October 2001 posts

Previous October 2001  

November 2001

Hans Christian Anderson *mild spoilers* -- Rahael, 16:08:15 10/29/01 Mon
Could be way off beam here (probably am), but I thought it would be an interesting subject to raise.......while looking at the promos on the UPN site, and reading the spoilers, it is suggested that some demon has commanded everyone to sing......

One wild leap later, I arrived at the 'Red Shoes' where the little girl was commanded by an Angel to 'keep dancing' until she wore away and died (as a punishment for her vanity).

"And she danced and was compelled to go dancing over field and meadow, in rain and sunshine, by night and by day; but it was most dreadful at night. She danced into the open churchyard; but the dead there did not dance; they had something better to do. She wished to sit down on the poor man's grave, where the bitter tansy grows; but there was no peace nor rest for her..........."

In the end, she begs for her legs to be cut off to stop her suffering.

It seems like a gruesome fable which could be related to the Willow story (pride, vanity, ending in pain and penitence. We've discussed the significance of the colour red here before. This fairy story points to the Xtian view of red as sinful, attention seeking colour.

Anyways, fairy stories come up as a potent resource time and time again in the Buffyverse, from the Gentlemen and Gingerbread to the whole Buffy/Angel storyline. Fairy stories which impart 'real' views of life under the guise of magic and fantasy. Much like the BtVS.

So I wondered if there were any other significant fairy stories around? And perhaps a suggestion for a future book of the week - 'The Brothers Grimm'?
[> Re: Hans Christian Anderson *mild spoilers* -- Shiver, 17:17:44 10/29/01 Mon
Try reading The Uses of Enchantment, by Bruno Bettelheim ... you'll like it :-)
[> [> Mmmm.... Bruno Bettelheim.What a guy! -- dan, 18:57:52 10/29/01 Mon
[> [> [> Robert Darnton too.... -- Rahael, 19:04:48 10/29/01 Mon
Does a really fascinating analysis of folk tales and Charles Perrault's fairy tales as a historical source. Not sure how far I would go along with him, but 'The Great Cat Massacre' is still a great book. He also shows how the original endings of French fairy tales (before Perrault and others) sanitised them were a lot more violent and shocking than the present day versions. Sleeping Beauty was awakened by her rape, not a kiss, and gave birth to children soon after.

I will look up Bettelheim. I'm sure I'll like him a lot :)
[> [> Re: Hans Christian Anderson *mild spoilers* -- beekeepr, 19:34:28 10/29/01 Mon
Sorry-feel strongly enough about this one to seriously sully my status as hardcore lurker only. Suggest you do a little consult w/someone w/psych background before you become enraptured by Bettelheim-he was a character, no two ways about it, but is a classic representation of the old school, paternalistic school of psych practice. There have been some very strong arguments for genuine misogyny made over the years, and he did catastrophic damage to many people, women in particular, in his autism research. Make up your own mind, but do a little critical thinking, my hearts.
[> [> [> what a guy? -- anom, 20:25:09 10/29/01 Mon
Yeah, seems he was a control freak & got threatening-to-abusive to kids in the camp he ran if they complained or questioned his pretty little picture that everything was perfect, according to a book one of those kids wrote when he grew up.
[> [> [> [> Re: what a guy? -- dan, 18:49:33 10/30/01 Tue
yikes! I never heard that! i just liked his work in /Uses of Enchantment/.

[> The Nightengale Re: Hans Christian Andersen *mild spoilers* -- Sheri, 20:38:00 10/29/01 Mon
ooh, how about Andersen's "Nightengale"?

The emperor gets the mechanical bird because the nightengale will not allow itself to be caged up... the mechanical bird can sing just as sweet--but it's only one song. It can only sing the same song (with utter perfection) over and over again. In the end (after the artificial bird breaks, and the real nightengale's song is the only thing that is able to keep the Emperor from dying), the Emperor realizes that the artificial bird can not replace the real nightengale.

Sounds a bit like Spike's realization that the Buffy-bot cannot replace the real Buffy in "Intervention". The bot may look and sound like Buffy (though she is a quite a bit nicer)--but she can only do what she's been programmed to do (i.e. "would you like to start this program over?"). Would that kiss have meant as much to Spike had it been from the robot? Mee thinks not!
[> [> 'The viewless wings of poesy' -- Rahael, 03:43:23 10/30/01 Tue
Such a great example Sheri, which I had not even considered.

The mechanical nightingale has been the inspiration for so many - Keates and Yeats, (Byzantium) for example.

One obvious example is of course Sleeping Beauty - Buffy having sex with Angel awoke the sleeping darkness - the dark prince.
[> Angela Carter, too. -- Arachne, 13:12:05 10/30/01 Tue
Another lurker emerges from the shadows...

I've just been reading "The Bloody Chamber" - Angela Carter's collection of her own versions of various fairy tales. Especially Buffyish ones are "The Lady of the House of Love" (a reluctant and unhappy vampire redeemed by love), "The Tiger's Bride" (puts me in mind of Dedalus' essay on Beauty and the Beast as an analogy for Buffy and Spike), and "The Company of Wolves" (Little Red Riding Hood meets Beauty and the Beast, and the film's not bad either).

"The girl burst out laughing. She knew she was nobody's meat."
- The Company of Wolves
[> [> ooh...thanks for reminding me.... -- Rahael, 05:50:33 10/31/01 Wed
That was a book which I read long before I discovered Buffy.

Must look it up again. The story which sticks with me is the 'Bloody Chamber' - the monster who wore Asser and Turnbull shirts. Carter doesn't play down the horror which lurks underneath most fairy stories.

Highly recommend it - it was a good book.

I also recommend the gothic/fantasy short stories and plays of Tolstoy and Pushkin. They were the writers who introduced me to fantasy when I was still little.
The Moral Ambiguity of the Powers that Be -- Charlemagne, 19:22:07 10/29/01 Mon
Curious that the Powers that Be imprisoned Billy in what ammounts to a living eternal torment (or at least for the rest of a normal human being's natural lifespan if Billy aged) rather than simply kill him with what is essentially just bullets. Are the Powers that be believers in an eye for an eye instead of redemption and thus like the Gypsies as opposed to hyper benevolent forgiveness oreintated ones?

My personal theory is that Billy was so evil the Powers that Be had to intervene to give him a chance at redemption. There was no possible way he might redeem unless he got a taste of Hell while living...unfortunately that taste wasn't enough and he returned to his evil ways and is likely right back where he was before.

[> Question is, who imprisoned him in the first place? -- verdantheart, 07:31:51 10/30/01 Tue
[> Re: The Moral Ambiguity of the Powers that Be -- robert, 16:13:57 10/30/01 Tue
"My personal theory is that Billy was so evil the Powers that Be had to intervene to give him a chance at redemption. There was no possible way he might redeem unless he got a taste of Hell while living...unfortunately that taste wasn't enough and he returned to his evil ways and is likely right back where he was before."

This works as a metaphor for the alcoholic who might (or might not) choose to dry out and clean himself up. As long as the alcoholic has co-dependents supporting his addiction, he doesn't perceive much reason for stopping. In this episode, we learn that Billy's co-dependent is a senator who is willing to bail him out of hell itself. Therefore, Billy didn't see much reason for rejecting his evil ways.
A Poem for Wesley -- Brian, 19:42:58 10/29/01 Mon
With a taste of forbidden fruit
The Serpent seals Eden's fate.
The Garden swallows its blossoms,
And Adam stumbles and slumps
To break the spoiled soil,
Embittered by Heaven's hemlock,
Doomed to harvest despair,
While Eve rippens the tainted seed.
[> Thanks again Brian.......:):) -- Rufus, 21:34:37 10/29/01 Mon
"Primordial misogyny"? -- sassette, 20:00:08 10/29/01 Mon
Okay, I posted this over on the Angel's Soul board, but I wanted to see what y'all thought of the issue.

I have serious, serious problems with the idea of a "primordial misogyny." As has been pointed out, that just smacks of sociobiology and evolutionary theories that claim that rape and violence against women are natural expressions of drives inherent in all men.

To claim that all men (and women) internalize to differing degrees the attitudes of a society that is (and has historically been) sexist (and racist, and homophobic) is one thing. I'm totally on board with that. However, to assume that the hatred of women was latent in all of the men in the Angelverse--that it is essential, ahistorical, and unchangeable--is quite another. It's a stance that I find deeply troubling.

Anyway, I loved the episode, but the use of the word "primordial" to describe the misogyny really, really got to me, being of the learned-hatreds school. I mean, I understand that Billy bringing out people's latent "socially-constructed misogyny" doesn't have quite the same creepy punch to it, but, IMHO, it would have been much more ideologically preferable. I mean, you can recognize and unlearn socially-constructed biases, but the essential is just that: essential.

I mean, where does this leave us? Are we to assume that Wes, Gunn, and Angel (maybe) all have this violent, virulent, overpowering hatred of women in them, and it's just lying dormant, and they can do nothing about it, because it's "primordial" and so beyond their control? Because that's very, very troubling.
[> If anything I believe the exact opposite -- Charlemagne20, 20:21:00 10/29/01 Mon
That men are compelled by biological urges to protect and adore women.

However I agree it was not only tasteless it was sexist in a highly offensive way.

Also what was up with Angel saying Angelus was above sexism?

If anything he was the most Anti-Woman character on Buffy!

The very things he described as power, fear, etc are the roots of the disease they called primordial.

How about this...why weren't you infected?

"I'm dead"

[> [> Re: If anything I believe the exact opposite -- Malandanza, 13:53:37 10/30/01 Tue
Also what was up with Angel saying Angelus was above sexism?

Maybe he was just saying that Angelus was an equal opportunity hater -- no special hatred of women.

But perhaps the spell didn't augment buried misogynistic tendencies, but weakened the ego and superego, allowing the id (the want-take-have part of the brain) free reign. Which brings us back to why Angel wasn't affected. I think that Angel's curse is more than just a soul -- we have seen many people with souls commit evil acts without any sign of remorse. Why would a souled Angel be any different from Holland Manners, the Mayor or Maggie Walsh? It seems as though he could have gone back to the Darla and become Angelus again with little difficulty. Even the people we have seen who have drifted into evil but come back (especially Faith & Lindsey) only managed the return through outside intervention. Had it not been for Buffy and Angel, would Faith have ever felt remorse? What about Lindsey? I think Angel's curse includes a hefty dose on conscience along with the soul -- a more powerful superego than he had as Liam -- to make sure he never forgot his evil deeds. It was the curse that enabled Angel to avoid the full effects of the spell -- the spell was not powerful enough to overcome the curse.

And I agree -- misogyny is learned, not inherited. It would make little evolutionary sense for a species to evolve a hatred of the opposite sex. Male vs. male violence, I can see as partly hereditary (competition for mates).
[> [> [> I disagree, Liam of Galway was deliberately baiting his puritan background -- Charlemagne20, 14:03:47 10/30/01 Tue
Liam of Galway was a wastral and a goof but he was human not a demon and I think repulsed horrofically by the murder of a man he respected and loved but wanted deeply the approval of (his father) and probably loved women just as much...and god knows what Angelus did to them. A soul is just human level conscience in my opinion but while one can suppress it one can never eliminate it's urgings entirely (Lindsey, Faith, and others DID feel remorse they just had extenuating circumstances that made their hate stronger than their urges for good just like Spike seems to be the reverse)

Remember Angel DID try to fit in with Darla, Spike, and the rest but drinking the blood of innocents was repulsive to him and he could only feed off evildoers. They KICKED HIM OUT and ultimately angel wandered 80 or so years trying to figure out what to do. My guess is that his repulsion was no less than anyones but more was his confusion at "what now?". A man can't become a psychopath at a whim if one isn't and Angel/Liam isn't/wasn't.

Only after Whistler's involvement did Angel realize that his paralysis was doing nothing for anyone and his Vampire Powers might offer the world something....a lengthy process that seems to have taken several months.
[> [> [> [> Just a minor niggle -- Rahael, 15:44:44 10/30/01 Tue
We don't necessarily know whether Liam is a Puritan. Perhaps you mean Penn, the Puritan who turned up in Somnambulist?

I think Liam would have been a Catholic. Of course, there were English settlers in Ireland. A lot of them were Catholics driven out by Elizabeth 1. A lot of puritans went over under Cromwell. But odds on, that Angel was Catholic. Think of all those guilt issues :)
[> [> [> [> [> about Liam (extremely OT, but I've been wondering about this) -- celticross, 17:59:55 10/30/01 Tue
Ok, when did Liam/Angelus/Angel get the very Celtic tattoo on his back? Obviously not when he was human (strike Liam), because that wasn't done in Europe of the 1700's. In fact, a tattoo that well done and colorful would have to be a product of the 20th century. So was Angel trying to reconnect with being Irish in getting it? Completely random question, but it's be nagging at me.
[> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- Rufus, 21:33:33 10/29/01 Mon
I can understand why they went with Primordial misogyny, the fear and distrust that is inate deep in each sex, is something that has been programed out through our social conditioning. Gender roles have evolved but deep inside we still harbor gender based fears of each other. Billy brought out that fear and amplified it causing a bloody acting out of the men in the episode. I found it of note that Gunn was able to warn off Fred just before he became undefeatable, Wesley had more time and just seemed miss internal cues that something was very wrong in his thinking. I think that there may be a "primordial" basis for gender fear and adversion but I think that Wesley knows that becoming the apple that didn't fall far from the tree may have made him that much more fearful and ready to hate.
[> Perhaps "irrational" would've been a better word choice... -- Solitude1056, 22:02:53 10/29/01 Mon
But "primordial," to most folks, is gonna get interpreted as a big word that means "animalistic" or maybe even "atavistic" ... as if it's somehow non-human. The word choice may not have been perfect but the visual pretty much fit the bill: an extreme distrust, and fear, of the Other.

At the same time, what made the biggest impact on me (and perhaps because of those years of seminary, gee whiz) was that Wesley's natterings focused to a great deal on the Adam/Eve story. I took the hatred & ancient irrational fear to be that of fear of the Other, mostly because of Wes' specific comment to Fred that she thinks she's superior because she bleeds - because she can bring forth life. Granted, in prehistoric and early history, the belief was that women did the birth-routine all on their own. It wasn't until Platonic times (at least in the West), that men started positing that women were merely a vessel - anyone big on their history, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but I could've sworn that was the movement, and it's just one more example of fear/distrust of the Other... and that this fear is based, to a great deal, on lack of comprehension about the world. In sum, on superstition and old stories... like that of Adam and Eve, the apple, yada yada yada. (And, of course, while thinking in the back of my mind that this is the closest I've heard Joss & co. ever come to saying: "this story is the basis for an awful lot of justification of abuse, hatred, constant distrust and continued fear of the Other, folks." Whew. Okay, so I was enjoying the subtle message.)

And as a footnote to C20, I don't think Angel was saying he's above or beyond hatred of women... merely that his demon expresses itself in passion, not in blind rage. Angelus may have been many things, but he was not one given to striking out in anger and destroying everything he touched - his painstaking seduction/stalking/destruction of Dru is a classic example of that. So in that sense, given that the demon in Angel is always hovering under the surface, I wasn't surprised he could deal with Billy's influence - he's used to dealing with the influences from something far more persuasive, and pervasive, than Billy's madness.
[> [> The ironic phallic symbol........... -- Rufus, 22:15:37 10/29/01 Mon
I had to giggle at that one. The show was all about Wolfram and Hart keeping humanity at it's lowest common denominator, violent with no reason. Holland Manners mentioned in his speech to Angel about W&H always being there from the first time a caveman hit another with a club. Working on that bit of evil potential there in us all. Wrapping it in fear and waiting for us to destroy each other. How can you defeat something if you are always in a constant battle with each other? Billy had a talent of bringing out that fear of the other that is in each gender. I have to wonder if a female version of Billy would have gotten the same results? As long as humanity can't work past fear and the actions resulting from that fear, Wolfram and Hart will remain open for business.
Loved the fact that an agent for W&H, Lilah, was the one that took Billy out. I wonder if that will go on her work record?
[> [> [> As for Lilah... -- Solitude1056, 05:24:01 10/30/01 Tue
I was wondering if she'd even survived Gavin Park's attack, and then her comment of, "you should see the other guy." So either he got pulled off her at the last minute before anyone was killed, or he's dead. Hmm... I'm hoping for the latter. I don't like Lilah, but I dislike Gavin even more. Too smarmy.
[> [> [> [> false bravado? -- Sheri, 13:07:52 10/30/01 Tue
Had Gavin been some punk off the street who started beating the crap out of Lilah, I could see Wolfram and Hart security making "you should see the other guy." come true. However, he works for the firm, so I really don't envision security beating him up. More likely, they just pulled him off of her, and that was it.

I think that Lilah said that about Gavin as a way to keep Angel from thinking that he can get all heroic around her. I can't imagine somebody looking worse--I think she just wanted Angel to back off.
[> Not exactly --women have it too. -- Singed Cat, 22:14:00 10/29/01 Mon
I belive the writers were suffering from a rhetoric malfunction there, but not deadly to their main idea (I think).

Sure, we're all animals in some sense, and we've got uncivilized urges that stem from our biological origins as wild creatures. One of those urges is to kill the weak. Whether it comes from a isplaced hunting instinct, or a biological imperitive to improve the species, no one escapes it completely. It's exhibited in the savagery prompted by a display of weakness--any schoolyard will show it to you over and over, every day. It's what makes men want to beat up on women, or dogs, or weaker men. It's behind what makes women, and men, want to beat up children. Or children torture small animals. And this is really getting sick so I'm stopping, you get my point.

I guess I do disagree with 'primordial misogyny' as such, I think that was just the way that demon manifested his power. Though I don't think my ideas have cast humanity in any better a light. I just think they make more sense, primordially speaking.
[> [> Essentialism and social darwinism -- Rahael, 03:40:02 10/30/01 Tue
I guess I pretty much agree with everything Sassette said, and would disagree with those who speculate on the possible evolutionary origins of complex cultural attitudes and fears.

Whether men 'adore' women or 'hate' them, we are simply taking back anachronistic attitudes back to early man. Do Apes exhibit signs of misogyny? Have we found damage on early female skeletons to suggest they suffered from domestic abuse?

I too am troubled by the use of 'primordial'. I would excuse it on any other show, but I have come to expect more intellectual consistency from AtS and BtVS.

I agree with Solitude about the resonance and centrality of the Adam and Eve myth. Perhaps that's what they were referring to. Perhaps that's what 'primordial' refers to.

Everyone has made interesting points on this - I guess your instincts take you down one explanantial path, or another.
[> [> [> Well, then, "historical misogyny" would have worked... -- sassette, 05:38:40 10/30/01 Tue
I agree that it seems as if the writers were linking the hatred of women felt by Wesley and the other men to the forms misogyny has taken in other historical eras. I mean, in the 1980s, misogyny took the form of blaming women for taking jobs that "rightfully" belonged to men; in Biblical times, it took the form of blaming women for casting humans out of heaven. The problem is in assuming that something that has a long history is inherent, which is just not necessarily the case.

And, I totally agree about the dangers of essentialist sexual attributes. Whether we argue that men "naturally" hate/fear women, or that they "naturally" protect/worship them, it's still assuming both that male/female difference (beyond just the biological) is inherent, and that men have "natural" drives to act in a certain way. I think we've seen more than enough evidence of people acting in the opposite way to show that that is just not true. If the hatred of women is an essential trait, then how do we explain the fact that most men do NOT abuse women? And, if the adoration of women is an essential trait, how do we explain the fact that some men DO abuse women, or the fact that some men choose intimate relationships with other men? In both cases, any essentialist argument reduces what is a very complex set of social/cultural/psychological factors to the very simplistic "that's just how men are," which is inadequate to explain people's real behavior.
[> [> [> [> Exactly! -- Rahael, 06:33:56 10/30/01 Tue
Assuming that gender is made up of fixed and opposite attributes (gender, not sex) leads us back to the old, monolithic version of patriarchy which always casts women as victims, and leaves them virtually no room for agency.

As Sol points out below, the ep seems to show not only that the women had a lot of agency (Lilah, Cordy and Fred) but that the men did not react the *same* way. That there are different formulations of masculinity as well.

I much prefer to have a more sophisticated, adaptable and fluid version of patriarchy which draws on context and culture.
[> [> Right, but that's the difference between primoridial rage and primordial misogyny -- sassette, 05:31:17 10/30/01 Tue
Primordial rage, I'll buy. That there might be something inherent in humans that causes them to have instincts toward hurting the helpless is something I'm not convinced of, but can buy.

But, if that is the case, misogyny (like racism or homophobia) would be one of the *learned* forms that that primoridal, amorphous rage takes. It's not the hatred of women that's inherent, but the hatred, and it gets translated onto women because of social/culture circumstances.

However, to say that there could be such a thing as a primordial misogyny--where the hatred of women is innate--is to argue for a very essentialist view of sexual difference that I'm extremely uncomfortable with. It's conflating sex with gender with behaviors and feelings, and I would hope we've gotten far enough along in our thinking to not do that.
[> [> [> Why Angelus didn't feel it -- SingedCat, 05:45:44 10/31/01 Wed
Now that I read your followup, Sassette, I can see I didn't exactly take my premise where it needed to go. I started with describing primor-- uh, basic aggressive urges, but I didn't offer any reason why it should take the form it did on the show.

Now that I think of it, the urge Demon boy was awakening had to be specific, like a designer germ. It was meant to attack a certain configuration of thoughts and urges people often hide.(isn't that what demons do?)

I don't think the show was arguing for an urge all men have-- for one thing, Angel didn't have it, and that suggests that it in fact is a social construct we're talking about, one which human Angel didn't really develop, and which the inherent demon Angelus didn't care about in the first place. Now if it had been Spike, I wonder what would have happened...?

And I'll go along with disagreeing with calling it "primordial misogyny". For one thing, I think it should be "primal", and for another I don't think it exists as a discrete concept except in the minds of psychologists who think too much.
[> Wait a minute. About this abuse thing... (medium length, Rufus) -- Solitude1056, 06:00:28 10/30/01 Tue
Why are we taking Lilah's word for it? We've been good critical thinkers elsewhere, remembering the source, and that should go for here, too. First, we've got a woman who believes herself a "vicious bitch," and yet just got the crap pounded out of her by someone she didn't like too much in the first place. Second, she's fighting to convince herself that this is just part of her job, and that she's okay with this, and the way it makes her feel. Third, she's trying to convince Cordy that Billy's damage is somehow inherent in each person, and that therefore he's a force of nature and unbeatable or unstoppable. Of course she's going to use words like "primordial," with the specific intention of making it appear as if stopping Billy doesn't stop the existence of whatever he influences and encourages. And the fact of the matter may be that she's twisting the description to not only convince Cordy, but also herself... that men are helpless against Billy's influence, because it's something already deep down inside of themselves.

At first, it seemed odd to me, that the women-battering element would be introduced in such a way to say that "oh, it's not their fault, it's something hard-wired into them," but I think the real point was that it's not. Gunn, upon realizing the influence and what it would do, insisted that Fred knock him out. Wesley may have realized the bloody handprint's influence, but had more issues running closer to the surface, and the audience knew that already. So the conclusion of "this was in him already" is not that far-fetched... but Cordy's and Fred's reactions to their friends' behaviors show they're aware this conclusion would be a false one.

The whole thing pivots on the arguments that men and women make when trapped in an abusive situation, regardless of gender-relationship. Hell, I've known women who've escaped from abusive girlfriends; this type of behavior isn't strictly on the gender basis, here. But the key is this: the agressor argues, "I get so angry I just can't control myself anymore, it's like something else is taking over, it's an instinctive thing," or some such. And the victim may say, "this is an instinctive thing," agreeing in part because this makes both the victim's behavior essentially irrelevant as to the exact triggering cause, and it makes the agressor's rational mind helpless in the face of something supposedly deep, animalistic, and irrational. Primordial, my ass. It's learned - either through parental or sibling actions, or from the simple touch of a part-demon boy with some pretty warped ideas of human interaction. Yes, it's tapping into basic fear and mistrust, but as spouse-battering is not something you're "born with," it's a societal influence that you can identify, realize, and overcome.

And I was thinking that Fred and Cordy, as a footnote, had different ways of dealing with this demon-influenced behavior, but on second thought, not really. Cordy refused to leave Angel, and stuck up for herself (and quite well, I might add - woah, I love that character more & more each week!)... but Fred didn't go down without a fight, either. Again, her running and hiding was another dupe from Joss et al, since she seemed to be demonstrating the classic flight to Cordy's fight... but in the end, she took out both guys. More importantly, both women forgave their agressors. There's a second thread running under the louder one - that of Fred telling Wesley, in sum, exactly what he told in turn, told Angel in Pylea. "I know you're a good man." That the demon exists (in some shape or form) in both - Angel's Angelus, and Wesley's childhood - is acknowledged, but both have fought to move past that. The lie in the "primordial" instinct is that one couldn't move past what's hard-wired, but the resolution of the episode demonstrates (I think) that Joss and co were stating that this "hard-wired" notion is as false as the idea that abuse is justified under any circumstances.

[And btw, if you're wondering, yeah, I prefer "spouse-battering," not "domestic abuse." I go with Bill Maher, who commented several years ago (I've got the exact quote around here somewhere) that "we should stop calling it 'domestic abuse' and go back to calling it what it really is: wife-beating. Some things don't deserve to be prettied up with a euphemism."]
[> [> Great points, Sol! -- Rahael, 06:16:09 10/30/01 Tue
[> [> I think the reason for the use of "domestic violence"... -- sassette, 06:22:49 10/30/01 Tue
is that it encompasses a wide range of behaviors.

I mean, in most homes where there is wife abuse, there is child abuse occuring as well. And, it's not uncommon for an abused wife/mother to take her anger/pain out on her children and be the one to abuse them.

Also, since we now live in a society where, from what I understand, only 12% of households are actually composed of two heterosexual, married parents, with their natural children, we need a term that encompasses the wide range of behaviors. Spousal abuse or wife abuse seems to leave out abuse between unmarried couples who live together, or between same-sex couples. Plus, now we also recognize the existence of elder abuse, when adults abuse the elderly parents they care for in their homes.

Anyway, while I definitely agree that "domestic violence" is a misleading term, in that it may obscure the fact that, far more often then not, it is women and children who are the victims of the violence, I think it is an attempt to address the fact that abuse can occur in a wide variety of family settings.

And, more on topic, I do think you have a very good point. We *are* taking Lilah's word about the "primordial" issue. I mean, that seemed to be Wes's fear at the end of the episode, that the hatred he exibited was somehow an intrinsic part of him. But, Fred didn't think that was the case. And, it didn't seem to be the case; Wesley didn't want to kill Fred once the demon virus let him go. So, you could be right: I was assuming that Lilah was providing the exposition, but she could very well have been constructing a scenario that alleviated her guilt.
[> [> Lilah's inherent bias -- OnM, 07:53:44 10/30/01 Tue
First off, my thanks to Sol for allowing me to make a short post for a change! ;)

As I was reading down the thread, one of the first questions that came into my mind was exactly what Sol commented on-- remember the source. I was trying to recall whether Lilah was the character who first made the comment about primordial misogyny. Extrapolating from what we have seen in the past of Lilah's interactions with men, it seems very likely to me that she would harbor a very strong sense that all men are 'born' this way, at some level.

I think doing so contributes to her ability to accept what she rationalizes as 'part of her job', and by extension something that all women put up with to some degree, as part of doing whatever their own 'job' happens to entail, be it worker, lover, spouse, whatever.

I found it very revealing that Cordy made the comment that I used to be you as an opening gambit in trying to reach through Lilah's rationalizations and get at the layer of self-respect that she (hopefully) kept buried. It suggests to me that Cordy is now fully self-aware that while she was never 'evil', she engaged regularly in these same socially conditioned thought processes, and used them to place herself in a position of power, but of course at the expense of someone else.

As to that last item, one might note that Cordy was at least an equal-opportunity abuser, and could just as well zap a male or a female 'inferior'.

Side question/speculation-- is Cordy eventually going to do for Lilah what Angel did for Lindsey?
[> [> Calling a spade a spade................ -- Rufus, 13:17:08 10/30/01 Tue
I agree about prettying up situations to make them easier to take. Domestic violence could mean a whole bunch of things. Wife or child beating or husband beating for that matter(yes, it happens more than you'd think) is what happens. Someone for whatever reason, excuse...blah...blah...blah....beats the hell out of someone for reasons only they seem to understand. Billy was able to tap into that fear that spawns most violence in society. But it does kinda dribble down to someone making sure that they have kept someone in their place, by whatever mean it takes. Beating the hell out of someone is the most convenient.
What was so important in last nights show was that Wesley found out that he could be every bit a monster as Angel. It is his conscience and ability to feel compassion that seperates him from Angel and the monster he lived with growing up...his father. Wesley knows the shame of letting that part of him that he bound up so tightly in good manners and watcher garb, show. His life before the escape from the home seems to be a dismal one. His weeping at the end is that of the person who felt helpless at the voice of his father only to find that he could easily turn into his dad. He doesn't feel like a good man, he feels unclean.
This is what Wolfram and Hart do the best. They continually tap into that primal man trapped in the cave(rap song playing at Billys cousins place), letting all that fear and need to dominate make humanity perpetually hit each other on the head with clubs. The evil that lives in each persons heart is something they want to tap into causing chaos. Each time we give into rage and fear we become what Wolfram and Hart wants....they found Billy just let that man out of the cave for a while. It was the vicious bitch, Lilah that put an end to the current fun and games that was loosened upon humanity.....all the time declaring that she wasn't becoming Lindsay McDonald. She was willing to accept the risks of the job.....til Park rearranged her face into a bruised patchwork. I like that it was Lilah that put her latest project down. She acted first out of fear for her job and life then the inner bitch realized that the beating she took for her project was something she couldn't live with. Cordys little talk about fashion helped the two women see that even on a superficial level they had more in common than Lilah did with Billy. You may beat a person down but there is always the chance they will eventually strike back. Lilah should be very careful about who she lets out of hell the next time.
Wolfram and Hart keeps trying to make us act like the primal being we were before we used our minds to construct society. It's simple. We can be induced by magic to revert back to a being less capable of reasoning and compassion, but it's a losing battle. What potential does humanity have that Wolfram and Hart don't want us to reach?
[> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- Tillow, 06:21:12 10/30/01 Tue
I think it all boils down to "People fear what the don't understand." I think that's what the writers were trying to get at when they had Wes say "You think you are superior because you bleed."

In hunter/gatherer cultures men and women were connected to death and blood in very different ways. Men hunted and defended the tribe/family. Blood meant death. Women brought forth life. Women bleed and don't die. As Spike would say, "It's always about blood."

Have we found damage on early female skeletons to suggest they suffered from domestic abuse?" Rahael

In primitive cultures, the social order was most likely very similarly structured to a primate family. Structure, structure, structure. The females were most likely not challenging male power as we see in modern society.

To claim that all men (and women) internalize to differing degrees the attitudes of a society that is (and has historically been) sexist (and racist, and homophobic) is one thing. I'm totally on board with that. However, to assume that the hatred of women was latent in all of the men in the Angelverse--that it is essential, ahistorical, and unchangeable--is quite another. It's a stance that I find deeply troubling.

I do think that to some degree the attitudes and differences that men and women seem to part ways on are in part due to biology. However, to say that they are unchangeable is and entirely different thing. If we were still living in family grouping on a mountain somewhere, ok. But we have complex societies and social norms and mores. I think what the show illustrated was just how far we have come. To have a man like Wes that we love so much take such a turn and be moved to tears at the end of the show, revolted by what he had done—I think we have changed.
[> [> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- Rahael, 06:30:47 10/30/01 Tue
We have no evidence for suggesting that primitive societies were structured in a patriarchal way. Neither do we have any for matriarchal societies. All we can say is that we shouldn't cloud our view of the past with modern preconceptions.

Many archaeologists of the earliest eras now think that hunting/gathering was not necessarily divided along gender. In fact, these activities could be seasonal. So there's a lot yet to be discovered, and not much evidence either way.
[> [> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- JoRus, 08:18:16 10/30/01 Tue
Ah, the hunter/gatherer idea. I've got to agree with Rahael here, and add that it's largely discredited in it's traditional form. I was reading a paper on hunter/gatherer societies that are still extant and was amused to read that the gatherers were largely female, and doing some small game trapping etc along with getting those grubs and roots...and that the hunters only went out a few times a year and were often unsuccessful. The hunters daily activities were making and drinking beer, keeping an eye on the kids, and telling stories about great hunts gone by. : ) The men did this in a group, and they often made meals.
[> [> [> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- Tillow, 07:26:27 10/31/01 Wed

My point in bringing up the hunter/gatherer theory is not to go into the daily actitivies of the family group. Again, the connection is the blood, for hunters blood means death.
Women have a very close connection with blood. It means life.
[> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- celticross, 06:49:37 10/30/01 Tue
I think it's a disservice to men to say they have an innate hatred of women, because if you then don't say women have an innate hatred of men, you're placing women on a moral high ground. (And yes, I know one shouldn't mix "instinct" with morality, which is a social construct, but social morality DOES judge "instinctual" behavior, ie sexual behavior. Anyways...) I think it's closer to the point that everyone has violence and rage within themselves, male and female, and Billy's victims have their violence and rage directed towards the women around them.
The issue isn't that Wesley is a closet misogynist, which is what he's clearly afraid of, but that he's afraid he is. I think that's why Fred can say he's a good man.
[> Re: "Primordial misogyny"? -- luminesce, 13:04:01 10/30/01 Tue
I agree with the discomfort that a lot of you are expressing about the phrase "primordial misogyny" and its implications. I certainly don't believe that men innately despise women....though the points that others have made about the fear of the "other," particularly as linked to the power and mystery of menstruation serve to complicate that a bit.

Speaking, though, as a survivor/escapee of an abusive relationship, I thought the episode was an incredibly powerful (if hard to watch) statement on abusive relationships. Wesley's monologue as he chased Fred through the hotel was chilling, because it replicated almost exactly the things said to me by my abuser. Even the joke he made (What do you tell a woman with two black eyes? Nothing you haven't already told her twice) is one I've heard before--along with the comment (perhaps particularly relevant to this episode) that "Anything that bleeds once a month and lives just isn't natural."

My appreciation of the episode increased as we saw Gunn fight against a desire that he *knew* wasn't appropriate or natural to his character, and insist that Fred knock him out. He has strengths that I suspect we have not yet seen even hinted at. Seeing Fred fight through her fear and use her remarkable intelligence to knock out Wesley was also an incredible moment.
[> [> Fred's take on the issue - slightly off the main topic ;-) -- Solitude1056, 13:25:15 10/30/01 Tue
I recall someone after the Caritas fiasco episode that it was 'wrong' of Cordy to take Fred to Caritas. At the time, I argued that she'd be more comfortable with demons - at least then you can see they're demons, unlike humans who tend to hide their shadow side more effectively. Watching last night, it seemed to me that for Fred, being terrorized must be horrible. She's so defenseless, I thought. And yeah, the actress has these great huge eyes, and is such a tiny little thing, and practically radiates fear at certain intervals. But on the other hand, anyone smart enough to decode a Pylean neck brace, strong enough to survive some length of time as a slave, cagey enough to escape, and resourceful enough to set herself up semi-comfortably in that isolation... is not someone who's going to give up immediately when the chips are down. She'll come up with a plan, despite her inclination to shy away from physical violence against those she considers friends. And she did, despite the fact that it must've been horrendous to hear a trusted friend saying such cruel things while stalking her through an empty hotel.

I think, also, this is the reason we got "Fredless" before we got "Billy." Part of a person's reaction to abusive behavior is based on their past experiences of such, and we've already seen Fred's parents. I didn't get the vibe that abuse was part of their family dynamic - in fact, most of us were happily surprised by her parents' general normalcy and well-balanced support of their daughter. If we hadn't seen enough to make us draw the simple inference that the abuse in Pylea was a new one to Fred, we might have determined that Fred attracted such avarice (as opposed to Cordy) by virtue of continuing the victimhood game, herself. This is a nasty conclusion, but it happens (and sometimes it's true) - the victim perpetuates hir circumstances by repeatedly choosing aggressors with which to continue the abusive dynamic. I doubt I'm being fully articulate with this notion, but I think there's a value in the audience seeing that despite Fred's apparent fearfulness, that beneath it she's as strong as the two 'vicious bitches' who command the louder part of the episode.
Wesley becomming his father? -- Charlemagne20, 20:24:56 10/29/01 Mon
Wesley's shame regarding his actions to Fred seem less about being manipulated magically than deep rooted fear about losing control of himself. With the description of Wesley's treatment at the hands of his father it's quite likely that his father treated his mother the same way and he is deeply afraid of becomming like him. Something that with Billy's help he did.

[> Re: Wesley -- SingedCat, 21:59:37 10/29/01 Mon
Poor Wesley. I was thinking the same thing while I watched this sweet man go OJ--he's channelling his father, that part that a lesser man would have let take him over, and which he (til now) overcomes.

We are the human condition-- raging desires, arctic fears, burning resentments, prejudices, passions, beliefs, sorrows, no different from the animals. The part of us that deals with the world is what makes us human.

Wesley is ironically in Angel's shoes right now-- the Boss went crazy on his employees, and they had to knock him out till he felt better. In that sense, he has experienced losing his humanity through demonic influence in much the same way Angel did. I wonder if it was his fear of that that gave him so much sympathy for Angel when he went bad so briefly -- "You tread a fine line, Angel. I don't envy you."

So, lots to think about. :-i
[> Re: Wesley becomming his father? -- Monique, 05:08:29 10/30/01 Tue
Exactly what I was thinking, Charlemagne. Only I was also dying to give Wesley a big hug, kiss him and tell him everything was going to be ok, and somehow I doubt that was in your plans, although I could be wrong ;)
[> [> Re: Wesley becomming his father? -- Dedalus, 15:48:40 10/30/01 Tue
Well, abuse does tend to run in cycles, doesn't it? We know his father locked him - what was it? Under the stairs? In a closet? And obviously, delivered some pretty devastating verbal put-downs. Wes has a major inferiority complex, which would explain his attempts at being overly professional with Buffy back in SunnyD. He has really come into his own as of late though. The writers are so great at totally re-vamping (pardon the pun) lame characters. I felt for the guy. He looked so utterly ashamed of himself, it was hard not to. I think becoming his father would be one of his worst nightmares.
[> [> [> Re: Wesley becomming his father? (Longish) -- JM, 08:55:47 10/31/01 Wed
I don't think that it was extrapolating too much from the text to assume that Wes's upbringing had a lot to do with his course of action under the influence. The other subjects we saw, the husband in the vision, Gavin, the cop, the cabbie (sort of), and Gunn all seemed to explode with rage and violence. Wes didn't even raise his voice. It seemed as important that he dominate her psychologically and emotionally, as it was physically.

Wes is my favorite character, so I'm pretty interested in his upbringing, but I do like how the writers are only letting us have glimpses. In IGYUMS, as well as the reference to being locked under the stairs for hours (which is pretty cruel), Wes lets slip a remark about how "a father doesn't need to be a demon to terrorize his children, he just --." Then he quickly clams up. I'm pretty much taking this as an inference to physical abuse, in addition to the verbal and emotional that was confirmed in "Fredless" and somewhat in "Belonging." (Plus there's stuff from the GWBG shooting script, where he mentions his childhood to Virginia, and about it being best to stay out of father's way.)

I'd guess we got a pretty good look at what his childhood was like the other night, but without the axe and the gender issues. The scene in the office, where things start to feel off, he could have just confronted Fred about her evasiveness, but instead he lays a verbal trap, pushing her until she says what he wants to hear. And this vein continues throughout the night. He almost never raises his voice, never runs, never looses control. (The one time he seems to, when he takes the axe to the pile of chairs, it's just a ploy to flush her out.) The cruelty and violence are a way to maintain dominence. The victim has to be terrified as well as hurt. And he's savoring every word, they're as much for his enjoyment as for the effect on Fred. Two chilling classic abuse lines: "Why do you make me do this?" and "You're sorry?" Wes doesn't act like this, he doesn't practice this kind of methodical denigration. It's pretty clear he learned it. Yeah, he pretty much is channeling his father. His childhood must have been hell. (And to think, he knows it was bad, that his father was bad, and he still needs that man's approval.)

I think he's reliving that childhood again, and that as well as the horror and shame at what he said and did, what he revealed, is the root of the broken man that we saw at the end of the ep. His voice at the beginning even sounds like a child's. When he's apologizing about not returning the phone calls, the tone is that of a contrite little boy. Interesting choice, in an ep on violence against women, to have Wes in the pose of the classic abuse victim: self-doubting, hiding at home, flinching from physical contact, in tears. Thank God Fred got to him. He didn't look like he intended to answer the door, until he realized it was her. He wasn't taking calls, going back to work, or even intending to. There were crumpled papers on the floor near the table. I'd hazard they were drafts of a resignation letter. Fred was probably the only one he'd listen to, probably because he can't bear to refuse her anything. And there is probably nothing worse he can do to handle this than cutting himself off from his only friends and quitting the job that is so important to his identity. Even if these events aren't referred to again on the show, it's safe to say the effects are going to linger internally for awhile.
[> [> [> [> Scary Wesley -- SingedCat, 06:56:17 11/01/01 Thu
*Great* thoughts. It's cool to see how carefully the writers scripted--and the actors performed-- this little descent into the maelstrom. I wondered why Wes didn't raise his voice or run, but this makes it even creepier-- for someone terrified of losing control, his corruption would be to believe he was completely in control, and that would be the satisfaction of it.

What we forget sometimes watching Wes is that he's an excellent tracker. Fred evaded demonic hunters for five years, but if you watch him, he knows where she is almost all of the time, he plays with her, doubling back before she does, heading her off again and again until she's cornered, terrifying her as he plays his little game.

Oh yeah, he's gonna have problems living with that.
Whistler!!! -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:02:52 10/29/01 Mon
Whilst watching a REALLY hokey comedy movie on one of the multitude of HBO channels that digital cable affords, I was elated to catch a short cameo appearance by the actor that played Whistler on the season finale of Buffy season 2. Its funny, because he was wearing the same kind of hat he wore on there, and had the same accent and everything.
This promptly reminded me of his existence, and the desire to see him back that had been lying(laying? I always mix up their usage there) dormant in my head for a long while since then.
Surely the events of the past four years must be important and big enough for this demon who balances things to have some sort of hand in?
[> AHA! thank you SO much for asking!!!! -- anom, 21:31:17 10/29/01 Mon
"...lying(laying? I always mix up their usage there) dormant...."

Lie: what you do yourself. Lay: what you do to something/someone else! It's confusing because the past tense of lie is the same as the present tense of lay: lie, lay, has lain; lay, laid, has laid. Lay always has a direct object, even if it's the same person as the subject (as in "Now I lay me..." or "...and I laid me down with a will!"). Patricia O'Conner wrote a book on language called "Sleeping Dogs Don't Lay," about this & other language difficulties.

Fanfic'ers, ya gotta learn this rule: you are writing dialog for Giles and/or Wesley, & they would never get this wrong. (Spike might, but only when he's being bad-boy. He knows better, from his poetry days.) The American characters would often get it wrong, of course, but writers need to know which is which & who talks which way. If you pay attention to the dialog on the shows, you'll see what I mean. Giles wouldn't get it wrong even in Ripper mode.

......oh, was I ranting? heh...see what happens when you give me an opening...but I just had to get that out of my system! And you did ask....

Um, so, yeah, in answer to your question...right the 1st time, it's "lying." And you got "their" & "there" right too! Two points!
[> [> What about third person? -- Masq, 15:08:18 10/30/01 Tue
Scenario: you're writing from Buffy's point of view, but in the third person.

"Buffy lied down on her bed"
"Buffy laid down on her bed"

[> [> [> Re: What about third person? -- celticross, 15:25:01 10/30/01 Tue
In that case, it's "lay". "Laid" is the past participle of "lay" and would be used in this case - "Buffy, injured in the fight, had been laid on her bed".
[> [> [> Re: What about third person? -- Wisewoman, 19:02:45 10/30/01 Tue
Ummm, help me out here anom...wouldn't it be, "Buffy lay down on her bed?
[> [> [> [> Re: What about third person? -- anom, 22:18:42 10/30/01 Tue
Yep--between cc & ww, you got it covered! She lay there, or someone else laid her there. But never "lied there." Unless you mean she was telling lies....
[> [> [> Re: What about third person? -- Boxdman, 19:37:31 10/30/01 Tue
Neither, you would want:

Buffy lay down on her bed.

As in this case you want to use a intransitive verb. The confusion comes because in this case lay is being used as the past tense of lie, whereas lay in present tense is a transitive verb (meaning it needs a direct object). What confuses things even more is that either can be used based on how you word the sentence:

I lay myself on my bed

or thrid person:

Buffy lays herself on her bed.

(where lays is the third person present tense of lay). So in the past tense you can use both transitive and intransitive verbs.

Buffy lay on her bed. (past tense intransitive without object)
Buffy laid herself on her bed. (past tense transitive with object)

Confused now. Good.
[> [> [> [> Re: What about third person? -- Ada, 20:19:11 10/30/01 Tue
A discussion about grammar! This is great.
Just to simplify (maybe):

"Lie" is used without a direct object.
Its three tenses are lie, lay, and lain.
I lie down when I am tired.
I lay down yesterday for an hour.
I have lain down before.

"Lay" is used with a direct object. (Ask yourself if it makes sense to ask: What are you laying down?)
Its three tenses are lay, laid, and laid.
I lay the blanket on the ground when we have a picnic.
I laid the blanket on the ground last week.
I have laid the blanket on the ground several times.

If you get confused, just think of how you use "sit" versus "set" (e.g., "I sit down" vs. "I set the book down"). Sit is used like lie, and set like lay. As for the past tenses, you just have to memorize those.

(Sorry for the hokey examples.)
[> [> [> [> [> Thinking Too Much -- Humanitas, 06:53:03 10/31/01 Wed
This is one of those instances where the TTMQ is a definite drawback, at least in my case. My Mom was an English teacher, so I grew up speaking proper American English, except for a few Western-Pennsylvanian forms that she couldn't stomp out in either myself or my father. I tend to use 'lie' and 'lay' correctly as a matter of instinct. If I stop to think about it, though, my brain gets it all tangled up, and I have to pull out my copy of Strunk & White to get un-tangled.

I have a similar problem, but on a physical level, with doing shoulder-rolls. If I don't think about it, I'm fine, but if I stop to consider the process, I invariably hurt myself.

So, why dredge this up? Well, I was wondering what the philosophical take on thinking is. I know a lot of the mystic traditions emphasize feeling, rather then thought, whereas the major Western tradition, coming from Athens, insists that thinking is the only thing that matters. Can anyone clarify the matter for me? It's pretty clear that sometimes one is appropriate, and sometimes the other. I'm also curious to know with what sorts of things other people have the same problem (if it can be called that).
[> [> [> [> [> [> This is my dilemma too!! (more personal than philosophical!) -- Rahael, 07:13:16 10/31/01 Wed
Humanitas, I can't believe you brought this up - I've been grappling with this very issue for the last year.

I've been told that I intellectualise all my problems - think far too much, hide away behind books and studying instead of 'living life' and living for the now.

At the same time I'm a passionate person who tends to act on impulse again and again, and take all sorts of risks. I've spent the last 5 months living in the now and not 'thinking everything through'. I don't know how its going really, or even whether its working.

But I have given up my part time MA in an effort not to hide behind 'studying and books'.

As someone who is as deeply steeped in Christian/western culture as in Buddhism (my mother was the former, my father is the latter) I'm hopelessly confused between the two.

I would welcome any thoughts people had on this subject. Especially if you happen to catch me in the chat room!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thinking Too Much -- Masquerade, 09:46:55 10/31/01 Wed
Well, traditional western philosophy puts the emphasis on thinking over being-in-the-world. Think of Descartes or Plato--trying to prove things based on thinking alone.

A newer trend in Western Philosophy (past 20 years or so) emphasizes that we are physical beings living in the world. Much of what we do everyday is the result of unconscious physical processes in our brain. Both genetics and life experience program certain responses in us (e.g., your ability to speak "lie" and "lay" correctly).

These processes are not conscious mental processes (as multiplying 13 x 7 in your head might be, unless you're a mathematical savant). Trying to turn automatic processes into a conscious step-by-step reasoning process interferes with our brain's ability to do these things at the unconscious non-frontal lobe level.

This is the western philosophical/scientific version of what might be traditional Eastern thought or some other kind of philosophy. I'm not familar enough with those traditions to say.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thinking Too Much -- Wisewoman, 11:07:59 10/31/01 Wed
I can't help too much with the Western vs Eastern debate, as I'm not that well-versed in either of them, but on a personal level I can relate to what you're saying.

Many years ago I visited a psychiatrist for one session and was told that the last thing I needed was analysis, as I was the most overly analytical person he'd ever come across!

I think I, and perhaps others, try to use thought and analysis as a defense against feeling too much. In some cases it's successful and I can reason my way out of feeling embarrassed or angry or anxious. But there's a reason that we use the words "emotion" and "feeling" interchangeably. Emotions are things that are felt, physically, in the body. When I'm overcome with an emotion I can find it very difficult to analyse my way out of it.

As an example, I was saying in chat that I had a hellish drive home from work last night because my car was overheating for no apparent reason. At one point I was stuck in traffic on a busy main street in rush hour, waiting to make a left-hand turn at a light, and the car in front of me was not co-operating by moving fast enough for me. The needle on the dash was heading for the red zone and so was I. I felt cold, light-headed, dry-mouthed, shaky, butterflies-in-the stomach, ringing-in-the-ears, fear. I new it was fear. I knew it was "irrational" to be so overcome with fear over something that ultimately did not have life-or-death consequences. I mean, so what if my car did break down right there? Someone would help me push it to the side of the road. Didn't matter a bit. I couldn't stop the feeling until I'd finally made the left turn onto a much quieter street, where I could pull over and let the car cool down.

I think there will always be times, no matter how much we "think too much," when we'll be overcome by feeling. What I admire about Eastern philosophy is that it encourages me to be mindful of the feeling, to go with it and explore it, rather than try to extinguish it. This kind of mindfulness offers the opportunity to choose what to feel in any given situation. I wish I could explain why that's different than analysing yourself out of feeling something, but it just is.

More to the point, I sucked at grammar in school. Hated it, didn't understand it, hopelessly confused by the names for different verb tenses and phrases. But I've always read copiously from the time I was a child, so I usually recognize what's right. I've managed to work as a copy editor doing that and there's no way I could explain to anyone using the rules of grammar why I copy edit the way I do. I just know when it's wrong, and when it's right. If I had to stop and think about it I'd be out of a job!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Overheating tip, (OT: Not grammar) -- Isabel, 19:49:14 10/31/01 Wed
I realize you've probably had your car fixed, but here's something you can do if your car starts overheating and you're stuck in traffic. Turn on your heat and your blowers full blast. I had to use this trick last week when I had to drive to North Carolina on very short notice without a tune up. (My car also doesn't like getting stuck in rush hour traffic.) It takes a few minutes to cool down, but it might help you get out of traffic without overheating (or panicking).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for the tip, Isabel ;o) -- WW, 13:09:15 11/01/01 Thu
Turned out to be the fan belt. Aaaaarrrghhh!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thinking Too Much: back to grammar -- anom, 22:29:24 10/31/01 Wed
Masquerade: "Both genetics and life experience program certain responses in us (e.g., your ability to speak 'lie' and 'lay' correctly)."

Wisewoman: "I've managed to work as a copy editor doing that and there's no way I could explain to anyone using the rules of grammar why I copy edit the way I do. I just know when it's wrong, and when it's right. If I had to stop and think about it I'd be out of a job!"

I had an experience in my 1st "real" editing job (the 1st w/"editor" in the title) that leads me to agree w/Masq's statement about "programming" & that some of it is genetic. Another editor called me over to look at what was supposed to be the final clean (i.e., not marked up) copy of the 1st ms. I'd worked on there. "Isn't that beautiful?" she said. We looked through it, letting each page flip over...flip...flip...flip...fast enough to give us just a second's full-page view, not to actually read anything. As we flipped past one page, we both said "whoops"--we'd spotted something wrong. In that one second. We didn't know where on that page it was, or even what it was; we had to look for it, but sure enough it was there. It had never occurred to me that I, or anyone, could do that. The incident made me think there has to be something in the brain's wiring that's either there or not, that some people have & some don't. The content has to be filled in, of course, by learning a specific language w/its spelling, grammar, etc., but the basic capacity must be there to start with. And naturally, other people have different abilities that work in similar ways.

And like WW, most of the time I just recognize something's wrong because I know what's right. It would be hard to explain to another person in terms of rules--I find it easier to use an example of the same kind of thing that's more obviously wrong.
Let Cordy kill somebody!! -- SingedCat, 21:42:15 10/29/01 Mon
You want sexism? You want double standard? There's my beef, and okay, it's not sexism, but it *is* double standard. I was really pleased to ee Cordy was going to kill the guy. But what's with the censor on her actually doing the deed? It made sense; she was ready; she was capable. Come on, David! How long did you work on Buffy fer Pete's sake?! Now we've got this knightly protecting the women thing going on, and in a business which *consists* of vanquishing evil Cordy can't even make her bones?

OK, descending from the dogmatic to the observational plane, let me observe this: In all her years on Buffy and Angel, it's true-- Cordy has never personally killed. (Unless you count the guy who turned into bugs she stepped on, and that was with Xander) I will further observe that there is resistence to having her kill on the show, and finally observe that they have had other women fighting & killing on the show, but Cordy has somehow (at least til this ep, ironically) had another role. Could I have some input on that role from the board?

Oh, and one other observation-- I have never been so impressed with CC's acting skills as I was in that scene with Lila. Keep that up, girlfriend, and you'll have to deal with Emmy nominations! :D (OT: dialogue got kinda West Wing there for a mo, dontcha think?;-)
[> I agree but.... -- Slayrunt, 22:13:12 10/29/01 Mon
Cordy did kill a vampire then fell on Xander after the vamp poofed in the Anne.
[> [> I knew somebody would find one! ;P -- SingedCat, 22:16:38 10/29/01 Mon
[> [> Re: I agree but.... -- Leaf, 22:18:39 10/29/01 Mon
We also saw her dust a vamp in Graduation pt2
[> [> Re: I agree but.... -- zargon, 08:01:01 10/30/01 Tue
I thought it was more Xander held the stake, Cordy fell on the vamp which fell on Xander, thus resulting in the staking....I don't think Cordy intended to stake the vamp, more that it happened as a side effect of her and Xander's argument "why do I always have to be the bait? why can't willow be the bait?" and struggle over the stake.....just my $.02.
[> Re: Let Cordy kill somebody!! -- Amber, 02:04:54 10/30/01 Tue
Didn't Cordy deal the final blow in "Expecting", the Angel ep. where she was inpregnated by a demon? Also, she's the one that got rid of Phantom Dennis's Mom. Although since she was already a ghost that probably doesn't count as "killing something".
[> Are you kidding? -- Marie, 03:12:51 10/30/01 Tue
Cordy was Sword Girl of Pylea! She sliced that nasty ole monk's head clean off his shoulders.... swooosh!!

[> [> Re: Are you kidding? -- Man, do I stand corrected--this helps clarify it--, 05:51:02 10/31/01 Wed
I thin the beef was that they don't want her to kill something that looks Human. They're not into having the other guys do it either,--it makes a hero look bad-- but it would somehow be worse if Cordy did it, and Angel thought so too.

Observations, anyone?
[> [> [> Re: Are you kidding? -- JM, 06:45:46 10/31/01 Wed
Well, Angel has already killed before. Both as Angelus and as Angel, in China and in "Blind Date." He takes killing a human very seriously, see his discussion with Faith in BtVS "Consequences." The PTB (e.g. ME) also do. We have no indication that Wes, Gunn, or Fred have ever taken a human life either.

And if they do, it will be a very big deal. I kind of agree with Angel. Cordy was already dealing with a lot of guilt for a situation that really was not her fault in any way (shades of Wes at the end of the ep). She really didn't need this added to her plate. Even if she was justified and was saving a lot of people. From what I've read, even people like police who do this for a job and usually in self-defense often suffer psychological consequences from ending a life.
[> What about beheading the Pylean priest? -- Shiver, 08:07:38 10/30/01 Tue
Faith slaying Alan. Was it murder and deserving of jail? -- Naomi, 06:25:21 10/30/01 Tue
I'm just interested in hearing other people's views on this. Obviously Faith did kill Alan but IMO it was a clear-cut case of self-defence and I personally wouldn't of come down on Faith particularly heavily for it. The real issue was Faith's lack of remorse as what happened was a serious thing and she needed to acknowledge that. Whether she meant it or not she needed to deal with the fact that a man had died at her hands. However I just got the new DVDs yesterday and I was surprised that on the commentry for Bad Girls it was clearly stated that Faith had in fact murdered him. Surely murder is a premeditated act? I for one would not have felt comfortable condemning Faith for the act itself. She had issues to deal with which is why she went of the rails but as Faith pointed out it could just as easily have been Buffy who killed Alan. It was just pure luck that it wasn't.
This is a bit of topic but I always found Buffy's attitude unhelpful in Consequences. She might have known that lecturing wouldn't get her anywhere with Faith. Why did she not bring up her slaying of Ted which was far more poorly motivated in a way as Buffy kicked the crap out of him. Faith made a mistake and perhaps if Buffy had reached out to her and said I'm not perfect myself as I've misused my power it would have helped Faith. Faith's problem was always that she saw herself as the bad slayer and Buffy as being perfect. The scoobies should have been more understanding. After all in Ted they are all quick to make excuses for Buffy's actions yet Willow doesn't hesitate in calling Faith a murderer. I have always found the misinterpretation of Faith's actions in that regard grating.
Anyway I just thought that I'd bring up the point that it was Faith's reaction not the kill itself that made her morally wrong and see what others thought.
[> Faith's a killer,but I love her anyway -- Brian, 13:09:26 10/30/01 Tue
There may have been extenuating circumstances for Alan, but Faith killed that geology prof in cold blood.
[> Re: Faith slaying Alan. Was it murder and deserving of jail? -- robert, 16:46:02 10/30/01 Tue
I see it slightly differently. Faith was walking the path toward evil before she killed the mayor's assistant. By itself, the killing might be excusible; it might be ruled self-defense. The lack of remorse is a symptom of the greater problem. Faith was unwilling to take responsibility for her actions, personally or publically.

When Buffy thought she had killed Ted, she was remorseful and she confessed her remorse. She was not on the path of evil.

Faith rejected everyone who might have been able to help her and ended up in the mayor's lap.

This is a metaphor for the methodology for making a spy. During the cold war, the Soviets would seduce employees of defence contractors into spying. They would get the employee to commit the small sin (such as providing a copy of the company phone list). Once you've committed the small sin, it is easier to commit a slightly bigger sin the next time. Also, the Soviet officer now had leverage if you should later balk.

Regardless, once you're on the path of evil, it is difficult to turn back. Faith just kept digging herself a deeper grave until it did result in premeditated murder.
[> Re: Faith slaying Alan. Was it murder and deserving of jail? -- Earl Allison, 02:27:15 10/31/01 Wed
Now, I absolutely ADORE Faith, so I might be a tad biased, but here's my take on things.

Did Faith MURDER Alan? Yes, she did. She killed him. Now, there are DEGREES of murder, from intentional to unintentional (manslaughter, for example).

As others have noted, Faith's issue wasn't the act, but her reaction to it -- initially, she WAS horrified, but she quickly became (seemingly) indifferent to it and THAT was her downfall.

Could it have been Buffy that killed Alan? I'm not so sure, especially GIVEN her close call with Ted. Buffy has always seemed to show more restraint since then.

I agree that her response was the morally wrong thing, as opposed to the act.

As for Willow's condemnation, remember that Faith didn't show any of the remorse Buffy did (or would have). Mistakes were made on BOTH sides; Faith could have been more open and trusting, and the Scoobies could have been more accepting and made more effort to reach out, but Willow DID make her point later, too;

"So you had a tough life, well BOO-HOO!"

She's right, Faith had a raw deal, but how many like her had the same raw deal and NO Slayer powers?

Believe you me, I sympathize totally with Faith, and I wish things had been different for her, but ultimately, she chose her own path, for good or ill.

Take it and run.
[> Re: Faith slaying Alan. Was it murder and deserving of jail? -- maddog, 07:06:49 10/31/01 Wed
I think you're too hung up on the word. Murder is still murder whether it's premeditated or done in self defense. She did what she had to do...no doubt about it.

I don't think Buffy misused her power with Ted. I think she saw him as a real threat, not only to herself but to her mother. That was self defense too...she may have gone a little overboard, but he was showing great amounts of strength so I can see why she'd want to make sure she knocked him out cold.

Yeah, Faith definitely had some self image issues. Which is odd, because when she showed up she was a bad ass vampire slayer and proud of it. Somehow, spending all that time with the Scoobies made her think she had to be exactly like Buffy. While she probably could have toned down a little I don't think anyone could be exactly like Buffy.

I think Faith's attitude and reputation had a lot to do with how the Scoobies treated her. If Faith had shown some remorse...some feeling about killing him then I don't think they would have been so harsh on her. But she treated it as no big deal, and that's where I belive the Scoobies came up with the harsh words.
[> [> Faith and Willow -- Humanitas, 09:29:03 10/31/01 Wed
The irony of it all is that it was Willow who hated Faith the most, and now it looks like she's going to be in almost exactly the same position. Perhaps she saw a bit of herself?
[> [> Re: Faith slaying Alan. Was it murder and deserving of jail? -- Naomi, 11:22:00 10/31/01 Wed
Murder is premeditated. If you kill in self-defence then its manslaughter and murderer is not the correct term.
I never got the impression that Ted was a serious threat. Its been a while since I've seen the episode but didn't he just smack her in the face once? What I mean is he was totally out of line but I wouldn't have thought he was showing great strength when defending himself against Buffy.I never realised that he was anything other than a regular human. I never felt there was any justification for Buffy's attack. She was taking out her anger and frustration with the use of violence. Hitting back once would have been fine but Buffy kicked him all over the landing in front of her mother and was out of control.
My original point was that Faith didn't commit a serious crime when she killed Alan but her real crime was her lack of remorse. Therefore I agree that there is a difference between Ted and Bad Girls but I just don't get why Faith is a murderer and deserving of jail by killing Alan.
[> [> [> Re: Faith slaying Alan. Was it murder and deserving of jail? -- Cleanthes, 13:37:30 10/31/01 Wed
Murder is premeditated. If you kill in self-defence then its manslaughter and murderer is not the correct term.

Eek! Murder requires malice aforethought. Manslaughter has various degrees and definitions in differing jurisdictions, but generally, the word is reserved for felony killings that fall short of murder.

Killing in self-defense is no crime at all, neither murder nor manslaughter nor even tortious wrongful death.

Faith's killing of Alan might have risen to the level of wrongful death - she did not take proper care. I don't think it was even manslaughter (in the common law, and I studied in Iowa, very much a traditional common law state).
In most states, the HIDING of the body would be a bigger crime than the mostly-accidental killing. (I'm disregarding the certainty that no court would recognize the steady stream of vampire attacks as giving Faith reasonable grounds for assuming Alan was a vampire; instead I'm pretending that the "court" consists of people as well informed as you and me, e.g. the viewer's perspective - therefore, the "court" does take cognizance of the preceeding vampire attacks.)

Faith's killing of Professor Worth in `Graduation` was first degree murder with special circumstances, thereby justifying the death penalty in most US states, IMO. Were I defending her, I'd argue that the Mayor's influence impaired her judgment. At best, I could see that reducing her legitimate sentence to life.
"BtVS" - The Original Movie -- RabidHarpy, 08:15:52 10/30/01 Tue
I watched the original "BtVS" movie last night and noticed a few interesting things I hadn't before - for example, both Joss Whedon (obviously) and Fran R. Kazui were involved.

Kirsty Swanson, Luke Perry, Donald Sutherland, Paul Ruebens and Rutger Hauer were the "big names" I had remembered, but this time I also recognized Ben Affleck, Hilary Swank, David Arquette, and that fellow who plays "Jimmie James" on "NewsRadio" - Stephen Root. When the movie had originally come out, these last few actors weren't even that well known - it's interesting to see them "before they were stars", so to speak...

It was also refreshing to note that Buffy's "fashion sense" and her use of the expression "duh!" remained consistent between the movie and the t.v. series.

I was curious as to why the following had been omitted or changed for the television series...

- Buffy's family seemed quite wealthy, (living in a ritzy area of Los Angeles in a HUGE house with parents who were constantly off jet-setting and leaving her alone...) - I guess the divorce accounts for her more humble accommodations today, but why did Joss split her parents up?

- there is no mention of Buffy's "alarm" system, (the PMS-like cramps she gets when a vampire is near - her natural response to their "un-naturalness"), in the t.v. series...

- I also wondered why they had changed the location from Los Angeles to Sunnydale?

- whatever happened to Pike? He was such a dedicated little helper, (he carved and carried around stakes for Buffy when she was neglecting her duties as the Slayer) - not to mention he rode a motorcycle - cool! (Coming to think of it, Buffy rode a motorcycle too - I'd like to see SMG bootin' around Sunnydale on a Hog!)

- in the movie, Buffy's gymnastics skills - front hand-springs, back walk-overs, tumbles, etc. - were her trademark. (Obviously this has something to do with KS's and SMG's physical skills, but I think it would be cool if every now and then t.v. Buffy would do a funky little cartwheel before she stakes a vamp...)

- the movie suggested that both the Slayer and the Watcher are reincarnated in their same physical forms, (unlike Faith and Kendra, the First Slayer, and Giles), and that the Watcher is born carrying all the knowledge of his predecessors. Obviously, because the Slayers usually die young, they have no offspring to carry on either their responsibilities or their genetic traits, (Kirsty's flashbacks all had Slayers that looked like her), and unlike Merrick, Gile's Watcher "birthright" was passed down through his family... huh?!

One final question - in the movie Merrick warns Buffy that the vampires are not to find out the identity of the Slayer, (hard to do, considering she looks the same with each incarnation) - and we are never given a reason why. There is a scene where Lothos (Hauer) confronts Buffy and wants to "change" her but Merrick intervenes saying she's not ready. Then, a few scenes later, Paul Rueben's character reveals to Lothos that Buffy is the Slayer, (as if they had just discovered this fact). Is this just an editing faux-pas, or am I just terribly confused? Why would Lothos want Buffy before he knew she was the Slayer, and why would her "not being ready" be an issue?

It is interesting to note that even back then, Lothos reveals to Buffy that their power source stems from the same dark place, and that they have much in common - just as Spike re-iterated last week. Lothos also enjoyed "kittens" as a little "snack" - this is either a strange demon-dietary issue, or a Whedonesque theme of some sort. Does anyone know if Joss hates cats?

Just curious as to others' thoughts on these matters...

(By the way, is it me, or does everyone in the BtVS movie look too old to be in highschool? Kirsty certainly didn't look 16! I do miss Buffy's old "white-tube-socks-in-combat-boots" fashion quirk, though...lol!)

[> Personally, I loathe the movie -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:38:15 10/30/01 Tue
my reasons being that

a)Its obvious that the vision that brings us the masterful mix of mostly horror, tinge of comedy every week with the tv show was altered by exterior forces. The producer of the movie, Kazui, has been said by Joss to have altered SEVERAL things from the way he'd originally conceived them. Hence his need to make the tv show, in which he can correctly depict his own creation.

b)Those alterations made it something that I have a generalized disdain for: Campy. I really, REALLY prefer when things are like the two shows(BtVS and AtS) are, a very nice combination of 75% horror/action/drama 25% comedy. If that much.

c)I don't like Kristy Swanson. SMG is by far the better actress/slayer, in my book.
[> [> Re: Personally, I loathe the movie -- sl, 22:59:55 10/30/01 Tue
I agreee!!
[> Now, I loved it... -- Humanitas, 07:05:42 10/31/01 Wed
...but for different resons than I love the TV show. To be honest, I'm not a horror fan, in general. I like horror, but it's not what drives me to watch something. My tastes run more towards action and comedy, and the movie provided plenty of both.

I saw the film in the theaters when it first came out, and my initial reaction on seeing the poster was, "This is either going to be great send-up, or just awful." Turned out to be great send-up, at least IMO. Despite all the things that were done to the film by people-other-than-Joss, his style of dialogue comes through loud and clear, and that's what hooked me. It's also one of the few things the movie and the tv show have in common.

The trick is to look at it as a slightly different genre. The tv show is horror-action-comedy. The movie is a spoof of horror movies, and as far as I'm concerned, a much better one than things like Scary Movie.
[> [> Re: Now, I loved it... -- Andy, 10:56:16 10/31/01 Wed
The movie always struck me as occupying the same campy niche as the Bill & Ted movies. Looked at that way, I enjoyed it well enough the first time I saw it, although I don't particularly have much interest in going back and watching it again whenever it's on now :)
[> Re: "BtVS" - The Original Movie -- Amber, 01:02:37 11/01/01 Thu
Okay, just to answer a couple of your continuity questions. In the Buffy series pilot its established that Buffy and her Mom moved to Sunnydale after Buffy blew up the gym at her old school, which is kind of what Kristy/Buffy does at the end of the movie.

I think Joss wants us to believe the events of the movie did happen in Buffy's life, just in a less campy way. At one point I think Giles mentions Buffy's old watcher Merrick, although Buffy never says whether he died, or just lost his watcher status when she moved.

I think all the previous slayers looked like Kristy/Buffy because they were too cheap to higher more actresses. Buffy still has prophecy dreams just like her character in the movie.

Pike has never been mentioned on the show that I know of, but one of the Buffy novels has him visit Buffy in Sunnydale. (Sorry, I don't know the title and have never read it.)

As for the cramps aka "vampire sense". I doubt that was Joss's idea. It's kinda campy and takes away from Joss's goal of making a strong blonde female who kicks ass.
Highlander flashbacks -- vampire hunter D, 13:04:44 10/30/01 Tue
when ANgel was training Cordy with the katana, am I the only one who was sort of reminded of the Highlander?

and with the life she leads, why has Cordy waited till now to start learning to defend herself? You'd think she would have started back in Sunnydale.

and btw, I doin't htink Billy touch would have any affect on me. All it did was make you mad to the point where you want to hurt someone. i'm already there (not at women, but humanity in general)
[> Re: Highlander flashbacks -- Ryuei, 13:29:52 10/30/01 Tue
You may already be mad at everyone, but hopefully you still have enough inhibitions left to keep you from actually killing people. That was the deal with Billy. His touch lifted all those inhibitions which keep us (or men in this case) from acting out on all our unsocial and/or homicidal impulses. For instance, Wesley didn't seem to be merely mad at Fred (or women in general). His loss of inhibitions caused him to spout a long diatribe of Victorian-era Christian fundamentalist misogyny which was no doubt drilled into him by his father. That went beyond mere anger. It was a whole complex of previously unarticulated thoughts and feelings directed towards women that it seems even Wesley was not aware lurked within.
[> [> trust me -- vampire hunter D, 13:35:23 10/30/01 Tue
As pissed off as I am all the time, if I haven't killed anyone yet, then nothing Billy could do will change that.

and why do you guys always respond to my tacked on afterthoughts instead of the main point of my posts?
[> [> [> Re: trust me -- Dedalus, 15:29:47 10/30/01 Tue
If you are that mad, I am keeping my HelloBot so far away from you ...

I guess he was responding to your afterthoughts because they were interesting.

And yes, Angel has always had a bit of the Highlander thing swingin'. There can be only one.
[> [> [> [> hellobot's a he? -- anom, 20:46:51 10/30/01 Tue
I'll have to replay all those messages an octave lower!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: hellobot's a he? -- Dedalus, 22:37:27 10/30/01 Tue
No, Hellobot's a she. Keep it at that octave.
[> [> [> [> [> [> oh. i guess i misread you -- anom, 09:16:35 10/31/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, Ded, that was hellobot welcoming me, NOT staking me?!? :) -- zargon, 10:13:41 10/31/01 Wed
[> [> And Edwardian, and Georgian, and Hanoverian... (OT for this thread) -- Solitude1056, 16:16:52 10/30/01 Tue
His loss of inhibitions caused him to spout a long diatribe of Victorian-era Christian fundamentalist misogyny which was no doubt drilled into him by his father.

Well-said, since (as the housemate peanut gallery just observed) given the option between "primordial" and "Victorian," I'd take Victorian, but I think your statement has just as much validity if you replaced Victorian with any other Western stretch of time. For that matter, take out Victorian altogether and it's still an accurate statement for some branches of Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious interpretation.
[> Re: Highlander flashbacks -- zargon, 13:55:00 10/30/01 Tue
Highlander all the way! Especially scenes of Duncan training Ritchie, all the side-by-side work....

And yes, I was wondering why Cordy has been in the Jossverse for 6 seasons now and on Angel for 2.5, and someone has just NOW decided she needed sword training? I mean, hasn't AI taken her along on most missions? I guess she got tired of wacking bad guys with fire extinguishers and throwing stakes to the bad guys instead of the good guys? Hey, I wonder if Angel will train her in "proper use of a spatula" (just saw Homecoming...ROTFLMHO)?
[> [> Re: Highlander flashbacks--Oops SPOILER AtS 3.5 Billy ABOVE (NT) -- zargon, 13:56:36 10/30/01 Tue
[> Actually -- Cactus Watcher, 15:47:26 10/30/01 Tue
I was reminded of Angel doing exercises together with Buffy back in Buffy season 3. I thought Cordy was somewhat out of character during the episode, but I liked her role in it, anyway.

Not too much different from Highlander though, good call!
[> [> Cordy was utterly in character! -- Solitude1056, 16:23:29 10/30/01 Tue
She was that vicious bitch - eyebrow action and slicing comments and all - that I loved in S1-3 in BtVS... but tempered with a motive that's far more mature now that she's taken on responsibility for her actions. As an aside, it's entirely believable that a cheerleader, like a dancer or martial artist, would only need to do a routine once or twice to have the basic gist down pat. (Perfection is another matter, but the average non-dancer would take six or seven times and some still wouldn't remember the routine a day later.) And her conversations with Angel, book-ending the episode, were just so brother-sister. Like Spike on BtVS, Cordy's always been one who sees through the masks - perhaps cause she's so used to wearing them, herself. She sees it, and calls it... "Billy" goes down in the list of Episodes Where Cordy Kicks Ass, just like "Homecoming". ;-)
[> [> [> Re: Cordy was utterly in character! -- Cactus Watcher, 20:22:20 10/30/01 Tue
Cordy and Angel like brother and sister? Yes, that's how it played out at end of the episode. Maybe there was a hint of something more than that in the sword exercise. But, in either case, that's not the cautious Cordy we've known.

Cordy a vicious bitch in this episode? I don't think so, even if that's what she was claiming to be. There is a difference between snapping at any flaw of your adversary no matter how irrelevant as Cordelia usually does, and focusing on what matters.

This is a much wiser Cordelia. I hope she stays around.
[> [> [> [> Re: Sometimes a sword is just a...oh, never mind. ;) -- mm, 20:26:33 10/30/01 Tue
[> [> [> [> [> same goes for a crossbow bolt! -- anom, 09:18:25 10/31/01 Wed
[> OT-Vampire Hunter D -- Duo, 09:13:29 10/31/01 Wed
I'm with ya on that anger thing. I dont know if its the full moon or what, but I've been on the edge of spinning somebodys head off all week.

So do what I do-get good and drunk at home by yourself, so you cant hurt anybody except yourself.

Actualy-i think i know what set me off-halloween party last Friday, and a girl I am interested in was hanging around with a loser pretty boy all night...yeah, thats what it was. scumbag....
Cordelia and her Ghost Friend question -- Pat, 17:42:23 10/30/01 Tue
Ok on some recent eps Cordelia has a new friend. Hes a ghost. Whos this ghost and why is he in the hotel and doesnt bother the others? Did he die in the building or something?
[> Re: Cordelia and her Ghost Friend question -- maddog, 18:19:22 10/30/01 Tue
Are you sure that the scene wasn't taking place at Cordy's apartment where she does have that ghost? Cause I've seen all the episodes and I don't remember a ghost in the hotel.
[> [> Re: Cordelia and her Ghost Friend question -- Pat, 18:34:40 10/30/01 Tue
Yeah at her apartment I guess. ANyway whats the deal with her ghost buddy?
[> [> [> That Spectral Fellow Would Be.... -- AngelVSAngelus, 18:40:55 10/30/01 Tue
Named Dennis, and he has remained in Cordelia's apartment since the episode in which she got it, Room With A View. He was killed in that apartment, by his mother, whom Cordelia, and the rest of the gang, basically vanquished.
[> [> [> [> Read up on Dennis -- Masquerade, 22:05:56 10/30/01 Tue
Click here: Dennis the Ghost
Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Calluna, 19:13:10 10/30/01 Tue
A week or so ago, FX showed the 2nd season episode "Lie to Me" with Buffy's ex-crush, Ford (He of the brain tumor and vampire deathwish). In the end, Buffy knocked Ford out and left him locked up with Spike and his minions, to eventually become a vampire and be staked by her. My question is, was Giles killing Ben any worse than what Buffy did to Ford? Is it not as bad if you let someone else make the nasty human a demon, so you can ethically kill it? Was it okay because Ford was dying anyway? Isn't it actually worse, in the Buffyverse, because Buffy let Ford be "damned"? At least Giles killed Ben to save the world (I think we can assume that Glory would have reenergized and been rather pissed).

[> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- maddog, 19:42:08 10/30/01 Tue
Yeah, but what were the chances that Spike was gonna make him a vampire? Pretty slim. I think Buffy was so positive of this fact that she knew it would be better for him to die this way.
I can't believe anyone would think Giles killing Ben was a bad thing...what was he supposed to do? Wait for Glory to come back and have no chance at all? That was the only thing to do.

[> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Ben, 22:41:10 10/30/01 Tue
"I can't believe anyone would think Giles killing Ben was a bad thing."

It was a bad thing.

"That was the only thing to do."

Yeah, Giles did what he had to do.

But it was a very bad thing to do.

[> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- maddog, 06:44:07 10/31/01 Wed
To reiterate my point, what else could he have done? and if that's the case then what makes it bad? I'm just curious as to how people could say killing Glory's one pathway to this world was a bad thing.

[> [> [> [> How about Ben was a decent sort and they should have found a ritual to cure him? -- Charlemagne20, 23:15:59 10/31/01 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> But Ben WASN'T a decent sort ... -- Earl Allison, 02:28:18 11/01/01 Thu
Ben got a raw deal, certainly, but he made his bed with Glory (or at least with her actions) WELL before turning Dawn in.

Remember that it was Ben who summoned the space demon that fed off the insane. He may have termed them "Glory's messes," but did that give him the right to have them killed?

As far as I'm concerned, Ben "earned" his death at least twice for killing indirectly, or by letting Glory have Dawn.

And given the stakes, the world, or Ben, there really wasn't time to separate the two (although I wonder if Toth's rod would have worked -- split Ben and Glory apart?) without risking everything.

I mean, Buffy already made the hard choice, sending Angel to Hell for events Angelus set in motion -- how is Ben's death more wrong?

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But Ben WASN'T a decent sort ... -- Juliette, 08:29:14 11/01/01 Thu
Why is killing Ben a bad thing?

Because killing a human is always a bad thing. There is no adequate justification for taking another human life, no matter what that person has done. If you kill someone because they have killed someone else, you drag yourself down to their level. Yes, Giles had to kill Ben, due to certain specialised circumstances involving the end of the world and Glory being a hellgod and so on. But it was a very bad thing to have to do.

Why is this different from killing Angel/Angelus in B2?

Because according to the rules of the Buffyverse, vampires are not humans. I suppose they are animals, or demons, or something similar. If Angel's soul made him human, then killing Angel was also a very bad thing. Necessary, but bad.

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Naomi, 11:50:05 11/01/01 Thu
"what else could he have done?" Well Giles did have another choice and that was to ignore the problem and not compromise his ethics. If you recall that is what Buffy did so Giles did have a choice as to whether he should kill Ben and personally I felt he made the right one. Although it is interesting that Giles and Ben both basically wanted the same thing (Giles does express that killing Dawn is the only option).

[> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- kev314, 21:10:18 10/30/01 Tue
I myself have no problem with what Giles did, but in Buffy's defense I think it should be pointed out that Ford wanted to become a vampire. Buffy tried her best to talk him out of it, but the choice was his, made willingly and knowingly. Once he became a vampire, she slew him, which is of course her job.

[> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Deeva, 22:44:22 10/30/01 Tue
You would also have to think that because he knew about Buffy being the slayer, that were he to achieve his goal of becoming a vampire, he would eventually face off against Buffy. It was his choice and he was presented with the facts.

[> [> [> Free Will -- Rahael, 02:08:24 10/31/01 Wed
Ford exercised his free will, and had to take the consequences.

If Ben had helped Dawn escape, thereby preventing the ritual and Buffy's eventual death, Giles would have faced a much more difficult decision.

The fact was that Ben and Glory started compromising each others actions by the last episode. He had started to make some morally dubious decisions, and she started showing some humanity.

[> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Humanitas, 07:15:40 10/31/01 Wed
As odd as it seems to say this, I'm with Ford on this one. Let's look at his options: Slow, painful death from "the tumors liquefying [his] brain," or the relatively quick death of being eaten by Spike, plus the chance of living forever. Given the option, I have to say I'd go knocking on Spike's door, myself. I like to think I wouldn't trade all those other lives to up my odds of immortality, but being a happy meal with legs seems preferable to what Ford knew was in store for him otherwise.

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Rob, 11:19:36 11/02/01 Fri
Yes, but, of course, the vamp Ford would not really be Ford. It would be a demon walking around with his memories and body. Ford's actual soul would be in the ether, not in heaven, not in hell. So it probably would have been better for him if Spike had just killed him and not gone "all the way."


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Humanitas, 11:44:17 11/02/01 Fri
Probably. But Ford didn't necessarily know that. Doesn't he have the right to make a choice, even one that we, the viewers, know to be a bad one? I would think he is entitled to go to Hell in the handbasket of his own choosing.

[> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- maddog, 06:46:41 10/31/01 Wed
He never became a vampire...she goes back to the warehouse a day later and he's already dead. Spike was upset that the slayer got away so I'm guessing death was his only thought.

[> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Brian, 03:14:28 10/31/01 Wed
As I recall that episode, Buffy was busy saving the innocents who thought vamps were cute spiritual people. Ford knew that they would all end up as dinner, but he wanted his immortality. However, while waiting for Ford to emerge from his grave, Buffy did learn that Spike was a man of his word.

[> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- maddog, 06:52:39 10/31/01 Wed
Hmm, I'll have to go watch my tape(they just showed that one a few weeks ago on F/X). I thought Spike killed him. I don't remember Ford emerging from his grave.

[> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Calluna, 12:53:53 10/31/01 Wed
I believe that the very last scene was of Giles and Buffy standing by Ford's grave, discussing death and life. Then he popped up, fully vamped and she dusted him.
I still think that Buffy was wrong to leave Ford in the club. He was human, maybe not innocent, but human. Which harkens forward (?) to the whole Faith and the power of the Slayer over "mere mortals" thing. It's too bad that they never put the idea that Buffy had already left a none too innocent human to die into that whole plot line.

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- Brian, 18:17:34 10/31/01 Wed
Buffy could only save so many of the innocents. Ford got pulled away and was deep in vamp territory when she freed the others. And once out, she couldn't go back to get him.

[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy, Giles and the ethics of murder -- anom, 21:11:33 11/01/01 Thu
No, Ford wasn't vamped. After they get everybody (else) out, Buffy says something like they'll have to come back after sunrise. Someone asks why, & she says, "For the body." She knew the vampires wouldn't take kindly to being deprived of their more-willing-than-usual happy meals & would kill Ford instead of turning him.

As for leaving him there to die, remember Buffy got the kids out of there by essentially taking Dru hostage & threatening to stake her unless they were freed. Ford had no interest in leaving; he still wanted to be vamped. Having let Dru go as her part of the bargain, Buffy wasn't in a position to go back into a multi-vamp situation to pull him out against his will. But she was quite aware of what would happen to him.

[> [> [> [> [> Anom, I hate to say this, but ... -- Isabel, 21:43:22 11/01/01 Thu
I watched the end of 'Lie to Me' a few days ago. After all the excitement, Buffy and Giles are standing at Ford's grave. Buffy is unhappy that she can see the shades of grey in the situation. (Ford was willing to kill her, but in the end, he was just terrified of dying.) She asks Giles to lie to her about life and Giles gives his monologue about the good guys being always good and the bad guys being easily identifiable. The good guys always win and save the day and everyone lives happily ever after. At which point a vamped-out Ford comes out of his grave. Buffy doesn't pause, she stakes him. She and Giles turn to leave and Buffy says, "Liar."

Ford wasn't a vampire during the confrontation at the Sunset Club, but he was turned into a vampire afterwards.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, Isabel's right...I just rewatched it also. -- Rob, 11:22:12 11/02/01 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> hmm, then... -- anom, 13:21:35 11/02/01 Fri
...am I remembering the "for the body" line from another episode? It's a very clear memory. I don't have it taped, & it has been quite a while since I saw it, but I thought it had been made clear that the vampires weren't satisfied w/Ford's end of the bargain & weren't going to turn him. Does the headstone or grave marker have Ford's name on it? Is it clear that he's the vamp Buffy stakes at the end?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes. -- Naomi, 13:32:38 11/02/01 Fri
We see Ford in vamp face and it's clearly him. Buffy stakes him with no emotion which emphasises that the Ford she knew had already died and she was staking a demon inhabiting a corpse. It was just an example of moral ambiguity to frame Gile's speech as it would have been kind of pointless to just show Buffy stake a regular vamp when having a serious talk otherwise. Buffy talks about the body because she knows that Ford will be techniquely dead and rise as a corpse (like Jesse in The Harvest). The world isn't simple as Buffy was killing a former friend but it's not as simple and black and white as that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> guess i misinterpreted it then -- anom, 15:43:06 11/03/01 Sat
I just couldn't see why the vamps would turn Ford after Buffy rescued the vamp fans from them. I certainly got the feeling from Spike that he had no intention of doing so when Ford argued that technically, he'd held up his end of the deal.

A poem for Dawn - Spoilers for Tonight's Episode -- Brian, 19:45:30 10/30/01 Tue
Dawn just wants to have some fun;
So she and her friends are on the run.
Visit an old man, just to have a bun.

Dawn’s a cute little miss,
Trying to snatch some teenage bliss,
Love’s first taste, a vampire’s kiss.

Through the woods she tries to flee, to hide,
Only to find her vampish beau by her side,
Who tries to take her for a long, one way ride.

He smiles and pulls her to the ground.
He thinks his strength is eternal, profound.
She stakes his heart, and it’s ashes all around.
[> Re: :-) -- Dedalus, 19:47:22 10/30/01 Tue
[> [> Hey, Ded, we found your light saber in the Bronze -- Masq, 22:07:25 10/30/01 Tue
[> Re: A poem for Dawn - Spoilers for Tonight's Episode -- Brian, 22:34:48 10/30/01 Tue
Well, Dawn is 15 now.

In a year she will be 16. The same age Buffy was when she met Angel.

By that time Spike will be tired of patroling with Buffy. He will realize that the true love of his life is Dawn.
Dawn and her 'date', spoilers for All the Way -- Simplicity, 22:59:32 10/30/01 Tue
Just a few quick notes/interesting tidbits from tonight's episode. Let me say that I love Dawn more than ever, she is rapidly becoming my favorite character.

It was very interesting to see Dawn follow in her sister's footsteps by dating a vampire. And 'parking' with one to boot (without knowing him very long)!

I also liked the metaphor of being changed by a vampire as going "all the way". So what would a bite from a vampire be? first base? Would be drained by one be third base?

Did anyone else see Dawn falter when he went to bite her (think it was the second time). I think he would've bitten her if Giles hadn't shown up.

By the way, how cool was Giles tonight? He was every inch the angry father. Even if he doesn't want the parenting responsibility.
[> Re: Good to see the population increasing -- Neaux, 04:33:58 10/31/01 Wed
Good to see the vamp population has increased again.. since buffy probably doesnt patrol the highschool anymore... very slick!!
[> [> Re: Good to see the population increasing -- Reina, 04:48:17 10/31/01 Wed
And, hey, did you see the cool high kick Giles planted on one of the Rebel Without a Clue vamps?

[> [> [> Re: Good to see the population increasing -- Humanitas, 07:24:13 10/31/01 Wed
And his taking out of those two vamps in a row? Very slick moves. Not to mention catching the stake. I really like the way the choreography works for his character. It's very clear that he knows what he's doing, but he's human, and an older human at that, so he's not the ass-kicking machine that Buffy or Spike is.

Speaking of choreography, has anyone else noticed that each of the characters has their own style, now? Buffy is more martial-artsy, and Spike is a brawler. Used to be, the only distinction between the characters in a fight was how effective they were. Now they actually fight differently. Gotta love it!
[> [> [> [> Re: Good to see the population increasing -- Dedalus, 08:50:06 10/31/01 Wed
That's true about the fighting. I loved Buffy's flip, and how she decapitated the vamp with a car door. And the Giles kick was awesome, as many have pointed out.
[> Re: Dawn and her 'date', spoilers for All the Way -- Reina, 04:46:03 10/31/01 Wed
Oh, I know! I, too, am enjoying watching her character grow. When I first saw her in this episode, I told myself "Ahh. In this one, we're supposed to view her as a woman instead of a child, at some point."
Might seem psychic, it's really not. I simply noticed that her hair looked better than usual, she was wearing more makeup and clothes that weren't, well...childish.
hehe. I have a theory that you can tell who will be a focal point in the episode if you just look at whether or not their physical attractiveness is being played up.
sorry...I obviously need more coffee! lol

[> Re: Dawn and her 'date', spoilers for All the Way -- maddog, 06:36:15 10/31/01 Wed
Giles has been that parent role since day 1. Not that Joyce wasn't do her job....but he was a father to them collectively...no reason to stop now(especially with Joyce gone). I find it interesting how they gave the teenage vampires real feeling...I mean that kid was an Angel in training except he didn't have a soul. He seemed like he actually cared for her.
[> [> Re: Dawn and her 'date', spoilers for All the Way -- Dedalus, 08:53:27 10/31/01 Wed
I noticed that the vamp seemed to really care for her too. More than the other slack-jawed one anyway. That's interesting.

Vamps really seem to differ.

I also liked Spike's comment about how "I'm a rebel. You're an idiot." He really is a rebel. He's the only vamp beside Angel to probably fight beside the Slayer. Talk about breaking all the rules.
[> [> [> Re: Dawn and her 'date', spoilers for All the Way -- maddog, 08:59:30 10/31/01 Wed
Vamps do tend to feel some sort of love though it tends to manifest itself in more of a obsession kinda thing...that always seemed to be the relationship between Spike and Dru and it certainly was when Angel stalked Dru before he vamped her.
Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Cactus Watcher, 05:38:42 10/31/01 Wed
Is the Buffy universe rapidly becoming the Willow universe? Willow's friends never really die. She makes her troubles, like Tara's anger and concern, go away with little more than a word. She changes little things, like decorating the house, with no more care than Samantha of Bewitched or Sabrina the Teenage Witch. But, she doesn't live in their world. Clearly, some of the things Willow is doing are out of line, but I'd guess, she still thinks she only making things better. Is Willow losing her grip on reality? Is her world getting 'out of balance?'

How serious was Willow's forget spell? Has she already betrayed Tara's trust?
[> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- verdantheart, 06:06:04 10/31/01 Wed
Has she already betrayed Tara's trust? Yes.

Willow's taken the easy way out, sidestepping Tara's concerns without confronting the question of her own (Willow's) unnecessary use of magic. By making Tara forget, she takes away Tara's right to express her opinion, which, as you remember, she (Tara) did because she cares. She's not treating Tara as a person who has a right to speak her mind. Willow thinks that if magic makes things easier, then there's no reason not to use it (the spell she contemplated was risky and they had no inkling that Dawn was in any real danger). She has confidence in her abilities and, after all, she brought someone back from the dead. Now she's venturing into the realm of controlling other people to make her own life more pleasant.

Talk about crossing the line; she's way over it. (Did she try to find out where Buffy really was before attempting the spell? No. They needed Buffy back and it was easy to just assume she was in a hell dimension.)

(BTW, KPNZ finally upped their signal so I can receive it! But to illustrate the type of outfit they are, they ran an episode of Enterprise twice in two weeks, not airing the new episode that they were supposed to. Hope they don't make that mistake with Buffy next week ...)

[> [> Good to hear you're back among the 'viewing.' :o) -- CW, 06:14:32 10/31/01 Wed
I got to see the ep. last night at the usual time, only because the local basketball team played at home last night instead of on the road. It could be touch and go for me for the rest of the stupid basketball season.
[> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 06:17:11 10/31/01 Wed
Talk about crossing the line; she's way over it. (Did she try to find out where Buffy really was before attempting the spell? No. They needed Buffy back and it was easy to just assume she was in a hell dimension.)

Well, ok... Willow definately crossed a line with the amnesia spell she pulled. But about "assuming" Buffy was in an alternate dimension because it was easier... Let's not forget that Willow was in tears describing her fear that this was a reality. I think she genuinely, honestly believed that that was where Buffy was, and acted out of care, love, and concern. This arrogance we're seeing now is a result of her success... not the reason behind why she did the spell.
[> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- maddog, 06:29:37 10/31/01 Wed
I don't think the person was talking about arrogance. I agree, that came as a result of the spell working. I think it was more a matter of immaturity. She so desperately needed Buffy back...to be her friend...to slay the vampires...that she thoughtlessly decided that the best course of action was to bring Buffy back...without thinking of where Buffy might be.
[> [> [> [> Given what Tara said last year... -- Cactus Watcher, 06:44:56 10/31/01 Wed
about the ethics of bringing people back from the dead, don't both of you think there wasn't at least a trace of arrogance in Willow's resurrection of Buffy? Remember she insisted before hand, she knew nothing would go wrong. At the very least, before she brought back Buffy, Willow had little faith in anything anymore, except her own mind, and perhaps Buffy's strength. Maybe that's not arrogance, but it's a symptom of it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Given what Tara said last year... -- maddog, 06:48:57 10/31/01 Wed
I think her insistance on nothing going wrong was more her trying to convince herself, if she kept saying that nothing would go wrong then she'd believe it herself.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Given what Tara said last year... -- Dedalus, 09:04:28 10/31/01 Wed
Every week, I tell myself maybe I'm being a little hard on Willow. Then she totally does something that only strengthens my opinion. I don't think she's evil, and I don't think she's going to be evil if for no other reason than it's too predictable, but the girl has clearly lost her slender hold on reality. Now she's going to zap an entire room full of people to an alternate dimension just so she can find an errant fifteen year old girl?

As harsh as it may be, I still can't believe Willow's arrogance wasn't on full display in Bargaining. And I still say what she did to Tara was nothing compared to what she did to Buffy. Giles was so right. Willow was treating the whole thing like a big science experiment. I understand people siding with her and saying that if even there was a chance Buffy was in a hell dimension she had to do it, but I'm not sure there was a chance. That's not the way these things work. Many have pointed out she should have tried to contact Buffy's spirit first, and I'm going to point out that she did disobey Buffy's last wishes, and there's no two ways about it.

Like we were talking in chat, Will is beginning to see everyone as an object. An "it" instead of a "thou," as Campbell would say. It started with the Buffybot, then she thought she could program Buffy, and now apparently she thinks she can program Tara to act however she wants her to act.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Enough with the science project analogy... time for a new one. -- Solitude1056, 11:12:32 10/31/01 Wed
I just finished reading Sagan's "Demon-Haunted World," so you may see that influence in my assessment here. But Willow isn't operating in the world of science anymore, going by Sagan's measurement, and I think I've got to agree. Science operates by stating a hypothesis, testing it, studying the evidence, and drawing a conclusion. But science works hard - when it's working right - to draw a conclusion based solely upon the evidence gathered. Pseudoscience works by faith, or belief, or hope - in essence, by stating a hypothesis, skipping the testing, skipping the run-through, possibly even ignoring the evidence, and drawing a presupposed conclusion. If Willow had approached Buffy's rebirth as a scientific concept, Joss would've let us know. Willow would've justified the ritual by saying "I tested with X, Y, and Z rituals, and her soul's in the ether so we know she's not really 'dead' even if her body is," or whatever. She would have worked hard to collect as much evidence as possible, and if that evidence said Buffy was dead and gone on, then that's that. Try a different hypothesis or something.

Willow's rhetoric now isn't that of a scientist, it's of an experimenter without visible empirical evidence. Tara questions her use of the people-shifting spell at the Bronze, and Willow doesn't say she's done it before or these are the limitations & that's why she knows she's not pushing those... she simply says, it'll be fine. Why? Because Willow says so. Gee. And the world is flat, because some church guy said so despite scientists' evidence, way back when. That's not science, and Willow is not treating magick as a scientific application, not anymore. She's using it like a religion: her own personal religion of one. Things will happen, and be okay, because she says so.

If anyone ended up with a significant streak o' Glory tainting her personality, it's Willow.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Enough with the science project analogy... time for a new one. -- CW, 11:37:37 10/31/01 Wed
For anyone who isn't quite sure what Sol is getting at, or why it's important, pick up a copy of Skeptical Inquirer at your local newsstand, or check out www.csicop.org
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> campbell? i thought "i-thou"/"i-it" was buber -- anom, 21:30:13 11/01/01 Thu
Not that I really know what I'm talking about as far as that goes. But as for the rest, I have to disagree on some things.

"Giles was so right. Willow was treating the whole thing like a big science experiment."

I wouldn't say that. I think bringing Buffy back meant a lot more to Willow than doing it as an experiment.

"That's not the way these things work."

Uh, 'scuse me, but how do you know how these things work? I don't think anyone knows how jumping into a dimensional rift to close it works.

"Many have pointed out she should have tried to contact Buffy's spirit first..."

Has there been any indication that there's a way to contact a dead person's spirit in the Buffyverse, unless it's hanging around as a ghost? Bring it back to its body, yes, but not have a conversation with it. Maybe they did look into it & didn't find a way to. Or maybe they even tried & it didn't work.

"...and I'm going to point out that she did disobey Buffy's last wishes, and there's no two ways about it."

What was there to disobey? Buffy didn't leave instructions, except to Dawn. She wanted Giles to know she'd "figured it out" & was OK, & she wanted to send her love to her friends & that they should take care of each other. I didn't hear anything that was "disobeyed" by raising her. And I'd say her last wishes were to close the rift & end the threat to Dawn & the universe. If there'd been a way to do that that didn't require either her or Dawn to die, I'm sure she'd have preferred it.
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Boxdman, 11:12:29 10/31/01 Wed
I agree. And she justified it by telling herself that Buffy was in a hell dimension.
[> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Malandanza, 07:05:57 10/31/01 Wed
"Well, ok... Willow definitely crossed a line with the amnesia spell she pulled."

I think you're understating the case. Think about the main focus of this episode -- date rape. Now consider how angry Tara was before the forget spell and how cuddly she was afterward...

Compare her behavior with Warren's -- Buffy tells Warren he's a creepy guy when she finds out he programmed "feedback" into his sexbot when she displeases him -- but April was just a robot. Willow is manipulating the feelings of human being. Consider the Troika's plan to hypnotize Buffy -- is this any worse than what Willow is doing to Tara (I doubt Jonathan or Andrew would be able to take advantage of Buffy in her hypnotized state, but Warren might)?

Also, the displacement spell could have had serious side effects. What if the spell hadn't brought them back? Or what if the parallel universe was filled with fire? -- imagine all the Bronzers returning in flames. Furthermore, to shift a room full of people into an alternate dimension to find a single girl is overkill -- why not shift herself and Dawn if this spell is the only way to find her? No -- Willow is out of control. Buffy or Giles needs to intervene sometime soon.
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Tillow, 07:38:49 10/31/01 Wed
Willow is out of control. Buffy or Giles needs to intervene sometime soon.

What will they do? At this point, as far as pure power, it seems Willow is stronger than Buffy. I mean, what can Buffy do? Physically restrain her? Giles may well be capable of doing something but it seems he knows this is somethign only Willow can do. :(
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- maddog, 07:47:30 10/31/01 Wed
Well Giles isn't exactly dumb when it comes to magic...I wonder if they could do some spell that could stop Willow from using spells, like the binding spell from the movie, "The Craft".
[> [> [> [> [> Consequences for Willow? (spoilerish speculation) -- Vickie, 13:05:50 10/31/01 Wed
This is pure speculation folks, but take a close look at the preview for the musical. In the latter part of "Where Do We Go From Here?", Willow looks pretty devastated to me.

If, as the preview implies, something makes our heroes sing out the truth of their hearts, mightn't Tara learn that Willow has used magic to end their quarrel? If so, how might she react?

Tara has seemed stronger and more self-confident this year. She stutters less, offers opinions more often, axes a demon. Will she accept this abuse of her free will?

I look forward to your opinions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequences for Willow? (SPOILER!) -- CaptainPugwash, 13:16:44 10/31/01 Wed
Tara DOES find out that Willow cast that spell, and they split up as a consequence (well, that's was some episode guides are saying...)

Willow does look completely crushed; I wouldn't be surprised if she finds out about Buffy's little secret too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequences for Willow? (SPOILER!) -- Jessica, 14:47:36 11/01/01 Thu
I think it would be a good idea if Willow found out about Buffy's secret, it might make her face the consequences of her actions. If someone as to stop Willow, I think that Tara might be the person to do it. Tara as taken her place more this year and I still believe that Tara as more powers than she says she as. Her powers come from her mother and Tara as respect for everything that as to do with magic maybe her mother or herself experienced the bad consequences of a spell or something and that's why she doesn't want to abuse her powers.
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Shaglio, 08:01:52 10/31/01 Wed
"Also, the displacement spell could have had serious side effects. What if the spell hadn't brought them back? Or what if the parallel universe was filled with fire? -- imagine all the Bronzers returning in flames."

Also, she said that they wouldn't ever know it was happening to them. How long before "they won't even know it was happening" becomes "they might not know it was happening" becomes "they probably won't know it's happening" becomes "they'll know it's happening, but they won't mind" etc. This sort of rationalizing of the effects of her spells on other people could quickly send Willow on a downward spiral into no longer caring what her "victims" think or feel. This reeks of the ever growing Power and Control addiction for which Willow is heading.

And as far as the Forget spell goes, Willow violated Tara's right to an oppinion, which is a violation of Tara's free will, which is a big no-no in the world of magic. Violating someone's free will through the use of spells has serious repercussions with the Rule of Three.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Malandanza, 08:29:49 10/31/01 Wed
"And as far as the Forget spell goes, Willow violated Tara's right to an opinion, which is a violation of Tara's free will, which is a big no-no in the world of magic."

Do you suppose that this was the first instance of Willow's use of magic to alter Tara's opinion? It's the only one we've seen, but we've all wondered how Tara could go along with the resurrection spell -- what if playing with Tara's mind has become a habit?

Willow is becoming Maggie Walsh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Shaglio, 08:38:50 10/31/01 Wed
Ah yes. I sometimes forget that things go on in the Buffyverse that we don't see in the episodes. Stuff obviously happens between episodes (or even during episodes while we're seeing other people's interactions) that we, the viewers, don't get to see. Maybe Willow has been doing this sneaky stuff to Tara and other people for some time now, but this is the first time that Joss has chosen to make us aware that it is happening.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- maddog, 08:45:27 10/31/01 Wed
Don't know if any of you are Roswell fans, but it reminds me of Tess's situation from last year....only after you see Kyle go nuts do you realize she's done something to not only him, but Alex. So this storyline is entirely plausible. It could be the reason why everyone went along with the ressurection spell and only afterwards really freaked about it. Though if she were doing that then why not do the same thing to Dawn and/or Giles? With that said I think it's entirely possible that this is probably just the beginning and that they're just prepping us of more inappropriate magic use to come.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Humanitas, 09:07:28 10/31/01 Wed
I think that this is the first time. It's a general rule of theater that if we don't see it, it doesn't happen, especially something big like this. Joss wouldn't put a major turning-point for a character off screen. If he did, it would lessen the value of what we just saw.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Boxdman, 11:18:02 10/31/01 Wed
True, but it might happen more between now and next episode.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Isabel, 20:51:11 10/31/01 Wed
Maybe this was the first time, but I'm not sure I believe it. I found it extremely coincidental that Willow would have the right material spell component for the forget spell just sitting on her dresser. She didn't seem to have the "Oh, that's dried carnation in my potpourri and I want Tara to forget our fight and dried carnation is used in forgetting spells" thought process.

Maybe I expected more of a battle with her conscience from Willow, especially the first time she did that to Tara. We've been talking about physical abuse on Angel this week and someone brought up that date rape was a theme in Buffy. Willow did more than take away Tara's right to an opinion. She violated her. It was more than a betrayal of trust, Willow forced Tara to her will. Tara just doesn't know, yet.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good Point -- Malandanza, 09:21:19 11/01/01 Thu
"Maybe this was the first time, but I'm not sure I believe it. I found it extremely coincidental that Willow would have the right material spell component for the forget spell just sitting on her dresser. She didn't seem to have the 'Oh, that's dried carnation in my potpourri and I want Tara to forget our fight and dried carnation is used in forgetting spells' thought process."

I agree that the spell didn't have an impromptu feel to it -- like some of Willow's other spontaneous spells. Whether or not this was Willow's first use of the forget spell, the fact that she had the component available and had researched the spell in the first place suggest a premeditated act. If it was the first time, will Tara believe Willow (once Tara finds out the truth)? -- and should she? Willow has been lying in one form or another to each of her friends (omissions, evasions, half-truths, equivocations). Arguing against the first time use was Willow's testing of Tara to see if she were still angry -- but that might just have been a plot device for our benefit.

"We've been talking about physical abuse on Angel this week and someone brought up that date rape was a theme in Buffy. Willow did more than take away Tara's right to an opinion. She violated her. It was more than a betrayal of trust, Willow forced Tara to her will. Tara just doesn't know, yet."

You're speaking of Tara being "violated" metaphorically -- but consider how angry Tara was before the forget spell and how amorous she was afterwards. Also, remember that Willow has a habit of avoiding her conscience by seeking solace in sex (offering to have sex with Oz after Lovers Walk, consummating her relationship with Tara after a difficult conversation with Oz -- the same night Oz left town). I think that if Tara and Willow had sex after the forget spell, it would be analogous to slipping a drug into someone's drink. In other words, maybe it was not just a metaphorical rape.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- anom, 21:56:01 11/01/01 Thu
"Maybe this was the first time, but I'm not sure I believe it. I found it extremely coincidental that Willow would have the right material spell component for the forget spell just sitting on her dresser."

That occurred to me, but then I realized, they are witches, they probably keep spell-related herbs around in any case. The same ones can be used in different spells, so maybe there was a reason to have the one she used for the forgetfulness spell. Besides, wasn't Willow the one who in more innocent days wanted to come up w/"minty-fresh" combinations rather than the usual stinky ones?
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Nadya V., 08:07:35 10/31/01 Wed
Wow, the Troika and Willow really do parallel one another, don't they. I have a new theory. Considering how many times Buffy's enemies paralleled her (Spike, Faith, Glory, etc) perhaps the Troika wasn't supposed to be facing Buffy. Maybe Willow was destined to take Buffy place after "The Gift" as the PTB's point man on the Hellmouth. Buffy did call her their "Big Gun" and more or less designate Willow as her potential successor in "TG". By ressurecting Buffy, Willow may have not only robbed Buffy of heaven, but derailed her own destiny.
As for the spell at the Bronze, wouldn't one of those guiding fireflies have been easier and better. I mean Willow & Tara have used them to find people before.
Nadya V.
[> [> [> [> Re: An aside... -- Wisewoman, 11:59:41 10/31/01 Wed
Consider the Troika's plan to hypnotize Buffy -- is this any worse than what Willow is doing to Tara (I doubt Jonathan or Andrew would be able to take advantage of Buffy in her hypnotized state, but Warren might)?

None of the Troika would be able to "take advantage" of Buffy in a hypnotized state unless they'd be able to take advantage of her while unhypnotized. Hypnotized people can't be made to so something they wouldn't normally do, so unless Buffy has a well-hidden yen for one of the Buffoons, they'd be outta luck on that one!

What Willow did to Tara was much, much worse than hypnotism, and much more dangerous. She made her act against her will.
[> [> [> this is worse (spoilers for All the Way) -- anom, 09:55:42 10/31/01 Wed
What Willow did in All the Way is worse than bringing Buffy back from heaven. I don't go along w/the idea that Willow was arrogant before the resurrection spell, & she didn't assume Buffy was in a hell dimension--she just said we don't know where her spirit, her essence, went, it could be in a hell dimension. She thought she was doing something good for Buffy; even if she was wrong, her motivation was good.

But the much simpler spell to make Tara forget was something Willow did just for her own benefit. Up to then, like when she called after Tara, walking away in the Bronze, she was bothered by their argument. Now it's something she can just make go away. She's crossed the line not only by manipulating another person's mind--and not just any person, the one she supposedly loves the most!--but also by what she's done in her own mind. I agree w/Malandanza below, this is worse than what Warren did. He built a robot from scratch; she's on the way to making an actual human being into one. Tara may have forgotten for the night, but the next time Willow overuses her power, Tara will have the same reaction. How long before Willow takes the next step & just changes Tara's point of view to match hers? There was no way to know Buffy's opinion about being resurrected beforehand, but Tara's was obvious. And Willow simply changed it to save herself a little inconvenience. Remember how Tara said "If I didn't love you so much..."? Willow can make sure she does.

This is going to get a lot worse. If she'd do this to Tara, she'd do it to anyone. Or everyone. But you can't control the whole world all the time, or even your own little world. It's gonna get beyond what she can handle, & she's gonna lose it. And she could lose it all.
[> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- maddog, 06:25:16 10/31/01 Wed
We've seen this type of behavior coming since the first new episode. And I'd hope by now all those that were defending Willow won't anymore. Decorating the room, while kinda corny, wasn't so bad...but a clear indication that she's relying too much on her magic. What she was going to do in the Bronze(sifting people to another dimension for a mere few seconds) while probably not too harmful would have been way out of line. And that last stunt, that's where she officially went over the edge. She's so intent on keeping Tara happy that she's willing to manipulate her feelings with witchcraft...that's just not right.

I'm not so sure she's losing her grip on reality, though I wonder how powerful she really is and how much damage she could really do...I mean, she seems to have a spell for every occasion. She's definitely out of balance...the spells should be a help when absolutely necessary, and yet she treats them like the first resort...not the last. She has betrayed Tara's trust, first by lieing to her about that last ingredient to the spell and now by manipulating her feelings. These two aren't long for coupledom...you can just see it coming.
[> Re: What would Giles Think -- Neaux, 06:52:31 10/31/01 Wed
Tara asked Willow what Giles would think about Willow using all this magic... It seems Giles is very necessary in resolving Willow's issues.. assuming Willow doesn't put a forget spell on Giles.

If Giles leaves before this is resolved.... What will become of Willow!!!
[> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Humanitas, 09:01:49 10/31/01 Wed
I was going to start a new thread with this, but it seems that this might be a better place to put it.

Bad Willow. No Biscuit!

Let me start by saying that I am one of those folks who generally likes to see the best in people. I'll alway try to see things from their perspective, and understand their point of view. Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I've always liked Willow. She's also someone who tries to see the best in people, even when maybe she shouldn't. Plus she's a geek, to which I can certainly relate! ;) She's come at last to the point where even I have a problem, though.

Let me back up a little.

Willow comes from a place of very low self-esteem, if you'll pardon the buzz-word. She was always the wall-flower, the geek, the outcast. Even among her friends, she often was afraid to come out of her shell, for fear of being a 'spaz.' The only times she did speak out were times of emotional stress, and her outbursts had varying levels of effectiveness. She had very little sense of being able to affect the world around her,so she sought power where she could find it. It started before Buffy ever got to Sunnydale. By the time of The Harvest, Willow was already a successful hacker, having "decrypted the city council's security system." And for a time, that allowed her to contribute to the SG's efforts, in the form of research assistance that Giles, with his technophobia, couldn't provide. And that was ok, for a while.

Then she discovered magic, and, now, that was a rush! Suddenly this little girl has the power, or at least the potential, to really affect the world. Most of her early attempts are minimally effective, but she does have enough success (restoring Angel's soul, staking that vamp with a levitated pencil), to keep her going.

And keep going she does, gradually becoming stronger and stronger. She applies her mind's scientific bent to her magical studies, and starts tinkering with existing spells, trying to make them more useful. I think that's really the key, for her. How useful is the spell? Does it do what needs to be done, does it help in some way? When her intent is to help someone else, she generally does pretty well. It's when she tries to help herself, as in Something Blue, that things go wrong. That seems to be a clear principle of Buffyverse magic. Tara learned that lesson the hard way in Family, and you'd think that by now Willow would have figured it out. Doesn't look like it, though.

Starting with Bargaining, we have a Willow who is tremendously powerful, but still very afraid. I for one do not question Willow's motvations in bringing Buffy back. I think she genuinely believed the Buffy was in a Hell Dimension. Whether that was a clever bit of denial on her part or not, I couldn't say, but her concern seemed genuine to me. I also think that she believed that the world was a better place with Buffy in it, and she may very well have been correct in this belief. I never saw in her face, "I'm doing this because I can," but rather, "I'm doing this because it needs to be done." Right or wrong, that's what she believed.

So what's she afraid of? Two things: First, she has a lot of self-doubt. All her insistance that nothing will go wrong sounded like she was trying to convince herself, not that she should do it, but that she colud do it. Second, she is terrified of loosing the approval of her friends. Deep down inside, under her hip, witchy exterior, she's still the terrified geek. That's why she doesn't tell anyone about the fawn. She refers to her background directly in All The Way. What we're seeing this season is her attempting to cover up that basic fear and insecurity with magic.

As evidence of this, look at her reaction when anyone confronts her. Magic is what makes her 'cool,' so any threat to her use of magic is a threat to her sense of self. Thus, she and Giles get into an argument in Flooded. Still, to this point she has not really crossed the line in terms of her magic use. She has done nothing to deliberately harm or manipulate anyone, unless you count Glory. There are some issues with keeping secrets from her friends, but her actual magic has by-and-large been beneficial.

That brings us to All the Way. Now the plot thickens. It starts off innocently enough, with a little spell to decorate the room for Anya and Xander. Tara takes Willow to task for this. She seems to feel that gratuitous use of magic is a bad thing. I'm not sure I agree with this as a principle, but it is certainly a reasonable position. Willow's take on the situation, though, is that as long as nobody got hurt, so what if she did a little magical decorating? Also, I think, a reasonable position. Now, as we have demonstarted time after time on this board, reasonable people can disagree reasonably. It doesn't look like either Willow or Tara are willing to do that, though. For Tara, minimal use of magic seemes to be a moral principle, whereas Willow takes a pragmatic approach to the subject. I'm not sure which is right, at this point, but the two certainly clash impressively on screen.

That clash is even more apparent in The Bronze, when Tara stops Willow from shifting the crowd into another dimension. This time, there's no question but that Tara is right. The risk is clearly greater than the reward. but the way she presents it, on top of their earlier argument, pushes Willow over the line. Her old ingrained fear of rejection, of being condemned to geek-dom, takes over, and she turns to magic to "make it better." She casts a spell to make Tara forget, and in doing so directly and knowingly manipulates another human being. That is an extraordinarily selfish, if not actually evil act, and will no doubt have serious consequences down the road.

I still have hope that Willow can be redeemed, but there's going to be a hefty price to pay. I'm not one for speculation, but it's clear that there's no going back to the way things were at this point.
[> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Malandanza, 09:48:12 10/31/01 Wed
"Starting with Bargaining, we have a Willow who is tremendously powerful, but still very afraid. I for one do not question Willow's motivations in bringing Buffy back. I think she genuinely believed the Buffy was in a Hell Dimension. Whether that was a clever bit of denial on her part or not, I couldn't say, but her concern seemed genuine to me. I also think that she believed that the world was a better place with Buffy in it, and she may very well have been correct in this belief. I never saw in her face, "I'm doing this because I can," but rather, "I'm doing this because it needs to be done." Right or wrong, that's what she believed."

I tend to agree with you -- Willow was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to "save" her friend. However she kept parts of the ritual secret -- the fawn, as you mentioned, but also the specifics: that she would be tested. Tara knew about it, but Xander and Anya were surprised. Neither were they told about possible consequences -- that Buffy might be brought back "damaged" and Willow would have to destroy her (Xander needed Spike's help on this one). She also kept Spike, Giles and Dawn out of the loop. Giles, in particular, would have stopped the spell. More problematic is reconciling Tara's distaste for resurrection magic in The Body with her support for Willow in Bargaining. You dislike the idea of Willow having tampered with Tara's mind before All the Way:

"I think that this is the first time. It's a general rule of theater that if we don't see it, it doesn't happen, especially something big like this. Joss wouldn't put a major turning-point for a character off screen. If he did, it would lessen the value of what we just saw."

Okay, how about this: the plan to bring Buffy back was formed almost immediately -- while Tara was still recovering from the mind suck. She was unable to voice her objections until after the ritual had already been decided upon. Xander and Anya didn't question the ritual until it was too late, so Xander, Anya and Willow would have presented a united front that Tara might have been reluctant to confront (we don't know how long it took Tara to recover from Glory). So Tara sublimated her objections and went along with the group -- after all, she owes them some loyalty.

"That brings us to All the Way. Now the plot thickens. It starts off innocently enough, with a little spell to decorate the room for Anya and Xander. Tara takes Willow to task for this. She seems to feel that gratuitous use of magic is a bad thing"

Perhaps the argument wasn't about the use of magic to create decorations. Arguments that spring from trivial issues are usually symptoms of deeper conflicts. Tara and Willow weren't fighting about Willow's use of magic for trivial purposes; Tara was voicing her concerns that went back before the resurrection spell about Willow's use of magic in general.

"For Tara, minimal use of magic seems to be a moral principle"

Not just for Tara -- for Giles, Anya and Spike, as well. We haven't seen Anya attempt a spell since Dopplegangland and Giles uses it sparingly as well. Yet both Giles and Anya have had many more years (centuries, in Anya's case) of experience with magic. They know what they're doing -- Willow is the novice.

So what can be done about Willow? maddog suggests:

"Well Giles isn't exactly dumb when it comes to magic...I wonder if they could do some spell that could stop Willow from using spells, like the binding spell from the movie, 'The Craft'."

But what would such an attempt (assuming it was successful) do to Willow's sense of identity?

"I still have hope that Willow can be redeemed, but there's going to be a hefty price to pay. I'm not one for speculation, but it's clear that there's no going back to the way things were at this point."

[> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Brian, 09:55:35 10/31/01 Wed
All right! Willow is not evil; she's magically addicted!
[> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 09:57:35 10/31/01 Wed
Okay, how about this: the plan to bring Buffy back was formed almost immediately -- while Tara was still recovering from the mind suck. She was unable to voice her objections until after the ritual had already been decided upon.

See... I'm going to have to disagree here. I think what really happened was that even though she has a problem with ressurection spells, she was willing to make an acception where Buffy was concerned.

I think Tara realized that ressurection spells end up badly (we're putting the moral issue aside for now), but that death from a vortex of mystical energy gives a much greater chance of it actually going right. It also meant that the vortex really could have sent Buffy anywhere. I think the knowledge of those things combined with the fact that the world really does need Buffy was what lead Tara to agree.
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow's little world (spoilers for All the Way) -- Rob, 10:32:16 10/31/01 Wed
Yes, I agree. Despite what misgivings Tara might have had about a "normal" resurrection, in Buffy's case it was different. I got the impression that Tara and Willow had been discussing it for a long time, and I assume that Willow convinced Tara of the possibility of Buffy being in a hell dimension. According to Willow's theory, Buffy may not have actually "died" at all. Her spirit was stuck in a hell dimension after being separated from her body. After hearing this argument, Tara agreed to back Willow. I don't think that Willow had done a "forget" spell on Tara before this one, so it's all possible that Willow was so determined to bring Buffy back that Tara decided not to argue with her, but keep her misgivings to herself.

[> Consequences (spoilers for All the Way) -- verdantheart, 12:46:05 10/31/01 Wed
I really like the discussion here. Lots of really good points are being made. A couple more things.

About the resurrection spell: I mentioned that Willow assumed that Buffy was in a hell dimension. OK, maybe Willow thought she *could* be in a hell dimension and that was enough. But it seems that if there's a way to resurrect Buffy, there ought to be some way of locating her soul and finding out something about that state. That doesn't seem to have happened. Meanwhile we have Willow desperate to have Buffy back because she misses her and they are having a difficult time without her. Yes, Willow's in a lot of pain, and, yes, her intentions are good. But there's always the other thing. This gave Willow the opportunity to "legitimately" attempt a resurrection spell and thereby test her power.

Remember, they kept this secret from Dawn, Spike and Giles. Spike was right. Willow kept it from him because she knew that the spell might go wrong and she might have to "get rid of the results." Willow knew neither Spike nor Dawn would be able to bear that and would try to keep "Buffy" even if she were terribly damaged. She didn't tell Giles for the obvious reason, that he would try to stop her from doing the spell in the first place, for the reasons that he stated himself.

As Spike reminded Xander & Anya, magic always has consequences. The bigger the magic, the bigger the consequences. The consequences aren't just in the apparition of demons but what the use of magic does to the user of magic. Willow is not "a bad person," her intentions are good, after all. But isn't that what the road to hell is paved with? Sooner or later she's going to discover that there is indeed a price for what she's doing. It might be a pretty large bill by the time she gets it.

[> [> Just to be clear (spoilers for All the Way) -- verdantheart, 12:50:03 10/31/01 Wed
Should have stressed that Willow's taking the opportunity to test her power is something that is strictly going on subconsciously. Willow has rationalizations for what she is doing that don't always reflect the complete reasons, IMHO.
[> [> Re: Consequences (spoilers for All the Way) -- Ada, 19:14:25 11/01/01 Thu
I agree that from the beginning of the season the signs have been there indicating Willow’s descent. Bit by bit, we've been shown increasingly disturbing images of Willow as a holder (and abuser) of power.

When Willow and Tara were in The Bronze, it made me think of the many scenes involving vampires in The Bronze, and the irreverent way that the vampires view the crowd of people. They kill them or shove them aside without a second thought. To a vampire, another person's life is irrelevant—it doesn't even enter their radar screen. While vampires (and other demons) and Buffy share one thing—the power they can have over others—they differ dramatically in their attitude toward this power. Buffy (for the most part) has treated her power with respect, remaining mindful of the effect she can have on others. With (most) vampires and demons, it's the opposite. When Willow began to perform the spell to move the crowd into an alternate universe, she was not thinking of those people in The Bronze as individuals with feelings and dreams—she was seeing them as objects. It's frightening to see.

And I think we’re supposed to be frightened. The geek trio shouldn’t be taken too seriously at this point, I don’t think. They are just the comic relief until the heavy stuff starts. I don’t know what Joss has in mind for Willow this season, but I bet it will be big. One of my favorite parts about this show is that they aren’t afraid (at all) to go into the gray areas—with Angel, Giles, Faith, Spike, even Buffy, and now Willow. What capacity do we all have for good? For evil? And for everything in between?
[> Re: What are the limits of Willow's power? -- Wisewoman, 12:55:25 10/31/01 Wed
This is a question that's going to have to be dealt with, and soon.

Last season Willow was powerful enough to do serious damage to a god. This season she's powerful enough to raise the dead. Does she still fall under the category of "witch" or is she now a "god" herself?

How would the SG be able to defeat Willow if she turned against them? Why would they even attempt it, if she could alter their thinking magically so that they accepted whatever she did? Willow has to have an Achilles' Heel or she is, indeed, all-powerful. I'm hoping her weakness will be the humanity of her love for Tara and the Scoobies, but it's looking more and more as if it's going to be touch-and-go on redeeming Willow.

I don't think Buffy is strong enough to defeat Willow now. Maybe Dawn has some as-yet-undiscovered power that could be used against Willow? If not, the only hope is that the good in Willow will defeat the bad. That's the strongest thing the SG have to use against her.
[> [> Re: What are the limits of Willow's power? -- Cactus Watcher, 13:14:41 10/31/01 Wed
My guess is that it won't be so much a battle between Willow and the rest of the gang, as it will be that Willow will again try something very risky, this time with tragic consequences. I guess the Spoiler Trollops will find out about that before the rest of us. ;o)

If Buffy hadn't died at the end of last season, I'd have some of the same questions about her. She defeated that god after all. Wasn't she, too, becoming close to being a god? Now that she's back, and seems depressed, dazed and (as Giles keeps saying) not quite herself, I think, that it's safe to assume Buffy is not close to being a god, and not absurdly too strong for any challenge the writers can throw at her.
[> [> [> How strong is buffy? -- zargon, 13:36:33 10/31/01 Wed
Cactus Watcher wrote: "If Buffy hadn't died at the end of last season, I'd have some of the same questions about her. She defeated that god after all. Wasn't she, too, becoming close to being a god? Now that she's back, and seems depressed, dazed and (as Giles keeps saying) not quite herself, I think, that it's safe to assume Buffy is not close to being a god, and not absurdly too strong for any challenge the writers can throw at her."

I agree that Buffy doesn't think she's a god. I think she thinks she's the slayer, but that doesn't mean she's invulnerable, and it doesn't necessarily mean that she can stop and apocolypse by herself with her weaspons, training, or body (though that last one worked out um pretty well in The Gift; pretty well meaning success defined by apocolypse averted).

I was under the impression that it took all the SG to defeat Glory, not just Buffy alone.....Willow disoreiented her with a spell, Buffybot got in a few punches, Xander and his wrecking ball, Buffy and the Scandinavian God's hammer which Anya suggested, Buffy and the glowing ball (again I think Anya suggested it), Giles um, removing Ben from the picture and this dimension.

Whether the SG could stop Willow...ewww that's a difficult question. I would like to think for the sake of the buffyverse that the SG are up to the challenge of anything that might come their way, even if it is Willow. They are resourceful, researched, can think on their feet, are wiling to sacrifice anything to save the world (except for Buffy not wiling to give up Dawn of course...). I think they could pull it off if with nothing more than sheer determination and past history; when the stakes, uh chips are down, you find out what you're capeable of. And after all, Willow IS human. There are ways to restrain her or um take her out of the picture and this dimension....

I hope it doesn't come to this. I'd rather see the battle with Willow be one of words and angst with the biggest gun for good being Willow herself, unless of course, the Willow we knew is too far gone to be retrieved....
[> [> Re: What are the limits of Willow's power? -- Malandanza, 09:55:38 11/01/01 Thu
"How would the SG be able to defeat Willow if she turned against them?...Willow has to have an Achilles' Heel...I don't think Buffy is strong enough to defeat Willow now."

I'd like to see the Troika helping Buffy defeat Willow -- it would be nice to see a reprise of Superstar with Jonathan and Buffy working together (although in opposite roles). However, I think that Tara will be an integral part in Willow's defeat -- human weaknesses, like the Mayor said...

Then again, maybe she will reform without a fight. Remember Spike after Crush -- he found himself isolated and friendless. He "got over" the sick obsession with Buffy to a certain extent. If Willow finds herself bereft of friends, she just might mend her ways (or, at least, pretend to). Giles, Buffy and Spike are already distanced from Willow -- Tara will be as well once she finds out about the Jedi Mind Tricks Willow has been playing on her. Xander was rattled by the resurrection (Buffy digging her way out of the coffin -- I wonder what he'd think if he knew about the dreams Buffy has been having?) and Spike's suggestion that Willow knew something could go wrong and was prepared to destroy Buffy. Willow has reasonable expectation of Anya's continued "friendship" once she has estranged Xander -- which leaves Dawn. But not only has Dawn been upset by Willow's suggestion that they could end the haunting spell by undoing the resurrection spell, but she also has lived under Willow's rule for the 157 days that Buffy was dead -- Willow would be more of an authority figure than a friend.
[> [> Re: What are the limits of Willow's power? -- Ada, 19:15:49 11/01/01 Thu
Buffy could totally defeat Willow.
The show is called Buffy the Vampire Slayer after all.
I mean, come on.
Wouldn't you think.... -- Marie, 06:09:01 10/31/01 Wed
...that all the people (male and female) in Sunnydale would be wearing crosses (never mind their own personal religions)?

In the first series, it was only Buffy who ever wore this handy accessory - and she was the only one with the slayer prowess at the time; wouldn't you think the others would take a hint that these were kind of handy things to wear?

Also, why doesn't Buffy make sure her little sister wears one at all times (better safe than sorry, right?), so that if the occasion arises, like Dawn getting her first, er, kisses, all she has to do is say 'Mind holding onto this a minute?' as she passes him a cross, so that when he start smouldering, she can be sure it's the sort of smouldering she wants? If I lived there, I'd be handing them out to people like sweets - they'd be getting them for birthdays and Christmases and unbirthdays, too! I'd be embroidering them on jumpers, on the bedlinen, on the curtains....

Cordy is starting to get lessons on how to fight - shouldn't Buffy be a bit more conscious of this sort of thing with Dawn?

[> Good Points -- Cactus Watcher, 06:24:49 10/31/01 Wed
I wonder why the three Buffoons, this year, want to take over Sunnydale. They know the place is the pits. Why not take over some nice neighboring town like the one where Warren was going to school last year? Maybe it's - It may be hell, but it's home. Oh well, not everything can make sense on TV. ;o)
[> Agreed! >:[ <--- l'il vamp emoticon! -- RabidHarpy, 07:29:21 10/31/01 Wed
"...If I lived there, I'd be handing them out to people like sweets - they'd be getting them for birthdays and Christmases and unbirthdays, too! I'd be embroidering them on jumpers, on the bedlinen, on the curtains..."

LOL! Me too!
[> [> So when your teenager is going on a hot date... -- Marie, 08:54:07 10/31/01 Wed
...and you ask "You are being responsible, aren't you?" - you're not talking condoms, but crosses and vials of holy water! And that whole 'birds and bees' talk? Forget it! We need to talk about the undead now, sweetie!

Wouldn't you think some responsible adult would produce a pamphlet on the subject? 'All your teenager needs to know about things that go munch in the night'.

[> [> Crucifix Hut -- Hauptman, 08:20:36 11/01/01 Thu
But don't you think child welfare would frown on the crazy "Cross-lady" raising a child? I mean if you consider the general environment Buff already has going there: fist fights, shattered furniture, lesbians, dispatched bodies being carted out at all hours. It's not Waltons' mountain at the Summers' house. If they thought Buffy was a religious fanatic with a trunk full of battle axes they might just want to move Dawn to someplace "normal."

Then again, child welfare may already have it's hands full in Sunnydale. Kids are as likely to eat their parents whole there as stay up late. And when Darla and her baby move back and go after Angel for support, it's gonna be ugly.
[> And Giles especially...SPOILERS BtVS All the Way -- zargon, 08:55:02 10/31/01 Wed
And especially Giles! What's up with that? First he tells Buffy not to patrol on Halloween because vamps take the night off. Then, he goes out to look for Dawn in the cemetary (hello, Vamp spot anyone) armed only with a flashlight! Isn't he the one always nag, er urging Buffy to be prepared, sharpen her skills and stakes? Why didn't he take a cross or a stake? And Gee, its a good thing when Buffy showed up she brought plenty for everyone......

And yes, I was LOL over your idea that Buffy should at a minimum given Dawn a cross for protection....lovely Bday gift that....but then maybe Buffy didn't think of it because in Welcome to the Hellmouth, Buffy's not wearing a cross herself and would have been killed by Luke if it wasn't for the cross Angel thoughtfully gave her....
[> [> Re: And Giles especially...SPOILERS BtVS All the Way -- Boxdman, 11:54:51 10/31/01 Wed
Giles was off to see if he could catch up with Buffy and Spike at Spike's Crypt, that's why he was in the graveyard.
The Rules (spoilerrific!) -- Neaux, 06:58:07 10/31/01 Wed
Ok. The Rules were violated to the extreme last night!

1. the new breed of high school vamps ignored the rules of Halloween night.

2. Dawn ignored her parental rules.

3. Willow has totally ignored the rules of love??

What's going on here?? Last night's episode was totally extreme.
[> Re: The Rules (spoilerrific!) -- maddog, 08:18:20 10/31/01 Wed
The first two are kids rebelling...typical. What it has in common with Willow is the immaturity factor...they kids are rebelling, showing just how immature they are. Willow's ignoring ALL the rules and using her magic for whatever she pleases, which to me shows a lack of maturity. If you think last night's episode was extreme I think the next few are gonna really get you...cause I don't see this mini rebellion from Dawn or Willow going away any time soon.
[> Re: The Rules (spoilerrific!) -- Shaglio, 08:31:59 10/31/01 Wed
Last night's episode also shows us yet another example of Dawn's theft tendencies. I was starting to think that maybe she was a kleptomaniac, but she is conciously stealing as is evident by her bragging about it to her friends. I'm just waiting to see when this will finally erupt into a major plot in an episode. I guess the Monks made her as human as possible by giving her such an enormous vice. They probably didn't have enough power to create her flawless, which is probably a good thing. Everyone would hate/envy her for being so perfect. I'm rambling, so I'll stop here.
[> [> Re: The Rules (spoilerrific!) -- maddog, 08:37:04 10/31/01 Wed
That's a really good point...they've furthered this "stealing" thing for Dawn....makes me wonder where they're taking it. Cause with each new theft it becomes more blantantly obvious to the viewers. I just hope it wasn't leading up to her encounter with the boys last night...hopefully it's something more.
[> [> [> Dawns stealing -- Duo, 08:49:54 10/31/01 Wed
I dont know...I think its just the typical younger sibling syndrome. I was a near straight A student in skool...my lil bro was a thug. My ex girlfriend was also a straight A student, her lil sis was a snotty brat. They remind me A LOT of Buffy and Dawn, now that I think about it.
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawns stealing -- maddog, 08:54:43 10/31/01 Wed
OH, there's no doubt about it, typical younger sibling behavior...but this is a tv show...and besides, Joss tends not to make a deal about something unless it is or will eventually be of use to the storyline...that's why I'm hoping the stealing thing wasn't just so she could brag to her vamp last night.
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawns stealing -- verdantheart, 12:56:21 10/31/01 Wed
Hey! I'm the youngest of two sisters and I was the easier one! Either this isn't always true, or there are definite exceptions!
[> [> [> Foreshadowing? -- Malandanza, 08:54:07 10/31/01 Wed
That's a really good point...they've furthered this "stealing" thing for Dawn....makes me wonder where they're taking it. Cause with each new theft it becomes more blantantly obvious to the viewers. I just hope it wasn't leading up to her encounter with the boys last night...hopefully it's something more."

In the scenes from previous episodes, they showed Buffy telling Dawn that, if Dawn didn't start attending school, Child Protective Services would take her away from Buffy. What happens when Dawn gets caught by the authorities shoplifting (or worse)? Will Dawn end up in foster care?
[> [> [> [> Re: Foreshadowing? -- maddog, 08:56:55 10/31/01 Wed
Another good point...if Dawn gets caught by real authorities that could be the end of this nice little cozy household situation...especially where Buffy doesn't have a real job.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Foreshadowing? (spoilery spec) -- John Burwood, 11:26:28 10/31/01 Wed
The Dawn being taking into care scenario had occurred to me. It sounds all too probable either to happen or to be threatened. Under threat, it could be preceded by an official investigation into Buffy's fitness to be a guardian which could pose some very awkward questions - especially if it goes into her own
school record, police record, nocturnal activities etc.
On a lighter note, maybe the SG will catch her, Dawn will protest that Spike steals all the time & nobody stops him, so Spike will have to stop stealing & turn honest to set a better example.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Foreshadowing? (spoilery spec) -- random visitor, 13:46:32 10/31/01 Wed
Just a thought/ramble here:

I was thinking about Faith and how she was thought of as a psuedo-sister to Buffy. Well now you have Dawn who is an actually sister of Buffy, but both Faith and Dawn have the same inclinations: "Want, Take, Have."

I don't really know if this means anything at all, but I did think it was interesting that neither Dawn nor Faith have any problems with stealing or have a conscience about it afterward.
[> [> [> [> Re: Foreshadowing? -- Rufus, 14:05:53 10/31/01 Wed
I wonder if Dawn realizes yet that the money she took from her vampy friend in crime is blood money.....if she does...what now does she feel about stealing? I think she got a hard lesson about growing up last night. It may take awhile to see if she did learn from her mistake.
[> [> [> How long has Dawn been stealing? -- vampire hunter D, 14:45:42 10/31/01 Wed
A line from last night just came to mind: "I havn't paid for lipstick since forever." Taken one way, it could be a reference to stealing for a long time. But taken another way, she could never have paid for lipstick (in the sense that 18 month ago she didn't wear any since she was just a blob of energy in a monestary). Could this be what Dawn was indirectly refering to? If so, she could have memories of stealing since before she really existed.
[> [> [> [> Re: How long has Dawn been stealing? -- Sheri, 15:33:27 10/31/01 Wed
The way my brain works sometimes...

When Dawn said that she's been stealing "since forever," I thought for a split second that she was referring to the episode "Forever."
[> [> [> [> [> Re: How long has Dawn been stealing? -- Shaglio, 05:44:03 11/01/01 Thu
"When Dawn said that she's been stealing "since forever," I thought for a split second that she was referring to the episode "Forever.""

Which is, I'm pretty sure now, an example of Metanarration! Since "Forever" is a name of one of the episodes of a show on which Dawn is a character, if she meant it that way then she is breaking the fourth waal that WW was talking about. At least I think so.
[> [> [> [> Or it's just a teenager's general term for a length of time. -- Whisper2AScream, 10:23:18 11/01/01 Thu
Adolescents are known for being overly dramatic and extreme about issues. I think she just meant that she had been stealing for a couple of months. Plus, she wanted to impress her boyfriend-to-be, and sound more rebellious. It's the same thing as when she argued that it wasn't her first kiss. Again, trying to impress, and show-off how cool she is. Also, trying to make herself seem older as well. She was worried that the guy would think she was an immature loser otherwise.
[> [> Re: The Rules (spoilerrific!) -- carmina, 23:52:06 10/31/01 Wed
From the expression of furtive delight on Dawn's face every time she commits tis crime, I get the feeling that she steals precisely because it is so naughty. Whether or not she steals from drugstores or department stores, we know she steals from her friends. The Scooby Gang's life revolves so much around evil, I can't help but believe she looks forward to the time when her big evil is confronted by the Slayer and her Slayerettes.

Like most teenagers, she longs for emotional intensity. The encounter she is gunning for seems guaranteed to elicit dramatic responses from those she cares about.
[> Dawn's Behavior (spoilery spec) -- Wynn, 11:40:05 10/31/01 Wed
Maybe Dawn's stealing is a way to get attention. Her sister isn't a normal older sister; she is the Slayer (I know Dawn is/was a Mystical Key Thingy, but now she's a 14 year old girl. Unless she develops Slayer powers or Key related powers.) With all of the drama that Buffy has been through in the past 5 years, maybe Dawn feels overshadowed and just wants someone to pay attention to her. I'm waiting to see how this plotline develops.
What was Tara's Arguement, Really? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 09:48:18 10/31/01 Wed
Ok, shifting everyone into alternate dimension? Bad. Irresponsible. Making your girlfriend forget about a pretty serious arguement? Unforgivable.

Conjuring up decorations? Um... Not Seeing the Bad Here.

Maybe it's just me... but it seemed as though Tara wasn't mad about the instant-party-decor-spell. I think what she was really angry about was what the spell represented. It was the -principal- of the action, not the action itself. So what's Tara's arguement? That Willow's using too much magic? Well... maybe, but it's clear that she has been talking to Giles about Willow behind her back. It's possible that Giles is getting her all worked up and what would otherwise be minor concerns have developed into outright disapprovals.

Now... don't get me wrong... I do think Willow's become irrational and irresponsible with her use of magic. However... I don't see the huge harm in creating decorations with magic. I don't think that's the issue at all. I think that both Giles and Tara know something's been... off... about Willow since she cast the ressurection spell, and in light of that they're coming down on her casual use of magic.

The real problem? In my opinion? Too much too fast. Tara's been practicing witchcraft all her life, and while she's powerful she's nowhere near the level Willow's at. And Willow's only been practicing for three and a half years (counting her early flirtations in season two). I think Tara understands that true mastery of magic takes time, patience, and a certain level of spiritual morality. Tara is taking time to finesse her skills... While Willow seems to be constantly concerned with topping herself. Alright, I beat up a Hell-God. What's next? I'll undo what she did to my poor girlfriend. Alright, I raised my best friend from the dead. Yay me. Now what? (Mind you, I think her arrogance was the result of the ressurection spell... not the motive behind it).

When you're skyrocketing and reaching unbelievable new heights like Willow is, it seems like the only place to go is up. Willow's just going to try and do more and more to out-do herself.

I think Tara's fear is not Willow's overuse of magic... but Willow's attitude about overusing magic. Willow doesn't stop and think. She can move things with her mind, teleport things, kick the crap out of hell-gods, create force fields, reverse brain-suckings, communicate telepathically, raise the dead... and that's all well and good. She's done honorable deeds... but she thinks nothing of it. It's no big deal to her, and that, my friends, is what scares Tara, and Giles. Not her awesome power, but her careless attitude about her awesome power.

That's my two cents, freely given...

[> Re: What was Tara's Arguement, Really? -- Rob, 09:58:47 10/31/01 Wed
I think that the major problem with the decorations is, like you said, the principle of using magic too freely, but even more than that. Magic is a very powerful force that should not be used casually, Tara is arguing. It is one thing to use magic to better the world, and to fight vamps, demons, etc. but magic cannot fix everything. Willow seems to think it can and should. They didn't have time to make decorations for Anya and Xander's party? Poof! No biggie! Sometimes humans have incoveniences. That's just part of being human. Would it really have been so hard to run to a convenience store to pick up decorations? No, of course, not, but it would have been (pardon the pun) inconvenient. Tara thinks (and I agree) that using magic to clear up petty inconveniences is dangerous, because once you use it for one thing, you might use it for something bigger, which Willow does. Don't want your girlfriend mad at you? Poof! Erase her memory of the argument!

But I still do not think that Willow is an evil person. I think she truly believes she is doing everything for good. Buffy being dead is a bad thing, so she must fix it. Tara being mad at her is a bad thing, so she must fix it. Dawn being lost is a bad thing, so she must fix it, etc. etc. Perhaps her arrogance is clouding her judgment, but I think, in her eyes, everyone is benefitting from her magic (including Tara).

[> [> I agree with Rob -- CW, 10:14:29 10/31/01 Wed
In the Buffy universe, as Spike once said, there is always a price to be paid for magic... always.
[> [> [> Re: I agree with Rob -- DEN, 10:58:05 10/31/01 Wed
I agree that the central issue for Tara is the casual use of magic--with and without the k--as a convenience and a shortcut.For her there's an essential difference between that and using power in life-threatening emergencies. Willow doesn't see it. It also seems much clearer after this ep that as opposed to turning overtly dark, Willow is having fun--in what might almost be called a good sense--with her new set of skills and powers. She sees herself as helping people,as making them happy. That seems to have been a big part of her self image long before she met Buffy. She is confident that she can do a dimension ahift the way she used to float a pencil. And given Willow's well established attitude to confrontation of any kind, it's logical that she would use just a tiny little forgetting spell to have Tara snuggling with her again
[> [> But what about W/T floating the rose? -- sassette, 10:35:52 10/31/01 Wed
That seemed to be done just for the fun/prettiness of it, and Tara had no objections. She also taught Willow had to make the "tinkerbell light", which seems like another fun/pretty spell. I just don't see decorations as something to get pissed at Willow about, although the Bronze thing surely is.
[> [> [> Re: But what about W/T floating the rose? -- Boxdman, 11:44:32 10/31/01 Wed
Yes, Willow and Tara have shown off minor casual uses of magic before but Willow's overall attitude towards magic was not as casual back then. Nor was she as powerful. With power comes the reponsibility to use that power wisely and right now Willow is not being responsible about her magic use. This makes Tara see even casual uses of minor magic as a symtom of Willow's greater problem. Of course Willow sees it as a minor use of magic and something they have both done before so it's no big deal. Then we move to the Bronze and Willow is going to casually use major magic to do something minor (find Dawn) where, as pointed out before, she has used more minor magics to do similar things in the past.
[> [> [> Re: But what about W/T floating the rose? -- Humanitas, 11:49:29 10/31/01 Wed
I thought that the rose-floating was a symbol for the two of them working and being together. I don't mean a symbol for us, the viewers, although it certainly was that, but a symbol for the two of them, as characters. For a couple, it's often cool to do something together. I used to cook with my girlfriend, for example.
[> [> [> Maybe because on the Hellmouth conjuring decorations might conjure human eating ones? -- Charlemagne20, 23:11:49 10/31/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: Maybe because on the Hellmouth conjuring decorations might conjure human eating ones? -- Hauptman, 08:06:59 11/01/01 Thu
That is a fantastic point. Willow is playing with matches on a powder keg. Hmmm, flesh eating confetti...the horror, the horror!
[> [> [> Re: But what about W/T floating the rose? -- Whisper2AScream, 09:57:49 11/01/01 Thu
Tara also mentioned that the spell involved total focus on both their parts. While the spell is itself is pretty, it's more of a training exercise. Tara mostly wanted to do the spell because it gave her and Willow a chance to combine their powers, and see how well the two of them work together. And the tinkerbell spell's useful, it's designed to help you if you get lost. In a bad situation like that, it helps to have a little nudge in the right direction.

And as others stated, Tara's arguement is that Willow thinks of magic like it's duct tape, the ultimate problem-solver. And something that powerful is dangerous if you so carelessly toss it about. Willow's becoming dependant on magic, and letting it control her. Tara's point is that magic is a tool only, but it shouldn't be a crutch. What if Willow gets into a situation where she can't use magic? She'd be completely useless and helpless. Balance is important to Tara, and she feels that the use of magic needs to be balanced with other skills.
[> [> Being evil and doing evil -- SingedCat, 06:40:22 11/01/01 Thu
I don't think Willow is Evil. Few people who do wrong think they are. But she is corrupted by her power.

I think Spike said it best:

"That's the problem with magic-- there's always consequences."
[> I also don't see the bad there -- sassette, 10:34:33 10/31/01 Wed
I mean, I thought, from "Forever" that those kind of small spells--glamours, making teddy bears dance, floating pencils, making party decorations--were not a big deal. If I were W/T, I'd never, ever wash dishes the old fashioned way. It's not messing with the laws of nature in a serious way, or with life and death.

Forgetting spells are no doubt a bad. Resurrection and sending people to alternate universes are also bad. But party decorations seem like a really trivial thing, and something that magic could be used for.
[> [> Re: I also don't see the bad there -- Shaglio, 11:21:44 10/31/01 Wed
"If I were W/T, I'd never, ever wash dishes the old fashioned way. It's not messing with the laws of nature in a serious way, or with life and death."

I think it has to do with the attitude behind the use of magic. Using your powers to perform menial everyday tasks is the height of laziness. And laziness leads to irresponsibility, which can have dire consequences when magic is used irresponsibly.
[> [> Re: I also don't see the bad there -- celticross, 11:24:04 10/31/01 Wed
I think for Tara the issue wasn't the party decorations themselves, it was what they represented. If you're in a relationship with someone who's exhibiting a behavior that worries you, you're on edge, and the slighest quirk starts to make you freak out. If Willow had magicked up decorations for a party at this time last year, everyone would have thought it was cute and left it at that. But this is post Glory ass-kicking, Tara re-braining (is that a word?), and Buffy raising. In a very short amount of time, Willow has shown incredible power, and those party decorations, which aren't that big a deal in and of themselves become symbols. It's not that she made decorations, it's that she used magic AGAIN.
[> [> [> Homer with a gun -- Hauptman, 11:39:38 10/31/01 Wed
Good arguments guys. I think this situation reminds me of an old Simpsons episode where Homer gets a gun. Everyone is concerned with Homer's ownership of a weapon because he is Homer. By the middle of the episode, Marge and the kids hve left and he is alone in the house shooting out lightbulbs rather than turning the lights off. It's just easier to blast them out. And he is having a lot of trouble seeing why people have a problem with is new, time-saving tool.

Willow is like Homer. She has now demonstrated that she, as Buffy once called her during the Glory days, is a big gun. And making party decorations is the equivilent to turning off a light by shooting it out. They all, but especially Giles and Tara, know that Willow could kill them all with a wave of her hand, with a mis-spoken word, and it makes them nervous when she pulls out the gun.

I think it's true what they say, "Magic doesn't kill people, people kill people." And more and more, Willow is demonstrating the kind of attitude that leads to accidental shootings.

I wonder how Buffy, Xander, Anya and Dawn feel about Will's great powers? They haven't really voiced an opinion.
[> [> Re: I also don't see the bad there -- cat, 10:06:12 11/01/01 Thu
I think it's called progressive entrapment. You start out doing simple, harmless spells that really AREN'T a big deal, but doing that is also desensitizing. The use of such power becomes like an addiction...first you're just making the house pretty, then you're using magic daily for things you really could do yourself, next thing you know, you can't function without using it, and nothing else matters. We are already seeing that when Willow not only gets angry with criticism of her use of magic, but internally is in denial that there IS a problem to the point whre she disregards other people's concerns out of hand.
[> Going back to my earlier analogy... -- Solitude1056, 10:58:06 10/31/01 Wed
Each little spell is not a problem. Yeah, for most of us, having the ability to say a latin word & have a clean house. Beat that, Kenmore self-cleaning oven! But if I go back to my original analogy that Willow is getting drunk on her own power, then I can see exactly where Tara was coming from, but I can also see why Willow wouldn't or couldn't 'get' her girlfriend's message. If we posit Willow as the magickal form of an alcoholic - the kind that just can't have "just one more drink" - then the metaphor falls into place. Yes, you, me, and plenty of other folks can do one magick spell for glamour, finding someone, floating roses - we can have a drink or two, and that's that. But Willow is like the person who seems to always pick the mid-morning restaurant that serves margaritas, and then stops by a bar on the way back from lunch for "one more drink," and then happens to be near the liquor store after work so "might as well get something while we're here." None of these is necessarily suspicious - but viewed as a pattern, yeah, I wouldn't need a Giles for me to know my lover's got some issues growing.

Let's see: Willow...

- suggested magick rather than super glue to fix the lamp
- suggested magick rather than elbow grease to clean the shop
- used magick to decorate the house rather than buy decorations or just as easily go without
- suggested magick to dislocate a crowd rather than continue to look for Dawn the old-fashioned way
- used magick to silence the crowd rather than just go with Tara to a quieter place to discuss the issue

The only circumstance that, in my analogy, might measure up to "being a situation that qualifies as a drink-having situation" (say, "with dinner," as opposed to "before going back to work after lunch," if you get my meaning) would be the finding-Dawn issue... and that particular spell sounded rather risky to me. Say, anyone heard this one before? "It's okay, it's just one drink, I'm fine to drive. No, nothing's going to happen, don't you trust me?" And next thing you know, the one who raises the issues is the one getting bonked - emotionally and verbally, if not physically - for doing so, as if raising the topic is a betrayal somehow, in and of itself.

All in all, yikes, and I'll be glued to the screen for the moment Tara finds out - since I sure hope she finds out. This past week's episodes really covered the notion of violating someone else, both on AtS and BtVS...
[> [> Re: Going back to my earlier analogy... -- DEN, 11:04:48 10/31/01 Wed
I just wanted to make clear that I regard the "forgetting spell" W uses on Tara as to say the least HIGHLY objectionable for all the obvious reasons and a few that aren't--it's just that I think I understand Willow's processes ( I won't call them "reasoning,because they run far deeper). And I REALLY like the alcoholic metaphor. Willow is high on her gift, and seems to need to feed the high to sustain it.
[> [> [> Oh, I agree with you on that one -- Solitude1056, 11:17:33 10/31/01 Wed
I can groove on Willow's reasons, too. Hell, if I had the power, there'd be plenty of times in my life where the temptation would be way too strong to make someone not-be-mad with/at me. I don't think Willow's 'forgetting' spell works w/in the alcoholic metaphor - uh, would that be analogous to getting your partner drunk enough that they can't tell how drunk you are? Hmph. But anyway... yeah, Willow's usurpal of Tara's independence was pretty much over the line. Pity, cause I liked them as a couple, but that sort of behavior is thoroughly inexcuseable. Again, I'm struck by the irony that on AtS, Cordy spoke of "any woman strong enough to wear the mantle of vicious bitch" not putting up with abuse... and here we have Tara, who's hardly a "vicious bitch" but is strong - getting abuse that's just as destructive as intent-to-kill abuse. It's not death, it's a living death. Yikes.
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I agree with you on that one -- kev314, 14:01:56 10/31/01 Wed
I definitely agree that Willow is developing an addiction, but I think it's closer to a gambling addiction than alcoholism. The spell she wanted to use to find Dawn is the giveaway - we've seen her do simple locator spells before, there are probably any number of simple spells that could have located Dawn without undue risk, but she immediately picked the riskiest, most impressive method she could think of (the comparison to Homer using his gun to shoot out the lights is exactly right)

What's troubling is that the people around her are not handling the situation well at all - Tara making a big deal about the party decorations made her position seem extreme (she sounded like Darren on the old Bewitched series), giving Willow an excuse to dismiss her very legitimate arguments about Willow's reliance on magic in general. I also think Giles blew it by being so confrontational and accusatory -- that was practically guaranteed to put Willow in a defensive posture.
[> [> [> [> [> Giles & Willow -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:26:12 11/01/01 Thu
What we have in the subject relationship may be dueling neuroses.

I agree that inside hyperpowerful Willow-witch is the scared, insecure adolescent. {Reference "Restless," end of season four.] Power plus insecurity can lead to drastic problems.

But, on the other hand, Giles may still be thinking of Willow as the timid adolescent who needs the forceful guidance of a middle-aged man. The confrontation in "Flooded" is indicative. Giles reacted to Willow's action as if she was fifteen. He let himself be blinded to the implications of Willow's phenomenal power -- frankly without excuse. Had he addressed the issue as "you're an adult, I'm an adult, these are the rational reasons why what you did is problematical, let's figure out how to minimize the damage together" it would have been in character for Willow to have responded, I'm sure, much more sensibly.

As it was, by confronting Willow from the "parent/child" model, he got her back up and ensured that any future contact between the two will be edgy.

It's not impossible for Giles to adjust his side of a relationship as the other younger person matures. I think his relationship with Buffy shows this. I liked very much the example in "The Gift" -- " . . . how many apocalypses have we warded off together . . . " That was not (to me, at least) the mentor/protege or parent/child model in action; it was two old comrades who have deep respect for each other's abilities. I think Giles by then had come to see Buffy's brains, nerves and determination as those of an adult. Her judgment may not be all-the-way there but is far more than that of an adolescent. By failing to grant Willow much of the same regard (and, even with her magicolism, she's earned that) he's injured, if not destroyed, his ability to influence Willow.

I'm sure that when the catastrophe happens Giles will be well aware of the consequences of his own mistake.
[> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I agree with you on that one -- Rattletrap, 05:10:51 11/01/01 Thu
Hell, if I had the power, there'd be plenty of times in my life where the temptation would be way too strong to make someone not-be-mad with/at me. I don't think Willow's 'forgetting' spell works w/in the alcoholic metaphor - uh, would that be analogous to getting your partner drunk enough that they can't tell how drunk you are?

I think there might be an analogy here. Willow resorts to her magic rather than facing reality in all its messy and ugly complexity. This might be analogous to an alcoholic who has another drink rather than facing the consequences of sobriety. It isn't a perfect analogy, but both are feeding their addiction to avoid dealing with its consequences in the real world. Willow's vice is just a little easier to impose on someone else from without than is an alcoholic's.
[> [> [> [> [> Should we coin the term "magicolism?" -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:28:50 11/01/01 Thu
Musical Trailer Script? -- grifter, 10:07:49 10/31/01 Wed
Can somebody tell me where to find a script for the musical trailer or something like that?

Although I studied English for a semester, my skills are a little rusty and theres some lines I don´t understand...
[> Re: Musical Trailer Script? -- Solitude1056, 10:44:53 10/31/01 Wed
Buffy's singing, at the very beginning:

Life's a show, and we all play our parts
and when the music starts, we open up our hearts
it's alright, if something's come up wrong
we'll sing a happy song, and you can sing along

Then, while discussing the demons:

Giles: I've got a theory, that it's a demon, a dancing demon, no wait something isn't right there
Willow: I've got a theory, some kid is dreaming, and we're all stuck inside his wacky broadway nightmare
Xander: I've got a theory we should work this out
All: It's getting eerie, what's this cheery singing all about?
Anya: I've got a theory, it could be bunnies

Spike's lines, as someone else mentioned:

Let me rest in peace
Let me get some sleep

Everyone singing:
Dawn: Where do we go, from here
Dawn & Spike: Where do we go, from here
All: understand we'll go hand in hand, but we'll walk alone in fear
Giles: Tell me...
All: where do we go, from here; where do we go, from here.

I'm willing to bet the episode itself will be well-subtitled - if your TV's got the function, use it. That'll help.
[> [> Re: Musical Trailer Script? -- grifter, 15:11:35 10/31/01 Wed
thanks a lot, really

hmm, since I live in austria I´m more afraid that they´ll translate it to german instead of doing subtitles or something...
[> [> [> I wonder if the shooting script will have lyrics, instead... -- Solitude1056, 15:55:46 10/31/01 Wed
[> [> [> Just one semester? -- Isabel, 21:34:12 10/31/01 Wed
Your command of English is very good. I had no idea it wasn't your first language.

Songs in a foreign language are hard. I had a French teacher that used to test our listening skills by playing popular French songs. It took a lot of listening to even come close to understanding the lyrics.
[> [> [> [> Re: Just one semester? -- grifter, 02:20:07 11/01/01 Thu
Well, I learned English in school for 9 years, I meant I studied it at the university for a semester. ;)

But thanks, anyway!
EW gave this week's ep a so-so review...but said musical is AMAZING! *no spoilers* -- Rob, 11:30:23 10/31/01 Wed
"...I have seen the musical episode scheduled to air Nov. 6, and I can tell you that it rocks. It hits notes of inspiration and exhilaration that few television shows dare attempt (then again, perhaps it's because they can't). Next week's episode, my friends, is truly something special."

I have also heard it got a rave in USA Today among other places.

Can't wait!

Can't wait!

And, oh, yeah...

Can't Wait!!!


[> You & me too -- listening, 13:03:47 10/31/01 Wed

[> Re: EW gave this week's ep a so-so review...but said musical is AMAZING! *no spoilers* -- analyse, 21:08:28 10/31/01 Wed
Amazingly bad I'm sure, the singing sucks. Drew Carey sings better than that crap passing for music. How fruit, I'm sure all the little theatre majors can't wait for the cd and have sing along parties. Bleah, this used to be such a good show.

[> [> Reserving my comments... -- RabidHarpy, 06:48:13 11/01/01 Thu
I've checked out the trailer downloads for the musical and, (seeing as one of my Majors was in Vocal Music - I intent to reserve judgement until the episode airs)), I can honestly say that quality of the voices will not at all effect my overall enjoyment of this episode. Besides, that isn't what matters here, and we know better than to expect a tour-de-force broadway production like "Les Miserables". The point of the musical is that we are seeing Joss and the gang taking a risk and trying something completely new - that's where the excitement lies! This isn't "Pavarotti and Friends", (can't stand him anyways - prefer Domingo!), and, as someone mentioned further down on the board, the basis of the story revolves around some creature "enchanting" Sunnydale so that it's inhabitants must sing their innermost thoughts/desires. What if the same happened in your hometown? The enchantment is in making them sing - not making them sound like professional musicians - I, for one, am interested in discovering just who in the cast CAN sing, (and from all accounts so far, the heavy-hitters will be ASH and JM - *sigh* - ever since "Moulin Rouge", I've been a sucker for guys who can sing...!)

By the way, Xena had a musical episode where many of the characters used voice doubles - this didn't make it quite as enjoyable in my books as it could have been, (although I was glad that Lucy's voice was legit! And Kevin Smith? Don't even get me started - grrrrrowl!) Nonetheless, it was pure delight to observe the talent and versatility of the actors playing these "new" roles.

Give the musical a chance - you might be pleasantly surprised! (So long as they don't compromise the story-line for the singing!)


[> [> [> Re: Reserving my comments... -- Rob, 09:07:13 11/01/01 Thu

I agree with you on all counts, RabidHarpy. And the other thing that I keep telling people that they don't seem to get is that the quality of the singing is NOT the point. The premise of this episode is that these characters wake up and find themselves bursting into song. If that happened in the real world, most of the people would not all of a sudden have great singing voices. No, most would sound like the way SMG and Co. do. That is the brilliance of the concept: these are everyday people stuck in a musical and unable to get out! For characters in musical, singing is second-nature. On "Buffy," of course, it is not. The characters all of a sudden find themselves having to express themselves through song.

I'm fully prepared to love this episode. I doubt there's even the slimmest possibility that I won't, since already the early reviews coming in are all amazing. All the naysayers have to (1) shut up and watch the episode before judging!!! and (2) get a sense of humor and fun. This isn't meant to be a "real" musical, but a deconstruction of the musical genre...and even more than that, just for fun. And according to the early reviews, this experiment succeeds with flying colors. One review I read (I'm paraphrasing here) said that it was a bold, risky move that paid off for one of the most amazing hours of television he'd ever seen. So there! :)


[> [> [> Musicals are a different genre... -- Javoher, 22:21:41 11/01/01 Thu
I'm thinking that Joss is trying the same type of thing Woody Allen did a couple years ago (can't remember the name of the film offhand!) when he had non-singing actors sing with their real voices. It can work well, IMHO.

I don't expect this to look or feel like a normal BtVS episode. Music is meant to explain an emotional point of view, or several at once, sometimes conflicting with each other. Our characters, if they're presented the way I expect, will behave differently because they'll be wearing their hearts on their sleeves, unlike a normal episode where they rely on body language and facial movements to express their emotional points of view. This isn't to say there isn't subtlety, although musicals in general aren't big on being subtle.

[> [> [> [> "Everybody says they love me" -- Rahael, 03:03:57 11/02/01 Fri
I normally love Woody Allen films, but that particular one didn't do anything for me.

I think the problem was that Allen tried too hard to come up with a pastiche of a 1930s 1940s classic musical, and the whole thing was too self-concious for words.

Personally, I'm thinking that Joss will do better, because he actually is trying to achieve something different, and plus he is writing original music.

So as per usual from Joss, I'm expecting wit, emotional honesty and some gut wrenching passion.

[> [> [> [> [> A positive review -- Andy, 09:06:31 11/02/01 Fri
Just read a review of the musical episode over at http://hometown.aol.com/rainworks/Buffymusical_UPN.html. It has a few relatively minor spoilers giving the framework of the plot away. Seems very positive overall, with particular praise for Gellar's performance. The major criticism is that some of the actors didn't fare so well in the singing and dancing but I think that actually might bode well for the episode since it's exactly that akwardness and truthfulness that I'm most looking forward to seeing :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A positive review -- Rob, 11:01:13 11/02/01 Fri
I agree. The point of the show is not to show off the cast's singing/dancing talents. It rings more true to life that they are NOT perfect in the singing/dancing department. They are just "everyday" people who wake up and find themselves incapable of controlling their urges to sing!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> So the musical ep is a dancing bear? -- Humanitas, 11:50:49 11/02/01 Fri
Meaning that the miracle is not that the bear dances well, but that it dances at all? ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So the musical ep is a dancing bear? -- Kimberly, 12:01:58 11/02/01 Fri
O ye of little faith. Has anyone else noted that the music (at least what's in the promos) has some similarities with the Rocky Horror Picture Show? My husband pointed that out, and it's especially fitting considering that ASH was Frankenfurter in a production of it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So the musical ep is a dancing bear? -- Lunarchickk, 12:50:09 11/02/01 Fri
Interesting! What kind of similarities are you and your husband seeing? Just curious, because I used to be in a RHPS cast -- the kind that act along with the movie, not the real stage kind! -- and I hadn't really picked up on it.

I vaguely thought I had read somewhere that Joss was influenced by Sondheim's musicals, although I think I've seen the ep compared to "Rent" in terms of musical styles. (Haven't yet seen "Rent," so I can't comment)

As for my expectations, I'm firmly in the camp of those who are looking forward to characters wearing their hearts on their sleeves, more than the quality of the music. I'm just a sucker for the idea that they can't help but express themselves via song. :) I'm thinking that it'll be a great episode, if not for the technical aspects, but for the sheer guts of pulling off a Broadway-style-musical episode! That's why I love this show. They take the risks no one else does.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So the musical ep is a dancing bear? -- Humanitas, 12:55:24 11/02/01 Fri
No, I think the ep will be great, based on what I've heard in trailers thus far. I just thought that the dancing bear was what some of the other posters were getting at.

As for similarities to other shows, I think "Where do we go from here" sounds very much like something out of "Tommy."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rocky Horror Picture Show Similarities -- Kimberly, 13:01:07 11/02/01 Fri
Mostly just the sound of the music; he said that Buffy's singing reminded him of Magenta.

We're both looking forward to this as fans of musicals! Even if some of the actors don't have the best singing voices, it will be a lot of fun to see how they react (and if anyone mentions the quality of voice in the show itself (metanarration?)). In fact, his best friend, who typically cringes when we start discussing musicals (my husband has a slight tendency to burst out into song), is looking forward to this episode.

Should be loads of fun.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rocky Horror Picture Show Similarities -- Wisewoman, 13:28:57 11/02/01 Fri
I kinda felt there was a similarity between SMG's "Life's a Show" and Susan Sarandon's version of the prelude to "Toucha-toucha-toucha Touch Me," the part that goes "I was feeling done in, couldn't win..." etc.

But maybe that's just me...;o)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: So the musical ep is a dancing bear? -- Rattletrap, 13:43:16 11/02/01 Fri
That's why I love this show. They take the risks no one else does.

Ditto that, Lunarchickk. Even if I hate next week's ep. (which I doubt I will) it will be part of the reason I thoroughly respect this show. ME is continually willing to take risks and go places almost no one else will.

[> [> "How fruit?" -- Wisewoman, 11:04:26 11/01/01 Thu
I suspect you're the same poster who made the comment earlier in the week that the musical was "so gay."

You certainly have a right to your opinion on the quality of the singing, but back off on the homophobic comments. There's no audience for them here, and no tolerance.

[> [> [> Re: "How fruit?" -- Rob, 11:44:40 11/01/01 Thu
Yes, I'm sure it's the same poster. So far, I've only heard two negative comments about the musical. Both were written by a "first-time" poster, and both had homophobic comments in them. Coincidence? I think not!

As I believe I said before, this poster is no doubt a refuge from a Talkback messageboard, who likes going on other boards and making trouble. I really don't understand why people like that bother to go on websites devoted to shows that they don't like. He wrote that he didn't like the show anymore...and yet he cares enough to go out of his way to write about it! And I'm using the masculine term, because people who throw around homophobic comments like that, so casually, are usually males who are afraid of anyone or any entity (such as this show)that depict a gay relationship as normal.

As I also posted back to him last time, this is a board for intelligent conversation. We don't always agree with each other, but we respect each other. His attitude will just not cut it here.


[> [> [> [> Re: "How fruit?" -- Shaglio, 12:47:04 11/01/01 Thu
His use of the word "bleah" reminded me a lot of the other poster's random, "blah, blah." Probably the same poster judging by the eraticism of both posts.

However, I'm not really looking forward to this episode for a simple reason: I've never liked musicals. From Chitty Chitty Bang Bang to The Sound Of Music, I've always been turned off by musicals. But this is Jossian so I'll just have to put my faith in his abilities. I really hope I'm not disappointed. My roommate, who's also a Buffy fan, has already stated that he DOES NOT want to watch the musical episode. At least *I'm* going to give it a chance :)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: "How fruit?" -- grifter, 10:13:43 11/02/01 Fri
I really hate musicals, but this episode will be so much fun...to think that I´ll have to wait another year to see it tears me up...I hope there´ll be a cd or something

and the singing doesn´t sound bad at all btw...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "How fruit?" -- bible belt, 14:22:48 11/02/01 Fri
The singing doesn't sound bad at all to me either. I also wouldn't want it to be operatic or even with Celin Deon voice overs (she has an incredible voice, I don't think she's human. Any one who sings like that is a mutant or is from another planet). Not being able to sing operatic doesn’t equal bad singing, having a raspy voice doesn’t equal bad singing either. Or maybe having a bad voice doesn’t mean bad song. Anyway, I'm guessing any one who doesn't like musicals will be pleasantly surprised. This episode will most likely be as mesmerizing as Hush was, from what everyone is saying. I can’t wait to hear everyone sing its praises after it’s aired.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consider the "South Park" musical -- mm, 14:40:01 11/02/01 Fri
Nearly all the same screechy singing voices there, but what wonderfully witty and catchy songs! (The devil's power ballad, titled "Up There," and "It's easy, m'kay" are personal faves.) If it's anything like that or "Little Shop of Horrors" I'll be delighted.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Damn! I missed it... -- bb, 15:43:33 11/02/01 Fri
is that an old South Park or a recent one? I only started watching it the last couple of years, and then I still miss a lot of them because I record over them before I get around to watching them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wrong medium -- Isabel, 17:04:50 11/02/01 Fri
I think mm is referring to the movie, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut. It was like Les Miserables in grade school. And my favorite song was Blame Canada. (Sorry, Demon Cat Worshippers, it's just a song. ;) At least it didn't get stuck in my head like the song from the movie that you can't sing out loud in public. And if you've seen the movie, you know which one I'm talking about.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Damn again... -- bb, 21:38:01 11/02/01 Fri
saw the movie. All I remember about it was that Satan was gay and God was a rat. Go figure.

Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- Wisewoman, 12:39:21 10/31/01 Wed
We've had a lot of discussions on the differences between Wicca in the Realverse and Wicca in the Buffyverse and last night's episode was a major example.

Today is probably the major holiday (or holy day) in the Wiccan calendar and it means a lot more than dressing up and eating candy. In my tradition it takes days to prepare the house and myself to celebrate Samhain, which is pretty much like New Year. This year is especially significant because Samhain occurs on the night of a full moon which is also a Blue Moon (second full moon in the month). And the constellation of The Seven Sisters (the Pleiades) will be directly overhead at the same time the full moon is directly overhead, just after midnight. Full moons are used for banishing, getting rid of things you want to get rid of, to make space for the things you want to achieve and obtain. It's about as big a deal as it gets in the Wiccan world.

In last night's episode, which supposedly takes place on Samhain (Halloween) both Willow and Tara seem completely unaware of any greater significance in the celebration. The only mention made of Wicca per se is when Willow chastises the woman dressed as a traditional Wicked Witch.

Far from making any preparations, they spend the whole day helping out at The Magic Box, and then participate in the engagement party for Xander and Anya, search for Dawn, and then go to bed.

Samhain is the night of the year when "the Veil is thin," when it's easiest to cross over and to entertain the spirits of those who have died. In Mexico they celebrate by whole families having picnics at the graves of their ancestors. In my tradition we take the opportunity to honor our ancestors and ask them for guidance for the year ahead. Given that Joyce has very recently "passed over" it would have been an opportunity for the entire gang to do something to honor her, and to ritualize their grief over her loss.

Samhain doesn't seem to exist in the Buffyverse, just Halloween. That's about the biggest difference there could be in the interpretation of Wicca.

Okay, rant over. Blessed Samhain Greetings to all of you, my friends. Take a minute to honor your own loved ones who've passed over, and to spare a thought for the many who did last month. (There's nothing occult, evil, or wicked about doing that, even for fundamentalists.)

[> Merry Samhain WW! (or something to that affect...) -- Sheri, 12:53:24 10/31/01 Wed
[> Re: Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- Calluna, 13:01:09 10/31/01 Wed
I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who was disappointed in Willow and (especially) Tara not commenting on Samhain. It would have made for a much more interesting episode with Joyce's death and Buffy's death and rebirth. I can understand Willow not really paying attention. She's a little too full of her "witch power" rather than Wicca, but I've always gotten the feeling that the character of Tara was much more Wiccan. Something really should have been said.
Oh, well. Must remember that this is fiction. The media's never been too interested in accuracy when it comes to Paganism and Wicca. We should be glad that they didn't add something about Samhain, "Lord of the Dead".
Happy New Year.
[> [> Guys really don't feel bad... -- Charlemagne20, 21:08:04 10/31/01 Wed
This is a show about Buffy and the gang and not bout Wicca. If it were a Islamic character on the show I doubt we'd see them celebrating Ramadan.

Truth be told I don't spend my Christmas's celebrating Christs' birth save perhaps an hour and I'm going to be a minister...instead I hang with my family.

Maybe they had a ritual a bit or maybe they felt they're religion was better served by helping their fellow Vampire hunters.
[> Re: Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- verdantheart, 13:07:56 10/31/01 Wed
Blessed Samhain Greetings to you, too, Wisewoman. Thanks for the info. I, for one, don't know enough about Wicca.

[> Re: Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- Shaglio, 13:26:03 10/31/01 Wed
"Today is probably the major holiday (or holy day) in the Wiccan calendar and it means a lot more than dressing up and eating candy. In my tradition it takes days to prepare the house and myself to celebrate Samhain, which is pretty much like New Year. This year is especially significant because Samhain occurs on the night of a full moon which is also a Blue Moon (second full moon in the month). And the constellation of The Seven Sisters (the Pleiades) will be directly overhead at the same time the full moon is directly overhead, just after midnight. Full moons are used for banishing, getting rid of things you want to get rid of, to make space for the things you want to achieve and obtain. It's about as big a deal as it gets in the Wiccan world."

Great! I live just a couple miles away from the biggest Wiccan symbol in the US: Salem, Massachusetts. The traffic is going to be hell tonight, and there are going to be a lot of loonies around.

P.S. I'm not refering to Wiccan's as loonies, but rather those ignorant people who know nothing about it but think they do. The wanna-be's who think being Wiccan is the "in" thing to do.
[> [> Everyone has a reason for why they believe.... -- Charlemagne20, 21:20:31 10/31/01 Wed
[I'm not refering to Wiccan's as loonies, but rather those ignorant people who know nothing about it but think they do. The wanna-be's who think being Wiccan is the "in" thing to do.]

Note: Please don't feel this is on your offhand comment which was made in good taste but I'm merely using it to open the way for a rant.

See Rant below...


A wise man (me) once said "Better to believe in the trendy than to believe in nothing"

I also consider it hardly that sort of thing growing up in the Bible Belt that I do (and as a minsiter feeling called to fight the anti-forgiveness/anti-love message currently being forced down the people's throats by who I politely term "the Enemy") and simply put it does take a lot of courage to adopt any sort of belief system different than the mainstream.

Daring to be different is unguided not exactly the type of thing I advocate for a basis of religious thought about life, the universe, and everything (I had to start talking to God to develop past sillness myself) but my belief is ultimately adopting anything with sincerity will bring you closer to God if your fleeing something wrong.

While I may not aree with the princibles and hold fast to my own I recognize it's still ultimately seeking the same thing in peace and contact (Bleah that sounds sappy and sacarine doesn't it?)

I am curious about historical accuracy however, dear me what possible symbolism could Salem hold when the Witch Trials are about nonexistent witches? I suppose tolerance but it seems rather creepy to adopt such a symbol of hatred and blindness as your own.
[> Re: Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- yabyumpan, 14:36:16 10/31/01 Wed
Thanks for mentioning that, It always bothers me that the 2 supossed Witches never celebrate the major wiccan festivals.I've just got back from my regular Full Moon gathering for World Peace and Healing, where tonight we celabrated the lifting of the veil and honouring the dead played a major part, It's also the Pagan New Year and the start of a new cycle, the dead decaying into the Earth, nurishing the soil and creating new life, this was also celebrated; so a joyous Samhain to one and all, may this New Year bring peace around the Earth.
[> [> (somewhat O/T) Can anyone think of an example... -- Sheri, 15:16:45 10/31/01 Wed
In which a holiday of major importance to Judeo-Christian-Islam society gets snatched up by other religions and made into something totally different?

True, I give people Christmas presents even though I'm not Christian, but I would never say, "oh Christmas is about getting presents"--yet, I know a whole lot of people would say that Halloween is just about getting candy.

When I was a kid, my friend's mom was convinced that all non-Christians were Eeeeeeeeeevil (at the time I was a borderline atheist--so I must have been the devil incarnate to her)... I wonder what she would say if she knew that Halloween is actually a pagan holy day?
[> [> [> depends how you define it -- anom, 21:54:56 10/31/01 Wed
If Jesus of Nazareth had really been born on Dec. 25th (which he almost certainly wasn't), he would, like all Jewish baby boys (then anyway), have been circumcised on the 8th day after: Jan. 1st. Of course, the day of a circumcision isn't exactly a religious holiday in Judaism, but it's certainly of religious importance.

Some religious Xtians might say that Xmas itself has been snatched up by the "religion" of Commercialism & made into something totally different. I've known & heard of some who feel that way.

"When I was a kid, my friend's mom was convinced that all non-Christians were Eeeeeeeeeevil (at the time I was a borderline atheist--so I must have been the devil incarnate to her)... I wonder what she would say if she knew that Halloween is actually a pagan holy day?"

Again, some are aware of this & don't let their kids participate in Hallowe'en activities. Some religious Jews feel the same way, but I think more just feel "it's not our holiday" rather than any stronger reaction. This may be partly because we don't think everybody should practice our religion (just all of us. Besides, we have Purim for costumes & Simchas Torah for giving kids candy! (As for me, I've recycled Purim costumes for Hallowe'en & vice versa.)
[> [> [> [> Well Halloween means "The Day before All Hallows" or all saints day -- Charlemagne20, 23:07:58 10/31/01 Wed
You can read anything into anything and it annoys me people think harmless things are dangerous. In my opinion that's to compensate for real dangers and overlookings of problems in their religion.
[> [> You might see it as character development -- Charlemagne20, 21:13:19 10/31/01 Wed
We see Buffy and them holding crosses but never going to Church or try to contact the Vatican for that matter about the whole "demons thing". My guess is that Tara and Willow subconciously don't feel they have much in common with their fellow witches despite their Wiccan beliefs because they feel the majority of Wiccans while well intentioned don't relate to the "dark forces" in the Buffyverse.

In effect like Buffy with her cross the symbols have power and I'm sure Buffy is fond of priests who do soup kitchens.

Tara and Willow feel their time is better served fighting demons and being among those (in the scoobies) whom they have more in common with as demon hunters than their fellow Wiccans.

In effect Lovers first, Scoobies second, Witches (meaning magical users) third, Wiccans fourth.

OR you could just assume the people in Jossiverse arn't too interested in portraying Wicca as a groundbreaking religion beyond the initial "lesson" (which is that there are other religions beyond the ones encircled and well beloved characters can adopt them)

Which is my personal guess and thus renders this post the most pointless thing I've ever written

[> Happy Samhain WW! I was wondering... -- A8, 17:35:35 10/31/01 Wed
...if you could refer me to a good resource (book, preferably, but websites are good,as well) explaining in detail the important holidays and rituals of Wicca. I just finished a basic book about the history of witchcraft, but it doesn't explore modern practices in any significant detail. Browsing in the bookstores tends to be confusing since I have no idea who are considered credible authorities on the subject. Many thanks for any information you can provide.

[> [> Re: Happy Samhain WW! I was wondering... -- WW, 19:00:07 10/31/01 Wed
There's a good basic rundown on the Wheel of the Year at the following link:


There are variations in the spelling and names of some of the festivals from one tradition to another, e.g. Imbolc/Imbolg/Oimelc and Eostar/Oestara, and the Autumnal Equinox has always been called Mabon as far as I know, although this site gives it a slightly different name. The descriptions of the types of celebrations are good, though.

I've got a ton of books that I'll recommend tomorrow, or when things quiet down a little.

[> [> [> Re: Happy Samhain WW! I was wondering... -- Shaglio, 07:16:29 11/01/01 Thu
For some reason, when I try to print this page, it only prints the first 1.5 holidays and that's it. Is there another website that has a nice and accurate listing of the Wicca holidays?
[> [> [> [> Re: Wheel of the Year (O/T) -- Wisewoman, 14:18:34 11/01/01 Thu
One of the big (Internet) honchos on all things Pagan and Wiccan is Mike Nichols and his site is great, including pages for each of the eight yearly sabbats:


Alternatively, searching Google or Yahoo for "Wheel of the Year" should turn up a whole crop of sites.

[> [> [> Thanks for the jump start, although my little library is already bursting at the seams (hinges?). -- A8, 18:28:53 11/01/01 Thu
[> [> Re: Conjuring the Ancestors (O/T)...long -- Wisewoman, 08:47:12 11/02/01 Fri
I think there was a query in chat on Wednesday about the significance of ancestors on Samhain. The following is a Samhain greeting from an excellent Wiccan site called the Witches' Voice, which just about says it all.

The season's change and so do we, summer's end calls for winter's start. Samhain has arrived, giving notice that the end of summer and the rapid descent into winter is upon us. The journey from the light through the darkness, into memory both bitter and sweet, through life's hopes and dreams, into the veiled recesses of death is at hand. For it is the time of ancestors, of loved ones gone, of lives changed and events altered - it is the time of the final harvest.

World events that have transpired make this Samhain especially poignant this year, for we collectively have experienced great loss -- loss of innocence, loss of confidence, loss of sanctuary from the world's events -- an overwhelming loss of life. We find ourselves no longer armchair witnesses to world events but disinclined participants -- slammed into the real time of these events instantaneously as the first plane hit the first tower. Life has changed and so must we.

So many left this realm, that fateful day, to begin their journey through the Western gate. To be received in the arms of the Crone, there She will care for them in the loving way only a grandmother could, guiding them, healing them, rejuvenating them, preparing them to once again initiate a journey through the Eastern Gate. Through the western gate we all must pass, like a river to the ocean. Life into death, into life again, a path we all must take.

The feast we share with our ancestors will include some new participants -- although we may not be related through blood and bone, we are related in our humanity forged through the lifeline of shared events. We are no longer isolated individuals without any connection but adjoining individuals with global connections, we are all apart of the web of the life.

Yet while we begin our swift decline into the shadows of the year -- the southern hemisphere begins her rapid ascent into summer's grand illumination. Reminding us once again that through the shadows we must go -- to emerge once more in the luminous gaze of life. Life is a never-ending process, spiraling through life, into death, into life once more -- each spiral, the refinement of being, as individuals, as groups, as a collective. Even in death we find the seeds of life, in sorrow the seeds of joy, in pain the seeds of delight, in remembrance the seeds of knowledge.

Hand in hand life walks with death, as summer walks with winter, as the north journeys with the south, neither one separate and yet not unified, neither occurring without its counter. In hand with our northern Samhain is southern Beltane, which speaks to remind us that in the hand of death we will find life -- without one there cannot be the other.

Those who have touched our lives forever change us, we find that contained within a fleeting moment is eternity and in eternity is the moment. Each action, each deed, each thought ripples outward like rings on the water, each leading to another and to another forever.

Let us use these potent pivotal points in the wheel to reaffirm life in action and deed --honoring those who went before us by creating a glorious future from the past, building on their actions, their deeds, their sacrifices and their accomplishments.

To Our Blessed Ancestors, of blood or not, may we honor you with lives well lived, deeds well done, and actions well thought, for you are the foundations upon which all futures are built.

A Blessed Samhain to all!

Samhain Blessing composed by Wvox Staff Member Christina Aubin.
[> Re: Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- Aurora Duane, 21:44:07 10/31/01 Wed
I don't want to upset anyone, but it seems to me that the Buffy/Angel writers have been pretty clear that witchcraft as it exists in their universe is not at all the same as the wicca religion that is practiced in our world. Indeed, they have made the point more than once that the popular notions of wicca are strictly for wannabes in the Buffyverse. Remember the Season 4 episode where Willow goes to a campus wicca group and finds it all ridiculous? Isn't that where she and Tara met? Willow has always been rather scientific in her approach to magic (as someone argued in another recent post) -- she's trying to harness mystical forces, to find magical ways to accomplish real tasks. She has no interest in rituals that do not do anything. (In that sense, witchcraft is not a religion for her at all.) You can bet that the UC-Sunnydale wicca group was having a Samhain ritual, but Willow and Tara have figured out that Halloween (in their universe) really is just for candy and parties. It's a human invention that lampoons their world of magic that shows immediate results and monsters that really do shamble (or ride motorcycles) down the streets. They probably find it nearly as uninteresting/distasteful as Spike does, in the same way that serious believing Christians get disgusted with Santa Claus. So there is no need for our-world wiccans to get offended by "inaccuracies." The disregard that the characters show for wicca as we know it is quite knowing and intentional.
[> [> Not-so-Wiccan Witches, and politics of TV advertising -- Whisper2AScream, 08:20:47 11/01/01 Thu
True, I know some things about Wicca, and Willow certainly doesn't seem to be one. Her spells if anything suggest rituals of ceremonial (high) magickal nature. Which are more structured, and more appealing to a scientific mind-set than the more 'be one with nature' rituals that are typical to Wicca. She frequently uses spells in Latin or other 'dead' languages, and often involved complicated set-up for major spells. Smaller ones seem to be incanted via a phrase or a few. I've yet to see one ritual of her and Tara holding a Solstice ceremony. Beltaine, Yule, Samhain, none of these get a mention on the show.

Another thing, I think the writers want to downplay the possible Wiccan links on the show. They have advertisers and sponsers to keep happy, and putting a spotlight on alternate religions can endanger this. (Case in point: See the above "Question for Fellow Catholics (or anyone from a religious family)" thread.) They want to have a show with successful ratings, and be able to have interesting stories, but the less controversy the better. The show has had problems in the past (Graduation and Earshot being delayed, obvious lesbian relationship between main characters downplayed for a season). They want to expand minds, but not at the cost of alienating their sponsers which can spell disaster for the show's budget. When other shows have pushed the envelope too far, the response has been sponsers leaving and affliates pulling the show off the air. (Most recent example, Bill Maher's controversial comments on the WTC/Pentagon bombings on Politically Incorrect.) They're already in a somewhat precarious position since while their ratings are good on the network, UPN is still well behind other network TV mainstays, particularly the old "Big Three" of NBC, CBS, and ABC. They can get away with a bit more than the big networks, but still need to watch their back. I think they're emphasizing the differences of witchcraft in terms of the show's universe for exactly that reason.
[> [> [> I disagree....Joss has way too much creative control -- Charlemagne20, 09:22:47 11/01/01 Thu
Like Star Wars, Jar jar isn't going to be so much in Episode II not because he's hated by fans like oxygen is loved but because he's less so part of the Story.

Willow/Tara didn't have their relationship downplayed, in fact Joss getting around WB's stranglehold on them was done several times very cleverly to not only say they were lesbians but having a sexually active relationship

(I was one of the backlash people in the beginning and I apologize for Amber Benson and Alyson Hannigan and Joss for my comments. The fact remains I was mostly angry because I was jealous-odd I know and I felt Oz was written out of the show very badly)

In UPN they have had a kiss and rape talk so I doubt they feel the need to downplay Wiccan elements.

The fact remains however witchcraft and the religion of Wicca just like lesbianism is A SMALL part of the show. Aside from the occasional nod I don't think you can really expect that much nor is Joss going to research it very well....

I mean God sakes Jenny Calender was a Wiccan/Techno-Pagan and she was done as an Apology for Cat Madison. The only religious sentiment for mine thus far is ever prevalent crosses (less so) and Riley who I consider the scum of the Earth.
[> [> [> [> OT for Charlemagne re-Riley -- Rendyl, 11:16:19 11/01/01 Thu
Someone else may have suggested this and if so I apologize for covering old ground but you should read OnM's 1st Anniversay posting party essay on Riley. It may not change your mind about Riley but it does bring out several points of his character, personality, and circumstance that tend to get overlooked.

[> Re: Samhain in the Buffyverse (*Spoilers* for All The Way) -- Pen, 10:52:48 11/02/01 Fri
The difficulty with references to Samhaim (pro-nun-ciated Sowyn or some approximation thereof -- go figure)) can be seen just by going through these posts: it's not a well-known cultural reference, and the time it would take to explicate the issues and et ceteras would take time away from the rest of the show. While the holiday certainly predates the Christianity which appropriated it (from the Druids/Britons -- the formal institution of Wicca, as it stands, is a far more modern concept, a piecemeal reconstruction of various creeds and concepts, including Druidism.) We weren't treated to a discussion of the Catholic origins of Halloween, either, primarily because few people have ever really analyzed either the linguistics or the antecedents of the holiday (as somebody did above.) The origin of why we wear costumes (to frighten the evil spirits -- which pretty much makes fairy princesses and bunnies a bust) or why we carve jack-o-lanterns (actually, a more recent innovation, one which used to incorporate turnips) are not discussed either. The "very-special Buffy Christmas" (Amends, wasn't it?) gave no insight into Judeo-Christian issues, nor is it likely that the rabbit-as-a-fertility-symbol, Easter, and Anya's bunnyphobia will ever be explicitly conflated.
But with regards to the Willow/Tara/Wicca issue...we have little evidence, other than semantics, that either are actually Wiccan in the sense of the organized religion that is practiced by certain elements of modern society. The problem is -- and forgive me if I offend anyone, I don't intend to -- magic in the Buffyverse is a very real and present phenomenon...which cannot be said for the real world. That is to say, if it exists (I'm a skeptic, but that includes skepticism about accepted wisdom as well), it is certainly not prominent nor evident in any way that would allow us to find a direct correlation between Tara/Willow and real-life Wiccans. They are witches because they practice magic, not practitioners of magic as a element of their Wiccan beliefs. The distinction, I think, is important, especially now that Willow's going off the deep end and straight to the bottom (she's really beginning to annoy me, and has been ever since her burst of idiotic irrationality last season when she quarrelled with Tara.) Magic is the thing, not religion. The concessions to philosophical issues -- respect for nature (something Giles stresses, and he's no Wiccan or witch, so...), bring no harm, etc -- are not the exclusive domain of Wicca. They are basic values that can be addressed in sheerly humanistic or philosophical terms.
Some thoughts on Willow form the WoD -- vampire hunter D, 15:11:29 10/31/01 Wed
I was thinking of Willow's use of magic, and a quote from The Book of Shadows (a Mage: The Ascention sourcebook) regarding the use of amgic:

"Apprentices often use magick when it isn't needed. An experienced mage uses magick subtly to augment his other abilities, never to replace them. Discetion keeps Paradox and the Technocracy away."

Now, Willow has the power of an archmage, but she has the attitude of an apprentice (hence the Mickey Mouse reference). Tara has the power of an Adept, but the wisdom of an expert.

The point is that magic(k) should not be your first and only choice as a solution to a problem. And that flippent use of magic will cause serious consequences. While the Whedonverse doesn't have the Technocracy like the World of Darkness (at least, we havn't seen it yet), we have seen what looks like Paradox backlashes (which punish mages for blatant use of magic. First, was her headachs at tleporting Glory, then her weakness throwing lightning bolts at the Hellskank. And more recently we saw what looked like a paradox spirit attack them for resurrecting Buffy (and btw, there is a ressurection spell in the same book I got the above quote from).
[> What's an adept? -- Lost, 16:39:13 10/31/01 Wed
Cool post. Can you go a little more indepth with the classifications of witches/sorcerors/etc/. How many stages are there before you become an archmage (is that the highest?), and what are the power levels.
[> [> Mage the Ascension *in depth discussion* -- Charlemagne20, 21:38:57 10/31/01 Wed
Mage is a philosophy game which basically deals in a round about way with the issue of "What do you do with the power to effect your environment" and shows various Traditions/Crafts/Conventions and other names to show the various philosophies of that type of control....

"Changeling the Dreaming" is a similarly themed game but has the exact opposite (the Yin to Mage's Yang) in where a person must deal with being totally out of control over one's environment as humanity's dreams effect you as a fey and the once master becomes slave...

Metaphorically literalized as "magic"

Religion (The Akashic brotherhood who are Buddhist mages, the Celestial Choir who are mostly Judeo Christian, the Ali-Batin who are Islamic)

Technology (The Technocracy which is a 1984-2001-Empire style organization, The Sons of Ether and Virtual Adepts who are less maleovelont but more dynamic and slightly insane practioners)

and of course

Magic (The Order of Hermes as high ritualists, Verbena as a hodge podge of pagan religions/superstitions, and the Hollow Ones who are "Goth" mages more or less 'stealing' from all)

Carnality, Infernalism, and other methods work as well.

Arete which stands for of course the ancient greek word for "Glory/respect from peers/accomplisment" ranks from 1-10 and for shows basically how much a Mage can accomplish and have faith in themselves. A Mage with low arete can do little, learn little magic, and must rely heavily on magical tools (called foci which can be anything from computers to theories to sex and prayer)

1-5 is the standard level of Arete for the most part.

Apprentices are usually 1-2 level magicians who get a godlike rush out of their magic, usually because after their "awakening" to the fact anything is possible they long for more. All apprentices after they awaken (basically realize you can do ANYTHING) retreat into their own self doubts and mental blocks on ability and thus need foci..

Gaining arete is recovering it in a way.

Apprentices can move pencils, read emotions, alter feelings, etc.

Disciples who reach the 3rd level of Magical ability in some Sphere (bascially the 9 segments of reality) are full fledged mages and usually have been hunted by the Technocracy (who want all mages but them to cease to exist so only Technology-a form of magic in itself-exists and ironically they believe in Technology as Technology not magic)so that they are cautious.

These types CAN throw fireballs and alter weather and make people fall in love for a few days but for the most part they DON'T

Adepts are those who are reaching the 4th level and approaching 5th. They have had usually several years and sometimes decades (10-30 usually) to practice their craft and know the ends and ins out of it. Usually they are VERY devoted to their style of magic and become almost offended at other types of magic though they are more open minded than masters.

Masters at level 5 can cause earthquakers, travel to different universes and planets, lay plagues on Cities and in general impressive stuff like showers of Gold. Usually however they must live in altenate dimensions or are fanatically hunted by Demons, Fellow Mages (often seeking a name for themselves or working to avenge past crimes), Fellow Masters (seeking lore or to enforce their paradigm), and living on magical substances that require untold cost in human life and spirit

(The Wicked Witch of the West for instance living forever but becomming unrecognizable in composition as human and killable by water)

Often they have lived ceturies practicing tehir craft and either are "burnt out" on their paradigm or fanatical about it because they've lost faith...only a few become Archmages. Maybe one in 100 and that's out of the 1 in a thousand that become masters.

Archmages or Oracles are the "enlightened" who see past petty squabbling and that all are in the end seeking what's best for humanity. They can raise continents, change the course of human destiny, and make themselves SUPERSTARS over the Earth

but they don't as such interferes with humanity's destiny or the othes would destroy them...or they no longer have any interest in Earth/are off fighting Cthulhu

Randolf Carter's Dreamquest is a HORROFIC description of the process.

Archmages are about 6-10 in Arete though some masters have high arete...not all escape their traditions
[> [> [> Re: Mage the Ascension *in depth discussion* -- Millan, 23:41:35 10/31/01 Wed
I've played all the WoD but Mage, so it's nice to see a little bit of the details.
Do you play Vampire, the Masquerade and Werewolf, the Apocalypse as well?


"Well, I like you. You're nice and you're funny. And you don't smoke. Yeah, okay, werewolf, but that's not all the time. I mean, three days out of the month I'm not much fun to be around either."
- Willow, Phases
[> Willow the out of control Verbena -- Whisper2AScream, 08:45:20 11/01/01 Thu
Always a pleasure to see someone else who's considered this train of thought. I've posted some detailed WoD in the Buffyverse posts elsewhere before. And I agree, there have been some major Paradox moments. The spirit in "After Life's" an excellent example, and I saw the shared dreams and the First Slayer's psychic attacks in "Restless" as another example of Paradox manifesting. I've mentioned Giles as being OoH (with some CoE influence early on) Adept (or possibly disciple, he does have some powers, but he seems to dabble. Though it could be more that he's simply learned to be more cautious, especially when it comes to vulgar magick), and Jenny was a VA Adept. Willow and Tara both seemed to be Verbena, especially when Willow was getting the Vino de Madre. First thing to cross my mind when she slew the deer, and caught its blood in the vial.

As for the Technocracy, well, the Initiative certainly had the trappings of a Technocratic organization. I saw them as an Iteration X and Progenitor alliance, since they were working with advanced machinery and demon genetics. And since the Technomancy has strong ties with governments, I can easily see them getting military backing and resources to aid such a research project.

One thing we've yet to see, is anything relating to the Quiet. Though the way Willow's flagrant use of vulgar magicks, and building up some heavy-duty Paradox is going, she's either due for Quiet, or she's going turn, and become a Nephandi.
[> [> Re: Willow the out of control Verbena -- vampire hunter D, 12:18:15 11/01/01 Thu
Giles is definitely not an Awakened mage. He would be a sorceror since his power is VERY limited and seems to come from books.

Jenny might have been awakened, but her style is hard to classify. She used computers, but never seemed into the hardcore VR that the Adepts use. And the resouling spell she used was more Verbena style than anything.

And when did Willow start getting into witchcraft? I've been watching the first seasons, and havn't seen her do anything witchy yet. But I know htat by third season she had some skill. So when did it start?

Oh, I've been working on WoD conversions ofr the Buffy gang. So far I have Buffy, Faith, and Willow and am working on Tara (note:WIllow and Tara won't have the full range of abilities that thay have in the show). But I hav a problen. What clan would Angel be? I almost want to say Lasombra (due to Angelus' sadistic attitude), but even that doesn't fit.
[> [> [> Re: Willow the out of control Verbena -- Whisper2AScream, 12:40:30 11/01/01 Thu
Good point on Giles being still Sleeper. Borderline hedge magician then?
Willow seems Verbena to me, but with Hermetic influence as well, given some of the structuring of her spells, not to mention the use of ancient languages.

Not sure myself on Angel. Possibly Toreador? Definitely a bit of an artist. Saw this one fan fiction By Richard Ruth where Buffy was crossovered with Kindred the Embraced among other shows (Highlander, and later Poltergeist the Legacy), and they had Angel as Tremere. (he does have considerable magic knowledge, true. But, dunno.)
[> [> [> Re: Willow the out of control Verbena -- Ryuei, 15:59:18 11/01/01 Thu
Regarding sticking the round pegs of Buffy characters into the square holes of the WoD, I happen to think it is an amusing excercise but ultimately they really don't fit. Nevertheless, here is my interpretation:

As far as disciplines go, Spike and Angelus have only exhibited Celerity, Potence, and Fortitude. Maybe, you could argue that Angel uses Obfuscate at times. Drusilla seems to have used Dominate on Giles and Kendra. So discipline wise there is really no good fit for any of them.

But Angelus seems to a Toreador anti-tribu due to his perverse idea of artistic stalking and slaying.

Angel acts like a Toreador with his sketches and reading of existentialism and poetry and of course his devotion to t.v. and movies.

Spike seems to exemplify the Bruja anti-tribu. Though now he is acting more like a Brujah in that he seems to be on the path of reclaiming his humanity instead of reveling in his vampire state.

Drusilla is very much the Malkavian (and is there really any point of making the tribu/anti-tribu distinction with Malkavians?)

Darla seems more like a Toreador anti-tribu insofar as being the thoroughly evil seductress who uses her beauty and guile to forward her rutheless ends.

Mr. Trick (who sadly was killed off too early for such an interesting vampire) had the ambition, connections, and methodology of a Ventrue.

The Master was cast in the mould of a Nosferatu anti-tribu.

The Anointed One, however, was very much into the ceremonial occult mode of being a vampire and therefore seemed to be Tremere.

Harmony is seemingly the typical Caitiff - at the bottom of the ladder and trying to find her place in the world.

So those are just my opinions. If I were running a game and decided to steal some characters from the Jossverse, that is how I would do it. But it is only my interpretation.
[> [> Re: Willow the out of control Verbena -- Arachne, 16:05:26 11/01/01 Thu
Actually, I could see Willow going Marauder. All the comments on this board about "Willow's own little world", along with her heavy Paradox backlashes, make me suspect that perhaps Willow and Reality are going to stop talking to each other for good.

Hmmm... must write that Mage/Buffy crossover sometime...
to turn or not to turn? (*Spoilers* for AtW) -- kev314, 15:21:50 10/31/01 Wed
All the Way brought up an issue that's interested me for some time - how and why vampires decide to "turn" victims rather than simply eating them. We're told in "Lie to Me" that vamps are finicky about who they turn. As suggested last night, there appears to be some element of courtship or romance about it, and the majority of turnings that we have witnessed have involved individuals of the opposite sex in almost a boy-girl boy-girl pattern (Master-Darla, Darla-Angel, Angel-Drusilla, Drusilla-Spike). The male vampire who was turned by Angel (Penn in "Somnambulist") appears to be a sort of "little brother" or protege figure.

So do vamps ever "turn" someone without getting to know them? The vamp equivalent of a one-night stand? Or is it a big deal in vamp culture, like getting married or having children is to us?
[> Re: to turn or not to turn? (*Spoilers* for AtW) -- Sheri, 15:27:39 10/31/01 Wed
Well, I don't think the vamp who turned Harmony was looking to settle down and have some kids, well figuratively speaking (or not so figuratively speaking, if you consider Darla's unholy bundle of joy).
[> Re: to turn or not to turn? (*Spoilers* for AtW) -- Helen, 01:03:23 11/01/01 Thu
Hi guys!

Angel was "recruiting" in Go Fish, until the steroids in the athlete's blood made him push him away. He didn't seem to know that guy very well ...
[> [> Re: to turn or not to turn? (*Spoilers* for AtW) -- zargon, 07:05:03 11/01/01 Thu
It was my impression that Angelus picked people to turn based on 1) who he could torture the most (Dru) 2) who could raise the most havoc in the world (getting Dru to turn Spike) 3) who would be a prodigy for destruction (Penn).

Did Angelus turn anyone "just because"? We know he "snacked" on people, thus kiling them, but how many did he really turn? I see him as more of the wreck-havoc-and-move-on-to-the-next-town kind of guy, rather than a turn-as-many-as-possible kind of guy.
"All The Way" *spoilers* ... title musings -- Shiver, 18:54:42 10/31/01 Wed
My favorite game, see how many ways the title fits the episode. All The Way, hummmmmm :-)

Xander goes "all the way" by finally telling everyone about his and Anya's engagement. In later converations he begins to realize exactly how far "all the way" is, with talk of houses and babies and such. See Xander Panic.

Dawn's "all the way" is multi-faceted. Sure, we can focus on the obvious, her kissage in the park. But she has also gone all the way over into lying about her whereabouts, and confesses that she's been stealing things for quite a while now. The symbolism of her staking her first "boyfriend" should not be lost on us (a la Cordelia vs. Billy with taser and crossbow). See Dawn Get A Reality Check.

Tara comes "all the way" into herself, by actually challenging Willow's magic use and not being easily soothed out of anger. See Tara Grow A Spine.

Willow, dear Willow goes "all the way" into real selfishness by using her power to manipulate the memory, and therefore free will, of Tara. See Willow Workin' It.

Anya does the Dance of Capitalism "all the way" to the bank :-) See Anya Glow.

Spike makes us wonder for a second about going "all the way" with Buffy (rough and tumble anyone?) although he claims he really meant patrolling (mandrake root, hummmmm). See Spike's Sexy Smile. (atlts)
[> Re: "All The Way" *spoilers* ... title musings -- Cleanthes, 19:21:38 10/31/01 Wed
I'm not sure if this is relevant at all, but there's a Frank Sinatra tune that immediately comes into my old fogie mind that has this title.

Here's the lyric:

When somebody loves you
It's no good unless he loves you all the way
Happy to be near you
When you need someone to cheer you all the way

Taller than the tallest tree is
That's how it's got to feel
Deeper than the deep blue sea is
That's how deep it goes if it's real

When somebody needs you
It's no good unless he needs you all the way
Through the good or lean years
And for all the in-between years come what may

Who knows where the road will lead us
Only a fool would say
But if you'll let me love you
It's for sure I'm gonna love you all the way all the way

{instrumental-last two lines of CHORUS}

So, if you'll let me love you
It's for sure I'm gonna love you all the way all the way.

That's written by Sammy Cahn & Jimmy Van Heusen but I don't know which one of these is the lyricist and which the music composer.

Throughout the episode, "all the way" seems to mean "all the way to a bad end" more than all the way to sex or to some other desirable end.

Xander wants his love for Anya to fit the lyric of this song. Spike wants his love for Buffy to fit this song. Willow will take fake affection from Tara by going "all the way" into mind-rape. She needs to think whether she wants love "all the way" or whether she'll settle for the fake she's letting herself have at Tara's expense.
[> [> Re: "All The Way" *spoilers* ... title musings -- anom, 21:13:46 10/31/01 Wed
I was thinking about the song during the "Forget" scene (maybe before), but more along the lines of Tara's love not being good enough for Willow unless it was "all the way"--no doubts, no questions, no arguments. And having seen the lyrics (thanks, Cleanthes), I can see how literally they fit the scene: Willow made Tara happy to be near her, when she needed someone to cheer her. All the Way.


PS O/T: Go Yankees! 4-3 in the 10th!! Yeah!!!
[> Re: "All The Way" with Stephanie K?!! -- Neaux, 04:48:37 11/01/01 Thu
Only a select few of tortured souls would get the reference to All the Way with Stephanie K...

Let's just hope the BTVS Crew weren't really watching old episodes of Degrassi Jr High when they thought of the Title!
Shiver Me Timbers -- JBone, 20:35:03 10/31/01 Wed
Other than having a Angel from Charlie in tight shorts on roller skates (damn, what a visual), where was I going with this? Oh yes, a rough and tumble. God, I love this show. Anyhow, I'm sure there was a point here somewhere. I was glad to see Xander take the plunge into matrimony... Heh, heh, heh, I love the dance of capitalist superiority. How can you not want to marry a girl like Anya?

How about Anya (unintentionally) or Giles (very much intentionally and having too much fun) with the huge life plans for Xander and Anya. The only thing I wonder about is that Anya might be the one to cancel all plans. I really don't believe Xander would have the guts to cancel, it would have to be up to Anya for that.
[> Re: Shiver Me Timbers -- JM, 05:45:47 11/01/01 Thu
I'm not sure that Giles was just picking on Xander. I thought he sounded a little jealous. He never got the chance to have a real life, with being a Watcher and all, and it's probably too late for him to start a family. I think that this was what was hinted at in his dream in "Restless." I think that his attempts to go back to England were about this too. In "Bargaining" he said he was going to find out if he had a life.

Great show. I don't think there's anymore doubt whether Xander loves Anya. That look on his face while he's watching her dance. It'll be interesting to see whether they go through with this. You can love someone, very much want to be married, and still be scared of the whole process. Not logical, but real.
new buffy puns -- anom, 22:51:36 10/31/01 Wed
The pun watch continues! In All the Way, Buffy gets 2 of them. First she tells Xander-the-Pirate that if he had a wooden leg he'd actually be lame instead of having a lame costume (that pun's a little lame itself, to me at least). Then, on the porch outside the party, Xander-the-Husband-to-Be starts to head inside, saying, "Once more into the breach?" & Buffy answers, "No, I think my breeches are wearing a little thin."
[> Phonological juxtoposition -- Rahael, 03:20:20 11/01/01 Thu
Something I came across on the British Embassy website..thought someone might be interested!!

"Scientists, not as a group thought of as the world's greatest comedians, have recently probed the human brain in a bid to find out how people "get" (understand) jokes. Researchers from the Institute of Neurology in London carried out brain scans of volunteers as they listened to two types of joke. The participants rated how amusing they found the jokes by using a "funniness scale". But to ensure the experiment was conducted seriously, and prevent jogging of the scanner, they were asked not to laugh. Sixty jokes were tested on the 14 volunteers. Half were semantic jokes, one example being: "What do engineers use for birth control? Their personalities". The others were phonological jokes based on puns, such as: "Why did the golfer wear two sets of pants? He got a hole in one''. The scientists, Dr Raymond Dolan and Dr Vinod Goel, used a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging which can show which parts of the brain are active at different times. When the volunteers heard semantic jokes, parts of their brains involved in the processing of language were found to be activated.

Puns, on the other hand, triggered areas that deal with speech production. For both types of joke, the scans showed activation in an area of the brain called the medial ventral prefrontal cortex (MVPFC), known to govern reward-related behaviour. Activation in this region correlated with the funniness ratings. The funnier a joke was perceived to be, the more the brain's reward centre was stimulated. The scientists, who reported their findings in the journal Nature Neuroscience, said successful jokes involved a cognitive juxtaposition of mental sets followed by an "affective feeling of amusement". They added: "Semantic juxtaposition uses a bilateral temporal-lobe network, whereas phonological juxtaposition uses a left-hemisphere network centred around speech- production regions. The affective appreciation of humour involves access to a central reward system in MVPFC." "
[> [> Facinating... -- Humanitas, 12:13:47 11/01/01 Thu
...but what's that last bit mean in English? ;)
[> [> [> I understood it. Should I be worried? -- Tanker, 14:36:40 11/01/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> Not worried..but perhaps kind enough to explain it to me ? -- Rahael, 16:07:38 11/01/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> I'll try -- Tanker, 18:14:53 11/01/01 Thu
Regular jokes and puns trigger different areas of the brain. Puns, in particular, use the left-brain areas associated with speech. However, both types of humor meet up in that mid-pre-frontal-cortex thingy, or whatever it was, that's involved with "rewards," i.e. making you feel good (your brain floods itself with happy-juice if the right conditions are met, I believe is how it works). In other words, the joke is analyzed by one part of your brain, and the results are sent to another part to see if it qualifies as "funny." If it does, you go "Ha ha." Does that help?
[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Humanitas, 11:56:58 11/02/01 Fri
Hey, Dedalus and mundus, can we get Tanker appointed Translator for the Scientificaly-Impaired? :)
[> [> Re: Buffy really gets me in the MVPFC. :-) -- bible belt, 15:43:00 11/01/01 Thu

Current board | November 2001