October 2001 posts
A Vampire's reflection; actually lack thereof : ) -- Wynn, 15:55:22 10/14/01 Sun
I've been lurking for a couple of weeks now, and I would have lurked longer, but I had a question that I hope someone will answer. On to the question- Has it ever been answered as to why vampire's have no reflection (either by Joss or other sources)? Is it because the mirror is a reflection of one's soul, and since vampires have no soul, they have no relfection? But I guess this isn't true because Angel has a soul but no reflection. Maybe it's because a mirror is a reflection of one's true self and maybe the demon inside the vampire can't face it's true nature? Does anyone else have thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Vampire's reflection; actually lack thereof and accessorizing -- sasha, 18:42:42 10/14/01 Sun
Along the same lines here, I've looked around the site, and I really don't see an answer to:
Okay, fine, Joss has said Vampires don't reflect in mirrors, so they don't, but does anyone know why their clothes and/or weapons don't reflect either? I mean, when Angel passes a mirror, there is no indication whatsoever that he's there, however many layers of clothes he has on (usually including a trenchcoat) or weapons he may be carrying (unless there was an ep that I missed where Angel's weapons just float through the air?) . But if Wes walked by the same mirror and was carrying the same weapon, it would be visible. Or if Angel tossed Wes the weapon, I would expect it to appear in the mirror. I just think its strange that the mirrors have built-in intelligence that "if vampire, don't reflect anything attached to their person even if its an ordinary object like a throwing axe or trenchcoat".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Clothes make the man -- Cleanthes, 19:40:03 10/14/01 Sun
If Angel wore no clothes, he wouldn't just be Angel, he'd be naked Angel. So, his clothes are part of him. They don't reflect as long as they're part of him. When they're not, they reflect.
Yeah, this is an unscientific explanation, but then, that's what's required.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> You could go the scientific route... -- VampRiley, 06:17:48 10/15/01 Mon
...and explain it with them having an aura of mystical energy that is invisible to at least the Human eye. It makes the vamp's reflection as if they were invisible when they are in front of a mirror with no distortion of light. Anything that is on them or they are carrying, the aura extends to it because it is in contact with the body of the vamp. But no matter what answer we come up with, Joss would probably come with something completely different.
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: You could go the scientific route... -- sasha, 08:40:59 10/15/01 Mon
Yes, I was thinking something along these lines myself....the invisibility aura inherant to the vampire's nature, perhaps something along the lines of a "someone else's problem" field.....or as someone else mentioned, a cloaking device...:)
Perhaps my question should have been "Okay, I can sort of buy that vampires don't reflect in mirrors since they were originally silver (the mirrors, that is, not the vamps ) even though current mirrors don't contain silver, but has Joss said or is there any traditional vampire lore that would explain the accessories not appearing in mirrors either?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Never heard of anything. -- VampRiley, 09:22:22 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Vampire's reflection; actually lack thereof : ) -- anom, 21:03:19 10/14/01 Sun
Can't say if this applies in the Jossverse (esp. given what you said about Angel), but I've thought for a long time that the vampire of folklore has no reflection because it represents the part of us we don't want to see.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Vampire's reflection; actually lack thereof : ) -- change, 03:27:05 10/15/01 Mon
The explanation I heard for this is that is a magical substance, and that it is the silver in the mirror that won't reflect a vampire's image. Since this was all being done by magic anyway, you could say the silver was smart enough to know that the vampire's clothes and weapon's belonged to the vampire and therefore shouldn't be reflected either.
Of course, they stopped using silver to make mirrors a long time ago.
Maybe vampires have a built in cloaking device that doesn't quite work right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: A Vampire's reflection; actually lack thereof : ) -- robert, 11:00:55 10/15/01 Mon
I suspect if we gathered several of us physics types around a table, and lubricated the conversation with sufficient beer and bullshit, we could concoct an interesting explanation (based no doubt upon quantum mechanics) for the lack of reflection. By the way, the discovery that quantum mechanics was responsible for invisibility in the episode "Invisible Girl" brought a song to my heart.
I believe, however, that this is another example of science and magic being the same, in the buffyverse. I think that if you get bound up in the impossible science and technology (such as Spike's chip), then you will not enjoy the story which Joss is attempting to tell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> why you can't see vampires in the mirror -- purplegrrl, 12:04:06 10/15/01 Mon
The idea that a vampire casts no relection in a mirror was invented by Bram Stoker in his novel "Dracula." This is one of the major aspects of the "traditional" vampire that Stoker added to the lore.
Stoker never fully explained *why* vampires do not cast a reflection in mirrors (or mirror-like surfaces for that matter). Considering the Victorian sensibilities, and what Stoker was trying to point out in his novel, this lack of reflection probably has to do not so much with the soul as with unseen or unrealized desires. Most of Stoker's Dracula is a metaphor for Victorian attitudes about sex -- especially women being sexual creatures.
"Dracula" was such a popular novel that the attributes Stoker ascribed to his vampire became de rigueur for future vampires. I've read quite a bit of critique on vampire fiction, including deconstruction of the vampire itself. There really is no definitive explanation for why vampires cannot be seen in mirrors.
As for why their clothes don't reflect: That probably falls into something like "clothes make the man" or creature in this case. A vampire is not the invisible man where we're *supposed* to see just the empty clothes running around. The vampire's clothes (and/or tools and weapons) don't reflect because they are touching him, a part of him. The vampire doesn't reflect, so neither does what it wears or carries.
As for Joss' vampires not casting reflections: There is over 100 years of "tradition" for these vampires to conform to. There would a lot more questions and outrage from the viewers if Angel, Spike, et al., *did* cast a reflection in a mirror. It would not fit into what we perceive as a "vampire." It wouldn't seem "right." (I've read some vampire fiction where the vamps cast reflections, but since there was no explanation for this break with tradition I didn't find the characters necessarily believable.)
Hope this helps.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Thanks! -- Wynn, 12:30:03 10/15/01 Mon
I always wondered if there was a reason given why vampires don't have refections or if it was just part of the mysticism of being a vampire. Thanks again.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> No reflection... -- Moose, 22:26:46 10/15/01 Mon
The lack of a reflection with vampires seems to come from the vampire being an unnatural thing, not of this world. And as such they cast no reflection in the real world.
A similar theme would be a creature that did not cast a shadow, which I'm not certain but seems to be alluded to in some vampire lore.
The idea that they are unnatural, that normal physics don't apply, runs parallel to the sexual/moral deviancy they represent. Vampires are outside societal norms, not necessarily akin to rapists, but rather deviants that coerce people into becoming like them through unnatural exchanges of bodily fluids.
My theoretical idea on mirrors has to do with the mirror showing a reverse reflection of whatever is before it. It is an otherworldly view of this world, giving us a glimpse of reality, only backwards. The backward reflection shows us the truth about ourselves, forcing us to see ourselves from the outside in, instead of the inside out.
Vampires conceal what they are, deceiving others with a false image of life/normalcy. That false image cannot be reflected because it is not real. A mirror cannot reflect what was never there in the first place, hence we see nothing. Which is what is inside the vampire--nothing. It is undead shell with a empty reflection looking to feed off the lifeblood of others in order to survive.
Is it just me or...? -- Felipe, 17:17:56 10/14/01 Sun
Hey everyone!
After watching "Afterlife", the question keeps popping in my head: Will this "new" Buffy give Spike a chance? I mean, that moment when he held her wounded hand and they just stared at each other... it was deep. I liked it. Come on people, share with me. Am I the only one who saw that?
Felipe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> You're not the only one. -- VampRiley, 06:29:18 10/15/01 Mon
I noticed. And it was deep. This new Buffy is definitly different from the one that existed before the portal opened. Could this new one give Spike a chance? I'm not sure. These characters of Joss's mind are always changing. Maybe down the line, something might happen. One week, it might seem like she could and then the next, something happens with one of them and it would bcome less likely. Joss has a "tendency" to make any realtionship on his shows to be uneasy. Aything that's really worth something is never easy. And Joss really likes that idea. He likes making it very hard for the characters. Anyone else?
VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Is it just me or...? -- Wynn, 08:30:12 10/15/01 Mon
I saw it too. I'd like to see something develop between Spike and Buffy. I think that it would create more tension between Buffy and the SG, if the SG found about it. A 'relationship' between the two would also bring about a dilemma when, probably not if, Spike's chip is out/damaged/deactivated. Will he remain good to be with Buffy? Will she trust him now that he isn't 'neutered'? Can vampires really change? Whatever path Joss decides to go down, I'm sure it will be good.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Not just you... -- Deeva, 12:15:22 10/15/01 Mon
It was pretty deep and moving. Will their relationship change? It already has changed by several degrees, how much more remains to be seen. VR is right in saying that in Joss' mind the good things are never easy. This will be the same. Frankly, I'm looking forward to the tensions that will come up. The SG's eventual realization that Buffy's opinion of Spike has improved, her true feelings towards the SG and so on. Ahhhhh, it's good watchin'!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who knows... -- Morgane, 06:41:14 10/16/01 Tue
What about the "I can be alone with you" line? Don't you think it can forshadow something. Or the fact that she left her friends, and say that she was going on patrol, to go see him in his crypt. (doesn't remind you the lying about Angel in the beginning of the third season even if the whole deal is quite different) I don't say it means that there will be something between the two, but it certainly means that she feels better around him than around her friends, that's already a lot more than last year, isn't it? I don't know how it'll turn, caus' you're right about Joss, he's unpredictable, but Spike certainly has a better shot than he has before.
Stoker and a vampire barrier -- LadyStarlight, 06:46:41 10/15/01 Mon
Did Bram Stoker's vampires require an invitation into a private house? I think they did, but I'd like to know for sure. (I'm rewriting a story.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's been so long since I read it, I don't remember -- Cactus Watcher, 08:50:58 10/15/01 Mon
But, I do remember Stoker's vamps were not destroyed by sunlight, although their powers were reduced during daylight hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Stoker and a vampire barrier -- Malandanza, 09:55:53 10/15/01 Mon
I searched the e-text for the words "invite" and "invitation" -- they do not even appear in Dracula in a normal context.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Stoker and a vampire barrier -- Peasant, 10:23:09 10/15/01 Mon
I seem to remember that he did need an invitation, but he got one to Lucy's house by enthralling her to come and let him in. They did a lot of business with garlic flowers (not the bulbs, the flowers which is interesting) to try and prevent his control over her. And there was something about holy wafers made into a sort of putty to keep him from entering in mist form after he had wangled the invite.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> sort of -- anom, 15:08:41 10/15/01 Mon
His invitation from Renfield (I still remember: "Come in, O lord & master!") in the insane asylum apparently extended to the doctor's (I forget his name--Mina's father?) house. Or maybe the dr. had rooms in the same bldg.? Anyway, he did need the invitation from Renfield.
The pun-watch continues. -- Humanitas, 16:50:37 10/15/01 Mon
From Inca Mummy Girl:
Buffy: Okay, I'll still get Xander. Before he gets smoochy with Mummy Dearest.
Let those groans rip, folks!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Well spotted. -- Cleanthes, 08:50:11 10/16/01 Tue
I groaned, but forgot to consider whether it qualified as a classical pun (paronomasia, technically, which I need to type here to assure myself that I can still spell it correctly).
I thought Willow could have alerted the others to the new occupant of the Incan coffin with "Brace yourself", but she didn't. ;-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Well spotted. -- Humanitas, 12:12:50 10/16/01 Tue
My rule of thumb for "is it a pun or not" actually has little to do with intellectual classification. If it elicits a groan, it's a pun. If it gets any other reaction, it's not. Not as precise as the definition you presented, but a lot easier to spell! ;)
While I'm thinking about it, this is the first example of a true pun by Buffy in the series. Fear not, I'll point out more as the FX re-runs go on.
Lilah's one of us! (Spoiler Warning) -- Isabel, 20:59:22 10/15/01 Mon
I find it oddly reassuring that Lilah Morgan isn't a cold-blooded, sexless barracuda. She's got hormones! And taste! She's a hot-blooded, hetero woman who'll jump Angel if given a chance. Like many viewers I think. ;-)
(I did worry about her taste since the only time she made a move at Linsey, she was trying to get him killed and save her neck.)
Although, if you think of all the stalking Angel has done of her, that's kinda oogy. He's broken into her car, her office, come to her apartment, threatened her with a violent and lingering death and two weeks ago murdered a flunky right in front of her. But then again, she works for Wolfram and Hart. If that doesn't bother her, maybe she gets off on kinky stuff.
I also noticed that she left her little 'present' behind. I wonder if Wesley will notice what it is when they clean up. Remember, no one knows it's there. Can you think how confused she'll be if Angel Investigations doesn't use her help to get out of Gavin Park's red-tape nightmare?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Ahem... Not every us on the board is "one of us" -- Masq, 22:10:30 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> You're right. -- Isabel, 17:29:51 10/17/01 Wed
I should keep my language more precise. I know that not everyone on the board watches Angel like I do. ;) I was just shocked, ya know?
Of course, she's even less of an Angel fan now.
I've read people's comments that it looked forced, or just tossed in for titillation. Do you think that the writers are trying to mosey around Angel's curse so they've got more story lines and more excuses to show DB's very well shaped bod?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Don't take it hard, I think he meant Angel fan more than any slight against...you know -- Charlemagne20, 22:38:10 10/15/01 Mon
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Angel is my favorite character -- Masq, 06:39:08 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Yah Masqerade -- Chew-Lean, 13:01:35 10/16/01 Tue
thought i'd add that in
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Who else noticed the complete lack of chemistry ? -- Liq, 01:07:34 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Are you kidding? I thought it was hot -- Masq, 07:07:02 10/16/01 Tue
You know, between covering the eyes and screaming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree... it just seemed kinda, uh... sitcom-ish. I felt cheap (and cheated). -- Solitude1056, 07:20:54 10/16/01 Tue
Then again, Lilah and Lindsey had chemistry, no doubt about it. But there's never seemed to be chemistry between Lilah and Angel, and I think that's less cause of the scenes and more because the two actors just don't click, no fault of their own - they're just not world-class enough to be able to fake it. I think Lilah's response to Angel is within her character, since she's tried so hard to seduce Angel in other ways despite his stalkyness and what-not: she wants him within her power, and her sexuality is one of her few weapons, since nothing else seems to have worked.
Actually, it brought to mind the setup of the Cordelia & Xander relationship, a few seasons back...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Cheap and cheated. -- Deeva, 08:44:40 10/16/01 Tue
Pretty much describes Lilah. BTW, does anyone else think that Lilah's lookin' a little knobby? Knobby elbows, shoulders and knees. I think she's getting a little too skinny and her hair (the bangs) is not doing anything for her.
I thought DB was pretty good in playing a character who was unfamiliar witht the gang and his body. And the way he hit on Cordy in the car was MAJOR sleazy! Ick! I loved the scene between "Angel" and Wesley, the discomfort was funny. Makes me think that DB might be a pretty goofy guy in person.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> describes her wardrobe so far this season too -- anom, 09:22:02 10/16/01 Tue
It's a lot more revealing than in previous seasons, to the point where it doesn't seem appropriate for a law firm (& W&H is a conservative firm in its own way). Think they're trying to tell us something? Maybe now that she's heading the dept. it's part of her way of conveying her power, but it doesn't come across that way to me.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm baffled. I thought it was completely, totally out of character for her. -- OnM, 06:43:06 10/16/01 Tue
How long has she been dealing with Angel? How could she not suspect it would be a trick of some kind? This makes no sense to me at all.
I'm not even sure that one of Rufus' 'magic clauses' would explain it. Guess I'll wait and see.
:(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> It didn't seem out of character to me.. -- Masq, 09:01:16 10/16/01 Tue
Haven't you ever done something stupid in the name of hormones? (Of course, yours truly never would!) : )
I can totally buy that Lilah has a secret attraction to Angel. I think she fears him in a healthy way, but that's part of the attraction. She was tempted and decided to just go for it. Dumb, yes, but not out of character for a woman who will do just about anything to please herself in other circumstances, from hurting Cordelia to undercutting Gavin's efforts by giving Angel the papers he needs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I'm baffled. I thought it was completely, totally out of character for her. -- bible belt, 12:42:39 10/16/01 Tue
I couldn't believe Cordelia didn't see a whole bunch of red flags eithor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Oogy is putting it mildly! (Spoiler Warning) -- Cactus Watcher, 07:31:17 10/16/01 Tue
It was interesting to see Lilah and 'Angel' about to go after it, but it was creepy, too. I think it would have been a bit wilder if phoney Angel had tried a little harder to hit on Cordelia. Cordelia wouldn't have gone for it, but it would have complicated matters with Fred more.
Personally, I'm a little disappointed that the Fred character doesn't seem to be developing in any direction yet.
The whole ep felt like a fill-in to me. Other than the fact Lilah wants to backstab her coworkers again, we didn't learn much...
does anyone else think spike's devastation would be more convincing... -- anom, 21:42:33 10/15/01 Mon
...if he'd stopped using that punky-boy hair dye that he likes so much?
I mean, he's crushed by Buffy's death, saving her every night in his dreams, keeping his promise by watching Dawn like a hawk...but still concerned enough w/his appearance, which he can't even see, to keep dyeing his hair blond? I'd be more impressed to see it grown out, blond ends at the end of 3 months' growth & not looking very good on him. Then some time after Buffy's return he could cut & dye it again as an "I'm back" statement.
OK, maybe he had to keep up appearances if they were faking her non-death. But still.
Hey--does vampires' hair even grow?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> yeah, and what about (tiny spoilers) -- Jen C., 22:29:29 10/15/01 Mon
...all that new furniture. Maybe he's a shopaholic and needed to bury his pain under new furnishings.
Actually, I've been wondering if his new furniture came from Glory's apartment... I can just see it now..."that b*tch killed my true love - but I got her couch!"
The writers may have wanted to wait a bit on Spike's image upgrade.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I thought he accumulated his furnishings... -- RabidHarpy, 11:35:05 10/16/01 Tue
...after the Hell-biker-demons left town. Remember when he's watching them with that big-'ole-grin on his face? Dawn asks him about it and he makes a comment to the effect that, "It looks like fun, is all..." Maybe he indulged a little after the city had been ransacked - remember, he didn't know Buffy was back at this time, (he tends to behave more when she's around...)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I thought he accumulated his furnishings... -- Bellagracelyn, 18:34:14 10/17/01 Wed
I kind of assumed Spike got the furniture that Dawn, Willow, and Tara got rid of after redecorating the Summers' home. I can see Dawn arranging stuff since she likes hanging in his crib..um..er...crypt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Can't you tell he was shattered?... -- Cactus Watcher, 07:42:37 10/16/01 Tue
He went from pure white hair to 'Buffy' blond. That's devotion! Har, har. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yes. His hair did look particularly vile. Or bile! LOL. -- Aquitaine, 07:57:22 10/16/01 Tue
As to the furniture, I thought it was yet another indication of his domestication...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: "Spike" and "domestication" in the same sentence -- sasha, 12:05:59 10/16/01 Tue
Aquitaine, I bow humbly before your wit....I've only tried sticking "Cordy" and "conscience" in the same sentence...but you...WOW! LOL
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Huh? Wit? I've just been hanging with the Dadaist Bot too much ;) -- Aquitaine, 13:55:26 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Maybe Dawn bleached it for him while Buffy was gone to keep things "normal" -- Liq, 09:58:21 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And WHAT was up with the dentist's chair (shudder)? -- voyageofbeagle, 12:24:52 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> LOL! I noticed that too! :) -- RabidHarpy, 13:01:35 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Yeah, for a second I thought it was some weird La-Z-Boy/barber's chair! -- Deeva, 14:39:38 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: does anyone else think spike's devastation would be more convincing... -- Wisewoman, 15:56:11 10/16/01 Tue
Hey--does vampires' hair even grow?
Interesting. Anne Rice's vampires can't change their hair; it remains as it was at the moment of their deaths. Remember Claudia, the little girl vampire, hacking off all her hair, only to have it reappear moments later, long, lustrous, and perfectly curled?
If this is the case in the Buffyverse, then Spike may not have to bleach his hair over and over again. If he bleached the hair he had when he was "turned" at some point before 1977, it would presumably just stay that length and colour until he decided to dye it.
It does seem as if William had a great deal more hair than Spike does, though. And Angel's hair is much shorter than Liam's was, so obviously these vampires can cut their hair. Maybe it just doesn't grow back after being cut?
And, hey, do he and Angel have to shave?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> glad you picked up on this part, ww -- anom, 21:32:57 10/16/01 Tue
I was wondering some of the same things. Like how we've seen some of the vamps w/longer hair than they have now, but has it ever been shorter? & if it doesn't grow, does it need to be redyed? Hmm...we did see Spike painting his fingernails one time when Buffy broke in on him, so maybe those grow--or maybe the polish just wears off or gets chipped, as someone pointed out in a strange thread a few months ago!
As for shaving, I can't remember ever seeing either Angel or Spike w/stubble, so maybe they don't have to.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> It's deep conversation like this that keeps me comin' back :) -- Liq, 22:49:11 10/16/01 Tue
The hair thing is a mystery with no clues whatsoever... rude, doncha think?
I haven't noticed much change in Angel's hair, but after seeing the FX reruns, I've noticed his skin is far ruddier and more scarred than it was in the first two seasons.
I can't see Spike dyeing his hair although the color in the 70's was pure platinum and now it's more blond. His hair seemed shorter in Flooded, but it was longer on his neck and slicked back last night on PI along with his more prominent scar and darker eyebrows which indicated that he taped the show yesterday afternoon between BtVS scenes with a bit of Spike make-up intact.
The nail issue is probably as simple as he picks at the polish, bites his nails and hits things. Hell on nail polish, ya know?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Actually, I've always wondered if they need to pee! -- Marie, 02:16:40 10/17/01 Wed
I mean, all the beer that Spike drinks - and what effect would a diet of pig's blood have on the bodily functions?
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, I've always wondered if they need to pee! **teensy Angel spoiler** -- Liq, 11:02:52 10/17/01 Wed
Well, the blood is absorbed and keeps their bodies unliving. Angel and Spike must be very well hydrated considering their less than pale skin.
Angel, while still in the old man's body said he had to pee, which is not usually a vampire function. I don't even want to think about all the food Spike consumes....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> food & humanity -- anom, 11:32:15 10/17/01 Wed
"I don't even want to think about all the food Spike consumes...."
Hmmmmm...I wonder if eating like a human (even if it has no nutritional value for him) has anything to do w/Spike's behavioral/emotional changes. Along w/the chip, of course.
Body and Soul (AtS 3.4) -- Aquitaine, 07:55:04 10/16/01 Tue
Apart from the fact that I thought last night's "Angel" was all over the place plotwise and thematically, one thing about the episode did stand out for me. When the old man (Marcus?) was in Angel's body, it didn't seem that he was overpowered by evil intentions or compulsions. He seemed to bring his own evil and libido to Angel's body. Once in possession of this 'immortal' body, he reveled in the power and freedom it lent him. He didn't set out to do mischief as Angelus might have.
We have been shown what Angel becomes when he is separated from his soul and now we have been shown what he becomes when he is separated from his body (and what someone else becomes while in *his* body). I think that the groundwork is being laid to explain Angel's pesky Notwithstanding-Soul curse in different terms. And, speaking of terms, such an explanation could go a long way in explaining Darla's *cough* condition.
Finally, I definitely think the brownies are going to hit the fan when Cordy finds out about Darla and Angel's little trip down Lust Alley. It's gonna be oogly, folks. Very, very oogly:)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: I agree! I agree! (SPOILERS AtS 2.22 - 3.4) -- sasha, 08:19:09 10/16/01 Tue
My thought exactly....Angel has spent 100 years deciding whether to/learn to control Angelus. He has been through some very painful and soul-stretching things lately (no, not the "B" word! ), but the sidetrip to Pylea where he got a real long, traumatizing look at Angelus who is sharing his body and had to, um, reach deep inside past Angelus to find the strength and courage Wes needed from him in order for them to escape Pylea. Angel threw his whole heart and soul into the task, almost to the point of breaking, and reclaimed his body from Angelus in order to not kill Gru (and did Cordy thank him, I don't think so! ). He returned to LA with new confidence in his achievement.
Now, TPTB expect us to believe that someone else, who knows NOTHING about vampires and doesn't seem to have any more of a soul/conscience than an ordinary vampire, can inhabit Angel's body and easily control Angelus? Angelus, one of the most powerful demons ever? At the very least, I would have expected the new occupant to test Angelus's limits, to join with him in wrecking mayhem ("hey, we got rid of that pesky Angel soul with the conscience, let's par-tay!"). Instead we get, um, "comedy"?
And one more rant point: Was that a stun gunn Cordy used to take out occupied Angel and then they tied him up with plain rope? Who knew that he could be so easily subdued? Maybe Cordy should get Buffy a stun gunn and coil of rope for Christmas; make her job a whole lot easier! Its too bad they didn't know this in 3.1 Heartthrob; it could have come in very handy with James....avoided that whole running through the sewers and Cordy being in danger footage and the James confronting Angel about Buffy's death since Angel didn't want to do it himself. Of course, I still don't understand why Angel didn't just chop him in half (ala "The Trial") or set him on fire...sure, these methods wouldn't have killed him but I bet they would have slowed him down somewhat......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I find the whole thing very confusing -- sassette, 08:36:44 10/16/01 Tue
Marcus-in-Angel didn't have any bloodlust, it seemed, at least not until he was kissing Lilah. But he was hungry for *actual* food, and I don't think he drank more than a few sips the whole episode. He didn't seem to have any natural, instinctual vamp feelings.
And Angel-in-Marcus also didn't seem to have any vamp instincts of needs.
So, where was the demon? It wasn't in Marcus-in-Angel, at least not in the way that it presents itself when we have Angel-in-Angel, but it also wasn't present in Angel-in-Marcus. Where was the bloodlust?
And, what got switched? If it were just souls, then Marcus-in-Angel should have been evil, right? But he wasn't.
I am finding the whole issue of what exactly the demon is, and where it resides, very, very confusing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My theory of what happened -- Jack_McCoy, 08:48:35 10/16/01 Tue
Here is why I think Marcus wasn't overriden by Angelus:
The curse was meant to work on Liam and Liam alone. It was to make him suffer for "his" crimes, since he was indirectly resposible for them (like it or not, it was his personaltiy that helped shape Angelus). Therefore, when Marcus took over, the perfect happiness clause didn't effect him, since he had nothing to do with Angelus's victims.
Also, Liam may have been selfish and self-centered, but he wasn't a killer. That is what made life as a vampire so hard, since he had the insticts and drive to prey on humans. Marcus, however, had no qualms about this, in fact reveled in it, which is why he wasn't overwhelmed by violence and bloodlust. He was already used to it.
Finally, a human soul, even one like Marcus's, seems to be stronger than a demon's soul (or whatever you want to call it). Heck, Marcus, with his lust for life and power, may have been even stronger than Liam's soul (from a certain point of view). This may be why Angelus wasn't able to take over, or dominate him.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: My theory of what happened -- rowan, 09:16:55 10/16/01 Tue
My thoughts are that we're seeing an extension of what happened in Pylea. The demon is a primal, animalistic being that operates on basic urges: kill, eat, survive. It's the vestiges of the human personality that 'inform' the new vampire's personality and consciousness. So, demon + Liam = Angelus. The demon + Marcus = somebody else entirely with a different level of 'evil.' All Marcus got were the physical manifestations of the vampire plus the demony furnace underneath. He channeled the demon into his own particular brand of evil.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> or... -- anom, 10:46:27 10/16/01 Tue
...Angelus did go w/Angel's soul/personality/whatever into Marcus' body, but Angel kept it under control, same as when they were in his (their?) own body.
But if not, "...when Marcus took over, the perfect happiness clause didn't effect him, since he had nothing to do with Angelus's victims." There are 2 possibilities: The clause didn't affect him because Fred interrupted them before he reached, ahem, perfect happiness, or, as we saw with Darla, because good or even perfect sex does not (necessarily) equal perfect happiness.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> i think your assuming too much here guys -- Charlemagne20, 11:15:08 10/16/01 Tue
It may act like you, it may look like you, but it's not you is basically the by-word of vampires. They are beings without souls even though we've seen some remarkable facimiles. Old Guy was obviously transferring his soul into Angel and while he was still a vampire and suffered "vampire lusts" (see Lilah biting) it was still his own spirit. In a way it's a perfect counterweight to Liam because it shows Angel bears some culability for making Angelus the amazingly evil figure that he was (because his body is no more evil than the average newborn vampire makes him) and also the conquering of his darker nature all the greater achievement (Old Guy's soul didn't keep him from becomming an average vamp).
In effect I agree with the above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: i think your assuming too much here guys -- rowan, 13:08:20 10/16/01 Tue
I think this is what I said....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> even more than that... -- Solitude1056, 11:44:47 10/16/01 Tue
When I read the shooting script, the story hung together (and had a better 'point') than what was aired. Go read the original, and you'll see where a sub-plot was cut out. I'm not sure why, but I do think leaving that in there would've underlined a bit better the thematic point and how it plays into this season's potential arc for AtS. Without it, though, it's just a semi-successful episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I'm really glad to hear there was a point.... -- sasha, 12:09:13 10/16/01 Tue
.....even though it wasn't aired, because I watched the whole ep, going "huh?" My faith in TPTB on the subject of continuity in the Angel/Buffyverse has been taking drastic bounds downwards this season....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: un aired subplot?. -- spike lover, 01:30:07 10/17/01 Wed
so what was the unaired subplot with all the meaning?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: un aired subplot?. -- sasha, 08:47:02 10/17/01 Wed
I don't know as I haven't seen the shooting script, but I would like to toss out another idea
If they show an ep which doeesn't make sense because they cut out the important bits (since we know for this ep the shooting script makes sense), does the result count as "canon" or does the shooting script count as "canon"? I think that since the medium is "tv", I would have to go with the ep being the definitive version (after all, we're not supposed to have access to the shooting scripts, right?). But I worry, will later eps depend on this missing information? Will TPTB later say about things we don't understand "it was in the shooting script" as a justification? Is this another example of "the bendy, twisty rules" in action?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: even more than that... -- Rufus, 13:05:49 10/16/01 Tue
Yes, read the shooting script and they would have been smart to have left more of the sub-plot in to make the ep have more meaning. What they cut out was the "heart" of the show in this case. Wonder why they did that?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: even more than that... -- Aquitaine, 13:35:52 10/16/01 Tue
I agree. I would have rather had the Marcus-and-daughter bits than the tacky and probably expensive to shoot nightclub scene.
Hmmm. It really is difficult to fathom why they opted to edit or shoot the episode this way.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> time the commercials? -- Solitude1056, 14:20:05 10/16/01 Tue
Does anyone have the capability to time the commercials? I know that at the halfway point, they squeeze in usually twice as many commercials as during the other breaks... but the past few episodes, it's seemed as though all the commercial breaks are equally as long as the midway point. Am I just making this up, or could it be that the episode lengths are being shortened by the WB to make more room for commercials... and taking away from script development that we might've seen?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: time the commercials? -- rowan, 15:28:12 10/16/01 Tue
I didn't notice this on AtS, but After Life drove me crazy with the commercials. Even my mother (who I am converting slowly to BtVS) noticed. Someone told me that although the ep length was still the same, that UPN did not have commercials between BtVS and Roswell (probably in an attempt to hold audience).
I'm not quite sure how they are doing this, but I've noticed longer commercial sequences as well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> My theory about what happened -- Masquerade, 16:07:36 10/16/01 Tue
I don't see a conflict here.
The best explanation is that it wasn't just Angel's "soul" (conscience) that left the body, it was everything--his personality, his memories, his consciousness. All that was left in the body was the basic vampiric instincts (Which is what we witnessed last season in that mindless monster in Pylea).
"Angelus" just equals Angel without a soul (conscience), not Angel without his consciousness, memories and personality. Angelus' memories, consciousness, and personality are aspects of Angel. So when Angel's "spirit" (memories, conscience, personality, consciousness) left, so did everything in Angelus that isn't pure mindless vampiric instinct.
So the personality we know as "Angelus" could not have remained in the body. It went with Angel and his soul. Only the mindless monster remained and joined with Marcus' personality, consciousness, and memories.
Little competition for you (Spoilers for Angel) -- Marie, 08:18:32 10/16/01 Tue
A very quick competition, if you don't mind!
How do you think, now that Willow's told the ATeam that Buffy's alive, this will be handled on both series? Will reference be made in BtVS about Angel visiting? How would Spike handle that? Comments?
Nearest to correct gets cyber chocs!
M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Once again, Spoiler Trollups disqualified!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:38:55 10/16/01 Tue
Some of us know how it's going to be handled. Can we get the chocky anyway?
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Chocky ;o) -- Cactus Watcher, 11:09:41 10/16/01 Tue
WW always deserves a chocky! You brighten this board, even if you are an evil spoiler trollop, gloating over your ill-gotten information! ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Why, thank you! What a sweetie!! ;o) -- WW, 14:28:15 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Not ill-gotten. No unlawful transactions transpired for the info. -- Deeva, 15:01:11 10/16/01 Tue
At least none that I am ashamed of!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Oh, Ye of little patience, repent! -- CW, 15:36:05 10/16/01 Tue
Not illegal just immoral, fattening, or otherwise fun. ;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Little competition for you (Spoilers for AtS 2.22 - 3.4, BtVS 6.1-6.3) -- sasha, 09:43:45 10/16/01 Tue
My speculation is that now they've acknowledged that Buffy is alive, from this point on, they're gonna ignore it comletely, other than tantalizing us with little second-hand bits which happen offscreen.
For evidence I submit:
1) In AtS 2.22, the only reaction we get from Angel to Willow's in person visit is "Buffy?". End of scene.
2) In AtS 3.1, when I for one was hoping to see some kind of reaction to Buffy's death (since it wasn't shown in 2.22!), instead, Angel goes on retreat and beats up demon monks. Instead of "reflecting/thinking" during his retreat, he is "doing/getting it out of his system". He comes back to LA all relaxed and happy and smiling. No problems in his world. If there was even one second of angst on Angel's part in this ep over Buffy's death, I missed it.
Instead of having Angel deal with the issue directly through angst, discussion, or absentmindedness (as if he were thinking about something which occupied all his time/attention), we have everyone else worried about how he feels. Cordy brings up the issue a couple of times ("is this going to be one of those discussions where I do all the talking", and at the end when he tells her "I'm only upset that I'm okay with it"). James brings up the issue ("if you really loved her you wouldn't be standing her now because it would have killed you"). Even at the beginning, Gunn and Wes briefly mention "the topic we're not supposed to talk about".
3) In 3.3 When Merle is killed. Angel laments "I never got to know him. Now that he's dead, I'm forced to.". Here's the angst and regret I was looking for in either 2.22, 3.1. Since it happened here and for a different person/being, I interpreted this as "yes, Angel can feel angst and regret, but since he's not showing it for Buffy, it either hurts so deep he can't show it or he's moved on". From 1.8 I Will Remember You, I would hope it would be "it hurts so deep", but I saw no smidgen of emotion on the subject, not even self-flaggellation for "I wasn't even there and I should have been".
And from what I have seen, Angel is not good at hiding his emotions. I may not be able to figure out the specifics of his emtions immediately, but I can tell when he is having them. Look at 2.4:Untouched when Darla was keeping him from sleeping. I see completely unfocused Angel (Angel: I'm going to bed. Its been a long day. Cordy: You've been up for 3 hours!); I know something is wrong; I just don't know what or where its going. When he confronts Bethany at the end "Are you going to kill us?! Are you going to die!?", I see plenty of emotion. Is it anger, grief, frustration? I don't know..I just know its there. In 3.3:That Old Gang of Mine, he confronts Gunn directly, twice, with plenty of emtion (Angel: "Here Charles, let me make it simple for you. Take a look; this is what I am. Deal with it or don't, but make a damn choice." and again at the end when with resignation, forgiveness, with magnamity, with accpetance, in response to Gunn stating he's proved Angel can trust him, Angel:"No. You'll prove I can trust you when the day comes that you have to kill me and you do." ). Again, what is the emotion--frustration at the ongoing fence-sitting of Gunn, anger at himself for not dealing/talking the issue out with Gunn earlier and being forced to do it now when if he messes up he could get the ATeam killed, fear that Gio will just start firing again at any moment no matter what Angel does or says, and for the ending scene--resignation that Gunn might never accpet him?
4) In 3.4:Carpe Noctum, an offscreen telephone call brings the news that Buffy is alive. And I ask WHY? If Willow could come to LA in 2.22 to tell him Buffy's gone, why can't she come to tell him she's back? I think this might be because
a) As shown on BtVS, Spike is outraged that Willow brought Buffy back. Also, Spike and Dawn are upset at being left out of the SG's plans. I wonder if Willow is afraid of a similar reaction from Angel? Or if Willow is just afraid of Angel in general since he maintains a delicate balancee between Angel and Angelus and anything can set him off at any time.
b) Because Willow is having to try so hard to convince herself that she did the right thing be bringing Buffy back, she might think she can't handle one more person questioning her motives, which Angel would be sure to do, especially not someone how has direct experience with hell dimensions, slayers and the rules governing them, and would shoot down all her justifications.
c) Or it could just be TPTB way of saying "we're not showing it because its not important to the storyline and we can't logistically do crossovers anymore because of the different networks. Angel and Buffy have moved on; you should too!"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Little competition for you (Spoilers for AtS 2.22 - 3.4, BtVS 6.1-6.3) -- Culo, 12:29:21 10/16/01 Tue
(reaching into a fanboy's bag 'o explanations / reasoning) Or maybe she doesn't want to leeave Buffy now that they've got her. Or maybe it's harder and more terrible to tell someone that his love-of-his-life is dead than telling that she's been resurrected. Or maybe a trip down is too expensive or feels too unsafe with recent events.
Really, does it matter whether she tells good news (for the SG and to Team Angel, anyways) to their faces. I don't believe for a second that Angel could attack Willow even if he objected to their actions like Spike did. Hmm, Could Angel kill Buffy if she came back wrong enough to be a danger? In any case, it saves Willow a trip
Angel and the baby *spoilery speculation* -- Simplicity, 08:20:38 10/16/01 Tue
This contains a small spoiler from "Carpe Noctem" and a healthy shot in the arm of speculation.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Did anyone else notice 'Angel's' reaction to holding the man's grandaughter? His face lit up and he smiled at her. Forshadowing?
Maybe this baby isn't going to be some little hellbeastie. It could be a normal, living, breathing baby. Is this another interpreation of "Shanshu"?
Also. . .thinking back to a 'crossover' episode last year. Darla wanted Angel to eat a baby in order prove his loyalty to her/evilness/ etc. But he couldn't do it. So...he may have to save this baby from Darla, cuz she might be tempted to drain it just to make him suffer. Besides, she doesn't strike me as being motherly in any way.
Any other thoughts on this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> (OT?) In the "Chronicles of the Cheysuli" by J. Roberson, "Shansu" means "peace"... -- RabidHarpy, 11:54:34 10/16/01 Tue
Significance? -- RabidHarpy, 12:54:15 10/16/01 Tue
People on the board have noted how the exchange between Buffy and Dawn, (when Dawn mentions that they just, "...want to see you being happy"), moves Buffy to present an outwardly "content" appearance to the SG, yet I haven't heard any comments on her statement before that:
Buffy: "You know what they say - those who fail history are doomed to repeat it in summer school..."
Sure it's a cute little joke between big sis and little sis, but the irony of that line cannot be ignored. Here we have Buffy who last season finally discovered and reconciled herself to "death" being her gift. She sacrifices herself for all of mankind and dies at peace - not only understanding her purpose, as it were, but having fulfilled it. This season begins with her resurrection - she knows that it was Willow and the Scoobies who brought her back - technically - but in order to reconcile herself with the "land of the living", she will have to find a new sense of purpose to justify her return.
Buffy is used to taking responsibility. I am sure that somewhere in her own mind she is wondering WHY she is back - what did she not complete or fulfill? What is there left for her to do? Why would the PTB allow her to be ripped from heaven, (even "unnaturally") unless there were some higher reason, (higher, that is, than the SG's selfishness in wanting her back). She might be feeling that somewhere along the line she has forgotten something - that she has, indeed, "failed history" and is now "doomed to repeat it" in summer, (or Summer's?) school, (nice little pun there!) The use of the word 'school' indicates a continuation of her education and of her "growing-up" in general.
For some reason, she - of all the Slayers has been brought back for a second round. I can't help but think that this is all very significant - that perhaps there may be an even greater evil looming in the future. Why else would Buffy specifically be allowed to return to continue these life-lessons? Why would Faith not be a suitable substitute? - after all, at Buffy's death she did technically become THE Slayer...
Parallel graying -- matching mole, 16:02:09 10/16/01 Tue
Boldly and perhaps rashly I would like to start a new thread as my first ever posting to this discussion. Many of the posts on this board have developed strong arguments for a change in the content of BtVS over the years, an increase in moral complexity and an emphasis on the personal evolution of the principal characters. During approximately the same period (some point in season 4 to now) my enjoyment of the show has steadily dropped. Not that I don’t enjoy shades of grey as much as anyone. But the show seems to lack the vibrancy it once had, the Dickensian gusto to cram as much of life and death as possible into itself. I was wondering what you guys thought about this? Does a moral ‘greying’ of the Buffyverse require a literal greying of it as well?
In brief I don’t enjoy BtVS as much as I did in seasons past because of the dramatic decline in the amount of humour and the increasing irrelevance of any external context to the characters. I’ll deal with the second point first as it requires more explanation. This past weekend in my area ‘The Witch’ (S1) and ‘Afterlife’ both aired on the same day. Both are second episodes of a season following a two hour premiere. The contrast between the two is immense. ‘The Witch’ has little in the way of moral complexity, Amy’s mother is bad, Buffy and her friends are good. The entire episode is steeped in high school; science class, cheerleading tryouts, driver’s education, a basketball game. You can practically feel the gym floor under your feet watching it. In ‘Afterlife’ Sunnydale has for all intents and purposes ceased to exist. Unless I’ve forgotten something there are no other characters except for the principals in the episode. No one goes to work or to school (except for Dawn at the very end). Such an episode could not have existed in season 1. There would have been nothing to hold the viewers’ interest.
‘Afterlife’ may be an extreme case, I don’t expect all future episodes to be so removed from the external world. But it does represent the tone of events throughout most of season 5. Other than the series of rather melodramatic events (Joyce’s illness and recovery, Riley’s alienation and departure, Joyce’s death) assaulting Buffy nothing much happened on the mundane level to the major characters through the whole season. Xander was presumably still working in construction, Willow and Tara (and initially Buffy) were still in university. After the initial episodes this all faded away. Giles bought the magic shop providing them with a convenient place to meet and not interact with anyone else. A major part of what I enjoy(ed) in the show is the juxtaposition of the mundane and the marvelous, the mixture of sorrow, horror, longing, and laughter. Without the mundane the marvelous is, well, not so marvelous.
A second (and final) example. My favourite episode of season 5 was ‘The Body’. Grim and not very funny but strongly rooted in the world. Anya’s attempt to understand mortality was all the more poignant because of her previous history of absurdity. The vampire attacking Dawn in the morgue was, for me, the scariest thing to happen in the entire season. It was unexpected and shocking although fairly trivial compared to many other events over the years.
The show now has complex and fascinating characters and tackles subtle moral questions. These are great things. But their existence seems correlated with the decline of other great things. Is it a worthwhile exchange? Is it a necessary exchange?
I was going to talk more about humour but I’ve already gone on too long for which I apologize. I don’t get to watch Buffy until Saturday so I may not respond to any responses until then to remain spoiler free.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Parallel graying -- Cactus Watcher, 16:20:07 10/16/01 Tue
I think the show has drifted away from its origin as humor mixed with horror. Whether that's good or bad is going to depend on the person watching. Personally, I thought season 5 was too grim, and so, it wasn't my favorite season. But, on the other hand, shows like "The Body," "Fool for Love," and "The Gift" were well worth watching. It would be difficult to imagine any of them surrounded with loads of humor. I hope that the humor returns, but I don't really want to give up the serious side either.
As far as reality goes, I think its best to think of the relationship of the themes that run through the show with themes in real life rather than worrying whether the show is ultimately believable. Let's face it, it's not believable. But, it does deal with genuine real world problems and foibles, and that's what makes it worth watching.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Too Grim? -- Malandanza, 17:02:10 10/16/01 Tue
"Personally, I thought season 5 was too grim, and so, it wasn't my favorite season."
In retrospect, I believe that last season was all leading up to last week's episode. Joss showed us just how tired Buffy was of life -- of all the sacrifices, the ceaseless struggle. Then he grants her a respite -- a reward for all her labors. And Willow and the gang take that from her.
If Season Five had been happier, Buffy's return would not have been as tragic. I don't think that season 5 was too grim -- it was just grim enough.
Season 4 was the season I didn't particularly care for -- because of the initiative story arc. I am willing to suspend disbelief for miracles involving magic, but science should follow the laws of physics -- blasters, behaviour modifying chips, demon detectors, secret labs, demon cyborgs -- these things belong on Star Trek, not BtVS. Still, even season 4 had its moments: Hush, the Faith episodes, Superstar...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Too Grim? -- matching mole, 17:45:52 10/16/01 Tue
I feel just about the same way you do about season 4. I have a personal bias (not an absolute one) against mixing magic and technology but I did really like all the individual episodes you mentioned. Grimmness aside you bring up another aspect of season 5 I wasn't that fond of - it was too Buffy-centric. Despite the show's name it had always seemed like an ensemble show in previous seasons. I have a rather peculiar predisposition to enjoy sidekicks more than heroes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> superstar plot device? -- anom, 16:48:08 10/17/01 Wed
"Season 4 was the season I didn't particularly care for -- because of the initiative story arc....Still, even season 4 had its moments: Hush, the Faith episodes, Superstar..."
About Superstar--it occurs to me that having Jonathan know about Adam's power source because, well, he's perfect & knows everything saved the writers from having to find a more believable way for the good guys to find out about it. Whaddaya think, folks--was this a copout?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Get the handcuffs, they were in a bind. -- Isabel, 18:54:48 10/17/01 Wed
I remember thinking at the time, once my brain had wrapped around the sudden alteration of reality and I had stopped screaming, "How does he know that?"
Riley never corroborated anything Jonathan said. They just carried over the info into the 'Real' world. At the end I was hoping that Jonathan would prove to have been wrong, so it wouldn't look like the writers were getting themselves out of a tricky plot situation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Parallel graying -- matching mole, 18:03:50 10/16/01 Tue
I agree completely with your first paragraph. However my concern is not whether the show is believable or not. I agree with you that it is completely unbelievable. Nor am I enormously concerned with consistency. What I do like, and of course this is merely a personal bias of mine, is a certain concreteness and detail in art. I generally prefer music with words to instrumental pieces, surrealism to abstract painting, Charles Dickens to Samuel Beckett. No one would ever accuse Dickens of being realistic but he created vividly imagined worlds for his novels. I guess you could say that I regarded Sunnydale as a member of the cast and that I mourn its passing (which may be temporary).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Parallel graying -- Rattletrap, 18:32:17 10/16/01 Tue
I, for one, like the direction the show has taken. I also watched "The Wish" last Saturday night and was struck in almost the opposite way. It was a fun little episode, but little more than harmless fluff. The direction the show has gone has some bite to it, if occasionally too much. It seems like the change started somewhere around mid-S2, with the whole Buffy and Angel angst story arc. At that point, the plots became more character driven than MotW driven. They still mix in the humor, but it is a slightly more wry, sardonic humor than we saw in the first season and it rarely takes up an entire episode.
I think we will see a bit more of the old Sunnydale this season, now that there is a main character in high school again, we can return to the "High School is Hell" metaphor from a slightly different angle.
P. S. Intersting post, welcome to the board, hope you stick around.
*'trap drops his $.02 in the coffee can*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Parallel graying -- Dariel, 21:27:02 10/16/01 Tue
I think the change is partly due to the loss of high school as setting. High school provides a great backdrop for both drama and humor--it's a very rich and complex world. It's hard to duplicate that cohesiveness once the characters graduate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> high school where? -- anom, 16:40:10 10/17/01 Wed
"I think we will see a bit more of the old Sunnydale this season, now that there is a main character in high school again, we can return to the 'High School is Hell' metaphor from a slightly different angle."
Speaking of high school in Sunnydale, where is it now that the original Sunnydale High was blown up? Has anything been said about that since Dawn's been on the show?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: high school where? -- Rattletrap, 05:30:39 10/18/01 Thu
She was just in Jr. High last year, so ME bought one more year without having to deal with that thorny question. Most places, tho', 9th grade is High School, so they will have to answer it this year. You'd think in 2+ years they could get a bond issue or something through to build a new high school in Sunnydale.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> High School -- d'Herblay, 14:30:22 10/18/01 Thu
In "Some Assembly Required," reference is made to "Fondren High." Xander says, "Fondren might actually beat Sunnydale in the cross-town body count competition this year." This leads me to believe that Fondren is actually in Sunnydale. For the hell of it, let's assume that Fondren in public and thus part of the Sunnydale School System. (Many medium-sized cities have more than one high school, only one of which bears the name of the town.) Students who are technically enrolled at Sunnydale could be bussed to Fondren while Sunnydale is out of service, much as students at Stuyvesant High found themselves attending school in Brooklyn following the World Trade Center attacks. As children in Sunnydale beg their parents to send them to boarding school, the Sunnydale School Board may decide that it no longer needs to operate two high schools. It will probably change the name of Fondren to "Sunnydale High School" just in time for Dawn to matriculate there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Agree, and how... -- Pen, 07:46:24 10/20/01 Sat
BtVS has always been an excellent conflation of drama and humor. That's its saving grace -- the skill of the writers and the fact that, while the humor may not necessarily be dominant, it has never been ancillary. One of the things BtVS teaches (wait for my upcoming opus, "Everything I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned While Watching 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer') is that, in a violent, perverse and demon-haunted world, humor and perspective are among our most potent weapons. The moments of simple absurdity and the scenes of everyday life are necessary counterpoints to the inevitable tragedy, the misgivings and recriminations that characterize the Buffyverse. Somehow -- and matching mole may have placed the right finger on the right issue for me -- the first two (three) episodes left me feeling a little, well, down. Somehow, Buffy's extradition from "heaven", and the scene at the end of "Afterlife" with Spike, depressed me far more than Angel's saga of evil, Jenny's death, Joyce's death or Buffy's death. From one perspective, it's a laurel in the screenwriter's/creator's crown: the complexity and uneasiness really strikes at the viewer's core. And the latest plots are nothing if not disquieting. Death and mayhem are tragic -- but simple. It's over, we grieve, we move on. The deeper psychological issues of Buffy's ressurrection and re-integration are messy and complex. And that, perhaps, is where the normal life of previous seasons is truly necessary. We need a scene of Sunnydale (beyond the sacked and looted one) to reassure us that, while the problems aren't going to go away, they aren't the only things happening. The world goes on, and even a moment in the coffee-house, arguing over whether the Captain was Tennille's pawn, or a dose of Giles-ian humor and discomfit, would do wonders for our perspective. The latest episode recovered some of that dynamic -- the scenes with the Arch-Geeks were classic and hilarious. That's perspective. I am blessed with a complete lack of chauvinism w/ regards to the relative worth of the seasons (I've seen every episode, and some seasons I like better than others, but they've all had unique and undeniable strengths -- even the much-maligned season 4, which was, a few lapses aside, a fairly good season with some excellent episodes) and I'm more than willing to give this latest run a fair -- well, actually biased, but I'm addicted -- trial. I just wanted to get my ha'penny's worth of thought in.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Agree, and how... -- mundusmundi, 15:20:41 10/21/01 Sun
One of the things BtVS teaches (wait for my upcoming opus, "Everything I Ever Needed to Know, I Learned While Watching 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer') is that, in a violent, perverse and demon-haunted world, humor and perspective are among our most potent weapons.
That's a great observation. And both you and matching mole (I'd say "mm," but those are my initials) raise some excellent points on the direction of the show. One thing I've noticed as TV series age -- perhaps more noticeable with sitcoms than dramas -- is that they frequently become more surreal, less grounded in the world of their devising. Seinfeld, Cheers and most recently (and dishearteningly) Frasier all began to rely less on the balance between the "marvelous and the mundane" and more on big sight gags, elaborate fantasy sequences, and the like. Much of this trend seems due to simple laziness, a dearth of ideas. I don't detect that on Buffy -- Joss & Co. don't slack it. But last season the series did take a turn toward the surreal, a dream-like quality that had an undeniable poetry yet fell short on logic and Sunnydale atmosphere. I too hope they get back to that a bit, while still finding a way to move forward in expanding the dimensions of the characters and the show's themes.
a new man -- o, 17:53:23 10/16/01 Tue
i've been thinking... there's a debate going on, about whether or not the chip should come out of spike. whether or not he should go back to being the big bad, or remain firmly entrenched in fluffy buffy-loving land. but i believe what's happened in the past two seasons isn't that simple. the spike we first met was brash, cocky, and relatively undefeated. buffy put a crimp in his plans, but still he managed to make it out of town, dru, and legs, intact.
the spike we know now has been chipped, forced to drink from a 'kiss the librarian' mug, put in a madras shirt, babysat Dawn and Joyce, confessed his love, been tortured, been weak, been beaten, broken down and cried. whatever else the chip has done, it's put him in a position to have experiences he's never had to face before- working alongside the scoobies, for example. it's obvious it meant something to him... 'i worked beside you all summer, and you didn't tell me.'... in other words- he's been changed. for good. and if everyone over at joss & co has been paying attention (obviously, they have, they're wonderful ! hugs ! okay, enough.) they'll recognize that.
even if spike does go back to being the 'big bad'... there's gonna be something left of all that. there has to be. no one spends two years turning themselves around, only to revert immediately into 'past-self' mode... well, at least, not around here.... ;) angelus hated buffy for making him feel human. spike said 'you treat me like a man.' so we'd just have to wait and see....
personally, i hope spike continues on his current upward trend. he's not having redemption dangled in front of him like a carrot- he's clawing his way out, one fingernail at a time. out of love. forget those stupid TNT or USA commercials- now that's drama. heh.
thanks for letting me ramble.... ;) so what does everybody think ? can you see spike as a big bad... who occasionally sneaks over to play rummy with dawn ? heh.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: a new man -- spike lover, 00:22:44 10/17/01 Wed
how funny that would be, the rummy i mean. i think if spike got his chip out he would stil be a good boy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Chipless Spike, still good -- kat, 13:29:31 10/17/01 Wed
I agree that a chipless Spike would still be "good" and would not kill people. It was already shown with Dru that Spike can get past his chip to harm humans (it just hurts). So, in other words, he could be evil right now if he wanted to.
I think that the real turning point for Spike was when he was tortured by Glory and said nothing. As Buffy said, "That was real".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Chipless Spike, still good -- Juliette, 16:47:26 10/17/01 Wed
I hope Spike would stay good. (I'm a bit biased, huge B/S shipper.) I think he would, because he doesn't want Buffy to be hurt - if she was forced to kill him, or he killed other people because she had failed to stake him, she would be hurt by that. So he'd try to be good to protect her from having to face that.
(Of course, that's all based on the assumption that killing Spike would upset Buffy. By this point, I think that's almost safe to assume.)
Willow -- RichardX1, 18:01:22 10/16/01 Tue
There's a word for her current mental state, a word that has been used often on this board since she raised Buffy:
Hubris.
"The belief in one's own equality to the god(s)."
And every religion that defines hubris (whether they use the word or not) has the same thing to say about it. Namely, that hubris always has a cosmic backlash. To put it bluntly, Willow will be lucky if she only has to pay with her life.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Willow/Something Blue -- Tillow, 18:52:21 10/16/01 Tue
Last night I watched Something Blue again. While this was mostly for comic relief amidst all this intense *LOVE IT* drama, I realized, just how poignant an episode this is as far as Willow's journey is concerned. I'm new here so...sorry if this has all been said before.
In this episode she is mourning for Oz and Buffy is trying to comfort her. Buffy says something to the effect of "You just have to go through the pain."
Willow's response is (paraphrase) "I don't want to. Can't I just go poof and it will all go away."
Willow has always liked things to be *nice*-that's one of her endearing qualities. She started out as a romantic (Buffy's biggest supporter in the pro-Angel dating camp). It was nice to have her there, saying the things we were thinking to the strong, practical Buffy, the hormone-crazed Xander, and the self-obsessed Cordy. She was the empathetic one.
But we growÿ
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Willow/Something Blue part 2 -- Tillow, 19:10:13 10/16/01 Tue
As I was saying... got cut off!
We grow by going through pain, not avoiding it. In Something Blue Willow made the choice and she has been making it ever since. Her powers are just another form of coping mechanism like drugs/alcohol. Someone said earlier this week that her story will unfold like an addiction. I agree. I think that's what we're seeing now. The hubris is the same defensiveness/disregard for consequences that any addict reacts with when challenged. They react this way until it becomes clear to them that they have lost control. I shudder to think what will happen to Willow to reveal that to her.
In the end, I think it comes back to her dream in Restless.
Willow is scared of feeling pain, being vulnerable, being the romantic. Empathy hurts, especially on a Hellmouth! When they tore her "costume" off, she was just that scared young computer geek again and she was full of pain and insecurity. The magic is just a crutch. It just so happens to be a very intimidating one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Willow/Something Blue part 2 -- DEN, 20:14:36 10/16/01 Tue
I liked Giles's line: there are other beings who can do what Willow has done, "but you wouldn't want to meet them." Maybe she will have to. But when all's said and done, I still bet on Willow's coming through. She is great of heart.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Hubris, addiction, "Flooded"/welcome, Tillow! :) -- Lunarchickk, 11:45:22 10/17/01 Wed
" The hubris is the same defensiveness/disregard for consequences that any addict reacts with when challenged."
Very interesting... especially considering her reaction to Giles when he confronted her. Admittedly, her was very angry -- making it easier for Willow to feel defensive -- but her "don't piss me off" bit seemed at odds with her usual personality... especially since her next lines were much more "usual" Willow -- as though she was suddenly aware of her reaction and realized it was all wrong.
Willow's tendency to "self-medicate" her pain using magic is pretty clear in her insistence to resurrect Buffy -- and not only her own pain, but the pain she imagines Buffy to be in as well.
"Willow has always liked things to be *nice*"
I'm reminded of a line from Stephen Sondheim's Into the Woods -- not related to the Season 5 ep of the same title -- "You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice." In "Flooded," when Giles tells Willow that she doesn't want to meet the others who could do this, she says, "But I'm not a bad guy" -- but is she still a good guy? Or just "nice"?
Hmm. (Sorry for rambling! Things go "click" as I type...) Kind of ties in to what's been discussed, about Willow's earlier actions, breaking into computer systems, the magic she's done that's been manipulative in nature... Good? Bad? or just nice?
From Evil Dead/Army of Darkness: "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."
Hmm...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Hubris, addiction, "Flooded"/welcome, Tillow! :) -- Tillow, 14:47:17 10/17/01 Wed
*From Evil Dead/Army of Darkness: "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gun."* Funny, and eerily appropriate.
Many of Willow's actions are morally ambiguous. Good/bad-evil? I don't know. Maybe it's my own tendency to want things to be *nice* but I try not to figure that out. What I ask is, are her actions out of control? I think it's safe to say... yep. What do you think?
Another thing I thought was interesting was that she chose to challenge Giles when they were alone but when the SG was in the room she quickly deferred with only a look from him. Was she drunk with power only in that one moment or did she just feel safe enough to reveal that side of herself when there was only one person in the room; one who would probably keep that altercation to himself?
Thoughts?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Willow: Out of control? (Flooded) -- Lunarchickk, 18:07:40 10/17/01 Wed
I think she's losing control, if not out of it yet. The scene with Giles in the kitchen built up from Willow asking for Giles' approval to her defense against his condemnation of her. It seemed more that she was steadily growing more angry, listening to him rip her apart for things she saw as good, and finally snapped -- then, after her "don't piss me off" line, she seemed to realize what she was saying and pull back considerably. So I don't think her backing down in front of the others was as much hiding a part of her that she was comfortable to confront Giles with, as much as shame at remembering their argument the night previous. I think you nailed it with the fact that Willow likes things to be nice -- she wouldn't pick a fight with Giles on purpose. Even on the path she's on now. Her last words to him in the kitchen were "C'mon, Giles, I don't want to fight. Let's not, okay? I'll think about what you said, and you ... try to be happy Buffy's back." She doesn't challenge him again -- she backs down, and backs down again the next day.
I think drunk with power is an apt way of describing it, as well as angry and defensive. She is a powerful witch, but she's still Willow -- at least, so far.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> "I'll think about what you said" (Flooded) -- Isabel, 19:17:42 10/17/01 Wed
I'm wondering if Willow will remember to think about what Giles said or if she'll rationize it by morning.
I'm wondering if someone can support or shoot down something I think I noticed. Tillow (I think) commented on Giles and Willow's fight being between the two of them and not discussed with the rest of the gang. Did Buffy and Spike overhear them? They were on the back porch outside the kitchen and Spike's first comment to Buffy was, I think, "They don't really mean it." Which makes sense taking into account G&W's nasty little fight which had just ended, but doesn't make any sense about any thing else since that's the first time we see Spike that episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: "I'll think about what you said" (Flooded) -- Tillow, 06:38:08 10/18/01 Thu
Isabel, I agree with Rattletrap's comment below. I think Spike was talking about the part of the conversation when Giles was saying I'm not entirely sure she's come out of this ok (to that effect)... Spike's main concern is Buffy's feelings and that is the comment in this whole exchange that would hurt her most. To have Giles questions her *wholeness*
And again, someone commented below about the addict using the "I'll think about it." to appease loved ones. I think that's an accurate way to look at it. I don't think she'll think about it at all. Or if she does, it will only be to convince herself that Giles is not 'on her side.' Paranoia consumes....
This is gonna get messy.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- Isabel, 18:19:00 10/18/01 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm pretty worried about Willow -- Javoher, 22:27:38 10/17/01 Wed
It has been well established that magic has consequences, "Always!" Willow's pretty oblivious to them, if any have really come her way yet.
She treats magic like a science experiment. What happens when you mix these two chemicals together? Look, they blow up! That's their inherent nature when put together. Black magic is not a science experiment. It incorporates a touch of evil, or sometimes more than a touch. That evil touches and stains the soul of the one performing it. It seems Willow has no idea her soul is being stained. It seems Tara hasn't noticed either, or is just beginning to.
There's still some hope. The guilt indicates some moral twinges still happening in her conscience. But I bet she darkens considerably before someone brings her back. I don't know what to make of her argument with Giles - when she warned him about pissing her off, his reaction was off. I expected him to react to her as if she was the "stupid, arrogant girl" he just called her and become either more angry or more wary of her heightened power. Instead, he just glanced off to the side and sighed, which seemed "You may be right" body language.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> giles' reaction -- anom, 11:38:27 10/18/01 Thu
"Instead, he just glanced off to the side and sighed, which seemed 'You may be right' body language."
Not necessarily--he may just have realized that it wasn't a time he could pursue it any further w/her, given her frame of mind at the time. And she didn't seem to take it that way either, or we might have seen a look of triumph on her face instead of hearing her say "I don't want to fight." (Thanks for supplying those lines above, Lunarchickk.)
A slight veer here--I just flashed on Michael Douglas' character in, um, I think it was "Falling Down," when he says, "I'm the bad guy? How'd that happen?" Willow may face such a moment sometime this season, but I hope it comes before she goes as far as he did. Long before.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Consequence-Free Willow -- Malandanza, 21:17:39 10/19/01 Fri
"It has been well established that magic has consequences, "Always!" Willow's pretty oblivious to them, if any have really come her way yet."
While there have been consequences to Willow's spells, it is her friends that tend to pay the price (everyone with the "will be done" spell, Giles in Triangle and Buffy in the resurrection spell). Until the consequences hit a little closer to home (e.g., serious harm to Tara or Xander) I doubt Willow will be willing to listen to anyone.
"There's still some hope. The guilt indicates some moral twinges still happening in her conscience. But I bet she darkens considerably before someone brings her back. I don't know what to make of her argument with Giles -..."
A friend of mine is fond of the saying "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission." I see Willow's leaving Giles out of the loop during the ritual as an example of this philosophy -- had he known about it in advance, Giles would never have allowed the ritual to proceed, but he will forgive her if she succeeds.
Furthermore, Willow has sufficient reason for continuing to develop her powers -- after all, isn't she Buffy's "big gun"? Wasn't she instrumental in defeating Glory (and saving the universe)? Okay, so she also led Glory straight to Dawn after her "paybacky" attack on Glory -- but that is a minor concern. Who has the right to complain about her use of power? In the following exchange between Giles and Willow:
WILLOW: I thought you'd be ...(swallows)...impressed, or something.
GILES: Oh, don't worry, you've made a deep impression. Of everyone here - you were the one I trusted most to respect the forces of nature.
Giles makes the claim that he had trusted Willow with magic. Why did he trust her? When has he ever sat down with Willow to discuss the dangers of magic? Buffy and Oz both talked to Willow in the past (but what do they know -- amateurs!), but Giles' focus has always been Buffy -- to the exclusion of the others. Giles preaching to Willow about the dangers of magic reminds me of Joyce's speech to Buffy after Angelus revealed that Joyce's baby girl is sexually active -- a little too late to be of any use. Something Blue and Triangle both provided excellent opportunities for Giles to have the talk with Willow, yet he did nothing. While her friends have been gowing up, Willow has grown into a spoiled girl -- always getting her way and immune to the consequences of her own misconduct -- excused by the very people who should be making her take responsibility.
I don't think Willow will listen to Giles (for the above reasons). I also don't think she'll listen to the Scoobies (after all, they helped with the spell and their hands are just as dirty as hers) or to Buffy (she "rescued" Buffy -- Buffy owes her). She won't learn on her own short of killing Tara, Anya (because she would lose her friendship w/ Xander) or Xander. Which leaves her redemption in Spike's hands.
I do think that her friends will try, albeit ineffectually, to save her (in fact, I'm hoping to see an intervention where they approach Willow about her magic addiction -- it would be such delicious irony to see Willow on the wrong side of such a meeting). But I think this will have the same sort of effect it had on Faith -- she'll see people aligning against her (who don't really understand the situation) when they should be supporting her. I have my doubts that Willow will turn evil, but I can see her slowly drifting away from the cause of light -- using one dubious spell after another as a way of forestalling consequences of previous spells.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- Naomi, 08:21:29 10/20/01 Sat
Giles has always respected Willoe and therefore hasn't been as hard on her as he is on Buffy for example. I don't think we can interpret that as Giles not caring however. He was just very trusting of Willow. She did get an occasional warning from Giles. In Faith, Hope and Trick he is dealing with Buffy's return to school yet he still scolds Willoe over her use of magic. In Earshot we are told that Giles has been hiding books from Willow but she accessed them anyway. Therefore Willow has been going behind Giles back and made it difficult for him to know exactly what risks she has taken. Was he even told of Willow using black magic against Glory in Tough Love?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- Malandanza, 22:49:10 10/20/01 Sat
"Giles has always respected Willow and therefore hasn't been as hard on her as he is on Buffy for example. I don't think we can interpret that as Giles not caring however."
I think Giles has had great respect for Buffy from at least the second season on. His mission is to train the Slayer and he takes his mission very seriously -- which is why he is hard on Buffy. He does have some subconscious reservations about having been too hard on the girl (as Restless showed us). I think that if Giles' mission had been to teach Willow witchcraft, he would have been just as demanding of her as he has been of Buffy. His primary concern has always been Buffy and he hasn't worried too much about the others.
"He was just very trusting of Willow. She did get an occasional warning from Giles. In Faith, Hope and Trick he is dealing with Buffy's return to school yet he still scolds Willow over her use of magic."
I had to look this one up -- I hadn't remembered the scolding:
WILLOW: Sage, love that smell... and Marnox root. Just a smidge of this mixed with a virgin's saliva --(off his look, drops root)-- does something I know nothing about.
GILES: These forces aren't something one plays around with, Willow. What have you been conjuring?
WILLOW: Nothing much. I mean, I tried that spell to cure Angel, I guess that was a bust, but after that just, you know, small stuff. Floating feather, fire out of ice, which next time I won't do on the bedspread -- are you mad at me?
GILES: Of course not. If I were angry I believe I would be making a strange clucking sound with my tongue
or the "lecture" after Something Blue:
WILLOW: Look, cookies! A very non-evil thing I did. Oatmeal.
GILES: Tricky girl! They're chocolate chip. I can see them. (Beat) Still need glasses, though. Guess you couldn't be more specific and given me twenty-twenty.
Xander, Giles and Anya each take a cookie. Willow walks her cookies over to Buffy who sits at the dining room table. Spike sits sulking, tied to a chair next to her. At least his arms are free.
WILLOW: Eat a cookie, ease my pain?
Buffy takes a bite of one.
Not exactly a stern talking to -- especially compared to Xander's lecture in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered":
Giles sees Xander enter - reacts to his obvious agitation.
GILES: Xander. What is it?
XANDER: It's me. Throwing myself at your mercy.
GILES: What? Why?
XANDER: I made a mess, Giles. See, I found out that Amy's into witchcraft? And I was hurt, I guess, so I made her put the love whammy on Cordy. But it backfired. And now every woman in Sunnydale wants to make me her cuddle-monkey. Which may sound swell on paper but -
...
Giles grabs Calendar. Moves her away from Xander, livid.
GILES: (to Xander) I can't believe you'd be fool enough to do something like this.
XANDER: Oh no. I'm twice the fool it takes to do something like this.
...
GILES: Do you have any idea how serious this is? People under the influence of love spells are deadly, Xander. They lose all capacity to reason. And if what you say is true, and the whole female population is affected…(then) Don't leave this library. I'll find Amy. See if we can stop this thing.
"In Earshot we are told that Giles has been hiding books from Willow but she accessed them anyway. Therefore Willow has been going behind Giles back and made it difficult for him to know exactly what risks she has taken. Was he even told of Willow using black magic against Glory in Tough Love?"
You mention Tough Love -- looking back at that episode and Spiral, it appears that only Buffy knew about Willow's attack on Glory (Dawn and Spike knew that Buffy was trying to stop Willow from attacking, but not that Willow had actually succeeded). So, I agree that Giles did not know that Willow used "Darkest Magick" to attack Glory. However, another disturbing aspect of Willow's personality is highlighted in the aftermath of the attack -- her willingness to shift the blame from herself. Consider that Glory found Dawn because of Willow's ill-fated attack; i.e., Willow is directly responsible for Glory finding the Key at that moment (perhaps Glory would have eventually found Dawn, perhaps not). Here Buffy and the gang discussing the occurrence:
BUFFY: Safe? We've barely been able to manage not getting seriously dead every time we cross paths with Glory. Now that she knows about Dawn ...
TARA: Floaty green shimmers.
Tara is staring at Dawn in wonder.
TARA (cont'd): (to Willow, confused) Why don't you shimmer?
Willow looks to the Gang, her face a swirl of fear, pain, and a whole mountain of guilt.
WILLOW: She didn't mean to. You know that, right?
BUFFY: I know. But it's done, and now we have to deal with it.
In other words, it's Tara's fault. Or at least there is nothing resembling an admission that she might have had something to do with the attack. It's a pattern -- nothing is really Willow's fault.
Buffy casually sets the hammer on a glass-topped case. It smashes through.
BUFFY: Oops.
Willow and Anya back away from it.
WILLOW : Not our fault.
GILES: Well, yes. I suppose it's minor, given the other...(looking around) Devastation. I'm still not certain how he came to be smashing up my shop.
ANYA: An accident.
WILLOW: Not our fault.
Giles gives Anya and Willow a skeptical look.
Willow does not take responsibilty for anything she does and her friends continue to cover for her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- Rattletrap, 04:55:03 10/21/01 Sun
Maladanza, I believe the episode Maladanza is referring to is "Enemies," the episode right before "Earshot," this exchange:
Xander: What's this Ascenscion mean?
Wesley looks at Giles.
Giles: I'm not sure.
Wesley: No, not really a common term in demonology.
Willow: Ooh ooh! The Marenschadt Text. I think in the section on genocide, they mention Ascenscion.
Buffy: Well, we have a winner.
Xander: And, more importantly, two losers.
Giles: Where did you find that volume?
Willow: In the top of your book cabinet with the stuff you try to keep hidden.
Not really much of a reprimand, but it shows that Giles is conscious of the road Willow is heading down and trying to reel her in a little. Not a bad way to start, because Willow often gets a little too defensive for a one-on-one confrontation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- anom, 21:02:09 10/20/01 Sat
"Something Blue and Triangle both provided excellent opportunities for Giles to have the talk with Willow, yet he did nothing."
In Something Blue, Giles did try to talk to Willow about the danger of using magic in the emotional state she was in, but because of that same emotional state, she wasn't able to accept what he was saying. Maybe he thought she'd learned her lesson when she saw the consequences of her spell.
Just occurred to me--Willow tends to act as if she's being accused or treated like a child when someone confronts her (when Giles told her in Something Blue that she shouldn't use magic, she said something like, "So that means I'm being punished?"). When she can't avoid seeing the consequences she tends to do the same thing to herself (it's all my fault, I'm bad, etc.). This mindset may be a big part of what makes Willow so hard to reach--the idea that if what this person is saying is true, it means I'm a bad person, so it must not be true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- Naomi, 08:00:39 10/21/01 Sun
I have found Willow difficult to take recently and I took Anya's side in Triangle ( I felt that Willow was far ruder). Therefore I do think that Willow may be this seasons big bad. I just don't think that it's fair to blame Giles. He is the oldest but does that mean that he should be adopted as the groups father figure? I would say no. Why should he bear the responsibility of Willows behaviour. He wasn't obliged to be a parental figure for the whole gang.
He does respect Buffy but he was hard on her because she didn't want to be the slayer and she proved to be more than capable of lying to him (Reptile Boy and Band Candy are just 2 examples). He respects Buffy but my interpretation is that he always saw Willow as more innocent. She finds it difficult to lie to him and is clearly very naive and trustworthy. Who would have thought that she would have taken things so far. Perhaps Giles could have been tougher on her but did anyone honestly think that Willoe would ever become dark? Anyway I always got the impression that Giles had been warning Willow off screen. We hear the odd comment from him warning Willow which suggests to me that the two of them have had more extensive talks. Perhaps we are only being shown there talks now because it is necessary to the plot. A lecture from Giles in season 3 would hardly have made for gripping viewing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Trustworthy Willow? -- Tillow, 08:35:49 10/21/01 Sun
"He respects Buffy but my interpretation is that he always saw Willow as more innocent. She finds it difficult to lie to him and is clearly very naive and trustworthy."
Perhaps in the confrontation scene... aka 'don't piss me off' scene... when giles relented a little.. what he was thinking is... how could I have been so naive? All this time he has gone one this assumption that she is trustworthy. He says it himself... "To think you were the one I trusted to most to respect the forces of nature (to that effect)" Now he realizes his error. His own short sightedness. Another interesting foreshadowing in Something Blue when Willow's spell blinds him to the consequences of her state of mind.. She says something like "You think you know but you don't SEE anything..."
Willow has obviously been lying more and more lately. She even told Tara she didn't understand the demon's words in Afterlife. She's fibbing and omitting left and right these days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- Malandanza, 21:16:08 10/21/01 Sun
"I just don't think that it's fair to blame Giles. He is the oldest but does that mean that he should be adopted as the groups father figure? I would say no. Why should he bear the responsibility of Willow's behavior? He wasn't obliged to be a parental figure for the whole gang..
I would ask this -- who got Willow started on magic? Whose books did she use? If we continue the Willow-as-addict analogy, Giles is the one who gave her her first drink. He didn't ever really get upset when he found out she'd been raiding his liquor cabinet and now he affects surprise when he discovers she's an alcoholic. Granted, most of the blame falls on Willow herself -- her friends have all expressed disapproval over her use of magic -- but Giles did get her started and encouraged her to a certain extent (in Something Blue, Willow was supposed to gather the ingredients for a truth spell and cast it on Spike -- Giles' visit to her dorm was to find out why she hadn't cast the spell for him). I'm not suggesting that Willow's behavior is in any way excusable, just that Giles' lecture is part truth, part hyperbole with just a little hypocrisy thrown in.
"Anyway I always got the impression that Giles had been warning Willow off screen. We hear the odd comment from him warning Willow which suggests to me that the two of them have had more extensive talks. Perhaps we are only being shown their talks now because it is necessary to the plot. A lecture from Giles in season 3 would hardly have made for gripping viewing."
I have never had the impression that Giles and Willow have sat down for a heart-to-heart talk about the dangers of magic. When Giles lectures Buffy or one of the Scoobies, we do typically see it on screen (Xander's lecture in BBB, Buffy's in Revelations and Anya's in New Moon Rising).
I agree with Tillow that the confrontation between Willow and Giles was an eye-opener for Giles. He understands now that he ought to have watched Willow more closely. It will be interesting to see how he handles the situation.
Plus there's Spike. He promised Buffy never to reveal the truth to the Scoobies, but that doesn't mean that he can't help them discover the truth independently. My guess is that even if Giles shirks his responsibility, Spike will be there to make sure that she pays for Buffy's misery in some manner (also interesting to me is that Buffy suffered unduly after B2 because of Willow & Xander -- the re-ensoulment and the lie by omission -- the two worst incidents of her life were caused by the two people who love her most).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consequence-Free Willow -- Naomi, 01:37:34 10/22/01 Mon
Actually I don't think it was Giles who got Willow started on magic. At the end of season 2 when Willow took over Jennys job she became interested in magic when going through Jennys things. I believe she tells the others in Becoming part 1 "I've been researching the black arts for fun". She has accessed Giles books but Giles has made an effort to hide the more dangerous books from her.
I suppose I sympathise with Giles because I can understand him not realising how dark Willow would possibly become. I don't think he should be accused of being a hypocrite because he is only seriously warning Willow about the forces she's messing with as he sees it's becoming a serious problem. He is the only one who has actually confronted Willow which should count for something.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow: Out of control? (Flooded) -- vampire hunter D, 01:33:27 10/18/01 Thu
I was thinking about Willow's "I'll think about what you said" qoute to somethin someone said above comparing Willow's use of magic to a drug or alcohol addiction, and realized something. That what most addicts say when someone tries to point out their problem to them. They just say something conciliatory but noncommital just to end the discussion. This says lots of bad things for Willow (I think she's to the point where she just can't stop herself)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow: Out of control? (Flooded) -- Rattletrap, 05:42:01 10/18/01 Thu
Just rewatched "Flooded" yesterday--Spike's line seems to come in response to Giles's last line, something like "I'm far from convinced that you've brought Buffy back from the dead entirely intact." (or something clsoe to that) Spike responds "Don't worry, I'm sure 'Watcher-boy' doesn't mean it." My impression is that Buffy overheard part of the conversation and walked outside to get a little more distance, if not completely away from it.
As for Willow, my worry is that her belief in her own good intentions will make her turn to evil worse. The greatest evil often starts out with the purest of intentions--the crusades, the holocaust, the attacks on the world trade center--all were perpetrated by people who believed what they were doing was pure and morally right. People who are sure of their own motives are often reluctant to question their own actions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's such a great point to make -- Poppie, 07:11:03 10/18/01 Thu
about the illusion of the greater good, i mean. and what a complex scenario that would make for the metaphysical debate on this board.
does anyone think, in light of willows power, that it could be in fact SHE who is the cause of the disappearance of all the vampires/demons which has been alluded to in the future? that would be a greater good... but at what cost?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You used that "Into the Woods" quote brilliantly... -- Rob, 10:52:48 10/23/01 Tue
"Into the Woods" is, without a doubt, my very favorite musical ever written. It was also the first I'd ever seen. When I first saw it, I was seven and did not understand the deeper implications of the show, past the fact that I was watching characters from many fairy tales on the stage.
As I got older, though, I began to understand what the show actually meant. The theme of "Oh, grow up!" in "Buffy" this year is very similar to the second act of "Into the Woods." One could arguably have ended the story at the end of Act One. Everyone, after all, is living "happily ever after." At a young age, I didn't understand why the second act was made at all. Now I know that in the second act lies the brilliance of the show. What happens after the fairy tale ends is more important than what happens during. And what happens after? Bad things. The prince has an affair behind Cinderella's back and she leaves him. The giant's wife comes down from the sky, seeking revenge on Jack for killing her husband, and in turn kills many innocent people herself. Rapunzel goes mad from her many years locked away by herself in the tower and then being suddenly thrown back into society, and on and on. The common theme through all of this is that all of the bad things that occur in the second act are all a result of the characters' well-intentioned behavior in the first act. As Spike says, "The thing about magic...there's always consequences." Each use of magic in the first act leads to sadness in the second. By the end, however, the characters learn how to cope with their "adulthood" and come to a happy ending, despite the fact that it is not at all how they expected their lives to turn out. The same thing seems to be happening on "Buffy" this year.
"You're so nice.
You're not good, you're not bad.
You're just nice.
I'm not good.
I'm not nice.
I'm just right.
I'm the witch.
You're the world!"
I never understood the differentiation between "good" and "nice" when I first saw the play at a young age. Now I do. There is a big difference between "well-intentioned," which I believe is Sondheim's definition of "nice" here, and "good." A "nice" person may believe that he is being "good," by setting things right, despite his questionable methods of getting to the goal. Take Willow's slaughter of the baby deer for example. You cannot call such an action the action of a "good" person. At the same time, she is not "bad." She sees this as a necessary evil to right the world, to bring her friend back to life and the Slayer back to the world. Willow's not good. She's not bad. She's just nice.
Willow's attitude, however, at least in her conversation with Giles, seems to be that she agrees with the Witch in "Into the Woods," who sees herself as being higher than the lowly mortals around her, who do not have her power. She believes that labels of "good," "bad," or "nice" don't apply to her. She is the witch. Everyone else is "the world."
Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks! That was a great comparison, Rob -- Rahael, 06:43:32 10/24/01 Wed
That's very interesting. I think there was an earlier discussion about the connections between Buffy and 'Into the Woods' many months ago too.
Also Rupunzel having to cope with the world after being solitary for many years - doesn't that fit with Fred rather nicely? Especially as PG is such a 'fairy tale' place?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Yes! That's it! (re:Into the Woods, the musical, not the ep) -- Lunarchickk, 18:06:57 10/24/01 Wed
Yes! You hit it on the head. That's what I was thinking about Willow being "just nice" as well... The Witch in Sondheim's Into the Woods condemns the other characters for refusing to do something that she deems morally right, because they can't bear to do something that's not "nice"... Is she right? Well, later we hear "No One is Alone," a song reflecting on the consequences that follow everyone's actions... (these are bits of the lyrics)
You move just a finger,
Say the slightest word,
Something's bound to linger,
Be heard.
No one acts alone.
Careful, no one is alone.
People make mistakes.
Fathers, mothers,
People make mistakes,
Holding their own,
Thinking they're alone.
Everybody makes-
One another's
Terrible mistakes.
Witches can be right,
Giants can be good.
You decide what's right,
You decide what's good.
I saw the play when I was younger, maybe around fifteen, and hated the whole second act. Why ruin perfectly good fairy tales? Now, a dozen or so years later, I love the second act. Especially "No One is Alone," which went entirely over my head for years. :) (But the Witch is still my favorite.)
Didn't I read somewhere, in relation to the upcoming musical episode, that Joss is a Sondheim fan? Heh heh heh... I hope so!
post-Buffy chat -- Kerri, 18:22:05 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> a small taste - **spoilers** -- Solitude1056, 20:09:12 10/16/01 Tue
I didn't get all of it, but this is what I got (too bad I didn't cut & paste soon enough to catch all the Willow discussion - buffer not big enough, I suppose). I also removed all the comings & goings just so it's easier to read, the same way I straightened out people's online nicks so folks who weren't there would know who's who. Enjoy, and next time - join us!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dan] yeah, I was VERY pleased with the ep. the season's gangbusters so far!
[Lunarchickk] Well, mostly my gut feeling.. but the aura around her was odd, and the way she broke off from Tara seemed strange to me presumably the spell was working, as far as Tara seemed to think, anyway... *shrug*
[LadyStarlight] Not enough Spike, tho
[Rufus] They will make up for it
[dan] i can be patient, LadyS.
[dan] ;>
[LadyStarlight] Promise?
[Lunarchickk] I was rooting for Giles too... Boy does she need to listen for once! This is *Giles*!
[dan] there'll be more spikeage than you can shake a stick at.
[anom] like i said, all the time...!
[Rufus] How about a pointy stick:):)
[Sol1056] Lunar, I think last week's spell will only be decided one way or another hen/if Tara says anything.
[LadyStarlight] I think Giles sees a parellel between him & Willow.
[dan] Yes.
[Rufus] Shows on again, I'm gone.......behave.....see you soon
[Sol1056] Thing is, if it's not Willow, would she admit it anyway? I mean, she'd be the last to admit that she wasn't in control of the power and something else doing the work, to me, = "not in control"
[anom] he was about her age when he & his friends were experimenting, right?
[dan] Willow's always been the character i identified with most, so these plot developments are disconcerting.
[dan] but great tv.
[Lunarchickk] Sol, I agree... I'm *so* waiting for Tara to come out and rip Willow apart. I hope she does, rather than walks (as Rufus said)
[anom] yeah, me too (about the identifying)
[Lunarchickk] ditto
[dan] We should have a club.
[dan] Does this mean that y'all identify with Lisa on the Simpsons too?
[anom] we have a subcub!
[LadyStarlight] haven't decided yet
[anom] arghsubclub
[Lunarchickk] yes! hee hee... love Lisa.
[Sol1056] anomb, yeah, I think so (about Giles)
[anom] not the same way, not sure why
[dan] "Springfield's Answer to A Question that No One Asked."
[anom] huh?
[Sol1056] and cincydan, I find myself identifying more with Xander these days... the what the hell is going on" syndrome or something.
[dan] Lisa.
[LadyStarlight] but can I be a member anyway?
[dan] why not?
[anom] by me lisa is a little *too* precocious
[anom] sure
[Lunarchickk] Just wanted to add that I think Giles sees a parallel between him and Willow too...
[dan] But I think Lunar's right, that Willow's alwasy been special to Giles because he did see a similiarity there.
LadyStarlight] So could be an Electra thing?
[anom] you think he was shy under the ripper persona?
[dan] btw, what did people think of the Angel ep yesterday?
[LadyStarlight] I liked the Angel ep a lot, but after I read the shooting script, not as much as before
[Brian] I really liked the Angel ep. NIce to see DB being goofy
[dan] actually, I *hated*it.
[dan] I've grown allergic to body-switch stories.
[dan] I dunno, I actually turned off the ep at one point to read.
[Brian] Well, there is parallelism here with the Faith/buffy switch
[dHerblay] I liked the episode from the minute Cordy called Angel a eunuch
[anom] nah, just a similar gimmick
[LadyStarlight] And how upset he got about it, hehe
[anom] anybody know what the latin means?
[dHerblay] got a transcript?
[anom] well, it's not that he can't, just that he better not!
[Brian] At least, not with anyone he really cares about
[dan] but meaningless sex is fine!
[anom] so w/lilah, no problem
[LadyStarlight] Must Not Man-Bash!
[Brian] Opportunistic sex is fine?
[dan] there was sarcasm in that line of mine.
[dan] i think meaningless sex is okay, but it's just, well... meaningless.
[anom] oh, go ahead, cut loose, LS
[Brian] meaningless, and so creepy the next morning
[LadyStarlight] Um, well, I have a feeling I'm a minority here, so got no backup
[Sol-1056] minority for what?
[LadyStarlight] Being not-male?
[LadyStarlight] or am i wrong?
[Brian] Look at it as a Queen among the drones
[anom] remember >50% of the meet-the-posters didn't specify?
[dan] i'm not saying that i haven't had hugely enjoyable meaningless sex, but it's like fast food - unsatisfying and you wouldn't want to make it your diet.
[Sol-1056] I just went to a scary visual place.
[dan] oops, sorry.
[anom] nice analogy brian
[Sol-1056] heh. I meant the whole queen among the drones.
[dHerblay] bzzzz
[dan] ah! (light of comprehension dawns)
[LadyStarlight] Thank you, Brian. You get to be a prince or something
[Brian] in one of my former lives I think
[dan] actually, drones are princes. there aren't that many of them.
[anom] just which kind of queen were you thinking of, Sol???
[dan] you might be thinking of the workers, which are all female.
[LadyStarlight] Let's just leave it at Queen, shall we?
[anom] "it's good to be queen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Board kicked me off, wouldn't let me back on. Thanks for a great chat, guys! -- LadyStarlight, 20:44:24 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> and then there is the poor west coaster who tried & was met with deathly emptiness -- liq, 21:09:54 10/16/01 Tue
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> That's a net split - log off, and try again. (OT, semi-technical) -- Solitude1056, 21:51:06 10/16/01 Tue
Happens sometimes - the net will divide in two when a server at a main juncture gets overloaded. The result is that it "breaks off" from the main net, in common-person-speak. You end up with two completely separate nets.
Even worse is the lag within a net, when the server you connect to is having trouble keeping up, and thus the ping time is lengthened. My ping time may be half yours, because my server-connection isn't as lagged, so your comments will likely show up anywhere from several seconds to quite some time later. The crazy thing is that from where you sit, it'll appear as though you're talking to everyone else, because your screen will refresh with your comments. But, in fact, no one else will see your comments until sometimes nearly a minute or so later!
The ivyweb/chat doesn't seem to have this problem, as it's limited in its servers, but it does seem to demonstrate some IRC-tendencies, when people log off and then log back on only to find an echo of themselves still on the boards. (IOW, the new server isn't lagged, and the old one is still working through the messages sent into the system by the previous server.) There's something rather disconcerting about finding yourself having a conversation with yourself, reacting to things you said five minutes before!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> so what do we do about it? -- anom, 16:59:20 10/17/01 Wed
"...when people log off and then log back on only to find an echo of themselves still on the boards."
I find this happening when I haven't even logged off. The screen says I've left chat (not that I intended to), & when I try to get back on, it says my nick is already in use. I have to come up with anom de plume before it lets me back into the conversation, & when it does, there's my silent partner still listed as one of the participants.
Is there a way to keep from getting dropped in the 1st place? The 1st time this happened, one of the other chatters told me there was a way to "float," & I could see a button for that, but it's not there any more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> honestly? switch to a different chat carrier. -- Solitude1056, 20:53:19 10/17/01 Wed
The drawbacks of the web-based chat is that you're limited on the number of servers, and you don't have any control over the servers, either - so it's a crapshoot as to whether you'll get an open or busy one. I was going to suggest "talking more" as a way to keep from being read as "idle" by the server, but that isn't true since I was AFK for quite some time the other night and wasn't dropped.
So, really, no idea. Close the window, open it back up, sign up again, and start over with a second nick. And the next time you see me in there, ask & I'll walk you through the steps for opening the window applet, unless someone else can answer your question before I arrive. (It seems the web browser authors keep redesigning the pages, and I must say, it's not necessarily any improvement. I was rather hoping Liquidram could write us a better one, all for ourselves!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Liq would write a better one? hahahahahahahahaha -- Liq, 09:57:27 10/18/01 Thu
Liq could get her technical staff to write a better one for a wad of cash, so pony up....
The Evil of Willow -- Charlemagne20, 18:22:23 10/16/01 Tue
I think Willow is vastly drifting into the Black Hats category by going the method for humans that probably works best in Joss's ensouled universe and that is "Evil as Order" (as defined by ATPOB). Willow has consistently used magic to great effect in fighting demons along with Buffy's help but more and more it's becomming merely a tool for her to enforce her will (no pun intended but it is very interesting now) on a universe that is not of her own making.
Her usage of Magic has not been halted by numerous instances of what can be described as gross abuse of the forces for her own personal satisfaction and view of the world regardless of consequence.
Examples of reckless Magic....
* The Ensouling of Angel: In Season 2 Willow despite the dangers involved makes a decision to try the spell again that results in Angel being condemned for a century in Hell. Her Hubris....
[A condition of gross arrogance and disregard for consequence]
....ignored the Vampires found out and killed a friend (Kendra) led to it even if her intentions were good.
* The Anti-Sexuality spell: An attempted magical spell to avoid dealing with very real issues of attraction between her and Xander that just a year before would have been welcome attentions. In effect Willow is trivally performing the equivalent of a psychic circumcision on Xander and herself.
* The Summoning/Banishing of Vamp Willow: Willow in order to explore the power of her own and apparent NEED FOR GRATIFICATION from Anya chose to help her with a spell when she knew absolutely truly nothing about it. Furthermore instead of destroying the monster she became, she turned to magic to return a bloodthirsty killer to the world of the Wish.
* The "Thy will be Done" spell: Willow in order to deal with the pain and loss of Oz's "betrayal" instead of talking to her friends, talking to Oz, or otherwise choosing to deal with the pain in a constructive manner instead turned to sorcery again.
Magic serves as a tool here that is not only useful for demon hunting BUT EVERY CONCIEVABLE PROBLEM SHE MAY FACE.
In effect now she has spread her magic use to performing the equivalent of a psychic lombotomy on herself or if she intended...a spell that makes her nothing less of a goddess to CONTROL her environment.
* The Ressurection of Joyce Summers: In what was fairly obvious from the beginning Willow was the one to pass on the chance to restore Joyce Summers to life for Dawn's own personal amusement/sanity. This is no different than a dictator providing for his children by robbing peasants metaphysically speaking given no thought was given to natural death by Willow or depriving Joyce of her final rest.
* Her vengeance on Glory: While Willow's attack on Glory might be construed as highly justified the resulting attack was a magical wrath that might have seriously injured innocents or destroyed everything in a one block radius. I doubt she would care.
* Her ressurection of Buffy: Because of her desire for Buffy's protection she simply repeats the workings of the Joyce ressurection but with a different spell.
Willow if she could find a spell that would allow her to bring world peace or some other desirable outcome I believe would take it no matter what the consequences involved. In that case again she is no different than the Master or other powerful demons who put their own religion, worldview, and selfish "vision" above the will of others because they believe they know best.
Willow also is known to steal ingrediants, took apart Ted to study his inner workings, study magic in a coven with Amy and Michael outside of formal tutorship, kept her friendship with fellow Witch Tara a secret, and went through Jenny Calender's personal effects in order to acquire the beginnings of her magical knowledge.
In effect Willow also suffers from Power lust as a reaction against personal insecurity. With her unbridled ambition it is no wonder she is more powerful it seems than Tara who treats her magic like a religion.....
To Willow Magic is a form of liberating, exalting, but simply nothing more...power.
Increasingly we are comming to the point I believe we're Willow will delude herself into believing her friends lack vision and ultimately when forced to choose between innocent lives/lives of her friends vs. Magic...
She will crush her friends like the ants they are.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Just a Thought -- Lucifer_Sponge, 19:06:41 10/16/01 Tue
Is it possible that we're all pointing the "potential evil-girl" finger at Willow just because she's Willow, and we're not used to seeing her this confident and assertive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> the lack of confidence of willow -- Charlemagne20, 19:35:35 10/16/01 Tue
I mean we've seen Willow