October 2001 posts
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/.
-d
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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.
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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"
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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
JoRus
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.
-Charlemagne
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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)
or
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.
Examples:
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!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> 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!!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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."
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> 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?
Sweet.
--reina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> 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
--reina
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> 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 ...)
vh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> 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 opin