October 2001 posts

Previous October 2001  

More October 2001

Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- sasha, 14:43:04 10/23/01 Tue
Okay, we know that when AI showed up at Caritas looking for Fred, Lorne asked Gunn if he brought any of his friends and Gunn replied "Maybe I should wait outside" and Lorne agreed that was a good idea. A few questions arise:

1) Does Lorne blame Gunn for the wreck of Caritas? If so, why? Is this fair/right/good/bad?

2) Why does Gunn suggest it himself that he should wait outside? Is he just humoring Lorne, trying to smooth things over so they can all deal with the main crisis which is Fred being missing? Does he feel guilty/responsible for the wreck of Caritas? If so, why? Is this fair/right/good/bad?
[> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- celticross, 15:24:27 10/23/01 Tue
I've been wondering about that myself...obviously, Lorne is still devastated about the damage done to his club. I don't really think it was fair of him to tell Gunn to leave, but Gunn is the closest target for his anger. Caritas is his home and his livelihood, and as I mentioned in a thread below, he probably feels very persecuted in having the place wrecked, as doesn't believe he's doing anything wrong. And Gunn suggesting that he want outside? Big ole guilt by association, I do believe.
I think the biggest question for me about Lorne's behavior in this episode is, why did he tell Fred to keep running?
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Ryuei, 16:17:39 10/23/01 Tue
I was a little surprised at the hard feelings that Lorne directed at Gunn. I hope they patch that up. On the other hand, when I thought it over it is understandable. If Gunn hadn't been covering up for his friends, the club and its patrons wouldn't have been shot up. Also, seeing Gunn must have brought it all back to Lorne - yes, guilt by association. Not fair but understandable.

As for Lorne's advice to Fred - that did seem peculiar. The only thing I can figure is that Fred was trying to retreat back into the womb - with the cave, her room, and her plans for a sewer condo. Then, once she had faced her parents and the admitted the reality of what had happened to her she tried to retreat again into a dream of childhood safety by returning home to her parents. I think Lorne saw that Fred would not only have to muster the courage to see her parents but also the courage the leave them once more for the responsibility and challenges of adulthood. This of course, would tie things in with this years theme of growing up on Buffy too.

One last thing - I sure hope Lorne reopens Caritas. And here's an idea - there must be room at the AI hotel for a new refurbished Caritas. Of course, that might compromise the neutrality/sanctuary of Caritas so maybe that really wouldn't work out.
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Kendra, 01:21:11 10/24/01 Wed
At first I understood Lorne's attitude toward Gunn, though didn't agree; however, Gunn defended Lorne from his friends. For that reason I think Lorne was wrong. And I too wonder what is up with Lorne's bad advice to Fred. Also in the gang's defense, I think at that time finding Fred was priority. Hopefully, they will deal with issue soon.
[> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Wisewoman, 17:50:10 10/23/01 Tue
It made me very uncomfortable when Gunn left Caritas and the others stayed. I'm trying not to be overly politically correct about the whole thing, but it just smacked of, "We don't want your kind in here."

Why didn't any of the AI team stick up for Gunn, or suggest that he should stay? Granted, his withholding evidence probably led to the attack on Caritas, but Gunn didn't actually participate in the attack. He was very definitely not "one of the gang," as far as his old gang went, and yet that's the way he was treated last night.

It raises the whole question of judging people based on their associations rather than on their actions. In this case the fact that the associations are pretty much "black or white" just makes it a little harder to swallow.

Just my .02 worth.
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- spike lover, 18:51:01 10/23/01 Tue
It also bothered me that none of the gang spoke up for him.
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Riley's Ghost, 21:59:23 10/23/01 Tue
I believe that Riley's old friends were correct in attacking the lounge. After all Lorne was harbouring evil at the lounge.

If Lorne does reopen, I hope he is more careful in who he lets in.

When you harbour evil this is what happens. Lorne needs to take responsibility for what happened and stop blaming others.
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Riley's Ghost, 22:07:31 10/23/01 Tue
Gunn's old friends.

Sorry I have Riley on my mind tonight.

I did find it odd that Lorne blamed Gunn. Gunn found out, then came to the lounge to warn Angel Investigations. There wasn't much time in between.

But again I believe Gunn's friends did the right thing. The monsters at the lounge were evil and by destroying them a few more babies in LA will get to see adulthood.
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- Bambi Slayer, 22:22:36 10/23/01 Tue
You know what I was thinking. Perhaps the reason Lorne hadn't rebuilt the lounge yet, was because, athough he was angry, subconciously he is beginning to see it as a wake up call.

Subconciously he knows that harboring evil is wrong. He probably knows that Gunn's friends were right in what they did, but isn't ready to admit it yet. So on the surface he is angry with Gunn and his friends, but deep down he is angry at himself.

This could have been just what Lorne needed to re-evaluate his amoral life. In the end we all have to choose between good and evil. Can't stay on the sidelines forever.

Lorne will eventially have to admit his own responsibility in the events that resulted in the damage to his lounge and choose between the demons and humanity. I hope that this is a start of a beautiful friendship between him and Gunn's group. He could open up the lounge to them as kind of a headquarters.

Or he could choose to go with the Demons.

Either he is with Angel Investigations and Gunn's Friends or he is with evil. Can't be neutral anymore.

I hope he sticks with the good guys. Gunn's friends and him could be quite an alliance, if Lorne can apologize and they can put their bad feelings behind them.
[> [> [> [> [> Did the Host deserve what he got? -- Naomi, 03:12:42 10/24/01 Wed
I get the impression that the Hosts bar is only one of a few demon sancturies in LA so why should the Host close it. Maybe it's over the top to call demons a persecuted minority but the episode Hero showed us how hard it is for demons to fit in to human society. Why shouldn't they be able to relax at a place where they can fit in and feel safe from intolerance. There are good and bad demons and the good demons should not be punished because of the actions of other evil demons. The Host can be seen as condoning immoral behaviour but in the long term it isn't going to make much difference to the victims of demons if the Host serves them drinks or not. It's not as if he's helping them commit evil. He simply tells people/demons there predetermined futures if they are curious. The only demon we have actually seen him advice is Angel and that was because the Host was helping the higher Powers. The innocent demons deserve consideration too as the Host banning demons from his premises is not ultimately going to make a diffence to the evil committed by some of them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> The quality of Mercy is not strained...... -- Rahael, 03:22:22 10/24/01 Wed
I agree with you Naomi.

I think the meaning of Caritas is significant. We have learned that a lot of the demons/evil people that appear in AtS are redeemable. That despair, and isolation and lack of hope (what Holland succeeds in inducinging in Angel), only drives people toward more desparate, anti social actions.

And seeing as Caritas is a word overloaded with Christian resonance, there is plenty of justification, theologically speaking for the AI team to continue hanging out there, and for the HOst to provide a neutral space.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes -- Riley's Ghost, 06:43:26 10/24/01 Wed
"I get the impression that the Hosts bar is only one of a few demon sancturies in LA."

Exactly. It is a sanctury for evil. Evil should know no sanctury.

Yes the Host did get what he deserved. Sure he has a great personality. Sure he is a nice guy. But he gives sanctury to evil.

Gunn's friends attacked a legimate target. They were protecting their community.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are you speaking fictionally as "Riley's Ghost", or are these actually you're black/white opinions? -- RabidHarpy, 07:16:02 10/24/01 Wed
Just curious... you seem very "in" character. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- Naomi, 08:06:02 10/24/01 Wed
In your post you are sterotyping all demons as bad based on their appearance. My point was that all demons are not evil. Gunn's gang were not protecting innocent people, they were attacking demons randomly based on their appearances. They were taking pleasure in wantom acts of violence and destruction and I felt that they were deliberetely unsympathetic because the episode was trying to make a point. You can't make sweeping generalisations that all demons are evil as this is not the case. The Host may be seen by you as immoral but the higher powers are using him to instruct and guide Angel. Therefore the situation is not as black and white as some people might like it to be.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is my fault, Naomi -- WW, 08:30:33 10/24/01 Wed
Please know that the vast majority of this Board agrees with you. This type of response from Riley's Ghost and Bambi Slayer (or whatever?) is the same as we got when the episode aired. There is no way to reason with these posters; they will just continue to reiterate their initial post.

I'm sincerely sorry that I attracted their attention again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- maddog, 09:20:48 10/24/01 Wed
This is what I was trying to get at in my other post further down(though I claimed there wasn't proof of a bad demon in Caritas at the time...my bad, the baby eater was pointed out)....but overall I was getting to the fact that they weren't finding out whether the demons were good or bad...one in the same to them...which includes Lorne...which includes Angel. Sad isn't it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- sasha, 16:33:45 10/24/01 Wed
maddog says: "but overall I was getting to the fact that they weren't finding out whether the demons were good or bad...one in the same to them...which includes Lorne...which includes Angel. Sad isn't it."

I looked at the sentence and thought...."Angel is a good demon", but then I realized, "No, Angel is a good/bad demon, sometimes he's good, sometimes he's bad". And the interesting point about Gunn's old gang shooting up all the demons in Caritas just because they're demons, and especially wanting to dust Angel for being a Vampire, is:

Who appointed them Judge and Jury? Who gave them the right to decide life and death for demons? Was there a letter/memo/email?

And especially:
Who gave them the right to dust Angel just because he's a vamp? TPTB are already personally overseeing Angel's case. From my impression of TPTB, they're the highest authority in the buffyverse. If you don't like what they're doing, who ya gonna complain to? I would hope that TPTB might be perturbed that Gunn's old gang, by determining Angel's destiny, rather than letting Angel choose or have the TPTB direct him through Cordy's Visions, is usurping their place in the buffyverse and step in, but then again, TPTB do let W&H mess with Angel all they want to, so maybe not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 19:19:26 10/24/01 Wed
"Who appointed them Judge and Jury? Who gave them the right to decide life and death for demons? Was there a letter/memo/email?"

They have to live everyday under the threat of Demon attack. They have seen their friends harmed, and yes even killed by them.

This is a matter of survival for them. You asked who appointed them? Neccesity appointed them. Do you think the rest of Los Angeles gives a damn about what happens to them? So another street kid dies. Not their part of the world so most of LA doesn't care.

They don't have e-mail. All they have is each other. They used to have Gunn, but Gunn doesn't seem to want to hang around in their neighborhood anymore. You see now he has this fancy job at this big hotel working for this big bloodsucking vampire dude. The same kind that killed his kid sister. Imagine that.

No, haven't seen Gunn much lately. So it's up to them. So don't expect them to respect this sanctury thing where the monsters get to kick up their feet, listen to some tunes, drink some cocktails, and then go back to THEIR neighborhood to steal some babies to eat. No they are taking the battle to the monsters. Evil deserves no safe haven, after all what safe haven has the demons ever given them.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Bambi Slayer, 21:26:20 10/24/01 Wed
Gunn's friends were protecting their neighborhood. The people at Caritas were evil. They probably have done much harm to Gunn's friends. And then afterwards they go to Caritas and laugh about it.

Somewhere along the line Angel Investigations forgot what Caritas was all about. Even Gunn to some extent. I can understand them going there for information, but they started going there for entertainment. They forgot how evil these Demons were.

It reminded me of how some like to hang out with gangsters. They think it's cool to be around evil, though not participating in it directly.

Gunn's friends took out a hang out for evil. Killed a bunch of demons too, probably saving many human lives. I think that was great. They went a little too far with Angel, but that was more a power struggle thing than anything else.

If the Host doesn't want his lounge attacked, he shouldn't harbor evil. If he does harbor evil, he opens himself up as a target, and should expect no mercy from the good guys.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- anom, 21:54:49 10/24/01 Wed
"You see now he has this fancy job at this big hotel working for this big bloodsucking vampire dude. The same kind that killed his kid sister."

Except he's not. He just looks like the same kind to them. Which is the whole point.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 06:42:31 10/25/01 Thu
Just give Angel one moment of perfect happiness and see how different he really is.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Naomi, 12:20:46 10/25/01 Thu
Angel is different from other vampires and the people attacking him based on his appearance needed to acknowledge that instead of making assumptions. Yes he does have a curse but I don't think that he deserved to die because of what he is capable of doing and am puzzled about what point you are trying to make. I don't want to keep rehashing the issue because I sense that it's just going to keep going round in circles. I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance? If you wouldn't then that is the point that I am trying to make. If you would support that then that is known as prejudice. It might seem like killing all British people would be best overall/in the long run but the reality is that it would destroy society and the idea of innocent until proven guilty etc.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 19:27:17 10/25/01 Thu
"I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance? "

Yes, the way you put it, I would.

80% evil you said. So I am assuming we are at war with them. Now for the 20% we could form alliances with them, and they could become spies, but one of the things about being a spy is that they are pretending to be the enemy so they could be victims of friendly fire by those "not in the loop". And since such operations must be compartmentalized, it's a risk that isn't entirely unavoidable.

This all could have been avoided, though if Gunn had kept in better contact with his old crew. He could have explained that they were using Caritas as an intelligence source so strategically it is more useful to them to keep it around.

I don't know if his old friends would accept it though, as they are the ones most directly affected by the demons that the Host harbors.

Reminds me of a episode of La Femme Nikita. Section One was protecting this guy whose charity for troubled youth was really a front for a thriving child slave trade. Section didn't want Nikita to attempt to save the children as Section thought it was more imporant to keep him around because he could provide them information that could lead them to some very lethal terrorists. But Nikita being a child of the street herself couldn't sacrifice a bunch of children just to keep him around as an intelligence source.

That is always the problem. Should one keep an intelligence source going, allowing them to continue to commit evil, all in order to fight the larger battle? Sacifice some, to save more? I can understand the necessity of such thinking, but if I was the "some" being sacrificed, I don't think I would take it lying down.

Caritas was a legitimate target given the information that Gunn's old friends had. Strategically its debatable whether or not it was the best course of action to attack it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Riley's Ghost, 19:44:40 10/25/01 Thu
"I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance? "

Why don't you replace the nationality from British, to German? I think then the question becomes plainly clear.

Viva La Resistancé!

You see the distant flames, they bellow in the night
You fight in all our names for what we know is right
And when you all get shot and cannot carry on
Though you die, la resistance lives on.

You may get stabbed in the head with a dagger or a sword
You may be burned to death, or skinned alive, or worse
But when they torture you, you will not feel the need to run
For though you die, la resistance lives on.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> why would that make any difference? -- anom, 20:49:12 10/27/01 Sat
"'I just have one question. If 80% of British people were pure evil would you support random attacks on all British people based on their appearance?'

Why don't you replace the nationality from British, to German? I think then the question becomes plainly clear."

Huh? Why? Because they're more "different"? Because they had a Nazi gov't. in the '30s & '40s that committed genocide? That doesn't justify random attacks on German citizens, even if 80% were evil. As most posters on this board know by now, I'm a Jew. My grandparents came to the US from Eastern Europe long before WWII, but the part of their families that stayed behind were wiped out. But I don't hate Germans--I hate Nazis. I know the difference. Yes, too many Germans (& Poles, etc.) participated in the genocide, collaborated, or looked the other way. But others hid Jews (&, I hope, Gypsies & others), helped them get out of the country, or participated in the Resistance. They shouldn't be subject to random attacks because of their nationality. That's the same kind of thinking that gets people w/a Muslim/Arabic name or appearance beaten up or killed because of terrorist attacks they had no part in.

So why would you think your answer to Naomi's question would be any more acceptable if the q. were about Germans?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why would that make any difference? -- Riley's Ghost, 23:18:37 10/27/01 Sat
"Huh? Why? ... Because they had a Nazi gov't. in the '30s & '40s that committed genocide? "

You got it. By using a real life situation, the answer because very clear.

Of course you would attack the German people of the 40's. Bomb their cities, sabotage their railroads. Do what ever it takes. Create choas any way that's possible. You would try not to provide them a moments safety. A moments rest. You would provide them no sanctury, only destruction.

Sure some "innocent" Germans died along the way, but that's war. You take the war to them, after all they did bomb London.

If the British ever goes for a Hitler like leader. If 80% of the British people supported that person, if 80'% if the British people were evil, I would support attacking them. You do what it takes! You do evil, for doing evil is better than being evil.

Better for a lover of the truth to tell a lie, than a liar to tell the truth. You must be more ruthless than your foe. You must be decisive until the war is won.

By the way I would burn Atlanta as well.

You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I will. War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out. I know I had no hand in making this war, and I know I will make more sacrifices to-day than any of you to secure peace."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why would that make any difference? -- Naomi, 03:05:16 10/28/01 Sun
Ok if you really feel that way then that's fine. I'm even starting to bore myself with my repetition of my point of view. We have made our opinions clear now. Lets just agree to disagree.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> do **not** tell me what **i** would do! (long) -- anom, 11:22:32 10/28/01 Sun
"You got it. By using a real life situation, the answer because very clear."

The hell it does.

First, I would not bomb civilian targets. I would have bombed the railroad tracks going to the concentration camps but not the ones supplying the cities. I might have attacked military targets within cities, which does risk killing innocents (I refuse to call it "collateral damage"), but that's not the same as firebombing an entire city like Dresden. I don't support attacking a country's people--often the same ones oppressed by the gov't.--for what their gov't. does, and don't try to tell me I would. That's what you would do, & I reject your attempt to attribute the same viewpoint to me.

Second, the original question was about today, not the '30/'40s. I was asking if you would support random attacks on Germans today because of what their ancestors did over 50 years ago. You chose to answer a different question, about attacking the Germans of those times. I was asking if you think somehow their actions justify attacking the Germans of today.

Third: "If the British ever goes for a Hitler like leader. If 80% of the British people supported that person, if 80'% if the British people were evil, I would support attacking them. You do what it takes!"

What you advocate goes beyond "what it takes." There are 2 questions to ask about "by any means necessary": Is it in fact necessary? and Is it really a means to the end you want to achieve? There are approximately 60 million British people. If 80% of them were evil, that would leave 12 million innocent people whom you apparently think should be subject to random attacks because of the evil of their fellow citizens, which they don't share.

Fourth: "You do evil, for doing evil is better than being evil."

You really think people can do evil for as long as it takes "until the war is won" & not become evil themselves? At some point a line is crossed & there's no practical difference.

Fifth (I'm getting to the end here, folks, really): "You must be more ruthless than your foe....By the way I would burn Atlanta as well....War is cruelty, and you cannot refine it...."

I see. So you would scrap the Geneva Convention, & you're fine w/what Lt. Calley & his troops did in My Lai. Of course there's no such thing as a clean war where only the bad guys--on both sides, but especially "theirs"--get killed, but that doesn't mean efforts shouldn't be made to minimize the harm to innocent people & even the infrastructure they'll need to survive & rebuild their lives afterwards.

Sixth, I wrote a longer & more complex response than what you quote above. Yet you chose to reply to only 1 question in it. I've noticed--having had plenty of opportunity--you have a knack for dealing w/things in simple terms & avoiding the complexities other people bring up. The real world, & even the Buffyverse, is much more complex, & simplistic approaches aren't adequate.

Oh, and by the way, no we are not talking about a real-life situation. We are talking about a theoretical situation in which 80% of a particular group of people are "evil." That's not real life.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Deep Sigh* They know Trollbot's deactivated and d'Herblay's on hiatus. Bored now! -- P*ick Erudite Poster, 12:04:44 10/28/01 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Deep Sigh* They know Trollbot's deactivated and d'Herblay's on hiatus. Bored now! -- celticross, 19:02:43 10/28/01 Sun
Amen! Riley's Ghost, what is your DEAL? It's one thing to express an unpopular opinion. It's quite another to continue hammering away at multiple posters who disagree with you. This thread started off well; it's boring me and frustrating me now. *puts on her troll-proof headphones and goes to watch "Fredless" again*
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: *Deep Sigh* They know Trollbot's deactivated and d'Herblay's on hiatus. Bored now! -- Riley's Ghost, 20:40:37 10/28/01 Sun
If you want me to leave, I am so out of here. I guess "freedom of speech" only goes so far, or I should save goes only in one direction.

I want to thank you for your tolerance "yeah right".
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tolerance -- Malandanza, 22:10:39 10/28/01 Sun
"If you want me to leave, I am so out of here. I guess 'freedom of speech' only goes so far, or I should save goes only in one direction.

I want to thank you for your tolerance 'yeah right'."

I don't think any one wants you to leave. I have read your posts on other subjects and do not believe that you are posting for the sake of stirring up discontent. We all have issues that we are very passionate about (mine's abortion -- pro-life, btw) where passion sometimes matters more than reason. I think what you are seeing is not that posters want you to contain your freedom of speech, but that they would prefer that you responded differently to their own (carefully considered) points.

But it is difficult to continue an argument with someone who claims that chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are okay for the good guys to use -- and that Dresden-style firebombing, bombing schools and churches and killing people in church are acceptable as long as your cause is noble. How can we respond other than to simply deny what you've stated? There is little room for debate. Add to that a tendency to restate your position instead of addressing our concerns -- or focusing on a single throwaway line. Again, I am the same way about abortion -- when people try to talk to me rationally, I invariably end up talking about genocide of the underclass or about how legalized abortion in the US alone has claimed more lives than the holocaust. Such inflammatory language ends debates faster than anything (with the possible exception of religious debates). So I avoid talking about abortion.

We don't come here to prevent other people from exercising their freedom of speech -- we come here to exercise our own (which is hard to do when someone is set in their views -- whether we agree with those views or not). In other words, we thrive on moral ambiguities, not moral absolutes. If everything was black and white we could replace the philosophers with theologians (and no one wants that!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: do **not** tell me what **i** would do! (long) -- Riley's Ghost, 15:23:22 10/28/01 Sun
The only "rule of war" is that there aren't "rules" only victory and defeat.

Innocents, die. You should try to minimize that as long as it doesn't interfere with the larger objective, but the fact is innocents die.

First foremost and always you must be decisive. You must do evil to stop evil. You must be ruthless, for our foes are ruthless, and if you aren't more so, they win and we are destroyed.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: do **not** tell me what **i** would do! (long) -- yabyumpan, 16:17:49 10/28/01 Sun
"you must do evil to stop evil".....so how come there is still "evil" in the world? Responding to violence with violence just causes more violence. We have more wars and violence in the world now with bigger and "better" weapons, is any of this stopping war from happening or likely to stop future wars, NO!!! the only way to stop war in the long run is for negosiation(sp)and talk. Sure the better equiped may win one war but that just encourages others to believe that if they could be bigger and tougher then they could win the next one and so the circle continues. There is always of course a good excuse to go to war "he looked at me funny, miss" " he hit me first" but basically it's down to school yard bullying and who's got the biggest willy! The only way to stop "evil" is to confrunt it with "good" and that takes real courage and wisdom, the courage to allow ourselves to be open and vunerable and the wisdom the see the long term and not just knee-jerk vengence and psudo-justice. Sadly i'm comming to believe that the human race will not evolve far enough along this path before it goes the way of the dinosors.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a good/bad demon...SPOILERS (AtS3.4) TOGOM -- Naomi, 11:27:50 10/26/01 Fri
The point I was making is that it's not right to attack others based on their appearance or where they come from. Demons do not deserve to be prejudged which is what happened in Angel. Now either you agree with that or you don't. Yes you can try to protect the innocent by joining up with them etc but the point is that Gunn's old gang weren't interested in that. They simply wanted to create as much havoc as possible and they felt it was justified because it was against THEM and most demons are evil. If you agree that Demons/people don't deserve condemnation based on their appearance or the behaviour of the majority then that is the point I am making. People and Demons deserve to be judged as individuals in their own right not as members of a social or ethnic group.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> but, riley's ghost, don't you *see*...(cue music) -- anom, 17:06:02 10/25/01 Thu
"So don't expect them to respect this sanctury thing where the monsters get to kick up their feet, listen to some tunes, drink some cocktails, and then go back to THEIR neighborhood to steal some babies to eat."

When a demon's not engaged in its employment
(its employment)
Or maturing its demonic little plans
(little plans)
Its capacity for innocent enjoyment
(-cent enjoyment)
Is just as great as any real human's
(real human's)...

(to the tune, of course, of A Policeman's Lot Is Not a Happy One, by the two & only Gilbert & Sullivan, & if I hadn't missed the entire ep I might be able to filk the whole song)

Anyway, RG, try to remember this is a TV show that needs its plot devices, incl. a place like Caritas so the Host can be there to read Angel's aura when he "sings" & work w/AI on various--generally good--things, & so AI can go there to troll for clues. One of the best features of both shows is that occasionally they make use of their plot devices to do more than advance the plot, bringing them to the foreground as in the ep that's occasioned this thread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- Riley's Ghost, 19:02:42 10/24/01 Wed
The Host is amoral.

Angel Investigations is making a mistake if they forget that.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Undeserved - I agree with you. -- RabidHarpy, 07:13:57 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Umm... -- RabidHarpy, 07:12:22 10/24/01 Wed
I was under the impression that Gunn's old group didn't discriminate between "good" and "bad" demons. Just because Angel is "good" and Gunn works for him didn't earn him any brownie-points with the Gang - I can't really see them accepting Lorne and making his old club their headquarters... unless you meant Gunn's "gang" as being Angel, Wes, Cordy and Fred, in which case - ignore what I just said!
[> [> [> Apologies people, my bad... :o( -- Wisewoman, 08:25:53 10/24/01 Wed
I was actually hoping we could get into the kind of discussion that RabidHarpy and Rahael have contributed to below. It was not my intent to re-open the door to the, now rather stale, "let's kill all the demons" debate.

Can we let it drop?
[> [> [> [> Sure -- Rahael, 08:38:44 10/24/01 Wed
Its a pity though isn't it? I don't think you should feel bad at all WW, why should we restrict ourselves in this way? They'll always find *something* to pick on.

I've tried not to respond directly to their posts - rather, Rabid Harpy's and Naomi's.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sure -- JM, 10:34:07 10/24/01 Wed
Yes, please let's not let the discussion die. I really, really liked TOGoM and was fairly cheeved that the discussion here got so bogged down in scary screeds. (There was definitely some in-depth discussion, but it became hard to pick out of the thread.) This board is one of the only places that usually mixes intelligent comments with good naturedness (most other places have one or the other). I'm so addicted to the dialogues here.

So if any one else has TOGOM or Lorne thoughts, please add them. Must have philosophizing.
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- maddog, 08:52:07 10/24/01 Wed
Can you prove that ONE single demon that was in Lorne's place was evil? I watched that episode twice and I didn't see one indidation that anyone there was evil. I mean, the whole point of the storyline was racial(in this case with demons and that all demons aren't bad therefore hunting them ALL down is extremely racist).
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- JM, 10:37:51 10/24/01 Wed
Possibly the "baby-eater" but I'm not convinced. Gio identified him -- what does he know? Its rant just struck me as bravado. It was sure it was going to die and it was going to go down swinging.
[> [> Interesting... I felt the same way... -- RabidHarpy, 07:04:37 10/24/01 Wed
...(about Gunn leaving Caritas), and it also made me think back on past episodes of both Angel and BtVS.

Not to be judgemental, but neither program has had a consistent African-American or Asian character - they are all based on the "All-American Ideal"... Sure in BtVS we saw an Asian and an African-American Slayer in Spike's flash-backs, and there was Kendra and the First Slayer, but none of these characters stuck around. In Angel, we finally have a group of African-Americans (Gunn and the gang), only the "Gang" goes rogue, and now Gunn is starting to be distanced too... not only that, but the Asian character we've seen so far in the series (that fellow who tried to get Angel Inc. evicted, etc.) was "bad" and worked for Wolfram and Hart.

I, for one, would like to see just a little more positive colour in both! :)
[> [> [> As a Black Briton -- Rahael, 07:34:27 10/24/01 Wed
I have found plenty to think about in the Buffyverse......one doesn't need to have Asian and Black people actually there for the issues of racism, prejudice and the constant feeling of embattlement to be discussed.

I feel they have done an excellent job, and even aknowledged the lack of non-white faces (when Mr Trick says that he knows Sunnydale isn't a haven for the Brothers)

Though of course, I don't believe that black actors get enough roles - so in that sense, yes I would welcome more opportunities for them.
[> [> [> what makes it worse is... -- anom, 17:50:31 10/24/01 Wed
...this is supposed to be LA! And it's whiter than Sunnydale, especially in the 1st season! BtVS has had a number of roles for black actors, although only Kendra & Mr. Trick got any continuity. There was a school guidance counselor, a guard at the Bronze, an adult at the school in School Hard (the one Spike said was "too old to eat--but not to kill"), & I think a few others. (Of course, the ones I just mentioned all got killed, a known hazard for minority characters on otherwise white shows....) But in Angel's 1st season, the only minority character who had a major role in an ep was the bartender at d'Oblique. They've done a little better since, but aside from Gunn & his ex-gang, it still doesn't seem any less white than Sunnydale. And this is California--where are the Latinos in both cities?
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- JM, 07:11:58 10/24/01 Wed
Couple of Lorne things:

Re advice to Fred. Lorne's ability to read aura's seems much less precise than the divining he does while singing. He wouldn't let her sing, so he probably just picked up waves of fear and panic concerning her parents. He projected his own family issues onto her and gave her what he thought was good advice.

Re issues with Gunn. He's not very sympathetic to Gunn and how Gunn was trying to do the right thing, but it looks pretty clear that the gang only hit Caritas that night because Gio was looking for a showdown with Gunn (probably a power play against Rondell). Lorne associates Gunn pretty strongly with a rather devastating event. So his comments weren't particularly gracious, noble, or adult. We've seen before that Lorne isn't always either. (Come on, he doesn't even have a soul to guide him.) Plus, he continued to be just as pissy with everyone else.

Gunn's offer to go outside was classy. We, the viewers, are probably meant to be uncomfortable with the visual there. The other characters looked uncomfortable. They can't afford to argue though, they pretty deseperately need Lorne's help. Cordy does give that little exasperated snort after Lorne's send off to Gunn.

As for the harbor of evil that is Caritas, I don't think the destruction should be seen as some sort of Karmic judgement. For one thing, Lorne isn't human, he doesn't have a soul, he isn't expected to be on the side of the angels. I don't think the concepts of sin and right and wrong apply to demons. Also, Lorne has been working for the powers. He has said before that he "puts people on their path." The implication is that the Powers have a higher purpose for all beings, human and demon, good and bad, and that following their correct paths serves that higher purpose. It's pretty tough to get the theology down though.
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair.......SPOILERS for AtS3.5 Fredless -- celticross, 09:11:12 10/24/01 Wed
Re advice to Fred - I'm still perplexed by that. Did he mean she needs to keep running from the lie she's told herself? The line sounds great while you're thinking Fred's parents are evil demon things, but when you learn the truth, it falls flat. Is this a case of WPCS? (Writer Painted into a Corner Syndrome)
Re issues with Gunn - "Gunn's offer to go outside was classy". Very classy, and I felt bad for him that Lorne was so hostile. But the wrecking of Caritas is still a VERY sore spot for Lorne and he was lashing out. Understandable, yes, nice, not by any stretch of the imagination. Gunn was the one who acted like an adult and gracefully left an uncomfortable situation.
[> [> [> Wait a minute......... -- Rufus, 23:11:40 10/25/01 Thu
Where does it say that only humans have souls???? In season one in The Harvest it is made clear that the last old one(demon) to leave this reality bit a human infecting him with the demons soul. So, maybe a demon doesn't have a human soul, but it's clear that demons may have souls. If you consider vampires you could say that every vampire is infected with a fragment of the original demons soul. That infection just evicts the human soul. In the Buffyverse the soul seems to be the conscience, so what value does our soul have if we can override it if we have enough incentive to? Greed, lust, hate seem to be able to change the course of the moral compass in many people. Then we have demons that have seemingly been able to make changes to their genetic drive to create chaos such as the Prio Motu demon. So for me the soul isn't the be all when it comes to the things demons or humans do. There is more to the equation than just the existance of the unmeasurable soul. I say a bad guy is a bad guy soul or no soul. A good guy is a good guy, even without one. We can never be certain that a soul will ensure that we all play nice in the game of life.
[> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- Malandanza, 11:05:28 10/26/01 Fri
"It made me very uncomfortable when Gunn left Caritas and the others stayed. I'm trying not to be overly politically correct about the whole thing, but it just smacked of, "We don't want your kind in here."

I realize that I'm getting into this debate late, but Here's my take on Gunn leaving Caritas:



Gunn swings his shotgun around, fires -- KABOOM! Blowing apart Tough Guy demon. Demon blood spatters on the Gang Kids who were holding him.

-- UP!

Stunned shock in the room. No one more stunned than Gunn.

HOST: (in despair) This is a sanctuary ...

Gunn violated the sanctuary of Caritas. The Host would have refused admittance to anyone, demon, human or otherwise, who had committed an act of violence in his club -- if anything, by nor forcibly ejecting Gunn as soon as Gunn set foot across the threshold, he was more tolerant than he ought to have been. I doubt Rondell would have received such a reception. Certainly the Host doesn't want "his kind in here" -- but "his kind" are people who violate the sanctuary.

So Caritas sometimes harbors evil demons (or evil humans like the W&H lawyers who used to hang out there). Think of it like the Catholic Church -- after the U.S. invasion of Panama, ruthless dictator/drug lord/voodoo priest Manueal Noriega sought (and received) refuge from the Church. Had the U.S. violated that sanctuary and sent armed troops into the church to drag Noriega out, how would we have looked? Gunn's attack was unconscionable.
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- sasha, 12:00:19 10/26/01 Fri
Interesting idea...but I feel I should mention a few points:

1) Gunn did not start the masacre in Caritas. Yes, his old gang did, and yes, Gunn knew they were killing all demons, but I don't believe Gunn knew they were planning on attacking Caritas. I think Gunn went to Caritas to talk to Wes, his "where's the boss?" line to Angel; he didn't go to stop, or participate in, a massacre that he didn't know was happening.

2) Gunn put his own life in danger to protect Lorne. In the middle of the stand-off, Gunn stood up between the gang and Lorne, and I believe even told the gang not to hurt Lorne because he wasn't evil just because he looked like a demon. Also, he continued to stand between the gang and Lorne, until Rondell/Gio gave him the stake and ordered him to kill Angel. I guess that doesn't count for much with Lorne?

3) If the host is going to refuse admittance to anyone who does violence in Caritas, then he should have refused it to Angel, who after all, did a lot of violence taking out Gunn's old gang.
[> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- Willow's End, 20:23:06 10/26/01 Fri
"Gunn's attack was unconscionable."

Gunn didn't attack. He came to Caritas to tell Wesley what he found out.

Now if you were talking about his old friends, they were taking out a self-haven for evil. It was arrogant of the Host to think that sanctury would be respected after what the demons have done to humanity.

Like it or not, there are probably several babies who are still alive because Gunn's old friends had the courage to take action.
[> [> [> [> Re: Was Lorne fair? Yes... -- yabyumpan, 08:21:54 10/29/01 Mon
"Like it or not, there are probably several babies who are still alive because Gunn's old friends had the courage to take action." Going into a sanctuary where violence by demons is not only not allowed but not even possible for demons (hence Cordy having to go the three whitchy people or who ever they where to have the spell taken off)That's not courage, infact I would say it's the total opposite, cowardness, they didn't couragously kill in a fair fight they massacured beings who had no chance of fighting back.
A scene unlikely to be included in tonight's Buffy -- d'Herblay, 15:49:40 10/23/01 Tue


Giles and Dawn sit at the table, poring over books.

Concentrate. Think it through.

Past participle? Indirect object?
Subjunctive clause? I know it's not a
verb because, well, it's not verby.

Buffy enters.

It's a restricted clause. I swear,
if you people don't start treating our
language with more respect, we're going
to take it back.

Ok. First my blue silk blouse, now my
watcher. Dawn, I think you have a problem.

Ms. Palmer is having us diagram sentences.
I think it's an effect of the Hellmouth.
That and the stigmata.

Occupational hazard in the Sunnydale
school system.

It's hellish. Buffy, when you were in
hell, did you have to diagram sentences?

I would expect that the torments your
sister experienced were less, um,

Dawn, I need to speak to Giles alone.

How am I supposed to learn English without
help from an actual English speaker?


All right. I'll go. Spike's English.
Plus, he said he nicked an X-Box.
Was there a famous thief named Nick?

Dawn leaves

Do you worry about her spending so much
time with Spike?

Hey, as long as she doesn't start dressing
like Drusilla, I think we're cool.

Yes. Couldn't have that.


After all, when you tried it, the results
were disastrous.

I wasn't in hell.

You weren't in hell.

No. I don't know where I was, but I felt
at peace, serene even. I felt loved and
loving--washed over with love. And I
knew I was complete. That it--the
hardship, the work, the pain--were
all over. I think it was heaven.

(cleans his glasses)


I don't mean to sound dismissive, but
all the texts are quite clear. There
are an infinity of hells, but not one

(taken aback)
Not one.

I think that what you experienced, when
you leapt into the portal, was a moment
of great resolve, of clarity and of,
well, love. The greatest love a person
can feel. It was a moment that the
Buddhists might call satori. You felt
a great understanding, of what you
are and of what it all meant. It was an
enviable moment. I sometimes wish that
I could have such a moment--without
the death, of course. And then the
endorphins would have kicked in. You
wouldn't have felt any pain, only peace.
The portal also would have a dilatory
effect on time, so that what to you felt
like eternity was, in fact, just seconds.

Just seconds.

And then the 147 days you were dead would
have made no impression on your memories
at all, so when you awoke, the last thing
you remembered was your moment of death.
You had no actual experience of being
dead. Just dying and then, I suppose
the word is, undying.

So, what you're saying is, I was just dead?


No Heaven. Just dead.

I'm afraid so.

Well, in that case, I owe Willow an icee.

[> WHOOOP! WHOOOP! MUTANT ENEMY POSTER ALERT!!! -- dan, 15:56:35 10/23/01 Tue
okay, d'Herb? Your cover's blown, man. Which one are you? Espenson? Fury? Petrie? Nixon? 'cause that scene was *so* spot-on with the dialogue (until Giles went all speechy) that I *refuse* to believe that you're not one of the ME gang. I giggled multiple times. Excellently done.

and it is an interesting idea. But you're right that we won't see it, because I think it's more compelling drama if Buffy really was in heaven.

[> [> nah, the clause gave it away @>) -- anom, 16:18:56 10/23/01 Tue
It's restrictive, not restricted, & Giles would know that. 'Sides, I doubt Giles could come up w/that explanation w/no research on the spur of the moment. And I think he'd at least say something like, "But I'm glad you weren't in hell--any of them."

But it was fun! Nice work, d'Herblay.
[> [> [> sheesh anom. take all our fun away.... -- sulky, 16:23:09 10/23/01 Tue
[> [> [> [> the jause that bite, the clause that catch! (how's that for fun) -- anom, 21:31:37 10/23/01 Tue
[> [> [> Deep and bloody clause marks -- d'Herblay, 16:54:16 10/23/01 Tue
Damnit, anom! That always screws me up! I even went to Fowler's for help, but he calls the that-clauses defining and the which-clauses non-defining. Fat load of good that was.

From now on, I'm sending all of my posts to you first.
[> [> [> [> those sharp clauses -- anom, 20:07:48 10/23/01 Tue
"From now on, I'm sending all of my posts to you first."

No ya don't--like I have time for that! Unless you want to pay me my regular freelance rate.... @>)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: those sharp clauses -- sasha, 20:34:14 10/23/01 Tue
but anom, if dH wanted to send them to you, would that be to anom, anomb, anomc, or....? ;)
[> [> [> [> don't feel too bad, d'herb... -- anom, 21:57:04 10/23/01 Tue
...I'm impressed you got "poring" (not poring!) right. BTW, when did Buffy ever dress like Drusilla? I musta missed that one!
[> [> [> [> [> "poring" (not poring!) -- d'Herblay, 22:04:24 10/23/01 Tue
Now I'm confused.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Damn, damn and double damn -- d'Herblay, 01:18:03 10/24/01 Wed
Buffy did not dress like Drusilla in "Halloween." She dressed like a noble woman of the year 1775. When I first saw the episode, I assumed that that woman was Drusilla. (I was confused then. I was still mixing second-season episodes with first-season reruns.) Later revelations would prove me wrong, but somehow that misconception got lodged in my brain.

Of course I got poring right. I write these things with the Oxford Shorter at hand. Not that I thought to turn to it on restrictive. My thinking on that one was:
a) both restrictive and non-restrictive clauses are relative clauses. Restricted relative clause sounds better to me than restrictive relative clause.
b) I likewise prefer the sound of unrestricted clause to that of non-restrictive clause. So it's really just my tin ear.
Had I given it copious amounts of thought, as I have since, I would have realized that it's not the clause that's restricted, but the noun the clause modifies. Anyway, it's a rule of grammar I wasn't even taught until my Junior year in college--and that teaching occurred in a bar, so I might be excused if it didn't sink in properly. I still screw up that/which nearly every chance I get.

So much crow and no ICEE for me. By the way, ICEE is a registered tradmark of The ICEE Company, and not the generic noun I treated it as. And that never ending sentences with prepositions thing? That's for the classicists. And for the birds.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> d'herb, don't be so hard on yourself!... -- anom, 18:04:54 10/24/01 Wed
...I didn't learn about that vs. which till after college (in a continuing ed class on copyediting), & it's mostly an American thing anyway. Hey, I didn't know about ICEEs--in fact, I never heard of 'em before. And I agree w/you about a preposition being a fine sort of word to end a sentence with. And that ridiculous idea that it's wrong to ever split an infinitive.

There. Feel better? @>)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: splitting infinitives -- mundusmundi, 13:42:01 10/25/01 Thu
And that ridiculous idea that it's wrong to ever split an infinitive.

An idea which unfortunately some of my dipwit colleagues share. (I love split infinitives, almost as much as icees.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> well, that's why (most) english teachers don't make good editors -- anom, 22:29:03 10/27/01 Sat
However, I am a stickler when it comes to using comparatives with "unique."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: well, that's why (most) english teachers don't make good editors -- Shaglio, 07:19:51 10/29/01 Mon
What really bugs me about comparatives and superlatives is when I sports announcers say things like, "he is one of the great players of our generation," or, "he is truly one of the classy players you'll ever see." Is it me, or shouldn't they use greatest instead of great and classiest instead of classy?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes & no -- anom, 15:36:03 10/29/01 Mon
Or maybe the other way around. I'd say the 1st one's OK; it just means something different from "he is one of the greatest...." As is, it says there are some great players in this generation & he's one of them, just not in that smaller group of the greatest.

But the 2nd one just doesn't work. I think it's mostly the "ever"--it needs the superlative. Something can be "the best ever," but "the good ever"? Nah. On the other hand, for some reason it doesn't seem right even without the "ever." If you substituted "classy" for "great" in the 1st sentence it'd sound weird. It would only work in a context like "Some players are classy & some aren't. He's one of the classy ones." And I can't really explain why. I guess there are some things English teachers do better @>)--are there any out there?
[> [> No MUTANT ENEMY POSTER? -- darrenK, 11:42:27 10/29/01 Mon
When I saw a reply entitled "Mutant Enemy Poster Alert" I got excited thinking there was going to be a real Mutant Enemy poster complete with the little monster and maybe a verbage bubble that said something like..."GrrrrrArrrggg."

[> now wait, a minute... if this is dH... -- Liq, 16:08:01 10/23/01 Tue
..., then who was that imposter in the chat room the last coupla times?

most excellent!
[> [> Re: Hey Liquidram -- Dedalus, 20:28:22 10/23/01 Tue
Whatever happened to The Goddess and Her Gift essay?

I don't see a link to it over at Fictionary Corner. Maybe I'm just blind ...
[> [> [> that would be me, probably. -- Solitude1056, 21:06:51 10/23/01 Tue
Means I probably didn't put the info in there, and spaced. Consider this a public reminder for Liq to send me the info tomorrow & I'll add it to the text version & the graphics version. Count it as my bad.
[> [> [> [> Re: Just makin' sure. :-) -- Dedalus, 16:09:35 10/24/01 Wed
[> Two big *Thumbs Up* to ya, d'Herb!! Masterfully done! -- OnM, 16:47:09 10/23/01 Tue
[> Okay, d'H, you're now officially my hero! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:41:18 10/23/01 Tue
[> Re: icee we have a script writer in our midst;) -- bible belt, 18:00:55 10/23/01 Tue
Nicely done! I'll go out on a limb and say we might see something like that before the season's over with. Maybe it’s wish-full thinking on my part. Heaven is such a Devilish mystery.;-)
[> [> I hope not, while beautifully done it is pretty depressing -- Charlemagne20, 21:03:54 10/23/01 Tue
[> [> icee your pun, bb, & i raise you a kitty in the kitty! -- anom, 21:51:11 10/23/01 Tue
[> [> [> Re: I fold...too many sharp clause;-) -- bb, 15:24:12 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> you'll be back for the next round...after a short paws -- anom, 21:44:22 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Re: you'll be back for the next round...after a short paws -- bb, 09:37:18 10/26/01 Fri
Yes, I knead more time to think
[> [> [> [> [> [> kitten paws...knead...i like it! -- anom, 22:30:53 10/27/01 Sat
Let's see how many more puns we can milk this one for!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: that one was pretty suckle...good one! -- bb, 19:12:51 10/28/01 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> mmm...nah...sorry -- anom, 16:24:10 10/29/01 Mon
That one's too much of a stretch. Just doesn't work.

Hope I'm not being too hard on you. Try again after you've nursed your wounds. @>)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: sorry, I meant to post that in the subject line -- bb, 09:40:20 10/26/01 Fri
[> d'H, you rock! :) Awesome! -- Lunarchickk, 18:12:21 10/23/01 Tue
[> Hehehe, snerk, hehehe!!! Loved it...now do more. -- LadyStarlight, 20:21:30 10/23/01 Tue
[> Re: A scene unlikely to be included in tonight's Buffy -- Dedalus, 20:24:13 10/23/01 Tue
That was very well done, indeed. Better than I could have done.

I particularly liked the icee line.

Anyway, d, is this what you want to see happen? Or did you just do this for a writing exercise?
[> [> All my writing is exercise . . . -- d'Herblay, 06:51:24 10/24/01 Wed
. . . at least insofar as it raises my heart rate, tires me out and makes me wish I had never taken up smoking. Back in the immediate aftermath of "After Life" there were several threads concerning whether or not Buffy had truly been in heaven, or in Heaven, or in the womb awaiting reincarnation, or whatever. My skeptical/atheist/materialist outlook led me to choose "none of the above." I was trying to come up with a justification for this choice, but I never got around to posting such a rationalization.

This is that justification (though, to give credit where it's due, change introduced me to endorphins, and Dedalus, you gave me satori). For me to try to explain it would be, as I put it a few weeks ago, atheist tap-dancing--and completely unconvincing to anyone. So I followed the old dictum "Don't tell it, show it" (in this case I paraphrased the dictum as "Don't tell it, make Giles tell it") and built a scene around it.

While I had a point to make with it, it did turn into sort of a writing exercise. My last post was in danger of falling off the board, and I'm really not that interested in doing play-by-play on Willow's downward saunter. So I felt it was time to throw myself back into the swing with a dramatic flourish. And what's more dramatic than drama?

As to whether it is a scene I'd like to see one Tuesday night . . . nah. But nor would I like to see Buffy's perception confirmed. I'm just trying to muddy the waters up a little and give us all a chance to see what we want to see.
[> [> [> Re: All my writing is exercise . . . -- Dedalus, 17:00:06 10/24/01 Wed
You did it so well, d'H. So well.

JW is brilliant in giving everyone a chance to see what we all want to see. Analyzing it, the more I see anything could be read into this stuff.

One thing I don't get - what's the thing with the atheist/skeptical outlook? You have a problem with the inclusion of heaven in a fictional television mythology? I've heard others here say that, and if I may, that is just weird. I mean, if you can buy the vampires and the demons and the munsters ...
[> [> [> [> Re: Heaven and TV -- mundusmundi, 14:40:20 10/25/01 Thu
Your question wasn't directed at me, Ded (a clear invitation to impart my wisdom), but I don't think anybody has a problem with heaven depicted on Buffy per se. The problem may be simply that our perceptions of such a heaven have been colored by other, lesser shows which need no mentioning. That and let's face it, evil is invariably more interesting, livelier, and thus easier to depict. Unlike vampires, real evil doesn't need an invitation to intrude on our lives, whereas we seem to have to look for the good in life. I liked the abstract "heaven" Joss & Co. conjured up for Buffy, and I think all d'Herb, change and other skeptics were doing was suggesting a valid alternative explanation beyond the mystical interpretations.

But I'll shut up now and let them talk.
[> [> [> [> Re: All my writing is exercise . . . -- bible belt, 17:02:29 10/25/01 Thu
I always have a knee jerk reaction when anyone starts talking about Heaven because most of the time it’s described in a way that is exclusive, like a private club and, "you can’t come in because I don’t like you," therefore I wasn’t able to appreciate the idea that Buffy was yanked out of there. Unicorns, vampires, Heaven, no problem, I just took it too personal.

My thinking on this matter has been cleared up a great deal by d’Herblay and mm. Dedalus you have cleared up my thinking on other matters too.

That’s all. I’ll throw some confused thoughts at you all later. I’m gonna go watch a Buffy rerun.
[> Every day I look forward to seeing what's new on the board.... -- Marie, 01:15:43 10/24/01 Wed
... and this is why! Brilliant! I'm now going to be smiling for the rest of the day.

Thank you.

[> [> Encore!! -- Rahael, 03:23:41 10/24/01 Wed
[> so is someone going to spoof the rest of the usual Shooting Script HTML-style... -- Solitude1056, 11:00:16 10/24/01 Wed
So we can post this piece o' brilliance on our fictionary page? Or better... send it to Herc 'n all the rest of 'em as an excerpt from one of the upcoming episodes. Woo hoo! Who needs other folks' spoilers, we can start creating our own! ;-)
[> [> Re: Now THAT is a good idea. ;) -- P*ick Erudite Poster, 14:58:13 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> Re: so is someone going to spoof the rest of the usual Shooting Script HTML-style... -- d'Herblay, 01:14:17 10/26/01 Fri
You're welcome to it, but I can't for the life of me figure out how to set the margins.
mixing in the humor -- Tamnavulin, 19:17:59 10/23/01 Tue
It struck me tonight that in just the past episode, the series seems to have rediscovered that great mix of characters and humor that made it great in the first place. I kept feeling last season that the writing had become tired and creaky from leaning too heavily on the mechanics of the plot. Now we've actually got the great old humor of the third season, as well as (amazingly) preserving the delicious tension between Spike and Buffy.
I have a feeling that the nastiness we saw with Willow recently was a misguided attempt to move her out from under the shadow of Buffy. But it was an attempt that, while consistent with the fear and uncertainty of Buffy's return, wasn't needed. Willow exists well enough on her own without the need for overreaching hubris.
I'm just glad that we're getting some of that great old half-serious crazy humor mixed with interesting moves from the Pseudo-Evil Trio (PET?). They and the demon bar scene really boosted the series up in my estimation.
Now the question is whether this balanced can be preserved while moving on. I'm also really curious about what direction Giles is going in.
Any comments?
[> [> Rolling in puppies -- Joyce, 20:29:19 10/23/01 Tue
It was great. I was on the floor laughing a lot ...especially the poker kitty scene!
[> [> Direction... (spoilers) -- RabidHarpy, 07:37:33 10/24/01 Wed
...I'm thinking that Giles is on his way "out" (back to England) - what with the generous cheque/guilt gift he gave Buffy, and the look on his face after she told him his consistent presence in her life makes her feel "safe".

Really, what's the poor man to do? On one hand, how can he leave Buffy alone with all these problems, and without resolving where she was, etc. - he's practically a father (or in this case, her "rakish uncle" - lol!) to her and the SG! Yet by the WC's standards, he has no reason to stay in Sunnydale, (even though they "fired" him), and he can't feasibly tell the WC that Buffy was brought back because that would land Willow and the SG in a whole load of trouble, (by the way - I'm thinking that would make a good episode in the future - the WC finding out about Buffy's resurrection - what d'ya think?!)

Poor Giles *sniff* I want him to staaaaaaaaay!!!
[> [> [> uh... about that uncle part -- Solitude1056, 10:51:51 10/24/01 Wed
Was it "rakish Uncle" or "british Uncle"? I was busy screaming at a telemarketer. Okay, more like severely chastising. *politecough*
[> [> [> [> Re: uh... about that uncle part -- RabidHarpy, 12:10:09 10/24/01 Wed
I rewound it twice and I'm positive he says "rakish"...
[> [> [> Re: Direction... (spoilers) -- celticross, 12:01:18 10/24/01 Wed
You have to wonder...shouldn't the CoW be slightly nervous about the fact they have one Slayer dead and one in jail? Watchers can't do much watching when there's no Slayer to watch...
[> [> [> [> Re: That gives me an idea....SPOILERS BtVS (Season 6) -- sasha, 12:20:23 10/24/01 Wed
......mostly questions but....

If the WC still believes Buffy's dead (and I assume Giles would have told them):

1) Why haven't they sent another slayer? Or have they sent/chosen one and we just haven't seen her yet?

2) Did they send another slayer, just not to the Hellmouth, but wouldn't the Hellmouth have been the most logical location since it is the epicenter of mystical energy?

3) Do they really think one slayer can cover the whole world? I mean, the demon biker gang came to Sunnydale because they heard the slayer was dead. While Buffy was alive, they knew to stay away from Sunnydale and were presumably off wrecking havoc somewhere else, San Fran maybe? How are the people living in the billion non-slayer towns around the world supposed to cope with the vampires, demons, etc?

If the WC knows Buffy is alive:

1) How did they find out?

2) Did Giles tell them and if so, why?

3) Did Giles not tell them and just snuck back to Sunnydale and won't the WC get curious about where he is and what he's doing currently when his vacation time runs out (unless he's off the payroll?)
Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (Spoilers for 10/23 BTVS) -- Dedalus, 21:05:19 10/23/01 Tue
Okay, loved the Star Wars van, and the all around geekiness. I know Joss and Co. are going for a Junior League of Doom kind of feel here, and that might have worked under other cirumstances. But I think the presentations of the Little Bads in Life Serial have pretty much eliminated any possibility for them being remotely realistic bad guys, even in the Buffyverse.

Check out their bickering about who is the better Bond. Connery, Moore, Dalton ... they can't even get it together long enough to keep tabs on a drunk Buffy. Clearly, arguing and bitching about movies and tv shows is their life.

Obviously, these three would never be able to even think about taking over Sunnydale. Why? Because they would be on the internet. I mean, all the time. Those three would be on the Aint It Cool News talkbacks from daylight till dark, endless pontificating about how they could have made a better Episode One, and complaining about how everyone and everything has sold out. Between Bond and Star Wars and the X-Files, that would leave them no time to hatch their little schemes. I would give them time to do nothing but whine and complain. They would be on the internet for at least ninety percent of their life, only taking breaks to use the bathroom and sometimes eat.

Any thoughts?
[> The only problem with that is their life IS a Talkback -- Charlemagne20, 21:23:05 10/23/01 Tue
The Troika is actually a fairly dangerous group of villians despite appearences because Buffy would never suspect an attack from people she's rescued and generally treated fairly her entire lifespan. Already Buffy has been cost a job and been manipulated fairly badly and they have right now caught Buffy at the one time she is most vunerable to her emotions and the Scooby Gang is at it's weakest. The problem isn't however will the Troika intentionally harm Buffy with their works (that isn't their plan) the problem will be with like Willow they summon/unleash something beyond their power to control. The worst danger of the Troika is their immaturity not what makes them less so.

Dalton by the way

[> [> Re: The only problem with that is their life IS a Talkback -- Willows End, 21:40:45 10/23/01 Tue
I find them fun villians.

We have had too much serious stuff. They seem to provide some essential comic relief.

I am disappointed in Jonathan though. Thought he cared about Buffy.

George Lazerby by the way.
[> [> How many pieces will they be ripped into? (SPOILERY) -- Earl Allison, 02:38:42 10/24/01 Wed
My major concern would be, just how badly will they get hurt, and by whom?

Johnathan barely withstood, what, ONE kick from Buffy? Another stupid plan like his "Magic Bone" (snicker) spell could get him killed if Buffy lashes out while sober and competant -- look at how efficiently she whacked the demons at the construction site!

And don't get me started on Spike, who MIGHT be able to hurt them were they disguised as demons -- depends on how you rationalize the chip working. And if it IS broken, as some have theorized, and since Spike already (only half-jokingly, IMHO) offered to take the Scoobies out for her, the troika is well and truly doomed.

Uber-Willow could do much worse than kill them, depending on her mood. Think being a rat like Amy is bad? Willow could do almost anything to them.

No, they are dangerous, but more in a humiliation way than a life-threatening one, at least for the moment.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: How many pieces will they be ripped into? (SPOILERY) -- Neaux, 04:48:48 10/24/01 Wed
I just cant believe the 3 dolts forgot to mention the Loop that was in Xena. (they remembered Data and the X-files though)

oh and its nice you mentioned Amy again.. since It sounds like she's coming back full form
[> [> [> [> LOL! Xena was the first thing I thought of too! -- RabidHarpy, 07:43:55 10/24/01 Wed
THAT was a hilarious episode! (Especially when she threw her Chakram at Joxer's chest - to Gabrielle's complete bewilderment...)
[> [> [> [> [> Xena, plus Stargate SG-1... -- Lunarchickk, 10:25:07 10/24/01 Wed
...with the Froot Loops...

(and I *loved* the Joxer scene, btw)

But we'd better be careful or we'll start sounding worse than the three of them are, what with the heated TV discussions! ;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, but I just have to share this final thing... -- RabidHarpy, 11:33:24 10/24/01 Wed
...check out this website - it always gives me a giggle!


[> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (Spoilers for 10/23 BTVS) -- Malandanza, 21:33:23 10/23/01 Tue
Check out their bickering about who is the better Bond. Connery, Moore, Dalton ... they can't even get it together long enough to keep tabs on a drunk Buffy. Clearly, arguing and bitching about movies and tv shows is their life.

Obviously, these three would never be able to even think about taking over Sunnydale. Why? Because they would be on the internet. I mean, all the time. Those three would be on the Aint It Cool News talkbacks from daylight till dark, endless pontificating about how they could have made a better Episode One, and complaining about how everyone and everything has sold out. Between Bond and Star Wars and the X-Files, that would leave them no time to hatch their little schemes. It would give them time to do nothing but whine and complain. They would be on the internet for at least ninety percent of their life, only taking breaks to use the bathroom and sometimes eat.

Warren was in college -- some sort of genius engineering student. He built his own sex-bot -- how much time do you think he really spent on the internet after that? Jonathan was (briefly) supreme ruler of the universe. The internet must be a bit dull to him now. I think you're thinking of the troika in the wrong terms -- think of them as Willow was back when she was "captain of the nerd squad" at SHS. Warren, at least, has to have sort of work ethic -- he builds things (the robots, the hide-out, the van). Magic can, apparently, be learned easily (Willow went from novice to witch over the summer) so maybe Jonathan was a slacker throughout High School -- but consider the effect the augmentation spell had on him: he now knows that he can have anything he wants with very little effort (and it is unclear how much knowledge he got to keep from his stint as James Bond in Superstar). Under the circumstances, I'd say the occult might have held his interest in the same way it has held Willow's -- and if he was internet savvy, he would have that much of an easier time tracking weird spells down (like Ms. Calendar and Willow used to do). It may even be possible that Jonathan's misuse of magic will be a lesson for Willow.

Oh, and one more thing: the three of them thought free cable porn was the coolest thing they had ever come across, so how much time could they have really spent on the Internet? :)
[> life: game or cereal? -- anom, 21:40:22 10/23/01 Tue
"...the Little Bads in Life Serial..."

Sure you don't mean Life cereal, Ded? Hey Mikey!
[> and, with their latest discovery... -- pocky, 07:45:38 10/24/01 Wed
What with the free cable porn they discovered, I don't think they'll be doing much, as far as scheming goes. ^_^'

[> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (Spoilers for 10/23 BTVS) -- Andy, 08:39:13 10/24/01 Wed
The thing that amuses me about the group is that the pop culture references used are generally so well targeted and authentic that I can't help wondering about the authors working on these episodes. It reminds me of reading Evan Dorkin's Eltingville Club comic strips: are the writers really that damn good at observing and researching geek culture, or is there an element of self-parody (self-loathing? Heh.) in the writing? :)

[> [> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (General Spoilers for Season 6) -- LadyStarlight, 11:04:03 10/24/01 Wed
Unless something changes quite radically over the next few eps, I'm sticking to my theory that the Troika will be comic relief while they slip the real Big Bad in. I'm thinking Willow, or Amy, or a combination.

Anyone want to bet? (I'm thinking dan will have to do the Dance of Shame soon....mwahahaha)

Oh, and my vote goes to Pierce Brosnan.
[> [> [> Re: Why The Trio are Completely Ridiculous and Unrealistic Villians (General Spoilers for Season 6) -- Sebastian, 13:26:45 10/24/01 Wed
>>Unless something changes quite radically over the next few eps, I'm sticking to my theory that the Troika will be comic relief while they slip the real Big Bad in. I'm thinking Willow, or Amy, or a combination.>>

I would be inclined to agree. It reminds me of S2 - when Mr. Trick was introduced. Ht was given the appearance that he was going to be the Big bad - when Faith outshined all (with excpetion of The Mayor, of course) in terms of villany goodness.

The same could be said with S2 - with Spike and Dru. While worthy opponents - things did not really heat up until that fateful 17th birthday :-) ..........

My vote - Pierce Bronsnan.
[> Re: Ah well .... -- Dedalus, 16:15:41 10/24/01 Wed
I was basically being sarcastic, for those of you in our studio audience who didn't figure it out. :-)

How could you not love to hate these goobers?
[> [> Re: I figured as much -- mundusmundi, 07:18:52 10/25/01 Thu
You know, they probably use that time-displacement stuff to get all their internet convos in.
Life Serial thoughts -- Liq, 21:45:11 10/23/01 Tue
Dawn, oh Dawn... where are you? That Discovery Channel special must have used up all of Michelle's legally bound working hours for the week.

The Evil Scourge of SunnyD .... okay, they are growing on me and had some truly spectacularly funny moments, but when will that get old with no greater purpose? And, BTW.... Warren programmed the BuffyBot... doesn't he have an idea of the slayer's strengths since the Bot could fight, etc.? (Continuity is for wusses.) I officially love Jonathan the most.

The college scenes .... yawn. Willow's line "They aren't any smarter than you or me." followed by her response in class was pretty funny, but the rest fell flat for me. The time-elapse effects were mediocre at best.

The construction site scene... eh.... sorry... didn't do much for me.

The Magic Box. Now that was funny. The mummy hand with the tongs was classic and Buffy crying had my hubby in total hysterics. And where did they get that female customer? She was truly frightening. And, oh, did I mention that I don't like Anya?

The transition of sweet, candle-lit Spike (and the boy has been decorating... and paying cash at the bar .... he's got some 'splainin' to do = hey! I want a coffee table coffin JUST LIKE SPIKE'S) to evil-faced, pissed off "good thing he didn't have his shotgun with him" Spike after Buffy stalked off was pretty interesting.

I'm sure the shippers are quite annoyed with tonight's ep. First of all, Spike was not drunk, so it's interesting that he let Buffy get so snockered... and who thinks that the amount of alcohol she consumed with her body weight would have actually killed her in realverse?

She treated him more like a big brother or friend who annoyed her more than anything else. If she has that lovin' feelin' - then that truth spell better be powerful, because it's pretty deeply buried.

She shoved him angrily away, not once, but count 'em .. . twice. She insulted him. She may trust him and feel comfortable with him, but she certainly does not treat him well. If I were Spike, I would be wondering right about now ... "WTF?!?? Why do I bother with this b ..." uh you get my point.

The musical teaser.... can't wait, can't wait, can't wait. And the red shirt of evil is back.... can't wait, can't wait, can't wait .... (hubby says "you have G O T to be kidding me, right?" I swear, some people...)

And the heartbreaker. Giles is going to be one more father-like man in her life who leaves.
[> oops **SPOILERS** above! -- Liq, 21:54:02 10/23/01 Tue
[> speaking of warren & the buffybot... -- anom, 22:08:50 10/23/01 Tue
...he built it & he couldn't tell it was the 'bot & not Buffy for 3 months? He's even lamer than he looks!
[> The Musical promos are killing me! -- Deeva, 22:50:49 10/23/01 Tue
I can't wait! AUGHHHHHHHHHH!! Especially loved the first one with SMG & JM singing and the group performing a scene. Well, off to re-watch that spot again and again. 2 more weeks! I can't ossibly last this feels almost as bad as summer all over again.
[> I disagree with just about all you said... -- Jennifer, 05:50:55 10/24/01 Wed
I have to disagree with just about everything you said. I thought this episode was great from beginning to end. I was getting a bit nervous with all the "serious" drama over the last few weeks and last nights episode was so refreshing. SMG was exceptional. She is truly an underrated comedic actress.

The college scenes were SO NOT yawn! It was nice to see Tara and Buffy interacting for a change. And I for one thought the effects were extremelly cool. My husband, who is not into Buffy like me, was actually impressed.

The construction site scene was great also. It was fun seeing Buffy showing the men up...

LOVED the Magic Box scene. Geller deserves and Emmy for that act alone.

As for Spike and Buffy. Just another step to what inevitably is on the way...I can hardly wait. BTW, she was drunk...even when I have too much to drink I tend to swat my husband away when I am trying to do something.

[> [> Re: I disagree with just about all you said... -- luminesce, 06:28:01 10/24/01 Wed
And did you notice that Spike referred to her as "my lady" and "love" several times?

And no brutal beating ensued!
[> [> Re: I disagree with just about all you said... -- ann, 06:42:07 10/24/01 Wed
I agree it was nice to see a funny Buffy again. It's all been so serious of late. So I hardly minded them just jumping right over the Angel/Buffy reunion idea. "I don't want to talk about it." and so nobody does.

About pushing Spike away, though. Obviously all you emotionally healthy posters haven't ever had a yen for a very very bad man. It's very disturbing when someone one isn't supposed to be attracted to gets too close physically. Even scarier if one is drunk and feeling a little out of control. But I reveal too much.
[> [> Re: I disagree with just about all you said... -- maddog, 07:12:18 10/24/01 Wed
I think this episode really depended on whether you like Buffy intense ALL the time, or just for important parts of the season. Last night was kinda a filler episode. Advances the storyline ever so slightly in a few areas, but gives no major revelations. Jonathon and crew are still playing around, Buffy's out of debt for now. But there was no progress in the Xander/Anya or Willow situation. I suspect we'll see more next week. Halloween episodes are cool.
[> [> well, not everything you didn't.... *flame shields activated* -- Liq, 08:50:23 10/24/01 Wed
I actually loved the Magic Box scene too. I still maintain my opinions of the college and construction site scenes (after watching the ep again last night after posting.)

I have been getting sooo flamed about my S/B opinions, but do I care? Do I sway? Nuh-uh.

Now I love Spike probably more than just about anyone (or at least equal to my good buds out there and you know who you are) but that doesn't mean I have to believe that it is all roses with him. When I am drunk, which btw, I never am anymore, BUT when I used to get drunk, I wouldn't push my guy away, I would pull him closer.... just me ... lowered the ole inhibitions. If Buffy's inhibitions were lowered, then it served to have her become a bit more uncomfortable with him, not the reverse.

Brace yourself... I'm going to get my fire-proof shields up for this one .... Spike very well may have deserved Buffy's love at this point (or he's on his way, and I don't have any problem with some redemption as long as it's true to the character) however *hiding behind shield* I don't believe Buffy has earned his. There, I said it. She treats him like crap and if I were him, I'd content myself with having a friend who hopefully trusts me, can be fun to be with with on occasion, but give up the rest of it.

There were some cute, funny and affectionate things with them last night. But I saw friendship on her part, not love in any measure as of yet. And as far as him calling her "love" ... well Spike calls every female "love". I also believe the "My Lady" comment was to protect her identity as the slayer and explain why she was there with him.

Yes, I've had bad-boy boyfriends and although I was quick to defend everything about them to friends and family, inside where it really counts, I could always admit to myself that they were bad news.
[> [> [> Re: well, not everything you didn't.... *flame shields activated* -- maddog, 09:05:13 10/24/01 Wed
She doesn't deserve it? If anything she and Dawn are the only ones that treat him even close to human. He's acknowledged this. And Buffy's willingness to confide in him this season is yet another step in their relationship. Remember one thing...Spike's in love with Buffy...not vice versa...so right now she doesn't want his love...so whether she deserves it or not really isn't all that important(yet).
[> [> [> [> Re: well, not everything you didn't.... *flame shields activated* -- Dedalus, 16:32:52 10/24/01 Wed
I knew Liq was going to say that. :-)

You know, there was a time when Spike really, really wanted to kill Buffy and all her friends. Give her some time, ya know. They've connected a lot this season, imo. More than I thought they might. The only time I felt genuinely sorry for Spike was during Crush. It was just completely punch him out, knock him down. Still, I can see it from the Buffster's position. Overall, I love how they are doing this. Building it, little by little. Crush made The Gift all that much more poignant, cause if the barrier spell had never gone back up, it never would have gone back down. On any other show, they would have been having sex by the middle of last season.

And according to Marsters on all this, Spike is really beneath her. I don't know that I agree, but there it is.

I think there have been some truly great B/S moments already this year.
[> [> [> You can come out, Liq. I agree with you. nt -- celticross, 09:48:56 10/24/01 Wed
[> quick question -- Percy, 06:20:13 10/24/01 Wed
How long was Buffy gone you think? I missed "Flooded", but it seemed like she had not been gone all that long before she came home with the bucket o' greasy chicken goodness much ealier than anybody was expecting for an Angel/Buffy exchange.
[> [> That's how I saw it....... -- Rufus, 23:02:28 10/24/01 Wed
Gone at lunch, home for a late dinner....I don't think the rest of the SG or Dawn expected her home that soon.
Mora (sp?) Demon blood and vampires. -- Earl Allison, 02:47:18 10/24/01 Wed
What is the general consensus on Mora Demon blood and vampires? What affect would it have on a vampire WITHOUT a soul, like Harmony or Spike?

Would they be totally restored to their pre-vamp selves? Would they be soulless monsters like that boy from AtS (title escapes me)? Or would they be something in-between, someone with few if any morals, but likely no longer a mass-murderer type?

I mean, Harmony was pretty much the same as a vampire as she was before, except for the blood-drinking. I never got the impression that she killed simply because she COULD, with the possible exception of the shop clerk she mentioned when she went "shopping."

Then again, if human, Harmony would have access to her family's money again -- would she really be dangerous, or just her normal, vapid self?

Spike's more complex, and I leave that to those far more knowledgeable (and favorably inclined) to him than I.

Take it and run.
[> My guess it would work like a ressurection spell...bad mojo -- Charlemagne1980, 14:12:59 10/24/01 Wed
[> Wasn't it said that the Mora's blood effect on Angel was an intervention from the PTB? -- AngelVSAngelus, 21:47:36 10/24/01 Wed
I remember when Angel went to Doyle about his new found humanity, Doyle said that it wasn't possible save for the intervention of the Powers, prompting the Broody-One to go see them about it. I don't know if the Mora's blood would have that same kind of effect on anyone other than Angel.
[> [> Re: yes, and i think it would have the same effect on any vampire.... -- sasha, 23:25:11 10/24/01 Wed
I looked at psyche's transcripts (having not seen the ep..waaah!), and I believe the answer to both your questions is "yes".

1) Did TPTB have a hand in Angel meeting the Mohra and becoming human?

When Doyle and Angel go see the Oracles (the direct link to TPTB), they learn:

Angel: "It was the demon's blood. It wasn't the Powers-That-Be that did this?"
Man: "The Powers-That-Be? Did you save humanity? Avert the Apocalypse?"
Woman: "You faced a Mohra demon. Life goes on."
Angel: "My life as a human. I'm not poisoned or under some spell?"
Woman looks up, after a beat: "The Auguries say no. If it has happened it was meant to be."
Man: "From this day, you will live and die as any mortal man."

So, Angel becoming human was sanctioned by TPTB. Whether they directly or indirectly caused it though, is another question.....

2) Would the Mora's blood have the same effect on any vampire?

Cut to a woodcut of the demon in a book.
Angel: "That's it."
Doyle: "It's called a Mohra demon. They're pretty powerful assassins, soldiers of darkness kind of thing. They take out warriors for our side, like you and Buffy. (Quotes from book) 'Needs vast amounts of salt to live'."
Angel: "It was heading towards salt water."
Doyle quoting: "'Veins run with the blood of eternity.' There it is. Its blood has regenerative properties."

Notice that there's no "soul clause" to the bloods properties......
[> [> [> But what would a de-vamped Harmony or Spike BE like? -- Earl Allison, 06:59:02 10/25/01 Thu
Thanks for the opinion -- I think it'd work, too.

But would said individual have a soul, or be a soulless human? Curious to know what you think.

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> That's a huge question -- Greta, 17:49:48 10/27/01 Sat
like all the questions we raise about souls in the Buffyverse. Oh, I'll have to think on this a while.
[> [> [> But its the demon that animates the vampiric body... -- AngelVSAngelus, 11:06:42 10/25/01 Thu
If the Mora's blood regenerated Angel's body and killed the demon within, and he was again human because a SOUL also inhabited that body, then wouldn't a regular vamp just dust from the blood? The demon would be exterminated when the body was brought back to life.
[> [> [> [> Re: But its the demon that animates the vampiric body... -- sasha, 00:17:56 10/26/01 Fri
Okay, I've thought about your intriguing questions and come up with several scenarios. All the transcript says about the Mohra's blood is:

Doyle quoting: "'Veins run with the blood of eternity.' There it is. Its blood has regenerative properties."

Now, we would have to worry about the definition of "blood of eternity" and "regenerative properties", which are not provided here specifically. Not that anything is ever vauge in the jossverse!

For Angel, we know the blood turned him comletely human; he achieved his goal of redemption. He had a heart beat, he was hungry (boy, was he hungry! :) ), he felt pain, he was tired, he felt weak, he had lost his vampiric strength. The Oracles said he would live and die (and feel pain and pleasure) as any mortal man and that their fight was no longer his fight; he was released from his fealty to be a warrior for good. I interpret this to mean Angel was comletely human and that his becoming so was sanctioned by TPTB.

However, we also know that Angel had his human soul before he encountered the Mohra blood. For Angel, the "regenerative properties" of the blood meant making him completly human, and by definition, killing the vampiric nature which had previously animated the body and returning it to full control of the human soul.

What would happen if another vampire, one without a soul, encountered the Mora? Here are a few guesses since we have not been shown a soulless vampire encountering a Mohra demon.

1) Nothing.
a) A Mohra would never encounter a non-souless vampire since, Doyle: "It's called a Mohra demon. They're pretty powerful assassins, soldiers of darkness kind of thing. They take out warriors for our side, like you and Buffy. (Quotes from book) 'Needs vast amounts of salt to live'." A Mohra would not be interested in taking out/fighting a soldier of darkness which is what souless vampires are, so there's not a lot of chance for its blood to accidently mingle. Also, since the Mohra needs lots of salt, they would be pretty much limited to oceanside locations.

b) If a souless vampire could be converted to human and be lost as a soldier of darkness, either the Mohra would take care to not let the blood mingle or whoever created the Mohra should have added in a clause to cover that "wipe out the soldiers for good only, no effect on the soldiers for evil".

2) Depends on the definition of "human" and "soul" in the jossverse.
a) The Mohra's blood would have the same effect on a souless vampire as on Angel. If we assume the blood is just that, mystical blood with no clauses, then, yes, mingling the blood with a souless vampire would "regenerate" them, ie, make them human and kill the vampiric nature. Would they get their original soul back to run their body?

If one accepts that human means of the human race and contains a soul (ie, Dawn has a soul by default because the Monks made her human), then, yes, the souless vamp would have their soul restored (the souls are in the ether somewhere, after all; they haven't been destroyed or the gypsy curse would not have restored Angel's soul.).

b) The souless vamp would have their body healed (and the demonic nature removed), but they would be a souless human.

c) The souless vamp would have their body healed (and the demonic nature removed), but they would immediatley die because there was no human soul to animate the body.

I'm gonna go with 1)a) and 2)a) here. I think they are an "OR" (either, both) rather than a "NOT" (mutually exclusive). From what I have seen (seasons 1 and 2 of AtS plus current seasons of Ats and BtVs), I choose to believe that the jossverse has to contain a fundamental definition of human and not-human. I believe the distinction is the human consists of a live body (heartbeat, breathing, temperature, suspectible to illness, pain, being made dead), ages, feels hunger, born from human parents and inhabited by a human soul, no matter if there are extra parts or not. This is shown by Dawn (human body + human soul by default + key nature), Darla (when W&H brought her back from the dead, she complained of her heartbeat and her soul which caused her so much pain that she wanted to get revamped to get rid of them), Buffy (human body + human soul by default + slayer characterists of super strength, stamina, speed, etc.), and Willow (human body + human soul by default + witch characteristcs/training), and the "regular" humans like Giles and Xander (human body + human soul).

Angel does not qualify as human currently because even though he has a soul, his body is undead. Spike does not qualify as human beause he currently has an undead body and lacks his human soul. The lawyers of W&H may or may not qualify as human currently, depending on if they traded in their human souls to achieve their high level of evilness, but that's another topic!

But the only way to absolutely answer the question would be to have a Mohra demon encounter a souless vamp and see what happens, and even then we might get continuity error or plotholes or comlete contradictions! Ah the fun of watching AtS and BtVS! Enjoy....
[> [> [> [> [> You left one out... -- Moose, 22:30:06 10/28/01 Sun
There is the possiblity that the absence of a soul in a vampire which mixes its blood with a Mohra demon could cause the creation of a new soul instead of recalling the old one from the ether--if that is truly where all vampire victims souls are.

I'm not convinced that Angel's uniqueness doesn't mess with the theory of souls. The PTB could have known in advance that Angel's soul would need to be restored and took steps to prevent his soul's departure to realms unknown in order for prophecy to be fulfilled. If Angel is unique, then what we know about souls and vampires becomes suspect.

On a story level though, I doubt very much Spike would ever be returned to what he was (William the awful poet). I would think that Joss would add a soul either by Spike's generation of it himself through acts of love and kindness, or special dispensation from the PTB or some other unique process which wouldn't overly interfere with the Buffyverse.
Praise for BtVS in Britain -- Rahael, 05:02:40 10/24/01 Wed
Just thought you might be interested to know that at least two of the national broadsheets in Britain (the television sections) have praised Buffy highly.

Last year, the Guardian called Buffy 'One of the best shows in television history' and said that SMG was a shining presence.

Now, Robert Hanks, Televison critic of the Independent, discussing British misperceptions of American lack of irony,

"The idea that Europeans have a deeper sense of irony than Americans has taken a long time to die out; and if you're thinking purely in terms of Middle America, then perhaps there is something to it. A couple of years ago BBC2 showed a film by Chris Petit called 'Negative Space' about the American film critic Manny Farber, whcih argued that America's splayed geography elminated the need for the articial distance of irony; and you can see ho this might apply to the vast hinterlands. But in the crowded conurbations of the East and West Coasts - the territory that gave birth to Woody Allen and Stephen Sondheim, Philip Roth, David Eggers and David Foster Walles, The Sopranos and Buffy the Vampire Slayer - its clear that shortage of irony is not an issue"

The article ends by saying: "For now, ponder the fact that more people [in Britain] watch Animal Hospital than Seinfeld. And we think we know about irony."

I like the fact that Robert Hanks didn't even put forward an argument about what a superior show BtVS was, or even that it is much misunderstood - he assumes a tacit understanding that his readers already are aware of its quality!

Anyways - I thought that Robert Hanks put Buffy in with an interesting category of people - wondered what your thoughts were. And also on the issue of the irony/hinterland issue.
[> Irony/hinterland -- Cactus Watcher, 06:40:27 10/24/01 Wed
The hinterland business is just snobbism.
Until the early 1960's, the so-called media industry (radio, television, news gathering, publishing) was heavily concentrated on the east coast of the US, and particularly in New York City. People who lived in New York had good reason to want to keep those industries in New York and spread the word literally all over the world that except for the cities in the Northeast the US was a vast intellectual wasteland. In the the 1960's, a good portion of the entertainment business moved west to California where the movie industry was already firmly entrenched (TV) and to Las Vegas, Nevada, about the only place in those days where gambling was legal (Live music and comedy). Consequently, a new snobbism arose, that everything between the two coasts was a vast wasteland.
It's all garbage. The intellectual talent (ironic or otherwise) has always come from all over the country without distinction. Most of our news reporters used to be recruited specifically from the midwest because they sounded 'intelligent' to the greatest number of people in the country. Yes, to the average American, the thickest of the street accents of New York City sound dopey. The US has quality colleges and unversities from one end to the other. You can meet intellectual duds from Harvard and Yale (just as I've met duds from Oxford and Cambridge) and you can meet really bright people from Southwest Whatever State University. Heck, a lot of really brilliant people in the US are Canadians, and good luck trying to tell them from the rest us!
[> [> hey, don't shoot the messenger! -- Rahael, 07:22:26 10/24/01 Wed
I just thought I couldn't leave that provocative statement by Hanks stand without allowing those across the Atlantic to have the chance to reply!

And as for the issue of core and periphery - surely that in itself is a construct often used for ironic purposes - i.e all those 17th and 18th century plays about the rustic country vs sophisticated (and ironic) metropolis? Or the virtuous countryside vs the corrupt (and cynical) metropolis.
[> [> [> Not aiming at messenger, but tired of the 'message' ;o) -- CW, 10:59:09 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> Well, anyway, here's more praise for Buffy! -- Rahael, 13:22:32 10/24/01 Wed
Two short articles below from the Guardian (my newspaper of choice)

Hollywood reporter
It's coffin time
Epitaph for a vampire slayer
Charles Shaar Murray
Friday June 1, 2001

Oh my God, they killed Buffy! If the trailers are to be believed, the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series on Sky will have ended by 9pm tonight, its star slain, and a tombstone bearing the iconically arch epitaph: "She Saved The World. A Lot." Over the past five years this witty, unpretentious series has distinguished itself as easily the coolest example of episodic TV this side of The Sopranos, with its spin-off Angel not far behind. The fact that it began its small-screen life as a spin-off from a misfired feature film is a minor miracle, and the slickly seamless manner in which series mastermind Joss Whedon and his co-conspirator David Greenwalt interweave characters and storylines between the two shows merely another.

Nevertheless, we should leave the tears and snuffles to the supporting players. Another series has already been commissioned, with Sarah Michelle Gellar's signature firmly in place on the dotted line, so all that remains is to speculate exactly how Whedon plans to resurrect Her Royal Buffness.

As Sir Arthur Conan Doyle demonstrated a century or so back at the Reichenbach Falls, there's no cliffhanger more compelling than topping your lead character.

Slay it again
Once the ultimate cult character, Buffy The Vampire Slayer is now a fully fledged icon. But four years on, is she losing her bite?
Janine Gibson
Friday January 5, 2001

It's a bit like the moment your dad started humming along to the Spice Girls. Far from being a cultural high point, the moment that Sunday Times arts critic Brian Appleyard dropped his weekly analysis of post-structuralism and turned over two pages in breathless tribute to the sheer brilliance that is a teenage vampire slayer must surely be the beginning of the end.

Clearly the possibility that Mr Appleyard has been possessed by the demon spirit Moloch cannot be overlooked. But if, after 80-odd episodes, the highbrow establishment has finally caught on to the fact that a smartly written sci-fi, horror or fantasy series might just be a metaphor, then we must resist the temptation to mock. Buffy The Vampire Slayer has withstood greater threats than this - the opening of the hellmouth on her graduation day from high school and nearly being axed after just 11 episodes, to name just two.

In fact it's rather appropriate that the grown-ups have suddenly got with the programme, for so, as we enter season five, has the world's oldest vampire. Yes, Vlad the Impaler, Count Dracula of Transylvania, has woken up to the world's leading slayer and decides to pay a visit to Sunnydale to convince Buffy that the two are soul mates - with a love that, naturally, spans time, geography and the small matter of being undead.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, anyway, here's more praise for Buffy! -- Dedalus, 16:36:56 10/24/01 Wed
Great stuff! Thanks, R. Her Royal Buffness indeed!

I love the Brits.
[> [> Speaking of Canadians... -- RabidHarpy, 08:09:40 10/24/01 Wed
...are there any other Canadian's on this board?!
[> [> [> Oh yeah!! -- WW, 08:12:47 10/24/01 Wed
Nina, Aquitaine, LadyStarlight, Rufus, me (Wisewoman)...and...am I forgetting anyone?

Oh, Canada! We are the CDCW!!

[> [> [> [> fill the rest of us in, willya? -- anom, 19:47:06 10/24/01 Wed
What's the CDCW?
[> [> [> [> [> Need you ask??? Canadian Demon Cat Worshippers......OnM founding president...:):):) -- Rufus, 22:59:01 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> And me (waving hands frantically in the air)! -- Little One, 14:38:18 10/26/01 Fri
Me too! Canadificus Terriblis in the flesh. Just my luck, I finally get my computer working again (it crashed...literally after my cats jumped repeatedly on it during my recent move and caused it to take a tumble) after months and months of withdrawl of ATPoBtVS and there's just too much yummy philosophical goodness to partake of at one sitting! And I'm supposed to visit the in-laws tonight! ;-( Wah, but I've missed you guys! sigh

But I'll be back! Mwa ha ha, ahem, ha... (ominous ellipsis)
[> [> [> I think half the board is Canadian -- Masq, 09:37:16 10/24/01 Wed
With their evil chocolate and demon cat conspiracies
[> [> [> [> You understand us so well....... -- Rufus, 22:57:56 10/24/01 Wed
Being that you are part Canadian youself......and you fancy cats and chocolate as well......;)
[> [> [> [> [> But the chocolate cats are the yummiest -- Masq, 08:23:40 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Absolutely - They're purrfect! -- Brian, 15:49:19 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> Re: Canadians..."cheque" and "sabre" are apparently a dead give-away! -- Wisewoman, 08:10:05 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> Actually, a lot of Canadians pronounce 'about' like 'a boat...' -- CW, 11:14:02 10/24/01 Wed
but, I don't know how wide spread that is in Canada. On the other hand, I have an in-law who pronounces it that way, and I don't know if he's even been to Canada.

I usually spell it 'sabre' but I'd think I was in the wrong bank if I got cheques from them instead of a checks. ;o)
[> [> [> [> I wonder where people get that from?!?! -- RabidHarpy, 11:30:32 10/24/01 Wed
I'm Canadian and the only fellow Canucks I've ever heard utter something that even remotely sounds like "aboat" are those from the Maritime provinces who have a slightly more Gaelic lilt to their words. The rest of us just say 'about' - the "ou" sounding like that of "ouch" - more of an "ow" than an "oa".
[> [> [> [> [> Actually, Americans say "about" like "a-baaat!" LOL ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:41:43 10/24/01 Wed
Canadians say "about" exactly the same as, "I'm sick with a bout of the 'flu," or "a [wrestling] bout!"

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, Americans say "about" like "a-baaat!" LOL ;o) -- Shaglio, 12:52:42 10/24/01 Wed
People in the New England area pronoune about as " I have a bout of the flu," not a-baaht surprisingly enough since we speak wicked wee-id out he-ah in these pahts. I've heard that people in the Great Lakes area pronounce it as "a boot" but I've always thought that was an exaggeration.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> And don't even get me started on "roof"...!! -- WW, 19:15:00 10/24/01 Wed
We say "roof" like "Ruth" with an "f."

When Americans say "roof" it sounds to me like "rough" or "ruff."

I've always really loved the New England accent, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> it's a regional thing -- anom, 21:50:54 10/24/01 Wed
Lots of Americans say "roof" w/the u of "Ruth." In some areas (I'm not sure which), it's pronounced the way you described, w/the u of "put." Same w/"root." Soon after Roots was broadcast, a bus co. (probably Greyhound) ran an ad campaign saying "Take our routes to your roots!" One time I was on one of their buses, passing a billboard w/that line on the way out of the terminal, & the person sitting next to me read it: "Take our rowts to your ruhts!"
[> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't mention it, if I hadn't heard it a lot ;o) -- CW, 12:08:10 10/24/01 Wed
I do suspect it's less common the farther west you get in Canada.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... interesting... -- RabidHarpy, 12:13:08 10/24/01 Wed
I live smack-dab in the middle of Canada and don't hear it very often around here, but I confess, I haven't been further East...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's not just me. -- Cactus Watcher, 14:35:52 10/24/01 Wed
Here's a quote from the companion book to the BBC series from the 1980's "The Story of English" by Robert McNeil, a Canadian, though admittedly from Montreal.

The most obvious and distinctive feature of Canadian speech is probably its vowel sound, the diphthong ou. (Thus out rhymes with boat, so that a phrase like "out and about in a boat" emerges as "oat and aboat in a boat".) There is a deeply held belief that this trait comes from Scotland, but this is a myth. The Scottish oo is really quite different from the Canadian ou. Professor Jack Chambers believes that it was an independent development in Canadian English.

(quoting Chambers) The ou in "house" and "about" begins with the vowel sound in hut and but, whereas the ou in "houses" and "bough" begins with the vowel sound in "hot" and "bought." The difference in the two ou sounds is systematic, and known to linguists as Canadian Raising. Because of it, Canadians have a different ou sound in "house" and "houses", and in "lout" and "loud."

Back to Cactus Watcher- If that's not true where you live in Canada, it's interesting to me. I trained as a linguist. And no, I don't know who Prof. Chambers was.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> interestinger & interestinger -- anom, 20:09:21 10/24/01 Wed
CW, I almost went for a grad degree in linguistics, till they told me that what you could do w/one was pretty much limited to teaching & missionary work! Anyway, Chambers' discussion of vowel sounds was interesting, though it gives me no idea what determines which word gets which vowel, systematic though it may be. Neither sound is what I hear in the Canadian "ou," which is more like a short e (as in bet) followed by oo, adding up to something like "eu" in Spanish or Italian. Actually it's a lot like the upper-class British "oh" sound--maybe it's mostly Brits who think Canadians say "aboat"! And the American "ou" sounds to me like a short a (as in cat--on this board, I better use that example!) followed by the same oo sound.

Maybe I should tune in Peter Jennings, just to make sure.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Peter Jennings. Yes, he does it occaisionally -- CW, 01:47:10 10/25/01 Thu
I was in Slavic linguistics, which meant I studied Russian, Polish, Serbo-Croatian etc, primarily, linguistics secondarily. The job market was different, but not much bigger.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's not just me. -- JoRus, 02:36:48 10/25/01 Thu
For what it's worth, I've only heard the "aboat" pronunciation in the speech of Canadians from Winnipeg..never B.C. I've an English father, American mother, travelled a lot, live in Seattle in the States. The roof/ruff is interesting...ever heard mirror pronounced mirra? Lol.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Peculiar. -- Solitude1056, 09:31:10 10/25/01 Thu
Since I grew up spending my summers in the Appalachians, and there you hear "oot 'n aboot" for "out 'n about" and yes, it is practically identical to what I heard in the borderlands in Scotland. Then again, when the speaker is named Ross, Frazier, or Greer, and their family's been stuck up in nowhere-mountain-land for the past eight generations... hmph, no brain surgery required for that math. This "aboat" stuff has me confused, though. Can't say I've noticed someone using that pronounciation recently, but then, it's been years since I've been to Canada. On the other hand, I's got all sorts of nifty trivial linguistics info about dipthongs & such-all... used to work for a lawyer whose first masters was in linguistics, with triple bachelor's in Russian, Japanese, and German. Was okay, until he learned Klingon & thought it'd be keen to demand court records using it. Sheesh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmm... interesting... -- Andy, 14:36:14 10/24/01 Wed
My sister-in-law and her family are from the Toronto area and they definitely say "aboot". It's actually a little more subtle than what you hear in, for instance, the South Park movie, but it is nonetheless there :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> That's a boat rate, eh -- Dreaded Dawn, 18:20:20 10/24/01 Wed
I think it depends how rural you are - in small town Alberta you will hear a lot of "aboats" and "rate"s especially coming from the backs of pickup trucks when you are driving down the middle of main street in your tractor.

Do not ask me how I know this mmm kay! ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- CW, 02:00:24 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's a boat rate, eh -- Deeva, 10:51:35 10/25/01 Thu
I go to Whistler & Vancouver a lot and what I mostly hear is the "eh" part.
Willow, the Buffbot, Control, and Andrea Dworkin -- dan, 06:05:28 10/24/01 Wed
The more I think about Willow and the buffbot, the more I get skeeved out.

I think it's possible that Willow has a lot of subconscious control issues towards Buffy stemming from Willow's five-month stint as Buffybot repairer, programmer, and commander. Think about it. For five months, Willow has been in control of this machine that looks and sounds exactly like Buffy. And she seems pretty okay with this. Of course, she'd rather have her friend back, though, right? but now that Buffy has returned, suddenly Willow is unhappy about a lot of things. she's unhappy about buffy not "showing gratitutde" soon enough. Moreover, Will desperately needs for Buffy to be okay and "her old self" again in order to justify Will's "the end justified the means" argument she made to Giles. But it's become pretty apparent to Willow that Buffy is NOT okay, and is remarkably changed. This has further made Willow unhappy. Both of these things have to do with Buffy not living up to Willow's expectations, not acting as Willow predicted... not being like the Buffybot.

I think that working on something like the Buffbot messes with your head, and tends to subconsciously teach you that people are yours to do with what you will. That imparted attitude may have been the push that made Willow decide to resurrect Buffy. (Warren still has plenty of traces of this attitude. He has no problem with the idea of causing Buffy's death, and seems pretty callous towards everyone.)

What interests me about me making this argument is that it seems to echo some of the anti-porn arguments made by Andrea Dworkin during the Great Sex War in feminist thinking of the early eighties. Dworkin's anti-porn argument could be summed up by the idea that the representation of the degradation of women makes it easier for men to degrade women. In the past, I've sympathized much more with the pro-sex, pro-porn wing of feminism, and it's kinda weird that i'm making an argument from the other camp here.

[> Interesting questions -- sassette, 10:01:12 10/24/01 Wed
I generally find myself in the pro-porn, pro-sex side of feminist debates, as well, but I can see where you're coming from.

However, I think that the Bot just gave Willow a way to perhaps exercise some of her control/jealousy issues with Buffy, and didn't cause them. Just like how violent pornography might be an outlet for people with violent urges toward women, but can't be said to cause those urges.

Warren's a little more complicated. He's a total jackass. Out of the Trio, he's the only one I'd classify as "evil." The AprilBot was just disgusting--at least Spike wanted the Buffybot to have some autonomy.

But, you do bring up an interesting issue. I just don't know what I think about it yet :).
[> Re: Willow, the Buffbot, Control, and Andrea Dworkin -- Wisewoman, 12:04:44 10/24/01 Wed
I think that working on something like the Buffbot messes with your head, and tends to subconsciously teach you that people are yours to do with what you will.

IME, after 20 years of working with them, the same thing happens to elementary school teachers!

[> [> LOL! -- Cactus Watcher, 12:57:07 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> Re: Willow, the Buffbot, Control, and Andrea Dworkin -- Dedalus, 16:44:06 10/24/01 Wed
Good point, dan. I'm going to be bringing this up in my next essay.

I was just watching Bargaining, and she was telling the Buffybot she was going to make her "as good as new." So many of the lines this year have had double meaning (like Dawn wiping off Buffy's face "I knew you where under all that dirt somewhere"). She constantly brags about being able to get Buffybot's head back on in the same way she began bragging about resurrecting Buffy. I think one was meant to foreshadow the other. The moment she says that she got Buffybot off the knock-knock jokes, BB goes "Who's there?", as if to flatly contradict her.

I think Willow is pretty much detached from anything even remotely resembling reality right now, which sucks, because I love Willow too, even if I can't quite forgive her yet.

I've often pondered the effect Buffybot would have on the gang if they used her after the Real B died.
[> [> [> Re: Willow, the Buffbot, Control, and Andrea Dworkin -- dan, 19:28:44 10/24/01 Wed
Both of those lines you mentioned I also picked up on the first time I saw Bargaining.

To be honest, if I were a Scooby using the Buffbot right after Buffy died, I would lobby to give the Bot a haircut that made her look vastly different from Buffy in order not to have that continual shock of looking at the Bot and thinking, "She's alive!"
[> [> [> [> Re: Willow, the Buffbot, Control, and Andrea Dworkin -- LoriAnn, 02:45:34 10/25/01 Thu
That the BuffyBot did not conform to Willow's expectations, which Willow should have been able to force, foreshadows the real Buffy's not conforming to Willow's expectations. Additionally, Willow's desire to have the BB run to her rather than to a set place or to any Scoobie for help whenever the bot was damaged shows her desire or need to control Buffy and to be the saving hero.
Now she clearly expects that she has "fixed" Buffy, but Buffy won't cooperate: Buffy walks and talks, but doesn't seem completely "fixed." What's worse is that Buffy doesn't come running to Willow for tweaking. The untweaked slayer wants to work things out for herself or to talk to others, Spike or Giles.
Are we seeing a need to control, desire for hero status, possesiveness of Buffy, and jealousy toward others in Willow?
Computers gave Willow power over information, something she cultivated. Witchcraft gives her power over people; is it unexpected that Willow would want to cultivate that power as well, and who would be the prime candidate for Willow to exercise her power over? If Willow wanted to wield power, and she clearly does, she would wield it over the most powerful person she knows and, like the Frankenstein monster, turn on the person who is figurativly her creator, Buffy.
[> [> [> [> Speaking of haircuts . . . -- Shaglio, 07:38:28 10/25/01 Thu
I noticed Willow is back to the straight hair look instead of that wavy, messy look she had going last year. Personally, I like the straight hair better on her, but I was wondering if that was just AH's preference or if has some kind of meaning in the Jossverse. I never could get into the deep philosophizing of hair/make-up/outfits, but I know some of you out there have a knack for that sort of stuff. So as Earl always says, take it and run . . .
Was anyone else disappointed in last night's Buffy? -- Cactus Watcher, 07:14:42 10/24/01 Wed
I enjoyed it. I admit that it was entertaining. But, forgive me, it looked more like a mediocre fan-fic than a professionally written story. The acting and directing were fine, but the story was really weak.

The construction worker bit was sad. It was only occasionally funny and was so full of mistaken ideas about construction work as to be embarrasing.

The shop girl segment might have made a decent full episode, if it had been better thought out. I guess the worst part was that Buffy quickly accepts that she's stuck in a loop, instead of curling up in a ball and screaming that she'd gone insane.

I, for one, am tired of the 'numbers on clothes' garbage.

The check from Giles was a nice gesture, but how the heck does that help Buffy become more mature? How much loot does Giles have squirreled away anyway (and why did he drive that junky old Citroen so long)?

Was the Buffy/Angel off-screen meeting supposed to shame the networks into allowing cross overs or was it dig at over-zealous romance fans? Either way it was a waste of time, as presented. Few people could be satisfied with what we saw, so why bother?
[> Re: Was anyone else disappointed in last night's Buffy? -- maddog, 07:53:16 10/24/01 Wed
The check from Giles probably only covers for so long. It doesn't mean Buffy and co. don't have to find means of support eventually...it just gives them a little time now. And speaking of maturity, don't you think Buffy's more mature than most women her age for the simple fact of who she is and what she's gone through? I think he drove that car because he liked it to tell you the truth. :) I think the off air meeting was their "best effort" at appeasing a storyline that won't be allowed because of the network switch. What else would you have them do? They can't show them together cause of the network issue, but if you ignore that part of the story then it's totally unrealistic.
[> [> Thoughts (spoilers) -- RabidHarpy, 08:39:10 10/24/01 Wed
(I mentioned this further down, but...)

To me the cheque, although a very sweet, very helpful gesture, also acted as a way for Giles to soothe his guilt-ridden conscience. He knows he is leaving Buffy and the SG behind to return to England, (note the telling look on his face after Buffy confesses that his constant presence in her life makes her feel "safe"). He spent most of last season feeling "useless" to Buffy, and now, just when she needs him most - as a mentor/parental figure/security blanket/guide/helper - he can't be there.

We know that he's spoken to the Watcher's Council (he said as much) - so they probably know that Buffy died - his role as her Watcher is finished. According to the WC he has no reason to stay in Sunnydale. Giles cannot let the WC know that Buffy has been resurrected because this would lead to serious consequences - for him, for Willow and the SG, and perhaps for Buffy herself, (although, if he wanted to get back into "Ripper" mode, I'd be more than happy to have him flaunt his responsibilities and stay!) For all we know, he may already have a "new" assignment, (ie. Slayer to "Watch") - he did say that he had, "met some old friends and almost made a new one..." (And we all know that A.S. Head is actually doing a spinoff in England...)
[> No, I loved it! *Spoilers for Life Serial* -- Rob, 08:22:45 10/24/01 Wed
I also loved "Life Serial." I thought it was a really, really fun episode...and a very well-written and plotted one as well. I enjoyed its four act structure, and how in each act Buffy only interacted with a few characters at a time (Willow and Tara at the college, Xander at the construction site, Giles and Anya at the Magic Box, Spike and Giles in the last act). I like how all of the characters are slowly beginning to feel more comfortable around her, and she with them. I especially liked to see Buffy back at college with Willow and Tara. The scene where Willow answers the difficult question and Buffy looks even more confused is a nice throwback to the old days. Actually, just seeing them carry schoolbooks alone got me feeling all warm and oogly (yes, it's a word! lol). I loved the second act, too, with Buffy proving the male chauvenists that she is not just a little girl. In fact, she can kick their butts. The third act was the most fun, with that little "Groundhog Day"/"Xena" time loop. Although this story has been done before in those two other places, it was so fun and energetic here, and SMG's breakdown was so hilarious, that it was worth it. Oh, and I loved that little reference to "Evil Dead II" with the hand choking her. The last act I adored also, and especially loved those "yuck" noises Buffy made every time she took a shot of the whiskey. And the kitten poker was too funny. I loved all the little details...the Star Wars references among the "Evil Trio," as well as the Star Trek ones, and the James Bond arguments...and that great reference to Monty Python's Dead Parrot Sketch ("This mummy hand has ceased to be...") And the demon Jonathon turned into at the end was hilarious, like a parody of all the demons we have seen before on the show...those wings were hilarious!

As you can tell, I've basically just been rambling, just writing down everything I loved about this episode. But what I loved most was that it was just a purely funny episode. It did advance the plot as well, both with the "evil trio" arc and with Buffy -trying-to-pay-the-bills arc. The trials and tests Buffy faced are much like most young people face when they have to first go off into the world by themselves and make a living and take care of themselves. That's why I do not agree that this episode is "filler." Although it may not be the most revelatory episode ever, I think it will definitely make my list of best comedy episodes ever. I haven't laughed so hard at a "Buffy" episode in a long time, and, as much as I love when the show embraces its dark side and challenges the viewer emotionally, I appreciate the brief reprieve. The "Evil Trio" is the perfect comic relief...

...And the shot of Buffy stamping on Gile's glasses was worth the price of admission alone. :)

[> [> Re: No, I loved it! *Spoilers for Life Serial* -- RabidHarpy, 08:50:41 10/24/01 Wed
"...And the shot of Buffy stamping on Gile's glasses was worth the price of admission alone."

LOL! That was my favourite part too! :)
[> [> Glasses great, magic bone..........even better...;) -- Rufus, 23:04:22 10/24/01 Wed
[> Re: Was anyone else disappointed in last night's Buffy? -- Malandanza, 08:25:08 10/24/01 Wed
I enjoyed it. I admit that it was entertaining. But, forgive me, it looked more like a mediocre fan-fic than a professionally written story. The acting and directing were fine, but the story was really weak.

The construction worker bit was sad. It was only occasionally funny and was so full of mistaken ideas about construction work as to be embarrasing.

I didn't find the construction workers to be too stereotypical -- I have worked on construction jobs before where I was told specifically by my fellow workers to slow down because the job was supposed to last us a while. Also, when new people were added to the crew, they tended to be regarded with grave distrust and were given a hard time until they had proved themselves. There probably should have been some swearing, though. More troubling to me was that the foreman got conveniently knocked out before he saw the demons. A little Deus ex Machina -- which always annoys me. The writers could just as easily have had him go into denial and fire Buffy -- or accept the demons and fire Buffy anyway.

The check from Giles was a nice gesture, but how the heck does that help Buffy become more mature? How much loot does Giles have squirreled away anyway (and why did he drive that junky old Citroen so long)?

Remember that Giles was off the Council's payroll for two years -- and Buffy got him his back pay. Even if Giles only gave Buffy a 10% cut of his windfall, it would still be enough to help her out (I suspect he gave her substantially less). Plus, he's the owner of the Magic Box, run by a very business savvy Anya. When Giles first bought the store, it was after he had realized that the mark-up on magic ingredients was phenomenal. The only catch is that you have to stay alive in order to enjoy those obscene profits (and with Anya taking the risks for him, he doesn't even have to worry about that).

Was the Buffy/Angel off-screen meeting supposed to shame the networks into allowing cross overs or was it dig at over-zealous romance fans? Either way it was a waste of time, as presented. Few people could be satisfied with what we saw, so why bother?

I agree with maddog, they had to do something. There is still potential for the meeting to cause turmoil -- what if Spike finds out (and finds out that he was left out of the loop again)? He has always been excessively jealous of Angel.

And speaking of Spike, we got to see him trying to convince Buffy that she's a creature of the night. Buffy flirted with darkness back when Faith was one of the good guys (in Bad Girls) and it was only the death of the Mayor's assistant that pulled her back. Now she's ready to spend a night on the town with Spike -- up for a little mayhem and violence -- only to discover that his big plan is cheating at kitten poker. Her disillusionment reminds me of Giles being upset that a demon wanted money for the Books of Ascension:

GILES: Demons after money. Whatever happened to the still-beating heart of a virgin? No one has standards anymore...

Finally, the Troika. There was something very genuine in the James Bond debate. Even after Warren called off the arguments, he was still so upset by Moonraker that he had to interject one last anti-Moonraker comment.
[> Re: Was anyone else disappointed in last night's Buffy? -- Wynn, 09:02:47 10/24/01 Wed
I wasn't disappointed with last nights Buffy. I agree with the others who thought that Joss and Co. did their best with the Buffy/Angel meeting. It couldn't have been left out, but network politics prevent any crossovers from occuring now. I think that it's better now to leave what happened in their meeting ambiguous since it can't be shown on screen.

I love the Evil Troika! Maybe it's because of my own inner-geek, but I laugh every time they are on screen. From them trying to be inconspicuous in the Death Star van to the James Bond arguement to wanting to take over Sunnydale because they have nothing else better to do. They fit with the Oh Grow Up! theme and it's a nice change (at least for me) from the dramatic heaviness of Season 5's Big Bad Glory.

SMG's expressions in this episode are priceless, as well as Buffy destroying Giles' glasses.

I also like the fact that they did go back to a touch of seriousness at the end of the episode with Giles and Buffy. Everything in the Buffyverse isn't Ok, but at least it can be told in ways other than dramatic and heavy.
[> No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- Deeva, 09:10:07 10/24/01 Wed
I'm not sure how much Giles may have given Buffy but whatever the amount is, it'll probably buy her at least another month or two. Giles did drive around in his Citroen(sp?) for a while but didn't he buy a used red BMW convertible w/a stick? I seem to remember the car from "Intervention" and when Anya was "driving" after Olaf the Troll with Willow.

Where in the world did the casting people find that customer for the Magic Box? She's scary!

Kitten poker! Those kittens were so loud! But I'm not sure that they were actually meowing, might be just a sound effect. I agree that this scene of "Life Serial" was about busting her preconception to how Spike spends some of his time. As for her pushing Spike out of the way twice and calling him a neutered vamp. The girl was snockered!! In my experience, I've even pushed away & have said things to my friends when I didn't mean to. When you're drunk it seems to me that your actions are more exaggerated and bigger. I don't know about now, since they haven't really addressed this cause it's a new season, but she didn't really react to the "My lady" comment. Before she died, she would've been very miffed about being called such a term of affection. But maybe she was too drunk to hear it.
[> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- DEN, 09:31:20 10/24/01 Wed
I too have trouble not so much with Giles giving Buffy money, but with the "parental" way it was done..the way you bail out your young-adult kids from some financial crisis. I thought the story line was about growing up--not about Dad coming through!

And does anyone else thnk the "evil three" are also a clever sendup of hard-core series fans, who seem to have inordinate amounts of time to post on sites like this, debating arcane points of philosophy, scripting, and casting. The "tests" reminded me of fanfic, which also puts characters through alternate paces. And so on. To borrow Roberst Burns, "Oh wad some pow'r the giftie gie us/ to see ourselves as others see us."
[> [> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- Cactus Watcher, 10:30:30 10/24/01 Wed
Re: hard-core fans. I wanted some else to say it. Yeah, part of the reason I enjoyed the episode, but was disappointed in it, was that the three Buffoons are getting perilously close to directly mocking the show's biggest fans.

I think, I've proved I'm a critical fan. I gripe about the show occaisionally, and I don't worship everything Mutant Enemy has done. I don't think anyone here on this board has anything, but a healthy attitude toward the show. But, there are people elsewhere who do think totally uncritically about it, call Josh a genius without thinking about it, and generally wallow in the enjoyment of the show. Nothing horrible, I think, most would agree. It's one thing to suggest they might be carrying things to the extreme. It's another to mock them in public. It's not cute. It's not clever. It's rude and Mutant Enemy ought to be more appreciative.
[> [> [> [> Argh! That's Joss not Josh -- CW, 10:56:22 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- Dedalus, 16:55:09 10/24/01 Wed
Uh, I'm a huge fan, and the Trio did not even come close to mocking me.

Mutant Enemy would never mock you in public. Maybe in the privacy of your own home, but that's it.

And as for what Den said about Dad bailing Buffy out ... whatever. The girl just got denied her eternal reward. She shouldn't have to work at all.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- Cactus Watcher, 17:32:36 10/24/01 Wed
We know she was denied her eternal reward, but Giles doesn't. The timing of his gift is a little less than perfect. Giles knew almost immediately that Buffy was having money problems, but he waited until she apparently failed at getting a job to offer her direct assistance. His heart was certainly in the right place. But, it wouldn't be unreasonable for Buffy to have been offended- 'You think I can't take care of myself?' Dedalus, how much times this summmer did you insist that Buffy was doing everything for Dawn? Don't you think it's still true she'd do whatever she could to support her, even taking a crappy job? ;o)

Another problem is the impression that Tara and Willow might have been living off Dawn's meagre inheritence. I don't believe that, of course. But, it would have been appropriate to hear from one of them, that they were doing what they could to help out financially. Buffy's statement about the utility bills would have been a good moment for one of them to speak up and say they'd take care of that for awhile.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- anom, 20:25:40 10/24/01 Wed
"Another problem is the impression that Tara and Willow might have been living off Dawn's meagre inheritence....Buffy's statement about the utility bills would have been a good moment for one of them to speak up and say they'd take care of that for awhile."

From what? They're full-time college students, where are they going to get the money from? As I said awhile back, they're probably living off their parents, & considering Tara's relationship w/her family, she might not even be getting that! (so where is she getting any money from?) I don't think they're in much of a position to chip in.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- Cactus Watcher, 01:22:20 10/25/01 Thu
Even back in my day, very few full-time college students didn't have some kind of part time job to help pay their way through school. Unless things have changed a lot, living expenses aren't included in most scholarships to state schools. If Tara and Willow could afford to live in the dorm or an apartment, yes indeed, they'd have money to pay at least their share at the Summers' house.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- Dedalus, 18:36:44 10/25/01 Thu
I agree on the Willow/Tara chipping in thing.

Alls I was saying about Giles giving Buffy some cash was that she deserved it. It wasn't like she had just spent four or five months laying on the couch, watching tv and eating potato chips.

As for Dawn, she already has done everything for her she could. She's already died for her. It's going to take a lot of doing to top that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pell Grants, Student Loans and Scholarships -- Malandanza, 23:46:46 10/25/01 Thu
Even back in my day, very few full-time college students didn't have some kind of part time job to help pay their way through school. Unless things have changed a lot, living expenses aren't included in most scholarships to state schools. If Tara and Willow could afford to live in the dorm or an apartment, yes indeed, they'd have money to pay at least their share at the Summers' house.

When I was in college, money was never really an issue. Granted, I lived frugally (no car, I ate at home -- spending less than $15 a week on groceries, didn't go out partying with frat boys, etc.) With no financial support from my parents, I didn't have to work while I was attending college (although I did work at summer jobs and carefully saved my pennies).

Neither Willow nor Tara leads an extravagant life. Willow probably doesn't qualify for the need-based money, but she ought to have plenty of scholarship money (and if UC Sunnydale is like ASU, there is also a tuition waiver for a 4.0 GPA). Tara is poor and would qualify -- grants and loans are pretty much automatic. State schools are cheap for residents. They should have no financial problems and ought to have been at the very least paying rent (the money that would have gone to their dorms). On the other hand, they did take care of Dawn and we don't know just how much of Buffy's money they have been spending and how much was their own.

I do not believe that Buffy should have to work. Her deadbeat dad ought to be providing some sort of financial support for Dawn (after all, he must have been paying alimony and child support -- offering money to Buffy to raise Dawn for him would probably be cheaper than what he had been paying Joyce). The Council should either provide Buffy with a watcher who will take care of her (that's their job, right?) or give her the salary that the watcher would have drawn if they decide that Buffy has outgrown a watcher. Giles had two jobs -- Librarian (a bit of a sinecure) and Watcher and, presumably, got paid for both. The council could set Buffy up with a similar job. Who paid for Kendra's room and Board? The Council or her Watcher? Either way, Buffy is being mistreated. Kendra was trained only in how to be a perfect slayer -- she was only expected to do her job (or maybe I missed the episode where she explained that in addition to her slayer duties, she was taking night classes in automotive repair so she could support herself while saving the world). So, should Giles have given her money? -- yes, but should Hank, Tara, Willow and the WC. They're all a bunch of deadbeats.
[> [> [> [> Parody or Mockery? -- Malandanza, 08:30:19 10/25/01 Thu
Long ago, I went to a seminar on (pre-Mallory) Arthurian Literature. A few hours into the discussion, the speaker began to talk about Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- I expected the academics to give the movie a good lambasting, but was pleasantly surprised to discover that they appreciated the movie. The first thing they said was that in order to pull off a successful parody, you must know the subject intimately. Now that I've read some of the old stories, I understand what the professors were talking about -- the movie is funnier when you know how much of it is a direct parody of the ancient legends (castles in the swamp, fortresses filled with captive maidens, knights that spend their time guarding bridges or ford -- and keep fighting after receiving mortal wounds, etc.) Similarly with Jane Austen's parody of the Gothic novels (Northanger Abbey) -- much funnier if you've read Radcliffe's Udolpho. The humor is so well done, with such meticulous attention to detail, in NA that JA must have been a Radcliffe fan. Or, for a modern example, Weird Al Yankovic's videos are funny if you are intimately familiar with the band he's parodying.

By contrast, a mockery makes mean-spirited attacks on a groups of people without any real knowledge of that group -- attacks based on stereotypes. I see Flooded as mocking geekdom while Life Serial is a parody (perhaps even a tribute) by someone who knows the subjects well.

In Flooded, the behavior of the Troika never rises above the level of that of stereotypical geeks. They vote using the Star Trek Vulcan salute. Warren says "Make it so" while Andrew asks him if he is "some kind of Jedi". The boys agree that they can't kill Buffy because she's "hot" and decide to hypnotize her and turn her into a "sex kitten" instead. Andrew says that now that they're supervillians, they can stay up late. Nothing original here, just run-of-the-mill nerd insults.

By contrast, Life Serial shows the interaction between the members of the Troika in a realistic, non-stereotyped manner. The Bond argument is not just a "meaningless series of contradictions" -- each person has his own well-thought-out reasons for preferring one actor to another. Similarly with the Death Star mural. There was also a feeling of genuine camaraderie between the boys -- reinforced at the end with some male bonding over their successful mission. There were references to specific episodes of Star Trek and the X-Files rather than general references as in Flooded.

I am curious -- does anyone know who wrote this episode? The throwaway lines reminded me of a scene from Out of My Mind where Buffy shows that she's part of geekdom (no matter how much she is in denial):

BUFFY: Thanks guys, you're like a fairy godmother, Santa Claus, and Q all rolled into one.
Q from James Bond, not Star Trek.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Parody or Mockery? -- Rattletrap, 09:09:55 10/25/01 Thu
I am curious -- does anyone know who wrote this episode? The throwaway lines reminded me of a scene from Out of My Mind where Buffy shows that she's part of geekdom (no matter how much she is in denial):

David Fury and Jane Espenson co-wrote it.
It feels more like a Fury ep. to me, so it may be mostly his, but that is just speculation.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Parody or Mockery? -- mundusmundi, 13:25:12 10/25/01 Thu
By contrast, a mockery makes mean-spirited attacks on a groups of people without any real knowledge of that group -- attacks based on stereotypes. I see Flooded as mocking geekdom while Life Serial is a parody (perhaps even a tribute) by someone who knows the subjects well.

Following this idea (and sorry if someone else has already mentioned this, I arrived late to this thread and am frankly too lazy to read through every post), if the Trio are meant to be a gentle spoof of Buffy fans, perhaps this explains why their "tests" of Buffy do feel like the "fanfics" CW mentions. They're watching Buffy just as we do, and are putting her through her paces just as we imagine the possibile plot arcs of her character.
[> [> Re: No, I thought it was a good follow up to all the gloom. -- robert, 10:33:33 10/24/01 Wed
"Kitten poker! Those kittens were so loud! But I'm not sure that they were actually meowing, might be just a sound effect."

Obviously you've never heard my siamese cats. They are more than capable of matching that volume.
[> [> [> Siamese cats.......mine is only half Siamese and she can howl....... -- Rufus, 23:07:45 10/24/01 Wed
Of course I'm still in denial about Kitten Poker...:):):)
[> Life Serial: not all crunchy goodness, but loved some of it -- Lunarchickk, 11:11:27 10/24/01 Wed
To be honest, the episode started out about how I expected -- with the non-discussion of Buffy's meeting with Angel. It was "intense" -- why? We haven't seen Buffy experience any really intense emotions (although hollering at Spike later in the episode was close) -- did she go through an emotional episode with Angel, offscreen? Or was it extra painful to keep up the facade (that she presents for everyone else but Spike) for someone who knew her so well?

I was interested in the scene with Willow's class -- social construction of reality -- that's an interesting piece of discussion... How does Buffy construct her reality? In this episode, by trying on everyone else's roles, unsuccessfully. But that's another post. I liked that scene, but then wasn't crazy about the time-stop scenes (didn't anyone else notice that she wasn't moving? Didn't Tara, who she was talking to, notice that she was at the water fountain for a long stretch of time?).

As for the construction site... I agree with Malandaza's comment about the foreman's blackout was a little too convenient. I liked the scenes with Xander (showing his maturity, and how he's succeeding in the world on his own) and the interpersonal stuff with the other workers, but the ending was too obvious to me. Of *course* no one would believe her. *sigh*

But then we got to the scenes I thought were more interesting. When we opened on the scene of Buffy going shot-for-shot with Spike, I knew things would get a little better. I thought they were both a little tipsy (more than that, in Buffy's case!) which gave him a little more confidence to approach her (come on, that "creatures of the night" line was just this side of a pickup line!) and Buffy just struck me as someone unused to the effects of alcohol and thus exaggerated in her mannerisms... And I loved the kittens. They cracked me up. (As the kittens pile out of the basket, one of the demons exclaims something like "The money's running away!") This is the underworld? Playing poker for fuzzy kittens? (Admittedly, for snacks, but they were still way cuter than the underworld should be.) And Buffy's accusing rant at Spike, that he's supposed to fix her life, was both funny and sad. She's still looking for someone to fix her life for her. And it's just not working.

The closing scene with Giles was touching. It struck me not so much as him bailing her out, so that she didn't have to deal with the issues of earning a living, as much as his intentions were to give her a reprieve -- help her out -- until she could stand on her own two feet. The way parents do with their young adult children, when they really don't want to see them struggling. And his expression as she left seemed to convey some pain at her assumption that he would always be there.

As for the Troika... well, they're really walking that line. I think they're funny, in spite of myself. I want to scoff at them, but then they start another argument about some topic that I have friends who actually do discuss (which Bond is better, the details of Star Wars, specific episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation) and I'm snickering again. I think they're funny because they're very close to the real hardcore fan. BUT they're just a little more nuts. As in, actually trying to become "supervillains" or crime lords or whatever they're calling themselves. That's life on the Hellmouth, I guess. As someone else pointed out, it's the attention to details (even the Monty Python throwaway line) that I think are funny. If they were just generic "geek" stereotypes, they wouldn't be as funny. (They don't think they're geeks! They think they're pretty darn cool! Look at all the toys they have!)

Well, just my rambling thoughts, as I don't have much time to post right now... Overall, the kittens raised the episode's value for me. I know that's not very high in philosophical content (the soc. class raised the phil. content, IMHO) but just trying to figure out what Spike was planning on doing with those kittens still amuses me. (Was he going to take them home? Buffy would never let him eat them. I'm picturing Spike, in his crypt, surrounded by loudly mewing kittens. Or was he trying to impress Buffy by winning kittens for her, like stuffed animals at a carnival?) :)
[> [> Re: Life Serial: not all crunchy goodness, but loved some of it -- DEN, 12:15:34 10/24/01 Wed
Lunarchick--I too enjoyed Willow's class. It exemplified the satiric nature of the ep. Everything, from the right-on with-it prof whose students use his first name, to the hilarious discussion on reality as determined by perception, fit perfectly the drizzly b__s__ that passes for learning in the post-structralist classroom. It was a great contrast with Buffy's present world where bills ARE objectively real, and if unapid result in shut-off phones.It also reinforced images of Willow as a teacher-pleaser. I can't believe she buys into that nonsense for any reason but a grade!
[> [> [> hey, hey, hey! some of us *like* post-structuralism on this board! -- dan, 14:54:33 10/24/01 Wed
not that you have to, of course. And I think that post-structuralism can be used as an excuse for sloppy thinking - a phenomenon I particularly despise. Personally, however, the most illuminating classes I had in college involved post-structuralism.

If you're gonna knock post-structuralism, I think it's only fair that you tell us why. On a board like this, where most of us do have our favorite philosophers and schools of philosophy, it seems a bad idea to mock ideas without backing up those assertions. Sorta like going on a board talking about religious ideas in pop culture and slamming Buddhism without an explanation.

said my piece,
[> [> [> [> Don't know much, but curious... -- Lunarchickk, 16:07:14 10/24/01 Wed
...about post-structuralism. (Go ahead, run me off the philosophy board now!) Although I sort-of connected what they were talking about in class to a book I remember from freshman year of college, Crack in the Cosmic Egg, which if I remember correctly was about how we each create our own realities... which was where I was heading with my comparing the discussion to Buffy's search for her own identity in Life Serial...

(Of course, the real question for me is, since no one else's world "fit" Buffy, when does she realize she has to be "Buffy"?)
[> [> [> [> [> not new to some of you, but... -- anom, 20:37:57 10/24/01 Wed
...that is, if you heard--uh, saw? read?--me say it last night in chat....

"(Of course, the real question for me is, since no one else's world 'fit' Buffy, when does she realize she has to be "Buffy"?)"

Maybe Spike will tell her the same thing he said to the Buffybot: "Just be Buffy!"
[> [> [> [> Re: hey, hey, hey! some of us *like* post-structuralism on this board! -- DEN, 17:39:11 10/24/01 Wed
Dan, you're right--I apologize for the unsubstantiated rant, and propose to develop my argument tomorrow or next day as an addendum to this posting. Too tired tonight!
[> [> [> [> [> three cheers for civility! looking forward to seeing your argument. -- dan, 17:55:01 10/24/01 Wed
apology accepted! :->

you know DEN, on some other posting board, this exchange would very quickly spiral down into name-calling, ad hominem attacks, and general nastiness. instead, on this board, we get the free and open exchange of ideas in a civil manner!

Go ATPOBTVS! Wooooooo!

[> I was more creeped out than anything else -- Rendyl, 11:48:56 10/24/01 Wed
I did find the trio funny and thought they had some of the best lines of the episode but it really disturbed me that people Buffy has helped in the past would do this to her. Especially Jonathan. The other guys may not realize it but he at least knows that Buffy is all that keeps most of them alive. She saved his life (more than once) and he can treat her this way?

As for the class with Willow, I thought it illustrated extremely well the world many live in while in college and the one you live in once out. I may be saying this badly but the contrast with the discussion on reality and Buffy's actual reality of having been dead, now alive again, having to take care of Dawn and try to pay the bills before they get shut off, things she cannot control interfering with her job, etc. Welcome to the really real world so to speak.
[> [> Re: I was more creeped out than anything else -- Ramo, 13:12:26 10/24/01 Wed
I was pretty much freaked out at how much power the trio had. Andrew can control demons, Jonathon can do reality changing spells, and Warren can create very high tech electronics. With a conbination of all of those abilities, something really bad can be created.

The only things that are holding the trio back are their Star Wars/ Sci fi obsessions, not being able to work together well, not being truely evil (yet), and the fact that they want to take over Sunnydale merely because they are bored.

The fact that they could manipulate time suprised me, who would think three nerdy teens could do something so high level. Also, it doesn't seem they want to kill Buffy, they were just testing her to make sure she won't get in their way of taking over Sunnydale. Actually, why would they want to kill her if they think she is so hot?
[> [> [> The Trio is disconnected from reality. -- OnM, 16:06:12 10/24/01 Wed
Also, it doesn't seem they want to kill Buffy, they were just testing her to make sure she won't get in their way of taking over Sunnydale. Actually, why would they want to kill her if they think she is so hot?

None of the three dweebs really think of Buffy as a human being, for various reasons that pertain to their individual temperments. Warren is easy to figure out-- look at the way he treated April, who was supposed to be his 'perfect' girlfriend. Warren is amoral, and totally self-interested. Therefore, there is no division in his mind between thinking that Buffy is 'hot' and accepting that she should die if necessary to further his own aims.

Andrew is the farthest along in being disconnected from the real world-- he constantly confuses fantasy with reality, as evidenced in his references to events in movies, TV shows etc. in such a way that shows that they are not treated differently from events taking place in the realverse. Therefore, if Buffy were to die, it isn't any different than if she were a character in a video game that can be 'killed' over and over without any consequences.

Jonathan is insecure, despite Buffy's attempts to help him in the past. He doesn't really want to hurt Buffy, he just wants to prove that he is clever enough to 'compete' with her superiority. (Recall the sequence where he speaks of the Slayer being so 'alert and decisive', and that the Trio needs to do the same, while in reality we have just seen Buffy depicted as confused and unsure as to what she should do next). Left to himself, it is unlikely that he would ever harm her, but under the influence of the other two members of the troika, he could be swayed to 'not intervene' should she be truly threatened. In other words, he might passively allow harm to come to her, but not actively.
[> [> [> [> The Trio is disconnected from reality. -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 16:23:38 10/24/01 Wed
I remain utterly confident in the ability of people at all levels of maturity and power to delude themselves.

I do it all the time.
[> [> [> [> [> Then you'll really like this week's Classic Movie! Stay Tuned! ... ;) -- OnM, 19:56:33 10/24/01 Wed
[> Questions... -- RabidHarpy, 11:57:47 10/24/01 Wed
I have a few questions about last nights episode:

a) When Buffy accused Spike of "cheating" at kitten poker and he said, "Oh, you saw me cheat, did you...", was he confessing, or was he being sarcastic because he hadn't cheated?

b) What number was dawn wearing on her shirt at dinner, (I didn't catch it)?

c) When Buffy was in the "loop", neither Giles nor Anya were consistent in their little speeches - any idea why that would be?

d) With the exception of vampires, (ie. Angel and Spike), doesn't Buffy usually just destroy all demons? She seemed pretty mellow and layed-back at the "demon bar"...
[> [> Re: Questions... -- CW, 12:18:12 10/24/01 Wed
b. Unless, there is another dinner scene, it looks like a tree not a number.
[> [> Re: Questions... -- Deeva, 13:37:34 10/24/01 Wed
d) With the exception of vampires, (ie. Angel and Spike), doesn't Buffy usually just destroy all demons? She seemed pretty mellow and layed-back at the "demon bar"

I think she was "mellow & laid-back" cuz she knew where she was going and plus she was probably half drunk by then. Didn't she have like 2 1/2 shots of whiskey before at Spike's? They were also there to try and find out who or what might be testing her and just like how Spike put it "They can't tell you very much if they've got a big hole through their head."
[> [> [> Re: Questions... -- Cleanthes, 14:35:35 10/24/01 Wed
Buffy has visited Willie the snitch's bar any number of times without slaughtering all the patrons, demons though they may be.
[> [> Re: Questions... -- d'Herblay, 16:50:44 10/24/01 Wed
c) Contingency. " . . . a replay of the tape yielding an entirely different but equally sensible outcome; small and apparently insignificant changes . . . lead to cascades of accumulating difference." (Gould, 1989, p. 287.) History is a complex system, and if history could be rerun, theory holds, it would turn out differently each time. Butterflies flapping their wings and theorists flapping their jaws would affect the outcome.

It is interesting that Giles, who thinks before he speaks, sticks more to the script--even through Buffy's declaration of marital intent--than Anya. Anya, who tends to say whatever random thing that pops into her head, has the most random reversal, going from "Go sell her something" to "I like to picture myself naked."
[> [> [> Re: Questions...Anya... -- JBone, 19:45:37 10/24/01 Wed
Much like the "Earshot" episode showed how Cordelia says exactly what she thinks, the time loop in "Life Serial" shows how unpredictably Anya thinks or says things. She's a real live wire.
[> [> [> [> Yeah, I'd like to have an "Earshot" look inside Anya's head -- vampire hunter D, 22:40:34 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't have to look...already know what's there.... -- sasha, 11:33:45 10/25/01 Thu
....big lot of nothing! :)
colors and numbers in 'life serial' *spoilerish* -- Sebastian, 13:14:53 10/24/01 Wed
hey all.

did anyone else notice more color/number symbolism in last night's ep?

last night, when buffy was going through the time displacement at usc/sunnydale - she was wearing a sweater with a number '8' on it.

giving the predilection this season in having clothing with numbers on it (xander, dawn, willow), that was just one piece of clothing too many for me. :)

also, has anyone noticed they are dressing willow in red a great deal more than usual? in every ep this season, she is wearing a very striking red blouse. i know there was wiccan symbolism in the season opener - but i wonder if that is still the case?

ps: the musical looks to be quite spectacular

pps: a special 'thanks much!!' to sasha for getting me 'flooded'.
[> Speaking of Willow's clothing... -- Humanitas, 16:17:52 10/24/01 Wed
What was up with that Muppet-skin thing she was wearing in Flooded?! I noticed it last week, but forgot to mention it. I can live with red, but red and fuzzy? Geeze, first the fawn, and now she's sacrificed Elmo!

[> [> Willow clothes... -- Moose, 18:04:24 10/24/01 Wed
Is red a subtle reminder of the blood she shed in order to bring back Buffy? Or the lack of innocence, of which blood is associated? (Sexual maturity, blood on hands [guilt], rite of passage etc...)

Red is also an offensive (as in not defensive) color. Willow's style grows more wild as her confidence with magic skyrockets? Maybe...but she always dressed a bit like that anyhow, except in the earliest eps. It's hard to know what is deliberate, which may just be the fun of it all. :-)
[> [> HA-HAH! HAAAAA! -- RabidHarpy, 06:32:10 10/25/01 Thu
"...now she's sacrificed Elmo!"

Whoo! TOO funny! :D
[> [> [> Re: HA-HAH! HAAAAA! -- Yellowork, 13:28:14 10/25/01 Thu
I have not seen all of Season 5 yet, but it strikes me Willow's image and clothes began to get a little bit out of control - the get up in 'Crush' springs to mind. I loved the hairstyles in Seasons 3 and 4, but the curly-wavy-whatever thing ain't doing Anya no favours and is even worse on Willow with that wispy cut (which I liked ... styled straight or with 'flicks'). Still, I see from recent photos Alyson Hannigan has gone back to a longer, blunter bob. Like the cut and style; but another blonde on the show?
[> minor nitpick: UC Sunnydale is filmed at UCLA, not USC -- Sheri, 17:58:04 10/24/01 Wed
"last night, when buffy was going through the time displacement at usc/sunnydale - she was wearing a sweater with a number '8' on it."

They also use UCLA to film the campus shots on "Alias". It's kind of cool, I get to go: "hey! That's not the library; it's on the other side of the campus."
[> [> do you go to UCLA? -- vampire hunter D, 22:37:11 10/24/01 Wed
And what does it matter which campus they use? It's not like UC Sunnydale is a real school.
[> [> When Banana Slugs Roam the Earth -- fresne, 09:52:39 10/25/01 Thu
And of course Porter College, which is pretty party-rific, is at UCSC. (Marti Noxon's, Steve McKnight's and cough my alma mater). I think they also mentioned Stevenson and Kresge, also UCSC. Go Banana Slugs!
[> Re: no Sebastian, run away! :) -- sasha, 09:39:51 10/25/01 Thu
....its just a plan by the writers to lead us all astray from the real plots in the eps......a big numerical analysis red/gray/white/purple herring...."its not fibonacci, its not prime numbers, when they show us the endpoints we can try to guess the number base....mutter, mutter".

My advice? Run away, very fast! Go back to speculating on such esoteric topics as "Will Xanya marry?", "Will Giles leave and destroy Buffy's life?", "Where did Spike get all the furniture for his lair?" "Will Buffy get fed up soon and kick everyone but Dawn out of HER house?"......
*NEWSFLASH* Herc says last week's major spoiler is a fake -- Liq, 15:19:00 10/24/01 Wed
[> That makes me happy, since I read it unwittingly! :) -- Lunarchickk, 17:47:08 10/24/01 Wed
[> Good! -- vampire hunter D, 18:06:50 10/24/01 Wed
Finally, Herc does something I like. But I still intend to beat him with a sledge hammer till he beeds internally.

P.S. I'm running out of ways to hurt that guy
[> [> Re: have you tried.... -- sasha, 09:34:37 10/25/01 Thu
Lilah's plan for her henchman in AtS Untouched..."I'm going to bury you alive next to my house so I can hear you screaming"......evil, evil.....
[> Of course the new spoiler today is even more horrifying -- Evil!Liq, 10:03:02 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> What new spoiler?!? Gimme, gimme, gimme! -- Deeva, 11:26:03 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> Okay... -- Wisewoman, 18:55:04 10/25/01 Thu
This time I'm just posting the link. I think this is the spoiler Liq's been referring to, but we won't discuss it on the board just so those who click on autopilot won't be spoiled!


Go to the brief synopsis of episode 8, and remember, it may be a false spoiler plant!!

[> [> [> [> Thanks so much. -- ann, 19:04:25 10/25/01 Thu
Thank you thank you. False or not its great to speculate!
[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, WW! -- Deeva, 23:25:45 10/25/01 Thu
That one is a doozy!
[> [> Re: new spoiler? Where? -- ann, 13:27:56 10/25/01 Thu
Buffy: Behind the 8-Ball, Star Child from Beyond Infinity, or just Tasty Wholegrain Oats? -- OnM, 15:20:12 10/24/01 Wed

A way of getting depressed, in case you want to have that experience, is to focus on things that you can't do anything about, such as the lifespan of the planet or the suffering of millions of innocent children. I try to care about individuals and conceive of direct routes from the things I care about to the actions I can take.

But the most important things are a person's values and beliefs, and what they care about. Caring is the difference between you and a rock or a chair.

What happens all too often, is that freshmen come to Stanford thinking, I know I'm a premed and I'm going into medicine, going to make megabucks and cure at least one disease.

But then, they run into the problem that they could care less about whether a protein does this or that, and they discover that it just doesn't work to derive what you care about from what you think your identity is.

............ John Perry



Life is what happens while you're making other plans.

............ John Lennon


So, I went to college, putting my relationship with God on the back burner in an age of microwave ovens.

............ Ginger Sinsabaugh



Life is known as a wholesome cereal with a delicious taste that millions of adults and children love.

............ (author unknown)



It made me think so much that more questions popped up. Who the heck was Mikey? Why in the hell is it called Life anyway? If variety is the spice of life, why does the cereal that bears its name only come in two flavors? These and other questions haunted me, so I decided I had to call Quaker Oats and ask them directly.

I was greeted by the friendly voice of Allison who informed me she would answer all my questions. So, I went for the heavy hitter: "Why is it called Life?" I mean, it's pretty presumptuous for someone to put together some wholegrain oats and proclaim "This is LIFE!"

Well, apparently, the cereal was introduced in 1961 as a breakfast food for families who "celebrated life". Yes, if you like your life, and you live it to the fullest, then you will love this cereal. I felt that was a pretty weak answer, but I figured that wasn't Allison's fault. It's probably just on the memo she was given when she started working there...

(several questions later...)

... I asked where Mikey is today, but was told that information is confidential. Quaker still keeps in contact with Mikey, though. My guess is so they can rejuvenate his poor, exploded body whenever the death rumors arise again.

And with that, my questioning was over. I was ten minutes older and about .001% wiser.

............ Russell, from his article The Search For Mikey



Waiting for the skeptical Mikey's to come around or for the dogmatic Mikey's to approve of your choices means that you will probably do a lot of hungry sitting in front of a bowl full of something that you are not quite sure of. Why not just pick up that spoon and give it a taste? You may like it-and you may not. But it is you who must decide that for yourself. Dare to try something new even if no one else that you know has ever tried it before. Dare to embrace change that is, after all, an integral essence of Nature Herself. Take a chance and pick up that spoon and dig in.

Perhaps it is no coincidence that both the cereal and that ever-changing, ever-experimenting ability to birth new ways of being are both called 'Life'...

............ from The Witches' Voice



Life is one big conjoint analysis . . . one tradeoff after another.

............ the sign outside the door of (Professor of Marketing) Paul Green's corner office at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania (Green was the primary developer of the concept of ‘cojoint analysis’, after being inspired by an article in the Journal of Mathematical Psychology)



Mikey’s real name is John Gilchrist. Did you know that? Or do you even care? Oh, you know who Mikey is. His commercial ran for something like 12 years from the early 70’s to the mid-80’s. But where is Mikey today? And even more importantly, what does any of this have to do with a show titled Life Serial, the 5th episode of the 6th season of Buffy the Vampire Slayer?

Maybe nothing. Maybe everything. You will have to decide for your collective selves just what may or may not be the deeper meanings involved. But it must be a deep subject, ‘cos just look at all those links!! I mean, I go to Google like a good little geek, and type in ‘Life cereal, Mikey’, and about 500 finds result. Soon I find myself experiencing the flow of time at a non-typical rate as I explore references to Mikey and his strange philosophy of rejecting all manner of foodstuffs on sites related to Witchcraft, to Christianity and even to Marketing Strategy, which may very well be a religion also, for all I know.

For sure, it is very difficult to plot a future course for your life when there are all these outside forces at play, some of which act upon you, and some of which you are able to act upon. In this week’s episode, we begin the Beguine (which, btw, I’ve just discovered is not only a dance, but also a collective of ascetic, philanthropic women from the 13th Century Netherlands) by empathizing with Buffy’s feelings of disconnectedness as she sits in a college class with Willow, while attempting to follow a spirited discussion of the ‘Social Contruction of Reality’.

After first setting up the two opposing fields of thought, Willow garners praise from the teacher (who is named ‘Mike’, but just in case you are wondering, he’s not Mikey) for establishing a synthesis of the dialectic under question by stating: "Because social phenomena don’t have unproblematic objective existances, they have to be interpreted and given meanings by those who encounter them." The look of complete bafflement on Buffy’s face is simultaneously hilarious and sad, and it’s a feeling that rings true throughout the entire ep as Buffy gradually works out her own personal dialectic.

Last week, we saw the introduction of the season’s first ‘big bad’, the ‘Dweeb Trio’ of Jonathan, Andrew and Warren. In keeping with the Jossian tradition of introducing a series of faux ‘bads’ to misdirect us while the real season’s Really Bad lurks partly or completely hidden from view, these guys bring to mind an image of what the Three Stooges would have been like if they had actually gone to college and graduated after majoring in ‘Evil for Geeks’. Whatever the comparison, I find it rather clever that each of these three guys represents a different incarnation of the ‘banality of evil’ concept.

Jonathan, who long term Buffyverse fans have come to associate with being a basically decent, if highly insecure character, is still trying to make up for what he perceives as his personal weaknesses by taking whatever shortcuts to greater personal stature he can find, and is, like Willow, becoming enamored of seeking magical means to questionable ends. Willow, of course, is still walking the edge of the moral fence whereas Jonathan has happily jumped over it, but he differences are a matter of degree.

Andrew is even more insecure than Jonathan, and even more obsessive with minutiae, which I feel comes from his more technical/artistic background, as given away by his constant Star Wars/James Bond/X-Files references and apparent artistic leanings. He is sort of a half-way point between Jonathan and Warren, and indeed has been portrayed so far as the beleaguered recipient of jibes from the other members of the trio. (I loved his dogged support of Timothy Dalton as opposed to the more traditional choices of Connery and Moore in the pissing contest over the ‘best Bonds’).

Warren, in my opinion, is far and away the most dangerous of the three, since he appears to have no real sense of traditional moral or ethical behavior, and has already demonstated a willingness to become an accomplice to murder if the end result benefits him personally. He is also the most ‘alpha’ male of the three, and seems to take naturally to stepping into the executive position of what Jonathan and Andrew erroniously feel to be a ‘democratic’ organization. Considering his past, very shabby treatment of April, his ‘perfect’ girlfriend, one doesn’t have to cogitate very hard to envision what harm he might inevitably inflict not only on Buffy or the SG, but also his supposed ‘friends’.

In the meanwhile, I am admiring the balance the show’s writers have struck between the darkness and the farce of which the Dweebs have been the instigators. While I laughed out loud more times than I can recall for quite some number of eps, I was also aware that the ‘tests’ they were running on Buffy to determine her strengths and weakness were extremely clever in both their conception and execution, the synergistic result of the three combining their efforts. Imagine, for the sake of contrast, if the trio ‘testing’ Buffy were made up of Adam (instead of Warren), evilSpike (instead of Andrew) and evilWillow (instead of Jonathan). Buffy might even consider having to fight such a trio to be a better reason for remaining dead than working in retail!

Speaking of retail, we now come to Buffy’s efforts to become a part of the working world. Is anybody else wondering that, if she hadn’t been interfered with by the Dweebs, that she might have made a go of the construction work? At least for a while, maybe. I liked the subtle references to Buffy’s potential mission in her new, reborn self that cropped up in several places during the course of the show. Backing up to the scene at the college where Buffy opens Tara’s renaissance art book to a depiction of an angel looking down upon-- an old man? a demon?-- while golden beams of light radiate from above, to the comments by Xander that ‘Actually, you won’t be building so much as lifting and toting’ after Buffy expresses a sense of personal satisfaction at the thought of ‘building things with my hands’. More bodhisattva leanings? The evidence continues to accumulate, I would say, and also I have had a ‘speculative epiphany’ regarding this line of thought, which I’ll get into in just a little while.

To the Spike Interval of the show: Buffy gets drunk, demons play poker for kittens, Buffy sets the kittens ‘free’ and then berates Spike for not being evil enough. Priceless, and also giving us some of the best dialog of the night (and, as with last week, there was a lot of great dialog).


Spike: I cheat? (pointing to other demon across the table) He’s got X-ray vision!

Demon: Heh... I’m not using it!


Other demon: Her skin’s so tight, I don’t know how you can even look at it. Eww!


Spike: What’s wrong, luv?

Buffy: What’s wrong? You were gonna help me! You... you were gonna beat heads, and... and fix my life.You’re completely lame! Tonight sucks. And look at me. and... and look at stupid Buffy-- too dumb for college, and... and freak Buffy-- too strong for construction work! And my job at the magic Shop? I was bored to tears even before the hour that wouldn’t end. And the only person that I can even stand to be around is a... neutered vampire who cheats at kitten poker!

Spike; Oh, you saw the cheating, then?

Buffy: Also-- I think you’re drunk.


Finally, the last scene with Giles was wonderful, with the parting shot of seeing the look on Giles’ face when Buffy sincerely speaks about him ‘always being there’. You just know he’s thinking about how to deal with this classic dilemma-- he hates seeing his ‘daughter’ suffer, especially knowing how she not only has to deal with all the traditional difficulties of becoming an normal adult human, but also the constant destabilizing effects of the forces of darkness on top of all of it that make her life anything but ‘normal’. Nonetheless, he wants her to enter that adulthood, and not become eternally dependant upon his largess, either financial or emotional. And so life goes on...


Now, to my ‘epiphany’, as it were. If I am not mistaken, tonight was the first time this season that we have seen Buffy wear an article of clothing that had a number emblazoned upon it. We have all been wondering about the significance of this numeric theme, which has shown Xander wearing a ‘13’, Dawn a ‘7’ and a ‘2’, Willow an ‘11’, and now Buffy an ‘8’.

At the moment, I am holding on to the fairly simple idea that these numbers represent the number of an episode wherein something of great significance happens to the character wearing said number. To date, only Dawn, in episode #2, could offer any proof of this theroem, since it was in that ep that her sister returned to her from the dead, certainly a life-altering event. Ep. #7, by my count, should be the ‘Musical’ ep, and if the theorem continues to ring true, another significant event will occur for Dawn. Other Buffy fans have postulated Willow going dark, or meeting up with some form of un/divine retribution for her role in rebirthing Buffy in ep #11, and the Xander/Anya wedding plans coming to a head (or not) around ep #13. All of these items seem logical, at least, knowing what we know of the trends and story lines depicted so far.

Now, in the most obvious context to the above, something of significance will happen to Buffy in ep #8, perhaps she will tell someone else (Giles?) about her experience in the afterlife, or perhaps we will see a setup to Willow’s ep #11 story that will begin to pit Buffy against her friend. I believe, though, in consideration of the fact that Buffy is the lead character of the show, that there is a second layer at work for the number ‘8’.

Play your tape of ‘Life Serial’ back again, and note the physical form of the ‘8’. In most cases, we are used to seeing the numeral depicted pretty much as an ellipse parked on top of a very slightly larger ellipse. When we write the number by hand, we tend not to do this because it requires two strokes of the pen to draw it, as opposed to simply making a crossed loop. The crossed loop form is the one shown on Buffy’s sweater.

I don’t profess to know a lot about the origin of the numbers we use today, but if you turn a crossed-loop ‘8’ on its side, you have the ‘infinity’ character. Combining this with the several references (as already mentioned) to an ‘angelic’ or ‘bodhisattva’ Buffy, there is also the question I raised even before the S6 premiere... how would Buffy be able to get enough oxygen to escape her coffin and claw her way to the surface before suffocating? After all, she isn’t ‘dead’, like a vamp.

But suppose-- just suppose, now-- that she’s immortal as a result of her rebirth, like a vamp?

She wouldn’t necessarily know this, nor would anyone else. Consider (as always!) ‘Restless’. Besides Tara’s/the spirit guide’s/The First’s remarks about You don’t know who you are... what you will become, there was also Buffy’s insistance, directed at The First Slayer, that You are not the source of me. We have been pondering the nature of that ‘source’ ever since. In S5, Dracula told Buffy how similar her power was to that of the vampire’s. Could the meaning there have been not about darkness or evil, as many have quite reasonably hypothesized, but about the type of semi-immortality that vamps possess?

Think of the possibilities this could bring about. First, the shock Buffy would sustain when she eventually discovers that it is nearly impossible for her to die. Would the idea of immortality counterbalance the despair she has felt at being ripped out of heaven, or would it make the idea of never being able to reach that heaven again even more painful? There is also the thought that she is now-- far more literally-- like Spike or Angel.

Also, let’s speculate that Willow does get into some extremely serious trouble because of her resurrection spell. Would Buffy trade off her immortality (gladly? reluctantly?) in order to return Willow from a hell-dimension, say?

Now, normally I could state with some authority that this is a theme that’s (pardon the pun) been done to death, but this is the Jossverse, not Highlander, and it’s already been proven to most fan’s satisfaction that no cliche is so lame and overdone that an inventive reworking of said ‘cliche’ can’t be successfully pulled off.

I await your thoughts on this, or any other matter I’ve brought up, as this great season continues. All I have to say at this point is:

Andrew is right. Moonraker sucks big time.

[> Note: *** Spoilers *** for 'Life Serial' in above -- OnM, 15:28:00 10/24/01 Wed
[> Ah! My hard drive just collapsed under the weight of that one. Meaty, OnM -- Masq, 15:56:51 10/24/01 Wed
[> [> Meaty, yes, but also vegetarian in a fibrous sort of way... ;) -- OnM, 16:56:45 10/24/01 Wed
Acckkk! First Rufus' printer, now Masq's hard drive!

Pretty soon, someone will chant 'Choose the Name of The Destructor' and a giant Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man will appear to stomp on me.

'Course, your hard drive managed to hold the Riley post, and this one was a pipsqueak by comparison. Maybe other evil forces are at work!

Hey, Where's Sol??

[> Fantastic essay OnM and some of my thoughts on the ep -- Kerri, 17:58:06 10/24/01 Wed
I'm really busy now and haven't had much time to be by the board posting but I had to stop by and check out OnM's weekly essay and then I just couldn't stop myself from posting.

First, the numbers. Your first hypothesis about the numbers signifying significant episodes...could be. the proof in ep 2 being big for Dawn? well, honestly, who wasn't it big for. And the musical as proof for Willow's 7-I'm thinking that'll be big for everyone too. Perhaps there will be more indication as the season goes on.

When you mentioned the symbol of the eight as never ending, infinate, my first thought wasn't immortality in the sense you mentioned(though it is an interesting idea) but the Buddhist idea of a never ending cycle. Buffy seems to contain much Buddhist philosophy and this is just one evidence to the bodhisattva/angel connection.

This whole Buffy as angel/messiah has always been interesting and I'm sure the picture she was looking at was not just a random painting. There is just so much that points to this role for Buffy. I mentioned after after life that Buffy seems to be emerging as an intermediary of sorts between heaven and earth with her new task being to bring heaven on earth to herself and the world.

Giles giving Buffy the money was nice, and I understand that he wants her to be mature but honestly-how much more mature can she be? She's taken on so much responsibility with her powers and caring for Dawn that someone giving her some financial support after she comes back from the dead and tries to finish school isn't really going to be too harmful to her maturity. I think that given everything we tend to look at Buffy as and it maybe hard to forget that she's only 20. And thus when Giles leaves I don't think it will be because he thinks buffy and the SG need to mature it will be for personal reasons.

Social Construction of reality. The ideas in the debate resonating in the episode and the series. What makes someone real? Buffy made Dawn real. Is Buffy less real, less earthly now that she is disconnected? The demon in After life told her she was barely even there. What will bring Buffy back to the world? And when will she cry? I keep waiting for it to happen. For Buffy to break down. Any guesses when. I'm thinking ep 8 or 9-after the musical.

Speaking of the musical-yay!!! i can't wait. promos look really good. And now I have to mention the geek trio. I hate them. I just honestly don't find them funny-simply annoying. The episode had some pretty funny scenes(the magic box sequence) and also seious issues but for me the trio really brought it down a notch.

Oh and one more thing. Spike telling Buffy she's a creature of darkness-humm... Oh one more thing(I guess this makes two) Buffy freeing the kittens. Cats=slayers. Any significance? Buffy freeing herself? the other slayers as hinted at in fray? I lean towards freeing herself b/c this attempt at freedom isn't successful-at least not yet.
[> [> onm: fantastic indeed. kerri: about those kittens... -- anom, 21:12:48 10/24/01 Wed
"Buffy freeing the kittens. Cats=slayers. Any significance? Buffy freeing herself? the other slayers as hinted at in fray? I lean towards freeing herself b/c this attempt at freedom isn't successful-at least not yet."

Maybe this is a stretch, but those kittens aren't old enough to take care of themselves. And Buffy isn't...quite. Not yet. Or maybe she just feels that way, & like she's at the mercy of chance, unless of course someone's cheating. So that would make Giles, giving her the check, neither mother, nor father, nor rakish uncle...but mama cat.

OK, I know, I still don't get cats = slayers, & now I'm apparently saying cats = watchers.
[> OnM is supreme ruler. All bow to OnM. -- Shiver, 19:25:24 10/24/01 Wed
I hope to be a good enough person in this life so that next time I can come back as OnM :-) *bows*

[> [> No, no, no! No Supreme Ruler devotional stuff allowed! I'm not even up to being Third Evil! -- OnM the middlin' fair, 08:17:13 10/25/01 Thu
[> Great essay, OnM! -- Wisewoman, 20:19:20 10/24/01 Wed
I was really delighted to find WitchVox, one of my favourite sites, quoted as well. I don't think I've ever run across the mention of Mikey there, but I'll look for it now!

Thinking about the possibility of Buffy's immortality, and the issue of Giles leaving, brought to mind the real question raised by Life Serial: What is Buffy going to do with her life?

However much money Giles was able to give her, it's not going to support Buffy and Dawn forever. She's run through her networking contacts as far as job searching goes, and she's a twenty-year-old college drop-out without the major attribute needed to find work these days: ambition.

Realistically Buffy is capable of doing several kinds of work. I think she would, eventually, have been accepted on the construction site, and she might have even found the work rewarding. But she would have fallen into that job simply because she had Xander as a contact. She didn't seem to feel any particular enthusiasm for college, construction work, or retail sales (to say the least!). She is going to have to do something. What?

Without any further training, what jobs could she step right into? How about teaching self-defense? Well, she'd have to take into account that her students would be much more prone to "breakage" than she is, and adjust her teaching accordingly. Same thing with being a work-out coach or trainer...she'd have to slow down or normal clients would end up having strokes!

And what would she enjoy doing? She's sad now, but even when she was happy, what did she enjoy? When she ran away she managed to support herself as a waitress, but I don't think she enjoyed it. She worked briefly for the Initiative, but that's out. I'm wracking my brain and I can't come up with something that Buffy has shown any interest in, or affinity for, that might result in a decent career, or even a basic job that paid enough to support her and Dawn.

Sorry to go off on a tangent here, but Giles is just not going to be around to provide financial support, so Buffy is going to have to work, and if she has become immortal she's going to have to work for a heck of a long time!

What are they going to come up with for her to do? Child-care work? Cocktail waitress? Letter carrier...hmmmmm, maybe.
[> [> Or...(gotta remember to read farther down the board) ;o) -- WW, 20:43:09 10/24/01 Wed
Law enforcement is a good idea, although done to death on TV. Insurance adjuster though, maybe.
[> [> Speaking of immortals making money... -- RabidHarpy, 07:06:47 10/25/01 Thu
How have Angel and Spike managed to survive so long? There are hints that Angel used the money he found in the hotel to buy it, but what did he do before then?

Spike was handing the bartender cash bills, and even though he has his "bad-boy" streak, they haven't shown him stealing (lately) - and he certainly hasn't been winning it in "kitten poker"!

The most recent demon cash-payoffs we've seen were the Troika trying to pay off that M'Vashnik demon...
[> really impressive, onm! just 1 small nit to pick... -- anom, 21:41:29 10/24/01 Wed
"...there is also the question I raised even before the S6
premiere... how would Buffy be able to get enough oxygen to escape her coffin and claw her way to the surface before suffocating?"

There's actually a good bit of air in a box the size of a coffin, even w/a body taking up part of the space. Lotsa lungfuls in there. It's like (hate to bring this image up, but...) a child getting trapped in a refrigerator, back when they had latches & only opened from the outside. The poor kid didn't suffocate right away, it took time. Sure, we don't know how long it took Buffy to dig out--she probably had to stuff some of the dirt into the coffin, so the air pocket would move up with her--& the effort would make her breathe hard & use up more oxygen in less time, but I have a feeling a Slayer uses oxygen more efficiently than most people.

But I like the idea that she might be immortal anyway. I doubt it, just because once they find out, there goes most of the suspense in the fight scenes. It's kinda like Superman--all the villains have to be supervillains, & we pretty much already have that situation on Buffy.
[> It's okay, I'm alright, I'm sure that all those kitties will go to a good home just like...... -- Rufus, 22:55:48 10/24/01 Wed
the girl in the coal bin story Spike told Dawn last season. Or the writers are just trying to torture me with the crys of tiny tabbies......evil.....

As for Spike not being evil enough...he's not good but he's okay. Just not what Buffy expected out of an evil demon. We are constantly being shown scenes that set up the activities of the evil demons then go to scenes like Spike and Harmony with the 20 questions. Not only has Buffy been dead but now someone is screwing with her head. The Scoobies are giving her the doubtful looks that mean...she's damaged....so Buffy can't talk to them in the same way in case they see her self doubt. Heaven was great, but reality bites, big time. This reality at least. Buffy is now back to an unfinished state, unsure of what her place in the world is. I noticed that the most with Xander firing her when he found that her demon killing job conflicts with his construction job. I also think that as with the rest of humanity, Xander is into construction, progress, not worrying about what and what isn't real. Xander now builds things you can see, touch, recognise. Buffy kills demons and can't even talk about it. Her art is meaningless to the rest of humanity, because they don't accept a reality beyond their own. So what does a girl do? Buffy is good at the big jobs that go unnoticed, saving the world, killing demons. Her interaction is not with one reality but with many. Buffy now has a perspective based upon, life, the supernatural, and the experience of an afterlife. Great things for us to talk about, but lousy on a job application. So I have a question, where is Buffys place? If she is to find a new reason to love this new life, what besides slaying can Buffy do and not feel like she is lost in a never ending hour?

As for Spike....he's still okay......but can he use his insight into others to build a new life beyond evil? He is in the same boat as Buffy, both walk in worlds others can't imagine. His old brand of Big Bad evil seems to be lost in a haze of Passions....two characters have to find a way to fit into their new reality.

Now I must mention this annoying squeak in my printer....it's still there and I still blame you (OnM)..;)
[> [> Masq - Great Rufus quote in here for your weekly analysis, IMHO. -- OnM, 07:43:57 10/25/01 Thu
Not that Rufus doesn't usually come up with great ones on a regular basis!


Xander is into construction, progress, not worrying about what and what isn't real. Xander now builds things you can see, touch, recognise. Buffy kills demons and can't even talk about it. Her art is meaningless to the rest of humanity, because they don't accept a reality beyond their own. So what does a girl do?
[> [> [> Re: Masq - Great Rufus quote in here for your weekly analysis, IMHO. -- Masq, 08:19:35 10/25/01 Thu
"Not that Rufus doesn't usually come up with great ones on a regular basis!"

Yes, this is a problem. I find a quote that fits my analysis perfectly, look at the "Author" line to see who to credit it to, and it's always Rufus, Rufus, Rufus. *Sheesh*.

The rest of you guys need to learn how to be profound in the length of a sound byte, too.

j/k I am amazed by the awesome ability of the posters here to command critical thinking skills and see insights into the show I didn't see. That's why I hang here.

OnM, wanna be the Third Evil??
[> [> [> [> I'd consider it, but the Evil Clone was already bucking for the job... -- OnM, 08:30:20 10/25/01 Thu
...and if he doesn't get it he'll be sulking for months!

Uhh, not that he doesn't sulk a lot anyway...

Hey, on third thought, I'm down for it!

I am amazed by the awesome ability of the posters here to command critical thinking skills and see insights into the show I didn't see. That's why I hang here.

Strange-- me too!
[> [> [> [> [> OnM = Third Evil!! -- Masquerade, 11:38:24 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Gee what kinda title is there for a niiiiiiiice Canadian? -- Rufus, 13:30:58 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The First Nice, of course! ;-) -- The Second Evil, 13:37:13 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, I can see the line up around the block to sign up to be second nice....:):):) -- Rufus, 14:09:04 10/25/01 Thu
Though I do make these great cookies with chocolate chips and pecans.......
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're already Evil Grabby Chocolate Hands -- Masq, 15:21:00 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You mean a girl can't have more than one title???? -- Rufus, 15:48:08 10/25/01 Thu
[> You're amazing as usual onM -- change, 04:12:20 10/25/01 Thu
When I read stuff by you and Age, it makes me want to change my moniker to "change, the philosophically challenged". I could watch these episodes a dozen times and not see half the stuff that you see.

Well, here are some of my non-philosophical, and somewhat obvious points.

The episode was an introduction to at least some of Buffy's adversaries for this season and their methods. However, it introduced more than just Warren, Andrew, and Jonathan. The fourth skit was about Spike as an adversary. The writers appear to be foreshadowing attempts (perhaps unintentional) by Spike to lure Buffy over to the dark side. I wonder if he is going to end up being Buffy's most dangerous adversary this season.

Giles is being set up as a another adversary of sorts. The spoilers say that the theme for this season is "Oh grow up". Part of growing up is becoming self sufficient. (Actually, I think defending Sunnydale from demons and taking care of Dawn should be enough, but, apparently, the writers don't). Buffy was making progress towards this by trying to get a job. By dealing with Buffy's bills (end of the previous episode), and giving her a big fat check, Giles is encouraging Buffy to back track a little. He is also setting her up for a fall since he is encouraging her to rely on him when he knows that he will be leaving her.

And by the way: Jonathan was pushed! Given how the trio turned on each other when the M'Fashnick demon threatenned them, it's obvious that when Warren and Andrew saw Buffy coming, they kicked Jonathan out the van and then high tailed it out of there. Poor Jonathan had to improvise something on the spot, so he quick turned himself into a demon, and then ran away as soon as he could.
[> [> Forgot to mention Willow -- change, 06:12:41 10/25/01 Thu
Forgot to point out that Willow was not presented as a big bad in this episode. Willow philes can interpret this to mean that Willow is not a big bad. Willow phobes can interpret this to mean that this episode only introduces us to little bads, not big bads.

Also, of the five bads presented in this episode, it seems that Giles was the only one who Buffy did not ultimately rebuff. So, maybe he is the most insidious.
[> [> My posts usually have less to do with outright philosophical issues... -- OnM, 08:01:31 10/25/01 Thu
Then just throwing stuff together to see what sticks! (~grin~). Some stuff always does, and the results can be sorta interesting. Thanks muchly anyways, though, for your kind words! :)

As to your thoughts re: Giles/Buffy:

I was originally thinking that Giles' look at the ep's closing shot was a mixture of concern over both Buffy not avoiding 'adult' responsibility (since inevitably he will have to leave her and go back to England) and also sadness that his 'daughter' is always having such a rough time getting to do the simplest, most normal human things, like get up and go to work at a 'normal' job just like anyone else.

As I've considered it further, I am leaning more towards the latter, and less towards the aspect of the former that involves her 'assuming responsibility'. Some other posters have pointed out, and I tend to agree, that Giles is likely fully aware of just how much of herself Buffy already gives to the world, and so he probably is not overly concerned about her facing 'adult responsibilities'.

Rufus made a very insightful comment regarding this just a ways upward in this thread, and I can't but but think that this is pretty much what Giles would be thinking as to Buffy and 'the workplace':

Buffy kills demons and can't even talk about it. Her art is meaningless to the rest of humanity, because they don't accept a reality beyond their own. So what does a girl do?
[> Re: Buffy: Behind the 8-Ball, Star Child from Beyond Infinity, or just Tasty Wholegrain Oats? -- Rattletrap, 08:59:14 10/25/01 Thu
I know I don't need to say it, but, great post, as always, OnM.

A few thoughts on this eppy:

A good episode, and one that I enjoyed, but probably the weakest of the season so far. I see this as something of a transition, we don't have much Buffy moping about her lost reward. Being the survivor that she is, she's accepted that and is trying to move on in the real world, and make the best of her situation. This episode had a sort of disconnected feel that, I think, is supposed to give us a glimpse of the confusion that Buffy feels in trying to find her place in the world. Giles gift gives her some breathing room, it is a generous thing to do, and ultimately responsible--she hasn't squandered her money or anything, but she needs some time to get to her feet before she can start to run. I interpret his expression at the end as that of someone who wants to believe he will always be there, but knows otherwise in his heart.

I have a feeling that the dweeb trio may also be transitional. I don't really see them as the season's big bad, but I wouldn't be surprised if they unleash something that they can't control that becomes our main story.
[> [> Re: Buffy: Behind the 8-Ball, Star Child from Beyond Infinity, or just Tasty Wholegrain Oats? -- ann, 13:34:59 10/25/01 Thu
I thought the same thing. Maybe it was mentioned in a previous post. But doesn't the evil trio seem like a joke version of Buffy, Willow and Xander? With all the self-identity issues going on, it's interesting to compare the Scooby gang to them. If "Buffy" aired in Sunnydale, these guys would undoubtedly be big fans.
[> [> [> That's why I like to call them Buffoons. -- CW, 16:52:15 10/25/01 Thu
Without Buffy, they're just three aimless jerks.
A Metaphorical Look at this Week's 'Angel' ep: 'Headless' Uh 'Fredless' Spoilers -- Age, 18:20:01 10/24/01 Wed
No, I didn't get it wrong, the episode is called 'Fredless' but the title, in my opinion, is a play on words. While the true title does point to Fred's condition, being lost, the other title points to it as well, and underscores the metaphor both in Pylea and in this week's episode. In fact in Pylea Fred did lose her head in the sense that it was as good as gone before Angel saved her; Angel saved what was left of it/her, and brought it/her back to Los Angeles, as he brings the head of the demon he's decaptitated in this week's episode. Just as he is keeping Fred safe in the hotel, he keeps the demon head he brings in; and just as the demon head is pretty much useless through the ep, Fred feels the same way about her role with the Angel team.

My pseudo title, 'Headless' conjures up certain expressions like 'losing ones head', ie. being somewhat crazy; and 'not knowing where ones head's at': being confused about something. Both of these statements apply to Fred. Unable to find a worthwhile outlet for her 'abnormal' ideas she got lost in them, writing them down for herself because she felt them worthwhile, but hiding herself and her ideas from a world she perceived would think her crazy for having them. Pylea was a metaphor for a mental state that Fred had gotten into.

This week's episode is a symbolic representation of Fred having to find herself, or at least find the head she still has on her own shoulders. She does, in the end, as symbolized by her splitting open the demon head, ie in the end she does away with the head she would have lost in Pylea had Angel not come along and saved her: she does away with her (being)lost head.

The episode centres on ambivalence: no one really knows Fred: her invention could be one thing or another. This ambivalence which gets expressed in the way the parents are portrayed as possible demons symbolizes Fred's ambivalence about where she will be best off. Fred's invention symbolizes the struggle inside her between the pull of normalcy and a safe life; and the life that Angel and his associates offer. This is why only Fred can make out what the device is: she has to decide what it is; she has to decide what life to lead.

The road to recovery from the state that Fred has been in comes when reality pays more of a visit to her in the form of her parents. Once this part of her past reality shows up, she is faced with the idea that Pylea was real and that she has changed; she can no longer dismiss herself or her situation as unreal. In other words, the world that she ran away from as represented by her parents has caught up with her. Perhaps having perceived the world of her parents as not being tolerant of her ideas, she ran away from it, but having not found another world more accepting, and not venturing to imagine that her parents would be open to her, she got lost in her perception of her parents' world as intolerant, hence getting lost in Pylea.

But, before she faces the reality of her parents' world, she runs off. This retreat into illusion, into denying the reality of the situation is expressed in Angel and his associates trying to convince Fred's parents that the supernatural world isn't real, including the symbol of Fred's (being)lost head. Through what Angel and the others say to the parents the unreality that Fred feels about her situation is expressed. The head isn't real; it's just a prop. This is the girl(the ice cream and the back pack having us see Fred as a child) trying to deny who she is and the changes she's undergone. If the demon head isn't real; if the supernatural isn't real, then Pylea wasn't real.

It is however once she has gone to see Lorne that Fred starts to have to face reality. It's not gratuitous that Fred goes to see Lorne. He is an allusion to Pylea and therefore its reality; an allusion to beheading; and the devastation of Caritas expresses Fred's feelings, her sense of being lost, of her mind being in chaos. Lorne on Pylea had his head put back together with his body: this is what Fred is doing metaphorically in this episode. It is therefore symbolically correct that Lorne does not play along with the supernatural as movie fiction when he is bid to do so to help fool the parents: just as some reality was restored to Pylea, Lorne's head was restored to him; and now through his intervention some reality will be restored to Fred.

At the bus station after Fred talks to her parents about being lost, the insect demon shows up. It is not just a coincidence that the demon is an insect, nor that in the end we find out it is coming for its young: this is the parallel to Fred's parents coming to get her because like the insects(who symbolize the hive mind, normalcy) the parents though loving and supportive want Fred to come back with them and live a normal life. That they turn out to be human beings and not demons (as the first half of the episode intimates they could be) is symbolically meaningful: unlike the insect demons they are willing to support their daughter in her new venture: they are after all not only literally human, but human figuratively as well. They have come back for their daughter, but they are not fully limited by their instinct to protect. This is why Fred is portrayed early in the episode as a girl: to parallel her role as offspring with that of the demon bugs.

As the episode unfolds the reality of the situation becomes evident, and we learn that Fred's parents are human beings. Fred then comes to face the horror of her having been lost, and then decides that because she has no place with the Angel team, that life in safe Texas with the parents is the way to go. This is significant symbolically because it shows she is willing accept reality again, but in doing so, has left her own cave, but we fear, she is simply entering another one, albeit a cozy one with her parents.

Significantly the identity of her invention is still not revealed when she leaves with her parents, and only becomes known after Fred realizes that she has changed, that who she is now has value, and that there's a place for her to use all the ideas in her head. When she returns to solve the problem she uses her device to split open the head, the (being) lost head in Pylea, symbolically ending that influence in her life. The metaphor works more like this: in splitting the head open she destroys the one associated with Pylea(the one associated with having to hide from a world she perceives to be intolerant of her ideas), and has only the one on her shoulders. The idea of having two heads in some sense also expresses the ambivalence that Fred feels about herself and her life. But, there's more to it than that: in slicing open the head she has chosen one life over another, hence the device gaining its identity, and thus freeing herself with it: just as she frees herself, the child of the Burkles, she frees the offspring of the demon insects. But offspring also have another meaning: they are the future possibilty of the species, and as the head represents the one she would have lost on Pylea(her head therefore), the teeming swarm of little insects coming out of the head represent the freeing of all the ideas that Fred has had to keep locked up hidden inside or on the walls of her room. Not afraid to show them, and understanding that they would now be seen with value, she doesn't need to write them on her cave(room) wall anymore; she is free to wipe the slate clean and use them out in the open.

So, the whole episode is symbolic: just as Angel saved Fred on Pylea from a beheading, from losing her head irretievably, he brings back the head representing her association to Pylea, her being lost, her having lost her head, in this episode. The demon head is dead, but it has life teeming inside it. This is a representation of Fred's condition, one that she slays by the end of the episode: dead, in the sense of not being able to move forward in her life, but very much alive if only she'd open up: she opens up, just as the head is literally opened up.

Here are some random thoughts:

The insect demon attacks and impales Angel first because this signifies the pull of normalcy, of what Fred thinks her life should be, starting to undo(wound) the life that Angel has offered her through his intervention. It comes in the bus station to symbolically coincide with the arrival and acceptance of Fred's parents as parents and human beings, with the pull of their influence and caring wounding Fred's chance of continuing with the development she's undergone as symbolized by Angel's having saved her. This is also the symbolic meaning behind the hive turning up at the end of the episode: it represents all chance of Fred continuing in her development as she goes back to a life of normalcy within the comfort of the hive. This is why Fred has to save them by opening up the head: the whole thing is a metaphor for her choosing to accept aspects of herself. She has to save herself. Note also that the invention being either a toaster or an axe wielding device symbolizes the choice that Fred had to make. Had she gone and not returned to use it for what it was, then it would have remained a large useless toaster, and her head of ideas would have remained closed forever.

In a more detailed analysis, one might say that Angel's getting Fred out of the hotel to get ice cream replays symbolically his getting her out of Pylea. The demon going above ground shows Fred surfacing, coming back to a certain reality, but the demon going back to the sewer symbolizes her retreat back into her cave as she did once she got to Los Angeles. In the sewer Angel fights the demon alone, symbolically replaying his leaving Fred in Los Angeles after Buffy's death, telling Fred to go back by herself because, as Fred points out to Angel when they talk, it's not another fairytale, she has to do this by herself. It is when the two separate that Angel comes back with the head, comes back with the metaphorical representation of the possibility of Fred figuring out for herself where her head's at.

[> Awesome analysis, Age! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 20:45:34 10/24/01 Wed
[> wow, age--all i'd come up with was... -- anom, 21:20:54 10/24/01 Wed
...Fr[i]e[n]dless, which Fred was for 5 years in Pylea & would have been again (leaving her few friends behind) if she'd gone home w/her parents.

Amazing analysis...all those details & layers. I wonder how many were intentional & how many subconscious.
[> [> Re: wow, age--all i'd come up with was...More Spoilers for the Ep. -- Age, 03:49:29 10/25/01 Thu

I think that the layers are deliberate. It's coincidental that you would ask this as I realized I missed an important layer: the absence of Fred. The title is called 'Fredless' after all, and not 'Headless'(although the play on words still applies) and her absence is part of the metaphorical plot of the episode.

I don't think I abstracted the episode enough: both the Angel team and her parents represent the choice that Fred has to make: to finally come out of herself and realize she has value for who she is, or go into her cave permanently, ie put all her ideas away and go live a normal life. In a sense all that happens in the episode represents what's going on in Fred's mind. When Fred returns alone at the beginning of the episode, she sees her parents and the Angel team without Angel obviously. This is a metaphor for Fred's coming to see that if she is to stay, then she must deal with her cave dwelling once and for all.

However, the problem is too much for her to deal with right away, and so she runs from it. But, the running is also symbolic too because it gets her outside, as opposed to being inside, ie she's not retreated to a cave; and her movement symbolizes the journey she is on. When Angel brings back the demon head, the hotel, which is the first venue representing the psychological struggle of Fred, is now Fredless, in the sense that she is in a full identity crisis; and now has the (being) lost head, representing both her being lost and the possibility of overcoming the cave dwelling state.

The rest of the episode is really the choice that Fred has to make chasing her down, coming out of her subconscious, and bringing her back. The choice tries to find her in her room, but it is Fredless. It then tracks her down after the symbolic stop over at Caritas to have her head/aura examined by Lorne. I missed this aspect of the metaphor: it is after she herself makes the effort to see into herself that the metaphors representing that choice catch up with her, ie come out of her subconscious and manifest themselves before her.

Fred's parents, like the insect demons and their hive mentality, which is akin to cave dwelling, represent one of the choices that Fred has to make. If we distinguish the parents as metaphors, their warmth and caring represent both the draw of a life without danger(danger in the sense of exposing ones ideas) and as the episode unfolds, and the parents become more human, the change in Fred herself as she becomes more comfortable with her dilemma. Certainly the bus driver metaphor is used as a means of showing that the parents will not in the end stand in her way as she makes her journey; it's just that as parents, like the insect demons, they want to protect their daughter. The mother protecting her daughter by killing one of the insect demons with a bus has two symbolic meanings: firstly, it distinguishes the parents as human from demon, setting us up for their tolerance and support later in the episode, ie the bus as symbol of a journey leaves the door open to further development on Fred's part; and it shows that at that point in the episode, it is the parents who are in the driver's seat, so to speak, or at least what they represent in Fred.

At the beginning of the ep, she does not invite anyone into her room: her room is empty. Then as she's about to leave she makes a point of inviting Angel in. In a sense she's made her choice here, but doesn't acknowledge it to herself. She needs to feel that she'd be of value to the team before she would allow herself to remain. Once she sees her value(which is one of the main aspects of the episode)she opens up and saves the day, saves herself. It is then that she invites both the Angel team and her parents together into her room, with her in it. She has taken possession of herself, with the dilemma resolved. In bringing them together this shows that Fred has been able to resolve what she has seen as an impossible problem: by finding people akin to herself, she has gained the strength to work through the choice, and has found that her parents are quite tolerant and loving. Fred has resolved the problem created by her oppositional thinking: she still has her familial identity and her own personal one.

I am always amazed at the degree of symbolic planning that goes into the episodes. This is what makes both 'Angel' and 'Buffy' excellent shows.

[> [> [> Re: wow, age--all i'd come up with was...More Spoilers for the Ep. -- Neaux, 05:57:56 10/25/01 Thu
More insight? on Fredless.. Since you have completely broken down this episode... could you elaborate on the Cordelia/Fred issue.

It's obvious Angel truly accepts Fred for who she is.. he accepts her nuances and her nuisances and is the closest thing to friend (besides Hero) she has had.

And The other two boys kinda keep to themselves about the rainman qualities that Fred possesses.

But Cordeila is very vocal about how Fred grates on her nerves. I'm guessing its a woman thing. That there is now a hint of competition for Angel. Cordelia versus Fred??

I dunno.. that's why I'm asking your insight.. and the conclusion of the episode.. when Cordelia still continues to point out Fred's faults (while covering for the fact she misses Fred)is interesting as well..
[> [> [> [> And speaking of Cordy... -- RabidHarpy, 08:11:30 10/25/01 Thu
...she's certainly become quite an adept "Florence Nightengale" dealing with blood and all, and yet she still hasn't overcome her phobia of "icky" public transit...

By the way - what was the whole deal with Angel's reaction of, "Ooh! It's my turn!" - when Cordelia was on ER duty?! I always took him as more of the brooding "I-am-invincible" type, not the "hellooooo-nurse!" type? Just D.B. bein' quirky, or the new stand-up stylings of Angel with a funny-bone?
[> [> [> [> [> Re: And speaking of Angel needing ER....Spoilers AtS Fredless -- sasha, 09:25:35 10/25/01 Thu
I took Angel's happiness at "his turn to be bandaged" as
the new happy, feely, goofy Angel we have been given this season who loves attention. Also, we know from last season, espeically Belonging, that he really wants to fit in with the group. Since the group was injured and needed bandaging, he saw it as another way he could try to fit in: "yeah, I know I'm Angel and I don't really need to be bandaged, but hey, its a bonding (or binding! ) moment and I don't want to be left out." He's been reeaaallly enthusiastic about everything in general lateley. "You know what I really need ? ice cream!" Good thing his heart doesn't beat of the overexertion of late might give him a heart attack......
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And speaking of Angel needing ER....Spoilers AtS Fredless -- anom, 16:15:12 10/25/01 Thu
Angel may also have been trying to keep things light to reassure Fred's parents & make it easier for them to accept her decision to stay in an often-dangerous situation.
[> [> [> [> Re: wow, age--all i'd come up with was...More Spoilers for the Ep. -- Age, 15:37:16 10/25/01 Thu
Thanks for asking.

I'm not really sure, but it seems that Cordy's reaction to the statements made by Gunn and Angel about Fred in the scene after Fred's departure was more about her own insecurity. She heard the statements as put downs of her in relationship to Fred. The Fred admiration club gave us some insight into a possible problem between Fred and Cordy. Fred's great, so where does that leave Cordy? Perhaps, as you suggested, in Angel's affections as well.

I think there was more to it than that. I think all four have been genuinely touched by Fred and her parents. Cordy shifted from herself to thinking about Fred once what she said in reply to Gunn sunk in: Fred could get herself killed. I think perhaps the scene is setting us up to see Fred's decision as one that, while necessary to remain alive ,(as opposed to going home and playing the dead head for the rest of her days) is one that isn't a fairy tale happy ending. Her life will be fraught with danger and pain, physical and emotional, especially for a sweet crazy. While Cordy may feel threatened by her, she also feels for her. This is perhaps why she emotionally distances herself from the idea of Fred getting herself killed by referring to her as the Crazy Taco Lady.

Perhaps the ambivalence that Gunn feels for Angel may be paralleled by an ambivalence that Cordy feels for Fred?

[> [> [> Question... -- RabidHarpy, 07:37:35 10/25/01 Thu
Do you think there was any significance in the exchange between Fred and her parents (in the cab) when they mentioned that they had rented her room out to someone...?
That bit of dialogue jumped out at me... I was surprised that they hadn't left her room exactly as it was in hopes of her return - they seemed very close to her. Even when they approached Angel Inc., they were more "matter-of-fact" than one would, perhaps, expect. Sure, Fred had been "missing" for 5 years, but there was no sense of burgeoning hope that they would be seeing her shortly, and no real sense of impatience to hold her in their arms and take her back home. It would be interesting to see just what Fred had written to them in this "letter".

There was some sense that Fred might not even have written this letter - could this, combined with her parents quick acceptance of her story, and of the presence of demons/alternate dimensions, etc., imply that her parents may have known more about the whole situation than we are led to believe? Was Fred studying or experimenting with dimensional portals before she found herself trapped in one she couldn't get out of, or was she accidentally in the wrong place at the wrong time...?!

Just curious on what your thoughts are...
[> [> [> [> Re: Question... -- Cactus Watcher, 16:41:41 10/25/01 Thu
Fred's parents seemed pragmatic to a fault. I think that just about explains everything... My kind of people. ;o)
[> [> [> [> Re: Question...Spoilers -- Age, 17:24:42 10/25/01 Thu
I must admit that I was surprised how easily the parents took to the reality of the supernatural. I think there was an attempt to address this when it became known that the father likes the 'Alien' movies. Also, when Fred says that she'll take the sweater with the insect guts and all, her father says: 'That's my girl.'

As normal as these people seem to be on the surface, they aren't really. They may lead a normal life, but they haven't turned their backs on the world of the imagination. While they would not readily enter that world, they haven't shut the door to it. Therefore, when faced with the supernatural and its threat to their daughter, they accept the reality of it partly due to not having closed themselves off and partly out of parental instinct.

As for renting out the room, I think this was part of their pragmatism. Perhaps they had gone though a grieving period in the years before, and had decided that it was time to move on. If the parents could move on, then perhaps the mention of boarder was meant to imply that Fred could move on as well. Symbolically, of course, we were being told that the room simply wasn't Fred's anymore; her room, which represents her life, her way of thinking, was now in the hotel with the Angel investigators.

Your question about the parents knowing about dimensional portals etc brings up a good topic: the problem of separating the actual from the metaphorical. The experimentation with the portals could be a metaphor for Fred's trying to explore new ways of looking at things or perhaps escape a certain way of thinking, or trying to hide herself away in a world of her own making, ie as she says to her parents she got lost for five years(I thought of Star Trek and its five year mission to explore strange new worlds, but that's not relevant.) On the one hand as a physicist she's exploring the make up of the world, probing it, demanding that the world give up its secrets; but on the other hand she gets lost in a world of her own making because she has found that society doesn't seem to revolve on seeing things from new perspectives, but on order and normalcy where new perspectives are suspect and deemed crazy. So, there is a literal reality in her role as physicist exploring strange new worlds, but metaphorically getting lost in one has another meaning.

I think that the issue of the letter is part of the ambivalent mood created at the beginning of the episode. The parents may be demons etc. In some sense they are 'demonic', as the insect demons symbolize, but only in their wanting to keep their child safe; she is an adult now, not a child. As the episode unfolds, we learn that they are more open and therefore more human in their outlook.
It is possible that the parents knew about the portal experimentation as the father does ask why a physicist is working with a detective agency.
It is possible, or even probable, that her parents had finally decided that their daughter had gone off to seek out knowledge about the world, and had left theirs behind. The letter would have been a green light for them to get her back. The letter sent by Fred would symbolize her ambivalent desire(it didn't have her address) for them to come get her, ie her awakening belief that she just didn't belong with the Angel team.

In the hotel, I think that the parents were being pragmatically cautious.

The moral ambiguity of Kitten Poker -- Charlemagne20, 21:00:18 10/24/01 Wed
One one hand we have Kitten Poker as a hilarious skit, a wonderful pasttime for demons as opposed to killing people, and the yummy furry delictables as an alternative to humans but on the other hand we have the likelihood Spike and the demons are either enslaving/rape-breeding the poor things for their own twisted chips of breaking in/murdering pet stores for the tasty treats, the addictive elements of gambling, and the honest question whether mewing furry things are worth more than the occasionally Sunnydale Etc. I tend to learn towards the latter that Buffy by not slaying Spike for an act just below destroying the world (which of course would kill more kittens) is on the road of damnation.
[> Re: The moral ambiguity of Kitten Poker -- cknight, 02:01:08 10/25/01 Thu
"on the other hand we have the likelihood Spike and the demons are either enslaving/rape-breeding the poor things for their own twisted."

What's with using the word "rape"?
[> [> Obviously the kittens are being bred against their will, duh -- Charlemagne20, 14:19:32 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> That would only make sense if you could force cats to breed, but you can't. -- Shiver, 16:34:01 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> Re: Force them? You can't STOP them!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:44:39 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Duh magic! Spike loses unless he cheats -- Charlemagne20, 18:51:31 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Duh magic! Spike loses unless he cheats -- Joe Sixpack, 14:06:48 10/26/01 Fri
Huhn? What does that have to do with the "leading a cat to coupling" debate? Besides, hasn't whole moral relativism issue has been lost in this digression? At any rate, kitten poker is the single most important development in the Buffy universe since her resurrection. Anyone know how to start (or join) a kitten poker league?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Don't know if you've ever posted before, Joe, but that's a great start! -- WW, 16:21:21 10/26/01 Fri
[> Here-here! Whatever happened to bartering oreos like on "The Facts of Life"?! -- RabidHarpy, 08:18:32 10/25/01 Thu
[> But kittens are so full of crunchy, meowy goodness! ;) -- Humanitas, 18:11:02 10/25/01 Thu
That, and you don't have to floss afterwards, because of the fur.

Ok, I've been doing this since Tuesday, time for the disclaimer (before the CDCW send their flying kitty-demons after me): I love cats. I've had cats in the past, and if my current apartment allowed pets, I'd have one now. There's just nothing more peaceful than a kitty curled up asleep on your chest. I just can't seem to resist baiting the cat lovers of the world. Don't know why. Guess I'm just evil that way. ;)
[> [> Re: But kittens are so full of crunchy, meowy goodness! ;) -- Cleanthes, 19:35:51 10/25/01 Thu
Just this week, I'm sitting at my home computer, reading this board and WHAMMMMM, something thumps hard at the window behind the computer. I quickly jump up and check. Lo, I spy a fat gray cat with an inch or so of lizard tail still dangling from his mouth.

The darn cats eat the lizards I rely upon to keep at bay the West-Nile-virus-bearing mosquitos! Darn Californians hog all the good cat-eating demons! Send some to Florida!
[> [> [> I'll try to pretend I didn't hear that......:):) -- Rufus, 20:29:52 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> may they scratch all the way down & leave your tongue coated w/fur! @>) -- anom, 20:41:43 10/25/01 Thu
[> [> Pay him no mind, folks, he's just continuing the race for Third Evil. (and winning!) -- Solitude1056, 10:22:11 10/26/01 Fri
[> [> [> ROFLMAO!! -- Rob, 10:40:16 10/26/01 Fri
[> [> [> Actually, the race appears to be over -- d'Herblay, 15:15:58 10/26/01 Fri
The FAQ now defines the position of The Third Evil as being held by OnM's Evil Clone. Masq has spoken.

I consider this a little unfair, as I did not know that one could enter more than one personality into the race. But, though I contended shortly for Third Evil, I'm just proud to have gotten my Evil ranking down into the single digits. That's no small feat in this crowd.
What ever happened to Kate? -- AngelVSAngelus, 22:29:08 10/24/01 Wed
You know, ever since last season's episode "Epiphany," I've been expecting the character of Kate to have more of an active role in the series, maybe joining the AI crew after being taken off of the police force. Then she disappeared.
Its that damn Pylea, I think. I enjoyed the Pylea series of eps as much as the next Angel fan, but while they were in that dimension, there were threads in ours that I was disappointed to see didn't get tied up. I was very happy when this season started and we saw that Wolfram and Hart were still an active part of the picture, and we've seen Darla trying to get rid of her (and Angel's?) baby, but where oh where is Kate? and while I'm ranting, where is Dru as well?
[> Re: What ever happened to Kate? -- Amber, 01:04:44 10/25/01 Thu
The actress who played Kate now has a full time gig on Law and Order. Since the last we saw of her she had been fired from the police force I guess we're supposed to assume she drifted away from Angel to put her life in order.

From what I've heard she isn't slated to come back to Angel at all, but rumor is Dru will be back sometime this year.
[> Re: What ever happened to Kate? -- celticross, 07:25:54 10/25/01 Thu
I think Kate is suffering from Thespis Disappearous, a strange affliction that occurs when the actor who plays a fictional character moves on "to better things". This was also the fate of Faith.
[> [> But Eliza MIGHT make a return appearance! -- Earl Allison, 08:47:31 10/25/01 Thu
Yes, but Eliza's departure left room for re-appearing. In fact, there are rumors (stress, RUMORS) that Faith might be re-appearing on AtS this season!

Take it and run.
[> [> [> TV Guide Marti Noxon interview says otherwise -- darrenK, 09:24:17 10/25/01 Thu
In a recent interview with TV Guide, Marti Noxon hinted that we might see Marc Blucas and/or Seth Green this season, but she very clearly said that Eliza would NOT be returning.

Usually, when there is a chance something can happen, the writers are coy about it, but she's pretty solid on this.

The link:

[> [> [> [> Crudmonkeys! -- Earl Allison, 09:35:37 10/25/01 Thu
Well, thanks for straightening me out, but poop anyway!

I wanted to see Eliza back.

Sorry for continuing evil rumors :(

Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> Is that like, "Puckernuts?"(more Eliza) -- SingedCat, 06:22:49 10/26/01 Fri
Not to keep alive any rumours that are probably false, but Marti Noxon works for 'Buffy', not 'Angel'. I'd say chances are pretty good Eliza won't be back in Sunnydale, but that doesn't mean she won't show up in LA. The two shows have a pretty well-reinforced division now. (In network rivalry, if not in cast)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is that like, "Puckernuts?"(more Eliza) -- Rob, 13:32:48 10/26/01 Fri
Yes, I've also heard that an Eliza return to "Angel" is still very possible...and since, at the moment, Faith is in jail in L.A., it is more likely, storywise, that she'd show up there rather than in Sunnydale anyway. So I guess we'll just have to wait and see!
[> [> [> [> [> [> Marti Noxon is a consulting producer on Angel -- darrenK, 14:31:39 10/26/01 Fri
Actually, Marti Noxon is listed as a consulting producer on Angel.She's also written a couple of episodes. David Greenwalt is listed as a consulting producer on Buffy.

And even though the two shows can no longer cross-over, they must still coordinate the two storylines, so as not to leave big plotholelike questions in the minds of viewers.

One example of this is the recent non-crossover when both "Flooded" and "Carpe Noctum" ended with Buffy and Angel running out the door to meet each other in a place that wasn't Sunnydale or L.A.

Another good example is the trip to Pylea at the end of last season. It conveniently put the Angel group far from reach at a time when Buffy could have used some back-up. Don't think that wasn't a prime consideration of the writer's. Joss is really good at filling in plothole questions like "why don't they just call Angel and company to come help them out. "

The two shows share a world, relationships, writers, producers, directors, a building, a casting agent and Joss as an executive producer believe me Marti Noxon knows if Eliza Dusku is going to play Faith again this season.

And, of course, there are always going to be rumors of her return because she's a good actress playing a popular and much missed character. People want her to come back so they seize on any rumor to fan their hopes. The Key word in that sentence being "fan."

But, if you read the TV Guide interview again, you can see the way Marti leaves the door open for Riley or Oz to walk on to the show. She doesn't say they're coming back, she just says it's difficult, which means we'll probably see them for an episode or two. But I think she's trying to give us the straight scoop on Faith so as to keep us from getting our hopes up. dK
[> [> [> [> I don't know... -- vampire hunter D, 13:43:30 10/25/01 Thu
Two things stuck out in that interview that didn't make sense. 1)Marc Blucas is big fancy movie guy? What movies has he been in other than that god awful Freddie Prinze Jr. baseball movie?
2)I saw an interview with Eliza where she saids she would like to do Faith again, but that she wasn't offered anything. Doesn't sound to me like getting her back would be a problem.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't know... -- Andy, 18:50:41 10/25/01 Thu
"1)Marc Blucas is big fancy movie guy? What movies has he been in other than that god awful Freddie Prinze Jr. baseball movie?"

Well, he did play Fred in the Scooby Doo parody that was in Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back! :) I'm pretty sure he also has a part in that upcoming Vietnam flick that Mel Gibson is making right now, and I think one or two other things I read about but can't remember off the top of my head.

"2)I saw an interview with Eliza where she saids she would like to do Faith again, but that she wasn't offered anything. Doesn't sound to me like getting her back would be a problem."

Her slate of movies seems to indicate otherwise; she's appearing in lots of stuff and getting her back would require some skillful scheduling on everyone's part. Kind of like how Harrison Ford, George Lucas, and Steven Spielberg have been saying for the last 10 years how much they'd love to do Indiana Jones 4, but haven't come anywhere near actually making it happen :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't know... -- John Burwood, 14:18:04 10/26/01 Fri
I remember reading a few months ago that Marc Blucas was coming to England to film a movie version of the Dodie Smith novel 'I Capture the Castle'. Unless I am suffering from total memory glitch he might even still be here. Being this side of the Pond would make showing up in Sunnydale slightly tricky, methinks.

Current board | More October 2001