side with Angel. Cordelia is a good friend, practically family. I am sorry. You help out strangers whenever possible, but there is something about a friend, something about family, that you do go out of the way to protect. You will sacrifice all morality to help someone you are close to. It does matter that "it's Cordy" (as opposed to it's the lady at the Latte stand, or the guy at the bank).

Cordy was important enough to "side with evil", consequences be damned. One person sometimes is worth the whole world.

But still it is a dilemma. Would you let Hitler out of Hell to raise another Third Reich (or I guess it would be Fourth Reich) knowing that thousands, maybe millions will be tortured and die, if by doing so you will spare your friend, your sister, your brother?

Yes. Yes you would. Angel is really becoming more human everyday. I mean that as a compliment.
Must... share... wisdom... with... others... (WAAAAYYYY OT) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 21:21:45 10/01/01 Mon
Ok, well, first things first, I DO NOT in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM wish to start a religious debate. What follows is not intended to start such a useless, conterproductive banter. This is merely an amusing observation...


I was in the bathroom a minute ago, washing up and getting ready for bed... when, suddenly, and I couldn't even begin to fathom where or why or how, but a thought crept into my head...

What did Satan ever do that was so wrong?


God condemned Adam, Eve, and the rest of their descendants for all eterinty. He created a great flood to wipe out everything and everyone that displeased him. He terrorized Job. He teased Moses and his followers for about forty years in the desert with the promise of paradise if they just -looked- hard enough, and a whole slew of other awful, dispicable things like that.

And what did Satan do?

He said two very simple things, to two different people.

To Eve, he said "Hey... you should -really- try one of these apples, they're soooo good."

To Jesus, he said "Hey... I don't think your father's as great as you and everyone else says he is... why don't you come over to my side?"

In comparision, which one actually looks like the good guy?


Just something funny to think about... I'm not anti-Christian, or a Satanist (who actually don't tend to be anti-Christian either... at least not in a proactive way), I just have a horrible sense of humor.

~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sponge, have I got the movie for you... -- Solitude1056, 21:30:37 10/01/01 Mon
To pre-empt OnM (who will probably step forward with the same advice any minute now)... you've got to watch Bedazzled. No, not that horrid remake, but the original. It's available on video - I know, cause I found it on Amazon & bought it - and it's worth every penny. If you're not familiar with the plot, it's simple: bumbling soul is "helped" by the Devil. (Racquel Welch plays Lust. That's reason enough to watch the movie.) I've mentioned this scene before but it's always worth repeating (at least IMNSHO).

At one point, aforementioned little bumbler Stanley, I think it is (who just wants to work up the nerve to ask out the waitress where he's a short-order cook), asks the Devil (Peter Cooke) why he got thrown out of heaven.

The Devil perches himself on a mailbox and says, "Okay, let's pretend I'm God, and you're me."

Stanley asks, "what do I do?"

The Devil says, "well, dance around and sing my praises." So Stanley does a little dance, and sings some stuff off-tune about "you're so great, you're so fabulous, you're so wonderful," and finally stops. Hesitantly, Stanley says to the Devil, "I'm bored. Can we switch now?"

The Devil's response: "That's exactly what I said."

You want subversive stuff with plenty of little things that make you go hmmm, watch Bedazzled. Make sure it's the original, though! The remake just didn't capture the same flair as the original's.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Sponge, have I got the movie for you... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 21:42:35 10/01/01 Mon
I've seen it already, and its the sole reason why I won't even consider thinking about seeing the remake. Yes, it was an enjoyable, charming sort of movie. Er.. well, not so much charming as damned funny and offhandedly philosophical.

Rreaalllyy made me think, actually. I think I had close to a full year of introspective personal-belief re-evaluation after that one... Not that I normally take fiction that seriously...

Yeah, so thanks for recommending it, anyway. Thought that counts, and all that.


~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> No wonder. -- 1056, 22:01:42 10/01/01 Mon
If you've seen it already, that explains a lot about you... hehehe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Sponge, have I got the book for you... -- Lazarus, 22:05:28 10/01/01 Mon
A title by the great Robert Heinlein called "Job: A Comedy Of Justice"... It covers exactly this subject quite well, I thought... And if your bookstore doesn't have it in stock, your library probably does...

Laz
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sponge, have I got the book for you... -- Malandanza, 23:44:15 10/01/01 Mon
Anatole France also wrote Revolt of the Angels -- about a second revolt against God by the rank and file angels. Mark Twain wrote extensively about Satan in works such as Letters from Earth, Papers of the Adam Family, The Mysterious Stranger and The Damned Human Race -- much of which was not published until years after his death becasue his daughter did not wish such materials to be public. If you only know of Mark Twain through Huck Finn and Tom Sawyer, you are in for a treat if you find a copy of these works.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Poor spotjon! Here we go again! Oh, well... -- OnM, 07:09:09 10/02/01 Tue
Besides Twain and Letters from Earth, another interesting book that I've plugged before here at this board, and will happily do so again, is James Morrow's Only Begotten Daughter. Clever and insightful (fictional) feminist take on the messianic concept. One of the best lines regards the devil, when it's noted that he seems to be generally rational and not really exactly, well, conventionally evil:

"He lies-- not always, but often."

Gotta go to work now.

(~sigh~)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the book recommendations, guys... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 08:56:04 10/02/01 Tue
I'll definately be plowing through my local bookstores looking for them sometime soon.


Thanks
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Must... share... wisdom... with... others... (WAAAAYYYY OT) -- Rendyl, 06:08:21 10/02/01 Tue
***What did Satan ever do that was so wrong?***

He left beard trimmings in the sink and the toilet seat up? No wait, that's my husband.

According to doctrine, Satan disagreed with God over the concept of freewill. War followed and he was cast out from heaven. "Thou art fallen, oh son of the morning" or something like that. (He was against it btw-grin-and God was for)

This of course makes Genesis really, really confusing as Satan and God seem to switch sides. God becomes the 'obey without question guy' while Lucifer (no sponges in evidence) becomes the 'chose your path based on knowledge' guy. We can argue that it is impossible to chose good if you have no concept of evil but that would probably be slipping into debate instead of thinking amusing thoughts.

Ren
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Ren, does that mean that I have been living with Satan..... -- Rufus, 10:37:41 10/02/01 Tue
all this time and not realised who he is????..;):):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Ren, does that mean that I have been living with Satan..... -- Rendyl, 11:15:33 10/02/01 Tue
*Stray beard hair clippings are the root of all evil.*

Somewhere...sometime...some reality..there is a poor crazed women who killed her husband because she faced the foam and hair crusted bathroom sink one morning too many and it drove her insane.

(there is also likely one who put a pillow over her hubbys' face and smothered him to stop his non-ending, mind/body torturing snoring, but I class snoring as a lesser evil-grin)

Ren - off to annoint the sink with scrubbing bubbles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Scrubbing bubbles...LOL....:):):) -- Rufus, 13:55:23 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Does Satan snore? -- Wisewoman, 14:45:13 10/02/01 Tue
Well, probably. But your husband won't if he gets checked out by an obstructive sleep apnea specialist. Probably he needs a Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP) machine, while he's sleeping. He will stop snoring completely, get much more restful sleep, feel years younger, and more importantly, so will you!

Hey, it's worth a shot.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And if that fails, try Continuous Negative Airway Pressure! It'll stop snoring, sniffling, breathing -- d'Herblay, 15:02:53 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, I don't. -- Satan, 17:39:37 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> satan in genesis? where? -- anom, 20:39:38 10/02/01 Tue
"This of course makes Genesis really, really confusing as Satan and God seem to switch sides."

I'm pretty familiar w/Genesis, & I don't know of any mention of Satan (btw, a far less powerful figure in Judaism than in Christianity) in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Must... share... wisdom... with... others... (WAAAAYYYY OT) -- vampire hunter D, 12:47:47 10/02/01 Tue
Satan was punished for refusing to go along with god's master plan. But who is to say that god's plan is right. Just because someone has the power to enforce their will, doesn't necessarily mak their will good. In fact, I argue that Satan is good, since he is for free will while god is all for opression of freedom.

But, then again, I'm an atheist, so it doesn't matter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Uhhh... not sure atheists would believe in Satan, ya know... ;) -- OnM, 15:57:53 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I had a long talk with God and the Devil once -- Charlemagne20, 21:29:18 10/02/01 Tue
Satan said to me that he wanted the world to be free from consequences whether pain from rape or being being prosecuted for it. God he wants to make the world completely white yet allow people to enjoy the black.

His idea of paradise.

God says that simply not possible and that he cannot make one thing another without changing it's defination completely.

The Devil doesn't believe him.

God makes the world so that mankind can choose whether or not they want to believe the Devil and indulge his vision which is one of peace and harmony...it's only fair. The Devil in Hell leads men to their doom in hopes eventually God's concience will get to him...

That the suffering willingly chosen by the Men in Hell who can be freed just by giving up evil they love...

will get God to do what Satan believes is possible.

So really up front, Satan is a dumbass.

I trust the Guy who advises me every day over the one who wants to lead me to my doom openly because of his impossible vision. I'll take my chances with God's paradise thank you very much
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Sounds like Gnostic leanings to me, vhD. Demiurge, anyone? -- Solitude1056, 10:44:25 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Must... share... wisdom... with... others... (WAAAAYYYY OT) -- Raven Eye, 00:20:03 10/03/01 Wed
"Satanist (who actually don't tend to be anti-Christian either... at least not in a proactive way)"

Actually Satanists are "anti Christian" as in they worship the Christian religion, but in reverse. (they support the "bad" guy). Wicca on the other hand has nothing at all to do with Christianity. The don't worship anything in the Christian Bible one way or the other.

There is a view that does see Lucifer in a positive light. Lucifer means bringer of light. God told Adam and Eve that they could eat the fruit of any tree EXCEPT the tree of knowledge? Why the tree of knowledge? In this sense the serpent (who we assume to be Lucifer) plays the role of Prometheus, the greek titan who stole fire from the gods to give that knowledge to man.

For more informaton on where the word Lucifer comes from click here.

More information on the origins of the word Lucifer. It is the Latin term originally used by the Romans to refer to the planet Venus when that planet was west of the sun and hence rose before the sun in the morning, thereby being the morning star.

I can't find the the quote, but I remember once hearing that in some story somewhere it was quoted that Lucifer said "rather be the ruler of Hell, than a mere servant in Heaven". To some (and this is definitely not my position) some see Lucifer as the ultimate rebel, cursed forever for attempting to help humanity fullfill their potential. After all, if it wasn't for him, we would be still be laying under some tree naked. Some see Lucifer as the ultimate supporter of Progress.

For you Babylon 5 fans, Lucifer could be seen as the Shadows (asking what do you want), where as God can be seen as (at least in the Eden story) the Vorlons (asking who are you) (Order versus Chaos). With the Vorlons there was only order and obedience. You will do as you are told. With the Shadows only chaos and evolution.

(For the complete explaination of Shadows vs Vorlon ideology please go to this transcript of the episode Into the Night
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Must... share... wisdom... with... others... (WAAAAYYYY OT) -- Sean, 22:40:48 10/03/01 Wed
Don't know exactly what this all has to do with Buffy/Angel, but I found an interesting web site that might relate to this subject:

http://simon.crabtree.com/satanism/white/chopsticks.html

'What are the differences between Heaven and Hell?', a young Zen monk asked an aged Buddhist priest who was reknowned for his wisdom.

'There are no material differences,' replied the old monk.

'None at all?' asked the puzzled young monk.

'That's right. Both Heaven and Hell have a spacious hall with a big pot in the center in which noodles are boiled, giving off a delicious scent,' said the old priest. 'The size of the huge pan, the number of people sitting around the pot and the bowl of sauce placed in front of each diner are the same in both places.'

'The odd thing is that each diner is given a pair of meter-long chopsticks and must use them to eat the noodles.'

'To eat the noodles, you must hold the chopsticks properly at their ends,' the old monk told the young Zen monk.

'In the case of Hell's kitchen, people are always hungry because no matter how hard they try, they can't get the noodles into their mouths,' said the old priest.

'But isn't it the same case for the people in Heaven?' the junior monk inquited.

'No. They can eat because they each feed the person sitting opposite them at the table. That's the difference between Heaven and Hell,' explained the old monk.
Spoilery discussion question -- Masquerade, 22:32:44 10/01/01 Mon
Did Angel go too far? He essentially gave in to blackmail tonight. Once the Host discovered the powers weren't behind the visions and the gang determined Wolfram and Hart was, they knew they were being tricked into saving a potentially evil man.

They discovered they were being tricked. And yet Angel goes down into the demon dimension anyway, at Lilah's behest, a demon dimension that is apparently run by the Powers that Be, where this evil man is being imprisoned, saves the evil man (gold guy Skip points out he and Angel are working on the same side, so WHY is he doing this?)

Angel does this all for one person, a person he loves, granted, but he could be putting many in danger. Once again, he's being manipulated by Wolfram and Hart.

There may have been another way to save Cordy, like kill brain guy or Lilah instead.

Thoughts??
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> (Angel 3.01) Spoilery discussion question -- d'Herblay, 22:50:04 10/01/01 Mon
Well, it seemed to me that Fez had to consciously remove the scars, the burns and the bubbles from Cordelia. So while killing Fez from the get-go would have prevented further harm from coming to Cordy, it would not have healed her. And one thing you don't do to Cordelia is mess with her skin.

So maybe it wasn't so much, "Do this or we'll kill the girl," so much as it was, "Do this or the girl does an elephant man the rest of her life."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- Drizzt, 23:28:48 10/01/01 Mon
If Angel thinks of Cordelia as a sister(I hope so...do not want a romance between those two), there is a parallel with Buffy choosing Dawn over the whole world...

Angel realised in his Epyphany that he could not save the whole world, so there is a logic in saving a freind, although it is not a moral logic.

Angel has two major problems coming up: Darla and that weirdnesss, plus the evil that the man he freed will commit. Cordelia was worried about what that guy MIGHT do, think of how guilty she will be when he commits some attrocity and the REASON he was freed was blackmail of her own health?

Cordy has a guilt trip coming up when that guy does some evil dead;(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- Wiccagrrl, 23:36:26 10/01/01 Mon
Not sure if he went too far- how many of us could sit by and let a loved one suffer, possibly die, if it was in our power to stop it? Heck, even Wesley, after spelling out that this was probably not a good thing to do, offered to go with Angel. But there *will* be consequences. Cordy knows this, Angel knows this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- Rufus, 01:13:42 10/02/01 Tue
Angel was looking at what was most important in the scheme of things, Cordy. She is his connection to the PTB's, also his friend who he once let down. Instead of thinking about what may be, Angel protected what already is. Cordy isn't just a information wave receiver to be used like a radio, she is someone that matters and Angel feels is worth taking an ethical risk for. Will it be worth it? Maybe not, but he made a point to Lilah, and he restored Cordy.
He broke that guy out of flamey solitary with the best intentions for his friends. Wolfram and Hart may have gotten a valuble addition to their staff, but look at staff turnover at the firm. They seem to spend an inordinate amount of time sticking it to each other, why would this new guy be much different? Wolfram and Hart may have freed an instrument for evil, but I think this guy may be a bit more monsterous than they had planned on.

BTW I like Park, he kills you with paperwork, you think Lilah was nervous with Lindsay, this Park fellow is serene evil...I wanna see how she will handle a guy that has the patience to let time work for him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Serene evil... -- Deeva, 09:25:36 10/02/01 Tue
I like that! As opposed to someone busting in an announcing to the world "Hey! I'm evil! Wanna see what mean thing I can do to you?!?" It will be far more interesting, and intriguing, to see what Gavin Park will do. He comes across as a paper pusher but then his little conversation with Lilah revealed a little something else.

On a bit of a side note, one of my friends was watching this episode with me and we both have a mutual friend who is trying to be an actor. He's also Asian and just as handsome, if not a tad "prettier". My friend made a comment that so&so could've gotten this Gavin Park role and why didn't he. I told my friend that unfortunately, I didn't think the same. The guy who plays Gavin Park has a range that my friend just doesn't have. Well, that was rambling of the moment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> The evil of bureaucracy! Brrr... -- Masquerade, 09:35:24 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Serene evil... -- Vickie, 22:31:09 10/02/01 Tue
I don't know your friend's experience, but Daniel Dae Kim has been around. He was a recurring doctor on a couple of shows (NYPD Blue? my memory fades... 92010?), and had the 1st officer role in the lamented Crusade. Guy has chops. Just wait. Should be juicy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I like him.......... -- Rufus, 02:12:48 10/03/01 Wed
It will be nice to watch Lilah unravel while Park doesn't even break a sweat. Plus he has those shoes....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> And girls do check out the shoes. -- Deeva, 09:12:38 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Serene Evil -- Ryuei, 10:23:41 10/02/01 Tue
I agree about Gavin Park. He is going to be the real problem for Angel this season I think. Lilah's schemes are big and clumsy and easy to throw a wrench (or a big iron spike) into. But Gavin's death by ten thousand red tape papercuts is something to really fear.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- Raven Eye, 23:11:45 10/02/01 Tue
"She (Cordy) is his connection to the PTB's."

I think Angel couldn't care less about that. This really was about Cordelia.

Not saying that it was the "right" thing to do. But at the moment it was what Angel had to do. We are all going to have to learn that adults sometimes don't have the luxury to do the "right" thing. Sometimes we just have to do what we have to do. Especially when our friends, family, and neighbors are at stake.

Morality is for those who have the luxury of looking at things "at a distance". But when evil gets "in your face" to harm the ones you love, you have to do what it takes. We can strive for a "more perfect" world, but we must realize that the world isn't, and never will be "perfect" so neither can our morality be perfect either.

Sometimes it is really all about survival and protecting the ones you are close to. Sometime being alive at a certain place and time means that you have delve into the more ugly aspects of your humanity, and trust in them to get you through. After all even our darker traits have a purpose, as long as we manage them. We have those traits for a reason. They are what makes us human as well.

Sometimes, the best you can hope for is to have the courage to do what it takes. And no, no one ever said that people always gets what they deserve. And no, life isn't fair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- Rattletrap, 05:11:12 10/02/01 Tue
Angel made a conscious decision to unleash a potential new evil while trying to do something good. As Wiccagrrl pointed out, there will surely be consequences. He did it without killing Skip and eliminating another good warrior, i.e. doing as little damage as he could. In the absence of any other information, he could reasonably believe this was an evil he could handle later.

What I find most interesting is his little speech near the end about winning. It sounds reminiscent of Holland Manners in "Reprise": "Winning, of course not, we have no intention of doing anything as prosaic as winning." If that is the case, Angel can afford to let them have one battle to protect his own people. He has the luxury of being able to take a long view.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- OnM, 06:55:04 10/02/01 Tue
I saw it as Angel perceiving that he only had a very limited amount of time to act, or Cordelia could be killed, therefore the course of action taken was the best available of a number of bad choices. I suspect he will deal with the evildoer he freed in the future, when he has had time to evaluate the situation and devise a better method.

One of the things that surprised me was Lilah's apparent willingness to take Angel on, seeing what he had done to Lindsey, and especially to attack him through one of his friends. Pushing the wrong button, much?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spoilery discussion question -- Marie, 07:20:56 10/02/01 Tue
Haven't actually viewed the episode, but this SpoilerWhore (or trollop, as I prefer to be known!) has gone to read the synopsis, and come to the conclusion that Angel did the right thing. He lost a small battle in order to win the war.

BtVS and AtS are full of moral ambiguities like this, though. Wesley let the few die so that many would live. Buffy herself continues to let Spike live, although one day that chip could come out, and she doesn't know for sure that he won't revert to type. Angel also let Darla go, when he could easily have killed her, knowing that she would continue to prey on humans.

I know that I would kill to save my son's life. No question. Does that make me a monster?

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ahah... Spoiler Trollop. Now that's *flair* ... -- Solitude1056, 07:24:58 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> So shall we "whores" take another vote to adopt the title "Trollop"??:):):):) -- Rufus, 10:18:57 10/02/01 Tue
If we are in a union now we must vote....:):):) I kinda like Trollop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I like "trollop" better than "whore" but I still like "ho" better. ;o) -- Deeva, 11:56:05 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Trollop kind of makes it sound like an enjoyable pasttime, rather than a business or a mania. ;) -- rowan, 12:37:01 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You mean checkin' out spoilers is not a job or an obsession? -- Deeva, 14:31:09 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Trollop's got my vote. :) -- LadyStarlight, 13:07:18 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I like the way "Trollop" rolls off my tongue -- VampRiley, 15:37:13 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Trollop's fine with me ;o) -- WW, 14:24:01 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I think it makes you normal -- Cactus Watcher, 07:27:53 10/02/01 Tue
I like Spoiler Trollop, too!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Lilah -- celticross, 08:55:46 10/02/01 Tue
And did anyone else notice Lilah's lame attempts at sexual tension with Angel last night? I was laughing at her, all that touching his shoulders, ect. Lilah, honey, you're not that good, give it up. Of course, she doesn't know about Darla and Angel and not losing of the soul, so...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Lilah -- Marie, 09:03:25 10/02/01 Tue
Aha, but Lilah's obviously a tart, not a trollop!

By the way, like the name - are you Welsh? ('cos I'm a Celt, and often cross!).

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> re: Lilah -- celticross, 13:10:01 10/02/01 Tue
Tart... Hmmm...more like a loose woman. :)
Not Welsh...American by birth, Irish by descent and spirit. I am not a cross Celt...the music's too nice. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Love makes us do the wacky, lust drains all good sense ....... -- Rufus, 10:34:57 10/02/01 Tue
out of the brain at least, while you think you are still in control of your feelings...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> hmm... -- pocky, 07:50:45 10/02/01 Tue
Angel was manipulated, yes. He had a choice whether or not he would give in to Lilah's conditions or to find another way.

But I keep thinking: Cordelia was already giving up. She was starting to resent the fact that every single vision takes its toll on her. At first, when she was having the vision-galore and ended up in the hospital, she realized that there are a lot of people out there that are hurting and needed help. I think that became her motivation to be strong and to start thinking of other people's welfare. Maybe she bit more than she could chew? She admitted that she isn't strong enough to handle the visions and their aftermath. She was giving up.

And my point? I don't think Angel could have really saved Cordelia just by killing Lilah or the brain guy. We know how Cordelia is...those wounds and boils could've traumatized her if they were to stay forever. Angel owes a LOT to Cordelia and the least he could do was to save her. Save her life and skin.

As for the less shallow speculation: Would it really be good if Angel's only connection to the Powers That Be has given up on her (temporary?) calling? What good would Cordelia's visions be if she has given up on *really* wanting to save those people because she feels their pain? If she just stopped caring, she'd become this empty vessel whose entire purpose is just to deliver messages.

This all sounded more coherent in my head, honest! ^_^'

~nathan~
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I think everyone is underestimating... -- Masq, 09:43:23 10/02/01 Tue
How evil this guy released from the demon dimension can be. I mean, Wolfram and Hart wanted him released from where he'd been imprisoned by the powers of Good.

This guy is obviously Not Good.

I see a utilitarian argument here--do we help one friend or imprison an evil that could destroy many (including Cordelia). This is a lot like the debate in "Choices" over Willow vs. the Box of Gavrok. Wesley argued that with the box, the Mayor would kill many including Willow. The good of the many outweighs the good of the one.

When do we say enough is enough to risking everything to save one person, no matter how special they are to us?? Everyone who will die or be hurt at the hands of this guy is special to someone, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I think everyone is underestimating... -- Rufus, 10:27:40 10/02/01 Tue
I didn't underestimate that at all.....I think that Angel has just taken into consideration his ability to "deal" with this guy. The idea of losing Willow was too much to consider for the SG, same thing with Cordy. The evolved Cordy has enough insight to worry about what this "monster" can do and wonder if she was worth the effort. My feeling is that for whatever reason the release of this guy is supposed to be. But in the end will Wolfram and Hart end up being on the regreting end of the bargain. Just cause they want him doesn't mean he will be the team player that they can control with money, sex, or whatever. Angel made a choice he may come to regret, but how would things have gone if he had allowed Cordy to continue with the fake visions? You don't dump family or you lose part of yourself, something Buffy figured out in The Gift, something Angel can't do to Cordy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Being a team player. -- Deeva, 11:33:53 10/02/01 Tue
That's my feeling, too. I'm sure that the Burning guy has committed some truly heinous acts (I mean look at his punishment), I don't doubt it. As for Burning guy's cooperation, all I can say is they brought back Darla and look how that turned out.

Angel considered Cordy's welfare to be the most important thing to him at that point in time. You can't always think about future consequences. If that were the case all the time then I think that many of us would be paralyzed, unable to move forward because of the chance of something that may happen from your actions. You have to think that if it's going to happen, good or bad, then it will regardless of whether you do it or not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I totally agree... (Spoilery) -- VampRiley, 10:52:22 10/02/01 Tue
Skip said it, "He's supposed to be here. Do you know any idea how monsterous a guy's got to be before he gets sent to us?"

But Angel said, "It's not about winning, Cordelia. It's about what's at stake. And in this particular scenario, you were way more important than winning."

That statement also reminds of one from the series finaly of Star Trek Voyager:

*Spoilers. If you haven't seen the ep, don't go further.*









Admiral Janeway from like 20 or 30 years in the future (something like that) comes back to the past to get Voyager home more quickly. She is talking to Seven, trying to cinvince her to go with the Admiral's plan. Seven is against it, saying that if they destroy this transwarp thing that would get them home within minutes and not go through it, then they could save the lives of hundred or thousands of people. The Admiral responds with those people Seven is talking about are hypothetical. People she doesn't know about. The Admiral is talking about saving the people Seven does know, the only "family" she has now. The Admiral contends that that is more important. If they go the way the Admiral went, they would definitly lose more people and some like Chekotay (sp?) who is never the same after Seven's death and Tuvok who won't make it back home before this thing that he has that he is keeping secret, in time to cure him and he will live the rest of his life in some sort of institution, mental I think.



*End SPoiler*


Both Angel and Admiral Janeway did what they had to do to protect the ones they cared about and both took the stance of not worrying about what the consequences of those actions. All that mattered to them was protecting those they loved.

Plus, I would have been concerned if Angel didn't kill the guy.



VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I totally agree... (Spoilery) -- Masq, 10:56:48 10/02/01 Tue
Angel didn't kill the evil guy that was imprisoned in fire. He's out and about now. Angel killed the brain-swami guy. "Fez"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yeah. I know. Guess I didn't make that clear enough. -- VampRiley, 11:53:55 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cold equations -- d'Herblay, 16:03:48 10/02/01 Tue
I think there are really two questions to be considered here. First: could Angel have done things differently? Second: would Angel have done things differently?

In regards to the first, Lilah seems to really believe she has Angel over a barrel, saying, "You'll do this for me because I tell you to." I see no reason to doubt her assessment. When Angel first confronts Lilah, Fez is nowhere in evidence. Angel has no way of knowing how Lilah is sending the visions. He first sees Fez only during the trade in the aqueduct. He could have tracked Fez down to kill him, but that would take more time than following the path of least resistance and giving Lilah what she wants. And with Cordelia already burnt, bleeding and bubbly, time was of the essence. And I'm still not conceding my point that Fez had to consciously heal Cordelia. This, I would think, would be difficult to coerce.

As for the idea of killing Lilah, she herself dismisses that possibility: "I know what you're thinking. Yes, you could kill me now, but then you'll never be able to stop the visions." Plus, if letting Holland Masters die did nothing to impede Wolfram & Hart, then there's no reason to believe that killing Lilah would take Cordelia out of danger.

As to the second question: I, too, was reminded of "Choices." But the analysis of the choice in "Choices" must be readjusted for history. At the time the choice looked like:

Destroy the Box of Gavrox; let Willow die: -1 life
Save Willow; allow the Ascension to proceed: -6,000,000,000 lives

And a case could be made that had Willow been left to die, Lester Wirth, Harmony, Snyder, maybe Larry, and several others would still be alive today. But several subsequent events have to be factored in to this equation. First of all, Willow is essential to preventing the large loss of life intended by both Adam and Glory. I know we're in the realm of counter-factuals here (but it's one of my favorite words), but I don't see how preventing the Ascension would have prevented either the Initiative from creating Adam or Glory from opening the portal. This does, cold as it seems, give Willow's life a value greater than that of Snyder's, and it readjusts our equation to look like:

Destroy the Box of Gavrox; let Willow die: -6,000,000,000 lives
Save Willow; allow the Ascension to proceed: -6,000,000,000 lives

There is reason to believe that Cordelia will be similarly important to saving the world in the future. She is Angel's only link to the Powers That Be, and possibly his only link to humanity right now.

We also have to adjust the equations for the future acts of Buffy and Angel. Trading the Box for Willow does not end the world. It just makes Buffy's job harder. But we know that our heroes will rise to the occasion, and I think on some level our heroes know that too. As Angel responds to Cordelia when she questions his choice to do Wolfram & Hart's bidding, "I'll just deal with the consequences when they happen."

After "Choices," Buffy is able to deal with the consequences of her choice and minimize the damage of the Ascension. Our final equation, viewed with 20/20 hindsight, looks like:

Destroy the Box of Gavrox; let Willow die: -6,000,000,000 lives
Save Willow; allow the Ascension to proceed: -15 or 20 or so lives

Looking at it that way, Buffy seems justified in decision in "Choices." And I think that Buffy probably looked at it that way all along. She has a self-confidence that I cannot say is unrealistic--she is always able to contain the apocalypses--and I think she approaches apocalypses with the expectation that she will contain them. This expectation is similar to one she has whenever her enemies set a trap for her. A normal person, knowing there's a trap, avoids it. Buffy, with the same knowledge, walks right into it. And she always walks right out of it. The confidence of knowing that you're the hero changes the way you make decisions.

So, while innocent people indubitably will be killed by this young man, I think that Angel is probably justified in seeing that the eventual outcome will tilt towards the good. Now, it's just a question of how Angel's future actions will balance whatever harm he's set in motion here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> hindsight is always 20/20 -- Masq, 16:15:00 10/02/01 Tue
But what will your equations say once fire-guy has been let loose on the world?

(We're still talking in hypotheticals here. One thinks that irks me about these shows is that Joss has that "save the one person over the many" bias too. So he always finds some way the hero can choose their friend over the many and still save the many. In real life, you don't get to fudge things like that).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> My foresight is about 20/300 -- d'Herblay, 16:32:43 10/02/01 Tue
Masq writes: But what will your equations say once fire-guy has been let loose on the world?

I have no idea. But I'm betting that Angel has the idea that he can minimize the damage, and that he feels he needs a healthy Cordelia to do so. I also believe that he has earned our trust in making these decisions.

She further parenthesizes: (We're still talking in hypotheticals here. One thing that irks me about these shows is that Joss has that "save the one person over the many" bias too. So he always finds some way the hero can choose their friend over the many and still save the many. In real life, you don't get to fudge things like that.)

I'd just like to say that although I liked to think that I could justify it, Angel's choice is not my choice (I don't actually find myself often in a position to make such choices, thankfully), so Joss may be the only one under discussion with that "save the one person over the many" bias, though the producers probably have a "save the one regular character over the many extras" bias.

But, yeah, Buffy always avoids the hard choice and still comes up victorious, doesn't she? Except in "Becoming," of course.
Buffy premiere: not-so-good review in SF chronicle (spoilery) -- Masquerade, 13:52:37 10/02/01 Tue
Here: SF Chronicle Buffy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy premiere: not-so-good review in SF chronicle (spoilery) -- Sebastian, 14:37:19 10/02/01 Tue
While that review could prove to be dire...but I'm going to go in with an open mind.

Much the same thing was said of "Buffy vs. Dracula", and it was wondered if the rest of Season 5 would be lacking.

But as we can see, especially from the latter half ("The Body" onward), that was not the case.

I've told all of my friends not to not even *think* of calling me tonight. :-)

Hope everyone enjoys the show...and that includes you guys who are wathching it on delayed basis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy premiere: not-so-good review in SF chronicle (spoilery) -- Cactus Watcher, 14:50:55 10/02/01 Tue
The TV critic in the Arizona Republic, who is a big Buffy fan, sounded a little hesitant about the episode in the paper this morning, but said he'd trust in Joss about the way it would continue to develop.

PS. The paper had a small picture of SMG as Robo-Buffy on the front page to tout the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I've read it, and it's probably a fair review considering... -- A8, 16:31:04 10/02/01 Tue
...that Tim Goodman is one of the biggest Buffy boosters in critic-land. Since he considers the show one of the best on television, I'm sure he viewed the ep with a certain degree of over-hyped expectations. For me, the AtS season premiere was a bit of a let down, too--not because it was flawed in any significant way, but because my expectations were so revved up after all those months waiting, that it would have a tough time meeting them. At any rate, season premieres never seem to have the same 'zing' as season finales. I have no doubt that it will be entertaining, and, like most BtVS eps will get even better with repeated viewing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> He was mostly concerned it wouldn't attract *new* viewers -- Masq, 16:53:11 10/02/01 Tue
I'm sure we'll all enjoy it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> By the way (spoilery), the PETA-inclined may wish to cover their eyes... -- A8, 17:05:32 10/02/01 Tue
...during one particular scene in tonight's ep. AH was on Craig Kilborn's show last night, and the clip she showed had 'Godzilla v. Bambi' written all over it. Of course, she assured everyone that no animals were hurt in the filming and it was all for a very good cause.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: He was mostly concerned it wouldn't attract *new* viewers -- Rob, 20:12:36 10/02/01 Tue
Well, all I can say is I loved it, and I pretty much disagree with everything he said. :)

I thought the episode was absolutely brilliant, and had an inspired explanation for how Buffy was able to be brought back while Joyce was not. I thought the subplot was very exciting and tense, and the resurrection itself inspired. As usual, Joss managed to put in some gutbusting throwaway lines, as well as incredibly moving drama. I can't imagine how anyone could be disappointed with this episode. Joss managed to ressurect Buffy without breaking any of the rules of the Buffyverse! It was intelligently written, brilliantly acted and crisply directed. I don't really know what more to say besides the fact that I think it had one of the best resolutions of a season-ending cliffhanger that I've seen on any show. Further, it was without a doubt "Buffy"s strongest season premiere yet. I am looking forward to a great year!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> After having seen it, thought it was pretty damn good! Looks like the Dark Alchemy crew... -- A8, 22:48:46 10/02/01 Tue
...won't have to make too many revisions. Most of their assumptions were amazingly close to the mark.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Ain't it scary? -- Humanitas, 12:54:57 10/03/01 Wed
We'll see how the rest of the season goes, of course, but I was thinking at a couple of points last night "Wow! I can't believe we called it that closely!" Especially the way that Tara is suddenly competent and sexy. Go, us!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I kind of agree with it -- Tanker, 20:07:50 10/02/01 Tue
I found the first hour in particular to be plodding. Too much "let's all stand around and look glum and talk really slowly and seriously." In contrast, the two episodes of ANGEL that have aired have been a lot more enjoyable to watch. I guess I'm just burned out on the Buffy Bummer Show. I want it to be fun again, and I especially want the characters to have some fun.

I'm actually annoyed now that I taped it in SP. It wasn't worth taking up a whole tape by itself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Buffy premiere: not-so-good review in SF chronicle (spoilery) -- Rattletrap, 21:52:36 10/02/01 Tue
The reviewer has a point, this won't hook too many new viewers, but I enjoyed the episode anyway. It was really a typical Buffy season premiere--sets up a bunch of stuff, but doesn't answer just a whole lot of questions. Its almost like a long-distance footrace, there's a really hard, intense sprint right at the end to close it out; but at the beginning you move slowly to conserve your energy and position yourself in the pack. This episode reminds me a little of "Anne." Both come after really dramatic, intense finales that leave things up in the air, and both remind us that picking up the pieces and carrying on will not be easy or simple; it will take several episodes to get everything back to normal (or what passes for normal in the Buffyverse). This all gives me hope, because "Anne" was a good season premiere, but not a great one, and turned out to be a good episode in an overall great season (IMO). Maybe we can hope for a similar pattern this year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I don't understand....(spoilers, blah blah) -- mundusmundi, 05:18:09 10/03/01 Wed
these charges of too much "moping" in hour 1. If anything, wasn't the whole point of the Buffybot to show that the Scoobs really weren't dealing with anything very well, that they were still, well, in the "bargaining" stage? There were only three or four brief but potent moments (not even scenes) of sorrow, and those were from Dawn, Spike and Giles, the three who seemed to be dealing the best. The only big scene of alleged mopery was between Xander, Willow, Anya and Tara; but I think it was to be expected that they would discuss the situation before acting. They're not just gonna go "Presto, chango!" and conjure up Buffy in the first 5 minutes of the show.

Anyway, I really liked this episode. Wonderful wit by Noxon (favorite line: "I admire your brain, Spike, almost as much as I admire your washboard abs." Or maybe it was JM's reaction that was so funny and wrenching at the same time.) Fury's hour was more stark, and seemed a little scatty (though that may have been the editing and/or commercials), but had some powerful imagery. Buffy had truly awakened to an inferno on earth, and that was effectively conveyed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Celebrating the "little moments" - Spoilers!!! -- Brian, 05:56:19 10/03/01 Wed
I thought this was the best opening episode since season 1.
It was dark, but dark things are happening all over. What I really like were the little touches, moments that made me smile and empathize:

Giles'awkward hug of Xander;
Dawn, in her sleepless, lonliness, crawling into bed with the Buffybot;
Spike's distaste when the Buffybot mentions his abs, his slamming down the deck of cards, his smile at the damage the demons were doing; and
Xander's comment to Willow that her girlfriend was Tinkerbell

Other observations: Both Cordelia and Willow got sliced up by unseen forces this week. So, even though the shows are on separate channels and times, it looks like the links will continue.

When Buffy died she was blonde, and when she comes back she's a redhead. Perhaps as the regeneration power was channeled through Willow that it picked up some aspects of Willow, and therefore, Buffy's hair turned red.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Those little gifts... *spoilers for S6:1/2* -- Solitude1056, 07:12:57 10/03/01 Wed
Perhaps as the regeneration power was channeled through Willow that it picked up some aspects of Willow, and therefore, Buffy's hair turned red.

Wonder what else Buffy might've picked up?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: LOL! -- mm, 12:35:00 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Spike's little smile (spoilericious) -- mm, 12:43:29 10/03/01 Wed
Anybody else take that as David Fury's subtle riposte at Marti Noxon? Here's Spike all good and noble through hour 1, then Fury's turn comes around and sure enough, we see a little dash of the old evil Spike in there. Must say, it was welcome.

I enjoyed Noxon's bit too though. The first scene between Spike and Dawn had lots of subtext going on. Example:

Dawn: You don't have to stay here with me, you know. (Translation: I know you feel guilty about Buffy's death, Spike, but I don't blame you, so don't blame yourself.)

Spike: I'm staying. I'm not leaving you alone. I'm not letting you get hurt ever again. (Translation: I made a promise to a lady, and I'm going to keep it.)
Hmm - premier really touched me, but I can understand the reviews -- penjorgensen (aka Tinysnapdragon), 20:08:39 10/02/01 Tue
Well, I had some mixed feelings about the new episodes tonight. I definitely concur that potential new viewers might be alienated by the grim premises, but for some reason, all the mayhem and more specifically, Buffy's macabre return, hit a deep chord with me. The demon bikers set against a backdrop of burning Sunnydale and grim Scoobies was probably the most apocalyptic sight I have seen yet on BtVS, despite all the actual near-apocalypses they've faced. Funny, if you're into irony...

While those more critical than I will say that her resurrection was an "easy-out" for Joss and co., the images of Buffy's dessicated corpse revivifying and her drastic return to life really made me think. Also, her state of shock at being back in the world and the unfortunate first sights that greeted her would be anyones conception of hell I would imagine. As bizarre as it sounds, it really hit home how unpleasant the concept of returning from the afterlife would be in actuality (and I know this sounds ridiculous), but made me fear more the concept of returning from the grave than death itself.

I have always believed that Joss Whedon brings an unparalled sense of horrific analogies to his work, but tonight really confirmed it. I literally found myself on 3 occasions turning and shouting at my friends "I hate the way this show is written - this isn't the way I wanted it to be!" while we viewed the premiere. After they left, I watched sundry scenes over and over from the tape I recorded of the episode - enough said - it captivated me. I love the show and the way it makes me think, despite that storylines like the one this evening kind of give me the willies.

Anyone else as disturbed yet transfixed as I am?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Actually, it got great reviews in EW, TV Guide, and SciFi.com...and others -- Rob, 20:21:27 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Hmm - premier really touched me, but I can understand the reviews -- Javoher, 22:33:01 10/02/01 Tue
Yes, I am.

After watching my father's death this summer, then watching planes and people fall from the sky, watching this was not what I'd call "entertainment". Beautifully done and deeply disturbing, and something was real about it. Buffy's face captured horror so well. I can't imagine any other horror worse than the one she woke up to in that coffin. Her question (her first words) was quite logical.

Will discuss more when I've processed more. This isn't an easy one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Actually, USA Today gave it a great review too -- Dedalus, 12:36:52 10/03/01 Wed
Tonights Ep Rocked -- Scott, 20:26:47 10/02/01 Tue

Tonights episode was realy well done. I am a very religious person and I don't particulary like the fact that they went into the black arts to raise Buffy from the dead, but I watched this show from day one and over the years I started to deeply care for all the charcters, so because of that I sort of ignored the magic aspect of the show and focused entirely on the charcter development. However I realize magic and demons are huge part of the show, but even if there were no evil or witchcraft the show would still be quality entertainment. Well with that being said. I think this episode was really good. Since Buffy died last season, I spent the whole Summer pondering how Joss would bring her back. Well I wasn't to thrilled by the fact Willow killed a baby deer and The PETA are going to be pissed about it. Trust me. But it was the deers blood that brought Buffy back to life so I guess I am not too mad about the slaughtered deer, but I wish Joss could have used another method. Plus Willow is a sweet kind person who would never hurt a fly and that scene kind of freaked me out because she seemed like a less comppassionate person. I know it is the only way to bring Buffy alive, but still he is a very imaginative person he could have thought of something else. During the resurrection scene I had to change the channel. As I said before I am very religious I watch the show for the charcters and storyline, not the magic. The first two seasons did not even deal with magic, so by the time every episode had magic in it I had already invested time into the charcters. And eventhough Willow dabbles into magic, she is still my favorite. Well anyways when Buffy is resurrected you feel alot of compassion for her. You can tell she is scared out of her mind and you just want to protect her from harm. Sarah was really good in this episode. She showed that she has great comedic timing by playing the robot version of her and she is also a great dramatic actress. She pulls you into the show as if you know her and as if you are one of her friends. She is talented. I give credit to Joss For caring about each charcter and creating well rounded personalities for each, especially Spike. Anyways despite the fact that it does not live to the hype, it had great action and good performances. Not the best, but not the worst. I think its a new direction. It is much more edier and intense. i just hope no more deers get slautered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Tonights Ep Rocked -- Mercedes, 20:39:34 10/02/01 Tue
You mentioned you're very religious, but I do not see why that would convey an aversion to the whole "magic and demons and vamps, oh my!" aspect of the show - what religious persuasion finds this so offensive?

(Begging Masq. not to delete this post - not meant to be incendiary, just thought-provoking)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It is all things philosophical-Magic and Religeon -- Charlemagne20, 21:17:15 10/02/01 Tue
Speaking as a minister in training there is a very real fear that I think is somewhat unjustified and frankly unhealthy that...

Portraying evil is close to glorifying it.

Spike and Angelus for instance are exceptionally cool dudes despite the fact that Angelus and Spike are stone cold killers for the most part.

The Bikers tonight were rapists, thieves, and murderers but the disturbing aspect is that they were able to get away with it and were ENJOYING THEMSELVES. Not many people are ready to face the idea of what it would be like for "evil" to have the upper hand and be able to do whatever it wants to you and leave you without too much trouble...

Also a very real fear of some people (particularly religeous) is that someone would feel empowered by such an act and want to immitate it.

I personally believe understanding such evil is the first step to cutting it off at the root and preparing oneself for the healing of it.

As for magic the original religeous aversion to magic is mostly based on the fact that they stem from the previous religions of the world or are adopetd in part because of people's disastifaction with the present religeous status quo (meaning something needs to be addressed). it is sad but true many people would prefer that "witchcraft" not be a present competition for souls...

Especially with the strong superstitions that the Devil actually is the source behind Pagan gods and that he acts through such religeons even to this day rather than such religions were men's attempts to contact the same power.

In the Buffyverse it's a rather annoying line Joss walks because he seems to be walking down the Middle.

Osiris, Hecate, and other deities are portrayed AS EVIL (Glorificus was a goddess but definately also a demon) so it seems that in a way that they too must be fought and destroyed like all demons...

Yet look at Willow and Tara the heroes engage in what is tantamount to worship
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: It is all things philosophical-Magic and Religeon (poss spoilers) -- Devon, 05:50:16 10/03/01 Wed
New poster here -- Just wanted to clarify that Osiris isn't an evil god -- he's the Egyptian god of the dead. He controls the comings and goings from the underworld. Therefore, Willow's magick was concentrated on exhorting Osiris to release Buffy's soul.

Now Willow has made a big, karmic no-no. This is bad stuff. Witches don't kill things or use actual sacrifice in their magick. Willow seriously put herself on the line (besides the weird snake stuff) -- I wonder if she will suffer as a result of the threefold rule?

Devon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The entire point of the episode *whooshed* right over you didn't it? -- Charlemagne20, 21:08:32 10/02/01 Tue
Dude...

Let me point something out...

* The black arts to ressurect buffy

Joss did a pretty damn good job of pointing out that it is NOT a good thing for Buffy to be back from the grave. It was fairly obvious that despite the whole coffin, apcolyptic vision stuff that she saw. The biggest thing which freaked her out was that she had just been denied her rightful reward in Heaven.

One of the most religeous things the show have ever shown.

* The Evil

The show is meant as an action adventure not a drama and the villians needed to be established to carry a message and while perhaps scarier than normal, it is a big part of the show that they deal with people who turn to wickedness to accomplish the aims Buffy and company are meant to avoid the temptations of...

* Willow and Murder

Willow is being corrupted by her excessive use of magic and Joss is bringing that out. It's not meant as a promotion of the use of the Urn of Osiris but a sign of just how twisted and depraved the type of magic that thrives on the Hellmouth in the Buffyverse is.

Frankly I'm alittle dissapointed willow is being portrayed as a Wiccan, it's rather like bringing the sole minister on the show to be a crazy witch-burning nutter.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Thankyou! Charlemagne, well said. -- bible belt, 22:20:03 10/02/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thankyou! Charlemagne, well said. -- Devon, 05:54:15 10/03/01 Wed
Thank you Charlemagne. Just my thoughts! There is a lot of opening for plotlines where Willow has to pay her dues as well. But your point about having the Wiccans portrayed as condoning this kind of magick, well...you're right. It's like saying that all Christians are close-minded bigots (they are NOT).

Devon
pagan and proud of it
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> portraying witchcraft -- Solitude1056, 06:07:34 10/03/01 Wed
I like the analogy of Willow as wiccan being similar to a crazy nutter minister, but Tara's a witch, as well... and she's definitely not falling into Willow's category. Tara spoke up several times about her discomfort with what was happening, but it was also clear that Willow was keeping Tara in the dark about some of the costs, and what-else Willow was doing to make the ritual work. I felt Joss was able to use both characters to aptly demonstrate that Willow's stepping away from the current popular understanding of Wicca (which Tara still represents), and that she's entering some other category, and that this new area may not be a good thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: portraying witchcraft -- celticross, 07:50:03 10/03/01 Wed
Well, Willow's not a Wiccan, not really. Wicca is natural magic, and Willow's full speed ahead pursuit of power is not the mindset of one is seeks to be in tune with nature and the universe. Her attitude towards magic reminds me of the scientists who are throwing themselves so whole-heartedly into cloning research without waiting to see what the ethical considerations of that technology will be. For Tara, magic is as natural as breathing, it's a part of life and the cycles of life. For Willow, it's knowledge. I can foresee this causing them more problems... What it comes down to is a difference in philosophy, and I've learned the hard way in the past that no matter how much you love someone, a difference like that can destroy a relationship.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: portraying witchcraft -- rowan, 07:57:30 10/03/01 Wed
Well said. Someone like Willow is an over-achiever cloaked in an underachiever's personality. She wants to fit in with a group because she's never had one. She uses magic as a way to both mark herself as special and separate herself, while at the same time giving herself a role in the group.

She has always had an intellectual curiosity. In the very first eps of the show, Willow is eager to break into the local governments computer files to get at the plans for the tunnels under Sunnydale. Granted her reason is good -- she wants to help find the Master. But she's always been attracted to doing things in a slightly less ethical way. She's not a bad person, but she doesn't have strongly defined ideas of right and wrong. This is both a strength and a weakness of hers.

Your description of Tara is right on. She is interested in the harmony of Wicca/witchcraft and an attunement with lifecycles. I don't think Willow has any interest in that. Willow is mastering a craft that gives her the ability to control and utilize nature, the way she uses her computer to do so.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: portraying witchcraft -- rowan, 07:51:06 10/03/01 Wed
I agree. But Willow's never seemed to me to be interested in the religious or philosophical elements of magic. She approaches it like she approaches her computer programming -- as a craft that she masters. She's fearlessly jumped into advanced learning. I think that Tara represents more of a Wiccan/Witch perspective where there is a strong ethical or philosophical base. I know Willow understands her actions have costs (because she mutters to Xander that it was all for nothing, implying that the 'all' was a big deal), but she just doesn't seem to have the same reverence that Tara does.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The entire point of the episode *whooshed* right over you didn't it? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 06:53:21 10/03/01 Wed
Willow is being corrupted by her excessive use of magic and Joss is bringing that out. It's not meant as a promotion of the use of the Urn of Osiris but a sign of just how twisted and depraved the type of magic that thrives on the Hellmouth in the Buffyverse is.

Willow might be subject to a little corruption, but not because of the sacrifice. Did she look at all -happy- to do that? No. She seemed a little disgusted with herself, but it was something she had to do.

Think of the world Willow lives in. Think of the horrors that ran amuck even when Buffy -was- alive. Now that she's gone, those horrors have quadrupled (sp, I know). Willow and Tara -can't- prance around in flowy little robes and sing badly written faux-folk songs about the Great Peaceful and Wise All Caring Never-Hurts-A-Fly-Even-Though-She-Embodies-The-Forces-of-Nature-Which-Aren't-Always-Pleasant. They have to be edgier. And, in relation to things like raising the dead, they need to do some things that no one should ever have to do.

The sacrifice was necessary. There's a price for these things, you know...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The entire point of the episode *whooshed* right over you didn't it? -- Rob, 07:45:47 10/03/01 Wed
I'm curious about one major thing that I'm sure will have an enormous effect on this season...

Will there be any repercussions for the spell not being completed all the way to the end?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The entire point of the episode *whooshed* right over you didn't it? -- celticross, 08:46:20 10/03/01 Wed
"Think of the horrors that ran amuck even when Buffy -was- alive. Now that she's gone,
those horrors have quadrupled "

I have to wonder....did the idea of finding Faith even occur to anyone in the SG? Yeah, I know, Eliza's having a go at movies, but Faith is still a slayer, for a few months, THE slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> They probably figured it'd be difficult to break her out of prison! -- Marie, 08:59:43 10/03/01 Wed
Oh, I know, someone's going to say "Well, Willow could probably do it!" - but hey, she has to think of the morals of a minor now!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> huh??? where do you get that from? -- anom, 22:13:23 10/03/01 Wed
"It was fairly obvious that despite the whole coffin, apcolyptic vision stuff that she saw. The biggest thing which freaked her out was that she had just been denied her rightful reward in Heaven."

Obvious? Not to me! I didn't see anything that indicated she was thinking of heaven. She seemed more confused than anything else. Yes, she asked if this was hell, but in a way that sounded more like she was trying to figure out what was going on than like she had expected the opposite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: huh??? where do you get that from? -- OnM, 06:22:00 10/04/01 Thu
Wow, that was very much the thing that I got out of the ep, and it's the primary reason I referred to it in my review (posted above by a number of threads) as being the darkest ep I have ever seen I didn't see it so much as 'denied her chance in heaven', but more like she dies, goes *somewhere, nowhere?*, then awakes and by all external appearances would have seemed to have arrived in hell.

Can you imagine the psychological effect that would have? I haven't had a chance to read over all of the threads yet, so someone may have picked up on this, but in my review thread I haven't seen it as a response yet, even though I deliberately used the term 'psychological rape', which to me it is.

I mean, you fight the good fight, even give your life for it, and your reward is eternity in hell? That goes way, way beyond merely 'dark'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> What?! No magic or evil or demons!? -- Deeva, 21:34:53 10/02/01 Tue
But how would it still be the same show? Without all that it would be like any other high school drama show where the characters grow up, go to college and then deal with more adult decisions. It'd be like (and forgive me if you don't agree with the following comparisons) Beverly Hills 90210, Dawson's Creek, and to some degree but less slutty, Melrose Place. The mystical & the myths are one of the many of the things that interest me in this show.

Willow dabbles in magic? I think it's too late to use that word. She's swimming in it. Willow is a sweet person and normally wouldn't hurt a fly but I think that this season is a big one for her. Her being approached to be a vengence demon previously was only the tip of the iceburg, I think, before she finds her way back.

And as for the PETA people I think they have bigger battles to fight than this one. Don't get me wrong I'm an animal lover and don't enjoy or patronize circuses or zoos or theme parks with animal shows. But I think I know the difference between real and pretend. There are so many rules on set to make sure that the deer was not hurt during filming. But using that thinking, should we protest and be offended by fishing programs that show the capture and release of sport fish for fun? Or what about the scientists that capture whales, sharks and dolphins and attach (insert & staple, really) transmitters.

I apologize if I appear to be picking on someone but everything that I have said is not meant to be negative in anyway. Just pointing a few things out thats all. Maybe I misinterpretted the original message and if I did, then my bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: What?! No magic or evil or demons!? -- Voxpopuli, 05:09:14 10/03/01 Wed
Iíve never seen Willow as a Wiccan, despite her tendency to go all sweet (Donít hurt the horsies!). All throughout the series sheís demonstrated that she has been more on a primitive track of power manipulation than a real religious approach. Actually I believe she probably considers herself religiously jewish. Traditional witchcraft is not a religion, rather a set of practices.
Animal sacrifices are a common feature of ancient religions, "primitive" ones. And they are done for magical and/or religious purposes. The reason I make this difference is directly related to my own path: you can perform a sacrifice to attain a goal, be it a healing or other effect, or you can do it within a initiatic context where the use of blood is paramount to the death and rebirth process, and you have not only the animal sacrifice, but also your own blood given in scarification rituals (usually fine scars, some people carve real deep ones and tinge them with natural/herbal colours).
Not so old religions do use animal sacrifice, take Islam as na example, and in many countries they have their rights to sacrifice within a religious context upheld by the law. Actually some animal sacrifices performed in temples are quicker and more "humanitarian" than the ones made in industrial units, at least the animals are kept in a nice place, well fed, respected before being snuffed! But thatís no excuse, it you area vegetarian, christian or animal rights activist.
I was kind of expecting a grossed out reaction from viewers, after reading the spoilers. But really, I was expecting more bad reactions in forums, and I noticed that people may not have liked it, but that it was ok within the script. I mean, that it fit the story line.
And then... Tara is more Wiccan than Willow. I wonder where will Willowís thirst for knowledge and power lead her in this season...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Sacrifice, Life, Death - SPOILERS for 6:1 & 6:2 -- Solitude1056, 06:02:16 10/03/01 Wed
I agree that it may have seemed preferable that Willow find a different way than slitting Bambi's throat (which, thankfully, was off-screen & they didn't even try to fake it). But I got the point Joss was making: that Willow, who normally wouldn't hurt a fly, was willing to make the sacrifice, to follow the ends justifying the means argument. (In the magical arena, it does make sense: if you're going to demand a life, then you've got to balance it somehow, so the idea that something had to die so Buffy could live did not surprise me - that Willow did it, so brutally, did surprise me.) And yeah, I cringed - I love deer, even if they do eat my blueberry plants, and the idea of slitting the throat of something that approached you willingly and trustfully just made my skin crawl. It certainly didn't make me like Willow less, but it sure didn't make me like her more. (And that may also been part of what Joss was pushing for.)

And on top of that, as someone else may have already pointed out, Willow didn't tell any of the other SG what she'd had to do to get this "wine of the mother" - she told them it was "blackmarket" - implying that she went and bought it somewhere. I would've expected Tara to have known, even if Anya and Xander didn't, but it was patently obvious that Tara didn't even know. I was relieved to see that Tara hasn't lost her principles, and was clearly ambivalent about the whole process - the idea of killing another creature specifically and solely may have been too much for her. As a person who only believes in hunting when every part of the creature will be used, I would've said no to Willow's actions unless it was a full-grown critter and was going to suffer a fate better than being bled and left to rot. It just seems to me like a huge waste, otherwise... but that might be one of the (unintentional) points: death is a bit of a waste, no matter what.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Remember... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:17:05 10/03/01 Wed
It may be a fawn, but what Willow is really sacrificing is her own innocence. Sol, everything you say above points to it. How good or how bad that is, remains to be seen.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good point. -- Solitude1056, 07:01:03 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Remember... -- rowan, 07:47:11 10/03/01 Wed
Willow may be balancing a life with a death, but she is also the one in the position of deciding who lives and who dies. This scene, I think, foreshadows that Willow has already crossed the line into a dark area. Most Wiccan and witchcraft traditions don't advocate human or animal sacrifice. Hey, we apologize and thank trees if we take a branch.

This is serious stuff. That's why she kept it from everyone. I too, might have expected Tara to know, but I think it's beyond Tara's understanding of Willow to imagine that Willow would even do a spell with such a requirement. That's what marks the spell as so dark, ramping it up from the spell in Forever, which required an egg (potential for life, not fully realized life yet).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Well, not quite. -- Solitude1056, 07:57:29 10/03/01 Wed
Willow did specifically request, and then, upon completion, did also include a prayer of thanks for the offered life. So in that sense, she began and ended with the traditional expressions as used in many systems with this sort of death-and-life acknowledgement. I'm thinking specifically of Cherokee, but I'm aware that other Native American systems also use a post-death prayer of thanks. And yes, there was also the element of the creature having to come willingly to her, so intellectually, she satisfied the concept of a volunteer sacrifice, offering to exchange its own life for that of the one she's trying to save/recreate. But it still doens't change the fact that what bothers me the most is that Tara obviously didn't know what Willow was doing - that says to me, above and beyond any other element (since animal sacrifice doesn't bother me except when it becomes a waste) - that Willow somehow knew what she was doing was crossing the line. Otherwise, why not tell Tara and avail herself of the support that Tara would have freely offered?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Sorry, disagree. -- rowan, 08:02:59 10/03/01 Wed
I still contend that most Wiccan/witchcraft practitioners have a reverence for life that would cause them to pause before sacrificing a living creature. It's hard to argue that a creature which doesn't think and operates on instinct can sacrifice itself -- that's projecting human characteristics to an animal. Plus I think the average viewer would be disturbed at the thought that she sacrificed a life. Who is Willow to decide that any deer (which harmed none) should die so that Buffy could live? Willow easily overrides Buffy's willing sacrifice for Dawn, but she "allows" the deer to sacrifice itself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, disagree. -- Cactus Watcher, 08:29:09 10/03/01 Wed
You're making it sound as if Willow was lying in ambush waiting for something innocent to come along, which I know is not what you want to say. Sol is correct. Willow called for a sacrifice to be sent to her.

Big point to keep in mind. It's Tara who is the Wicca. Willow is not necessarily in ageement with that philosophy. She showed that when she helped Dawn after Joyce's death.

Personally, I find the kind of sacrifice that Willow made disgusting, but that's my ethical system talking, that's my emotions talking. My rational side could make sense of what she was doing, and make allowances for it. It's what I've been talking about and hinting at all summer. If people let their emotions alone dictate how they see Buffy, they're going to miss a lot. [End of sermon :o)]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry, disagree. -- rowan, 08:49:41 10/03/01 Wed
"You're making it sound as if Willow was lying in ambush waiting for something innocent to come along, which I know is not what you want to say. Sol is correct. Willow called for a sacrifice to be sent to her."

I don't think we're dealing with a correct/incorrect situation here. We're dealing with an interpretation of something we've all seen. You and Sol choose to articulate a different interpretation. That's fine -- you're entitled to your analysis, and I respect that. Mine differs and I think there's evidence in Willow's attempts to keep her actions secret that support my interpretation as something beyond my own personal bias.

"Big point to keep in mind. It's Tara who is the Wicca. Willow is not necessarily in ageement with that philosophy. She showed that when she helped Dawn after Joyce's death."

I agree with this comment as I think I mentioned in my posts.

"Personally, I find the kind of sacrifice that Willow made disgusting, but that's my ethical system talking, that's my emotions talking. My rational side could make sense of what she was doing, and make allowances for it. It's what I've been talking about and hinting at all summer. If people let their emotions alone dictate how they see Buffy, they're going to miss a lot. [End of sermon :o)]"

Thanks for the sermon;) but I don't feel in particular need of it and I'm not sure if it was directed at me. My comments were about "generally accepted" ethical ideas, not my personal bias. This is a board to discuss philosophical considerations, and my thoughts were offered as such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry for not reading your post on the other line first -- Cactus Watcher, 08:59:20 10/03/01 Wed
The second paragraph was aimed at you, and unfairly. The sermon was not for meant for you, but just a steam venting at those who insist on saying 'It makes me feel this way, so don't annoy me with the facts.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No problem -- all friends here! Debate energizes the soul. :) -- rowan, 09:07:48 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> A few more thoughts -- Sebastian, 08:40:06 10/03/01 Wed
What I find striking was Will's single-mindedness in the ep. It was notable that the two people closest to her (Xander and Tara) were CLEARLY uncomfortable regarind performing the spell, but she pressed on regardless. If anything - she squashed the resistance that was shown.

What I also found noteworthy - which ties into the repercussions for Willow - was showing Buffy's body. It was DECOMPOSED. It strictly contradicts Will's argument that maybe Buffy was trapped in another dimension like Angel.

That argument was flawed because Angel's BODY was sucked into hell. There was no corpse left after Acathla absorbed him.

With Buffy, however, there WAS a body. She was dead. Period. Who knows where her spirit was. Perhaps it WAS somewhere peaceful. Will's argument that she was killed by "mystical energy thus it was not a real death" lacks force because it was a death regardless.

ANY death that is not natural is not justified. Anyone who has known someone vamped, murdered, or killed by accident could use that arguement.

I like Will alot - but her motivations were clearly colored by selfishness. Yes - she may feel that the world needs the Slayer - bu she also wants her friend back. That's the primary reason they did it.

And I agree with everyone - I think the killing of the deer shows just how far she is willing to go. It is a clear veering from Wiccan principles.

I'm also interested to see Spike's reaction. The line they have in next week's teaser regarding magic having consequences shows he may not be all that pleased that they took the route that they have in bringing Buffy back.

I also found it interesting that although they consider him "worthy" enough to "babysit" Dawn - they did not tell him of their plans.

I'm wodering if they lumped him in the same mindset of Giles - who no doubt would have discouraged the entire process.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A few more thoughts -- rowan, 08:53:50 10/03/01 Wed
"What I also found noteworthy - which ties into the repercussions for Willow - was showing Buffy's body. It was DECOMPOSED. It strictly contradicts Will's argument that maybe Buffy was trapped in another dimension like Angel.

That argument was flawed because Angel's BODY was sucked into hell. There was no corpse left after Acathla absorbed him.

With Buffy, however, there WAS a body. She was dead. Period. Who knows where her spirit was. Perhaps it WAS somewhere peaceful. Will's argument that she was killed by "mystical energy thus it was not a real death" lacks force because it was a death regardless."

You and I are on the same wavelength about the differences between Angel and Buffy, as well as the question of where Buffy's essence (spirit) actually was. I'm puzzling over Willow's logic too (posting above about it). I'll be interested to see how others view this and how this unwinds in future eps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Feeling has always been the best moral compass (NT) -- Charlemagne20, 09:58:09 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Feeling has always been the best moral compass (NT) -- Sebastian, 10:29:41 10/03/01 Wed
Do you mean in reference to Willow's actions?

If so...I have to disagree.

While I do feel feelings should come into play with any moral decision - it can have devestating consequences if applied wrong.

Look at Faith. Her feelings were hurt - she acted on them - and it was the worst moral choices she could have made.

There is always a light and shadow consequence to anything - and most especially when feelings are involved.

We tend to think on the positive note with Charlemagne's statement. I mean, Buffy's sacrifice in The Gift is an example of what we normally think of in terms of feelings being a good moral compass.

But that is not always the case. Those self-same feelings could cause a morally wrong choice to be made.

It remains to be seen if this will reflect on Willow.

(As a sidebar, I just want to say I am NOT a Willow basher. She has always been one of most fave characters on the show and her development from shy outcast to self assured witch has been great to see. I just want to emphasize that her actions are going to cost her.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Differences between Jossian and, uh, "real" magickal ethics - LONG, & had spoilers for BtVS & AtS -- Solitude1056, 10:29:28 10/03/01 Wed
We've gone over this before, but with the recent action from Willow, it probably wouldn't hurt to bring the topic back up & review it again, see if we come up with different arguments and/or suggestions. Yes, "an it harm none" may be the Wiccan Rede, but that's for this reality. That obviously doesn't work in the Buffyverse, where there's a lot more working to harm the SG on a regular basis - demons, vampires, and humans who want more power and thus play into the hands of the aforementioned demons 'n vamps 'n other assorted baddies. Strictly speaking, the Wiccan Rede might be an unlivable ethic in a reality where death to demons 'n vampires is a necessary part of living.

I am suddenly reminded of a friend's observation yesterday that tolerance of extreme freedoms are a luxury enjoyed by a peace-time people, and not feasible when you're one of the band of brothers fighting on the front lines. Yes, having the freedom to choose your path is a valued notion... until you get to the front lines and realize that if you don't keep your trap shut and follow orders, you may not only get killed but you may take the rest of your team with you. We saw that last night with Willow directing everyone where to fight - they had to follow orders, and just trust that their commanding officer (Willow) had a clear view and was leading them true. On top of that, going with the realization that in war, there are no innocent bystanders - Sunnydale, for instance, has its fair share of "innocent bystanders" who are breakfast, lunch, and dinner for various vampires 'n demons. It is not a matter of those bystanders just hiding until the Slayer shows up, cleans out, and then they go back to their lives; they're dealing with it by various means (mostly, apparently, by pretending it doesn't exist) but I'm sure there's a few who escape a vampire by getting to the car in enough time, getting inside, or just lucky breaks. They're involved in the war, even if they don't want to admit it's happening around them. That's what I meant by no innocent (ie, unaware & ignorant) bystanders. So, getting back to my point which is buried in here somewhere, it seems unrealistic to expect people in a fighting stance to uphold principles that could get them killed, principles that we ourselves espouse by virtue of not having had those principles tested on a regular basis for six years or more years. (One could go so far as to say that our peace-based principles are those of the Hero, since in war, those principles are what people want to uphold, even if the daily circumstances render them infeasible. Those who are fighting, like Giles, must recognize that the principle of not killing an unarmed enemy may be noble, but it will also mean that the SG could expect to see the enemy again, but this time armed. Death of an unarmed, injured person became a necessary evil due to the circumstances of the battle.)

We are basically in agreement that there are general correlations between Jossian Wicca and realverse Wicca, but I can't recall Tara ever mentioning the Wiccan Rede - and if anyone would, it'd be her. It seems to me that it'd be rather hypocritical of her to do so (given what I discussed in the paragraph above). A devout follower of the "an it harm none" may have protested killing the demon, arguing that there may be someone, somewhere, who loved this Rice-rocket-riding Little Bad. But Tara axed him without a second thought. One could argue that she may have done so regardless of whether he was about to kill Willow; it's possible she would've done the same had he been about to torch the Magic Box. Speculation aside, fact is, she killed him, without a word as to harming none or any statement (or even implication) that this in some way either violated her beliefs or had to be classified as an exception (such as, "it's okay to harm another to defend yourself," or "it's okay to harm another if they're about to hurt someone you love," or "it's okay to harm another if they're about to hurt someone you generally just kind of like," or whatever watered-down series of exceptions could be created and rationalized, as so many are, in difficult times). To be honest, I've got major qualms of my own about the whole "an it harm none," anyway, since it seems to me that carried too far, we'd all be paralyzed into a constant state of non-action for fear our actions would have far-reaching consequences that would hurt something or someone. I much prefer just "do what thou wilt," without the "an it harm none," since the "harm none" caveat is all-too-often confused with its original intentions, which is not that of harm but of consequence.

Spike's hollering in the trailer for S6:3 is true in most systems, if not all: that all actions have consequences. These consequences are a part of our existence, right down to the maxim that every action has an equal and opposite reaction... but in magick, it'd be more accurate to simply say that every action has consequences, since this consequence may or may not be equal to the original action, and it may also be - or may not be - positive or negative. On top of that, understanding there are consequences thereby renders the need for a "three-fold law" redundant, since there's no guarantee that results will be three-fold; they could easily be a hundred-fold. I've often seen folks identify three consequences of an act and declare this proof of the three-fold law, when in fact as a detached observer I could easily identify four times as many consequences, and not all quickly quantifiable as good or bad. They're only noticeable as being various results of a single act, but it's hard to set a qualifiable value upon those without having an idea of the bigger picture.

On top of that, the Powers That Be play a much larger role in the Jossian system than in our everyday reality. Cordelia, in "That Vision Thing," wasn't so much as upset about the side-effects of her visions as she was about the notion that the PTB were doing this to her, and thus, her next conclusion was that she had somehow offended them. With the basic assumption that the PTB are working for good, an inexplicable event can get shuffled easily into the category of "perhaps it's for a bigger reason, since obviously the PTB wanted that to happen." There's a fatalistic sense in the Jossian system that grates on me, sometimes; in our realverse without significant daily proof of some sentient PTB, we are frequently left telling each other that we can't conceive of a reason why something happened. Those of us who practice a faith may find it easier, by virtue of having someone to blame or credit - but justification may also be harder, given that the believers may be expecting preferential treatment against such circumstances by virtue of their faith. Joss plays into the latter mind-set every now and then; this seems to be a natural character development due to the PTB being such active players in his universe.

In that last sense, therefore, Bambi's presentation could easily be argued as guided by the PTB, and thus the fawn was a volunteering (or volunteered) sacrifice. In our realverse, I'd have some major issues with this argument, because first you'd have to convince me that there are sentient PTB guiding minor events, and second you'd have to convince me that you don't need to have your medication adjusted. But in the Jossian system, the PTB's ability to respond to, and participate in, acts of magick or prayer, are taken as basis for determining those magicks or prayer as successful or even justified. So from Willow's POV, the fawn's death may have been repugnant, but it was necessary for the spell, and the PTBs' willingness to support her spell was indicated by their presentation of a sacrifice. This isn't our earth logic, but it's Jossian logic, and in that sense, I don't measure the act itself as having a specific value, since it's outside my experience of the world (as one whose most common animal-killing experience consists of bashing blue crabs over the head with a coke can, and only then in self-defense of my toes). But this episode was consistent with the rest of the Jossian system, so I let it be.

The real crux, for me, is not whether Jossian Wicca is diverging from Realverse Wicca (or any other magickal system, for that matter, since as has been noted before, Willow and Tara practice something remarkably more like ceremonial magick than Wicca, anyway)... but whether, within Joss' system, Willow has crossed the line. And to determine that, I feel we have to look to her own behavior and verbalization about her choices and the expected consequences. It is entirely possible, I surmise, that Willow expected the death of the fawn to forestall any consequences - bringing Buffy back, without a corresponding death, may have meant the post-ritual death of someone else as the "cost" of success. So I fully expect that when Spike gets cranky about consequences, Willow may get equally cranky in return, since she probably feels that she's already paid the price for a life, by taking another death to balance it. The idea that there may be further consequences may not have occurred to her.

And lastly, the single line that hit me the hardest - and not out of an emotional response to Buffy's pain, either - was "is this hell?" Because in that moment, I realized: Willow must have been wrong. If Buffy had spent who-knows-how-long in some type of Hell, then wouldn't she be cognizant of the fact that she's not in that Hell anymore, but is back in Sunnydale? Even given the idea that may've occurred to her (that she was a vampire now), and the state of fiery Sunnydale when she returned, she'd still be able to designate it as being different from whatever she'd been experiencing. Angel's situation, which Willow referenced (and also, to me, seems like a specious argument by virtue of really having little comparison when you get down to hard tacks), didn't result in him asking Buffy if he was still in Hell. He wasn't sure of much, and barely had any shreds of humanity, and distrustful of the new surroundings... but his situation was definitely different, even if the first behaviors demonstrated are similar between the two characters. Buffy's question, to me, indicated that she didn't recall where she was, and that like Darla, the intervening space was simply a blank. She wasn't in some ungawdly hellhole suffering aeons of torment, like Willow had insisted - Buffy was dead. And in that sense, what Willow did was no better than bringing Joyce back, even if she used a fancier ritual and took a life instead of just some demon egg. I'd been uncomfortable throughout the episode with Willow's hardheaded insistence and selfishness, but it was at Buffy's question that it dawned on me exactly how distasteful Willow had suddenly become.

It's also going to develop slowly (if it's ever discussed specifically at all), since none of the other SG are aware that Willow sacrificed an animal and didn't just buy the blood on the black market... and I doubt Dawn will just up and say, "gee, so her first words to me were a question about whether this is hell, strange, hunh." And I'd expect that if there's anyone Buffy talks to about what she's going through, it'd be Willow - which would give Willow the additional bolster of being able to explain the situation or consequences to Buffy's satisfaction and thus preventing the rest of the SG from hearing about and getting worried. (I can easily see her telling Buffy to keep her questions between the two of them, so Tara won't get upset, or some such. And I can see Buffy respecting this request, and thus the rest of the SG may remain ignorant of Buffy's doubts and Willow's consequences.) The combination of the two (the sacrifice and Buffy's question), that could make the SG realize that Willow seriously messed up, may not be coming for awhile, if at all. It will most likely be something else, in a later stage, that makes Tara (and maybe the rest) acknowledge that Willow stepped off the shared path and headed off on her own, to a place they don't want to follow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow's deception -- Alexx Kay, 11:19:47 10/03/01 Wed
"The real crux, for me, is ... whether, within Joss' system, Willow has crossed the line. And to determine that, I feel we have to look to her own behavior and verbalization about her choices and the expected consequences."

A valid point. And I think the most telling point there is that Willow felt that her actions were sufficiently unacceptable that she lied about them to the rest of the SG. At the very least, she thinks that *they* would think she'd done something wrong.

A lot of characters on BtVS have decieved one another for what they perceived at the time to be good and sufficient reasons. Have there been any instances when such behaviour hasn't had nasty consequences in the end?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's deception -- Humanitas, 15:06:31 10/03/01 Wed
Nothing ever came of Xander's lie about not remembering what happened in The Pack. Minor point, to be sure, but it is a definite deceit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What Sol said... -- rowan, 11:29:32 10/03/01 Wed
"We've gone over this before, but with the recent action from Willow, it probably wouldn't hurt to bring the topic back up & review it again, see if we come up with different arguments and/or suggestions. Yes, "an it harm none" may be the Wiccan Rede, but that's for this reality. That obviously doesn't work in the Buffyverse, where there's a lot more working to harm the SG on a regular basis - demons, vampires, and humans who want more power and thus play into the hands of the aforementioned demons 'n vamps 'n other assorted baddies. Strictly speaking, the Wiccan Rede might be an unlivable ethic in a reality where death to demons 'n vampires is a necessary part of living."

Yes, but we're not just discussing the Wiccan Rede, are we? That basic principle underlies many of the world's philosophies and religions. It's something deeply felt at a very primal level and as such, I expect ME would expect it to resonate for the audience who views the episode in order to spark just the type of debate we're having (which is starting to take on the epic proporations of the Spike redemption debate, ye gods!) We'll have to coin the phrase right now: ATLtW.

It's true that the RealVerse isn't the Buffyverse, but I expect the questions (if not the answers) have alot of applicability to both realms.

"...but whether, within Joss' system, Willow has crossed the line."

I absolutely agree with this point.

"And to determine that, I feel we have to look to her own behavior and verbalization about her choices and the expected consequences. It is entirely possible, I surmise, that Willow expected the death of the fawn to forestall any consequences - bringing Buffy back, without a corresponding death, may have meant the post-ritual death of someone else as the "cost" of success. So I fully expect that when Spike gets cranky about consequences, Willow may get equally cranky in return, since she probably feels that she's already paid the price for a life, by taking another death to balance it. The idea that there may be further consequences may not have occurred to her."

This is where we probably diverge. I think to truly get a read on Willow, because no being is an entirety unto themselves (the Buffyverse is a joined community and Willow's actions reverberate) that the reactions of others and the audience's own life experience matter. Alot.

"And lastly, the single line that hit me the hardest - and not out of an emotional response to Buffy's pain, either - was "is this hell?" Because in that moment, I realized: Willow must have been wrong. If Buffy had spent who-knows-how-long in some type of Hell, then wouldn't she be cognizant of the fact that she's not in that Hell anymore, but is back in Sunnydale? Even given the idea that may've occurred to her (that she was a vampire now), and the state of fiery Sunnydale when she returned, she'd still be able to designate it as being different from whatever she'd been experiencing. Angel's situation, which Willow referenced (and also, to me, seems like a specious argument by virtue of really having little comparison when you get down to hard tacks), didn't result in him asking Buffy if he was still in Hell."

Yes, Buffy's conscious mind at least seemed to pick up in time from the moment of her death. She perhaps expected her death to result in entre to a demon dimension (since the portal opened to one). The fire, the chaos, etc. all combined to result in that question. It's as if she has no recollection of where she was for three months. Now, is that because the memory is buried? or because life ends with the physical body and there is no 'other'? Time, I guess, will tell.

I guess I'm a very simplistic person. But we all struggle with the same basic question: how do I live in a right relationship with others and the world? It seems to me the really captivating element of Willow's character development is analyzing how her relationship with the world is changing. Her influence over the world is increasing and it's darn enthralling to watch, with all its murky implications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Willow's clothes -- Brian, 10:56:59 10/03/01 Wed
In the scene with the deer, she was dressed in white - innocent and virginal - in the very next scene she's dressed in red. She has been stained by her actions. How deep that stain goes will be part of the unfolding story.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Good point (NT) -- Ryuei, 11:01:10 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Desperation -- Javoher, 20:14:44 10/03/01 Wed
The sacrifice of the fawn points to Willow's desperation. The fawn's life was traded for Buffy's, in Willow's mind, and she said ritual phrases to speed the poor thing on its journey through death. That scene shows that Willow would do anything, go to any lengths, to ensure that Buffy's soul wasn't stuck eternally in some hell dimension. And I agree that in her desperation she considered her own innocence to be an acceptable part of the trade.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Willow bargained for buffy's life with her moral/ethical compass, agree? -- iphi, 08:51:02 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> But what's Osiris going to want for his side of the bargain? :) -- rowan, 08:58:00 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But what's Osiris going to want for his side of the bargain? :) -- Devon, 10:28:39 10/03/01 Wed
Good question, especially since the reasons for Willow bringing Buffy back were not totally unselfish (IMO). Most magick is done when one has a true need. As the discussion has gone, Willow maybe can't be considered a Wiccan or even a pagan, most of whom I've encountered have some kind of a belief in spirits, reincarnation, etc.

On my way into work today, I was thinking. Why did they bring Buffy back (other than they need her for the show? :) ) When the decision to do it was made, there were no overwhelming problems with demon bikers, only the occasional vamp making trouble. My answer was grief and the unwillingness/inability to step up the plate and do what needed to be done (please, this is not intended as inflammatory). Therefore, in my opinion, the reasons for doing this magick were selfish. This compounds that karmic load that Willow is going to have to carry and probably, as each of the Scoobies participated willingly, added to their own.

The question is, based on Buffy's reactions to the gang, maybe her "rejection" of them is part of that cosmic payback. Someone mentioned in another post that there was a lot of potential for the fact that the afterlife was not all the Buffster thought it was going to be. What if she truly resents the gang for bringing her back?

Like I said, this is only to provoke some thought, not provoke tempers. I'm writing this at work (on lunch) and if it's not all that clear, many apologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But what's Osiris going to want for his side of the bargain? :) -- rowan, 11:34:41 10/03/01 Wed
I'll have to watch the ep again, but I had the strong impression that Willow said something to the effect that Buffy was counting on her to do this. I connected this with Buffy's comments to Willow in The Gift that she was the 'big gun.' That, combined with Willow's new leadership role, may be pressing some of her buttons related to the anxiety of being the leader.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: But what's Osiris going to want for his side of the bargain? :) -- Devon, 10:29:05 10/03/01 Wed
Good question, especially since the reasons for Willow bringing Buffy back were not totally unselfish (IMO). Most magick is done when one has a true need. As the discussion has gone, Willow maybe can't be considered a Wiccan or even a pagan, most of whom I've encountered have some kind of a belief in spirits, reincarnation, etc.

On my way into work today, I was thinking. Why did they bring Buffy back (other than they need her for the show? :) ) When the decision to do it was made, there were no overwhelming problems with demon bikers, only the occasional vamp making trouble. My answer was grief and the unwillingness/inability to step up the plate and do what needed to be done (please, this is not intended as inflammatory). Therefore, in my opinion, the reasons for doing this magick were selfish. This compounds that karmic load that Willow is going to have to carry and probably, as each of the Scoobies participated willingly, added to their own.

The question is, based on Buffy's reactions to the gang, maybe her "rejection" of them is part of that cosmic payback. Someone mentioned in another post that there was a lot of potential for the fact that the afterlife was not all the Buffster thought it was going to be. What if she truly resents the gang for bringing her back?

Like I said, this is only to provoke some thought, not provoke tempers. I'm writing this at work (on lunch) and if it's not all that clear, many apologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: But what's Osiris going to want for his side of the bargain? :) -- Sheri, 15:18:45 10/03/01 Wed
Ok, don't read this if you haven't seen the trailer for next weeks episode...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, please forgive me for my limited knowledge of Wiccan philosophy... but don't you get a triple whammy hurled at you if you do something to break the Rede? Now, I know there is a lot of debate over whether or not Willow *really* is Wiccan, but my feeling is that since she refers to herself as one, than she is subject to the same consequences that any Wiccan would face if she/he were to engage in resurrection spells (which, as Tara points out in "Forever", Wiccans have promised not to do).

Ok, so the trailer says that Buffy's friends are being targeted by some dark force. Well, what if the narrator for the trailer was a little off? When Willow did the spell, she had three of her close friends with her (yes, I'm even including Anya!)... so if we do go into a "Bad Wicca!!" triple whammy, I think that the three times over thingy will be in regards to the damage done to Willow's friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But what's Osiris going to want for his side of the bargain? :) -- Devon, 05:28:28 10/04/01 Thu
Yep, you're right. You can get the triple whammy of good, or the triple whammy of bad. IMO the Scoobies are in line for the latter. This could be just the beginning. Every action has a "price" so to speak.

Should make for an interesting season!

:)
Spoiler-Welcome back to the show that doesn't pull any punches -- JBone, 21:05:31 10/02/01 Tue
Wow. I remember back to the Columbine shootings when the WB postponed the BtVS episode "Earshot". When I finally saw the episode, a download off some Canadian web site, not over the air until later, I thought about what a timely episode it might have been that day.

Tonight's two hour episode has many of those qualities and more. Anya's statement "It's happy news. Happy news in hard times is a good thing." Giles's emotional farewell at the airport. Every farewell at airports is emotional these days. Add on resurrected Buffy's violent struggle to survive. I can personally vouch for a violent impulse for survival the last month. And finally the tower structure collapsing. It was no twin towers, but still a little eerie.

"Is this hell?" No Buffy, unfortunately it's real life.

I'm glad you're back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My gut reaction to tonights eps (SPOILERS) -- Dichotomy, 21:55:51 10/02/01 Tue
There was definitely a dark, eerie vibe in tonight's eps. (I couldn't help but think the same thing about the tower collapsing.) While I enjoyed watching tonight, I don't think I can take tooooo much darkness. Not that the show hasn't been downright heartwrenching and, at the same time, at its best (The Body immediately comes to mind), but part of what makes it enjoyable for me is that it's not only intelligent, exciting, and thought-provoking, but also, at times, heeeee-larious. (I did enjoy a nice chuckle when Xander said he was a powerful man-witch.)

Now that I think about it, what might be hardest for me to watch for an extended period is Buffy being so haunted. While she's never been the most intriguing, charismatic or attractive character on the show to me, she is the core and I wonder how the whole tone will be affected. On the other hand, this haunted quality could make her more interesting (and give SMG more opportunity to show her acting chops).

The bottom line is this: While the premiere was a little gloomier and creepier than I expected, I'm sure Joss has much more in store for us, and I'm willing to see where he takes us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My gut reaction to tonights eps (SPOILERS) -- Traveler, 22:37:46 10/02/01 Tue
I expected the show to be pretty dark. After all, Willow used black magic to bring Buffy back from the dead. Quite frankly, I would be disappointed if there weren't major consequences for an action like that. Joss promised that the road to Buffy's return would be long and difficult, and I'm going to hold him to it. If resurrection were easy, it would remove all the suspense from the show. Also, I hope this is the last time Buffy returns from the dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: My gut reaction to tonights eps (SPOILERS) -- bible belt, 19:17:35 10/03/01 Wed
Yeah, that will be more interesting than if she is just slaying and wondering where her next boyfriend is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The synchrony was chilling! -- bible belt, 22:16:22 10/02/01 Tue
I had that trippy feeling I get when I leave the theater after a good movie, for that, A+.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Spoiler-Welcome back to the show that doesn't pull any punches -- Kimberly, 07:46:24 10/03/01 Wed
I'm glad I'm not the only one that caught the horror of the tower collapsing. I'm actually a little surprised that I heard nothing about it ahead of time, especially after the original postponements of Earshot and Graduation Part Two. Living less than forty miles from the Towers That Used To Be, it was very hard to watch.

Although this wouldn't be the best episode to start watching, I think it was a very good one in the canon. And I'm glad that Joss didn't take any easy ways out in the episode; a couple of consequences have already been seen, but there are clearly many more in the wings. And it will be, as it should, a long road back.

I have to admit, I was starting to wonder last night where everyone was. As a lurker, I didn't want to start a thread, but none had when I turned off my computer (about 10:00) last night. Nice to see people back and commenting.

And now we can go back to a more normal wait of one week between episodes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You're not a lurker -- vampire hunter D, 18:51:16 10/03/01 Wed
I've seen you here before. And if you want people to talk to, try logging on (or staying on) after she show's over
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Amen to one week between episodes....:):) -- Rufus, 22:46:19 10/03/01 Wed
Start a thread any time, I lurk at all hours being a night owl.
The collapse of the tower was not as upsetting to me because it was not a building that people could inhabit in any way (at least that's what I tell myself). I think that you would have to have some sort of prior background in BVS to truly appreciate everything in the show last night. They won't understand just how powerful the connection between Buffy and Dawn is, and how Dawns voice was needed to get Buffy's attention at the platform. In the closed caption it made it clear that Buffy was reliving the moments before she jumped then flashing forward to the darkness with Dawn there calling to her. Now I want to know the consequences of the spell, because there is never a magical free lunch.
Metaphysics in Bargaining (spoilers) -- rowan, 06:47:24 10/03/01 Wed
I'm really dying for the philosophical heavyweights to get going on the metaphysics of Bargaining. Where are you guys? Off cogitating deep thoughts, I suspect.

Let me prime the pump.

Willow's argument for raising Buffy is that she's afraid that Buffy may be trapped in some hell dimension a la Angel. She knows Buffy was killed by mystical energy. But what is Willow really saying?

We know that the soul in the Buffyverse is not the essence of a person. It's the moral compass. It orients a sentient being to good or evil, like a north star. But it isn't the true distilled uniqueness of any person wearing the wrapping of the physical body. We know this because we've seen it demonstrated on screen and we've heard it in interviews with ME. The vampire, for example, represents the demon taking over the body while the human soul is lost to the ether. But the demon exists within a human body that retains both memory of its human (and demon) life, as well as vestiges of the personality of the human, which appear to become blended with the demon's personality.

So where the heck does the essence or identity of a person actually reside? In the body? Is there a spirit that is different from both body and soul? Does it disappear when the body dies? Obviously not, or we wouldn't have Buffy again.

When Angel went to hell, Buffy sent the whole Angel package: Liam's soul, Liam's body, the demon who made Angelus, and whatever constituted both Angelus's and Angel's identities. And what does Willow think happened to Buffy? She saw Buffy's body (as Xander points out). Even if Buffy's soul was trapped in a hell dimension, would that have resulted in torment to what made Buffy really be Buffy? Is Willow just rationalizing because she feels she owes a debt to Buffy as the "big gun" to save Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Metaphysics in Bargaining (spoilers) -- Brian, 08:31:53 10/03/01 Wed
It seemed to me that without Buffy in the world as a balance for the forces of evil, the world becomes a Hell on Earth. Sunnydale with its hellmouth is the epicenter for this transformation. When Buffy returns, the powers of darkness must retreat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Metaphysics in Bargaining (spoilers) -- Rob, 09:18:51 10/03/01 Wed
I'm not sure if I believe Willow was merely rationalizing. I think that there is a real possibility that Willow's fears were founded. I think it all goes back to the fact that, like Willow said, Buffy was not killed by natural means. Joss does not reveal where he thinks someone's soul/spirit/etc go after they die a natural death. We, for example, do not know where Joyce's lifeforce, if you will, went. But since they said that with a natural death, there is no chance of bringing someone back to life further than merely reanimating their body, one can assume that the spirit goes someplace "untouchable." Be that heaven or another dimension we do not know.

Since Buffy was killed by a mystical force, there is a possibility that her lifeforce could be slavaged. Just as Angel's soul was taken out of his body and sent elsewhere, so was Buffy's. The difference was, however, that when Angel's soul was taken away, it was already replaced with the demon spirit that made him a vampire. With Buffy, there was no replacement. Her soul was taken out of her body with no substitute, making her human body dead. Perhaps it is possible that the soul does contain everything that you had mentioned, i.e., someone's life spirit, as well as their memories, personality, etc. Perhaps when someone is vamped, they still retain their human memories as a residual effect from the soul being in their bodies for their whole lives up to the point that they were vamped. Or the demon spirit is capable of making a metaphysical xerox of the person, even though the whole package really does reside in the soul.

I think that a great deal of the answers to these questions lie in what we have yet to learn: whether Buffy retains any memories from when she was "dead." Did she jump off the tower, and then her next memory is waking up in the coffin? My friend had an interesting theory for how Buffy could have been in an alternate, hellish dimension this whole time. When Buffy got out of the grave and saw such horrific things as herself (the Buffybot) being ripped apart by demons, perhaps she had been seeing stuff like this during her time in the other dimension, and she thought she was still there. That may be another explanation for why she ran away from her friends. In "Becoming," Drusilla tortured Giles by assuming the guise of Jenny Calendar. Perhaps there were demons or evil spirits torturing Buffy in the other dimension by looking like her friends and mocking her pain. If this is what Joss was intending to say, it reminds me of "What Dreams May Come," where it is revealed that when someone commits suicide, they are in hell. And the hell is of their own creation, and populated by images from their own life. Perhaps whatever dimension Buffy was in, the demons were capable of using horrific images and memories from her own mind, memories of her friends and enemies, and turning them against her to drive her crazy.

But then once again, maybe Buffy really was "gone." Perhaps Willow was wrong. Perhaps Buffy's soul is an unconscious entity that was separate from her conscious lifeforce. She died, and then woke in her grave when her soul was restored.
There is so much more yet to be revealed, because even if Buffy doesn't have any memories of what happened after she died, we do not know whether she wasn't being tormented in some dimension, or whether she just does not have any memory of it.

I would assume, however, that the soul and the person's personality, etc are all in one big package. That when a person is vamped, some of it is retained. But when a soul is taken out of a body that is just dead, there is nothing to sustain or hold on the lifeforce, so it goes with the soul.

But then Joss is a tricky little devil...

He may have something totally different up his sleeve this whole time. Next week never seemed so far away!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Metaphysics in Bargaining (spoilers) -- rowan, 09:29:04 10/03/01 Wed
"I think that a great deal of the answers to these questions lie in what we have yet to learn: whether Buffy retains any memories from when she was "dead." Did she jump off the tower, and then her next memory is waking up in the coffin? My friend had an interesting theory for how Buffy could have been in an alternate, hellish dimension this whole time. When Buffy got out of the grave and saw such horrific things as herself (the Buffybot) being ripped apart by demons, perhaps she had been seeing stuff like this during her time in the other dimension, and she thought she was still there. That may be another explanation for why she ran away from her friends."

Your response is very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Thanks. I hope we do get some elaboration through Buffy. But one thought I had was that when Buffy asked, "Is this hell?" it was as if she were picking up from the moment she "died" in the mystical energy -- as if this were her next conscious memory. If she had "been" somewhere else and remembered it, why would she suddenly ask where she is and make a conclusion about it? Her conclusion about it was logical, too, since the portal opened a demon dimension. Perhaps her memories will be slow to surface.

Unless, of course, the point is that there is no consciousness or afterlife once the physical body dies. The essence is gone, or rather an inert part of the decaying physical body, while the soul (the compass) floats in the ether.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Metaphysics in Bargaining (spoilers) -- Dedalus, 13:06:18 10/03/01 Wed
I like your thinking on all this, rowan.

My take on the matter is that Willow would have done anything by any means necessary to get Buffy back. I'm going to do my own post on this, but I definitely got a bad feeling about bringing Buffy back.

I was thinking about her comments about being trapped in a hell dimension. But the gate was opened ... she could have been anywhere. She could have been in The World Without Shrimp. She could have been in the Dimension of Perpetual Wednesday. She could have been in Crazy Melty Land. I personally like to think she was in the Land Where She is Treated Like a Goddess and Gets to Eat All the Ice Cream She Wants. She deserves it.

Well, actually, I think she was fine where she was. I got the distinct impression she was resting in peace until she was awakened. It was unnatural, and horrible. I find it interesting that Tara at least mentioned The Fates. We know about the Powers That Be, and we saw them working with Angel in Amends. There are higher powers in the Buffyverse, and I think everyone would have been better off trusting them that she was where she was suppose to be.

But you're right about the soul. It's not the part of you that lives after death. We know there are ghosts in the Buffyverse, but they are usually just wandering the earth because they died in trauma or something. Buffy was all past that. She had done her duty, and that was that. Also, Joss has gone to great lengths on the show and in interviews to point out Buffy hell is not the place you go where you die. We really need to get something established about this. I need closure, which I didn't need after The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Mystical death... -- Kerri, 17:14:32 10/03/01 Wed
Firstly, what constitutes a mystical death? I mean we assume it isn't just being killed by something supernatural-that would be more or less everyone in Sunnydale. We assume it means more than the key though cause there were more than one urn of osirus made-and there wouldn't be if it only could bring back people killed in dimentional portals. If there are that many people who die mystical deaths and aren't ressurected that's a really eerie thought that they are all trapped in hell. And if they are is it then the Scoobies' responsibility to bring them back? And one more thing-Buffy died in energy that was Dawn. I would think it would bring about peace and love. Wouldn't it be interesting if what Willow said was just an excuse to bring Buffy back?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it was just Willow's excuse -- Dedalus, 07:33:55 10/04/01 Thu
Happy News (Spoilers) -- Cactus Watcher, 06:47:32 10/03/01 Wed
It is a little disturbing that Xander and Anya haven't told anyone yet. But at the same it is understandable. Anya asked Xander to wait to ask her to marry her till after "it" was over. Obviously, he has asked her again. But, is "it" over? The repercussions of what was happening then go on. There are always repercussions. To Xander the happy news always seemed out of place. Everyone's life seems to have been on hold over the summer. But, now life is going on. Giles resolved to leave and did so. Willow has obviously been consumed with bringing back Buffy. But, now that has been accoplished "more or less." Will Xander be ready to move on soon? Is he getting cold feet? Like everyother theme, we'll just have to wait and see.
An It Harm None: Willow in the Bargaining (spoilers) -- rowan, 07:15:50 10/03/01 Wed
"An it harm none, do what ye will." - The Wiccan Rede

All signs point to this as the Season of Willow. The shy, nerdy girl who is also one of the world's most loyal friends has come into her own as a powerful witch and the de facto leader of the Scooby Gang in Buffy's absence (and Buffy second-in-command in her presence). But we've speculated for a while that Willow's actions have consequences that she must eventually experience. Some even feel that Willow may turn dark. In Bargaining, I think we've seen Willow not just take her first steps down a darker path, but actually we've seen a dark fruition of all her prior actions. She's now crossed the line.

Most Witches and Wiccans are very cautious about using magic to influence others. Love magic, for example, can be a big no no if it affects the will of another. Healing magic can be problematic unless the sufferer wishes the healing. Magic continually presents ethical choices. These choices are akin to the ethical principle of the golden rule, which underlies a multitude of philosophies and religions.

I see Willow now as having placed herself in opposition to that ethical principle. She has, without Buffy's consent, resurrected her. She has substituted her judgement for Buffy's own. Clearly, she rationalizes this as an act that may save Buffy from torment. It's wrapped in good intentions. But how different is her behavior than Katherine Madison's? Katherine decides that Amy's youth is wasted on Amy, so she'll switch bodies with her. Katherine is more obviously vindictive. Willow's motives appear better on the surface. But underneath, it's the same assumption of power over the life and death of another person.

Willow's raising of Buffy comes from a clear line of willow taking such power into her own hands. She restores Angel's soul; she enters Buffy's catatonic mind to restore her sanity; she restores Tara's intellect. All are acts of healing, but again, Willow risks much in each by doing these things without the knowledge of the person she's affecting.

Willow's path to a darker side seems marked by her desire to be helpful and to make things right when her emotions are touched. But she is also placing herself in the position of judging what is right when she does these things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: An It Harm None: Willow in the Bargaining (spoilers) -- Rob, 07:48:23 10/03/01 Wed
What I found very interesting is that the spell or prayer that Willow said before she killed the baby deer was in Hebrew. Was she blending Jewish mysticism into this spell, being Jewish herself, or does her religion have nothing to do with it and she is merely doing what the spell required?

I have to rewatch to get an exact translation by "Adonai Elohainu" means "the Lord our God."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That Little Hebrew Ditty -- Lucifer_Sponge, 09:22:42 10/03/01 Wed
What I found very interesting is that the spell or prayer that Willow said before she killed the baby deer was in Hebrew. Was she blending Jewish mysticism into this spell, being Jewish herself, or does her religion have nothing to do with it and she is merely doing what the spell required?

I don't think that had anything to do with her religion or religious backround (as it can be said that Willow's not an active practitioner of the faith she was raised in). Most books on magic - the real, old stuff that was rampant in the middle ages - were written in either Latin or Hebrew. Hence they weren't Jewish mysticism, but occult techniques hidden under that guise. Maybe not even that... they were more like blatantly occult rituals that used Hebrew language and symbolism.


I don't think, in terms of the show, that the use of a Hebrew incantation has any sort of relation to Willow's backround in Judiasm. I think it was just an attempt to add some semblance of authenticity to a ceremony for raising the dead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: That Little Hebrew Ditty -- rowan, 09:36:18 10/03/01 Wed
The show is nothing if not eclectic. We seem to run the gamut from technopaganism to ceremonial magic to green witchcraft. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: That Little Hebrew Ditty -- Humanitas, 14:30:55 10/03/01 Wed
Plus, doubtless Marti Noxon was looking for something really hard to make AH say. ;)
Bite Club...Personality Test -- Drizzt, 08:34:19 10/03/01 Wed
I take my hat off and bow to Solitude; the thread he started about wich philosopher you are turned into a monster.
I took the test and came up 100% Some Guy I had never heard of. I am a lay philosopher; the only philosophical reading I have done in years is what is at this discussion board.

This is a much sillier personality test:)

->Eonline.com
-->Buffy Bites
--->Personality Test

Two quotes: "Discover your inner Scoobie", "Highly Scientific Buff-O-Meter"
I have one complaint about the test: there is no option to choose "none of the above"

The test said I am Spike...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Buffy's Back -- Drizzt, 08:58:27 10/03/01 Wed
I found the personality test when I was looking for airdates of a program called "Buffy's Back" on the E! channel. I did not know anything about it: saw the last two minutes after I watched Angel...it aired at the SAME time as Angel!;(

Covers Gellers rise to fame, interviews with Joss & some backstory on the show...

Anyway: Oct 7, 2 am & 9pm are the only airtimes left on the listing for this week.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Bite Club...Personality Test -- Shaglio, 10:59:12 10/03/01 Wed
I came up Xander which pretty much describes me to a tee.

But I agree with you that the lack of a "none of the above" answer bugged me. On a lot of the questions, I didn't like any of the choices listed. Oh well, it's only fun and games.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm Buffy again -- Rufus, 11:29:54 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I got Spike. Anyone surprised? -- vampire hunter D, 14:36:55 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oz for me -- Brian, 15:45:46 10/03/01 Wed
At first I was surprised to be an OZ.
Then a friend said, "What's on your T-Shirt?
"A Wolf."
"How many wolf shirts do you have?"
"Too many to count. Oh. Nevermind."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yeah, well, that test said my housemate is Spike, too. (I think it's the motorcycle.) -- Solitude1056, 23:15:05 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> took the test: Xander; took it again & was honest: Xander --- dammit -- Liq, 00:11:23 10/04/01 Thu
oDD little rambles to discuss - SPOILERS -- Liquidram, 08:56:48 10/03/01 Wed
A few details that especially grabbed my attention -

Dawn, Xander & Willow's number shirts. 07-11-13 (Ep7 on 11.13?)

Anya's waffling between intense selfishness until Giles actually left & Xander was still missing. Giles isn't the only one who wanted to smack her last night.

Spike reaching in and picking up the cross apparently forgetting that it was going to burn him and his momentary pleasure at watching the demons trash the neighbor's house. Threatening to "thump" Dawn when she didn't "mind him".

Tara! 'bout time, enough said.

Aly Hannigan did some exceptional acting.

Xander - did I sniff some serious maturity?

Interaction with Xander & Willow. Regardless of relationships past & present, these two are always there for each other since childhood. Best moments they've had in years.

Giles - bitch-slapping fight with Anya, hugging Xander, tears, joking with Spike, realization with Buffybot .... please don't go. *sniff*

Buffy - babe's got some new moves.... looking forward to next week.

Glory tower collapsing - subliminal painful reminder of the real world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: oDD little rambles to discuss - SPOILERS -- rowan, 09:22:02 10/03/01 Wed
"Dawn, Xander & Willow's number shirts. 07-11-13 (Ep7 on 11.13?)"

Interesting, hmmm? Of course, now that the premiere was moved up, Episode 7 is technically on 11/6 -- but were 1/2 filmed before that change was made? Actually, perhaps it doesn't technically matter, because our 7th viewing opportunity will be on 11/13, regardless of the actual episode numbering. It makes sense as a reference, considering Xander's "trouble in Hellmouth City" quote.

"Anya's waffling between intense selfishness until Giles actually left & Xander was still missing. Giles isn't the only one who wanted to smack her last night."

:) If you're implying that you wanted to smack her, I'll hold her down for you. For some reason, I had low Anya tolerance in these two eps.

"Tara! 'bout time, enough said."

And ably predicted by the Dark Alchemy crew, I might add. ;)

"Spike reaching in and picking up the cross apparently forgetting that it was going to burn him and his momentary pleasure at watching the demons trash the neighbor's house. Threatening to "thump" Dawn when she didn't "mind him"."

I also loved the different hand positions he used when holding Dawn and the changing tones in his voice during the "we're on our own and you've got to mind me" speech. He went from zero to sixty in about 3 seconds as he transitioned from wanting to throttle her to comforting her.

"Xander - did I sniff some serious maturity?"

I loved his protective side towards Willow and his serious exploration of the Buffy raising, as well as the comic hilarity of him breaking up the Anya/Giles fight. Go Xander. But are we seeing an attempt to get us to sympathize with Xander and get annoyed with Anya in preparation for some troubles ahead???

"Giles - bitch-slapping fight with Anya, hugging Xander, tears, joking with Spike, realization with Buffybot .... please don't go. *sniff*"

Waaahhhh! And we've got to say goodbye over and over if he's going to be recurring...I will never forget Spike and Giles teasing Tara about the huge, fat, peppy vampire and his prescription medication.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> funniest lines from "Bargaining"--spoilers -- Rob, 11:27:25 10/03/01 Wed
I can't remember the exact wording, but the knock-knock joke at the beginning had me in stitches.

"But she'll never be the Buffy, not the real Buffy. Let's go. Who?" :) :) :)

Xander's line to Willow: "So, how long have you known your girlfriend's Tinkerbell?"

Oh, and I also loved that subtle musical reference to "The Music Man," when Xander said, "We have trouble here in Hellmouth City." A bit of foreshadowing to the musical ep..!!

And that great line, again I don't remember the wording or even who said it, but where they said that Buffy impressing the teachers should've tipped them off that it wasn't really her! And let me just say that whole teacher conference scene with the Buffybot inspiring reform in school lunches was a riot!

I love how, even in such a dark, disturbing, thought-provoking, brilliant, poignant, etc etc ep, the Scooby Gang never lose their great sense of humor!

Oooh, oooh...One more. Tara's little reference to "Mutant Enemy". Her little "Grr! Aargh!" was adorable. ;)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> that last one... -- Solitude1056, 11:35:31 10/03/01 Wed
My housemate watched the premiere with me... and he nearly fell off the sofa at the Grr! Arrgh! bit from Tara. That was probably the high point in both hours, for us - just classic! ;-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: funniest lines from "Bargaining"--spoilers -- Rob, 12:13:07 10/03/01 Wed
Oh, I also loved the part when the demon biker leader asks Willow, "What are you gonna do? Pull a rabbit out of a hat?" And Anya freaks, "No! Is that really necessary?!?"

I love Anya and her bunnyphobia! :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: funniest lines from "Bargaining"--spoilers -- Wisewoman, 12:47:39 10/03/01 Wed
I really howled at Spike's line to Giles: (paraphrasing here)

What? Did your whole life flash before your eyes? Cuppa tea...Cuppa tea...Almost got shagged...Cuppa tea?

LOL ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: LOL that was a classic one -- spoilers -- mm, 12:55:45 10/03/01 Wed
Marti Noxon has a serious gift for comic dialogue. I mentioned this one by the Buffybot on another thread below, but it's worth repeating: "I admire your brain, Spike, almost as much as I admire your washboard abs." I burst out laughing, and I started laughing even harder as Spike's face went into contortions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Funniest line wasn't even a line... -- Jennifer, 06:02:14 10/04/01 Thu
The vampire wearing a Hanson T-Shirt. I burst out laughing when I saw that!!! I thought it was a great episode running me from emotion to emotion. I wish all the episodes were two hours long!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> oDD numerology -- Cleanthes, 11:36:03 10/03/01 Wed
That'll put marzipan in your pie-plate, Bingo!

Okay, what would the "number" of this sentence be in binary code? Hmm, it really looks like a sentence that might appear in a Golden Dawn cipher.

Tangent

Back in law school, we passed the time playing a game we called "gunner bingo". Each player made a nine-box "bingo" card with the names of nine (sometimes 8, if the center was a "free" spot) hot-shots in the class placed in the boxes. As the class progressed, if one of the "gunners" (eager types who often raised their hand) talked, the player marked their box off. When one of the players made a row on their card, they were required to raise their hand and answer a point of law to the prof, but, working the word "bingo" into their answer. Distorted sentences often resulted, but not quite as odd as Buffybot's.

Still, when I heard the Buffybot make her quip, I immediately flashed onto a long-ago classroom and silly college antics. Sigh...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: oDD little rambles to discuss - SPOILERS -- Cleanthes, 11:03:54 10/03/01 Wed
"Buffy - babe's got some new moves.... looking forward to next week."


I haven't squinted at my tape of the end credits. Anyone know off the top of their head whether the main stunt woman's the same as last year?

The whole fight choreography seemed different, as it did on Angel. Perhaps there's a new fight coordinator?
Blood Sacrifice -- Ryuei, 10:45:23 10/03/01 Wed
That scene with the deer - whew! Willow is not the sweet sentimental girl she used to be. But then I thought about that scene and realized that ethically it should not strike us as that big of a deal. Don't most of us eat meat regularly? Some of us may even have eaten venison. So if we as a culture have no problem with eating animals for food, why should it strike us as so sinister to sacrifice one deer in order to bring back a loved one from the dead? Is it merely sentiment - because in our sanitized world people can buy meat at the grocery store and don't want to have to face the reality of the actual killing and butchery of living beings? I wonder if that is all there is to the reason why that scene was so disturbing to me. (BTW, despite the fact that I know all the good reasons for not eating meat - I still indulge in my dark carnivorous bloody addiction.)

I think the reason the scene was so disturbing is that it involved the offering of blood to certain entities who would only be propitiated by such things. And entities that require blood do not have good reputations. But again, this is a modern conceit. Huge portions of the Bible involve blood sacrifices to God of various animals. Then there is the theory of the Atonement whereby Christianity teaches that God required the sacrifice of his only begotten Son. Now, the sacrifice is from God for us, and its celebration (theology aside) is only symbolic in the form of wine and wafers. But still...And in India the Vedic deities also required blood sacrifices until the Buddha and other reformers sublimated those kinds of rituals. But no one ever suggested that the Vedic deities were demons or evil anymore than anyone would suggest that the Biblical God is evil (well, the Gnostics did but that is another story). So perhaps it is not that blood demanding deities are evil or sinister. Perhaps the reason we are so squemish is because a literal blood sacrifice represents a reversion to a an older less refined form of religion - something more primitive and primal.

So in thinking out loud about this - I can't call Willow's act evil per se, not unless I were willing to call meat eating or more primal forms of religiosity evil which I am not. However, I would certainly consider it a reversion and a step towards a willingness to employ more rutheless means to accompish one's ends. And though the spell Willow used employed the Hebrew names for the Lord, one has to wonder what kind of forces are actually at work in the magick that Willow is getting involved with - and where the demands of such entities will ultimately lead.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Blood Sacrifice -- Wisewoman, 11:12:34 10/03/01 Wed
I go back and forth on the issue of stabbing Bambi to death, but ultimately I agree with most of what Ryuei has said in this instance. I think concentrating on the darker aspects of Willow's spell draws attention away from another issue, which is that she presumed to know where Buffy was after her leap, how she felt, and what she wanted.

Well, that's not exactly true, she did say she didn't know where Buffy was, but obviously the great motivation for her action was that she was concerned that Buffy's soul or essence was stuck somewhere and in torment. I'm not sure where she got this idea. I can understand her wanting to bring Buffy back because of the danger to the world as we know it without the Slayer, but that seemed to be a smaller part of her motivation.

It also appears that she may have been dead (pardon the pun) wrong. Wherever Buffy was before she was reanimated, it appears that she was happier there than awakening to "hell" on Earth.

To my mind this is an act of hubris on Willow's part at least equal in potential for negative consequence as that of killing the fawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Blood Sacrifice. . . Do the PTB require black magic? -- Sheri, 11:50:05 10/03/01 Wed
Hmm, I think the deer sacrifice bothered me because I had the sneaky feeling that Willow was crossing into the rhelm of very black magick. Further lending to this feeling of uneasiness was the fact that Willow did not tell Tara what that special ingrediant really was--it's hard to say, since the show doesn't really present Wicca as a religion--wouldn't sacrificing a life (even if it is just a deer, and even if it is a friend) be in violation of the Wiccan Rede? (somebody help me out here, I could just be talking out of my ass since I know next to nothing about Wicca).

Also, we have some definate parallels between Willow's torment during the ressurection and Fez's attack on Cordelia. Remember, Cordelia at first thought that the PTB were testing her in some cruel and horrible way... but in the end we discover that it is really the forces of darkness. So now we jump back to Willow, and we see her, as she had told Tara, being "tested" by the PTB. This test holds some scary similarities to what Cordelia went through (slashes on her body, funky bumpy things, and all kinds of weirdness). Now, if Cordelia's torment turned out to not be brought on by the PTB, how can we be so sure that Willow's was?

This next part is a spoiler if you haven't seen the trailer for the next episode...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Would the PTB allow some evil force to come back with Buffy and torment all of her friends? Last time I checked, the PTB was in charge of helping the forces of good along... not letting some weird demon spirit go for a piggy-back ride as a means of punishment. If they didn't want Buffy to come back, they wouldn't have granted Willow's request... that is, if it was the PTB she was asking, and I seriously doubt that.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Do the PTB require black magic? -- vampire hunter D, 13:38:26 10/03/01 Wed
Who said it was the PTB who Willow invoked? Willow invoked Osiris, the Egyptian god of the Underworld. He's only a god. Now, usually that is the top of the supernatureal food chain, but ever since we saw Glory, I'm not so sure. I now get the feeling that the PTB my be something beyond the gods. So Willow invocation may not have gone that high up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Tara said that Willow told her that the PTB would test her. -- Sheri, 14:07:13 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> I think it was Osiris who tested her -- Masq, 14:14:49 10/03/01 Wed
Who knows if the Egyptian god Osiris exists in the Buffyverse, or what he is (god, demon, PTB, other), but there is no indication the "PTBs" had anything to do with the magick behind this spell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Problem with the PTBs -- Dedalus, 14:34:46 10/03/01 Wed
... is that we really don't know what they are or what their agenda is. The best we got was out of Doyle - they're higher powers, they're stronger than Angel, and they just want to make things "right." Right being a fairly vague term, to say the least. And, we don't know what their position is. Higher power does not necessarily mean omnipotent. Maybe they didn't want Buffy to come back. Maybe they were hamstrung by the ritual. Maybe they were out to lunch. We just don't know.

AK-UK once said that they need to come right out and say what it means when Willow calls on Osiris to do something. Is there a real Osiris? I orginally thought no, now I'm not so sure. The Buffyverse has a twisted history. Still, Osiris is a good guy. It was his evil brother Set that was causing all the problems. If Osiris is there really judging the souls of the dead, I'm sure Buffy was somewhere pretty nice, lounging about in an Egyptian afterlife being fed grapes or something. She is gonna be pissed.

As for Willow, I think the scene with the deer was unsettling. Yes, we have the name of the Lord, yes we have a long history of blood sacrifices, yes, most of us eat meat, and yes, she thanked the animal. Still, I don't know how that scene could have been connoting anything but things bad. This is Willow. Frog Fear, Don't Hurt the Horsies Willow. Now she's just gutting a deer in front of our eyes? I think the thank you at the end was just part of the ritual. She didn't really seem to be respectful toward it. My main thinking about Willow and magic, as I've said many times, is that it's purely functional for her. As someone else said, much like a computer. It carries no religious connotations. There is no sense of "fates" like with Tara. Or karmic cycles, for that matter. I'm thinking maybe it should be carrying something, or it does, and she's not recognizing it. I don't think she cared less about the deer either way. She needed it, and she took it, that simple.

Wow. That sounded like Faith's old philosophy, didn't it? We all know where that led.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> PTB's never mentioned on BtVS? -- Cleanthes, 14:50:23 10/03/01 Wed
Have the PTB's ever been mentioned on Buffy? I'm thinking they're refered to by that terminology only (so far) on Angel.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Problem with the PTBs -- Lucifer_Sponge, 14:51:52 10/03/01 Wed
I don't think she cared less about the deer either way. She needed it, and she took it, that simple.


See... I noted a definate look of disgust on Willow's face when she did it. It did not seem like this was something that didn't affect her... more like it was something horrible and awful, but something she -had- to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Really? I'll have to look at it again. -- Dedalus, 15:00:09 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> same impression here. (and no, I think "PTB" is a Cordelia-ism.) -- Solitude1056, 22:15:38 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Disgust? -- Malandanza, 23:43:40 10/03/01 Wed
Dedalus: I don't think she cared less about the deer either way. She needed it, and she took it, that simple.

Lucifer_Sponge: See... I noted a definate look of disgust on Willow's face when she did it. It did not seem like this was something that didn't affect her... more like it was something horrible and awful, but something she -had- to do.

I'm with Dedalus on this one. Even if we accept that Willow was disgusted by having to sacrifice the deer to propitiate the powers of the underworld, there is also the problem of the "Vino de Madre" she purchased from the black market. Maybe it's my Christian upbringing, but wine (vino) has connotations of blood for me, so my translation is "Blood of the Mother." We know from Anya's comments that the black market is where illegal and very immoral substances are sold (like babies' teeth) -- whatever it is, it was not in stock at the Magic Shop. Considering the questionable inventory the Giles collected (frowned on by the WC), "Vino de Madre" has to be something pretty gruesome. Perhaps Willow can claim that her hands are clean since she didn't collect the substance herself, but, by providing a market for it, she has contributed to the problem just as surely as someone who buys ivory contributes to poaching.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> vino de madre -- Solitude1056, 23:57:22 10/03/01 Wed
My impression was that the fawn's blood was the vino de madre. I drew that conclusion 'cause she didn't just say, "frog's teeth" or whatever, she called it by its ritual name. On top of that, when Tara said she would've gone with Willow, the response was that Willow was very careful. And it seemed to me that Willow was referring to the sacrifice. But why vino de madre would be a fawn's blood (or any other creature that had presented itself, from chipmunk to lost dog), I dunno, unless the "mother" part is that of blood being the living creature's equivalent to Qi, the "lifeblood" of mother earth?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: vino de madre -- Malandanza, 08:18:02 10/04/01 Thu
"My impression was that the fawn's blood was the vino de madre. I drew that conclusion 'cause she didn't just say, "frog's teeth" or whatever, she called it by its ritual name. On top of that, when Tara said she would've gone with Willow, the response was that Willow was very careful. And it seemed to me that Willow was referring to the sacrifice. But why vino de madre would be a fawn's blood (or any other creature that had presented itself, from chipmunk to lost dog), I dunno, unless the "mother" part is that of blood being the living creature's equivalent to Qi, the "lifeblood" of mother earth?"

The Fawn's blood symbolizing Mother Earth's blood does make sense, but I still have a couple of issues:

First, what does an earth goddess have to do with Osiris? Why would the blood of mother earth be required at all for a spell invoking a guardian of the dead?

Second, it would mean Willow told a deliberate lie -- and a bad one. She could have said "I was making preparations" -- or some similarly worded innocuous sounding equivocation. Why bring up the black market at all if she didn't actually deal with them? Anya's reaction to the black market was rather chilling -- whatever Willow might buy from them has to be worse than a ritual blood offering. I would say that "vino de madre" is, as you say, the ritual name -- but the name for something so awful that she preferred the euphemism to admitting that she had been trafficking in such things. Something like the blood of woman who died (or was killed) during childbirth.

I also had the impression from the conversation between Willow and Xander in the woods that Willow had made some deals (hence the name of the episode) with the underworld powers that her friends don't know about (she has been keeping them largely in the dark). Part of her distress was that she had made bargains that she would now have to keep even though she thought the ritual had failed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: vino de madre -- Cleanthes, 14:18:44 10/04/01 Thu
"First, what does an earth goddess have to do with Osiris? Why would the blood of mother earth be required at all for a spell invoking a guardian of the dead?"

Well, this makes a lot of mythological sense. Osiris, according to Frazer, falls into the same myth class as Attis, Adonis and Dionysis - the consort of the Great Mother who dies and is reborn from her power. To get Osiris to act, you need to have his bases of power invoked.

Osiris represents male fertility and is incarnated in the sacred bull Apis. He was murdered and his body cut into pieces by his brother the evil-god Set. He is resurrected through his son Horus, and with the intercession of Great Motherly forces, notably his sister wife Isis, who has stolen the power of heaven. The fawn surely represents Isis. It was, no doubt, born at the previous new moon. The faun figured in many rituals as a symbol of rebirth.

http://interoz.com/egypt/gods1.htm
http://interoz.com/egypt/Osiriscu.htm

Sekhmet, the lion, has already appeared, btw, as Buffy's totem animal (in Restless).

And the snake that Willow regurgitates? Lamia or Set? Time will tell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: vino de madre -- Malandanza, 10:45:41 10/05/01 Fri
"Well, this makes a lot of mythological sense. Osiris, according to Frazer, falls into the same myth class as Attis, Adonis and Dionysis - the consort of the Great Mother who dies and is reborn from her power. To get Osiris to act, you need to have his bases of power invoked.

Osiris represents male fertility and is incarnated in the sacred bull Apis. He was murdered and his body cut into pieces by his brother the evil-god Set. He is resurrected through his son Horus, and with the intercession of Great Motherly forces, notably his sister wife Isis, who has stolen the power of heaven. The fawn surely represents Isis. It was, no doubt, born at the previous new moon. The faun figured in many rituals as a symbol of rebirth."

Thanks for the links -- I must confess that I am woefully ignorant about Egyptian mythology (although I do have a fair grasp of Greek mythology so I understand your Greek references). In reading about Osiris, it seems that his cult and worship changed significantly over time. Depending upon which time period you wanted to look at, Solitude's theory might make good or bad sense. Assuming, of course, that the writers looked into the myths at all -- I sometimes get the feeling that when they have spells invoking the pagan gods the choice is made primarily on how cool the name sounds rather than how well the god's function fits the spell. This case might just have been the case of "we need an underworld god for Willow to propitiate -- any suggestions?"

Furthermore, I think that the conception of the gods in the Buffyverse owes more to medieval beliefs about pagan religions than it does to either ancient pagan beliefs or neopagan beliefs about ancient religions -- certainly this seems to be the case for Wicca as it appears on BtVS.

I do agree that the fawn was supposed to be a substitute for Buffy's soul -- a sacrifice of one life for another. The early myths of the Trojan War have Agamemnon sacrificing his daughter, Iphegenia, to Artemis for good winds (which is why Clytemnestra plots to kill him), but later myths have Artemis spirit the girl away and substitute a deer in her place. For a biblical parallel, there is Abraham and Isaac. The problem I see is that the ritual was never finished properly -- so Osiris might not have accepted the exchange -- and Willow might still owe him a life -- chosen by Osisis this time. The best choice I can see from a maximum angst standpoint is Tara. If anything can teach Willow about the dangers of black magic it would be to lose her girlfriend as a direct result of her meddling with forces of evil (and on BtVS, blood sacrifices are evil -- just look at all those goats that W&H were going to sacrifice -- a Western notion, but then, BtVS is influenced most strongly by Western beliefs).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, I saw disgust........ -- Rufus, 14:02:02 10/06/01 Sat
Willow looked like what she was doing was going against who she basically is. The same girl who wanted Giles to swerve to miss the "horsies" was now getting blood on her hands. Willow has had other circumstances that made her go against her heart. In Pangs, Willow was on the side of Hus, as she felt that his people had been wronged. At the end of the episode she found that when everyones life was in immediate danger she found the fighter in herself. Things are never easy in the Buffyverse. For the spell to work in Bargaining, there had to be blood spilt, Willow didn't like it, but when push came to shove, it was something she was able to do.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree...I think Willow was disgusted by it, but forced herself to do it anyway. -- Rob, 11:36:51 10/04/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think it was Osiris who tested her -- Raven Eye, 23:13:41 10/03/01 Wed
PTBs don't using show themselves in Buffy. That seems to be an Angel thing. Athough the show "exists in the same fictional universe" I can't remember the term PTBs ever come up on Buffy.

Usually on Buffy supernatural = bad (with a few exceptions). On Angel there seems to be more good demons and good spirtual forces.

Osiris was the one testing Willow. It must have been painful for Tara to watch even though she trusted in Willow's strength.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Do the PTB require black magic? -- Humanitas, 14:15:07 10/03/01 Wed
Two things:


1. The PTB seem to be much less infolved in Sunnydale than they are in LA. Have we ever had a direct reference to them on BtVS? I've always gotten the impression that they are more in evidence on AtS. We know the two show exist in the same universe, so there has to be some sort of explanation for it. My guess is that it's either because the PTB (like good dates) are kinda hard to find on a Hellmouth, or simply because the WC (and by extension Giles) doesn't emphasise that portion of the cosmography. After all, if you're a Slayer, it's pretty clear which side you're on. Not so much so if you're a vampire with a soul.

2. Did anyone else notice that Willow thanked the deer for its sacrifice? That implies a certain type of morality, in that the deer offered itself up, and Willow obliged it in its calling. I've had the great good fortune to encounter fawns in the wild, and let me tell you, they just don't ever approach people like that. The 'thank you' part of the rtual implies that there's more going on here than a luring spell. Curiouser and curiouser...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> The PTB in BtVS and thanking Bambi. -- A8, 13:49:07 10/04/01 Thu
It was my impression that the PTB were always present in BtVS although never referred to specifically by name until Doyle and AtS. It seems there was a hint of the PTB's influence in the BtVS with Whistler in 'Becoming.'

Regarding Willow's prayer to the slain fawn ("Accept our humble gratitude for your offering. In death, you give life."), I'm reminded of a number of things Campbell has mentioned on the subject. Rather than paraphrase, I'll just contribute a few excerpts from 'The First Storytellers' section of "The Power of Myth."

Campbell explains:

"Man lives by killing, and there is a sense of guilt connected with that. Burials suggest that my friend has died, and he survives. The animals that I have killed must also survive...

You see, the basic hunting myth is of a kind of covenant between the animal world and the human world. The animal gives its life willingly, with the understanding that its life transcends its physical entity and will be returned to the soil or to the mother through some ritual of restoration.

...there is an identification, a mythological identification. Killing is not simply slaughter, it's a ritual act, as eating is when you say grace before meals. A ritual act is a recognition of your dependency on the voluntary giving of this food to you by the animal who has given its life.

...These early myths help the psyche to participate without a sense of guilt or fright in the necessary act of life...Normally the animal preyed upon becomes the animal that is the messenger of the divine. [You wind up] Killing the god...guilt is wiped out by the myth.

...You find among hunting people all over the world a very intimate, appreciative relationship to the principal food animal. Now when we sit down to a meal, we thank God for giving us the food. These people thanked the animal...It is thanking a friend for cooperating in a mutual relationship. And if you didn't thank him, the species would become offended.

...the Indians addressed all of life as a "thou'--the trees, the stones, everything. You can address anything as a "thou," and if you do it, you can feel the change in your own psychology. the ego that sees a "thou" is not the same ego that sees an "it." And when you go to war with people, the problem of the newspapers is to turn those people into "its."

...In the Bible we are told that we are the masters. For hunting people, as I said, the animal is in many ways superior. A Pawnee Indian said: 'In the beginning of all things, wisdom and knowledge were with the animal. For Tirawa, the One Above, did not speak directly to man. He sent certain animals to tell mankind that he showed himself through the beast. And that from them, and from the stars and the sun and the moon, man should learn."

I'm sure Dedalus has something to say about all this as resident Campbelite on this board.

A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Do the PTB require black magic? -- sasha, 23:05:50 10/04/01 Thu
Humanitas stated so elegantly:
1.The PTB seem to be much less infolved in Sunnydale than they are in LA. Have we ever had a direct reference to them on BtVS? I've
always gotten the impression that they are more in evidence on AtS. We know the two show exist in the same universe, so there has to be
some sort of explanation for it. My guess is that it's either because the PTB (like good dates) are kinda hard to find on a Hellmouth, or
simply because the WC (and by extension Giles) doesn't emphasise that portion of the cosmography. After all, if you're a Slayer, it's pretty
clear which side you're on. Not so much so if you're a vampire with a soul.

Exactly. With a Slayer, not only is it clear which side you're on, but there's a whole process in place for the Slayer. There is the main prophecy/rule of a slayer being created: "into each generation is born one who will fight the vampires..."; each slayer is given a Watcher to help her; when a slayer dies (though perhaps doesn't stay dead too long in Buffy's case ), another one appears; slayers are given superstrength. I don't mean to trivialize the slayer and her role, but rather to look at it analytically.

Someone/something (perhaps the very TPTB that have been mentioned) has taken a lot of time and trouble to create the line of Slayer heros whose duty is, among others, to save the world from The Apocolypse, no matter how big and bad or frequent it is. Once they set (sat?) the plan in motion, it rolls along by itself, encoutering a few bumps along the way in things they didn't plan for (for example, Faith). The Watcher doesn't have to continually remind the Slayer to be "good"; the Slayer IS that by her very nature (of course in Buffy's case, the Watcher does have to frequently urge her to come back from her retirement...).
If anyone has a theory on what happened in Faith's case, I'd be glad to hear it!

However, Angel, is well, a differnt kettle of fish altogether. TPTB did not explicitly create a Vampire-with-a-soul-warrior-for-good-whose-purpose-is-to-save-souls-as-well-as-lives; that was done courtesy the gypsies curse. It can be argued that the curse was in the line with TPTB overall plan (just as in I will Remember You when Angel confronts the Oracles about his apparently accidentally being turned human.
Angel: It was the demon's blood, it wasn't the Powers That Be that did this?
Brother: The Powers That Be? Did you save humanity, avert the Apocalypse?
Sister: You faced a Mohra Demon--Life goes on.
Angel: My life as a human? I'm not poisoned or under some spell?
Sister: The auguries say no. If it has happened, it was meant to be.).

But the basic fact still stands: Angel is the only one of his kind, a Vampire-with-a-Soul. From what we know of the Buffyverse, there has never been another. He is perhaps the ultimate ironical warrior. Or mabye just an anomaly, that TPTB were bored one day and said "hey, what would happen if you took an evil vampire and put a soul/conscience back in the body without taking the evil demon out first? would the result be a good vampire or an evil human or something inbetween?" Or perhaps, TPTB planned him all along. But with Angel, since he is not absolutely good or evil, they have to make the rules up as they go along. And look at Angel; he surprises them at every turn. They assign him tasks through the visions, but he doesn't always complete them on the side of good. They have Doyle tell him to save souls; he offers to give up his life to save Darla's. When faced with the choice of humanity and life with Buffy, which is what he most wants, or fighting the good fight and perhaps winning his humanity later, he chooses the latter out of his love for Buffy in order to be in his best shape to protect her. This choice shocks the Oracles, and they proclaim him a higher being. But this designation doesn't keep him from drinking Kate's blood or letting Darla and Dru massacre 13 Wolfram & Hart lawyers in Holland's wine cellar, or his choices in the new ethical dilemnas which he has already faced in the 3rd season and for which his actions are sure to bring repercussions.

Angel, unlike Buffy, needs constant reminders that he needs to make choices, that he has responsibilities, that if he wants to redeem himself, he has to save souls. And with being EVIL for most of his 273 years, old habits die hard. And with the way Angel sometimes solves ethical dilemnas by using the same logic he uses for planning (or rather 'dumb planning' as Cordy would say), it looks like TPTB should send him some more hints and mentors besides Buffy, Cordy, Wes, Gunn, Lorne, Lorne's psychic friend, the Oracles, the pool in Fred's cave in Pylea...no wonder new characters are constantly appearing on Angel while Buffy gets by with her same few, tried and true Scooby Gang!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Faith's case -- celticross, 05:34:56 10/05/01 Fri
I've known so many people like Faith...people who are so angry they'll do anything to get what they think they deserve. It's the old "want-take-have". Why is Faith so angry? We know she had an awful childhood. The Watchers didn't get to her any sooner than they did to Buffy. I think finally being special (hey, I'm a vampire slayer!), then discovering she's not as special as she thought (wait, you mean I'm not the only one?) pushed her over. Faith felt she was owed something, and didn't get it, at least not from the SG. I don't think all Slayers are good by nature. Some, like Buffy, are. Some, like Kendra, are so indoctrinated it doesn't matter. And then there are the Faiths of the Slayer world, and I imagine there have been more like her like the WC would even like to admit.
As for Angel....good points all! That boy needs all the help he can get.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, my take on Faith ......... -- Rahael, 16:34:39 10/05/01 Fri
Is that she felt unworthy of being a 'Slayer'. That her childhood taught her to despise herself, and to expect only disappointment and neglect.

Then she gets this role in life, and meets Buffy - someone who clearly *deserved* to have this power, who had friends who loved her....hell, even Vampires (with a soul) loved her. She feels inadequate, jealous, angry resentful and awed.She wants to win the approval of authority figures like Giles and Buffy, but feels every rebuff.

The most telling scene was how she beat up on herself when she was in Buffy's body, and told the Faith body that she was dirty, unclean. By going to the dark, she confirmed her true opinion of herself, and finally managed to win approval and love from the Mayor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Blood Sacrifice -- Rufus, 11:54:23 10/03/01 Wed
You'll have to tell me more about the Gnostics, I know nothing about them in regards to the evil bit.

As for the fawn...I eat meat, but if I had to go out and hunt, and kill it myself, I'd become and instant vegetarian. I couldn't watch the fawn scene and Willow didn't look too happy either. It's all about the blood I guess, but the spell would have gone bloodless if it were me out there in the woods. Do you think the gods would accept a collecterd edition of "Bambi" in lieu of the red stuff??.....;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It's.Always.Got.To.Be.The.Blood.Or.The.Chocolate. ;) -- rowan, 13:32:42 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Did I ever tell you about the Chocolate Vampire? -- Rufus, 13:53:23 10/03/01 Wed
In chat a friend and I decided that blood, even on tap was just a bit yucky(it really smells folks), that if it were a perfect metaphysical world we would be chocolate vampires. We would be creatures of the night that would be on the love chemical of chocolate making us very happy contented demons. My proviso was that we dodn't gain any weight no matter how much we ate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> BLOOD AND CHOCOLATE by Annette Curtis Klause -- Brian, 14:18:39 10/03/01 Wed
This is a young adult novel that is about to be a movie with Jennifer Love Hewitt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Is Annette Curtis *The* Magic Klause? -- WW, 14:37:26 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Gnostics -- Ryuei, 14:21:59 10/03/01 Wed
I recommend Elaine Pagels book simply entitled: The Gnostics.

It's been a long time since I've read it or anything else about them though. But I do remember that some Gnostic sects believed that the God of the Hebrew Scriptures was a different and more malevolent being than the God of the Gospels. St. Augustine also had a problem with the Hebrew Scriptures and was attracted to Gnosticism (esp. the Manicheans whom he audited for quite a while) for that very reason.

The Gnostic and/or Zoroastrian view that the world is a battleground between a good deity and an equally powerful evil one seems to be the way the Buffyverse works. At least that is how it appears to be more and more lately. I was especially surprised to learn in the second episdode of Angel this season that there are apparently many other creatures working for the PTB and not just a handful of flukes. So it seems as though there are two opposing camps and not just a world of darkness with a couple of champions in it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> killing Bambi -- vampire hunter D, 13:43:44 10/03/01 Wed
You want to know what your problem is? (and when I say you, I'm adressing everyone who had a problem with that scene) You see Willow killing a cute forest creature. You see her killing Bambi. I don't see Bambi. I see dinner. I am such a carnivore that I can watch that and not be moved. What shocked me was that it was Willow doing it.

btw:
vegetarian (vej-et-air-ee-an) n a bad hunter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> exactly! -- Solitude1056, 13:50:45 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: exactly! -- Humanitas, 14:34:07 10/03/01 Wed
Looks like I've got some fellow members of PETA (People for the Eating of Tasty Animals) here. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: exactly! -- Cleanthes, 15:27:20 10/03/01 Wed
Aren't vegetarians just animal chauvinists? What is a piece of bread but a whole lot of wheat babies ground up for food?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> We're not animal chauvinists- -- Ophelia, 16:03:48 10/03/01 Wed
We just really hate vegetables :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Yeah! What you guys just said. -- Deeva, 16:09:52 10/03/01 Wed
I eat meat and am not ashamed of it. I don't love it when I come across vegetarians who find out I do eat meat and then proceed to pick on me for it. "How can you kill something that didn't do anything to you?" "How can you eat anything that has a face?" "Meat's bad for you. It'll give you cancer, blah, blah, blah." Ugh! On the other hand I love to push their buttons and tell them that I can butcher anything smaller than a chicken. (My parents both grew up in farming environments) They either turn many shades of red or go completely pale. Course, it's not like I run out into the woods and kill things for fun. Strictly a food prep thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: killing Bambi -- Ryuei, 14:31:09 10/03/01 Wed
Well yes. That was the gist of my thoughts. I realized that I was disturbed by that scene for the wrong reasons. It is pure sentiment to think that sacrificing a deer in a ritual manner is any worse than shooting it for dinner (and since we have plenty of other food sources that is actually an even more unjusifiable act perhaps).

I completely agree with whoever said in a previous thread that symbolically Willow was sacrificing her innocence. She was killing the girl who would never hurt a fly. Killing the girl who probably herself cried when Bambi's mother was killed.

There is also the matter of Willow using a pretence of innocence and harmony with nature in order to lure the deer in for the kill. That aspect of it is also disturbing. That Willow is capable of such seductive predatory guile is more disturbing than the actual fact of the killing itself.

Also, I agree that the most ominous thing about all this is Willow's presumption and hubris in assuming that Buffy is not in a better place and should therefore be brought back using any means necessary.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: killing Bambi -- Dedalus, 14:40:12 10/03/01 Wed
Well, my point was that the scene LOOKED like something out of Bambi. If she'd been out in the woods at night, and it was creepy, and she was chanting, that would have almost made it easier to take.

But this was in the cheerful, happy woods. By a nice pleasant stream. Birds were singing their little melodies. I half-expected Thumper to come up and burst into song himself. And then Willow lures a deer and STABS IT TO DEATH! I would have been traumatized if that had been in Bambi. The set up was what made it so subversive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: killing Bambi -- Humanitas, 15:19:54 10/03/01 Wed
So, the conversation in the room during this scene went something like this:

Newbie: "Well, nothing bad's going to happen. It's daylight."
Homeowner: "Yeah, and she's all in white."
Humanitas: "Oh, look, there's a deer. This can't be bad."
Everyone: "HOLY SHIT!"

They done it to us again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> LOL! -- rowan, 16:05:55 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> You all weren't eating while this scene played, were you? -- Rufus, 16:22:50 10/03/01 Wed
I are a hypocrite, a meat eater that can only eat meat when it either comes in a shrink wrapped package, or fast food wrapper, all properly cooked of course. So last night I was averting my eyes when Willow killed the fawn. Too bad my husband wasn't there to make any smart ass remarks. :):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yep. Spaghetti with - you guessed it - meat sauce! ;) -- Humanitas, 03:53:17 10/04/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: killing Bambi -- gds, 16:26:23 10/03/01 Wed
Exactly. It was the the contrast of a garden of eden virginal scene that suudenly morphed into brutal reality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: killing Bambi -- Lunarchickk, 12:29:30 10/05/01 Fri
Yes! I'm still mulling this part over, and I haven't rewatched the episode yet. But to me, the most horrifying part was not the sacrifice itself -- but the fact that we saw Willow, who has always been "very seldom naughty," performing what seems a far darker ritual than we've seen before. And then (and this is *never* a good thing in the Jossverse) lying to everyone else about it.

Had she returned, and the group's response been more like "how did it go? are you ok? this is scary, you were brave to do it" then I think we would have felt horror *with* Willow, and gone through with it anyway. Willow's lie about the black market set her apart from her friends, and from us, as though she was lying to us as well.

In relation to all this is Xander's line to her, in the woods -- along the lines of, "What were we doing back there?" Clearly, the spell was far darker than he had imagined. Even Tara, who knew of the tests, seemed surprised at what Willow was going through. I wonder if, in reaction to the spell having worked and Buffy being "back," if the gang will forget their fear at what powers Willow seemed to be playing with; or if they'll try to confront her about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: killing Bambi -- Rahael, 16:21:57 10/05/01 Fri
Thanks for reminding me of Restless. I have always wondered what 'secret' Willow was hiding, what they would all find out, and thought that the lesbian thing wasn't it. Surely its the Faustian bargain she's made? The one she avoids telling everyone about?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Restless, Bargaining, and what's to come... (long!) -- Lunarchickk, 18:43:21 10/05/01 Fri
Rahael, thank you for making something click! The line "I'm very seldom naughty" keeps buzzing in my head, thinking about Willow in Bargaining. That's always bothered me, too -- Willow's secret in Restless always seemed to be more than just about her relationship with Tara. So I looked up the shooting script of Restless.

I read through Willow's dream, and when I got to Anya, "It's exactly like a Greek tragedy. There should only be Greeks," I looked up Greek tragedy. (I love the Web.) Here's the quote that leaped out at me:

"Aeschylus, the poet who best evokes Athenian power and grandeur, is deeply concerned with the moral issues that power and grandeur raise. He examines the dangers of overweening arrogance, the ancient rule of blood for blood, the inevitability of the misuse of power."

*shudder* Sounds rather familiar.

Willow's dream opens with her and Tara in their room. Tara: "They will find out, you know. About you." Willow: "I don't have time to think about that. You know, I have all this homework to finish." Now let's jump to Bargaining. Willow knows that the group will find out just how far she has to go to bring Buffy back -- but she ignores the possible consequences, instead focusing on the "work" she needs to do to pull off this frighteningly powerful spell. In Restless, Willow also talks about not wanting to leave Tara -- "I never worry here. I'm safe here." and "It's so bright..." Hints that the path Willow will soon be on -- possibly symbolized by the drama class she talks about -- will be less safe, less bright?

The dream becomes full of her drama class production of a twisted version of "Death of a Salesman." Leaving Willow's stage fright (and opera issues) aside... She see's Oz in the hallway. He's taken the drama class already: "Tough course." Of course -- he is Wolfy Guy; he's faced power and it's siren song. Backstage, Willow talks to Buffy: "No one is ever gonna know the truth. You know, about you." So Tara knows; now Buffy knows. Are these two the only friends who dare confront Willow about her secrets in Season 6?

And then Giles makes a speech. "So get out there, lie like dogs and have a wonderful time. If we can stay focussed, keep our heads and if Willow can stop stepping on everybody's cues I know this will be the best production of Death of a Salesman we've ever done." Lie? We've already seen Willow do just that. Step on everybody's cues? Such as insisting they do a spell that the group worries is just not right? Or a hint of other abused power still to come? And Death of a Salesman... Well, we've had a death, and while I'd love to compare Buffy to Willy Loman, it's just been too long since I've read the play. Besides, we're talking about Willow.

"Things aren't going very well," Tara says. If the drama class is Willow's dark path... then it's not going very well at all. She's entirely unprepared for the role she's been thrust into. "Is there something following me?" Willow asks. Is she referring to the Primitive (First Slayer)? Or to something later? (I'm leaning back on my idea here that perhaps there is something external that pushes Willow closer to darkness without her realizing it.) "The play's already started. That's not the point," Tara says. "If they find out, you'll be punished." Hmm... I remember a post from Joss somewhere, that what happens this season has been planned out since something like Season 3. Then yes, Willow, the play's already started -- she's already started edging closer to darkness.

But then, we're back in the classroom, Buffy calling on Willow to take off her costume, and BAM, we're back at the Greek tragedy that is Willow. In Greek tragedy, the hero is human. He deviates from the higher path and is all too often destroyed for it. (And often that downfall is caused by hubris -- the belief that one is as powerful as a god -- or, perhaps, knows better? Has the power to raise the dead, and the belief that one knows the "right" thing to do?)

Now... now I'm really nervous for Willow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Restless, Bargaining, and what's to come... (long!) -- Rattletrap, 05:27:56 10/06/01 Sat
We could go a step farther down this road and look at what Willow's done before. Someone mentioned during her character post (or the subsequent discussion) this summer that Willow claims "I'm very seldom naughty" but this isn't really true. The first time we meet her in WttH, she illegally hacks into the city mainframe to get plans for the sewer and electrical tunnels. She spends most of the first two or three seasons illegally breaking in to all sorts of computers when it serves the SG's needs. Willow has historically shown herself unafraid to bend the rules, even to suspend good judgment, when there is knowledge to be gained. Her study of magic is the same way, but the stakes are significantly higher.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Restless, Bargaining, and what's to come... (long!) -- Rahael, 12:35:37 10/06/01 Sat
Thanks lunarchick! That was a great exploration of Restless from Willow's view point. I loved that line "Im very seldom naughty" because it seemed to be something only Willow could have said i.e, it exemplified her character.

Now I'm off to reread Death of a Salesman!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: killing Bambi -- rowan, 16:03:47 10/03/01 Wed
"You want to know what your problem is? (and when I say you, I'm adressing everyone who had a problem with that scene)"

Are we now at the point that if anyone discusses a scene and viewpoints differ that we have "a problem"? I didn't know someone had handed down a definitive interpretation. Maybe I missed out on the manual. If you're sensing sarcasm in my response, it's because your tone seems pretty attacking to me.

BTW, I don't see Bambi at all. I see a situation in which a person made a choice about which life had more value. It was a new choice for her to make and it involved an innocent life (the deer) and overriding the free choice of another (Buffy). It seems to me a moment worthy of comment and free exchange of ideas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> God gave his son to end all Blood Sacrifice-it was a sign it was horrible (NT) -- Charlemagne20, 19:54:35 10/03/01 Wed
If I were make a warrior for buffy/angel universe I would make him a warrior necromancer. -- ALLFORBUFFY, 11:34:30 10/03/01 Wed
A warrior/necromancer is more tuned in to darkness than good so it make him understand how evil works. I would give him superstrength close to buffys and as tough as her too plus with his combination of black magic he would be like a supernatural powerhouse. I mean in the beginning he is tough as buffy but only half as powerful as willow right now. His powers come from the supernatural energy from the ether which made him as tough as buffy is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Did I miss something here??? (Shaking his head in confusion) -- penjorgensen, 11:44:24 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm with you, pen... -- Wisewoman, 11:57:37 10/03/01 Wed
What does this have to do with Buffy?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm just guessing here... -- VampRiley, 17:18:43 10/03/01 Wed
...but I think ALLFORBUFFY is just saying a type of character that ALLFORBUFFY would make for the show. A lot of people do it. I've even done it.



VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Huh? -- Deeva, 12:05:01 10/03/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: If I were make a warrior for buffy/angel universe I would make him a warrior necromancer. -- botTroll, 14:45:00 10/03/01 Wed
boom! botTroll go boom in thgin. boom big in gniht. this was so sunny when in troll they went to tis/

boom bottroll go. Grr ... argh. boom sparks. skraps moob.

the boombot goe down to boom. warriorverse in meocraamncer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Laughing so hard my drink just sprayed out of my mouth... -- penjorgensen, 17:37:26 10/03/01 Wed
Question about suicide.........spoilers.... -- Rufus, 12:11:34 10/03/01 Wed
Buffy didn't ask to be returned to life, but she is back. She seemed rather ambivalent about being alive. I know that she is disoriented, but I have to ask.....Buffy died by unnatural means, and has been brought back the same way. So simple question.....would it be ethical for Buffy to kill herself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Question about suicide.........spoilers.... -- vampire hunter D, 13:29:10 10/03/01 Wed
Buffy didn't ask to come back. But none of us asked to be born. Putting it in those terms brings up the bigger question: if it would be ethical for Buffy to want death, then is suicide ethical for others?

If you ask me, I see nothing wrong with suicide. Humans have free will, the ability to decide their own fate. If someone decides it is time to die, it's their right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Question about suicide.........spoilers.... -- Dedalus, 14:50:11 10/03/01 Wed
Big question Rufus.

I personally don't have an issue with people who commit suicide either. I certainly wouldn't condone it, and its very sad, but still ...

In terms of Buffy ... I think she was traumatized. I don't think she even knew what planet she was on. I don't know if another dive off the tower would have constituted suicide. Still, after Dawn called out to her, she did seem to come back a little bit. The long and the short of it is, she is in a position we just don't see everyday. I guess that is the point.

Buffy didn't ask to come back. And she had the chance. She could have told Dawn to find some way to bring her back. She didn't. She said she was okay. With that in mind, I have to feel sorry for her. After all she's been through, pretty much anything she does is okay with me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> A bit more......... -- Rufus, 15:01:01 10/03/01 Wed
I think the images of both Buffys death and life have my attention in that Buffy died embracing the light of the portal and dawn. This was the moment of complete clarity, understanding of who she is and content with herself for the first time as a slayer. Buffy was reborn into darkness(gives new meaning to "you're power is rooted in darkness")clawing her way into the world in a bloody way to find a hell not a small town of manicured lawns and the American dream. Besides being in shock, Buffy couldn't recognise the Sunnydale that evolved over the hours the demons found out a slayer wasn't in town. Buffy's return to the tower was only more confusing for her, she was searching for that feeling she had in The Gift, she only saw concrete on the dark surface below. The only thing that called to her was the sister she died for. Dawn begged Buffy to live, she wasn't strong enough to do it on her own. Buffy may have embraced her sister but who is she now? What does her life mean now? It was clear that the light Buffy found three months ago is gone, now the work of finding that moment again has begun. I just wondered if some thought that it would have been okay if she had ignored her sister and jumped to escape the darkness she found herself in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A bit more......... -- Cleanthes, 15:15:33 10/03/01 Wed
The Stoics answered this question differently than other ethical systems. For the Stoics, suicide sometimes/often worked as the solution. Leave the room if it grows too smokey!

Seneca suggested suicide to the Emperor Nero. Nero repaid this suggestion by allowing Seneca to suicide rather than be crucified. (nice guy, Nero)

No one should suicide if they have undertaken a duty that they would fail were they to suicide. If one undertakes a duty, then one must apply the will to that duty. Otherwise, one sacrifices power and freedom.

If, though, one realizes weakness at a fundamental level, then one should suicide. O.J. Simpson ought to have shot himself. Bill Clinton ought to have considered it seriously. Nero, in my example, needed to do it sooner.

Buffy ---- well, she had fulfilled her duty. But, if she wants even a tiny bit of Dawn's love, then she must accept that duty and not suicide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit more......... -- bible belt, 17:26:29 10/03/01 Wed
But she did kill herself before this episode even began. That light , that clarity, and that sense of peace that came over her in the last season finale (sorry I don't know what the ep was called)describes how many people feel when they decide to go ahead with it. What was going on here was what someone said in another thread(sorry I don't remember who or where), she was trying to deal with her being denied her riteful place in heaven. She didn't even know she was alive. IMO
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: A bit more......... -- anom, 22:42:07 10/03/01 Wed
"Buffy was reborn into darkness...."

Literally. The one thing that scene didn't give a feel for was that there would have been no light in Buffy's coffin. The scene had to be lit, of course, so we could see her corpse reanimated & see her expression, but she really found herself in total darkness in a small space--even more frightening.

"I just wondered if some thought that it would have been okay if she had ignored her sister and jumped to escape the darkness she found herself in."

Well, no, 'cause then there'd be no show. @>) But I don't think that's really what she had in mind. Her last moments came back to her; she even repeated what she had said to Dawn ("Dawnie, I have to."). She didn't seem to be clear about whether she was remembering it or whether it was happening right then. Or at all--or was she in hell? Maybe she thought she was supposed to jump but it didn't look right--no opening in the dimensional walls to jump into, just a long drop to the concrete below. I don't know if it was a question of escaping.

I like the way she turned back & ran to Dawn--much the same way she ran the other way to jump off the edge in The Gift.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit more......... -- Rufus, 22:51:57 10/03/01 Wed
I'll repeat what I said below, in the closed caption when Buffy said Dawnie, I have to. it said that she was reliving the moment, then flashing forward to Dawn calling to her.
Many people said that when Buffy died to save the world that she was being selfish....I just wondered how it would feel like to be brought back to life and be tempted to go back to the other side? Would that too be selfish?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit more......... -- Raven Eye, 23:37:06 10/03/01 Wed
I don't know if Buffy was in the right frame of mind, but if she was, of course it would be wrong. Dawn already had to see her sister die once, to see it happen again - talk about Hell.

One of the saddest parts of the show was Dawn laying down with the injured Buffybot. And then again when she found the Buffybot all injured. It's only a machine, Spike said. I know Dawn replied. And she did know on one level, but on another she still needed to believe. After all weird love, robot love, is still better than no love at all. Yes she knew it was "just a machine" but in an emotional way it still was like (in a small way) losing her all over again.

I really am surprsed that more people didn't like Buffybot. I really thought that "character" (can a robot be a character) really grew during the show. Of course she was limited. That was the point. She wasn't Buffy, but every once in a while you could get a shade of Buffy, a fragment.

I found Buffybot a most tragic figure. Can't say she had a soul. Can't say she was real, but part of me thinks she was, in a way. Her programing made her limited. As a robot she couldn't understand things the way a human can. But I believe she was beginning to. And what she was understanding was that she was limited. That no matter what she wasn't Buffy as much as people might wish she could be. She just didn't have that ability. She wasn't human. She wasn't Buffy. It wasn't her fault.

But she did help people. Maybe that "just was her programming", but I believe that Buffybot was the finest testament they could give to their fallen hero. Not a replacement, but a memorial. Something built in her image that could continue the fight in tribute to Buffy.

Anyway, kind of got off on a detour here. The point was Dawn saw Buffy die, then Buffybot injured, and Buffybot destroyed. And then she got her hopes raise when the real Buffy returned. Only to see the real Buffy die again? Too Cruel.

Buffy got a second chance. Not only for herself, not only for Sunnydale, but for Dawn.

Dawn seemed to take Giles' leaving the hardest. I am sure she was thinking, here's another one abandoning me. I feel so sad for her. And for Buffy. They have both been through so much. But now they are together again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit more......... -- Sean, 00:22:01 10/04/01 Thu
Buffy-bot couldn't love. All she could do was "state the facts" without the emotional implications. She knew sometimes was wrong, but she didn't know what, as she couldn't feel. She could calculate, computate, analyze.

That had it's pluses and minuses. When she told Giles that he was of use to Buffy, that really meant something as she wouldn't have lied to protect his feelings.

Towards the end, I really was sad to see Buffy-bot go. No, she wasn't Buffy's replacement. Buffy is so much more than Buffy-bot could ever have been. But even with her limitations there was something special about Buffy-bot. Built in Buffy's image, and programmed by Willow in loving memory.

Glad to have the real Buffy back though.
I was wrong -- vampire hunter D, 14:32:50 10/03/01 Wed
When we first began hearing spoilers saying what would happen, I said that it was stupid and that if the spoilers were true, that the show had jumped the Shark. I was wrong (and am man enough to admit it). It was much better than I expected. It wasn't perfect, but it was good. I even thought that the biker gang was better than I was expecting (they turned out to be necessary afterall, making SD the vision of hell that terrified Buffy).

I still did not like the Buffybot. It did nothing but sever two stupid functions. 1:it provided a cheap way out of dealing with the consequences of Buffy's death (custody of Dawn for example). Joss and Co. have never taken the easy way out, and they shouldn't start. 2:it gave SMG a role for pt.1 so she could get paid for the week. But, at least we seem to be done with the robot.

One last thing: Despite the fact that Herc from AICN was right, I still hate him more than anything and again renew my vow to beat him and do something unspeakably cruel to him (I've been thinking of that scene in Hannibal where he cuts off the top of Ray Liotta's head and starts cutting out pieces of brain).

And in response to Buffy question (Is this Hell?), the answer is : No, it's worse. This is the World.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I was wrong -- Dedalus, 14:53:03 10/03/01 Wed
Why do you hate herc so much?

He's just a little man in a wheelchair.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I was wrong *spoilers o' course* -- Rendyl, 15:01:09 10/03/01 Wed
***And in response to Buffy question (Is this Hell?), the answer is : No, it's worse. This is the World.***

What is it Holland says to Angel during last season? They ride the elevator to hell and it opens back up on L.A.? (if I am confusing things please forgive-I still have the cold that refuses to die) Something about all the evil and despair being right here on earth?

I liked the Buffybot. It makes possible one of the most heartbreaking scenes of episode. Dawn climbimg into bed with the 'Bot nearly made me cry. It also made possible the scene where Buffy gets to watch herself be torn apart. No wonder she thought she was in hell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes, Dawn and the Bot scene was sad......... -- Rufus, 15:03:49 10/03/01 Wed
That one got me as well as her reaction when she encountered the dismembered bot. Her talk with Buffy on the tower did it too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> two more thoughts. -- vampire hunter D, 15:42:43 10/03/01 Wed
First, Xander's right, they need another guy on the show. The only source of testosterone left now is Xander and Spike. All girls is interesting, but ultimately boring (remember Xena?)

Second: I think Willow might be the cast member who gets killed later. Why do I think this? Because of where they moved Aly's credit to. It's always gone: SMG, AH, NB, with ASH last. Now it goes SMG, NB, EC, so on with Aly last, the exact place in the credits to put someone being written off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: two more thoughts. -- Wisewoman, 16:08:00 10/03/01 Wed
I took Aly's credit adjustment to be a nod toward her film career and growing status as an actor. You may be right, D., but there's also the possibility that they're just showing their recognition of her talent by giving her the, "and Alyson Hannigan, as Willow" designation. They do it in film a lot when an impressive "name" actor has less than the starring role, but deserves special recognition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> And while I would never admit to watching such shamelessly silly tv as... -- A8, 17:41:38 10/03/01 Wed
...'Melrose Place,' I seem to recall that Heather Locklear (who saved the show from cancellation in its second season) was always billed as its "special guest star" for however many seasons that show was on the air. And if memory serves me right (and it probably shouldn't for having ever watched anything by Aaron Spelling), I believe the same titling was true for Joan Collins on 'Dynasty.'

Okay, that's all the worthless OT trivia I have to offer today. Sorry. Please don't think any less of me (than you already do).;-)

A8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: And while I would never admit to watching such shamelessly silly tv as... -- gds, 19:21:07 10/03/01 Wed
I wasn't a Melrose watcher, but Heather & Courtney were almost reason enough and on Dynasty Linda Evans was reason enough to watch it - while she was there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I was wrong -- Amber, 00:33:18 10/04/01 Thu
>I still did not like the Buffybot. It did nothing but >sever two stupid functions. 1:it provided a cheap way out >of dealing with the consequences of Buffy's death (custody >of Dawn for example). Joss and Co. have never taken the >easy way out, and they shouldn't start. 2:it gave SMG a >role for pt.1 so she could get paid for the week. But, at >least we seem to be done with the robot.

Just have to throw in my 2 cents and defend the Buffy Bot. I think it served a higher purpose in the episode. That being to show how badly the Scoobs are dealing with Buffy's death.

1) The scene in the kitchen where the Buffy-Bot hugs Dawn and calls her her sister, etc. is heart wrenching. The fact that Willow is letting this robot walk around and pretend to be Buffy shows exactly how unwilling she is to accept Buffy's death.
2) When the Bot flirts with Spike and he gets angry it shows his growth as a character. He clearly recognizes that creating the Bot was a morally wrong thing to do and he's ashamed. Feeling ashamed, that's a pretty big step for the soul-less William the Bloody.
3) Everyone has already mentioned this so I won't go on about it, but the scene where Dawn snuggles up to the bot. Again heart wrenching.
4) Buffy watching the Bot die its final death. Very effectivve, she's confused, thinks she's in hell, and has to essentially watch herself die.

These four scenes were some of my favorite serious moments from the episode. Sometimes the Bot is just there to give a lighter moment or two, but Bargaining is definately one episode where I think Joss and Co. used it well to convey the serious side of things.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I marvel -- Brian, 04:11:27 10/04/01 Thu
Just watched the first season episode where the demon lives in the computer, and has some people build him a robot body. So, robots have been in the Buffyverse from early on. Cool! Makes the Buffybot a lot smoother to take.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I was wrong -- Rattletrap, 06:26:07 10/04/01 Thu
You're right vhD, I inadvertently read those same spoilers at the beginning of the summer and was thoroughly disappointed, but Joss/Marti&Co did a great job with it.

I don't inherently dislike the BuffyBot, but I think they overused that idea. It would have been fine to use her once, but seeing that same tactic in back-to-back episodes (albeit separated by 3 months), with the Bot destroyed both times was a little much to take. Props to SMG, though, she managed to do most of the show wearing the completely vapid expression of the BuffyBot or the completely confused expression of the newly resurrected Buffy with very little change. Also props for being able to learn the knock-knock joke line, that would have taken me weeks!

Current board | More October 2001