October 2001 posts
Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 09:31:21 10/10/01 Wed
Everyone seems to be pointing to the darkness that occasionally covers Willow's eyes when she works her magic as a sign that she's "slowly heading over to the other side." I've never thought this was true. Since when does black equal bad? Willow's been refering to what she does as "the Black Arts" ever since she started out. We don't need to take this as something evil.
Black can mean something hidden, or secret. It can also symbolize great strength and power... not necessarily of the evil kind. When Will's eyes get dark I always picture her as channeling some pretty intense, primal forces. But again, just because those forces are primal and intense does not mean that they're evil, or wrong in any way.
Yes, the first time her eyes went black was when she cracked open that book on dark magic. But her eyes were also black when she threw up that shield to protect everyone from the Knights of Byzantium.
~Sponge
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Thank you! Darkness != evil (necessarily) -- Vickie, 10:02:31 10/10/01 Wed
Thanks for pointing out that dark magic is not necessarily evil. I have been thinking this for a while, but haven't come up with the right words to make the point.
In Longing for Darkness: Tara and the Black Madonna, China Galland talks about how the darker, earthier, feminine powers have been pushed away in the West. In Christianity in particular, images of dark faced women exist but are given no reasonable explanation. Yet these Black Madonnas enjoy great veneration. In the Hindu and Buddhist faiths, similar images are accepted representations of spirit.
Carl Jung talks of the shadow self, the "dark" denied side of all of us that must be accepted for an individual to attain true integration. This dark side is not always the bad part of us. If we deny that we are competent in some way, that competence becomes part of the shadow as well.
Maybe Willow is beginning to integrate this darker side. Certainly there is danger in doing so; she may lose her way for a while and do things she shouldn't. But she may come out of it fuller, clearer, and more complete.
Just my thoughts, gang. Run with it and show me where I'm wrong. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- rowan, 10:04:09 10/10/01 Wed
The black eyes are an ambiguous image. Katherine Madison's eyes went black when she fought against Buffy, Amy, and Giles. Her magic was hurtful and an attempt to totally destroy Amy's free will and right to exist as her own person (as well as an outright attempt to kill Buffy). Willow's go black as well, but her magic isn't always corresponding 'bad.'
I think you're right to say that the black eyes symbolize the assumption of great strength and power. The use of this power can be of the good or of the bad (to use those very loaded terms). I guess the question everyone's struggling with this season is, are we seeing some change in Willow's use?
The most disturbing thing to me in the scene (in terms of potential 'ominious' foreshadowing) was that Willow stopped chanting with Tara, broke the link by dropping her hands, and then proceeded to complete the spell herself. She chose to finish alone, rather than together. She's taking a road she can only go alone.
This contrasts with Buffy, who unlike other Slayers, has travelled her road with her friends, and as a result, has seen a corresponding increase in her power, happiness, and safety as a result.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Sebastian, 11:43:00 10/10/01 Wed
I've always got the impression that in the Buffyverse - "black eyes" meant that the person was using the spell for maleveolent purposes or from a dark source.
Giles and Willow have both been shown to cast spells and thier eyes would not go black. And those were times that the spells were used for positive purposes (fighting Catherine Madison, exorcising the poltergeist from Sunnydale HSA, restoring Angel's soul).
But the times when person did have black eyes - it was because the nature of the spell or the intent was bad (once again, Catherine Madison, Amy turning Buffy into a rat, Willow using the Darkest Magick book to fight Glory, etc).
Someone also mentioned that although Will's eyes go black to fight the Knights of Byzantium - she was using it for good. If I'm not mistaken, was shoe not *using* the Darkest Magick book, tho? I do remember her ahving a book in her lap when she did that "raise the wall" spell - I had always assumed it was the same book - because they brought it with them to fight Glory if she did track them down during thier exodus.
And once again, last night, her eyes went black when she broke apart from Tara from to cast the spell.
Two more things. The music they used when Willow broke from Tara is the EXACT same music used when she fought Glory (sort of creepy East Indian music). And note she was using some pretty dark stuff to try to spill some GloryBlood.
ALSO - in the shooting script for "Bargaining" - it says that Willow's eyes go black when she does the "obscure" (the face gloop) and "fragile" (saving Tara from Razor) spell when they are fighting him in Part 2 - but in the show it didn't happen. Although they did not used the effect - I find it interesting it was *supposed* to happen.
I'm thinking the balck eyes is supposed to be a harbinger of bad mojo for Will.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 13:29:04 10/10/01 Wed
Someone also mentioned that although Will's eyes go black to fight the Knights of Byzantium - she was using it for good. If I'm not mistaken, was shoe not *using* the Darkest Magick book, tho?
You actually are mistaken. The "Darkest Magick" book had a black leather cover. The one she used against the Knights was brown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Sebastian, 14:17:32 10/10/01 Wed
>>The "Darkest Magick" book had a black leather cover. The one she used against the Knights was brown.>>
Well. *shrugs* Points for trying, at least. :)
Regardless of whatever book it was she used, it would seem that the change in eye color does not bode well for Will.
Just my thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Astarte, 14:32:31 10/10/01 Wed
The meaning if black eyes during magic in the Buffyverse has always confused me. I think there is a good point to be made that they represent the usage of "darker" or more morally ambiguous magics. Think about the first way we were even introduced to magic with Katherine Madison. (Not the most positive portrayal I might add). All her magic was essentially "black." However, even though both Amy and Willow have also manifested black eyes, the level of manevolence in their spells has never reached the same level as Catherine Madison. Generally speaking, they were either for an ultimately "good" or "grey" purpose.
Therefore, I'm beginning to think that black eyes merely signify powerful witchcraft in the Buffyverse. Perhaps the moral is that the more powerful you are in your use of magic, the more easily blurred the line between good and evil becomes. Someone else made the point on this thread that the power/magic itself has no morality, but the actions or intentions of the user create good and bad. However, one could make the generalization that the more power you have, the more difficult it is to clearly see the moral implications of your actions. (In other words, power corrupts.) I'm just curious to see if Willow has the moral foundation and grouding to deal with her newfound level of power.
[Completely off topic, but I've been lurking here for a while now and I am happy to say this is my first post here. This message board is fantastic. Finally someplace to talk about the interesting issues relating to "Buffy" and "Angel" instead of the normal "Isn't so-and-so hot?" stuff you get elsewhere.]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> I've been waiting for someone to mention... -- Solitude1056, 17:21:24 10/10/01 Wed
That Doc's eyes *also* went black, and he wasn't even performing magick (as far as I could tell) at that point. How does he fit in there? Can eyes-go-black for reasons other than doing magick of little or great power?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I've been waiting for someone to mention... -- Lucifer_Sponge, 18:32:38 10/10/01 Wed
I hadn't even thought of that. I, personally, think it was just a physical characteristic of his species... sort of a way to show that he wasn't human... just the way his tail did... which, by the way, brings me to another question... Did anyone actually -see- his tail in Weight of the World or The Gift?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I've been waiting for someone to mention... Where is Doc anyways? -- vulpes, 02:20:04 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Humanitas, 17:31:00 10/10/01 Wed
Let me welcome you to the board by taking issue (in a friendly way, of course) with one of your points:
"However, even though both Amy and Willow have also manifested black eyes, the level of manevolence in their spells has never reached the same level as Catherine Madison."
I'd say that Willow's onslaught on Glory was pretty malevolent, wouldn't you? Granted, there is no question that Glory earned every ounce of pain inflicted on her (at least, not in my mind), but still, intent to harm is intent to harm, isn't it?
That said, I think your point about power obscuring the moral boundaries is well put, and well taken. Again, weclome, and thanks for joining the conversation. :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Why Willow's eyes are black... -- Shaglio, 06:25:48 10/11/01 Thu
"Therefore, I'm beginning to think that black eyes merely signify powerful witchcraft in the Buffyverse."
This is a theory that many here are proposing, however I'm not so sure I believe it just yet. I can think of two significant instances that Willow has performed extremely powerful magic without her eyes changing to black:
2) The recently performed resurection spell to bring Buffy back.
1) The spell in which she linked with Giles, Xander, and Buffy to give Buffy extra strength to defeat Adam.
These were two of the most "powerful" spells I've seen Willow do and I don't recall seeing her eyes go black in either of them. Unfortunately, I don't have either episode on tape so I'm relying on my shoddy memory; maybe someone could help confirm these facts for me :) (It's pretty sad that I can't even remember a scene from an episode two weeks ago)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Breaking the link with Tara and Willow evil... -- Moose, 15:04:16 10/10/01 Wed
I think Willow broke the link with Tara because she didn't need her to finish the spell. Willow is able to draw on vast amounts of power at will now. This doesn't bode good.
The black eyes seem to be a sign of power more than of evil. However, power corrupts and Willow has shown that she will do anything when she is emotionally distraught. Not good.
She has too much power and too little wisdom to use it wisely. Tara is rightfully afraid of that power and the consequences. Willow doesn't have a concern in the world about it.
Even when she found out she created a demon, she wasn't alarmed. I mean come on! She created evil! But instead she is only concerned with killing it, not evaluating if what she did was the right thing.
The rest of them are beginning to understand. Xander knows though he won't admit it. Tara knows better than anyone but I doubt she will have the courage to confront Willow. Who knows what would happen if Tara left? What lengths would Willow go to?
I also think it is telling that she left Spike and Giles out of the resurrection loop. She knew those two wouldn't have so easily gone ahead with her plan. She manipulated Xander and Tara into doing it and Willow ignores anything from Anya.
Willow has gone done the path of easy power and selfish desire masked as good intentions. Whatever the big bad ugly is this year, the worst may very well be our red-headed witch.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Breaking the link with Tara and Willow evil... -- Astarte, 19:56:17 10/10/01 Wed
Perhaps Willow broke the link because she realizes that she's been crossing the line lately and she doesn't want Tara to be a part of it and suffer the same consequences she will. (This could have also been her motivation for not including Willow in the "wine of the mother" ritual with the deer.)
Actually, the spellcasting scene in "Afterlife" reminded me most of Willow's first serious forray into magic with Ange's soul restoration spell in S2. As with that incident, it almost seemed like something else "possessed" Willow and that she wasn't completely herself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Breaking the link with Tara and Willow evil... -- zilla, 09:38:18 10/11/01 Thu
I think we are going to see some serious headbutting between Willow and the rest of the SG. Her decision to leave Giles and Spike out of the loop was definately deliberate. I hope we find out all of the consequences of bringing Buffy back. Spike mentioned tht with magic there are always consequences and I doubt that demon was the only one.
Family Ties -- rowan, 09:56:55 10/10/01 Wed
First, wow! Last night's episode provided all the emotional impact you could want from Buffy's resurrection, didn't it? I was glued to the screen watching the subtle nuances of SMG and JM's performances, as well as the frenetic energy conveyed by AH.
I think we're starting to see indications about how some of this seasons' major themes will play out. BtVS has always been a show about family -- what it is, how you get one, and what it means to be in one. For so long now, we've had the SG established as part of Buffy's core emotional family. It seems as if that relationship will undergo some evolution this season.
Here are some interesting things we saw last night:
1. Spike tells Buffy that "we" (he and Dawn) will take care of her. They form almost (as one insightful person suggested on BAPS) a wedding picture with Spike holding her injured hands, the two of them facing each other, and he in black to Buffy's white. Dawn, their symbolic child, arrives with the medicine and bandages (things that bind and heal). This seemed almost like a moment of vows and sacred promises, Spike's promise 'to protect her' lingering in the air as the whole scene eerily paralleled their last encounter in The Gift.
The Dawn/Spike/Buffy scene, with its low, almost reverential energy, contrasts sharply with the arrival of the SG. Yes, they care too, but their energy seems to almost drain Buffy by comparison.
2. Dawn tells the SG to "back off" twice as their whirlwind of concern threatens to send Buffy back into her shell in the first scenes. In particular, after she hears their questions to Buffy, Dawn turns to Willow and asks what she has done. Later, in the Magic Box as the nature of the demon is revealed with its risk to Buffy, Dawn (with seemingly little provocation) tells Willow she can't keep messing with people the way she does.
3. During the demon possessions, Buffy and Dawn's possessions are the ones which are targeted at Willow's secret and the true nature of the spell. By contrast, Anya and Xander's possesions are creepy, but not as specifically revealing.
4. Spike makes a creepy and ambiguous remark about Buffy never knowing 'who has a knife at her back.' Is this foreshadowing some type of backstabbing or betrayal of Buffy? Is this meant to convey Spike's ability to betray her? Or is it foreshadowing Willow? He then follows up with a seemingly offhand remark about Willow's power -- a common theme with him since at least S5.
5. Spike's speech to Xander outside the Summers house is interesting for lots of reasons, but there's one small thing that jumps out. Spike identifies Willow as the one who knew the potential outcomes and hid the truth as a result; he identifies himself as the one 'who can figure things out' even if Xander can't. Spike is Willow's opposite in this scene.
6. Of course, we also have Buffy confiding a secret to Spike which can 'never' be revealed to 'them' -- and does them refer to everyone else, or to those who participated in the spell? It will be interesting to see if Buffy ever tells Giles, for example.
Part of 'growing up' is how we both define ourselves in relationship to others and how we differentiate ourselves in relationship to others. In the first five seasons of BtVS, we've seen the SG move through adolescence. They differentiated themselves from their parents through the formation of loving and nurturing bonds with friends.
Now the next step comes. The friendships must evolve as each differentiates themselves from their friends by forming their own spousal/parental units. Last season, Willow and Tara began living together and formed their unit. Xander and Anya have gotten engaged and formed their unit. Now we appear to be seeing Buffy, Spike, and Dawn form a unit. Giles returns to England to 'get a life' but also may retain his ties to Buffy's family unit. Their friendships appear to be on the way to being tested as this next stage begins, all set against the backdrop of the 'consequences' of the resurrection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> After Life Spoilers Above -- rowan, 11:55:21 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow the Matriarch (spoilers) -- mundusmundi, 13:24:43 10/10/01 Wed
I concur. Another thought (one that may've been mentioned already; I haven't checked all the threads) is that Willow is putting herself in the position as the "mother-figure" of the SG. At the end of last season, it was Buffy who had essentially taken Joyce's place and become the matriarch, specifically for Dawn and generally for the SG entire. Now we're seeing Wil usurping that title, symbolized through her sleeping in Joyce's bed, through her power over the Buffybot (who's "programmed" to come to her), etc. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that Buffy and Willow are headed for a battle royale by season's end over the matriarchy that is the Scooby Gang.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Buffy vs. Willow as mothers -- Kerri, 14:26:18 10/10/01 Wed
Yes, Buffy made mistakes when she took on the responsibility of caring for Dawn(in Forever and Toough Love) but everything she did was for Dawn. Buffy's comment in Tough Love that "she has Dawn's life." foreshadows her ultimate gift to Dawn, herself, and the world. Buffy's acts seemed to always be self-less. When she came back in Barghaining her love for Dawn, Dawn needing her, is what made Buffy accept her life again.
Willow, on the other hand, acted selfishly. She assumes the role of Buffy's mother, in effect "giuving birth" to her. She brough Buffy back with no regard for Buffy's wishes-Buffy even says that she was ripped out of heaven by her friends. Willow brings Buffy back more for herself than for Buffy, and expects that she should be thanked.
Buffy finds her family-relies on them-becomes one with them. Willow pulls away-symbolised by dropping Tara's hands during the spell. Buffy finds herself through her family-they beome her strength. Willow is headed for trouble.
As rowan pointed out Buffy, Spike, and Dawn have become a sort of family within themselves-and this new dynamic that is exceptionally interesting to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy vs. Willow as mothers -- Rahael, 15:08:11 10/10/01 Wed
This is a great thread, with great insights!
Perhaps someone has already pointed out the strong analogy with childbirth - Buffy is ripped out of a warm, peaceful loving place, into a hellish world full of noise and pain. Moreover, she had to physically fight her way out of the coffin, again echoing the baby's painful progress to the outside world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy in mom clothes -- Olwen, 15:53:44 10/10/01 Wed
The analysis of the family dynamic is very thought provoking.
Did anyone else have a reaction to the costuming choices for Buffy in this ep? She was buried in black, but Dawn dresses her in white for innocence/purity for her scene with Spike. The next day when we see her in shades of taupe, I almost thought it was Joyce coming out of the house. Are we going to see Buffy in fewer skintight get-ups? Is Dawn going to take over that role with her little blue jean mini skirt?
I also want to know if there will be a continuation of Dawn’s crush on Spike. At this point it would be kind of like an Electra complex.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Electra complex? -- d'Herblay, 16:06:07 10/10/01 Wed
For Dawn to be Electra, wouldn't Buffy have to dust Spike first? And who would be Cassandra? (Ok, now I'm shipping with Euripedes. Must . . . lower . . . TTMQ.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Electra complex? -- Olwen, 16:30:49 10/10/01 Wed
I'm not talking about Electra the play. I'm talking about Freud. The female version of the oedipus complex. Freud sees all motivation coming from Id based physical/emotional need. Does Dawn, on some subconcious level, want Buffy dead so she can sleep with Spike, who is the male role modle in her life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, I got the Freud bit--I'm just being loopy -- d'Herblay, 16:35:40 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> couple of objections -- anom, 22:43:02 10/10/01 Wed
"Willow brings Buffy back more for herself than for Buffy, and expects that she should be thanked."
Willow never says she expects or wants to be thanked--that was Tara's comment, & I didn't see Willow as completely agreeing w/it--her response seemed noncommital. What Willow said was that she thought Buffy would be happy--nothing selfish about that.
"Willow pulls away--symbolised by dropping Tara's hands during the spell."
Again, I had the strong impression that this was something that happened rather than something Willow did on purpose. When she stops saying the spell along w/Tara & Tara calls her name, Willow looks barely conscious. It didn't look like she actively let go of Tara's hands--more like the strength went out of her & she couldn't hold on. It was almost like something else took over when her eyes went black & she said "Solid." (I used to like those 1-word spells--"Separate." "Thicken."--but that one was chilling.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow the Matriarch (spoilers) -- Lunarchickk, 19:55:01 10/10/01 Wed
Willow as Matriarch... what an interesting concept. There are a lot of symbols in Bargaining and AfterLife that point to this, particularly when Dawn is walking Buffy through the house. The dining room is the same, says Dawn; except for Willow's notebook computer, which occupies Joyce's former spot at the head of the table. Willow and Tara have taken over Joyce's room, and in the morning (in Bargaining) we see Willow fussing over Dawn, in a quasi-motherly, quasi-where-are-my-shoes way. Willow takes care to make sure no one tells Dawn (or Spike) about the spell to bring back Buffy. In the graveyard, Willow sends telepathic messages to the group to help them form one collective group. And, of course, the "Boss of Us" scene (we voted, you made her a plaque...).
Is she a good matriarch? I think Willow is always questioning herself, as when she tells Buffy that Giles is coming back -- "I'm a poor substitute." If she really thought (at least at this point in the season) that she was the one who should be in charge, I don't think she ever would have brought Buffy back. Willow worries for her friend, who could be in hell, and seems to believe that the only way to right things is to bring Buffy back.
A battle royale between Buffy and Willow? Could be.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow the Matriarch (spoilers) -- Rattletrap, 04:31:51 10/11/01 Thu
Willow's transition to matriarch started by the middle of last season. After Riley left, she basically became Buffy's second-in-command, Willow also took charge when Buffy went into her catatonic state in WotW. This is something of a shift, because in seasons 2 and 3 it was frequently Xander, because of his military knowledge (Innocence, GD1&2), that Buffy went to for additional help.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Good observations! -- Dichotomy, 13:28:19 10/10/01 Wed
After only 3 eps, I'm becoming more and more intrigued about the consequences Buffy's resurrection will have this season.Everyone's observations and speculations have been very interesting and thought provoking.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Very eloquent, rowan - excellent comments. -- OnM, 21:59:25 10/10/01 Wed
Particularly liked #1 - didn't catch that reference, but I think you're absolutely right.
I'm wondering too whether Buffy will tell Giles - maybe not at first, but the moment may come. Who else is there that is still a parent figure to her? She made the comment that she 'missed him'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Very eloquent, rowan - excellent comments. -- Rufus, 22:18:12 10/10/01 Wed
Remember the look in Buffys face when she said she missed Giles...like she needed to tell him something. Could it be to tell him about where she had been, to make him feel better about her loss? The lonliness of not being able to tell how you really feel to anyone, not Dawn, not her friends....finally settling on the only other being that knows what torment is. I don't think even Spike was prepared to hear that Buffys torment is to be in this world, dragged here by her friends. How to tell Giles that his books were wrong, the world started as a hell and we only manicured it's gardens giving it the appearence of order and peace. I say there be a major rewrite of some of the texts Giles has in his collection.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> So true, Rufus. -- rowan, 10:50:15 10/11/01 Thu
It seems sometimes as if everything recorded in the archives of the CoW is only a flawed understanding of the real truths. Part of Giles's journey has been to learn that. I was very struck by his guilt and sarcasm in Bargaining when he perceived he had 'done his job' by 'getting his Slayer killed.' I'll watch with interest to see what Giles makes of his new life in England.
What's left to give? (spoiler) -- Tower, 10:08:06 10/10/01 Wed
If we look at the history of Buffy, she’s given up everything to commit herself to the responsibility of the slayer. As the show began, she’s lost her friends and social life in Los Angeles, sacrificed her new beginning in Sunnydale and went forth to take her burden again. That her social life and education suffer to her responsibilities as the Slayer are continuing themes all through the show. She went willingly to lay down her life, as prophesized, to stop the Master. In season 2, she lost friends in the battle, destroyed her mothers hope of a "normal" daughter and plunged the love of her life into hell. In season 3, she gave up her newfound freedom for the life of the slayer to return to Sunnydale and sacrificed her prom to protect her classmates. In season 4, she lost her very identity at one point in an attack from Faith, and her relationships with her friends were nearly destroyed. Season 5 culminated with her sacrificing her own life to protect her sister. Now, in Season 6, we’ve discovered that she’s actually given up heaven itself to take the mantle of the Slayer, and her greatest concern seems to be that the Scoobies never find out what they took from her. Does she have anything left to give? And is there any truer hero anywhere in fiction?
On a lighter note, Bargaining and Afterlife compel me to quote a Simpsons Halloween special...
Lisa & Bart: Dad, Dad, we did something terrible!
Homer: Did you wreck the car?
Lisa & Bart: No.
Homer: Did you raise the dead?
Lisa & Bart: Yes.
Homer: But the car's okay?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Poor Buffy -- Kerri, 14:34:10 10/10/01 Wed
Through the entire episode I just felt so badly for Buffy-and the ending of corse was so heartbreaking. Buffy really has given up so much. Last season Buffy lost so much-but she found it again in The Gift, and while Buffy dies there was something almost happy in that episode because of where Buffy was emotionally. It was hard to find any happiness in Buffy's return, as she seems so desperate and so depressed. Honestly, how much are the writers going to put this poor girl through? But on another note, SMG plays the role so well. Even the subtelest actions carry so much emotion in them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: What's left to give? (spoiler) -- Lunarchickk, 20:05:33 10/10/01 Wed
Tower -- Definitely painful thoughts, and on the mark. Your question -- what does she have left to give? -- reminds me of the scene in Becoming Part 2:
Angelus: Now that's everything, huh? No weapons... No friends...No hope. Take all that away... and what's left?
Buffy: Me.
I can't quite draw conclusions from that -- perhaps there's nothing left. But even ripped back from heaven, Buffy is still Buffy, making lunch for Dawn, protecting her friends from the consequences of what they've done to her in the name of kindness. Perhaps (as mentioned in a different thread) it's all cyclical... as she lost everything in LA then came to Sunnydale, then lost everything (much more than she ever did in LA) in Sunnydale and died, perhaps her return signifies that she just has *more* now to lose.
Kerri, I agree! Poor Buffy! The more she is given, the more she has to lose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Something left to gain -- Kerri, 09:22:21 10/11/01 Thu
In a hread below there is a mention of Campbell's hero's journey and I think that the next part is for Buffy to share her gift. In doing so she brings heaven to earth and becomes what Campbell calls the "master of two worlds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Something left to gain -- Dedalus, 16:33:19 10/11/01 Thu
I'm glad Kerri brought that up.
That is the big question. That's why I trace Buffy as Hero is no longer - or at least not exclusively - Hero as Warrior, Lover, or Protector. The next thing we need to get out of this is Hero as World Redeemer or Saint. Whether or not Buffy will be able to bring this about is another question. Transform the Hellmouth into the Heavenmouth, lol. If this world is hell, it stands to reason it can also be heaven.
Check out Rufus and Ryuei's posts on the topic down below.
I don't think we'll ever see Buffy in a loincloth (an interesting image though) preaching to her Scooby disciples under a fig tree, but I do think it is heading in a spiritual direction. It will be vague, by it's very necessity, but it will be interesting to see what comes out of her moment of satori in the Gift. Joss knows just how much to say, and how much not to say.
And I for one have come to the conclusion that I'm glad Buffy at least got to have three peaceful months in heaven.
Meeting in the middle - SPOILERS! -- Jen C., 10:52:54 10/10/01 Wed
The last scene in After Life has been stuck in my head.
It may be that Buffy's return from death has allowed her and Spike to "meet in the middle". Until now, they have always come from different sides of the coin - Buffy has always been so alive and positive...practically bursting with life due to the fact that she tries to be all things, slayer, daughter, friend, etc. While Spike is unapologetically undead. The place where they both meet is in death.
The alley represents that meeting. Spike comes out into the day and Buffy retreats to the shadows. She can share her experience with him - not only because he's experienced some of it himself - but because at that time they are both in the same place spiritually and mentally. I think that it's the most comfort that Spike can offer to Buffy - the fact that someone understands...*can* understand her experience and what she is now.
In the end, though, Spike must stay behind in the shadows while Buffy walks into the light. He's still undead and she's alive again -their paths are again diverging - but he remains in frame behind her, I don't think that he's ever going to be irrelevant to her life again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Great thoughts Jen... -- Kerri, 14:39:52 10/10/01 Wed
Don't really have too much to add. It was a really good piece of symbolism there, along with the scene in the grave yard where Buffy walks in from of the angel so it looks like she had wings. Great! You really need to watch the episodes several times to catch everything. I love Buffy! :) Once again-good thoughts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Meeting in the middle - SPOILERS! -- rowan, 19:05:51 10/10/01 Wed
You know, that Buffy walking into the light thing has been puzzling me since last night. I think my final take on that is that it's not a good thing for her. She's already admitted that the world is hell because it's too bright, too violent, too everything. Then she has to go out in it (alone, because Spike can't follow). I think the point may have been that the shadows feel safer to her now (as you point out). I saw it as rather sad that she had to face that bright sunshine alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Meeting in the middle - SPOILERS! -- Jen C., 19:49:58 10/10/01 Wed
Yeah, I agree. She looked brave, though, and I think that she's decided to make the best of it....the light, I mean...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> The sunlight -- Kerri, 09:33:15 10/11/01 Thu
When I think of heaven I think of it as white and bright, while hell is dark and black. I think the fact that earth is so much brighter is that there are the extremes-room for hell but also room for more, or different happiness than Buffy knew in heaven. And I aghree that the last scene was incredibly depressing-Buffy walking into the light on her own. I honestly thought that when Buffy came back she'd be closer to Dawn(sorry -off on a tangent there).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: The sunlight -- Dedalus, 16:39:39 10/11/01 Thu
The part with Spike being unable to walk into the light was quite poignant, actually.
You know, Buffy talked about heaven being without form, which we talked about in the chat last night. It makes sense since she doesn't understand theology. Her comment about things here being hard is interesting. At first I think she meant hard as far as mentally and emotionally. Now it seems to me she may have been talking about physical density.
One Good Day? -- Vulpes, 11:37:35 10/10/01 Wed
Buffy walks to the photos of her friends. One moment they are normal, the next they are decomposed corpses. Could this be foreshadowing of things to come? Or could it be Buffy’s projection?
"I was happy. Wherever I ... was. I was happy. At peace. I knew that everyone I cared about was all right. I knew it. Time didn't mean anything. Nothing had form, but I was still me, you know? And I was warm. And I was loved. And I was finished. Complete. I don't understand theology, or dimensions ... any of it really. But I think I was in heaven. And now I'm not. I was torn out of there - pulled out, by my friends. Everything here is hard. And bright. And violent. Everything I feel ... everything I touch ... this is hell. Just getting through the next moment, and the one after that, knowing what I've lost ... they can never know. Never."
What can Buffy do now?
I believe she went to the tower in order to regain Heaven, not to relive the last moments of her life. Maybe she thought jumping the second time would send her back to Heaven? What stopped her – was it Dawn?
Now tore from Heaven she must face life again but this time with the added resentment of knowing what was lost. Did anyone notice the way she looked after she handed Dawn her lunch?
Will she ever get back to Heaven? Will she search for ways to get there in a hurry? What about Spike? He once offered her his services! In Fool For Love, Spike said he would just slip in and have himself a good day!
Any comments?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: One Good Day? -- Rufus, 13:56:19 10/10/01 Wed
Buffy was complete, finished....then she was yanked out of that comfort to come back to this world which she identifies as hell. They were clear in the first season that this world started out as a hell, the demons pushed out for the ever evolving man. When Buffy died she achieved her complete, finished state where she feld love absolute. If you consider the hero's journey the hero frequently does find a better place only to be called back to solve the problems of the world. What distinquishes them as a hero is that they answer that call instead of rejecting their work for continued peace. It was clear that Buffy could understand that from Dawns words that she was still needed, there was work that she could only do. Buffy answered the call making her a true hero, she lost "heaven", but in the interludes between battles and the pain of life, Buffy should be content in knowing that she understands what true joy is. Her job is not only to protect humanity from becoming a worse hell than it already is, but to take humanity by then hand and guide it to completion, she may never make it, humanity can choose to refuse her gift, but in trying she is the most wonderful hero of all.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One Good Day? -- Kerri, 14:44:18 10/10/01 Wed
"Buffy answered the call making her a true hero, she lost "heaven", but in the interludes between battles and the pain of life, Buffy should be content in knowing that she understands what true joy is. "
I think that Buffy will come to realize that life is "heaven" in its own way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> the hardest thing -- anom, 22:18:11 10/10/01 Wed
"I think that Buffy will come to realize that life is 'heaven' in its own way."
I'm not so sure. I think some of her last words to Dawn (which I may not get exactly right) are coming back to apply to her in a way she never imagined (& neither did any of us): "The hardest thing in life is to live it." Especially now, for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the hardest thing -- Kerri, 09:25:12 10/11/01 Thu
The thing is when she said those words she understood that life was worth living and that it was the greatest gift she could give to Dawn. I think she will come to believe this again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- kostadis roussos, 17:31:24 10/10/01 Wed
Hi!
this is a first time post, so please bear with me...
SPOILER WARNING
.....
I have never felt so sad and so horrified while watching television in my entire life.
What made me sad, was the painful realization that Willow, like all of us, saw her friend die, and wanted to bring her back. Unlike the rest of us, she could and did. And yet, what she did was wrong. And there is no way for her to make it better. And worse, the one chance she had to make it better was taken from her.
What horrified me was the fact that what Willow did was not just deprive Buffy of heaven, but it was to deprive Buffy of a meaningful death.
Buffy could end up in Heaven again (there is nothing to say she won't). In time, she'll probably realize that.
But a meaningful death, that's a lot harder.
Buffy is a warrior. As a warrior whose death is an occupational hazard, she has willingly and sometimes cheerfully headed off into battle, even when the signs said that she would die. (Master battle at end of season one).
It is no secret to her, that she will die, probably horribly at the hands of some evil monster when the laws of averages, bad luck, and a miscalculation bring her number up.
The tragedy of Buffy is that the best she can hope for is that her death will have meaning. Her life is in effect defined by her death. Her death in "The Gift" was a death full of meaning. A moment of true piece, a moment of her choosing on her terms. Most warriors have neither, dying alone, and painfully.
She saved the Universe, but more importantly saved a single innocent life.
A warrior who is tasked with saving the world, can perhaps, ask for little more than that. The warrior can not ask for peace, love and kindness. These things are alien and in some sense forbidden to her.
Willow deprived her not only of heaven, but the Gift that the world gave to her, that her death had meaning.
Willow, in effect, was unwilling to let Buffy have the only Gift the world can give a slayer, a meaningful death.
The pathos on Buffy's face , the brilliance of the camera work (washed out lighting), the utter horror on Spikes face as he realized what Willow had done, something far more horrible than anything he could have imagined, all made me stop and take notice.
As I think back to the times Buffy walked into death, Willow's selfish desire to bring her friend back at any cost, makes Willow a tragic figure on a truly epic scale.
(And if this show is at all self-consistent, Willow will
suffer horribly for this act of self-indulgence. And the
price, will be steep.)
For Buffy, in this insane Universe, can only look forward to another death, one that will not come after a full and productive life, but one that will come after some horrible monster, finally figures out how to kill her.
Now that is true horror. Something even a vampire can appreciate.
cheers,
kostadis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Awesome post! -- Jen C., 19:57:12 10/10/01 Wed
I agree with you on the ever compounding tragedy that Willow is experiencing...and that she deprived Buffy of a meaningful death. I found it comforting that Buffy not only died for the one, but also for the many...she managed to cover all of the bases, and that would have been enough for any hero. She'll probably never get that chance again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Welcome to the board - excellent post! -- OnM, 21:40:47 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> great post, however ... -- Miy, 05:04:32 10/11/01 Thu
"Willow deprived her not only of heaven, but the Gift that the world gave to her, that her death had meaning.
Willow, in effect, was unwilling to let Buffy have the only Gift the world can give a slayer, a meaningful death."
the fact is, Buffy STILL died, so she DID still have a meaningful death. That isn't the issue for me (from Buffy's point of view). Her issue now is being unable (thus far and for the foreseeable future) to deal with having been in a place where she was at total, utlimate peace. I think we can barely imagine the extent of the emptiness in her soul at this loss.
A simplistic resolution of this will be for Buffy to realise that this is still her destination, but she will have to enjoy living in the meantime. But how can she ever take any of life's trivialities seriously again, knowing how they pale in comparison to how she felt in her heaven?
Buffy will have to realise that she will need to make her life worthwhile again, ie carry on the good fight, in order that she will reach that same destination. This might be her personal story arc this season. Reconciling herself to living again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- Marie, 06:04:37 10/11/01 Thu
Welcome to the board!
What horrified me was the fact that what Willow did was not just deprive Buffy of heaven, but it was to deprive Buffy of a meaningful death.
As a Brit who hasn't viewed the episode, I'd be interested to know why you think that?
In my own opinion, Buffy's death was totally meaningful, and anyone bringing her back to life couldn't take that meaning away from her. She died, willingly, to save her sister and the world, and this she did. How could bringing her back take that away? Willow might not have been taking into account that Buffy gave her life willingly and wouldn't necessarily want to be brought back from her peaceful place, which might be taken as denigrating her sacrifice, but I don't think that's depriving Buffy's death of meaning... was there something in these posts I've missed?
Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- kostadis roussos, 11:18:08 10/11/01 Thu
Hi!
Thanks for the kind words.
In a theological system that does not accept reincarnation (judeo-christian-muslim) and has a notion of eschatology, in other words that for all things there is a begining and there is an end, death occurs when the physical entity and in more dramatic terms, the "spiritual" entity ends.
So why the digression?
I start with the fundamental belief that to die, is to have an end. If there is no end, then that is not death. In that context, Buffy did not die.
She just had one more miserable encounter with one more miserable monster out to start the apocalypse.
Now she has to face other miserable monsters, and this time to avert the apocalypse she may have to sacrifice a whole lot more than just her life.
Willow, has deprived her of a good meaningful death.
Buffy now has to still face death. Unlike the rest of us, her death may be the stuff of nightmares.
To have to know that you still have to face that moment, when you know you had averted it, that is true horror.
Think of buffy as Leonidas at the Thermopylae. At some point, Leonidas' would die, but he knew there was someone behind him that would take up the struggle. Buffy, also knew that although she would die, another slayer would take up the struggle.
But unlike Leonidas' who had a clear concept of his death, Buffy's death can be much more gruesome (trapped in hell, turned into a vampire, all sorts of evil stuff). So to Buffy, the moment of death is as important as the fight.
To have spent a life time killing friends, seeing death and destruction, and then to be deprived of meaningful heroic death, now that, is horrible. Because that final death, is something that you can never take back. It is something you can never correct.
Because Buffy is not going to grow old, the war is not going
to end, the Evil is never going to be permanently vanquished. Like all warriors in a war without end, she will
die young with the rest of her life ahead of her.
Maybe all she can look forward to is a heroic death, so that
at least the sacrificing of "the growing" old is worthwhile.
She got that. The next time she may not.
cheers,
kostadis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- Dedalus, 16:45:59 10/11/01 Thu
Welcome aboard. Excellent post, as many have said.
How do we keep the quality so high around here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- Millan, 05:18:51 10/12/01 Fri
Hi!
I came back to the board for a quick peek and I just had to jump in. :)
Great post, interesting views, but I would like to express my objection to your conclusion.
Her life is in effect defined by her death.
I can feel that way too sometimes, when it's a story about a hero that's on the road to death. The worthy death. The salvation of the world, or even another being. It's the hero's greatest moment...
But that isn't really true. It can't be true.
The hero's life is defined by his/her life, not death. By his/her actions as a whole. The living of that difficult life, the help that he/she is giving to others, the struggles, the mistakes and the love.
This must be the definition of the hero's life.
I agree (not having seen the episode but being spoiled as to the general context) that Willow will probably be paying a high price for the way she is using her magic, but since I haven't seen it I am hesitant to follow in a discussion on the degree of selfishness in the act.
/Millan
"If what we do doesn't matter, than all that matters is what we do."
(paraphrasing Angel from memory)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- kostadis roussos, 11:19:52 10/12/01 Fri
Hi!
>The hero's life is defined by his/her life, not death. By >his/her actions as a whole. The living of that difficult >life, the help that he/she is giving to others, the ?>struggles, the mistakes and the love.
This is an excellent point.
First let me agree that what we do while we live is all that is important. That the circumstances of our birth and death are fundamentally uncontrollable, all we can do is make sure that the struggle in between makes the world better. A hero is someone who makes the world better.
But there is another kind of heroism.
The second is that if you are a soldier, you are asked to sacrifice "the rest of your life" for some greater cause. That sacrifice is something that is scarier than anything that we in our, I hope for all our sakes, safe lives, will never have to face.
You want that sacrifice to be meaningful. You want to know that is was worth something. That some greater good came out of it.
To die a hero's death for a soldier means that the sacrifice was worthwhile.
In that sense, her life is defined by her death. Not the life she lead till the moment of her death, but the rest of the life she did not lead.
It makes the sacrifice worthwhile.
And for a soldier who more often than not dies in some rather miserable and pointless way, this is the greatest gift of all. A meaningful death.
And as a further digression, Buffy's heroism was exemplified in season one, where when faced with certain death, she walked into combat, knowing that she was all that stood between her and teh apocalypse, and then to discover that her decision to face the Master would bring about the apocalypse, made her death tragic, not heroic.
Would she be any less of a hero? No. Just a different kind of hero. The tragic kind. A pointless stupid death following a brief tragic life.
cheers,
kostadis
p.s. As an aside, in real world terms, the firefighters who crawled up the second twin tower after the collapse, are heros on a scale that I can not even begin to imagine. Their lives are defined by that single act of altruism. Regardless of what kind of goodness they did up until, the final score will always be:
Total life value = life till now + action at time of death.
The second piece of the equation is off the scale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- Humanitas, 11:25:03 10/12/01 Fri
I must agree. A good example of a hero who has a great death scene, but is not defined by it, is Rostand's Cyrano deBergeac. His death is brilliant, and tragic, and contains some wonderful lines about fighting the good fight. But the character is not defined by it. He's defined by the scene of him feeding lines to Christian under Roxane's window.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- bible belt, 11:44:21 10/12/01 Fri
I think I'm with you on this.
At least, I’m in the Willow did okay crowd.
I understand that in the Wicca world there may be consequences for what the SG did. As for Willow being drawn to the dark side, I hope they deal with it on different levels and not just focus on the resurrection because I feel like she’s innocent here.
I believe that Buffy feels this way too, and that’s why she told them what she told them. BTW, is it absolutely certain that Buffy was telling the truth to any of them about where she had gone after she died?
I’m not sure the writers would make that kind of conclusion. And saying she was in some kind of limbo doesn’t mean that there is nothing after death. Because she died in the mystical energy could mean that we still don’t know what really happens after death. At least after a normal death, if there is such a thing.
If the PTB were looking out for Buffy and saw to it she was warm and comfy where ever she was, and meant for things to stay that way, they wouldn’t have allowed Willow to bring her back.
Maybe they couldn’t stop her though and now their pissed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: One Good Day? (SPOILERs Included) -- Wisewoman, 17:25:58 10/12/01 Fri
As others have said before me, I don't believe that Buffy's life was defined by her death.
However, I think I do see your point about her being deprived of a "meaningful" death. Her death in The Gift served a purpose, it accomplished something meaningful and good. That cannot be taken from her.
While I don't think Joss and ME would ever allow it to happen, it would indeed be a tragedy if she were brought back only to die a second time, stepping in front of a speeding bus!
She's mortal, we know she'll die, and if she dies in any way while performing her duty as a Slayer, then she dies a hero's death. If she dies by accident, as real people do every day, her death becomes pathetic.
That's what Willow did by bringing her back--created the opportunity, the possibility for her to suffer a senseless and stupid death at some point in the future. It probably will never happen, but there was no possibility of it happening at all if Willow had left her in her grave.
Of course the other possibility, which is almost too unlikely to contemplate, is that the remainder of Buffy's life might not be spent in heroic acts--that she might change to the extent of being an agent of evil rather than good, or simply a neutral non-participant in the cosmic battle. Her death under these circumstances could result in a trip to "hell" as she would see it. Again, not a possibility if Willow had left well enough alone.
The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- Rob, 12:19:58 10/10/01 Wed
Well, no one started a post on the metaphysical side of "After Life" yet. So, I thought, what the heck? Why don't I give it a go?
What I'm most curious about is something that has been talked a great deal about here--What really happens after you die in the Buffyverse? Buffy describes the place that she ended up as "heaven." Does everyone go to this place after they die, or this a result of the way she died? What I mean is, is this another dimension she was sent to as a result of the mystical energy which killed her, and it happened to be a "happy" one (meaning she could have wound up in a hell dimension, but was lucky), or does the being- killed-by-mystical-energy-dealy not matter? She would have gone here not matter which way she died?
Willow made a huge deal about the mystical energy, and she said that the fact that it was an unnatural death made it possible to ressurect her. But is this true? If it is, it would seem to suggest that where Buffy ended up ("heaven") was a result of the unnatural death, and thus Willow could bring her back from there, whereas people who died naturally cannot be so easily ressurected (if you could call what the SG did "easy"), or at all. But then again, perhaps no matter how you die, you end up in heaven, but the manner of death determines whether it is possible to bring someone back from there or not.
Buffy described herself as being "alone" in the place she called "heaven." That could imply that her soul ended up in a "good" dimension after being struck by the mystical energy, and that she was the only one there.
Or...that everyone is alone in heaven, surrounded by warm thoughts and feelings. Others might be there, but you do not come in contact with them. Or maybe Buffy didn't mention anyone else who might have been there. I wonder whether Joyce might have been there. That might have been too painful for her to have revealed to anyone, even Spike...Finally being reunited with her mother and then be pulled away again.
I doubt that there will be any easy answers to these questions, if at all, since Joss, I'm sure, wants to keep up an amount of mystery of what happens after you die in the Buffyverse. After all, no one knows what happens in the real world after death. But I really would like to know whether Buffy's death was "natural" or not. Did being killed by the mystical powers determine where she ended up or not?
The genius of Joss Whedon and "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" is how each week, just when you think you think have the mythology figured out, something else is added to the mix to make you question your earlier theories. Who would have thought last week that Buffy was traumatized not as a result of having been dead, but as a result of being brought back?
If anyone has any theories on this, or any other metaphysical aspects of "After Life," I'd really be interested to read them. Thanks!
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- vampire hunter D, 12:42:08 10/10/01 Wed
I was wondering about the part about her being alone (I don't remember her saying that, but I'll take your word for it). To me, being alone isn't heaven. I lonely here, and that's Hell. Why would you be alone in anysort of heaven? Doesn't sound very happy to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- Tower, 13:15:23 10/10/01 Wed
Who's to say that it was heaven? Even Buffy admitted she wasn't sure of it. There's no reason to necessarily believe she was in heaven or hell. The Key opened the barriers between all dimensions, and to me, that means more than just Hell dimensions. Sure, everything we saw in The Gift looked like hell, but if I were in a hell dimension and a gateway opened up, I'd fly out it like a bat out of...well, you get the idea. Maybe Buffy's spirit was just sucked into some weird alternate dimension, which she translated as heaven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> in the end, what difference does it make? -- Solitude1056, 14:22:24 10/10/01 Wed
Just rewatched the episode. Given that Buffy comes from a predominantly xtian culture, I'm not surprised Joss had her say that she thinks she was in heaven. But even if it was the grecian summerlands, or the norse valhalla, what difference does it make, in the end? She clearly positioned her own label for her experience, but perhaps someone from a different cultural background would've called it something different. Point is, wherever she was, she says she was happy. Finished, complete, warm, loved, at peace. Those were her words for what would probably be an almost beyond-words experience. How would it change things if, in five episodes, we find out that Buffy wasn't in "heaven" but in some alterno-dimension that just happened to be as wonderful... does that negate the happiness, the peace, she felt? I don't think so. The final essence, for the Buffyness of the situation, is the emotional, as Nina reminded us writers' crew all summer. And the emotion of this revelation is that she was at peace... and in comparison, now, she's not.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: in the end, what difference does it make? -- rowan, 19:18:13 10/10/01 Wed
Plus, Buffy specifically prefaces her remark with the comment that she really doesn't understand 'dimensions' and all those things. She knows just what you've said Sol -- the feelings. She used the label with which she was comfortable to express the important meaning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- Aven, 05:33:25 10/11/01 Thu
"Hell is other people."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- Kerri, 13:52:25 10/10/01 Wed
I was about to start a post about afterlives in the Buffyverse and then say your post-so I'll add a few ideas here.
I guess before I get into this I'll just fill you in with my background logic. Ok-I basically see there as being three parts to a person in the Buffyverse-
1) the soul
2) the personality-basically all the human characteristics the vampire retains; more or less who you are minus the soul.
3) the physical body
Ok having said that-what part of Buffy went to heaven. She said that things had no form so I take it that her physical body or a manifestation of her physical body was not in heaven.
To go off on a bit of a tangent here-this could account for Buffy's feeling of wholeness. She is joined with all those who have too died and gone to heaven; basically being rejoined with the parts of herself that existed in her ancestry(slayer and parental) and in humanity as a whole.
Ok-back to the metaphysicas of afterlives. So if the physical body is not in heaven what is? I took it to be a unification of the other two parts of a person-for lack of a better word their "essence".
What about vampires? Darla was ressurected and didn't remember her after life. She is surprised that she wasn't in hell. What happens to a person after they are vamped? Their soul is in the "eather"-therefore it doe not seem to be experienceing an afterlife-and we see nothing to indicate that a soul could possibly experience on its own. So what about after a vamp is staked? Its body and "personna" (once again serching for a better word but falling short) are then released from the control of the demon. Does the personna meet up with the spirit and then continue on? (This idea seems consistent with Bram Stoker's idea that killing a vampire will allow it to continue to the next life-in effect saving that person) So why doesn't Darla remember? So many question-no answers!
Rob-think you misquoted. "Buffy described herself as being "alone" in the place she called "heaven." " Rewatched the ep and didn't find a mention of this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- anom, 22:02:09 10/10/01 Wed
"(This idea seems consistent with Bram Stoker's idea that killing a vampire will allow it to continue to the next life-in effect saving that person)"
Remember Dracula's line in the Lugosi movie (was it in the book too?)? "To be truly dead...it must be...glorious!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- Rattletrap, 04:53:46 10/11/01 Thu
Typically, I would guess that good people who die of natural causes are sent to heaven, i.e. the peaceful, non-corporeal place where Buffy was that looks and feels like heaven. Bad people are sent to one of a number of corporeal hell dimensions, I base this on Skip's statement (in "That Vision Thing") that his dimension was a "high end institution" where only really nasty people get sent. This implies there are other, less severe hells, so punishment does, in some sense, fit the crime.
We're told ("Passion," I think) that when a person is vamped, their soul goes into the ether. I envision this as a sort of warehouse for the storage of souls that is a place of neither torment nor bliss, simply storage. We have some evidence that there are exceptions to the rules--Phantom Dennis, for example, died violently and unexpectedly, and so he lingers as a ghost; Grace and James are a similar case.
Buffy's case is more complicated still. She didn't die of natural causes, but was killed violently by magical or mystical causes. That may mean that all bets are off. Buffy was rewarded, but did it necessarily have to be so?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: The Metaphysics of "After Life" **SPOILERS** -- Rob, 08:28:27 10/11/01 Thu
I don't think it's important whether it was indeed "heaven" or not. I would like to know, however, whether Buffy, being a good person, would have ended up there regardless of her death (if Buffy, for example, had remained dead after being killed by the Master in "Prophecy Girl"), or if her ending up in that dimension was a direct result of the manner in which she was killed.
I'm bummed - Angel replaced by Spike -- Nikki, 13:24:06 10/10/01 Wed
I'm really, really bummed how much Spike is becoming the "replacement" for Angel. I like Spike, he's a great character, but I don't understand how he is suddenly "becoming" good, when for years and years we've been told that vampires are all evil demons. They have no choice. Angel was the exception. Now, it appears the rule is being bent.
I don't really want Spike and Buffy together. I think Spike is one of the best baddies to ever hit Sunnydale. And, the fact that he is acting almost EXACTLY like Angel just makes it worse for me. Simply, I believe 100% that Buffy and Angel are soulmates, but since Buffy can't have Angel, let's turn to another vampire to fill the void.
I just feel so... bummed. It's not that I can't see her having a relationship with someone else. It's natural, and it'll make the moment she can be with Angel all the more important and special because she would have had other experiences to choose from. I just don't like how Angel-like Spike has become.
Does anyone else out there feel the same way?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Nope, don't feel the same way. -- Deeva, 14:28:13 10/10/01 Wed
I don't think that Spike has become anything like Angel at all. The two could not be more different in my eyes.
"for years and years we've been told that vampires are all evil demons. They have no choice. Angel was the exception. Now, it appears the rule is being bent."
Yeah, well I think that this season is the sesaon to set aside all that you know and hold to be true cuz the writers will blow you away. And didn't someone already mention "the bendy, twisty rules"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Me me me......gotta love rules bendy and twisty...........:):) -- Rufus, 14:59:31 10/10/01 Wed
I like the relationship between Buffy and Spike so much more than Buffy with Angel. I'm not talking romance here, I'm talking about the fact that you have the light interacting with the shadow. Buffy is attracted to something in Spike and she just can't fathom what it is. I have to wonder if to exist there has to be a little light in a shadow and shadow in light? Buffy is treating Spike like a peer, she is judging him on his actions not if he has a soul or not. I don't know if they are going to do the hokey pokey and don't much care, I like watching them interact in a way that should be impossible for a slayer and vampire to interact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I feel exactly the same way. -- Deeva, 15:34:35 10/10/01 Wed
I really do like the interaction between Buffy and Spike. It doesn't mean that I necessarily want the 2 to be doin' the hokey-pokey. The repartee is so great. I love that in different ways they "get" each other but Buffy doesn't quite see that. You know how sometimes you come across a few people who "get" you but you remain friends? It's nice to have that type of friendship where you're not endlessly explaining yourself.
"I have to wonder if to exist there has to be a little light in a shadow and shadow in light?"
I think that there does have to be a little of both in everybody. It's the whole yin yang thing. Light/dark, masculine/feminine and so on. As much as some would like to think no one is 100% anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: I feel exactly the same way. -- Olwen, 16:11:03 10/10/01 Wed
I too enjoy the interactions between Spike and Buffy. I’d personally like to see them in the sack together, but that’s because I have a dirty mind. Spike’s angst and the way JM portrays it is incredibly entertaining either way. I could feel him aching to reach out and comfort Buffy in the final scene of last night’s ep. That was a real bonding moment for them, and I wait with bated breath to see where the writers will take this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Spike, Buffy, and the hockey pokey -- Traveler, 19:17:44 10/10/01 Wed
I hope that Buffy and Spike don't have sex, not because I have some moral or philisophical reservation about it, but because I fear that if they do, Spike's days will be numbered. In an interview, James Marsters said that Spike is "beneath Buffy," because he's still evil. He also said Spike is capable of great heroism as he tries to become the kind of man that Buffy wants, but he is also capable of great evil if he is rejected. If Spike and Buffy do "the hockey pokey," it seems likely that eventually things would blow up and Spike would become a Big Bad again. If that happens, Spike isn't long for the Whedonverse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> See, *told* ya we needed a disclaimer! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 16:57:57 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I'm bummed - Angel replaced by Spike -- Ryuei, 14:28:15 10/10/01 Wed
I actually like the way this is going. Angel was "too good" for Buffy dramatically speaking. What I mean is that Angel was also a good guy and it was very romantic and heart-breaking and there was all the sexul tension etc...but they were both basically on the same side of the moral tracks. Only Angel's physical status as a vampire seperated them. What is happening with Spike is much more interesting. You have a more yin-yang vibe going. Buffy is good, but there is still the darkness of the Slayer within her (a demonic force in and of itself?) and now her perhaps secret resentment of the SG. Spike is still evil but the chip circumvents that and he has become a force for good, if not a good person himself. And the sexual tension is there but also a lot more emotional ambivalence. Buffy and Angel's only qualm was that he would lose his soul again - a fear of one particular consequence. With Spike and Buffy the ambivalence is much more complex and intertwined with lust and loathing. Buffy and Angel were only supposed to be enemies because of their respective roles as Slayer and Vampire. Spike and Buffy, on the other hand, really are (or at least have been) arch-enemies. Dramatically, I find this wierd relationship bewteen them much more dynamic and intriguing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm bummed - Angel replaced by Spike -- Nancy, 17:56:36 10/10/01 Wed
Angel's soul vs. Spike's chip. I have always found it strange that prior to becoming a vampire,when he still had a soul, Angel didn't give a damn about anyone except himself.He did go about crying about how bad life was for him. He becomes a vampire and he goes on not caring about anyone, Darla included, except now he feasts on humans. I question if the gypsy curse returned his soul or gave him something he was always lacking. Now we have Spike who loved and cared before becoming a vampire, loved and cared after becoming a vampire. Now we have an annoying little chip that causes him pain when ever he attacks a person. Is it a replacement for his soul or does it force him to look at himself and what he used to be.Yes the demon part is still there ie; trashing the town with the bikers but he stays with Dawn the chip didn't force him to do that. As for myself I have always found Spike more interesting than Angel. And yes I would like to see Spike and Buffy together. Well thanks all for letting me go on and on.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> not a spike hater, but feeling a little miffed at seeing a favorite get put down -- Percy, 10:48:28 10/11/01 Thu
"I have always found it strange that prior to becoming a vampire,when he still had a soul, Angel didn't give a damn about anyone except himself. He did go about crying about how bad life was for him. He becomes a vampire and he goes on not caring about anyone, Darla included, except now he feasts on humans. I question if the gypsy curse returned his soul or gave him something he was always lacking"
Hang on a sec - From the brief glimpse we had of Angel, we got that he was very self-indulgent (effulgent?), wasting his life away, so i accept he was very self-centered. It's not fair to conclude that Angel never really had a soul because he never showed the same kind of romantic obsession that spike had. I hating sounding so defensive, but Angel showing no preoccupation for Darla after she left him for dead isn't that unreasonable - I see that as the kind of betrayal that would knock you out of love or at least leave you very resentful. The vampire is supposed to be a corruption of the the man who is the sum of his memories and experiences and the twisting of his personality. The differences in VampWillow and regular Willow come to mind - She has hidden aspects that are revealed in the Vampire (sexual freedom, skankiness, leather, darkness?), but she had much love that was replaced by a lot of cruelty and spaciness.
"Is it a replacement for his soul or does it force him to look at himself and what he used to be.Yes the demon part is still there ie; trashing the town with the bikers but he stays with Dawn the chip didn't force him to do that."
Yeah, any action of the chip that disciplines him wasn't connected to his protecting Dawn. It seems that Spike having been neutered in a Clockwork orange capacity allows him to form emotional bonds and attachments to the humans he was fond of killing for fun as well as feeding. He might even feel guilt in the future if he's forced to feed on humans as a result of this experience on his demon soul. If you love the animal that you eat, you might be forced to become a vegitarian (ewww- am I the only one who gets bad images from putting it that way). Nevertheless, there's no arguing anymore that he doesn't truly love Buffy and Dawn.
"As for myself I have always found Spike more interesting than Angel. And yes I would like to see Spike and Buffy together. Well thanks all for letting me go on and on."
We'll have to agree to disagree on that issue. Spike does really spice up the mix. He's always been full of surprises and hilarious (always one of my favorites, really), and flirting with darkness is fun. The thought of Buffy and Spike becoming intimate or having "this, that, and the other" just gives me the dry heaves. I have to discredit myself for being one of those people who places "Buffy and Angel" as that one true blue love thing. She has to move on, but it seems so unfair that it might work with one vampire when it didn't with the other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> NOT "effulgent"! -- anom, 11:04:12 10/12/01 Fri
"From the brief glimpse we had of Angel, we got that he was very self-indulgent (effulgent?)...."
yeurrllgghh...Effulgent doesn't mean anything remotely like self-indulgent! Although...that's actually a far better rhyme for it (& maybe a better description of him!) than what William came up with in his poem (a-bulgent??!! not even a word!).
Sorry, can't help it...it's my editorial nature.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: NOT "effulgent"! -- Percy, 21:35:10 10/12/01 Fri
"From the brief glimpse we had of Angel, we got that he was very self-indulgent (effulgent?)...."
My bad for typing this sentance like that. I wasn't actually trying to equate effulgent with self-indulgent - but that's just my careless nature ;) Just wanted to make a quick reference back to Spike although i see how it could be a better description.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: NOT "effulgent"! -- Rattletrap, 13:11:03 10/13/01 Sat
I believe it was "a bulge in't"
Contraction for "in it"
Still not great poetry any way you look at it, tho'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: NOT "effulgent"! -- anom, 08:23:35 10/14/01 Sun
Hmmm...I didn't hear it that way, but I don't remember the context any more, so it could be. Definitely agree about the not-greatness, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> "More Spike makes everything better." -- rowan, 19:15:45 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Just a dash of Spike, will do ya'. ;o) -- Deeva, 20:34:31 10/10/01 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Spike: The Anti-Soulmate -- Dariel, 19:20:39 10/10/01 Wed
I don't think much of the "soulmates" concept, in general or in terms of the Buffy/Angel relationship. People grow and change over time. To say that any two people are destined for each other is meaningless.
Spike and Buffy's evolving relationship stands the whole soulmate idea on its head. A couple of years ago, they seemed destined to be mortal enemies, at least until one killed the other. Now, their relationship has completely changed, and is growing in interesting new ways. They may never be lovers, but they perhaps have outgrown what once seemed pre-ordained.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Spike: The Anti-Soulmate -- celticross, 19:57:13 10/10/01 Wed
Excellent points. I was a fan of the B/A relationship while they were in it, but three years have passed. Even the deepest feelings can change, given enough time, and I think that theirs have. Buffy and Angel were good for each other at the time. She gave him a reason to be good, and their relationship forced Buffy into emotional maturity. But they both have something else that gives them the same thing now - Angel has the protection of L.A., and Buffy has Dawn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yep, somebody is gonna stick up for Nikki's posthumous message -- Chew-Lean, 11:02:07 10/11/01 Thu
I'm bummed too, although bending the rules makes the show more meaningful. Vampires and Demons are more than just predators, they've got some innate neeed to hurt humans. Humans are actually that much higher come to think of it. Spike and Angel have very different personalities, but I think the similarity with Angel referred to in here is that kindness and fluffy ACTIONS we're seeing more of. Argghhh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Yep, somebody is gonna stick up for Nikki's posthumous message -- Nikki, 13:06:32 10/11/01 Thu
Thanks, Chew-Lean!
I've really enjoyed reading everyone's thoughts on this, even if they are very different from my own. I do think Angel and Buffy will be together one day, one way or another. (Since Joss doesn't believe in happy endings... but I keep hoping he'll give the fans a really nice ending when the show does finally run it's course.) Feeling CAN change, but that doesn't mean they WILL. And Buffy and Angel both make it perfectly clear they still feel the same way about each other.
I just miss the old Spike. My husband even says, "He acts like a good guy now!" when he watches him. Like I said, I'm not against Buffy having other relationships, I just don't want them together. I mean, after ALL the things Spike has done to her and her's, I just wonder how it's even possible that it's not running around in the back of your head that he'll do something. And that's the way it should be!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I'm with you 100% Nicky, on loving A&B and loving old Spike over new Spike! -- Masquerade, 15:00:26 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Didn't mean to misspell your name, though... -- Masq, 15:01:52 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Now is it that you don't like change or that you don't like how the change happened? -- Rufus, 16:11:08 10/11/01 Thu
You know what I feel about ships....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Both -- Masquerade, 16:35:36 10/11/01 Thu
As a fiction writer and a Buffyverse metaphysician, I just never felt we were given sufficient explanation for how Spike changed. Sure, William had certain love-sick poet tendencies, but we still know little about his personality beyond that. Sure, early Spike loved Drusilla, but there was never a problem reconciling that with his evil nature. Many evil people love someone.
Most reasoning that takes "Fool For Love" as a staring point to explain Spike must rely on a lot of assumptions about William and about how much of the original personality stays with the vamp and whatparts of the personalities stays. But it's speculation.
The speculation on this board is interesting, but it lingers for so long it is eventually taken as canon by posters rather than considered. Opinion. I'm thinking of e.g., what David Fury meant by "metaphysical ghost". Lots of great theories on this board, but that's all they are. The writers have been vague on this. I don't think they've figured out what they mean by it. It was convenient for shifting the story line around.
It seems to me that at some point, Joss jumped from "if a demon starts out evil, he stays evil (unless given a soul)" to "well, it's just a tendency towards evil. Demons can not only change, they can change 180 degrees". We all know he did this. We've talked about it many times.
I suppose it's a television writer's perogative to change the rules in mid-stream if he wants. One can't help this in television where you can't go back and revise old stuff. two years later. In a novel, however, it's sloppy story-crafting. "Deus ex machina"
The change was a metaphysical headache for me. I can accept that some demons/humans are born a certain way. Lorne was born with a tendency towards good, Ted Bundy was born with a tendency towards evil. But Spike went from sociopathically evil to sympathetically good without sufficient explanation. And don't cry "chip" here--the effect of the chip on Spike is also a speculative issue. We can debate it here, that's cool, but only the writers can give us an answer, and they've skirted the issue.
So I simply cannot reconcile how Spike changed. They had a very clear, coherent character in Season 2. He was complex and interesting because he loved Drusilla and still was completely without conscience. He was a complex and interesting nemesis for Buffy, a character who knew who he was and who his enemies were and took action. A character we could relate to when we were in Spike's factory and then hate when we were in Buffy's library. It held us in a delicious tension.
Now he's just another good guy in a boat-load of good guys and what does he have to contribute except witty cockney one-liners? He just hangs there on the outskirts of the stories like they're trying to find a place for such an outstanding actor but can't quite figure out what to do with him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Both -- rowan, 17:41:12 10/11/01 Thu
"Now he's just another good guy in a boat-load of good guys and what does he have to contribute except witty cockney one-liners? He just hangs there on the outskirts of the stories like they're trying to find a place for such an outstanding actor but can't quite figure out what to do with him."
It may surprise you all, but I've given this issue alot of thought over the past 2.3 seasons. I think, unfortunately, the metaphysical headache has its roots in the Realverse rather than the Buffyverse. I see this as a case of a show having been incredibly influenced by several factors:
1. ME's decision to spinoff AtS.
There are two themes that have an almost hypnotic storytelling quality: the redemption of the lost soul and the vengeance of the dark hero. Angel's character embodied both. Spinning him off to his own show was a smart move, because it allowed ME the time to explore him in the depth his story deserved. But it also left a hole in BtVS because Angel's story served as a counterpoint to Buffy's story. Nature abhors a vacuum, so suddenly we have a second redemption story (albeit of a slightly different ilk).
2. JM's outstanding acting ability.
Obviously, the man's a gem. He has an incredible acting range and his face was made for television acting. I suspect ME probably perceived they couldn't use him enough as the villain, especially after...
3. JL wasn't available as a regular or recurring cast member.
If Spike could have remained with Dru, all the potential to explore JM's range while keeping him evil remained. But without her to partner with him, the emphasis eventually moved towards the demon than the gentlemanly lover. So, another love interest had to be found.
Coupled with the void left by Angel's departure, I think ME was left with perhaps an almost inevitable need to partner Spike and Buffy in ways that could explore all the variety of JM's abilities.
Also, how could JM possibly be given enough screen time if he wasn't emotionally involved with the heroine? As JM often said, you need to be either killing Buffy or kissing her. As time wore on, Buffy's continued inability to defeat Evil!Spike would probably stretch the credulity of most viewers. Chipping him gave him another story line to explore.
3. JM's discovery after the casting of DB as Angel.
I read an interesting review this summer that was, I think, generated as a result of the debut of AtS in Singapore. The comment made was: "One wonders why there is an Angel, when there could have been a Spike." Now, please don't think I'm bashing DB, but I think it's worth considering what it might have been like if JM had been cast as Angel.
Now, you might say, 'rowan, this is all well and good, but it's ME's responsibility to keep the Buffyverse true to its own internal logic in the face of the realities of their Realverse machinations.' And you'd be right. But I suspect that a combination of creative differences within the writing team as well as the difficulty of revising history (as you point out) may have made that a challenging goal. I can see your point exactly that we really don't have clear answers to what distinguishes good and evil -- and alot of this water has been muddied by Spike (much as I love him, I can see that).
What I do disagree with in your assessment, though, is that Spike is just one more good guy in a boat load of good guys. Yes, Spike was an outstanding, clever, and complicated bad guy. But he's also a complicated and clever sort of good guy, too. I think there is a compelling element that is appealing to the audience at large related to this character. Again, we're back to watching that journey of redemption. Angel's journey is so much farther along that it doesn't satisfy that basic need I think alot of people have to see all the moments of struggle when a person decides to change. I also think alot of people want to believe that the ability to change is not predestined by a fact of birth.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wonderfully said -- Greta, 20:25:21 10/11/01 Thu
I've always thought that JM would have been a wonderful Angel, and DB's Spike would have lasted for, at the outside, a whole season.
And, ITA about people wanting to see the early stages of redemption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wonderfully said -- WanderLost, 07:22:22 10/12/01 Fri
I have always believed this. Utterly. JM was born to play angsty undead pining angst. And watching him play it as Angel would have made more metaphysical sense.
And DB isn't bad at snarky evil assholery, but he's not so compelling an actor that the character would have lived past due date.
Of course, then James might have his own show - cool- , but it would be a sucky, Nick Knight, Warrior Princess show - not cool.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wonderfully said -- DEN, 07:27:05 10/13/01 Sat
A crucial point, highlighted by the FX reruns is the centrality of the high school experience to the initial story line--a focusing element which remains unreplaced. In that context Angel's role was the "bad boy" to which the "good girl" is irresistibly attracted--like John Travolta in GREASE, Marlon Brando in THE WILD ONES, with of course the difference that this time love does not redeem, but instead desouls! In any case by the end of Season 3 that subplot was at a dead end. No more could be done with it, no matter who the actor might have been.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Casting -- Millan, 07:37:05 10/12/01 Fri
...but I think it's worth considering what it might have been like if JM had been cast as Angel.
Oh!
There's a thought that never crossed my mind before, let me consider this...
Difficult to imagine, since Angel now is a big brooding hunk of a guy. That's no JM.
But as you pointed out, with that great acting skill, he could pretty much get under your skin in other ways.
Now I'm getting goose-bumps...
Now . . I . . think . .
I . . need . . to . .
lie . . down . . for . .
a . . while ...
/Millan
"Hmm, I hate being obvious, all fangy and GRRR. Takes the mystery out."
- Spike, The Initiative
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Casting -- rowan, 17:31:33 10/12/01 Fri
I think he could play brooding angst quite well if he wanted to. I just think we're so used to Spike, it takes a minute to think it through.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Casting -- Millan, 05:10:07 10/13/01 Sat
Oh, indeed.
The acting and the emotional conveyance would be excellent, I've no doubt.
I hesitate only at the fact that DB is quite a large man (compared to JM).
And while he's not my favorite flavor as men on the TV goes (apart from when he's the modern-day Angelus) he is a big "hunk" of a man and it does give a certain flavor to the character that JM probably couldn't have done.
I'm sure he'd have given it something just as good or even better, but these "what if's" are difficult when you already have the original outcome. :)
/Millan
"So this is Angel. He's large and glowery, isn't he?"
- Anya, Pangs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree -- Rufus, 17:49:36 10/11/01 Thu
I think Fury said "philosophical ghost".....:)
The chip is something that we can only speculate upon and attempt to smoosh our ideas into what is going on. But there is the thing about how do we get from Spike the killer to Spike the lady killer? Is this going to be a "deus ex machina" or are we being allowed to learn to like this guy just long enough to let down our guard and end up getting another JW whammy?
As for change I like it we need it....the Buffyverse was just a little simple for my liking in the first few seasons, the uncertainty about vampires caused by the anomolous behavior of one, makes me glad that we ask the hard question about who is okay to kill on sight? If the Buffyverse had not evolved I would have become bored as the ships aren't all that interesting to me. Testing canon is more to my liking...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree -- Masquerade, 09:10:07 10/12/01 Fri
It's more gray now in a troublesome way. If any vamp you come across an be a potential Spike (I mean, did we see the new Spike coming during season 2?), then Buffy has a serious problem. She can't just kill vampires at random. She has to get to know them first, and find out if they can be redeemed. The whole premise of the show is on shaky ground.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely! -- rowan, 09:28:44 10/12/01 Fri
This is an important point. The corollary is also the whole Dawn/Spike issue. Some of his behaviors are clearly wrong and must be a bad influence on a teenager.
Is Spike *special* because of the chip? Or are there a whole lotta potential Spikes out there for Buffy to contend with?
I think the show should deal with this issue. I read a fanfic once where Spike went nuts because Buffy was putting herself in danger because she could no longer fully believe in what she was doing. I'd like to get ME's take on this.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree -- Cleanthes, 21:04:39 10/12/01 Fri
It's more gray now in a troublesome way. If any vamp you come across an be a potential Spike (I mean, did we see the new Spike coming during season 2?), then Buffy has a serious problem. She can't just kill vampires at random. She has to get to know them first, and find out if they can be redeemed. The whole premise of the show is on shaky ground.
Perhaps redemption of vampires requires a chip because the demon has an overwhelming trump otherwise. Assuming Buffy cannot install chips, and assuming that the utilitarian argument for slaying vampires remains sound, the ground, though shaky, will not cause any quakes over about 3.0 on the Richter scale...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree -- Rufus, 21:22:37 10/12/01 Fri
If any vamp can be a potential Spike (I mean did we see the new Spike coming during season 2?), then Buffy has a serious problem. She just can't kill vampires at random. She has to get to know them first, and find out if they can be redeemed.
As soon as Spike helped Buffy in Becoming2, I saw the potential for another exception to the rule. Buffy hasn't just killed at random, she has generally let any vamp that hasn't engaged her in battle go. If a vamp or say a human bad person attacks, there is no time to have them fill out a questionaire, you protect yourself using the force needed to the get the job done. If anyone can be a potential serial killer, then why can't a vamp(considered a serial killer) have the potential to be a, if not totally good, at least non person killing being?
The idea of Buffy getting out the sharp pointies to do the wet icky work of chip installation, is barfy in the extreme.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree (SOME SPOILERS) -- DEN, 08:09:48 10/13/01 Sat
Cleanthes's argument is reinforced by the latest episode of ANGEL, which clearly establishes the "wrongness" of attacking demons(and vamps by extension) who aren't directly threatening you. That in turn resonates with today's headlines. Does the "demon world" of the Josssverse create a policing problem or a war problem? ANGEL seems to be moving towards a "police" approach--individual demons, or institutions like W&H, may or may not be "criminals." BtVS, on the other hand, is much more of a "war" model. The "big bads" want to destroy the world, not exploit it as does W&H. Spike is treated as a turncoat by the demon world, and seems to regard himself as something like those Indians who, for one reason or another, scouted for the cavalry. And in the context of a war, is it moral to take the fight to the enemy be it terrorist or vamp? Or must the enemy come to you before action is justiified? The history of war suggsts the latter approach is in practical terms doomed to failure most of the time. Maybe that's why, as a student of military history, I see BtVS as such a dark show compared to ANGEL. The characters can only fight until they are eventually overwhelmed--Xena's fate without Xena's need for absolution. The most poignant scene ever in BtVS, IMO, was in thie year's first ep, with the surviving Scoobies, all frightened, all hurt, going after a horde of biker demons with what hand weapons they could scrounge. It was like the ending of THE WILD BUNCH--all you can expect is to go down fighting. No wonder Willow turns to dark magick! Can there ever be any hope of a counterattack in the Buffyverse?
Sorry for these somewhat disorganized reflections; thanks for your patience
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree (SOME SPOILERS) -- Cleanthes, 09:01:21 10/13/01 Sat
Angel works in Los Angeles, a city not without creepy locales, but not one located on a hellmouth.
If the only vampires redeemable are chipped vampires among vampires drawn to the hellmouth, then Buffy is in a war situation. (this premise is not fully substantiated, I admit)
In Angel's city, demons other than vampires make up a larger percentage of the whole, and these demons weren't drawn to Los Angeles because of an external "badness" magnet (like the hellmouth).
I see, though, a way in which Angel is a darker show. Wolfram and Hart. Buffy has to live with the hellmouth because it's a given. (to quote myself, a constitutive element beyond her power to affect) Angel had a heck of a time imagining Wolfram and Hart as a constitutive element of Los Angeles society. It really seems like an organization that could be defeated. It seems like he's given up on that, though, and that's tough on the spirit, I think.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree--boom! -- anom, 08:37:50 10/14/01 Sun
"If the Buffyverse had not evolved I would have become bored as the ships aren't all that interesting to me. Testing canon is more to my liking...;)"
Yeah, it can get boring on a ship if you don't get to test the cannon once in a while...besides, how else do you make sure you can keep the pirates away? @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, I thought it was funny, anom! :o) -- Wisewoman, 14:23:14 10/14/01 Sun
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks, ww! after all, i am an invertebrate punster... -- anom, 19:01:57 10/14/01 Sun
...spinelessly unable to resist a pun! (Another one I wish I could take credit for.) That opportunity was just too juicy to pass up.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A pun is the lowest form of wit... -- Humanitas, 12:10:09 10/15/01 Mon
...only if somebody else thinks of it first!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Someone oughta slug you for that one! -- Jen C., 22:36:05 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> actually... -- anom, 21:40:55 10/16/01 Tue
...that's in the button I got it from: Invertebrate Punster/Spinelessly unable to resist a pun/So slug me! I thought it was a little too much, but I'm glad you filled that in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahoy!.....I've been broadsided......... -- Rufus, 21:40:42 10/14/01 Sun
Ships...canon.....hmmmmmm...I guess the potential for a ship is enough to make them throw some canon overboard...;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reminds me of one of my favorite Buffy resurrections . . . -- d'Herblay, 21:50:54 10/14/01 Sun
. . . resurrection, that is, of a dead metaphor.
Mayor Wilkins: But I guess we're past that now. This year is too important to let a loose cannon rock the boat.
Allan: Should I have Mr. Trick send a... committee to deal with this?
Mayor Wilkins: Loose cannon. Rock the boat. Is that a mixed metaphor?
Allan: (confused) Uh...
Mayor Wilkins: (musing out loud) Boats did have cannons. And a loose one would cause it to rock. Oh, honestly. I don't know where my mind goes these days. (chuckles)
("Lover's Walk")
I miss Harry Groener.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Reminds me of one of my favorite Buffy resurrections . . . -- Rufus, 23:46:20 10/14/01 Sun
...sniff.....sniff.....so do I.....he was the best villian...so polite and all...:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> awright d'Herb! thanks for resurrecting that bit of dialog -- anom, 15:23:05 10/15/01 Mon
I'd forgotten about it. See, something good can come from low wit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> FX is airing "School Hard" today for the first look at Spike -- Liq, 09:18:10 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> School Hard - Been waiting for this for a long time! -- VampRiley, 16:01:26 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Evil!Spike: a cautionary tale or just too sexy for words? You decide. ;) -- rowan, 17:32:46 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now THAT's a bad guy! -- Humanitas, 17:57:05 10/12/01 Fri
It's amazing, knowing Spike as I know him now (chipped), watching JM struggle to act through his makeup. Even though the teeth are obviously giving him problems, he conveys so many different facets of the character. The wit, the raw aggression, the intelligence, the desire for "a little less ritual and a little more fun." Glad they let him do his stuff with Dru in people-face, though. Tough to be tender when you're all fang-y.
And that entrance they gave him must be one of the best in the history of television. Truly, a villain worthy of the Slayer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now THAT's a bad guy! -- rowan, 18:08:21 10/12/01 Fri
Actually, I thought the impact of seeing him entirely in vamp face in the first couple of scenes, then having him turn to Dru and change to human face was AMAZING.
The Power of Spike. *sigh*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's perceptions -- Brian, 19:27:30 10/12/01 Fri
Spike is the first vamp to say,"Slayer's got family and friends fighting with her" Now that's unfair!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Now THAT's a bad guy! -- Humanitas, 06:51:13 10/13/01 Sat
Oh, I agree. It was definitely the right chioce from the director's standpoint, especially since his vamp-face is particularly distorted, and his real-face is so pretty. My observation was simply that JM was clearly new to acting through all the prosthetics at the time. He suceeded in doing so, but you could see him working at it, whereas nowadays it seems effortless on the rare occasions we do see it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreement and foreshadowing doubts -- Liq, 18:26:55 10/13/01 Sat
I have to agree with you. If I had never seen him before, and he went from his game face with his lispy, slurring fangy voice to the beauty of his human face it would have taken my breath away. It was pretty cool regardless.
Joss has said all along that Spike was an interim bad guy who was destined to die when the organ crushed his spine later in Season 2, but that he was completely blown away by JM's talent and couldn't let him go. Given that history, I doubt there is too much foreshadowing for Spike's current storyline unless Joss was lying, which although possible, I doubt. Even SMG mentioned in an interview for FX that Spike was a small, temporary part until JM came along and turned the character into one that the show could not survive without.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agreement and foreshadowing doubts -- Greta, 21:32:48 10/13/01 Sat
It's probably true that there wasn't intentional foreshadowing, but what I've found so great about most of the writing for Spike, as well as JM's portrayal, is that it colors neatly in between the broad character lines drawn in those early episodes. William the Bloody Awful Poet can be seen in the half tough guy/half poseur of School Hard.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I finally understand those who do not wish to see him redeemed.... -- Liq, 21:55:01 10/12/01 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> All that sexy, sinister attraction being put out is dangerous...;) -- rowan, 05:45:50 10/13/01 Sat
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Oops, should have edited the message -- Chew-Lean, 20:55:13 10/12/01 Fri
Correction:
"Vampires and Demons are more than just predators, they've got some innate need to hurt humans. Humans are not actually that much higher come to think of it."
Admendment:
"Spike and Angel have very different personalities, but I think the similarity with Angel referred to in here is that kindness and the fluffy ACTIONS we're seeing more of. Argghhh."
Spike always showed that twisted love for Dru, but that is far different from what we see today.
EW gave a GREAT review for "After Life"!! -- Rob, 18:09:09 10/10/01 Wed
Here's the review, and it's excellent!
"You always have to be careful when a television series offers up ''a big revelation.'' Too often, such ploys come off as cheap, arbitrary, and ultimately meaningless -- mere gimmickry, evidence of the bankrupt imaginations of people who have no idea how to wring new and genuine drama out a show's premise and characters. For current examples, please see Scully's baby on ''The X-Files'' or practically any episode of ''E.R.''
But for a textbook example of how to do it right, look no further than Oct. 9's riveting edition of ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' (Tuesdays, 8 p.m.) entitled ''After Life.'' Though the network didn't hype the hour as a Big Revelation episode, it nonetheless contained one: Buffy (Sarah Michelle Gellar), recently returned to her mortal coil after sacrificing her life to save the world last season, disclosed to the vampire Spike (James Marsters) that contrary to what she's led her friends to believe, she didn't die and go to hell -- she went to heaven, and to be honest, she's bummed that her friends, via a risky spell cast by her best friend Willow (Alyson Hannigan), have dragged her back to our cruel and crude world, ''so bright and violent.''
Perhaps none of you found this revelation as surprising as I did. In fact, if ''After Life'' failed at anything, it was telegraphing its twist with too much foreshadowing. Too much assuming by Buffy's friends that she must have gone ''down'' instead of ''up;'' too many lines like ''Jet lag from hell must be... well, jet lag from hell'' (one of Anya's many zingers, zestfully delivered by Emma Caulfield); too many Buffy replies along the lines of ''Errr. Right. That's it.''
Nonetheless, her confession had all the impact of the good kind of big revelation. It has given Buffy's death at the end of last season (which, you have to admit, flirted with gimmickry) an indelible significance: We've seen characters go from hell and back before, but how does one bounce back to normal after a prolonged exposure in heaven? This isn't something you can recover from and forget; this will (or should) haunt her the rest of her life. It also firmly establishes a provocative metaphysical worldview: ''Buffy'''s humans are spiritual creatures who will be rewarded with either damnation or paradise in the life to come. And to think conservative Christians hate this show!
The revelation also changes Buffy's relationships with her friends -- or better yet, it illuminates a relatively unexplored dimension to them that now seems impossible to ignore: Instead of being the light of her life, the Scoobies have become a constant reminder of the darkness that colors a Slayer's daily existence: the dreadful burden of being responsible for so many lives. In these terms, how selfish it was for the Scoobies to bring her back!
The revelation also promises to dramatically alter some key relationships. Last night's episode specifically dwelled on Spike. Finally, the show's writers have come up with a legitimate reason for the Slayer to bond with Spike -- perhaps even intimately.
''One thing about magic,'' Spike reminded us. ''There's always consequences. Always!'' ''After Life'' also reminded us of another important truth. It's the mark of a truly magical drama that can make the consequences of its characters' actions count for something truly profound and unforgettable -- and ''Buffy the Vampire Slayer'' certainly qualifies."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Rob, is there a date and author for this review? -- Masquerade, 11:18:09 10/11/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yup...here they are! -- Rob, 11:29:47 10/11/01 Thu
The author was Jeff Jensen and it was posted at http://www.ew.com on 10/10/01. The name of the article was "Heaven Sent."
Here's a direct link to the article:
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/commentary/0,6115,179053~3~0~buffymournsherreturn,00.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Thanks, Rob -- Dedalus, 15:57:35 10/11/01 Thu
Just a Thought... (**Contains Slight Spoilerish Quotage**) -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:07:38 10/10/01 Wed
Why's everyone pointing fingers at Willow being the "big bad" this season? Couldn't it just as easily Buffy? That comedown from the highs of heaven could make her just -snap- one day...
Marti Noxon did say that the villain was something they'd "never done before." Well, what could be more innovative, new, and unexpected than BUFFY being the villian?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just a Thought... (**Contains Slight Spoilerish Quotage**) -- cknight, 21:25:12 10/10/01 Wed
I've been pointing all of my fingers at Willow. I hope I'm wrong. after Buffy she's my fav. I could still get into the show if Buffy had stayed dead and Willow became the lead (yeah, I said it). It's weird watching the FX reruns then watching the new eps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> For what it's worth -- Traveler, 22:18:35 10/10/01 Wed
I love the direction the episodes are going this season, but I think I could also have enjoyed the show if Buffy had stayed dead. Dawn, the Vampire Slayer. Never before has a Slayer been quite so... cute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: For what it's worth -- grifter, 09:53:43 10/11/01 Thu
hmm, damn interesting idea that...buffy as the "big bad"...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> For what it's worth -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 17:04:15 10/11/01 Thu
Either one as the new villain could be very powerful drama.
It's an old theme: the shield-companions now enemies. Arthur and Lancelot. (I'm sure there are others, but they escape me.) Still loving each other, but unable to continue without the other's destruction.
Espenson channels Morrison - ‘Out here, we are stone, immaculate’ - ( *Spoilers* for *After Life* ) -- OnM, 21:21:04 10/10/01 Wed
*******
Back in those days everything was simpler and more confused
One summer night, going to the pier
I ran into two young girls
The blonde one was called Freedom
The dark one, Enterprise
We talked and they told me this story
Now listen to this...
*******
This is the end, Beautiful friend
This is the end, My only friend, the end
It hurts to set you free
But you'll never follow me
*******
I'll tell you this...
No eternal reward will forgive us now
For wasting the dawn.
*******
Reaching your head with the cold, sudden fury of a divine messenger
*******
The title of this essay/review is technically a slight misquote, but then again you never know. A short while ago we were discussing the role of wordplay in the Buffyverse, debating the difference between puns, malapropisms, witty banter, euphemisms and something Cleanthes called an antanaclasis. This, and a certain image from After Life set me to thinking whether or not Jane Espenson has been influenced by the writings of Jim Morrison, 20th century poet/iconoclast and founder of The Doors Let’s stop for a moment and ask our collective selves, where do words come from? The ones that the writers of the show use, I mean. The short answer is that every writer (or even those wannabes like myself) draws on all that they’ve seen or heard over long periods of time in order to craft their particular prose or poetry. Not being able to share our thoughts directly (which as a previous BtVS ep clearly showed, is not necessarily a good idea anyway), we rely on not only words, but the common thoughts that are conjured in our minds when those words are read or spoken. Another possible way to state this is that words are an analog of experience, and experience comes from interaction with others as much or more often then it comes from any inner journeys into one’s own mind. In addition to the basic level of available vocabulary, there are a number of ways that words show their limitations, and when they do we often turn to creating visual images to help convey our meaning. What I find curious about this is that the sight of said images then inevitably conjures up new words as we seek to describe them in our mind’s eye. Thus, the whole thing turns into a kind of ourobouros, or tail-eating snake, except that the snake doesn’t consume itself, it somehow grows larger as it feeds. If that makes no real sense, perhaps it isn’t supposed to, just as we are likely never going to determine whether or not Willow was right in bringing about Buffy’s return from the grace of death.
*******
Take a journey to the bright midnight
End of the night, end of the night
Realms of bliss, realms of light
Some are born to sweet delight
Some are born to the endless night
*******
This week brought about another opportunity for me to be right about something, and be unhappy as a result of it. I have to admit that last week’s otherwise satisfying-- if depressing-- premiere left me with one niggling little caveat that I felt was not dealt with, which was Joss’s claim many months ago that Buffy’s reappearance in the Earthly plane would not be a ‘resurrection’, but a ‘rebirth’. After many viewings of the episode, and many attempts to connect his statement with the facts as they appeared to me, I could not truly reconcile this. She was dead, without question. She was brought back to life, essentially as herself, in her old body, and while rather worse for the wear physically and mentally, she was still Buffy. This is not a rebirth, this is a resurrection. To qualify as a true rebirth, some fundamental aspect within Buffy would have to change to allow the use of the word even euphemistically, and it simply wasn’t there as of the end of Bargaining.
Well, that reservation has now been addressed, and it was addressed not only in the impossibly sad words which Buffy speaks to Spike at episode’s end, but was foreshadowed by a brief but powerful image about 20 minutes before that gave everything about the ending away, if we managed to catch it. It passed very quickly, maybe 15 seconds or so, but something about it caught my eye, and when I played the tape back for the second viewing later last night, I watched more closely. As I did, not only did the image create words in my mind’s eye, they created links in my mind’s ear as a particularly evocative phrase penned way back in the 70’s came back into my consciousness:
*******
The Negroes in the forest brightly feathered
They are saying, "Forget the night.
Live with us in forests of azure.
Out here on the perimeter there are no stars
Out here we is stoned - immaculate."
Listen to this, and I'll tell you about the heartache
I'll tell you about the heartache and the loss of God
I'll tell you about the hopeless night
The meager food for souls forgot
I'll tell you about the maiden with wrought iron soul
*******
Ah, Jim Morrison. Over 30 years later, his dark and powerful visions still both frighten and beguile us. And so I return to the question posed near the very beginning of this essay, which pondered whether Jane Espenson was influenced either consciously or subconsciously by him when she wrote this screenplay, since those italicised words from the poem above certainly evoke from the image I saw.
The image was the one where Buffy has left the Scooby gang and gone out to (supposedly) patrol. The scene opens with her walking quickly through the graveyard, and as she walks she passes a stone angel. That such a sculpture resides in a cemetary isn’t too surprising, and it certainly adds to the overall atmosphere, but it becomes more than merely atmosphere when, as Buffy passes by it, the camera makes a subtle but defining move as it pivots slightly and in doing so slightly elongates the brief time that her profile becomes visually aligned over that of the statue, and it appears as if the stone wings are now sprouting from her own, more flesh and blood shoulders.
Out here, we is stoned, immaculate... Or is it as my slightly altered wording suggests, is the stone itself immaculate? Perfect grace, captured for eternity? Or one who could fly with God but whose wings are too heavy and solid, composed as they are of the densest fundamentals of the earth?
And whose fault is this, is it God’s, or the First Evil, or the Scoobies, or only Willow? Willow seems to be at the focal point of the ‘price’ that she suggests has been debited in exchange for the revivification of her beloved friend. All we know for certain at this point in time is that Willow was obviously driven to do what she did because she was filled with a sense of outrage and anger and despair that harkened from some central place within her soul:
*******
What have they done to the earth?
What have they done to our fair sister?
Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
And tied her with fences and dragged her down
I hear a very gentle sound
With your ear down to the ground
We want the world and we want it...
Now
*******
It is interesting that the demon given birth to by Willow’s spell, when it manifests a physical presence for the very first time, seeks out Willow to terrorize, and does so by brutally describing the killing of the fawn, which only Willow knows about. (It openly attacks Buffy only when it discovers that it can become fully corporeal by killing her). As demons go, this one seemed to be awfully easy to kill, which puzzled me at first, but I now think that this was as intended. With the ‘price’ dispatched so readily, it makes it far easier for Willow to carry on with the mistaken belief that ‘everything is OK now’, and with Buffy back, all will be right with the world. Buffy’s confession of her ‘paradise lost’ to Spike-- the only one who asks her directly, and with absolute sincerity, Are you in pain? Is there anything I can do?,-- makes it painfully clear how unintentionally disconnected Willow is from the soul of person she feels such love for.
It is also easy to say that Willow may have acted selfishly, and all indications are so far pointing in that direction, but I don’t think this issue will be resolved for quite a long time yet. Buffy may currently be in emotional and spiritual anguish, and believe that she is ‘in hell’ based on her memories of where she was and what she feels she has lost, but we know from past experience that our heroine is astoundingly resilent, and will almost assuredly recover, given time and motivation. I am wondering whether Buffy’s slow recovery will be paralleled by an equally slow descent of her best friend into a level of despair and anguish of comparable proportions.
I don’t have too much else to note except for the usual things that I am sure everyone is aware