October 2001 posts

Previous October 2001  

More October 2001

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.

[> [> [> [> 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?

[> 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?

[> 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?

[> [> 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?

[> [> [> [> [> 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!

[> 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?

[> [> 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.
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:


"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."

[> [> [> [> 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?

[> [> [> [> [> 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."

[> [> [> [> [> 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 confident and assertive as she begins making friends, indulging witchcraft, and enjoying the college experience right on...we recognize however with how easily she's gotten to (the comment that she's a geek during an apcolypse scare getting to her) and how this confidence is desperately shallow. In fact her assertiveness and confidence seem to be even more shallow than when she was a computer hacker! At least then Willow had Xander as a friend and Buffy whom she knew under no circumstances would ever betray her....and before Buffy Jesse. She was more or less content to stay as she was, the odd geek out but a big fish in her pond of three. With her powers of magic Willow seems to realize she has much more potential than merely as "Good old willow" and that faithfulness in her friends has been disrupted because of that ambition. Worse she hasn't really gained anything because of her magic that she should really want attention wise (D'Hoffryn was attracted and Tara would have liked Willow for who she was not what she could do)

[> [> [> Re: the lack of confidence of willow -- DEN, 20:07:22 10/16/01 Tue
I found Willow's response to Giles's tonguelashing interesting. On one level it was child-to-parent: "I'm grown up now." But it was also an overt admission that she knew exactly what forces she was channeling, and an overt warning: "i'm very powerful and you'd better not piss me off." And the speech was delivered in a voice a good deal lower than Willow's usual treble (more like AH's natural voice). Then her tone lterally shifts to "nice Willow" saying "let's not fight" in the familiar higher pitch.
[> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- Lucifer_Sponge, 20:27:42 10/16/01 Tue
"i'm very powerful and you'd better not piss me off."

I actually took this as a hurt, sarcastic reaction to what Giles was saying... sort of like what she did to her mother when she accused Willow of being a warped, delusional Satanic-enthusiast. Y'know? "Do you see any black goats around here? No! Because I sacrificed all of them. All bow before Satan. Prince of Night I summon you! Come fill me with your black naughty evil!"

It seemed to me that the line she gave Giles was a way for her to say "Is THAT what you really think of me? That I'm turning into some sort of arrogant, nasty, power-hungry bitch?"

More of a "get a grip, Giles" than a Fruedian slip of evil, or what have you. You know? "Calm down, Giles," not "Oops, I let on that I'm secretly dark and disturbing... better take that back quick before they do me in."

[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- Traveler, 20:37:16 10/16/01 Tue
"It seemed to me that the line she gave Giles was a way for her to say "Is THAT what you really think of me? That I'm turning into some sort of arrogant, nasty, power-hungry bitch?"

I disagree here. Willow sounded completely serious for a moment, before she stopped to think about what she was saying.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- Malandanza, 20:50:20 10/16/01 Tue
"I disagree here. Willow sounded completely serious for a moment, before she stopped to think about what she was saying."

Absolutely -- and Giles backed off quickly. I think he now knows that Willow has a problem and did not want to make things worse by escalating the confrontation before he had time to prepare.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- Boxdman, 21:27:43 10/16/01 Tue
Willow is on a very slippery slope right now. Not just the "I'm very powerful" comment to Giles but the entire conversation shows us where she is. I thought the same way as Giles did before - "You are a very stupid girl." - meddling in forces with consequences that she doesn't realise. That conversation shows that as of the resurrection (at least) she realises what forces she's dealing with but as long as she achieves what she thinks is right the means doesn't matter. That and her "I'm very powerful" comment shows that she is starting to be corrupted by the power that she has achieved. She will bend the world to her whim and damn the consequences. I think it will take her finding out where she took Buffy from in order to stop her and make her think. If she doesn't find out in time I'm afraid of what might happen.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tsk tsk... -- Monique, 08:45:37 10/17/01 Wed
"as long as she achieves what she thinks is right the means doesn't matter" .... have to agree with that. Who knew little Will was actually a Slytherin at heart? ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> giles was afraid -- spike lover, 00:01:36 10/17/01 Wed
Giles was afraid of her
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm not so sure. -- VampRiley, 07:07:25 10/17/01 Wed
Giles says that she is an arrogant amateur. I think he believed that she was being selfish - Her wanting Buffy back and not worrying too much about what might go wrong. She feels that what she did was a good thing. She figured Giles would be proud. She may have felt that she didn't want to be treated by him as if she were a child. It seemd like her threat of intimidation was one of those things that comes out when you're angry and you don't really mean it. She doesn't want Giles to be upset with or angry at her. She likes the friendship they have. She doesn't want to lose it. But she is a young adult and felt he shouldn't have been so condescending to her, especially since they are friends. In an unconscious, or perhaps conscious attempt, she tried to put them on the same footing as equals and not as a grown up and a teenager. I believe she has overconfidence in her powers. The threat is an indication of "Evil as Order" as Charlemagne 20 said, even if it is unconscious and unintentional. Her threat doesn't really seem to be unexpected to me. Many times people lash out at those they care about when they feel they are being attacked or condescended to. But the impression I got from Giles reaction was one of disappointment in what Willow said. He said that of all of them, that she was the one he trusted most to respect nature. Using power as a tool for fear and intimidation is what I believe he was disappointed in. And speaking from the point of experience, which she knows first hand that he does with the whole Eyghon situation, he may have thought that she should trust in his judgement. He might have been hurt in thinking that she didn't trust him as she has before. He knows that both of them know that magic is both powerful and dangerous. In that instance he's is even more convinced that she is being reckless and at a moments notices, she is willing to cause him physical and/or psychic harm. That makes him disappointed in her. He probably thought that she would not act like this, especially after all that had happened in the last five years. He may have thought that she was learning from the attitudes and mistakes of others so that she would end up doing the things they had done or becoming like them. But I don't believe she is turning evil. If she does perform acts of evil, it would probably be due to recklessness and hubris or possibly turning dark.

Her overconfidence in herself, and the fact that on more than one occasion, she has been told that she has a lot of power (D'Hoffryn and Tara are the only one I can think of. Are there any others?), is helping to motivate her to keep "pushing the envelope", as it were in regards to her powers. I believe that instead of spending time on one level of skill and mastering and honing her abilities, she is taking giant leaps. While she may have the potential of immeanse power, she isn't taking the time to make sure that she can control and perform spells, like the one to bring buffy back, with knowledge and experience. From the way Giles spoke of the spell she cast, I don't believe that she knew that ramifications what what might have happened. While one day she might be able to perform this spell, somewhere down the line, She was working on a level she shouldn't have been. I do believe that she was lucky. When she was explaining to Giles the spell, she was acting all: "Yeah! Look what I can do!". Of the screen time she has had so far this season, I have not seen anything that would tell me that she was worryied about what might have happened if the spell went wrong, other than the fact that Buffy would still dead, or made her "deader". At this rate, if she does find out what really happened, it's gonna hit her like crashing into a brick wall with a car.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- spike lover, 00:00:17 10/17/01 Wed
i agree, i took it as a threat.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- Reina, 04:40:55 10/17/01 Wed
I disagree. (hehe sorry)
I feel that Willow's statement to Giles could be interpreted that she was (metaphorically speaking) drawing a line in the sand they stand on, and daring him to cross it. It was a threat, no matter how much we try to deny it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm very powerful -- spike lover, 00:32:27 10/18/01 Thu
exaclty, daring him to cross and faces her consequences
[> [> [> [> Re: the lack of confidence of willow (spoilers in this thread) -- Cactus Watcher, 20:45:37 10/16/01 Tue
You may have hit on something. It may not be so much that Willow is turning evil, but rather that she is maturing both as a person and as a witch. Like any teenager (yes, I know she's supposed to be older than that), Willow is delving into new things which can have repercussions she barely understands. Like a teenager, she knows that others really can't control her, if she does want to listen. Like a teenager, she talks back when Giles tries to warn her about the seriousness of what she's doing. Like a teenager, she makes excuses to her friends, and tells them half-lies about what she's doing... I think Willow is certainly headed for a fall, maybe even a rift in her friendship with Buffy, but just maybe, she's not going evil.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the lack of confidence of willow (spoilers in this thread) -- gds, 21:34:31 10/16/01 Tue
Giles words & attitude here sounds like personal experience from his Ripper days. Not to say he raised the dead, but that he had personal experience with those that had. He tried to find out the specifics of Willow's spell. I think he knew several ways it could be done and was trying to figure out what she had done so he could have an idea as to what consequences to Buffy & others could be expected.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the lack of confidence of willow (spoilers in this thread) -- spike lover, 00:04:19 10/17/01 Wed
I agree.
[> [> [> [> [> You're right. Willow's not going evil... she's going stupid. -- Solitude1056, 06:27:43 10/17/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: the lack of confidence of willow -- spike lover, 23:56:50 10/16/01 Tue
When willo said that, I think Gileys was truly afraid of her.
[> [> [> [> [> Afraid of? or afraid for? -- Lunarchickk, 11:51:51 10/17/01 Wed
Here's another thought... I was struck too by the fact that as Willow says her line about "don't piss me off," Giles drops his eyes...

He's seen the unfortunate and painful effects of magic before, in person, in dealing with the demon Eyghon and the fallout from his younger days when he was the arrogant one... Perhaps the fear in his eyes is less fear of Willow, but fear for where she's headed given that she seems to have no interest in listening to what he has to say.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Afraid of? or afraid for? -- JM, 13:15:18 10/17/01 Wed
He has seen it before, he knows where of he speaks. Actually, I was kind of surprised that no one's brought up Ethan yet. It was implied in "New Man" that they were once quite close. It was not just shock at killing Randall and Giles decision to go back to university that drove a wedge between them. Giles says it was when Ethan "started worshipping Chaos," implying that Ethan has also changed. They might have been just juvenile delinquents, and Ethan certainly isn't a big bad, but he is powerful and entirely callous of human life. I wonder if any native morals might have eroded as he heeded the siren call of power.

I wonder too if he might have been on the receiving end of just such a lecture from Giles in the distant past. It might explain while he engaged in such directionless mayhem as the Halloween adventure and the Fyarl demon. He seems to get a pecular pleasure from pissing Ripper off. Odd behavior for an otherwise self-preservatist figure.
[> [> Re: Just a Thought -- Koy, 20:20:32 10/16/01 Tue
Going from "don't hit the horsies" to killing bambi does incline one to point the finger.
[> [> Re: Just a Thought -- Deeva, 23:42:51 10/16/01 Tue
It's one thing to be confident and assertive, it's another to be threatening a person that you would normally consider a mentor/friend. Besides, what's there to be so confident of if you are hiding behind half-truths? Willow is walking a very fine line, the fact that some can see it (Tara, Giles & Spike) but she can't and how she tries to justify all her actions is worrying at best. The finger pointing is not unmerited.
[> [> [> Re: Just a Thought -- spike lover, 00:05:55 10/17/01 Wed
i agree
[> [> [> Re: Just a Thought -- spike lover, 00:07:25 10/17/01 Wed
what if Buffy had walked in on Willow's and Gile's conversation?
[> [> [> [> Re: Just a Thought -- Deeva, 00:21:05 10/17/01 Wed
Buffy actually heard some of it. I'll have to watch the tape again to see what she did hear. Spike speaks to her about the argument between Giles and Willow.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Just a Thought -- Brian, 04:08:13 10/17/01 Wed
It seemed to me that Buffy has developed super hearing like Spike and Angel. Maybe a sign that once again her "powers" are increasing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just a Thought -- Deeva, 09:49:57 10/17/01 Wed
Not sure about the super hearing bit. She was just outside of the house on the porch, which is right off the kitchen, where Giles and Willow are arguing. It was pretty heated and maybe just starting to get loud, so anybody with normal hearing could've heard.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've been wondering if Buffy had heard Willow threatening Giles... -- Solitude1056, 10:21:34 10/17/01 Wed
Since it appears she & Spike both heard Giles' last statement.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Just a Thought -- Sheri, 10:36:10 10/17/01 Wed
She might not have even heard *exactly* what they were saying. Spike asked if she could hear and she replies that she could hear just enough to make herself feel bad. So it's possible that she could just make out the sounds of people arguing (Giles and Willow were speaking in fairly low voices) and figured out, "oh, they must be arguing about me."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> True, but... -- Solitude1056, 10:49:40 10/17/01 Wed
In the script, Spike comments, "watcher-boy doesn't mean anything by it," - IOW, "Giles isn't saying it to hurt you." The humorous part is that it seemed the ambient noise of the "outdoor" scene was louder than usual (or maybe it was my VCR) and *that's* what I thought both characters were referring to - like nearby busy road or something. One other thing: did that back porch look different? I thought it was only a backstoop by the kitchen, not a full porch (with a tree in the middle of it)?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: True, but... -- JM, 10:54:50 10/17/01 Wed
Well, being a vamp, Spike could probably hear everything clearly, even if Buffy could not. I'm pretty sure that the last comment was a voice-over, it seemed pretty clear for an overheard remark. Plus there were no more inside words or sounds once we started focusing on Buffy and Spike.
Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 21:19:14 10/16/01 Tue
Willow brought up a valid point. She's not a bad guy. Sure, ressurection spells are the stock and trade of crazies and cult freaks. But Willow isn't like that. She's Willow. She's a good guy.

We all get a little nervous at her trying her hand on something as dark as raising the dead, because all we know about such a feat is that the only people who do such things are evil wackos. But what no one seems to be considering is that it's possible these people were evil wackos BEFORE trying their hand at such magics.

We've seen and heard about good witches. Amy. Willow. Tara. Tara's mom. The witches that trapped Olaf in a crystal. But we've also seen bad witches (well, a bad witch). It's possible that the only reason ressurection spells are only practiced by evil individuals are because evil individuals are the only ones who cast them. We've all been assuming that invoking such forces corrupts the magician or witch, when it's completely possible that Willow is merely the first good guy to ever have the reason, or the guts to try something like that.

Ok, you might be thinking "Riiiight... in all the history of the BTVS universe, Willow alone was the only good guy to raise the dead." Well. Let's think about Buffy for a second. There's been slayers all through history since the prehistoric ages. Buffy is a prodigy. The best of her kind. No other slayer has done anything nearly as amazing as Buffy has. No other slayer has lived as long, if I'm not mistaken. Buffy breaks the mold. Should we assume that the only mold-breakers are slayers? Why not practitioners of magic? Why not Willow?

Willow's not stupid. She's potentially the smartest out of the entire group (although Tara does threaten that title). Willow's an intelligent, reasonable girl. She knows what she's doing. If she makes a mistake, she'll learn from it. She won't turn evil because she took a risk. Buffy takes risks every day... ones just as dangerous as Willow's, and she's not evil.

But let's think for a moment. What kind of reaction is Willow getting from the people around her? Anya is telling her she was stupid, that she must have screwed it up and she should have known better. Xander's accusing her of being secretive and putting people's lives in danger. Giles lashed out at her. He wasn't calm. He didn't try to find out why she did what she did. He just made blind, rage-filled, uninformed, biased accusations. And loud ones at that.

If Willow is repeteadly called an immature, irresponsible amatuer by her peers, she's going to constantly feel the need to prove herself. The need to prove oneself as capable and mature always results in one doing impulsive, immature things. She's just going to take more risks... ones even more dangerous than the ressurection spell. She'll become cold, arrogant, and very, very cranky as she desperately tries to establish her worth.

In the face of that level of accusation and insult, she has little else to do but rebel. Who wouldn't when pitted up against that?

[> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- JustAGuy, 21:37:22 10/16/01 Tue
Some good ideas. But you have to consider just why resurecting the dead would usually be considered an evil act. If the persons soul is in hell, you are in effect breaking them out of prison. If they are in heaven, like Willow did with Buffy, you are removing them from their just reward for a good life.
And look at Willows own actions. She's lied to her friends about what the ritual exactly entails, and had to goad them into going along with it in the first place. And she threatened Giles with harm when he brought her to task for it.
[> Giles & Willow -- Solitude1056, 21:45:08 10/16/01 Tue
We were discussing the fact that Giles has had plenty of texts and research materials on darker forms of magick, earlier on the chat boards. And it seems to me that it's sort of like having alcohol around someone that at first may've gotten a little tipsy, but over the past two seasons, has learned to drink responsibly (or at least, responsibly as far as Giles has witnessed).

Now Willow has - perhaps, from Giles' POV - done the equivalent of driven drunk. Yeah, so she didn't crash the car (as far as Giles can tell), but the risk of what she did far outweighs whether or not it was justified. I've had this conversation with younger friends, and I've reacted in much the same way - and oddly, my friends reacted much as Willow did. "Well, those friends of yours who died behind the wheel couldn't handle their alcohol, but I can handle mine." I mistrust their perception because, gee, that's the exact same thing my friends said as they walked out of the bar. And Giles has been written as a character who's been down those roads himself, and has had friends who've travelled those roads as well. He's hardly naive when it comes to these things. So in that sense, I didn't see Giles as lashing out at her - I saw him as giving her the severe head's up that she fully deserved.

Giles' point is that no purpose can be justified when it comes to laws of nature. People are born, people die. Buffy may have been a prodigy, but that still doesn't justify subverting our world's paradigm. Willow was very careful to keep details or early notice of the resurrection spell from the three people who'd question the spell's purpose, cost, goal, or intentions: Spike, Dawn, and Giles. She made sure only to include those who could be bullied or guilted into helping her. That alone, to me, speaks volumes of her own awareness of exactly how right Giles is.

As this unsettling reaction starts to build up from Dawn, Spike, and Giles - compounded, possibly, by second thoughts from Tara, Anya, and Xander? - it's likely that it'll become of paramount importance to Willow (even more than already) that Buffy demonstrate her okayness. That's Willow's only proof that her actions were justified, even if it's continuing her historical tendency towards a Machiavellian attitude of ends 'n means. The dynamic that's being set up is very simple: Buffy is working hard to reassure Willow that everything is okay, because of her love for Willow. And in turn, Willow is likely to use this false reassurance from Buffy to justify her actions and continued unethical uses of magick. The two actions feed each other, until someone sticks Willow's head in a bucket of ice water... preferably Buffy, because it's possible Buffy is the only one Willow might listen to, if things keep going the way they are.
[> [> Re: Giles & Willow -- Lucifer_Sponge, 21:57:52 10/16/01 Tue
Whoa. That definately puts a new spin on things. I think, to some extent, I'm going to agree with you on that one. And thats in incredible comparrison... alcohol and magic. Both are be intoxicating.

But I'm going to disagree with one minor point... that of Willow hiding information from her friends. To me, this seems to be more out of shame than anything else. If -I- slit a baby deer's throat because I thought it was something I had to do, I certainly wouldn't run around bragging about it.

[> [> [> Re: Giles & Willow -- Solitude1056, 22:01:09 10/16/01 Tue
If -I- slit a baby deer's throat because I thought it was something I had to do, I certainly wouldn't run around bragging about it.

Willow didn't give Giles all the details, but she sure as hell was bragging - and that smug expression she's been wearing the past few episodes may get stuck if she doesn't wise up at some point. There's a difference between bragging about one's willingness to take risks, and acknowledging amongst one's team-mates that there are risks, and measuring those risks calmly and openly.
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles & Willow -- spike lover, 23:40:01 10/16/01 Tue
giles was cool.h
[> [> [> [> Buffy & Willow -- Javoher, 22:49:30 10/17/01 Wed
Buffy has an ace up her sleeve, and she doesn't want to use it. She can tell Willow where she really was. She would rather keep the truth secret from her friends just as Willow does, but she's use her ace if she needs to.

I suspect she'll need to around mid-season.
[> [> [> [> [> Buffy & Willow, Spike and aces -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 12:46:33 10/18/01 Thu
Remember, sports fans, that Spike is now carrying that ace too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's big test -- celticross, 18:07:08 10/18/01 Thu
Now we see if Spike's gotten good enough to keep Buffy's secret until she says otherwise, or if it'll be too much of a temptation to let the Scoobies have it with the truth.
[> [> Re: Giles & Willow -- Methodica, 22:25:03 10/16/01 Tue
Excellent points you hit the nail on the head with that one
[> [> Re: Giles & Willow -- Rufus, 00:14:00 10/19/01 Fri
And if you will remember in season three when the Mayor and Faith were going to turn Angel back to Angelus, Giles knew the demon that was to do the deed. Not only knew him but the demon "owed" Giles a favor......have to wonder who Giles has gotten to know over the years.......he does appear to know some others that have raised the dead.
[> [> [> Re: Giles & Willow -- Brian, 02:24:59 10/19/01 Fri
Just a thought. If Giles hadn't cowered Willow into not doing that locator spell on the demon, probably Buffy's house wouldn't have gotten trashed.
[> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- Boxdman, 21:53:24 10/16/01 Tue
The problem here is that Willow has the mentality that "I'm the only one with the guts to do this and damn the consequences." When you are a 'good guy' you have to balance the good that your actions will cause against the consequences of success AND the consequences of failure. Giles is right she was lucky. She didn't know all the consequences. What if Buffy had come back only to be killed by the demon she created. Now you risked everything and all you achieved was in creating a demon (well at least you're not dead - yet). And I don't think that Giles could be uninformed about the black arts. He was into them himself for a while so he knows exactly what is going through Willow's head right now. He obviously reacted to Willow the way he did because he wanted her to see that what she was dealing with was not good for her or anyone else. He now realises that she knows exactly what she is dealing with. She is dealing in magics that only evil people normally deal with and she is proud of herself. She isn't humbled by the power she has weilded, she's drunk on it. And I think her "I'm a powerful witch" threat to Giles shows that. I think that before Giles goes that he'll see that Willow sees what she is doing is wrong and he'll know how to do it because either someone did it for him when he was younger or he knows what to say because he did it for himself. What I think it will take is Willow finding out where she took Buffy from, the guilt from that IMO will shock her out of her current state and she will be able to resume her studies in witchcraft with a clearer head.
[> [> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- Lucifer_Sponge, 22:00:39 10/16/01 Tue
And I don't think that Giles could be uninformed about the black arts.

Oops. I suppose I worded that wrong. I meant that he was uninformed about why she did what she did. He was unaware of her motives. Not the how, but the why.
[> [> [> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- Deeva, 00:17:16 10/17/01 Wed
I think that Giles knows perfectly well why Willow did what she did. They all grieved for Buffy in those 147 days but somewhere along the way Willow happened on the plan to resurrect Buffy. I can just hear her thoughts in my head now.

"She's dead. Not fair! She didn't have to die! I can do something about this because I'm a powerful witch. It'll be for the good of everybody!"

It appears to me that it required quite a good deal of planning. The search for the Urn of Osiris(sp?), the research into the correct spell and under what circumstances it would allow the subject to come back (natural vs. supernatural death) and so on. She only had to wait for Giles to leave to commence with the plan. Oh and to also not let on that there might be complications. (She could be not-Buffy and that the gift with purchase is some random demon that we won't know anything about till it's here.)

Giles knows about resurrection spells, too. But he would never use one to bring back Buffy, a person that was like a daughter to him. He trusted in Willow to know about the balance of Nature, you just don't toy with it. All things, good or bad, happen for a reason. Everything that you have done in the past has brought you to where you are now.

Giles was right in being so harsh with Willow. She currently has no equal to balance her. Tara, though she is a witch, is not her equal. She can't seem to find her footing to stand against Willow. Giles with his "wild" youth, dabbled in the black arts and ran with that crowd, saw first hand what that power could do. He has to "check" her. Of course, no one likes to be reprimanded.

Gotta say this part, if Willow could swagger, she was doin' it like a pro in this scene with Giles. Her bragging was so annoying and grating. Just the way she glossed over the whole event. Hello?! The spell didn't go all that well! The poor girl "woke up" in her own coffin and dug her way out. She was greeted by no one and wandered all over town, confused and scared.
[> [> [> [> about that witch, Tara... (kinda OT) -- Solitude1056, 06:22:24 10/17/01 Wed
This bugs me - on the UPN site, they're calling Willow "the witch," and Tara "the sorceress" - am I the only one who thinks they have it backwards?
[> [> [> [> [> Maybe they think Witches are bad, after all Glinda is a sorceress <jk> -- Charlemagne20, 09:38:30 10/17/01 Wed
Really do we need to think this much about terminology? In the Baum books a sorceress was a higher type of magical user than a witch but later on it was corrected that it was a lower type (mombi) so it may have absolutely nothing to do with Wicca whatsover,

I applaud Joss really whose managed to somehow do a good witch, a bad witch and show the ups and downs of magic without offending a religious senseibility but showing a broad broad broad spectrum of allusions to it
[> Buffy really a prodigy? -- Dru Kalita, 22:39:42 10/16/01 Tue
I thought the reason Buffy has survived for so long was because she had friends. Think about all the close calls she's had where their presence was handy - Xander revived her after she died the first time, the Scoobies combining their power in Buffy to fight Adam, or when Riley saved her life in "Fool For Love." Buffy is probably not particularly more powerful or smarter or more skilled than other slayers, but circumstances surrounding her upbringing and environment (such as the Watchers not locating her until the Calling) have placed her into the unique position of having people to care about and to care for her.

Calling Buffy the best slayer would be presumptuous since we don't know much about her predecessors. I would certainly call her the luckiest, though.
[> [> The Prodigy-ness of Buffy -- Charlemagne20, 00:59:05 10/17/01 Wed
Going on a wild limb here I'd say Buffy is a prodigy among slayers because the atypical one (Kendra) proved to be unequal to the task of fighting Drucilla or other Vampires because she lacked a "fighting spirit" and Faith who did have one went insane because of her circumstances-another common event among the Slayers I'd wager.

Buffy has of course had many oppurtunities to die where her friends brought her back

* The Original Master would have killed her if not for Merrick's sacrafice...

* The Master would have won if not for Xander

etc etc on down but we can mark that very capacity for friendship TOWARDS Buffy's skill as slayer. Her keen fashion sense may not seem like a "proper" slayer skill but if it works we have to mark it as a proper method of aid to her slaying as is her ability to make/break alliances as necessary.

Slaying thus becomes waging war and the army which relies totally on force of arms will eventually lose.

Counterpoint also is that Buffy also has saved the world more than a dozen times to all that I've seen which means that either the World is becomming much more lethal or the other slayers were extremely lucky....my guess is that the average Slayer either saved the world once in their lifetimes or encountered just moderate evils such as the ones Angel fights on a routine basis.

Hence Buffy's MAXIMUM exposure to evil on the Hellmouth is darned likely to give her a higher kill score than other Slayers who must search it out like Kendra.

Killing Kakistos, The Master (The strongest of all Vampires as described), Glory (A Goddess), the Ascended Mayor (A true demon), Adam (A golum of incredible power for lack of a better term), The Original Master Vampire (who by his admission in the comic book has killed "dozens of slayers") has proven herself a powerful force indeed.

This is not even counting the comic books and books where she routinely faces much more powerful foes (Ravanna, Tezaticopla, Lilith, Lamia, At least One King of Hell, and the Wild Huntsman are all causalties then). Buffy's main ability is not so much I think she is any stronger than other slayers but that she has survived longer and even when she dies has proven better able to pull through.
[> [> [> Re: The Prodigy-ness of Buffy -- Cactus Watcher, 07:09:27 10/17/01 Wed
Actually Faith slew Kakistos, but she did not appear to have had the courage to do it without Buffy's help. Your points stand.
[> [> [> Re: The Prodigy-ness of Buffy -- Whisper2AScream, 08:49:12 10/18/01 Thu
One more thing about Buffy. In a tight spot, she improvises moves and techniques as she needs to. No stake handy? Fine, use whatever's available. Even Spike pointed it out when he was watching a tape of her slayage.(Halloween ep, very beginning, I think?) Again, since Slayers are usually trained, and used like tools or machines, Buffy's improvisation is another unique skill that's helped her many times.
[> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- kostadis roussos, 23:57:11 10/16/01 Tue

One of the interesting things about magic is that it has the capability of bending unpleasant realities to one that is more pleasant to the wielder.

That is an awesome power.

When the bending is minor, then perhaps we can treat it like money.

When the bending is major, then perhaps, we are no longer dealing with something that is so innocent.

The problem with willow is not that she raised the dead, but that now that she successfully raised the dead, and given her history of resorting to magic to fixing problems, she is only one sad step from fixing things with tragic results.

One aspect of growing up is realizing that the world does not conform to our wishes.

Willow on the other hand can make it conform.

Her will, will be done.

That power can only be dangerous in the hands of a young girl who thinks of herself superior to everyone out there.

For example, what if she discovers that buffy was in heaven, and her solution is to fix the problem by casting more magic (erase the memories from Buffy's head?)

What if Tara turns against her, would Willow use a love spell to get her back?

What if her friends turn against her and her solution is
to eliminate her friends and her memory of those friends?

This is really scary power.

I anxiously await to see what a powerful mage will do when she realizes that reshaping the world in your own image has potentially disastorous results.

Willow will have to learn that sometimes you can not buy yourself out of a problem. Until then she is a danger to herself and to her friends.

[> I hate to burst this bubble of self denial here... -- Charlemagne20, 00:41:20 10/17/01 Wed
No is arguing the ressurection spells etc are magically corruptive here but we are arguing that Willow is being corruptive by practicing spells in such a way that they are evil instead of good no matter how best intentioned.

It's Dark magic not because of the god invoked (Osiris) though I question whether or not he's just a demon like Glory in the Buffyverse but really suped up but because it strips someone from Heaven and puts them on Earth where they are denied their rightful reward.

And it's bad because Willow is defending her actions when she's wrong because she doesn't want to face the consequences.
[> [> Re: I hate to burst this bubble of self denial here... -- Reina, 04:36:27 10/17/01 Wed
I agree with this.
Although on the Osiris deal, he being a deity of the realm of the dead, I feel he might be more likely to be more neutral.

[> [> [> That would be Anubis-Osiris was a benevolent deity, death being a natural part of life. -- Charlemagne20, 09:33:01 10/17/01 Wed
He represents healing, ressurection, and fertility by the means of the Nile. To say upfront that he is a death deity is fairly a good deal like saying Jesus is a death deity. He is true but that does not mean anything bad. Death is the gateway after all to a higher state of being.

[> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- Reina, 04:33:27 10/17/01 Wed
You make a good point, but I feel I disagree. I think that while she is the acknowledged Alpha Witch among the Scooby Gang, there is a certain responsibility to power that she has yet to face. People should be responsible for the own actions or they will never learn from their mistakes.

[> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- cjc36, 04:42:22 10/17/01 Wed
Why is Willow going into darkness? It is because she is working out of 1) self-motivation. Bringing Buffy back wasn't about Buffy, it was about easing Willow's own pain. 2) She clearly *enjoys* her increasing powers. She is a young adult playing with forces she has no real idea about. Comparisons could be made with drugs or alcohol (as the excellent post above) but also with science: splitting the atom, etc. There will be a price due for this. And 3) Willow’s arrogant pride displayed in the fight with Giles. Pride is one of the nasty sins, and (at least in Star Wars mythos) one sure, quick way to the Dark Side.

She is going to hell on the road paved with (seemingly) good, wholesome intentions.
[> Re: Is Willow being PUSHED into evil-hood? -- maddog, 09:20:44 10/17/01 Wed
ok, before reading any of the other posts I wanna say this...where did you learn your concept of dark/black magic? They tend to be bad...all through literature...bad. And if there was nothing wrong with the magic to begin with then why the lies? why lie as to how she got that last item for the spell? especially to Tara who might understand why she had to do it...no there was something definitely wrong with the magics she had to summon for this...and she knew it.

As for the others' reactions....I can't defend Xander...he's been the bumbling idiot as of late. But Anya...if you hadn't noticed she's been a demon...probably knows a lot more about spells in her HUNDREDS of years of existance than Willow does. Giles is right for the same reasons(except of course it's his vast studying of the dark world and not his age that make him qualified). I, personally, was waiting for him to lay into her. I mean, in comparison, Willow is still very new to her magics.

You're certainly right though, Willow isn't the bad guy....yet. If she persues these magics...continuing to lie to everyone along the way...then she will end up on the wrong side of the Scooby Gang.
First Hank, Now Jonathan -- Willows End, 21:27:18 10/16/01 Tue
I think it sad when they turn two basically good characters bad.

This "new" Jonathan isn't anything like the Jonathan we have seen before. I am really sad about the direction they have taken the character.

I saw Jonathan more as a Don Quixote type. Someone with an heroic heart, but without the ability to carry though.

I liked the old Jonathan. He reminded me of a good friend of mine.
[> Re: First Hank, Now Jonathan -- spike lover, 23:30:18 10/16/01 Tue
he wasn't that bad.
[> [> Re: First Hank, Now Jonathan -- Willows End, 23:48:27 10/16/01 Tue
Jonathan said he wanted to hypotize Buffy. He had that power in "Superstar" yet he didn't use it. He didn't want Buffy to be his "puppet". He wanted her to be his friend (and not just because she's hot).

This Jonathan seemed totally out of character. Just like Hank has seemed for the last couple of years. Hank (Season 1-3) was a good father who ONCE was unable to take Buffy to an ice show (the other part was a nightmare and was more reflective of Buffy's fears than reality).

Hank (Season 1-3) would have been quite sure to provide for Buffy and Dawn.

I don't like the direction they are taking Jonathan. The Jonathan of Superstar just wanted to be noticed, and would never break the law (except if you consider suicide breaking the law). He had a big heart but didn't know how to connect with others.

And he liked Buffy for who she was. He was always very supportive of her, even when her other friends weren't.
[> [> Hank Summers-Man who knows where he's not wanted -- Charlemagne20, 01:18:21 10/17/01 Wed
Actually there are a number of very good reasons why Hank Summers hasn't shown up (and I don't mean just because the actor isn't available). It's been 6 years since the Summers divorced and while that is not a long time for an adult man like Hank it is half of little Dawn's life and a significant portion of Buffys. It's possible that Hank Summers has since moved away from close contact quarters like L.A. for instance and accepts whatever excuse Buffy has because he doesn't want to break up the family and life that Dawn has made for her in school. It's possible Hank is seeing someone else seriously/remarried by this point and to bring his old family into this point would seriously alter tensions with his new family. It's possible Hank picked up a vibe that Giles and Joyce were seeing each other and the Englishman intended to/has unofficially adopted the pair. It's possible that Hank wasn't actually affected by the spell that created Dawn and he needs to be kept in the dark about her lest the whole Hellmouth thing blow open (removing Buffy from the Hellmouth is only as bad as removing Dawn from it and both are apocolyptical) so it's also possible Giles/Joyce/Buffy have said they have no desire to ever see Hank again and Hank isn't going to go to court with his daughter over it...especially if Dawn herself doesn't want to stay with him. How's that for possible reasons?
[> [> [> Re: Hank Summers-Man who knows where he's not wanted -- DEN, 05:26:04 10/17/01 Wed
IMO, the change in Hank's portrayal that begins in Season 3 is a forerunner of the cutting-off of Buffy and the gang from their surrounding world that so many posters believe defined Seasons 4 and 5. It's a harbinger of events--just as when the high school milieu is lost through "Graduation," it is not replaced by the college experience. A college scene certainly offered in principle a broad spectrum of story-line opportunities, while giving the characters ample room to grow and change, thus avoiding the often-cited "Friends" risk. Instead the show moved in the direction of near-solipsistic introspection, with character oonnections to the "real world" handled marginally, and frequently presented off-stage.
[> Jonathan-The Selfish Use of Magick -- Charlemagne20, 01:11:44 10/17/01 Wed
The new Jonathan isn't that far from the old. We basically have a kid who could possibly be a younger Joss Wheldon with a few more issues in his complete lack of self esteem. Near suicide is bad but the transformation of the world to your sick masturbatory (can I say masturbatory on this site?) fantasies isn't much better. Willow, Tara, Buffy, and everyone in the world was effectively forced to kotow to Jonathan's desires and he revealed in it.

That Jonathan discovered however that magic DOES pay and with his knowledge and friends knowledge about the occult they could do some SERIOUS improvements to their lives (not work, get women, and live fairly comfortable lives) is just an extension really of Willow's same problem-the ducking of real issues through the occult. This is merely another attempt to heal a self esteem that can't have been helped by being rescued by Buffy...AGAIN from a problem that was his own creation and really who is he hurting? Alot of people I know but I doubt Jonathan has the lightbulb wattage upstairs to notice that.

Making two blonde twins hottub with you doesn't make it too far from wanting a girl whose saved your life from doing it. I think it was mostly "guy talk" on the Buffy anyway...from experience with powerful women, they don't have the stones to try anything even if they did.
[> [> Re: Jonathan-The Selfish Use of Magick -- Nadya V., 06:12:50 10/17/01 Wed
Anybody notice that Jonathan and Warren seem to foreshadow Willow as the big bad, Jonathan misuses magic and Warren misuses his technical knowledge. I suspect that by late season, Jonathan and Warren are going to be Willow's lackeys. As for Andrew, Who is he anyway? Is he from some previous episode that I've forgotten? What exactly does he bring to the triumvirate of "super-villiany"?
[> [> [> Re: Jonathan-The Selfish Use of Magick -- cjc36, 06:48:20 10/17/01 Wed
POSTED BY Nadya V. "....I suspect that by late season, Jonathan and Warren are going to be Willow's lackeys...."

Darn good call, Nadya! I never would have seen that, but it is a perfect fit. Gosh, I'm blind as a bat!
[> [> [> Buffoons from the basement -- Cactus Watcher, 07:45:16 10/17/01 Wed
It's my impression that Jonathan, Warren, and Who's-it are being set up as counter examples to the Buffy and the Scoobies. While the Scoobies are 'growing up' the buffoons will represent the rashness and carelessness of irresponsible youth. Buffy's going to have to find away to support herself and Dawn. Xander and Anya are confronting the seriousness of marriage. Tara is going to have to deal with Willow's increasing problems more personally than anyone. On the other hand, the Buffoons are in the basement with their video games, and other crap they have bought, but barely appreciate. All they're thinking about is how much more they can get as easily as possible. And yes, they were playing Dungeons & Dragons at the moment they decided to 'take over Sunnydale." Where Willow fits in this mix has already been discussed by several of us in earlier posts. How close she'd actually get with the Buffoons is another matter.
[> [> [> [> Similarities Between the Buffoons & Willow and a Small Tangent -- RabidHarpy, 13:07:47 10/17/01 Wed

- magically powerful
- tends to like "the easy way out" (ie. uses magic to "fix" things regardless of consequences)
- intelligent (school & book smarts) - formerly a "geek"
- insecure in her own worth (ie. feels need to "impress" people with her intelligence, her magical powers, etc.)
- pushes moral/natural boundaries (ie. raising the dead; venturing into the black arts)

- technologically powerful
- tend to like "the easy way out" (ie. use technology to cater to their desires - ie. datebot)
- intelligent (school & book smarts) - presently "geeks"
- insecure in their own worth (ie. feel need to "impress" people - ie. Jonathan in "Superstar")
- push moral/natural boundaries (ie. cloning; stealing)

It would not surprise me if these four joined forces at some point in the near future, although, to be honest, I see Matt leaving the "fold" - he seems to have the least to contribute. Besides, 4 is too even a number - a mystical 3 to offset the previous Buffy/Willow/Xander triumvirate is much better! I foresee Matt as being the "snitch" who ends up spilling the beans to Buffy and the gang. I also have a feeling that we are going to see some pretty amazing things from Dawn* this season, perhaps she'll be "taking" Willow's place in the group of 3?

Besides, if Harmony could recruit minions, Willow should have no problem doing the same...!


*The reason I say this is because of Dawn's recent participation - not only did she "find", but she cared for Buffy, (and protected her from the SG's questions) after her resurrection. Most recently she was allowed to help with research and just "happened" to stumble across the right demon with little effort, (not to mention the fact that she knew the correct pronounciation of it's name - there may be some hidden powers in there that even SHE is unaware of), coupled with the fact that she is no longer being shielded from the things that are going on in Sunnydale, (ie. she saw Buffy behead the demon the SG had created; she witnessed Giles' exchange with Buffy regarding their financial matters - she saw Buffy's frustration and had a brief glimpse of her weakness). Also, when they initially introduced MT's character, Dawn, I heard rumours that she would be displaying some sort of "power" - they could be alluding to powers other than her being the "key"... Hmmm...!
[> [> [> [> [> I like your tangent... -- Moose, 21:42:46 10/17/01 Wed
Dawn may become the innocent with power that contrasts Willow's black magiks. If I had to take a wild stab at it, I could possibly see Willow attempting to use Dawn similar to the way Glory did. Perhaps Willow would even think she was doing it for the good of the SG.

Ya know, just some asphalt, good intentions and black magik and the road to hell is not that far away... ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> Similarities Between the Buffoons & Willow and a Small Tangent -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 12:40:48 10/18/01 Thu
Another possibility:

For the first four seasons Willow was what one might call Buffy's foster sister; very close, very sharing of each other's problems.

Now Buffy has a "real" (if somehow constructed) sister in Dawn; this leaves Willow out in the cold.

Perhaps Dawn will replace Willow in other ways as well.
[> [> [> Who is Andrew? ***Spoilers*** -- Deeva, 10:05:45 10/17/01 Wed
In this ep. Andrew says that he is Tucker's brother. Tucker is the guy who was training hell hounds to attack guys in tuxedos and girls in formal dresses. He did all this cause he was dissed at his own prom, I think. (Sorry, I don't know the name of that ep.) Andrew said that he was the one who trained the blind monkeys to attack the school play.
[> [> [> [> Was his name "Andrew" or "Matt"? -- RabidHarpy, 12:44:33 10/17/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Andrew is his name. -- Deeva, 14:14:32 10/17/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> [> by the way (see name tag) -- The Prom is the season 3 episode's name, 01:02:44 10/18/01 Thu
There's never been good, healthy proms

s,1 - Prophecy girl, Buffy dies, but recovers
s,3 - The prom, hell-hounds; Xander & Willow almost forgiven for being hussies to their respective S.O.'s

S,2 - skipped all together?? or just the flying monkey demon scene??
[> [> [> HOLY COW! You're my long-lost twin, Nadya V.!!!!! -- RabidHarpy, 12:38:38 10/17/01 Wed
You stated EXACTLY what I was thinking!!! About Warren and Jonathan becoming Willow's lackeys; about "who the heck is Matt and why don't I remember him?"; and I was even going to use the phrase "evil triumvirate"!!!


*nervous laugh*
[> [> [> [> Re: HOLY COW! You're my long-lost twin, Nadya V.!!!!! -- Nadya V., 07:03:49 10/18/01 Thu
Yeah, It is spoooky,RabidHarpy! ;-)

So, Andrew/Matt/Whatizname is just the zeppo of the group. He has no particular powers or abilities and is just the brother of the hellhound guy. I didn't think he seemed familar. He is so very dead. IMHO, He is the Mr. Trick to Willow's Faith, just a placeholder until Willow goes bad. Even if he turns snitch, I doubt he'll live past midseason. He may even get the dubious honor of cementing someone's villiany, probable Willow or Jonathan. Warren killing Andrew/Matt wouldn't be quite shocking enough because he isn't a very sympathetic or important character.
[> [> [> Re: Jonathan-The Selfish Use of Magick -- Whisper2AScream, 08:36:20 10/18/01 Thu
Hmmm... good possibilty. She's going to the dark side, and they're there already. Even though they still seem to be kids playing on being bad. "Ooh-oh, let's pretend we're these all-powerful villians!" Hehehe, here's an idea what the dialogue be like if she hooks up with them.

Warren: "Hey, cool, we got a hot chick in the group."

Jonathan: "and powerful, too."

Andrew: "Um, yeah, but I thought this was guys only club?"

Willow: (eyes turn black)"Shut up, minions!"

All of the guys: "Yes, ma'am."

Hehehehehe, I'm sorry, but the current group of villians is just too funny to be the supposed bad guys of the season deal. It's like Vamp-Harmony lame attempts at evilness. Oh there's another idea. Bring back Harmony and have her hook up with the three? LOL!
[> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Malandanza, 10:19:31 10/18/01 Thu
"Bring back Harmony and have her hook up with the three? LOL!"

Hey, Harmony could help them with their wardrobes -- maybe they can't act like real supervillains, but Harmony could dress them so they look like super villains.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Harmony -- Whisper2AScream, 11:12:34 10/18/01 Thu
Oh man, I just got a visual of that. :D Like Jonathan acting like Dr. Evil, with his pinky to his mouth. LOL, or one of them shaves his head, wanting to be Lex Luthor.
[> Re: First Hank, Now Jonathan -- Malandanza, 08:37:19 10/18/01 Thu
"I think it sad when they turn two basically good characters bad.

This "new" Jonathan isn't anything like the Jonathan we have seen before. I am really sad about the direction they have taken the character."

Jonathan got a taste of power in Superstar. While the details may be a little fuzzy, I'm sure he misses the adrenaline, the women and the power. Additonally, he always had an obsessive desire to be a part of SHS society -- a desire to fit in. Now he is part of a group of friends and subject to peer pressure. Also, get a group of teen-age (or low twenties) guys together, and their collective IQ drops below the lowest original IQ. I see Warren as the "evil" member of their group -- he had no qualms about killing Buffy. Jonathan stood up for her and swayed the others. I doubt that Jonathan will remain with the group for the duration of the season -- I see a defection in the future (or hope for one, at any rate).

I am also hoping that they put in an interrogation scene between Willow and Jonathan -- like the ones in Go Fish and Earshot -- I love the running jokes in BtVS. If Willow goes evil and Jonathan turns good, maybe they'll even reverse the positions.
angel and spike facing their true natures (no spoilers) -- Sheri, 22:40:14 10/16/01 Tue
Farther down on the board, there is a discussion on why a vampire doesn't cast a reflection. anom had this to say:
"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."

that got me thinking, and so I figured this would be a good time to through out my little theory

When someone is turned into a vampire, I've noticed that they do everything that they can to reject the part about them that they disliked about themselves when they were alive:

Angelus doesn't like that he never had his father's approval when he was Liam... so he killed dear ol' Pop. As Angel, he does what he can to distance himself from not only Angelus' evil, but also from Liam (can't say he approved of himself back then... it did get him vamped!)

Spike reveals in "Fool for Love" that he believes that Dru rescued him from his life... as soon as he became a vampire he does everything he can to distance himself from William--he never got to be in the "in-crowd" as a human, so now he's going to do all that he can to be the most talked about vampire (i.e. did ya hear about how I killed those two slayers?).

But times are a changing: Angel seems to be more accepting of his demon side now (i.e. wearing the black leather pants of (not really) evil. Vamping out when Gunn's old crew want Gunn to kill Angel.) as well as his human side (i.e. smiling without worrying about a) turning into Angelus, or b) turning into Liam).

Spike has stopped putting on the "I'm a big bad vampire--grr grr! OOh, did I tell you about the two slayers I killed?" routine. He appreciates that Buffy treats him like a man--and in my opinion, that's because he is acting like a man.

We're seeing both of these vampires begin to face who they really are... they are not just monsters, but men. So if they are able to face these two sides to their being... what's now stopping them from facing themselves in the mirror?

I think names are very important in this case:

Angelus couldn't stand Liam (why was he always after Daddy's permission? grr arrg!), so he became Angelus.

Angel cannot stand Angelus (well, he is evil), so he become's Angel.

Spike cannot stand William (he was always letting people walk all over him), so he became Spike.

I think the real litmus test to whether or not Angel and Spike can really face themeselves is if they drop the nicknames: to just one day say, "call me william/liam" (great, now I'm picturing "Moby Dick" being narratted by a vampire). If that should happen, I really think that we will see spike/william or angel/liam walk past a mirror and say something along the lines of, "hey, who's the hot guy? better not make the moves on buffy, cause she's mine!"
[> Re: angel and spike facing their true natures (no spoilers) -- spike lover, 23:27:03 10/16/01 Tue
very cool theory
[> Re: angel and spike facing their true natures (no spoilers) -- RabidHarpy, 13:14:22 10/17/01 Wed
If that should happen, I really think that we will see spike/william or angel/liam walk past a mirror and say something along the lines of, "hey, who's the hot guy? better not make the moves on buffy, cause she's mine!"

LOL! Too funny! :D
Plumbing and Philosophy - 'Neither your pipes nor your theories...' (***Spoilers***) -- OnM, 23:36:16 10/16/01 Tue
A long, long time ago, in an OnMverse far, far away---

Well, actually about 20 miles from the town I live in, down near one of the great rivers that flow throughour beloved sylvan state---

OK, actually on a half-decent-sized stream that afer a mile or so, flows into that great river, near where lotsof people go water-skiing and admire the mighty power plant from afar, a good buddy of mine had thisneat little rustic cabin where he spent a good deal of time getting away from it all.

Allright, he wasn’t exactly made of money, and it was what he could afford, but it was still a really neat place, as long as nothing tried to bite you when you used the outhouse, and we and our friends were in our very early twenties, so we didn’t care anyway. You could just sit there on the porch, the scent and sense of the surrounding forest filling your awareness, quaffing a hearty brew or two and watching the stream roll by. I think of those times now, in my all too current reality, and I try not to feel like Buffy does, weighted down with the world and the endless pressures of being a responsible adult.

Anyway, the cabin didn’t have it’s own well-- water came from a reservoir way, way up on the mountain behind it, fed with this long plastic pipe that ran into the sink or two inside. There was never a problem getting water, but you did have to take some precautions. First, if you let the water sit in the pipe for a long time, it picked up kind of a funky taste. Second, in the winter, the pipe could freeze, since most of it wasn’t really buried very deeply.

Solving these problems turned out to be deceptively simple. The pipe was fitted with a tee, and a valve at a point before it went into the cabin. The valve was opened just slightly, enough to let a small, steady stream of water escape, leaking out into the surrounding ground. This flow of water was sufficient to keep the water from freezing in the winter or getting funky tasting in the summer, as it acted as a sort of pressure relief. Now, nearly 30 years later and very far removed from the bucolic interval of my youth, I sit and watch the opening scene of this week’s episode, as Buffy learns lesson the first in the art of plumbing, namely that there are only three states of possible liquid containment, which are: not tight, just tight enough, and floodsville.

While the undeniably dramatic depiction of spewing and spraying that resulted from her valiant, but misguided efforts might have been somewhat of an exaggeration of literal hydraulic reality, the idea that a disaster can be averted by draining off some of the pressure-- even a little-- is not an exaggeration in the least. And to support this claim, Doug Petrie and Jane Espenson spend the remaining 40 minutes of the ep illustrating it in as many ways as they possibly can, both visually and verbally.

This has been an astounding beginning to what will surely be, if they can sustain it, or even half of what they’ve succeeding in doing so far, the best Buffy season ever. I am so impressed, I could just excrete. This ep crackles with the brilliant wit and sharpness and irony and pathos and humanity that the series is renowned for, and it just kept on coming, minute after minute, until the very end.

Before I sat down to write this, I considered just going through the show and picking out all the great lines and writing them down here, but then I’d probably be doing so for quite a while, since it seemed to me like there was a great line virtually every other line, and even the ones in between were still busy doing something useful anyway. And even when there were no lines, the visuals were dripping with meaning. I will pick out a few ‘new classics’ for my own personal highlights:

After the basement starts flooding:

Buffy: There. All better.

The plumbing/life metaphors continue as we see Buffy watching the water run out of the faucet and down the drain. And watching it... and watching it some more...

Hard to argue with this logic:

But I haven’t spent any money. I was all dead and... frugal.

How many ways can we use vampires as metaphors?

Xander: (The hospital bills) Pretty much sucked up all the money.

Anya: Which you’re still hemmoraging, by the way.

Never miss a chance to make a joke only long term fans will get:

Buffy: Easy. We burn the house to the ground and collect the insurance. Plus, fire-- pretty!

Xander using a questionable architectural reference to assure Anya of his solidity:

I’m a flying buttress of support

(A flying buttress may indeed work, but no ‘flying’ architectural construct is ever truly solid)

No explanation needed:

Buffy: Let’s crunch those numbers! (Stupid skirt...)

Gee, wonder why that is?

Loan officer: For some reason Sunnydale property values have never been competitive.

Couldn’t have said it better:

Anya; The tone of my voice? I dislike it more than you do, and I’m closer to it.

Xander being extremely dense, and Anya being tolerant of it:

X: What kind of demon robs a bank?
A: The kind that wants money?
X: What do you even call that?

Buffy on Dawn’s new ‘maturity’:

You do research now? Want a cappucchino and a pack of cigarettes to go with that?

Without any question, or any doubt, the very, very best line of the night, appropo to the man entering stage back:

Buffy: No weapons that I could see, but still... real dangerous.

The simplest line can’t escape a double meaning, at least to the Buffy-as-messiah loyalists:

Giles: Oh god, Buffy...

Without any question, etc. etc., the second best line(s) of the night:

Giles: You’re...
Buffy: A miracle.
Giles: Yes.. but then I always thought so. (gently placing his hand on her cheek)


And on it goes, but now it’s time for the real comic relief-- the introduction of the season first ‘big bad’, which turns out to be the one and only unholy trinity of loserdom, the anti-Christ of immaturity, none other than Jonathan, Warren and the brother of the hellhound guy, who plan to ‘rule’ Sunnydale. Uh huh...

Meanwhile, I was very much not surprised to see confirmed what I already have suspected, namely that Willow does indeed have the potential to become the ‘real’ big bad for the season. The exchange she has with Giles reveals that she has indeed stepped over the line, and is indeed in deepest denial over it. Being that it was directed towards Giles, someone she supposedly respects, her cold assertation that "I am powerful, and you’d better not piss me off" really gave me a chill. I don’t know where this is going to end up, or how far into the season it’ll go, but I don’t see much chance that things will get better for Willow until they get much worse.

Anya was great in this ep. She was just walking on the edge of breaking into irritating-Anya in the last three eps, but now she’s eased up and is both funny and sympathetic again. I especially admired her encounter with Xander where she almost gets won over ‘by your words and your lips’ and then snaps out of it.

As usual, the Spike and Buffy interaction was delightful, this is getting to be a given by now, and I also noted (as I expected after seeing him reappear) that Giles would not only be a stabilizing and comforting influence for Buffy, but that like Spike, he would be also be able to see past the facade of acquiescence Buffy is trying to present and seek to treat the pain that she is trying to conceal. This parallel between these two very different characters reminds me of the scene in ‘Restless’ where Buffy is in the sandbox, and Giles and Spike are on the swingset:

Spike: "Giles is training me to be a Watcher"

Giles: "A Watcher scoffs at gravity".

Whew-- more layers! Don’t these people ever get tired?

Next-to-finally, as the last few minutes of the show take place, we get to wonder how the writers are going to handle the no-crossover crossover deal of getting Buffy and Angel to meet up. I’m sure Buffy’s mention of the meeting not being in either Sunnydale or L.A. is significant, I’m just not sure exactly how, but, hey, based on the first four shows this season, I expect it will be no less enticing to speculate upon than any other of the fascinating diversions so far.

And finally, at least on my affiliate, I liked the brief commercial where FX mentioned their BtVS syndication with the words ‘The Emmy-winning Buffy the Vampire Slayer’. Yes, those awards were ‘minor’ awards, not the biggies we know the show really deserves, but it struck me as them making a little dig at the Emmy voters, and I did dig that.

Signing off until tomorrow, when I’ll probably watch it again, as I’m so relentlessly addicted,


( P.S. But then again, my pipes aren’t leaking, either! )

[> My new printer is developing this annoying squeal...and I've decided it's all your fault.......... -- Rufus, 01:57:50 10/17/01 Wed
My favorite part of the show was when Giles called Willow an "arrogant, rank, amature"...what does Giles know that Willow is just about to learn about the price of power? The thing about power is if you will use it cause someone "pisses" you off then you don't have nearly the power you think you do. Real power is confident and doesn't rise to each petty disturbance of it's potential. Willow reminds me of the "gang of dweebs" who are also convinced that they have power. The slapstick of Jonathon, Warren, and that other guy makes me think of Willow and her growing delusion of just how powerful she is. The cracks in her power are obvious, her emotions too changable to convince me that she can control herself. Giles wondered aloud if Buffy was damaged by being brought back from a hell dimension. But I fear he suspects that there is more to Buffy's last known residence than she is telling. Buffy eager to look okay to everyone stuck to her lie. In the scene in the living room where Buffy speaks of burning down the house there was a sharp division between the others and herself that was obvious. They, assuming that her words are proof that her time in "hell" could have changed her. In a scene resembling the FFL back steps scene we see Buffy talking to Spike in a way that she now can't to the others.
I enjoyed this episode very much and agree that season six is the best season yet. Some of the fun is sneaking back into the show but the pain is still there. Growing up is hard to do...some never get there.
[> [> Re: Rufus took the words out of my mouth, it seems lol -- Reina, 04:29:39 10/17/01 Wed
I loved Giles' talk with Willow as well. In fact, the first thing I thought when he got back was "Uh oh...Willow's going to get it now!"
Always love your posts, Rufus.

[> Re: Plumbing and Philosophy - 'Neither your pipes nor your theories...' (***Spoilers***) -- Rufus, 02:10:16 10/17/01 Wed
Oh...a scene that I forgot......Tara's smile as Dawn checks out the horn in the book of demons........sometimes you have to let someone find things out for themselves......:):)
[> [> Oh That's Not a Horn =) -- Boxdman, 16:28:17 10/17/01 Wed
[> Re: Plumbing and Philosophy - 'Neither your pipes nor your theories...' (***Spoilers***) -- gds, 06:43:50 10/17/01 Wed
I cracked up even before the flood.

Buffy is in the dark obviously stalking some new monster. The music is filled with ominous suspense, and suddenly she raises her weapon and confronts this new fiend in the dark - Mr. Drippy.
[> [> LOL! -- Solitude1056, 06:54:13 10/17/01 Wed
[> Re: Plumbing and Philosophy - 'Neither your pipes nor your theories...' (***Spoilers***) -- maddog, 08:27:56 10/17/01 Wed
I think even on a more obvious note...the parallels between Buffy "fixing" the pipe and Willow resurecting Buffy...sometimes when you try to fix things you only make them worse(even if you have the best of intentions).
[> Re: Plumbing and Philosophy - 'Neither your pipes nor your theories...' (***Spoilers***) -- Liquidram, 09:55:14 10/17/01 Wed
The troika will be interesting. Not much evil going on there, unless you consider Warren's action in giving the demon Buffy's address. My jury is still out on these three. We have comic relief in spades, so I hope there is a definitive reason for these guys. I have my suspicions, but don't want to discuss additional spoilers.

Spike is finishing Buffy's sentences now.... not a good sign for the B/A shippers. I maintain that I would love to see very close friend vs boyfriend status here. He is taking on "soulmate" qualities more and more, which in the long term would constitute a stronger relationship between the two if he manages to achieve any kind of redemption. Ironic, eh?

During the fight with the demon, when Buffy was beating him into the water, the lines:
"Full... copper... re-pipe! No...
more... full... copper... re-pipe!"
reminded me soooo much of the Mommie Dearest line:
"No more wire hangers"
Don't know why and don't wanna think about it.

When Giles first arrived and during his initial interaction with Buffy, did anyone notice the camera shot to the Scoobs? They were all sitting around the table watching the two of them, but I believe Willow was standing a bit behind them with a beaming grin on her face which seemed more of a gloat over the spell than pleasure in seeing Giles back... might have just been me though. And in a side note - I much prefer the casual Giles to the tweedy Giles. And his black t-shirt? Foreshadowing? Again, I won't mention future spoilers in this post, but I believe it is relevant to an upcoming ep.

Another sign of Michelle's incredible acting: When she came into the room inviting Giles to mix cereal, she looked 100% like a very sleepy kid who was having trouble going back to sleep. If I didn't know better, I would swear they woke Michelle from a deep sleep to do her scene. Excellent!

My take on the Angel/Buffy meeting, aside from the obvious "No-crossover" issue is the message that, "ok, we have these restrictions now, so we are meeting in the middle of the issue." Angel is obviously a part of Buffyverse. I think there was intended distinction in the lines she spoke to Giles:

"He knows I'm ... He needs to see me.
And I have to see him."

She said he "needs to" but she "has to". "Has to" for closure, or just one more line over-scrutinized?
[> [> Re: Giles clothes -- Rattletrap, 05:55:37 10/18/01 Thu
When he first walks into the Magic shop, he appears to be wearing the same shirt he was in "The Gift." Is it? If so, does it mean something?
*just specualtion, no future spoilers*
[> [> Buffy as Mommie Dearest. LOL!(***Spoilers***) -- Whisper2AScream, 10:46:48 10/18/01 Thu
I was thinking the same thing when she said that. Heheheh, foreshadowing Buffy as a bad mommy? Or just sneaking in a lil pop culture reference?

Anyway, here's another plumbing analogy that I don't know if this occured with anyone else.

I see Willow's increasing use of magic like the turning of a faucet, only instead of water, it's power. She's tapping in powers, and channeling them through her to work her spells.

She brings Angel's soul back- (faucet turned on, very slowly starting to drip)

Early experiments with magic- (faucet slowly turned in a tiny increments, more drops, not at stream yet.)

Further spell-use, still small- (faucet turned more, still small, small stream, puddle having begun to form)

Major soul-combining spell in Primeval- (faucet turned further, not so small, larger stream, puddle getting larger.)

Spells here and there, including will being done spell in Something Blue- (stream even larger, and steady, small pool now)

Meets up with Tara, joins forces- (still not at full blast yet, maybe half-way. pool is growing)

Tara gets mind-sucked, Willow gets pissed, and goes dark for what apparently is first time. (sharp yank on faucet, almost at full blast, pool is even bigger)

Reverses Glory's spell, has telepathic abilities as well as early PK ability, (another turn on faucet, not as forceful, at full blast now. pool is now a lake.)

Raises Buffy- (violent yank on faucet, faucet handle breaks, fountain forming, and major flooding.)

Basically Willow's getting inundated with power, and has it is now out of control, she's in danger of drowning it. And going with this theory, where's the flooding of this ep? Buffy's basement or Willow's out of control magick?
[> Re: Plumbing and Philosophy - 'Neither your pipes nor your theories...' (***Spoilers***) -- mundusmundi, 13:05:21 10/17/01 Wed
The scene between Willow and Giles was by far the best, and what I found interesting was a particular cut that may or may not be revealing. After Giles calls her a "rank amateur," we see Haughty Willow delivering her chilling "Don't piss me off" line. Then after a quick reaction shot of Giles, we cut back to Mild Willow speaking like she usually does. It was like seeing two completely different people (kudos to AH's acting in that scene), and it does make me wonder if she's not being controlled by someone or something. (Not a deliberate spoiler, just idle speculation.)

The "Weenie Three" clearly fit into the "Oh, grow up" theme, and I see the opportunity for some pathos there besides comic relief.

My favorite line was in the bank, as the guard reached for his gun. "Those never work!" Buffy says, or something to that effect.
[> [> "These never work!" -- Tanker, 22:09:31 10/17/01 Wed
Gun rights types* are probably seething over that line, but I took it as an in-joke for long-time viewers (one of several in the script). The few times we've seen guns used on BtVS, they have either not worked or been trouble. Some examples:

1. Darla accomplished nothing with two autopistols.
2. The werewolf hunter Cain nearly shot Oz.
3. Codelia was more a threat than a help with the rifle in "Homecoming." Plus Hanz and Fritz shooting each other.
4. The Initiative had guns out the wazoo. Fat lot of good it did them against rampaging demons.

I can easily see how Buffy would develop a negative view of guns. In her line of work, they're more trouble than they're worth.

*(I am a gun rights type, by the way)
[> [> [> Good call - have to think it was mostly #4, IMO. -- OnM, 07:07:20 10/18/01 Thu
[> [> [> plus, did you notice ... -- Liq, 08:29:38 10/18/01 Thu
When she threw the gun off to the side, it accidently discharged. Although somewhat unrealistic, there was the message about gun safety.
[> [> [> not only those... -- anom, 11:15:59 10/18/01 Thu
...remember on Career Day when the cop called her name &, when she raised her hand, pulled her gun & tried to shoot her? That would contribute to a "negative view"!
Willow and Power -- luminesce, 06:29:27 10/17/01 Wed
(delurking to say and ask:)

Whenever I think about Willow these days I think about Lord Acton's comment that "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

We've seen the dangers and temptations of having the kind of power that the Slayer has (think of Faith and Buffy on their "bad girls" trip). With Willow we're seeing the dangers and temptations of having incredible magickal capabilities.

My question is--will Willow be able stay "good" while retaining her power? Or do you think she's going to have to lose it/have it taken from her? In other words, *does* power always and all ways corrupt?
[> Re: Willow and Power -- cjc36, 06:42:19 10/17/01 Wed
Guess it's why there are mentors: Watchers, Obi Wan's, and so forth. Youth and power can equal bad things without proper guidance. Willow has had no Watcher, so to speak, and no one who she would actually listen to. And now, as evidenced by Flooded (6.4) she may be beyond any moral compass.
[> [> Re: Willow and Power -- butterfly, 06:53:02 10/17/01 Wed
i have to agree. I was shocked when she said that to Giles. That is totally not like Willow. But i think i did see a bit of forshadowing in it.
[> [> [> Re: Willow and Power -- maddog, 07:45:48 10/17/01 Wed
That was a bit more than foreshadowing...more like a smack in the face...she's headed for bad times...one cocky witch leads to bad times for the Scooby Gang. Joss is too bright not to use this story. And because she's probably the most involved character(meaning she reaches everyone in some way or another) the effects will be far reaching...could this be why Amber is still a guest star? if/when she does hit rock bottom, how quickly will Joss bring her back to the land of the SG? we all know he likes the dark, tortured stories.
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow and Power -- Javoher, 23:06:42 10/17/01 Wed
Perhaps sooner rather than later would be a good time to bring back Doc.
[> Re: Willow and Power -- anom, 18:54:55 10/18/01 Thu
"In other words, *does* power always and all ways corrupt?"

I'm not sure, but I'd say power always carries the temptation to abuse it. Resisting that temptation requires maintaining awareness of one's moral center, whether one does that through religious/spiritual means, a general (or maybe specific!) sense of what is right, or something else. In other words, no excuses & no denial!
[> [> Re: Willow and Power -- cjc36, 00:52:37 10/19/01 Fri
enough of the Star Wars bits, but here goes: Emperor to Luke in Episode 6 was about Luke using the Force for Luke's own will by striking down the Emperor out of hate and anger. But also any personal gain I think could be read into the dividing line between good and evil intent. This is the basis of good/bad power in the classic sense (which Lucas loves to death). Use Force(s) for the will of good, when one's own personal situation may actually become worse, and you are a servant of the Light. But use it for ANY personal reason, and you've just earned some Dark Force points.

Buffy's resurrection wasn't about Buffy as much as about ending Willow's own sense of loss and pain.
Numerical References in Buffy?? -- Neaux, 08:06:02 10/17/01 Wed
Is there a numerical reference thing going on in this season of buffy or is it justme?

First episode of the season.. Xander sports a trendy 13 t-shirt.. that's cool.. but then Willow also wears a shirt with the 11 on it..

fast forward to Flooded.. where DAwn is wearing the number 55. I know its a trendy thing to wear now.. but seriously.. is this more than coincidence???
[> Re: Numerical References in Buffy?? -- Tillow, 08:48:37 10/17/01 Wed
Dawn also wore number 7 in bargaining.
[> [> Re: Numerical References in Buffy?? -- Neaux, 09:54:58 10/17/01 Wed
So you think there is something to it?
[> [> 7, 11, 13, 2, and 55... -- Lunarchickk, 10:21:24 10/17/01 Wed
...and in "Flooded," Dawn also wore a shirt with a 2 on it.

Something to it? Must be, unless the costuming dept. went on a buying binge at Sesame Street. :) However, what that might be is beyond me at this point. There were theories recently that 7, 11, and 13 might point to a date (7/11, 11/13) or perhaps the 7th episode of the season (occurring on 11/13?) -- but I don't think any of those theories were set in stone. (Someone correct me, please, if I'm way off on this one!)

Although 2:55 could be a time...

Any other theories?
[> My theory was... -- Solitude1056, 10:44:48 10/17/01 Wed
Going by Occam's Razor - IOW, nothing too fancy - the #s in Bargaining represented the episodes that are turning points for each character. Dawn may have a "peak" in her own character arc at episode 7; Willow's then would be at 11, and Xander's at 13. That meshes with the idea that if Willow is a Little Bad, she'd be resolved at the halfway point, which would be episode 11, roughly. Xander's big wedding or blowout (with Anya) is supposed to happen early in the 2nd half of the year, putting it between 12 and 14... Gee, I'm guessing 13.

However, I've no idea about the numbers for this past week, and it's always possible, keeping Occam in mind, that Joss threw in the second go-round just to make us think there's something more elaborate planned. Y'know, a smokescreen... or something.

Uh... OnM?
[> [> Re: My theory was... -- Neaux, 11:17:25 10/17/01 Wed
Ah.. on a simpler note.. i just thought it was a nod to the movie "Drowning By Numbers"
[> [> [> Two theories... -- darrenK, 12:34:08 10/17/01 Wed
I have two theories:

Theory 1:each number corresponds to a previous episode...

2=The Witch
11=Out of Sight, Out of Mind
13=When She Was Bad
55=Graduation Day Part 1

Unfortunately, this theory doesn't extend any further than that. Maybe they're the actors favorite episodes. Maybe there is something in each of those episodes that affects or prefigures this season.

They could also be the favorite episodes of the writer of the episode on which they appear.

Theory 2:

The good people of Mutant Enemy know that the fans––us––concoct theories for every little thing that happens on the show and, in honor of this, they've thrown us an absolutely meaningless pattern to make us crazy.
[> [> Re: My theory about the brontosaurous... oops, I mean the numbers... -- OnM, 12:19:39 10/17/01 Wed
I originally liked the one about the three chapers of bankruptcy, and the relative meanings thereof as applied to the characters. The ep #'s (7,11,13) are also very logical, and could be easily planned in advance without specific air dates being of consequence. The new #s throw vamp dust into the works, though, so now I have no pet theory.

Haven't seen 'Drowning by Numbers', but could be a nod to that. Anyone who's seen it care to comment in some detail and enlighten the rest of us?
[> [> [> Drowning by Numbers -- Dreaded Dawn, 12:52:00 10/17/01 Wed
Well, it's been a long while since I saw it. But as I recall, the numbers from 1 to 100 occur in order in the course of the film, either seen or spoken, at varying intervals. Some are well hidden but they're all there. Some are more prominent and some occur in passing or in quick succession.

Now, I haven't seen Flooded, but during Bargaining at least one number was spoken, 800, and there might have been others. When people mentioned the 7th episode being on 11/13 I thought, 800 is probably the air time.

But now I'm wondering, if it is a tribute to DbN, are the numbers are counting down instead of up? I don't remember, but did the numbers not appear in the order 13, 11, 800, 07, gate A6, etc.? Is there a countdown going on toward some important event, perhaps one that happened during Flooded?

If it is a tribute to DbN, it's not a very strict one - the numbers just aren't pervasive enough from what I can tell. You could search for a pattern by counting objects on the screen, but that way lies madness. ;-)
[> [> [> [> Re: Drowning by Numbers -- Neaux, 13:54:52 10/17/01 Wed
Yeah.. I just mentioned the film because of the numerical significance.. It's obvious there is no order of the numbers inthe Buffy episodes..

it just seemed that if their was a relevance to the numbers, I had already seen it done in that Film and just thought maybe Josh was just giving his "props" to the movie.

and you throw the title Flooded into the mix.. Drowning.. heh.. Flood.. Blech.. OK.. I've warped myself. :P
[> [> [> [> Problem is that the 7th episode will air Nov 6, not 13 -- Solitude1056, 17:39:38 10/17/01 Wed
Random Thoughts -- Calluna, 10:39:13 10/17/01 Wed
Just some random thoughts.....

Why didn't Giles just call up the Watcher's Council and tell them to start giving Buffy a paycheck? I get the feeling that they were never told that she died, anyway. And it's already been made clear that they pay Giles.

About Willow going "bad". It's kind of vague the way their going about this entire proto-plot. Logically, she'll keep using her power indescrimiantly and then karma will nicely take her down a notch, much like the "Something Blue" episode. I think it would be much more interesting if Buffy started going rogue. She obviously is holding in A LOT of hatred towards her friends for bringing her back from heaven. Pretty soon it's got to boil over. It would be interesting for her to start becoming like Faith, who was a fairly joyless character. She could just say "Screw this world. It's hell anyway." and end up going on a major slaying spree and eventually kill a human (one of the "evil" geeks, perhaps?).
[> Re: Random Thoughts -- Sheri, 11:11:17 10/17/01 Wed
"Why didn't Giles just call up the Watcher's Council and tell them to start giving Buffy a paycheck? I get the feeling that they were never told that she died, anyway. And it's already been made clear that they pay Giles."

Oh, we are having the exact same thought! While I know that Anya's suggestion that Buffy charge people for her slaying won't work (Buffy's a hero, not a mercenary), I really don't see why the Watcher's Council doesn't give her some sort of living stipend... don't they realize she can't do her best slaying if she winds up homeless?
[> [> And What about Willow and Tara? -- Isabel, 21:27:24 10/17/01 Wed
They've moved bag and baggage into the largest bedroom in the house. Shouldn't they start coughing up a little rent to help pay some of the bills?

Previously, they took care of Dawn, rent was exchanged for a job. Now Buffy's back, Dawn is officially her job. They've got to be saving a pretty penny by not paying room and board to the college.
[> [> [> Re: And What about Willow and Tara? -- spike lover, 00:00:00 10/18/01 Thu
yea they should ask if she mids that they stay there, it is buffy's house not willow's.
[> Re: Random Thoughts -- gds, 11:27:34 10/17/01 Wed
Although the WC probably has never does this because they probably never had a slayer live this long, I think they would do it for the same reason Buffy would NOT. It would give the WC power over Buffy.

Anya's suggestion of charging would be very reasonable (we pay police, firefighters, soldiers, security guards) except:
1. No official recognition that demons etc exist so it wouldn't be government job.
2. A demon aware private company would only pay for their own protection, not for the rest of the world.
3. The independence problem as mentioned above about the WC
4. Legal liability. She could be sued for not stopping demon x from doing act y. That’s not even counting W&H and their affiliates.

She could set up something like Angel Investigations, but Sunnydale isn’t LA and probably couldn’t support it
[> [> Re: Random Thoughts -- Neaux, 17:47:47 10/17/01 Wed
Not Ghostbusters again... That's what i first thought when I saw this storyline pop-up.

Charging for slaying.. or eradicating demons or sucking up ghosts.. Oy!

and Angel already has his own investigation.. and its been done to death by anime series such as Phantom Quest Corp and Ghost Sweeper Mikami (which i havent seen but the plot is similar) . Lets all hope Buffy gets Paid soon and clear the air of a tired plot line.
[> [> [> Re: Random Thoughts -- Whisper2AScream, 07:27:52 10/18/01 Thu
Yeah, Buff can always go back to her job of waiting tables. ;) And yeah, I've seen Ghost Sweeper, and there's a priest character there that looks just like Giles! Yes, really. You can probably find info on the series at anipike.com
[> [> [> [> Re: Random Thoughts -- Neaux, 08:48:42 10/19/01 Fri
which unfortunately Anipike has been down all week.
what happened there?
[> [> Re: Random Thoughts -- Naomi, 11:04:50 10/19/01 Fri
I would have thought that Buffy was more than capable of handling the council following Checkpoint. Why would they have power over Buffy by paying her for slaying? They pay Giles. I don't see the harm in her asking them for money. Buffy has said that they need to help the slayer in order to justify there existance after all.
[> [> [> Re: Random Thoughts -- Darrick, 07:22:06 10/21/01 Sun
The problem with accepting the council's money is that eventually she will come to depend on it. Then that gives them power over her. After all, what they give, they can take away, and at the worst possible time. If she doesn't act now to establish her independence she could end up being in the shadow of the council indefinitely. On the other hand, she should see about getting them to pay for some one-time activities, like setting up a college fund for Dawn(and Buffy as well). That would be more than fair considering all she's done for them.
Spoilery little pondering about 'Body and Soul" -- Sheri, 11:04:44 10/17/01 Wed
When Angel and Marcus switched bodies... I'm assuming that they took their individual souls with them... but I'm wondering if you guys think that if Marcus had gotten a bit too naughty in Angel's body, if that could cause Angel to lose his soul? or vice-versa, what if being in a human body qualified as perfect happiness (yeah, I know it was a pretty creaky body, but it still must be nifty to have a heart beat after a couple hundred years)... could that have had the potential of causing Angel to revert to Angelus?

Does the "be happy = lose a soul" clause apply to what Angel does with his body or what he does with his soul? I'm going with the soul... cause we've seen him be very naughty with his body (i.e. boinking Darla), but he didn't lose his soul. Hummm, so does this mean that he can have sex with Buffy, just so long as it's meaningless? (yeah, I know that wouldn't be possible, just theoretically speaking)

Looking forward to your thoughts.
[> Basically I think perfect happiness has little to do with sex -- Charlemagne20, 11:12:25 10/17/01 Wed
While wearing the magic Ring Angel took a walk in the sunlight and if not for the fact he still needed blood to survive and was dead then I suspect that would have qualified. While inside the creeky body Angel would have been happy to be human but it was done at the expense of someone else whom he knew was probably destroying life with his form. Basically we also saw Angel lose his soul "briefly" thanks to drugs....in order to lose his soul permanently the loss must be because of a guiltless act of pure careless joy.
[> Reposted from below: what happened to Angel and Marcus -- Masquerade, 11:59:30 10/17/01 Wed
I posted this below, but thought the info might be helpful up 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, and his soul (conscience). All that was left in the body was the basic vampiric instincts (We witnessed Angel stripped of all his human mental processes like this 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, soul, 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.
[> [> problem w/that is... -- anom, 21:49:44 10/18/01 Thu
"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."

And Marcus wasn't aware of that for what, several hours, till he got it on w/Lilah & the blood- part of the lust took over? The monster wasn't aware that Angel was no longer keeping it in check? I'm sorry, but I can't buy that. I think the monster, part of Angelus/Angel, went to Marcus' body & all that remained in Angel's body was the fact of its being a vampire body, now joined by, as you say, Marcus' "personality, consciousness, and memories."
[> Re: Spoilery little pondering about 'Body and Soul" -- Rufus, 21:41:52 10/17/01 Wed
The Curse was specific to Angelus/Angel. As everything that is Angel went over to another host, the curse would have gone with that. Perfect happiness doesn't mean sex, but a moment where Angel forgets even for an instant what the Gypsies wanted him to suffer for. With Buffy it just happened to be after sex.
1, 2, 11, 13, 55 -- WatcherBaz, 11:06:04 10/17/01 Wed
Most but not all are prime numbers, for whatever that's worth. Not 2 and not 55.

[> Re: 1, 2, 11, 13, 55 -- Humanitas, 14:37:37 10/17/01 Wed
I was going with the 'prime number' idea myself, but 55 blew that one away. 2 is prime, BTW. Only divisible by itself and 1. ;)

Now I'm back to the 'Joss is messing with us' theory!
[> Hey, Baz! Haven't see you around for a while! -- Masquerade, 14:59:20 10/17/01 Wed
[> Re: 1, 2, 11, 13, 55 -- chuk_38, 04:47:20 10/18/01 Thu
this might seem really stupid of me asking this, but where are you getting these numbers from?
[> [> Re: 1, 2, 11, 13, 55 -- Whisper2AScream, 07:13:48 10/18/01 Thu
The numbers have been appearing on shirts by the characters recently.

Xander was wearing one with 13 on it, Willow wore 11, Dawn has worn shirts with 2, 55, and 1 as well? Not sure on the last. Thought she was wearing 7 or 6.
On the nature of the fall -- kostadis roussos, 11:10:12 10/17/01 Wed

In Paradise Lost, Milton shows how the Adversary's tragic flaw was hubris, the desire to be like God.

It is best exemplified in the line:

Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven.

For what does it mean to "serve in heaven". It means to accept the judgement of God, to accept that not everything you want can be made real.

It is to accept limits to your will.

Willow has done nothing evil. She may have been misguided, foolish, dangerous, manipulative, but not evil.

It is not even her power that frightens, it might surprise, it might shock, it might even please, but not frighten.

What frightens, is that you can feel the hubris in her.

Raising the dead is the ultimate expression of man's imposition of his own will over the will of God. (Replace god with fate/nature etc)

Everything else, imposing your will on the world is mere chickenfeed compared to that act. If you are willing to stare down God, and say No, what is the will of your friends, your colleagues, the world going to mean to you? Not very much.

What frightens about willow is that she may soon no longer accept limitations to her will, and be willing to go to great lengths, to ensure that it is done.

And then that is when the evil begins.

She is one step from the fall. The freight train to hell has not yet left the station, but unless she acquires wisdom soon, the last stop will be the very hell she thought she was saving buffy from.


Current board | More October 2001