April 2002 Archives

April 2002 posts

Previous April 2002
More April 2002

How much of the human population knows about demons? -- zombie, 10:22:59 04/13/02 Sat

I would have to guess about a good 25 to 35 percent at least.

[> Re: How much of the human population knows about demons? -- Slain, 12:34:25 04/13/02 Sat

I've wondered about this. My theory is that essentially all the stuff you read about in the National Enquirer is true, in the Buffyverse - it's not that people don't know about demons, it's just that they do, but understand that no one would believe them. And there seems to be some kind of governmental conspiracy to cover it up.

[> [> People who know of demons (spoilers for past and present seasons, both shows) -- Apophis, 12:52:54 04/13/02 Sat

Judging from Primeval, it would appear that the US government, to some extent, is aware of the existence of demons. However, if their views reflect Initiative policy, they don't believe that demons are supernatural; rather, they see such monsters as either mutated humans or cryptozoological species. How they assign a biological reason for vampires not having a reflection is unknown.
After the government (do other nation's governments know?), there are the magic users of the world. In Joss' universe, anyone who does serious research into the mystical arts will come across demons at some point. None have seemed too surprised.
Then, there are people from different cultures who accept demonic creatures as reality due to their social/religious tradition. This would include Kendra's people, who knew of the Slayer and her function from the get go (did the Watchers tell them or did they have their own legends?).
Furthermore, there are the people on society's fringe who encounter demonic entities regularly and see them as just another obstacle in an unpleasant life. This describes the frequenters of "demon bars" in both Sunnydale and LA (and, assumedly, elsewhere on Earth) and the people who come to Angel Investigations for help. "Street level" people don't seem too fazed by demons, either, though they do recognize them as something to be feared.
Finally, there are the people who believe in demonic beings, but haven't encountered them (or encountered them under false pretenses) and thus have a skewed view of their reality. This covers the girl who summoned the demon to find her father in Birthday and Ford's vampire cult from Lie to Me. These people acknowledge demons, but are the most vulnerable to them as they don't understand the risks.

[> Re: How much of the human population knows about demons? -- Eric, 10:54:45 04/14/02 Sun

Don't forget both Angel and BtVS are set around the Hellmouth, where demons and such are more prevalent. And just because these creatures exist, it doesn't mean that people acknowledge they exist. Sunnydale is steeped in a deep tradition of denial. If it doesn't fit into the modern technological paradigm, it gets ignored. Werewolves are wild strays, vampings are "neck ruptures" or wild animal attacks.

Why Slay? [spoilers for BtVS Season 6 up 'Gone' and AtS to 'Provider'] -- Slain, 13:01:17 04/13/02 Sat

This is something that I've been considering recently - what is the point of killing vampires?

In Season 1, Giles talks about there being two kinds of monsters - one which is unredeemably evil and immune to love, and one which is not. Buffy slays the first type, but those which fit into the second category (Angel, Faith, Anya, possibly the Nerds) are definitely not slain.

As Spike can love, then by Giles' logic he is therefore redeemable, even if he doesn't want redemption. It's open to argument, but Darla others seem to love, too; Darla redeemed herself with her own dusting. Angelus didn't love, or at least Angel says he didn't, but if vampires can love and are therefore redeemable, then why slay? I made a joke about it in another post, but why isn't Buffy's purpose to redeem vampires rather than to slay and rid the world of them?

It seems to me there are several possibilities (and I'm aware I may well be plagarising some of these):

1. Vampires can love, but Giles is wrong when he says that this can lead to redemption. Love is apart from good and evil, and someone can love while being evil and never be good. Buffy slays, because vampires are unredeemable.

2. Somehow Buffy's true purpose has been corrupted, and she isn't here to rid the world of evil vampires, but to rid the world of evil in vampires. Buffy shouldn't slay, because vampires, being part human, can be redeemed.

3. Vampires are redeemable, as they can love and have a capacity for good. But because of their need for blood and hatred of humankind, redeeming them is, in the eyes of the Watcher's council, too much bother. So slaying them is easier.

Sorry about the bad pun in the first line, by the way. ;)

[> Re: Why Slay? -- JCC, 13:48:26 04/13/02 Sat

Redemption is a long road. Think of how many people the vamps would murder even before they get help.

Spike only turned good because of the chip in his head. In Smashed when he thought his chip was broken he tried to kill someone.

Darla only redeemed herself because of the human feelings provided by the child she was carrying.

As for redeemable:Angelus was in no way redeemable without his soul. Any kind of demon is redeemable with a soul. Anya was only redeemed because she was turned human. She would not have fallen in love with Xander when she was a demon.

[> Re: Why Slay? [spoilers for BtVS Season 6 up 'Gone' and AtS to 'Provider'] -- LittleBit, 14:09:58 04/13/02 Sat

I think Buffy is simply unique in the history of Slayerdom. She has defied the prophecies -- she's the only slayer who has actually increased the ranks by not staying dead. She's changed the training -- no manual, friends who join in the fight, no orders. [One of my favorite exchanges from the movie was, "None of the other girls I trained gave me this much trouble." "Yeah, and where are they?"] She applies value judgements to slaying, refuses to go with vampire --> slay.

Much of the grayness currently seen is due to Buffy's willingness to see motivations, to hold back when there's no threat, to recognize that there may be circumstances that change the picture. And there is much more leeway granted demons than vampires, which reflects the multitude of demon types and motivations as well as the lack of a Buffy the Demon Slayer mandate.

That said, I think that there have really only been three (maybe four) vampires who have shown circumstances that cause Buffy and the Scooby Gang to respond differently.

First: Angel. Angel has a soul and as long as the soul remains, he has proven that he is not a threat to humans and therefore doesn't require slaying. Even Giles recognizes the truth of this. [All right, not Xander, but that's a different topic.]

Second: Darla, the second time. She is the only vampire we know of to be vamped twice. She has been affected by the soul of the child she carries and understands the implications of being a vampire. She chooses the final solution.

Third: Spike. Spike has the chip and cannot harm humans, therefore he too doesn't require slaying. No matter how many times Buffy has threatened to do so, she never does because she knows he no longer fits the mandate.

Fourth (and least): Harmony. Buffy simply refuses to take Harmony seriously, which is one of the few times her judgement is just plain off. What does she think Harmony feeds on anyway, plasma mochacuccino, extra foamy?

Now, I know the Watcher's Council would have very different views. Both the other slayers from Buffy's line, Kendra and Faith, had no ambiguity about the black-and-white-ness of their jobs before meeting Buffy.

I think Buffy's purpose is still to slay vampires. While she viewed Angel differently there are several possible reasons for this...he has a soul...she knew him first as cryptic guy who helped her...she was able to see him as someone who was redemmed...someone she could love. SHe never realizeds that cryptic guy was only the first step in his redemption. She sees the soul as the reason redemption is possible. This is why she refuses to acknowledge she could care for Spike...he is only mentally muzzled, not souled.

So, I would say that possible reason #1 is still the most accurate.

Article on Buffy -- DickBD, 14:58:45 04/13/02 Sat

For those of you who don't live in the San Diego area, there was an article on Buffy a while back in the local paper. It was by one of the best writers and the editor of the Book Section, which comes out on Sundays. The gist of the article was how great the show was and how difficult it was to get friends to watch it and take it seriously. He talked about the long arc of the stories and the depth of the characters, the chances that the writers took, etc.

But the really interesting part was that, not one, but two series of letters poured into the paper, many from professors and other people of intellect, telling of how they, too, watched Buffy religiously. The second group of letters was published under a heading that read "We love you, Buffy; Oh yes, we do."

Just thought you guys might be interested. This happened some months ago, but I wasn't lurking here then!

skeptisicm etc -- Soph, 16:54:13 04/13/02 Sat

I was reading through Masq’s analysis of “Normal Again” the other day and my interest was piqued by her discussion about skepticism. Since I am snowed under with homework as it is late in the semester, I thought that I would throw out some ideas as I don’t have time to develop them right now. Maybe this summer.

First, the concept of Continuity of Existence. I’m thinking this was Schopenhauer, but I could be just dillusional. The idea being that I cannot prove that somebody or something exists when I cannot see or touch it. For example, I “know” that my Mom still exists despite the fact that she is in Tucson and I am in NYC and I cannot see or touch her.

And second, in “Nausea” by Sartre, his main character Roquentin stabs his hand with a knife (or scissors or something) because he can no longer accept that he exists without solid proof. The pain he feels from the stab wounds are a proof of sorts of his existence.

Maybe more later…

[> Re: skeptisicm etc -- Slain, 18:02:07 04/13/02 Sat

It's like the cat in the box theory - which also ties in with solipsism, the idea that nothing else is real, except yourself, because you can only know what's going on in your own head. Buffy seemed to be considering this, but inverted: that everything was real, except for her. I think there's a line from the musical about that.

[> [> The Cat in the Box -- Darby, 06:29:24 04/14/02 Sun

...Not to be confused with the one in the Hat...

Unless there's more than one, the boxed cat was a simple parable of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, which does allude to reality but doesn't represent itself as philosophy (I have my doubts on that). As, on a quantum level, a particle's position and activity can't be determined, and its activity exists in all potential states until you determine it, a cat sealed in a chamber with poison is both alive and dead until you check on it. Yeah, I've never really liked it as a representation either, but it is spooky how in tests things like photons, electrons, and lately even whole atoms (on a quantum level, that's like a mountain not knowing which state it's supposed to be in, matter or energy) seem to "know" whether they're being measured, even indirectly at several kilometers' distance from the actual event. Many of the "rules" for quantum physics are very magiclike.

Do I exist or am I the detailed imaginings of one of Asylumverse Buffy's bunkmates? Does getting poked with a stick matter? (And I get poked all the time: fencer.) I still find the concepts interesting but somewhere along the way they stopped being scary.

Something thinks, therefore I am.

Until I'm not.

[> [> [> Yes, its called Schroedinger's cat -- CW, 07:32:39 04/14/02 Sun

Named after the physicist who dreamed up the senario. It is all a question of philosophy. As long as the cat is isolated from the universe it makes no difference whether it is alive or dead, except to the cat and perhaps its owners! Same thing goes for the particles, but that really disturbs a lot of people.

[> [> [> [> Re: Yes, its called Schroedinger's cat -- Soph, 07:43:25 04/14/02 Sun

Danah Zohar wrote a book titled "The Quantum Self" way back in 1990. In this book, she builds on Schroedinger's cat in that instead of determining existence, she uses the cat as a tool for decision making. Like the cat, who eats the food or doesn't eat the food, I can mentally pretend to make every choice available to me at a given time. By doing this I can imagaine the consequences of any given choice by thinking through the scenario. Presumably then, I make the best choice in reality.

Buffy in NA has to make a choice too - what is her best choice in her given situation of becoming an adult.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, its called Schroedinger's cat -- Slain, 07:59:50 04/14/02 Sun

Ah, yes, but what if the cat in the box has a walkie-talkie? I don't see any philosophers pondering that one, for some reason.

[> [> [> [> [> [> perhaps you should forward that to Jacques Derrida -- Soph, 08:21:27 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> Gee, guys hasn't anyone heard of like a "dog" in the box????;););) -- Rufus, 15:19:48 04/14/02 Sun

Read about the cat in a box and it still makes me nervous.....:):):)

[> [> [> [> I've been wondering what happened to Miss Kitty Fantastico -- Sophist, 18:57:02 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> That's just......."mean"......here Kitty, Kitty?........;):):):) -- Rufus, 20:34:06 04/14/02 Sun

It just doesn't pay to get a pet in Sunnydale, dammit!

Xander/VampXander and Willow/VampWIllow – discussion through Hell's Bells -- LittleBit, 19:02:38 04/13/02 Sat

I apologize beforehand if this topic has been done to death, but I didn't see this particular take on it.

When I first saw The Wish, I originally thought, rather naively, wow, they're really portraying Willow and Xander in the WishVerse as opposites of their BuffyVerse characters. [I admit, though, I was fitting the first five seasons into 2-1/2 months, so I was less contemplative than I am now].

As I look at that episode now, I find myself wondering if the portrayal was as opposite as I imagined. In the WishVerse, Giles and Oz are still good guys, the White Hats; Cordelia joins their ranks. Harmony and the Sheep just try to run from trouble. Angel is still there to help the missing Buffy, but in her absence he's just Puppy. The WishVerse Buffy is much more focused on the slaying, still not so cooperative with her Watcher, but surprisingly willing to accept Angel's help. The Master is evil and ascendant. Hmmm...so far not too far away from their BuffyVerse counterparts without the ascendancy.

Then there's Xander and Willow. Together. Vampires. Involved in amusing themselves and causing chaos.

First: Willow. As the seasons have changed, it seems that the VampWillow character, the over-the- top personality may just be there in our sweet, quiet Willow. The one who chooses spells that compel others to her will so that her life will be easier. Willow, who goes out with Amy, and while vehemently not wanting Amy to bring her a companion, is quite willing to mess with everyone else there to amuse herself and cause chaos. Or wait, wasn't that VampWillow? No, it's our Willow. Who is bored by the playing and wants something more fun. VampWillow: "Bored now." So maybe that VampWillow potential has always been there, and now the lure of magic is drawing it out. How far it takes her is still to be seen.

Then: Xander. As a vampire, he admires Willow. Together they kill Cordelia. She's 'betrayed' by Xander with Willow in the WishVerse just as she was in the BuffyVerse. VampXander helps Willow torture Angel, an activity that Xander would gladly have participated in on more than one occasion. VampXander chose however, after tossing his first flaming match, to just allow VampWillow to play while he watched. Not so unlike Xander, who starts out helping, then ultimately lets the others finish the work, especially when it's something he doesn't like to do. Most recently, he leaves Anya to face the fallout of a critical decision he made. It will be interesting to see whether he manages to change this tendency, or continues to leave things to other to complete.

Maybe the WishVerse wasn't so unlike the BuffyVerse after all.

Looking forward to your comments. :)
LB

[> Re: Xander/VampXander and Willow/VampWIllow – discussion through Hell's Bells -- Slain, 08:09:43 04/14/02 Sun

The Wishverse is interesting, because in vamp Willow and Xander we have the chance to see what two people would be like as vampires, having seen them on screen for ages.

It seems to me that, personality-wise, a vampire is never completely different from the human body it inhabits, so all their personality traits come from the human, as Angel (nearly) says in the 'The Wish'. It seems to me that a vampire is made up of obviously, the darkest parts of the human mind, but also the most repressed.

If you want to do a Freudian reading, you could say that the vampire personality is based upon the Id, with the Superego removed. Thus Angel acts out his hatred of his family, Willow acts out her sexuality, and Xander presumably releases all the latent coolness that was buried deep in him. Of course, without the Superego, the Id runs wild, hence the fact that vampires are evil. I think in a vampire like Spike (and to an extent Harmony), you have the Superego having more control again.

[> [> I don't know, Spike seems impulsive enough to be an Id to me, pre chip -- AngelVSAngelus, 19:44:12 04/14/02 Sun

But I guess that chipping situation creates the interesting scenario of leashing the Id with something new. I'd say Spike's lack of empathy for humanity, and thus lack of morality (what does he care if someone aside from Buffy or Dawn dies?), would indicate he's not the exemplar of Superego reassertion in vampires.
As for Harmony... personally I took the episode Disharmony to mean that even should she try momentarily to go against her Id-driven nature she'd inevitably return to the fold of evil. In other words, I took it as Greenwalt (or was it Fury writing that one? I can never remember) commenting on the Spike issue on the other show.

[> Re: Xander/VampXander and Willow/VampWIllow – discussion through Hell's Bells -- MaeveRigan, 07:41:07 04/15/02 Mon

"First: Willow. As the seasons have changed, it seems that the VampWillow character, the over-the- top personality may just be there in our sweet, quiet Willow. The one who chooses spells that compel others to her will so that her life will be easier."

I've been thinking this for a while now, and am even more convinced that Willow's "addiction to power" susceptibility has been there all along, or at least as early as season 2:

Her response when she's first offered some real dominion, teaching Jenny Calendar's computer class:

Willow: (suddenly worried) Oh, wait. W-what if they don't recognize my authority? What if they try to convince me that you always let them leave class early? What if there's a fire drill? What if there's a fire?

Jenny: (reassuringly) Willow, you're gonna be fine. And I'll try not to be too late, okay?

Willow: (calmer) Okay. Good. Earlier is good. (smiles) Will I have the power to assign detention? Or make 'em run laps?

(transcript from BuffyWorld.com)

She's insecure, but she's already thinking about "playing with the puppies"!

[> [> Re: Willow -- LittleBit, 10:33:16 04/15/02 Mon

And still in season 2 before The Wish...

Willow is the first one to consider killing Xander so no one else can have him in BBB.

Willow grrrrr-rilling Jonathan about the swim team in GF. Fearsome, scary and "I'm a different kind of cop."

[> Let me rephrase that: Parallels of The Wish and Season 6 -- LittleBit, 09:25:45 04/15/02 Mon

Let me rephrase that: Parallels of The Wish and Season 6

Sorry - shouldn't post when tired; I forgot to transform the initial stream-of-consciousness into something more coherent.

When I saw Wrecked again, I found myself thinking about the alternate Sunnydale in The Wish. Not so much about what the town was like without the Slayer, and with the Master ascendant, but how the various core characters behaved, what their respective roles were and the similarities in Season 6.

Willow: she's reveling in her power, easily bored with it and wanting more, ready to use it to gain her desires, willing to go to great excess for the thrill.

Xander: he's one of the inner circle, the group that controls what is happening, and prides himself with this position. He's not the leader, doesn't want to be the leader, but is cool with the position he's in.

Giles: he's not Buffy's watcher; indicates he's an ex-watcher. He's removed from the core of characters.

Buffy: she's emotionally isolated; focused on doing her job, doesn't need or want complications. She's the Slayer.

Other characters have had outcomes that could be considered similar, although not currently on BtVS:

Angel: souled; tortured (physically); aids Buffy; now he's gone. (Just "gone.")

Cordelia: betrayed by Xander with Willow; gravitates to the good guys, wants to help; finds herself at the mercy of powers she can't control (Vengeance; vW/vX; IRS; visions); now she's gone.

Harmony: she still concerns herself with doing what the group does; tries to be the leader but only manages to imitate what she's seen leaders do; quick to change sides so as to appear cool; goes away but keeps coming back.

[> Human/Vampire and potentialities. -- Ixchel, 18:54:52 04/15/02 Mon

I remember when I first saw The Wish (when it first aired) I thought something similar. Then in Dopplegangland when Buffy is trying to reassure Willow ("Willow, just remember, a vampire's personality has nothing to do with the person it was.") and Angel starts to comment to the contrary ("Well actually...that's a good point.") I realized that perhaps it wasn't so simple. Later, episodes of AtS seemed to confirm that what Angelus was had quite a bit to do with the person Liam was and the person Angel is.

IMHO, there is potentiality in all the characters for "good" or "evil" (as in all of us). I don't believe the vampire is an inversion of the human he/she was. Rather potentialities that were already there are actualized through the loss of a soul (conscience, tendency to moral behavior?), the addition of the predatory instincts of the vampire/beast (AtS Pylea episodes showed the demon component of the vampire as a nonsentient creature), and the intoxication of power (superhuman abilities). Also the molding influence of the sire (if present) could play a roll (example: Darla and Angelus).

I think The Wish made an excellent showing of the negative potential in Xander and Willow (and of course Dopplegangland for Willow). Who knows what would be revealed in a VampBuffy (not Nightmares version), VampGiles, VampDawn, VampAnya or even VampTara. Though we may have had hints on the first two.

One rather fascinating idea I came across once regarding VampWillow was that turning had somehow unhinged her to some degree. It does seem possible with her strange mannerisms that becoming a vampire made her a little crazy. Of course that could have been just "evil" Willowisms.

Ixchel

Next season? Buffy grey? -- ramses 2, 00:00:08 04/14/02 Sun

What do people think of Buffy becoming more grey, say in the tradition of great comic book heroes? What if Spike has been right, she belongs in the shadows with him. Not evil, neither of them are, but they both walk comfortably in the world of demons. Buffy wants to know more about her roots, the first slayer whispers 'you only think you know' and drac tells her she is rooted in darkness. well, what if she is? The watchers took a demon(slayer) and manipulated it, enslaved it. She kills those that are more closely linked to her than humans. They share a bloodlink. What if the watchers don't want Buffy to live longer, a more mature slayer could be very dangerous. Hard to control. What if what they've told Buffy is just wrong. Slayers can get pregnant just not with humans. And the sexual guilt Buffy's been carrying around about Spike and Angel? What if that is actually very natural for a slayer. She's looking for a mate. She's growing up. What if the child is taken from her by the council, a new race is born to threaten the humans, and that can't be tolerated. we would have the scoobies having to choose to save a child that could wipe them out. And Buffy must decide whether she should save a race that has enslaved hers. End of season. epic. movie time.

[> Re: Next season? Buffy grey? -- _, 13:11:42 04/14/02 Sun

Or really crappy

[> [> Really succinct? -- ramses 2, 18:02:47 04/14/02 Sun

Wow, geat debate. Thanks.

[> Re: Next season? Buffy grey? -- Robert, 22:43:01 04/14/02 Sun

>> "What if what they've told Buffy is just wrong. Slayers can get pregnant just not with humans."

Can you expand on this please? When did the WC tell Buffy she couldn't get pregnant?

[> Not sure I can agree with that ,,, -- Earl Allison, 02:52:28 04/15/02 Mon

While it has been strongly implied that the root of the Slayer's power is in darkness, the only two people to imply it were both, wait for it, vampires.

Dracula, and to a lesser extent, Spike -- both of whom have ulterior motives. Dracula wanted Buffy to be his, as did Spike. And Spike's comments are far more dubious and questionable, considering their self-serving nature, and the fact that they seemed largely untrue.

As for the Watchers not wanting older Slayers -- it's possible, but not probable. If more physical and mental maturity threatened the Council, why not execute any Slayer who survived the Cruciamentum? Clearly they would be a potential threat, and far less tractable afterwards than a fledgling Slayer of fifteen or sixteen.

Also, if the Council feared elder Slayers, why permit Buffy OR Faith to live? Both are over twenty, and neither is powerful enough to stop a bullet. They might fear them in a "we can no longer dictate to them" way, but I think that they are ostensibly on the same side, despite the general fan perception of the Council as evil and misleading.

Buffy hasn't been carrying much sexual guilt for Angel, just for Spike, and I really doubt it's due to some need to breed in her makeup. Besides, Angel's child aside (stated more than once to be unique), vampires CANNOT have children -- she'd be barking up the wrong tree if she were seeking a vampire for a mate and children -- I'd hope the dark root of a Slayer's power, if it existed, would be smarter than that.

All in all, an interesting premise, but not very probable.

Sure, there are shades of gray, but to go so far as to make the audience loathe their own kind? Not very likely, and even less likely with your scenario -- too many massive assumptions and suppositions with little support or implicated existence in the series.

There is NOTHING to date that implies that Slayers are vastly different from humans. Buffy has stayed in a hospital at least twice, where bloodwork would certainly have been done on her, and nothing odd was ever noted -- she was easily able to receive transfusions of human plasma in "Graduation Day, Part II," so any differences are extremely small, if even there.

From what I can tell, the Slayer is a normal human girl infused with magical abilities, such as enhanced strength, resilience, speed, agility, rapid (compared to baseline humans) healing, and in some cases, prophetic dreams and the ability to sense vampires. Before that, she's a normal girl -- because if she weren't, where did she come from, and what excuse would there be for the Council not finding her? Kendra's parents sent her to her Watcher (Sam Zabuto) on the likelihood that she was a POTENTIAL Slayer -- there may be ways to divine who might be a Slayer, but being non-human isn't likely one of them.

Finally, if the end of the series was indeed the implication that Slayers are part-demon (in which case, who cares about the essence of demon from "Earshot"?), that would undermine the entire concept of the prior six seasons -- again, possible, but not probable.

Take it and run.

[> Re: Next season? Buffy grey? -- Mystery, 07:14:44 04/15/02 Mon

What if the Slayer is a form of Daywalker? That would be interesting. So would a Buffy/Blade crossover fanfic. Does anyone know of any? If so I'd love the URL!

Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- Sympathy for the Devil, 00:45:59 04/14/02 Sun

After all she has declared a genocidal war against non humans.

She should have a trial.

[> Re: Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- Apophis, 01:33:26 04/14/02 Sun

Screw nonhumans. They come over here, take all our jobs, marry our daughters, and ruin the country! Not to mention the blood drinking, sacrifices, murder, destruction, possession, and kareoke.

[> [> Re: Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- Rufus, 04:20:19 04/14/02 Sun

Kareoke????? That deserves the stiffest of penalties.

[> [> [> Let 'em get away with kareoke, and next they'll be doing mime. -- CW, 05:59:38 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> And "nobody deserves mime". -- Ixchel, 21:32:14 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> Re: Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- LittleBit, 06:01:32 04/14/02 Sun

Only if Angel sings. :D

But it seems unfair to charge the only soldier in the war without the Generals. After all, the Watcher's Council has definitely declared that Buffy is no more than their expendable tool. The council, of course, being the indispensable ones, having clocked, mmmmm...how much field time?

LB

[> [> [> [> Re: Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- Slain, 08:17:00 04/14/02 Sun

You have to catch the ringleaders - and don't believe any of this "I was just following orders, trying to save humanity from complete total destruction and protect fluffy bunnies everywhere" crap. ;)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- LittleBit, 08:58:36 04/14/02 Sun

Well, of course. Because, as we know, bunnies can really take care of themselves. ;)

[> Re: Should Buffy be charged with War Crimes? -- Malandanza, 07:32:36 04/14/02 Sun

"After all she has declared a genocidal war against non humans."

Buffy didn't declare war on non-humans -- in fact, she was drafted into fighting the war. Furthermore, the war isn't one of genocide. Buffy reacts to the vampires and demons, she kills the ones that demonstrate that they are dangerous to humans. The harmless ones get to live -- hardly genocide.

Is Buffy's war a just war?

There are five criteria which must be met prior to initiating hostilities (ius ad bellum): Proper Authority, Just Cause, Just Intent, Last Resort and Reasonable Hope of Success. There are two additional criteria which must be met during the prosecution of the war (ius in bello): Discrimination and Proportion.

Does Buffy have the Proper Authority to fight vampires? Well, there is that whole "one girl in all the world...sacred duty...yadda, yadda, yadda." If you believe that the slayer receives her powers from the mysterious forces of good, then you don't get much more Proper Authority than being their hand- picked sacred warrior. If you believe that the source of Buffy's power lies in darkness, Buffy's case become more like that of a vampire: vampires kill like tigers -- it's in their nature. A slayer forged from darkness as a vampire hunter would fall into the same category -- she hunts vampires because it is her nature to so. In this case, there is no war -- only the law of nature. She is the predator, the vampires are her natural prey.

Just Cause: Well, "a lot of dead people" constitutes a Just Cause.

Just Intent: Buffy's intent is not to exterminate all vampires and demons. She fights for humanity, not against demons. She reacts to excesses committed by the vampire and demon populations. Fighting to save lives constitutes Just Intent.

Last Resort: Buffy is weakest in this area. She doesn't negotiate with her enemies to try to resolve their differences. However, since it is not Buffy who initiates the hostilities, she is typically too busy trying to survive to offer her bloodthirsty adversaries counseling. Certainly, the demons and vampire who wage war on humans fail in this regard -- violence is the first resort for them.

Reasonable Hope of success: If Buffy's goal were to rid the world of every single vampire and demon, she would fail. But she's fighting to preserve lives -- a goal that she has accomplished time and time again.

During the prosecution of the "war" against demons and vampires, Buffy has shown discrimination -- just ask Spike, Clem and all the demons who hang out at Willy's. She doesn't kill every demon that crosses her path -- only the ones that pose a threat to human life.

And she maintains a sense of proportion -- when three demons try to end the world, she doesn't respond by killing all demons in Sunnydale as and object lesson -- she kills those responsible. If a demon or vampire is killed by Buffy, chances are pretty good that they deserved it -- she conducts surgical strikes against her enemies; there is not much collateral damage.

I'm not sure the conflict between Buffy and the vampires and demons counts as a war -- the demons and vampires seem more like terrorists (when they're organized) or criminals (when they're not) than soldiers. But if you chose to regard the conflict as such, Buffy is the one with right on her side. If you want to put anyone on trial for war crimes, try the vamps and demons -- I'm pretty sure eating POWs violates the Geneva Convention.

[> [> Clever answer to stupid question... -- grifter, 08:47:35 04/14/02 Sun

...consider me amazed!

[> [> Well done Malandanza. -- Sophist, 09:09:45 04/14/02 Sun

Once again, someone has taken a sow's ear post and converted it into a silk purse. Nice.

[> [> Excellent! I would add that... -- Eric, 10:45:14 04/14/02 Sun

According to western tradition dating from when kings stopped independent warlords from conducting feuds, only nation state can declare a state of war. Buffy is not a soldier or agent representating a nation state. The Watcher's Council does not qualify as such. So she cannot initiate hostilities qualifying as war. As such Buffy is immune to any war crime charges. As a free agent she and the Council could be charged with multiple felony homicides. However, no laws in the United States recognize the legal status of demons and vampires. At best most government authorities would condone and encourage Buffy's actions. At worst a judicial review would probably construe them as self defense or justifiable homicide - with a new sub catagory for saving the world. Plus at no time did Buffy describe a genocidal intent or conduct herself in a manner that indicated such.

[> [> No. -- Truth, 14:09:37 04/14/02 Sun

Malandanza you are so right.

Actually a comparison can be made to what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians.

After all the Israelis are only reacting to the bombing of their citizens, just like Buffy is only reacting to the killing and sucking of the blood of Sunnydale citizens.

In both cases it's a war of defense. A war for survival. Buffy and Sharon really doesn't have a choice in this matter. You can't sue for peace when your enemy is hell bent on the destruction of your race.

[> [> [> Bad analysis -- JMC, 14:38:54 04/14/02 Sun

The enemy they are going after is not the same as the ones who are doing the bombing. The Palistinains and Hamas and the other radical Muslum sects are joined by religion, but that is about it. Blaming Yasser Arafat and the Palistianians for Hamas extremeists putting bombs on themselves is absurd.

[> [> [> Really bad comparison -- Buffyboy, 15:01:01 04/14/02 Sun

Whatever one thinks of the current situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the very idea of implicitly comparing the Palestinians to vampires and demon is truly astonishing. My! My! My!

[> [> [> [> Re: Really bad comparison -- Slain, 15:52:00 04/14/02 Sun

Don't even get me started on how ignorant that comparison is, both politically and in terms of BtVS.

[> [> [> [> [> You see?!?! This is what happens when those lines of morality are blurred... -- AngelVSAngelus, 19:37:21 04/14/02 Sun

Now you have people questioning the morality of Buffy the VAMPIRE SLAYER killing them and saving the world. I swear, grayness will be the end of all...

[> [> [> [> Re: Really bad comparison -- Truth, 19:53:08 04/14/02 Sun

Actually the effect they have on the respective societies are quite similiar. The homicide bombers create terror within Israel by randomly killing Israeli citizens. The Demons and Vampires create terror by randomly killing Sunnydale citizens. Both Buffy and Sharon realize that the aim of the enemies they fight is the destruction of their people. Both Buffy and Sharon are sworn to protect their people, and therefore must do what it takes to eliminate their foes before their foes eliminates them.

For both Buffy and Sharon defeat means death not only to them personally but the elimination of their people. Therefore it's a fight for survival. There really isn't a choice for them not to fight, for their enemies don't recognize their right to exist.

You can't negotiate with enemies whose aim from birth is to kill as many of your kind as possible. Buffy can't make peace with the demon world. For peace goes against their very nature.

[> [> [> [> [> Lets nip this in the bud.... -- Eric, 20:14:57 04/14/02 Sun

The whole Middle East dilemma will NOT be solved by posters on this board. What it WILL do is explode this thread all over the board. Which this "truth" person probably hopes to do. (What kind of person has the gaul to use such a moniker on a philosophy board anyway?) Regardless, he expressed his opinion. So let it go.

[> [> [> [> [> [> What makes you think I'm a he? -- Ms Truth, 20:49:24 04/14/02 Sun

I have to agree with AngelVSAngelus. "Gray" will be the destruction of our society. We are getting to the point where we see everything as relative, without any sense of right or wrong. This will make us indecisive, and our society will unravel because of it.

If we can't agree that Buffy saving humanity is a good thing, where do we go from there?

People exist within a certain context. They are born at a certain time, in a certain place, living in a certain society. We can't be so detached as to become ambivalent, especially over matters of our own survival.

Perhaps in one sense the world is "gray". From a distance. But we must live it in Black and White. In a very practical sense there is a right and wrong, good and bad. We can't live in gray for gray will consume us.

Perhaps from a Demon/Vampire perspective Buffy's acts are 'evil' (from their worldview). But as a human being I am quite glad Buffy is out there protecting me from them.
I am not a vampire or a demon. I am a human. So for me the human perspective is the only one that really matters.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What makes you think I'm a he? -- Ruth, 23:38:23 04/14/02 Sun

Only one person suggested Buffy was in the wrong, the person who posted the question. And they were just being extreme to get a reaction.
Obviously there is grey in the real world. Do you think that America has acted without reproach and all Afganastans(sp?) are evil? If not then welcome to the grey! Both sides in war usually have valid complaints.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What makes you think I'm a he? -- Ms Truth, 00:41:15 04/15/02 Mon

After 9-11 I can't believe you asked such a question.

I stand by the statement that grey will destroy our society. When we have lost all ability to discern right from wrong, we really don't have much of a chance left.

Everything isn't relative. Especially to the people living it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What makes you think I'm a he? -- Ruth, 01:36:21 04/15/02 Mon

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying I disagree with the war or anything. I'm just saying that there is always shades of grey. As far as Afganastans (sp?)are concerned America is bombing their country and saying killing innocent people is an acceptable risk. Just as Bin Laden thought that American lifes could be lost for him to make his point. It's all about perspective.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What makes you think I'm a he? -- Ms. Truth, 06:16:35 04/15/02 Mon

"I am not a vampire or a demon. I am a human. So for me the human perspective is the only one that really matters."

It really isn't a matter of perspective. It's a matter of determining what's right and wrong and then going from there.

Fuzzy morality will produce indecisiveness.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There is a difference between *indecisiveness* and achieving a balanced perspective. -- OnM, 07:37:08 04/15/02 Mon

I normally avoid these kinds of discussions, because as someone aptly stated above, the posters on this board (or for that matter any other) aren't going to solve the Middle East Crisis.

However, since it does not appear to me that Mr/Ms Truth is a troll, I would like to point out to him/her that there is one flaw in the logic being applied that might be considered.

Your equating of 'fuzzy morality' with 'indecisiveness' is incorrect. While the misapplication of the former can lead to the latter (and often does) the two terms are not synonymous. We are dealing with cause and effect, and seeking to balance desires and goals to achieve the best possible outcome is not indecisiveness, it's just a normal part of decision-making. It is only indecisiveness when it become suspended at the consideration point, and never evolves into any actual action.

Indecisiveness is thus a condition marked/defined by inaction. What is referred to as 'fuzzy morality' is in my experience the situation that arises when there is no clear, simple answer to a difficult moral action. The Buffyverse abounds with these types of scenarios, which after all is a primary reason this board and website exist.

Buffy is often momentarily indecisive, or inactive, but the condition does not persist. Eventually she will balance out the pros and cons and definitive action ensues. The action may be correct or not. If the result was not correct, she will usually take additional action to try to bring about a more correct solution.

The universe, and the morality that resides in it because of the presence of sentient beings such as ourselves, is too complex to exist in black and white. Statements to the contrary, IMO, are usually made by individuals who have never had personal experience with such difficult moral choices, or if they have, they deferred the decisionmaking to another party (person, holy book, etc.) so that they don't have to deal with the consequences if the solution turns out to be incorrect.

This is pretty much the situation in the Middle East, in my opinion. Each side has legitimate grievances, but the solution is indecisive expressly because each is avoiding responsibility, and shifting it onto external 'causes'. Unless both the Israelis and Palestinians are willing to compromise-- accept that neither will always have everything that they want-- and stop talking about the black and white 'holy war' each is fighting-- the conflict will never be terminated.

'Grayness' and 'fuzzy morality' are not only not the problem here, they are the only practical solution, short of the complete extermination of one group by the other. Most of the rest of the civilized world has no interest in the latter scenario, and I rather doubt the Israelis and Palestinians do either.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent -- Rahael, 07:48:13 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Exactly. Thank you -- lachesis, 14:57:21 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> bravo! (don't completely agree with all details, but enough to respect and appreciate the post!) -- yuri, 00:48:57 04/16/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lets just...Throw gasoline on the flames! -- Eric, 05:53:31 04/16/02 Tue

Here I was trying to keep this Middle Eastern topic from exploding all over the board. Trying too hard, it appears. So like a zen story I provided the opposite reaction. And Truth is not a he or a she. Truth is Truth. As for assuming the poster was a he, well, my bad.

[> [> [> [> [> Call it a day for Truth -- Buffyboy, 03:41:33 04/15/02 Mon

The Truth has spoken. Mr. Truth has shown us the way. (Let’s give him a nickname… oh, say… Mr. T; that’s short and to the point.) And then let’s say, rather than us, Mr. T has shown Buffy the way. The next time she’s out patrolling, Buffy needs to make sure she grabs the vamp’s ID before she stakes’em. That way she can eliminate the vamp’s entire human family as well. After all, apples don’t fall far from the tree, and what reason is there to believe that a family that’s produced one vampire won’t produce another? A day will then surly come when Buffy realizes that families aren’t enough and that it’s the entire human population of Sunnydale that needs to be eliminated. For isn’t it the case that it’s far more likely that an inhabitant of Sunnydale will become a vampire that an inhabitant of say, Bethlehem? On that great and Glory(ous) day we can all in unison exclaim: Call it a day for Buffy!… or rather: Call it a day for Mr. T!

[> [> [> [> [> Well one might as well compare Sharon to the Mayor -- Charlemagne20, 14:16:21 04/15/02 Mon

I mean after all you have a very straight laced upper crust man at the head of an army determined to wipe out a civilization that has absolutely no way to defend itself against the modern weaponry (or in the Mayor's case supernatural) at the availability of his forces.

The suicide bombers are commiting horrible crimes against innocent civilians but then you've got to ask yourself do they have any other method of fighting the super-technological forces of Sharon?

It's easy to become an apologist for terrorists when you disregard what rules man has set on war. Of course the biggest irony of all is making war in the beggining is a violation of the most sacred creed of them all.

I furthermore will not make a comparison to the Buffy show any more about such issues. I won't attempt to trivalize any more the struggle by claiming there are good and bad people in the struggle. Israel has attacks on them seemingly every day and they respond by randomly killing large amounts of people with bullets and advanced weaponry.

That's my take on it

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks for bringing up points about available weaponry, an important element to keep in mind. -- yuri, 00:51:42 04/16/02 Tue

[> Unlikely, Buffy is fighting well within the rules of warfare -- Charlemagne20, 14:19:47 04/15/02 Mon

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is indeed fighting a war against the Vampire and Demon Nations but she is not in any way bringing harm to their civilains and furthermore all vampires and demons are tresspassing on the property of the Earth which can be construed as an act of invasion.

These rules are of course ridiculous because War is about winning and it's already a horrible violation of one's most precacious credo-the right to life.

War crimes requires absolutely brutal actions against a group that cannot fight back or have any chance of doing so

Question on Passion -- Purple Tulip, 11:49:04 04/14/02 Sun

I watched "Passion" again last night, and just had a quick question---does anyone know what Opera that was playing in the background when Giles found Jenny? I didn't know if it had any significance to the plot, or if they chose it for a reason---or maybe it means nothing, but either way I was just wondering if anyone had any insight.

[> Re: Question on Passion -- Cactus Watcher, 11:55:29 04/14/02 Sun

La Boheme by Puccini

[> [> Thanks:) -- Purple Tulip, 14:34:54 04/14/02 Sun

[> "Passion" and Puccini -- Akita, 14:41:01 04/14/02 Sun

"Passion" and Puccini

I don't know much about philosophy, which is why I have largely lurked on this board for several months. I do, however, know quite a bit about opera. So here is part of an explication of the opera music in "Passion" that I prepared for a private list (fans of both BtVS and the works of the author Dorothy Dunnett). Hope it makes some sense.

"Music, the knife without hilt," says Lymond to Philippa in Dorothy Dunnett's CHECKMATE (probably quoting someone else). One of the things I most love about BtVS is the skillful, often artful, way music is used not only to complement, but to add depth to various scenes. And indeed, if you pay attention, it often cuts like a knife. Of course, we can usually understand the words of the songs that play behind the scenes . . . .

Yesterday evening, I finally got a chance to tape "Passion" -- the S2 episode when Angelus kills Jenny Calendar. I ended up watching it several times. Each time I grew more intrigued with the opera music playing in the scene where Giles arrives at his apartment. As a true opera fanatic, I knew the music, of course; it is "O soave fanciulla," a particularly glorious moment in Puccini's ultra- Romantic, enduringly popular "La Bohème."

However, opera is not something with which I would expect the typical (be there such a thing) BtVS fan to be very familiar. And, sure enough, when I checked the shooting script, it says merely: "Giles hear MUSIC - SOMETHING SOFT AND ROMANTIC - coming from an album on his TURNTABLE."

So why choose an opera selection that few will understand? And why that particular opera? Well, Giles (as we learn through the course of the series) is passionate about music (many kinds of music) - - and he surely loves this recording, because the record sounds as if it has been played often. That seriously repressed Giles, who intellectualizes nearly every event in his life, would love something as lush and Romantic as this opera obviously tells us something about him -- or at least affirms what we have already suspected. That Angelus would choose this recording as the backdrop for his sadistic little play also says something about his own cruelty and the twisted nature of his definition of passion. For the passion expressed in the opera scene is a world away from passion as Angelus understands it; it is the innocent passion of first love: it's all trembling first kisses, lovely girls bathed in moonlight. (In the opera, Mimì -- a poor and frail young seamstress (we learn later that she is actually dying of consumption) -- has just met the struggling young poet Rodolfo in his moonlit garret in 19th-century Paris; after telling each other a bit about themselves they realize they are falling in love.)

Here's the way the music in the scene plays out (English "translations" taken largely from William Weaver's translation of the libretto; some from my copy of the complete score).

Earlier in "Passion", Giles and Jenny have begun to mend the break between them; Jenny in fact has said, obviously for the first time aloud, that she loves him. He is expecting to see her later that night, and undoubtedly has some romantic fantasies of his own as to how the evening will turn out (only we the audience know that Jenny is already dead). As this scene opens, we see him walking down the stairs to his apartment. As he comes to the door, he sees a beautiful, long-stemmed, red rose attached to it -- and we can now hear the music swell. It is a tenor/soprano duet:

Rodolfo : Fremon già nell'anima/le dolcezze estreme (repeated 3 times)/Nel bacio freme amore [Already I taste in spirit/The heights of tenderness/Love trembles in our kiss]
Mimì: Ah! Tu sol commandi, amor! Tu sol commandi, amore/Oh! Come dolci scendono/ Le sue lusinghe al core . . .[You rule alone, Oh love!/How sweet his praises/enter my heart . . .]

(During this, GILES tenderly pulls the rose from the door, smells it, smiles, and opens the door, hopeful, but perhaps still fearing to expect too much, because we begin to hear a breathless, slightly awkward exchange between the two lovers. . .)

Mimì: . . .Tu sol comandi, amor! [Love, you alone rule.] (Rodolfo kisses her. She pulls back.) No, per pietà! [No, please.]
Rodolfo: Sei mia! [You are mine!]
Mimì: V' aspettan gli amici . . .[Your friends are waiting . . .]
Rodolfo: Già mi mandi via? [You send me away already?]

(During this, GILES enters his apartment a bit hesitantly, calls out for Jenny, hangs up his coat, looks around, sees the wine, roses, and note, and walks toward them.)

Mimì: Vorrei dir . . .ma non oso . . . [I daren't say . . . what I'd like . . .]
Rodolfo: Di'. [Tell me.]

(On the words "Di'/Tell me", GILES opens the note and reads -- "Upstairs." The conjunction of the words and the act made me gasp when I first heard it.)

Rodolfo to Mimì: O soave fanciulla, o dolce viso/Di mite circonfuso alba lunar [Oh, lovely girl! Oh, sweet face/bathed in the soft moonlight]

(On these lines, GILES glances upward toward the bedroom, smiles sweetly, nearly joyfully, and with great expectation grabs the wine and starts toward the stairs.)

Rodolfo: In te ravviso il sogno . . ./Ch'io vorrei sempre sognar! [I see you in the dream . . ./I'd dream forever!]

(GILES climbs the stairs, sees Jenny on his bed, but only when he arrives at the bedroom door does he realize she is dead. As the champagne bottle drops from his hand, shattering on the floor, we hear Mimì and Rodolfo sing ecstatically:)

Ah, tu sol commandi, amor! . . . [Ah! Love, you rule alone! . . .]

Oh, twist the knife. And then twist it one more time, because later as Giles leans against the wall, as Jenny's body is removed, we hear Mimì, alone, sing that line one more time: "Ah! Love, you rule alone! . . ." Then the soundtrack goes briefly totally silent, as the police bring Giles irrevocably back to what happened:

POLICEMAN: Mr. Giles, I need to ask you to come with us . . .

GILES (still dazed): Of course . . . . .yes . . . .procedure.

And lest you still think this is all coincidence, the music has been altered. Although it sounds seamless, in fact the first part we hear (from: "Fremon già nell'anima" to "Di'") in the scene actually comes at the end of the aria/duet in the opera and indeed comes in again in its proper place at the end in the TV scene itself.

-Akita-

[> [> Re: "Passion" and Puccini -- Purple Tulip, 14:51:59 04/14/02 Sun

WOW!!!! Thanks so much Akita- that really brought it altogether for me. I knew that there must be a reason that they chose that particular aria- and knowing this now makes that scene so much more sad and dramatic.

[> [> [> Re: "Passion" and Puccini -- thanks and one more thought -- Akita, 14:59:45 04/14/02 Sun

Thanks, I'm glad it was of help. It also just occurred to me that, assuming he deliberately chose that music, Angelus was probably mocking Angel's "affair" and one night of love with Buffy.

-A-

[> [> [> [> Great post, Akita! -- Rahael, 15:08:12 04/14/02 Sun

Here's another opera fan! (and of Dunnett as well!).

Though La Boheme is an opera I am not yet very familiar with. I'm working my way through - started listening properly two years ago.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post, Akita! -- Soph, 15:36:50 04/14/02 Sun

Wonderful post! I am also an opera lover. Favorites include "Turendot" and "Tosca" by Puccini, "Rigoletto" and "Aida" by Verdi.

[> [> [> [> Another thank you. You increased the power of that scene, and my admiration for ME, enormously. -- Sophist (as distinguished from Soph), 18:53:36 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Ditto! Thanks Akita. -- ponygirl, 08:30:22 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Wonderful post, Akita. -- Ixchel, 19:16:05 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> I second the 'great post'! -- Slain, 15:55:20 04/14/02 Sun

[> [> Never take a 10year old to an Opera -- Rufus, 20:58:18 04/14/02 Sun

Thank god someone knew what that was all about. I have been to exactly one opera and that was "La Boheme". First I ended up at a fancy eating place where they didn't even know what a hamburger was and sold us a hamburger patty with some other stuff that kids don't eat, then they charged us too much for a glass of soda. It was bad enough I had to wear Sunday going to Church stuff(another place that put me to sleep while making me uncomfortable), but no one told me what the heck was going on. All I heard was this woman screeching at the top of her lungs for way too long....mom told me she was dying, I just said not the way she's doin it. Then the part where Mimi is frail and dying of Consumption....the lady I saw was sleek and well fed...how was I to know she was sick....;) Then I get seated next to a big man who snored and mumbled through the whole thing. For me (who couldn't sit still for 10 minutes) it was torture. I'm glad you can tell me what was going on and know what was left out.....cause I never went to another Opera again. I did however like the Ballet....enough to go once.

As for why Angelus used the music he did. I would say to choreograph the discovery of Jenny's body for the most impact. To have Giles feel hopeful of a tender reconcilliation with Jenny, only to find her twisted body. Angelus went for the big pain. It was a way to get to Buffy through her friends. It almost seemed that it didn't occur to him that the Librarian would come after looking for some vengeance. For Angelus it was all about Buffy, but having her in a way that he was under control, he sought to use the same technique he did on Dru, make her crazy...but Buffy wasn't Dru. And Giles wasn't just a Librarian. I found it funny that Angel made the remark to Cordy that when he killed as a demon it wasn't personal....cause this was about as personal as it gets.

[> [> Bravo Akita! That's what's so great about this board... -- Dichotomy, 12:30:42 04/15/02 Mon

There are so many people with different areas of expertise, interest and involvement that I always learn something new. Very cool!

[> Wher to find translation of Puccini lyrics -- Buffyboy, 14:45:39 04/14/02 Sun

If you go to www.buffyguide.com, under the Episode List-Seacon Two, you'll find a translation of the Puccini that is heard in Passion.

If you are bored:A little bit of fun(Totally O/T) -- JCC, 13:14:46 04/14/02 Sun

I am currently working on my website: So I took the page "older & Far away" and used babblefish on Alta Vista to translate it to french. I then translated it back to Engish. I thought some of you might like a laugh so here it is:

Episode 14 Of Season 6 Writing by: With drawn Z Greenberg Directed by: Michael E Girshman

Older and far far

Synopsis: We join Buffy in Cemetary combatant a large red monster. After defeat of him, it brings it is sword at the house. The paddle goes to the mall which harms. It comes to the house with a ton from new clothing, any flight. The day following to the school, paddle is called at the office of new the councelor of councils. Hallie indicates that it is worried about the categories of the paddle. The paddle indicates that it is alone and wishes that it could stop people leaving. The night of the anniversary of Buffy, Sophie, a girl of the palate of Doublemeat arrives with a friend of Xander, Richard, that Anya hopes to install with the killer. The transient appears then, with his/her Clem buddy of poker of demon. Buffy decides to open it present. The paddle gives him a leather jacket which it stole, with the label always of safety on. Buffy forgets the jacket when Xander presents a new trunk of weapons. Apart from the house, the councelor Hallie of councils is transformed into Halfrek and indicates the "granted wish". The whole stay of group the night. The next morning, they try to leave but cannot. The willow indicates that it kept some of its magic things. Tared gathers them to make a charm. The charm releases the demon that Buffy thought had killed. Anya requires that the willow make a charm to release them. The willow indicates not and Tared Anya threat while it continues to try the willow.

Tared: It the aforementioned not, and here. You will not incite it to do something with which she does not want. And if you test... You will have to pass by me initially. Included/understood? Storms of Anya in the room and research of the paddle of the indices. It finds many things flights of the magic box. The paddle indicates to the group about the councelor councils. Anya realizes what continues and gathers Halfrek. The demon of "justice "said to the scoobies to which point the insulated paddle was. It tries to leave but held behind by its own charm. It raises the charm releasing each one of the house. Buffy decides to remain at the house with the paddle.

[> Insight to the meaning of Dawn ;) -- LittleBit, 13:29:05 04/14/02 Sun

So. Dawn is the paddle. Perhaps she was sent to Buffy as the scourge of her existence, the one who disciplines Buffy into growing up.

I wonder what insights might be uncovered with German? ;)

[> [> Insight to the meaning of Spike ;)...The transient? -- JCC, 13:45:32 04/14/02 Sun

[> Re: If you are bored:A little bit of fun(Totally O/T) -- Purple Tulip, 14:44:03 04/14/02 Sun

The paddle and the transient---sounds like a really messed up children's story! And did it refer to Buffy as "the killer"? hmmmm....interesting! Try some other languages....German, Spanish, Italian.

[> [> In German-not nearly as funny -- JCC, 15:05:35 04/14/02 Sun

Episode 14 of the season 6 past written: Z Greenberg drew past
referred: Michael E. Girshman
Older and far away
Synopse we connect fighting in the Cemetary large red monsters for
Buffy. After it defeated it, it gets it is the head blade. Dawn goes
to the night to the Mall. She comes home with a ton of new clothes,
quite stolen. On the next day at the school, dawn is designated to
new guidance councelorbuero. Hallie says that her around degrees of
the dawn one ensures. Dawn says that it is lonely and requires that
they leave people stop could. On the night of the birthday Buffy,
Sophie, a girl of the palace Doublemeat as well as a friend of Xander,
Richard arrives, which Anya hopes to set up with the Slayer. Point
represents then above, with its Daemonpokerfreund Clem. Buffy decides
to open it gifts. Dawn still gives up to it a leather jacket, which
stole it, with security label. Buffy forgets over the jacket, if
Xander represents a brand-new weapon box. Outside of the house
guidance makes councelor Hallie Halfrek and says " the granted desire
". The complete group stay the night. The following morning, they do
not try, to go however to be able. Pasture uncovers that it held some
their magic things. Tare collects it, in order to do a spell. The
spell releases the Daemon, which Buffy thought that she had
terminated. Anya requires that pasture do a spell, in order to
release it. Pasture says that No. and tare threaten Anya, while it
continues provoking pasture.

Tare: It mentioned No. and those is it. They are not gonna let it
somewhat do, them not too require. And if you try..., They are gonna
must me first pass through. Understood? Anya in space and in
searches of the dawn for reference points storms. She finds a
quantity of things, which are stolen by the magic box. Dawn explains
to the group over guidance councelor. Anya carries out, which
continues and Halfrek summons together. Scoobies explains that to the
" justice " Daemon, how lonely dawn was. It tried back to go however
through their own spell to be continued. It raises the spell, which
releases to everyone of the house. Buffy decides to remain with dawn
head.

[> [> [> Re: In German-not nearly as funny -- leslie, 18:32:05 04/14/02 Sun

Interesting that none of these languages seem to be able to determine the gender of "Buffy" (or "Slayer"?) and continually call her "it."

I still don't get how "dawn" turns into "paddle." What exactly does the sun *do* as it comes over the French horizon???? And "spike" = "transient"? Even if it's assuming that were talking about a common rather than a proper noun, isn't the whole point of spikes that they *prevent* things from wandering?

[> [> [> [> It's an electrical term; a transient surge in voltage is called a spike. -- CW, 19:38:46 04/14/02 Sun

I've got no explanation for paddle however. ;o)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: It's an electrical term; a transient surge in voltage is called a spike. -- leslie, 19:56:28 04/14/02 Sun

But surely that is a secondary definition of a spike. Why does Babelfish choose that one?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Beats me! ;o) -- CW, 06:40:29 04/15/02 Mon

When I was teaching Russian and assigned essays, I always told the students, that when they looked up words into Russian, they needed to look up the words they found back into English to make sure they made sense. It's a lot of work, but a human can do it. A computer has no chance.

Actually, technical stuff translates the easiest, so technical meanings often get pushed 'forward' in the dictionary.

[> [> That was oddly philosophical. Also, Korean is good. -- Slain, 15:58:26 04/14/02 Sun

[> Re: the paddle! lol -- Valhalla, 22:28:09 04/14/02 Sun

Does Buffy act like she is like only one really fighting the good fight? -- zombie, 15:40:24 04/14/02 Sun

Buffy may be the chosen one but their are others out there too fighting. Angel, his crew and we have seen other warriors of good and champions too.

[> Re: Does Buffy act like she is like only one really fighting the good fight? -- LittleBit, 16:52:24 04/14/02 Sun

I think Buffy is quite aware that others are fighting the good fight with her. The aspect that sets her apart is that she is the one who cannot stop fighting the fight. All the cliches apply to her. She is the Chosen One. It is her Destiny. She has the Sacred Duty.

No matter who else is in the fight with her, she remains isolated from them by this. While she has choices about the small things in her life, she doesn't have choices about what her life will be. She will always be the Slayer. She is the one who doesn't make long term plans, because she's the least likely to be around to realize them. She has only limited ability to be proactive about her life, because the nature of her duty is to be reactive.

At her age, many of us were still in college, being encouraged to think about a five year plan. She can't make a five year plan...how can anyone plan a life when tomorrow there may be another Master, another Glory?

So, I think that while Buffy may seem like she thinks she's the only one fighting the good fight, what she really feels is the she is the only one who has to fight it.

[> [> Was going to responond but LittleBit said it best -- jbb, 17:26:34 04/14/02 Sun

OT but chock full o' philosophical funniness -- The Second Evil, 17:17:51 04/14/02 Sun

Find the original at http://icemcfd.com/wayne/sartre-cookbook.html... or read it here:

The Jean-Paul Sartre Cookbook
by Marty Smith, Portland OR

from Free Agent March 1987 (a Portland Oregon alternative newspaper), Republished in the Utne Reader Nov./Dec. 1993

We have been lucky to discover several previously lost diaries of French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre stuck in between the cushions of our office sofa. These diaries reveal a young Sartre obsessed not with the void, but with food. Apparently Sartre, before discovering philosophy, had hoped to write "a cookbook that will put to rest all notions of flavor forever." The diaries are excerpted here for your perusal.

October 3
Spoke with Camus today about my cookbook. Though he has never actually eaten, he gave me much encouragement. I rushed home immediately to begin work. How excited I am! I have begun my formula for a Denver omelet.

October 4
Still working on the omelet. There have been stumbling blocks. I keep creating omelets one after another, like soldiers marching into the sea, but each one seems empty, hollow, like stone. I want to create an omelet that expresses the meaninglessness of existence, and instead they taste like cheese. I look at them on the plate, but they do not look back. Tried eating them with the lights off. It did not help. Malraux suggested paprika.

October 6
I have realized that the traditional omelet form (eggs and cheese) is bourgeois. Today I tried making one out of cigarette, some coffee, and four tiny stones. I fed it to Malraux, who puked. I am encouraged, but my journey is still long.

October 10
I find myself trying ever more radical interpretations of traditional dishes, in an effort to somehow express the void I feel so acutely. Today I tried this recipe:

Tuna Casserole
Ingredients: 1 large casserole dish

Place the casserole dish in a cold oven. Place a chair facing the oven and sit in it forever. Think about how hungry you are. When night falls, do not turn on the light.

While a void is expressed in this recipe, I am struck by its inapplicability to the bourgeois lifestyle. How can the eater recognize that the food denied him is a tuna casserole and not some other dish? I am becoming more and more frustated.

October 25
I have been forced to abandon the project of producing an entire cookbook. Rather, I now seek a single recipe which will, by itself, embody the plight of man in a world ruled by an unfeeling God, as well as providing the eater with at least one ingredient from each of the four basic food groups. To this end, I purchased six hundred pounds of foodstuffs from the corner grocery and locked myself in the kitchen, refusing to admit anyone. After several weeks of work, I produced a recipe calling for two eggs, half a cup of flour, four tons of beef, and a leek. While this is a start, I am afraid I still have much work ahead.

November 15
Today I made a Black Forest cake out of five pounds of cherries and a live beaver, challenging the very definition of the word cake. I was very pleased. Malraux said he admired it greatly, but could not stay for dessert. Still, I feel that this may be my most profound achievement yet, and have resolved to enter it in the Betty Crocker Bake-Off.

November 30
Today was the day of the Bake-Off. Alas, things did not go as I had hoped. During the judging, the beaver became agitated and bit Betty Crocker on the wrist. The beaver's powerful jaws are capable of felling blue spruce in less than ten minutes and proved, needless to say, more than a match for the tender limbs of America's favorite homemaker. I only got third place. Moreover, I am now the subject of a rather nasty lawsuit.

December 1
I have been gaining twenty-five pounds a week for two months, and I am now experiencing light tides. It is stupid to be so fat. My pain and ultimate solitude are still as authentic as they were when I was thin, but seem to impress girls far less. From now on, I will live on cigarettes and black coffee.

[> This is hilarious! Thanks! -- Rahael, 02:02:23 04/15/02 Mon

why does Buffy like cheese? (some spoilers through S6) -- leslie, 19:54:58 04/14/02 Sun

When Riley has decided that he is interested in Buffy, he asks Willow for insight into Buffy's likes and dislikes, and Willow (with a certain amount of reluctance) tells him that Buffy likes cheese. So Riley offers her cheese cubes at a party. Not a big deal--hey, I like cheese--except, it occurs to me, the only other time we've seen Buffy want to eat cheese cubes is the time Amy turns her into a rat (when Xander's love spell goes awry). Rat-Buffy is just about to nibble on a cheese cube in a trap when she is turned back into a human. Did this cheesey-desire stick with her through her transformation?

We tend to interpret these little touches as indication of the writers' ability to tie the whole span of episodes together through small bits of self-referentiality that remind us that this is a continuous universe (like the reference back to Marcy, the invisible girl from high school, when Buffy gets zapped by Warren's invisibility ray). But I kind of wonder whether there isn't some hint here about how the Buffyverse works and why magic is so dangerous.

The most obvious example, of course, is Willow's "my will be done" spell that makes Buffy and Spike fall in love. When the spell is reversed, Buffy is appalled that she was actually, truly in love with him; Willow comments "at least you guys were getting along;" and Buffy says "But we weren't, we were still fighting." (paraphrase). Isn't this exactly what has happened in their real, nonmagic relationship? What if this is not a foreshadowing, but actually a result of the spell--the spell established a pattern that continued to operate after the spell's overt power was neutralized?

Willow seems to have been under the impression that her light-hearted magics were harmless because they were reversible. She and Amy can go to the Bronze and turn someone into a giant, dancing strawberry and when she turns them back to human, there's no memory, no repercussions. What if that person has now turned into a raving strawberryoholic? What if the guys they turned into go-go dancers have dropped out of school and are now working at Chippendales? It doesn't matter whether these changes in their lives are good or bad or neutral--the point is that there *is* a repercussion from being magicked against your will or knowledge. (What if the Summerses had a genetic predisposition to high cholestrol? A serious cheese addiction could have real health consequences!)

Obviously I am being at least partially facetious here, but there seem to be hints that these spells do not so much foreshadow later events as actually cause them to happen. In which case, Willow is responsible for the current state of the Buffyverse far beyond simply resurrecting Buffy. And if Buffy''s fondness for cheese is a holdover from her brief rat incarnation, then the repercussions from spells are also completely unpredictable. And that is what makes magic dangerous.

[> Very intriguing. Excellent idea. -- Sophist, 20:04:28 04/14/02 Sun

[> ...and don't forget about the "man with the cheese" in Restless! (NT) -- Veronica, 20:07:19 04/14/02 Sun

[> That's brilliant -- dream of the consortium, 07:00:28 04/15/02 Mon

I am so glad I dropped in here today. I was thinking, "Why bother? No new episodes, nobody will have anything interesting to say." But I did, and this is my reward.

I would love to see Willow figure that out, her academic, analytical side coming out as she researches what magic is. One would think someone with her sort of mind would be inclined to think about the nature of these sorts of things, particularly if she is struggling with an addiction. Can't you imagine Willow at her books, suddenly putting things together? And then more, and more? Until she becomes aware of the astonishing impact a single person can have, for good or bad, in completely unintentional ways. And as it is with magic, so it is with life.

[> And Buffy cheese sandwich (some spoilers through S6) -- truelove, 09:59:21 04/15/02 Mon

In one of the earlier episodes Buffy had a college dorm roomate - the roommate had everything tagged and was extra neat, but she was also stealing Buffy's life. Her demon family had to come and take her back.
Then end of the episode she had a cheese? sandwich and it shows Willow (as the replacement of the flawed roommate) picking up Buffy's sandwich and taking a bite. Buffy's eyes narrow in disapproval. That might be how Willow knows that Buffy liked cheese.

[> [> Living Conditions -- CW, 10:18:10 04/15/02 Mon

Also in the ep, Buffy mentions "Sid, the Wily Dairy Gnome," who is I think, the inspiration for the cheese-guy in Restless.

[> [> [> These may explain how Willow *knows* Buffy likes cheese, but do not explain *why* she likes cheese! -- leslie, 11:06:23 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> cheese -- Purple Tulip, 11:47:45 04/15/02 Mon

I still think that it must be from when she was a rat back in season two. I mean, honestly, why else would she be so fond of it? There wasn't a time before she was in rat-form that she said that she liked cheese. Unless cheese has some deep philosophical metaphorical meaning that I am just not aware of.

Although, I do think it's interesting that when Willow brought Amy out of the rat life, she was adamant about wanting anything BUT cheese. So could Buffy's love for cheese and Amy's disdain for it be significant of something greater about who they are? Or is my mind just overheating because it's like a 100 here??? ;)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: cheese -- Ahira, 18:31:41 04/15/02 Mon

Amy was a rat for quite a while. Maybe she really, really wants to have something different. Buffy never got to really indulge in the cheesiness while being a rat so has the unfullfilled feeling still. Fun line of thoughts.

[> Very interesting idea. Consider the spell in Primeval. -- Ixchel, 17:43:07 04/15/02 Mon

Obviously, something happened during the Primeval spell that later allowed the aspect of the First Slayer to enter the dreams of those involved. Also, the dreams were "shared" in a sense because events of one dream had reflections in the next. Xander sees Willow gasping in his dream, Giles sees wounded Xander and Willow in his dream, and Giles expresses awareness of their predicament in both his and Xander's dreams. The dreams would seem to indicate that their joining was not completely severed at the conclusion of the spell. If so, perhaps Giles, Xander and Willow would not have been able to recover in any real sense from Buffy's death because they were still joined. This could explain why Giles needed to leave, as an evasive reaction to the pain. Why Xander could not move forward with his life. And why Willow was so sure Buffy was suffering somewhere. I just realized however, that Buffy's perception of heaven completely negates my little wild theory (extended from your idea). To align with my theory she would have needed to feel something was wrong or missing, even in heaven. Oh well.

Getting back to your example, would the after-effect of Willow's will-be-done spell for Giles be that he can't "see" that Buffy still needs her mentor since returning from the grave? And for Xander it is the demon-fest that was his non-wedding? Of course an after-effect is not _necessary_ to explain these situations.

Regarding Buffy and Spike, IMHO, an after-effect of the will-be-done spell is not necessary either to explain their attraction (their personalities and previous events are enough). It is certainly possible though.

Really interesting post.

Ixchel

[> [> Re: Very interesting idea. Consider the spell in Primeval. -- skeeve, 09:30:14 04/16/02 Tue

Ixchel: "And why Willow was so sure Buffy was suffering somewhere. I just realized however, that Buffy's perception of heaven completely negates my little wild theory (extended from your idea). To align with my theory she would have needed to feel something was wrong or missing, even in heaven."

Not necessarily. We don't know that Buffy was in heaven, just that that is what she remembers. Buffy's memory has been messed with before. Also, Buffy's description seemed fishy to me. I don't mean that she lied, just that her description didn't make me think of heaven.

[> [> Buffy's perception of heaven (up to Normal Again) -- LittleBit, 10:13:07 04/16/02 Tue

I'm not so certain you do negate yourself. Buffy's first description to Spike indicated that "I was happy. At peace" That she knew everyone she cared about was all right. "Time...didn't mean anything...nothing had form...but I was still me, you know? And I was warm ... and I was loved ... and I was finished. Complete." "I think I was in heaven."

Just to keep things in the appropriate ambiguous perspective, this could well be a description of the AsylumVerse in NA. No cares, no duties, both her parents telling her how much they love her. Nothing that she had to do. If she had imagined herself back in LA with her parents, living a normal life, there would still be expectations that she grow up, go out on her own, get a job, etc. And she knows how terribly difficult she found that. By seeing herself where she did, she placed herself in one situation where no one expects anything she won't give.

But no one finds herself in a (what appeared to be secure) room in a psychiatric ward who is not in suffering in some way. So Willow may not have been wrong.

I think it's possible that the AsylumVerse was Buffy's way of countering the renewed pain of living. "Everything here is ... hard, and bright, and violent. Everything I feel, everything I touch ... this is Hell. Just getting through the next moment, and the one after that ... (softly) knowing what I've lost..." To see herself as completely isolated, emotionally, mentally, physically from all stimulus may be the heavenly opposite of the bombardment of her real world.

[quotes from Psyche's Transcriptions]

[> [> [> Re: Buffy's perception of heaven (up to Normal Again) -- leslie, 11:20:56 04/16/02 Tue

"And I was warm ... and I was loved ... and I was finished."

Just like a pizza covered with melty mozarella?

I think the aspect of magic causing later reactions that was really striking me, in terms of the cheese, is that the aftereffects are unpredictable. Buffy could just as easily have retained a desire to gnaw things from her rattiness--Amy seems to have some kind of leftover interest in her wheel (is she at home running on a treadmill now?).

In fact, Amy may be the best example of magical repercussions we have. She seemed pretty darned anti-magic when she was the victim of her mother's spell; she did not seem to have any notion of magic (she says something like "My father called her a witch; I thought it was just a metaphor"). Yet after her mother is gone, and indeed after she has had first-hand experience of the negative effects of magic on others, she goes on to become a witch herself. You could argue that she is an abused child who grows up to be an abuser--that certainly is one subtext--but the mere ability to *do* magic seems to have been actually created by her mother's possession of her body.

[> [> [> [> Unintended consequences. -- Ixchel, 19:24:26 04/16/02 Tue

leslie, really fascinating idea. Amy's situation could definitely support your theory. of course, other explanations are possible (as you point out), the seductive nature of power or maybe a hereditary magical ability? The idea of her mother's possession leaving a "residue" makes the events of TW even more sinister though.

Could Willow's resouling spell have had after-effects on both her and Angel? Perhaps Willow was left with a tendancy to extreme magic or to manipulating people through magic? Or even a hunger for vengeance (as the intent of the spell was originally revenge)? Could the fact that Willow did the spell with no intent of vengeance (unlike the gypsies) have modified Angel's soul and curse? Of course, other explanations are possible (Willow's personality, etc.).

Your theory certainly reinforces the idea of magic as wild, unpredictable and dangerous in nature.

Ixchel

[> [> Thanks, skeeve and LittleBit, for entertaining my strange idea. -- Ixchel, 18:39:27 04/16/02 Tue

skeeve, considering all that had happened to Buffy to that point, perhaps it is understandable that her perception of "heaven" would be _different_. If the asylumverse is Buffy's contruct of heaven, then it could possibly also numb her to any sensation of strain on the (postulated as an after-effect) bond with Giles, Willow and Xander. If heaven to Buffy (at this point in her life/death) was isolation from all stimulus (as LittleBit says), then any emptiness felt (spiritually?) at being apart from Giles, Willow and Xander perhaps would not be noticed? But for Giles, Willow and Xander the sensation of spiritual amputation may have been acute? Perhaps Willow, as the "spiritus" part of the spell, felt this most intensely?

Regarding Buffy's perception of heaven, one of the more intriguing ideas (which I believe was posted here) is that her heaven was the moment she was falling through the "mystical energy" (TG). So that her awareness ends before she hit the ground and begins again when she "awakened" in her coffin (with no actual memory of where her "essence" was in the interim). It seems at least possible from TG and her description of heaven. While she was in the energy her faced changed to an expression that could be described as peaceful. She knew everyone was all right because she had saved them all. Her perception of time could have been distorted by the energy (time didn't mean anything, but seemed like longer than 147 days). Her senses could have been overwhelmed by the energy so that all she felt near the end was warmth. Maybe she felt love because of all the love she had for Dawn, the others and the whole world. Her sense of completion would have come from feeling that her death had meaning and in her last moments she was more than "just a killer after all". It's a fascinating idea (IMHO), I wish I remembered whose it was.

Ixchel

Will Dawn ever be able to trust her sister again (Spoilers up to Normal Again) -- Keyester, 20:35:20 04/14/02 Sun

Dawn knows that her sister was sick. She understands that.

However, this whole reality thing hit awfully close to home her. After all when she was doubting her own reality, Buffy was always there and and insisting that she was real.

And then, she said she wasn't real. Just a illusion. Again Dawn knows Buffy was hallucinating, or was she? I think to Dawn, the idea that she might be just one of Buffy's hallucination could subtly creep into her mind and stay there. And during her weaker moments, she could entertain that possiblity. After all what does make more sense? Being a mystical key or a sick girl's hallucination?

Add to that the physical trauma that occured. No bones were broken or anything serious like that, but to have your sister do what Buffy did to Dawn is going to have some impact. It won't be on the surface. On the surface Dawn understands, but don't tell me that every time that Buffy walks into a room, Dawn isn't going to uncontrollability feel some fear. Yes, she knows Buffy was sick, and yes she knows that Buffy won't hurt her, but the response is almost instinctive. After all, her sister tried to kill her. You don't just get over that, no matter if you understand that she was sick, and you try to be understanding, the feeling of your sister almost killing you will always be subconciously in your mind.

Dawn is going to work hard to try to make "everything better". She loves her sister and doesn't want to fear or distrust her. But the subconcious doesn't comply as much as we would like.

Dawn will probably be Super Dawn, in her attempt to make everything normal. Her plea "Please, Buffy I will be good", reminds me of an abused child blaming themselves for their parents bad behavior towards them. It was really the saddest part of the episode. While on the surface level, Dawn will try to be understanding towards Buffy, knowing that it wasn't her fault, there is no getting around that regardless of the reason, the bonds of trust have been broken between Dawn and Buffy, regardless of how much Dawn tries to keep "everything normal."

Dawn will have a hard time getting rid of her fear of her sister. This instictive fear can't just go away by wishing it to. It's simliar to Pavlov's dogs. Or like people who have been through wars feeling fear everytime a plane goes by even though on a surface level they know the plane poses no threat to them. Dawn will fear Buffy, and that will effect their relationship, no matter how much Dawn tries to be understanding. And now Dawn will be really alone in this world, with no one she can really rely on anymore.

[> Re: Will Dawn ever be able to trust her sister again (Spoilers up to Normal Again) -- Jonathan, 21:08:18 04/14/02 Sun

I thought that too. The whole issue of "being real" does hit way too close to home for Dawn.

I was a little surprised when Dawn told Buffy she was real. But of course that was when Buffy was trying to kill her thinking that Dawn was a hallucination.

Dawn might question her own reality, but when her life is threatened her instinct to survive takes over. She may not know if she is real, but regardless, she wants to live.

[> [> real =/= real -- skeeve, 12:55:09 04/16/02 Tue

I think that two different meanings of real were being used. Dawn knows that she is real, i.e. that she actually exists, but she doesn't know that she is real, i.e. actually what she outwardly appears to be. Dawn is real in the first sense, but not in the second. Whether Dawn is even human depends upon the precise denition of human.

[> Very good point. (Spoilers up to Normal Again) -- truelove, 09:22:03 04/15/02 Mon

I would imagine that in time, and many acts of kindness on buffy's part to Dawn, that it would heal things eventually. Just the same, the show has done a very good job at showing how miserable Dawn feels.
When Buffy was burried, there was Dawn with the Buffybot.
Buffy is all the family she has and vice-versa, but Buffy's friends appear to be more sustaining than any Dawn has.
And Buffy had a lover for most of the season, had a terrible job, and still had to squeeze in her slaying duties, Dawn had more time to feel neglected. I think trust will win out though because she knows Buffy would have died to save her.
Very good point.

[> [> Re: Very good point. (Spoilers up to Normal Again) -- Keyster, 00:06:49 04/16/02 Tue

"I think trust will win out though because she knows Buffy would have died to save her."

Again on the surface Dawn would want to trust Buffy. But having your sister try to kill you is a very tramatic experience. Something you can't just use reason to shake off. She "knows" Buffy loves her. But she can still feel the trauma of having her sister attempt to kill her.

I think the best comparison is people who have been in wars now feeling fear every time a plane goes by. They "know" that the plane isn't going to bomb and hurt them. But they have a fear reaction nonetheless.

Dawn will want to trust Buffy, and be understanding. But every time Buffy walks in the room, Dawn will remember the trauma and involuntarily feel fear of her.

We're linked to in "Slayage"! -- Masq, 10:51:25 04/15/02 Mon

Sorry, I'm just excited. Actual academic Buffsters have a link to the ATPoBtVS site on their new website location (www.slayage.tv)! They didn't link to me at their old site.

But, O.K., "Philosophical meditations on BtVS"? Would you describe me (or us here at the board) as "meditative"?

[> Congrats Masq! -- ponygirl, 11:18:12 04/15/02 Mon

Though really it's shocking that they didn't have the link before.

[> Can just mean careful thought -- Vickie, 11:42:30 04/15/02 Mon

Meditation can just mean close and careful thought on a subject. So, read that way, it's a compliment.

[> Re: We're linked to in "Slayage"! -- MaeveRigan, 13:27:42 04/15/02 Mon

Yay! And I'll take a little credit for pointing out that ATPoBtVS needed to update the Slayage link! ;)

Certainly ATP can be described as meditative. Also thoughtful, friendly, and occasionally silly. The best Buffy and Angel board going, for my money (except the one I run, of course).

[> And I know a site you also can be linked to. :-) -- Sloan, 13:46:13 04/15/02 Mon

If you know what I mean. :-)

[> Re: Congratulations -- Dedalus, 15:29:39 04/15/02 Mon

[> More congratulations, Masquerade! -- Ixchel, 16:55:49 04/15/02 Mon

[> Hmm. I've always considered this site to be more "frollicking" than "meditative." -- Ian, 20:31:54 04/15/02 Mon

Congratulations, Masq.

[> still better than "ruminations" .... moooooooooooo. -- Solitude1056, 21:32:42 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> O.K., now I'm seeing Drusilla in "Redefinition" -- Masq, 11:43:49 04/16/02 Tue

"Cow eyes. Big and black. Moooooooo."

[> Congratulations, Masq !! -- ravenhair, 10:26:34 04/16/02 Tue

[> Ignorant me didn't know about this site - thanks for alerting me! -- Caroline, 13:05:01 04/16/02 Tue

Just found some fabulous articles there, but I must admit that the quality of discussion on this site is fabulous, so the link is more than deserved. I notice that a lot of the articles on slayage.tv go over a lot of the same stuff I've been reading in the archives - kudos to ATP contributors!

Buffy, Eros & Psyche I: The marriage to the monster -- Anne, 11:32:12 04/15/02 Mon

We've had some posts on the parallels between Buffy and the Persephone myth, but it's occurred to me that that's not the only myth featuring a heroine who goes to the underworld. There is also the Eros and Psyche myth. At first glance, it doesn't seem at all comparable to the Buffy storyline -- to identify an evil vampire with Eros, for instance, seems on the face of it ridiculous. But after thinking about it some more, and especially after looking at Erich Neumann's fascinating "Amor and Psyche" essay and its companion translation of the Apuleius version of the myth, I think a comparison of the two is actually illuminating. And since this is silly season and it will be a few more weeks before they throw more fresh meat between the bars of our cages, I thought this might be a good time to post some thoughts on it.

The first obvious point to mention with regard to possible parallels is Psyche's name. In English, it can be variously rendered as meaning mind, soul, or spirit; in terms of the mythology of the Buffyverse, the most applicable interpretation is probably soul. In this context, it seems to mean integrity, a clear moral compass, a commitment to good -- all of which are qualities Buffy is taken to represent.

But love seems to be a different matter. Despite the words of the First Slayer about Buffy's great and shining love, the truth is that throughout most of the series -- and especially of course Season 6 - - she has been out of touch with that quality. She has trouble being intimate even with her beloved mother and sister; repressed, withholding, expressing herself better through quips and irony than through any direct signs of emotion or affection. Her willingness to make sacrifices -- like dying in place of her sister -- indicate her depth in this area -- but these are depths that she has cut herself off from.

Meanwhile, Spike is somebody who, though soulless, is capable of all-encompassing, openly expressed, and even selfless love for at least one other person. Buffy's task, it could be argued, is to get together with her own capacity for love; just as Spike's task, figuratively (please, ME, not literally), is to acquire soul. But of course, soul finding love and love finding soul is just what the myth of Eros and Psyche is all about.

To take the myth point by point, it starts as follows:

Psyche, a maiden of surpassing beauty, starts to be worshipped by men as a second Aphrodite. The latter flies into a jealous rage and sends her son, Eros, to destroy Psyche, specifically by having her be consumed by passion for "the vilest of men". After consulting the oracle at Apollo, Psyche's father ties her on a mountaintop to be in effect a sacrifice to this monstrous consort. However, when Eros comes, instead of wreaking his mother's vengeance on Psyche, he wafts her off to his own enchanted palace in the mountains, where he visits her as her lover, but only at night under cover of darkness.

Let's note first of all that neither the figure of Aphrodite nor that of Eros in the myth corresponds to the sweet, watered down representations of romantic love we find on Valentine's Day cards. Both figures hark back to the earlier stages of religious development in which gods or goddesses, like Kali, are sometimes represented as carrying love in one hand and death in the other. We should take seriously the fact that Eros inflicts love like wounds, with weapons. Aphrodite in this myth is the "Great Mother" archetype: in Apuleius' version of the myth she refers to herself as "the first parent of created things, the primal source of all the elements". But the "Great Mother" may also be the "Terrible Mother", carrying within itself not only nurturing but destructive elements. In her jealous and vengeful dealings with Psyche, whom she attempts to destroy because men have started to worship the latter's beauty, she shows the dark, devouring side of passion. Eroticism, fecundity, birth, and death, at this level are all entwined together in a preconscious, undifferentiated way.

Her son Eros, meanwhile, is clearly a Trickster figure: mischievous, spiteful, dangerous, feared even by Zeus: "that wicked boy, scorner of law and order, who, armed with arrows and torch aflame, speeds through others' homes by night . . . and all unpunished commits hideous crime and uses all his power for ill". I have argued before, and think it's fairly clear, that Spike is such a Trickster figure: acting directly out of libido and impulse with very little in the way of conscious intervention, at least at the beginning of his journey. (By the way: gods of love or fertility seem frequently also to be trickster figures -- viz Kokopeli, the Southwest Indian fertility/trickster god who went from one village to another seducing the village maidens and leaving them pregnant. And whose statue was just incidentally thrown out of Buffy's house along with Willow's magic paraphernalia in "Gone.")

One reason I initially thought that the "Amor and Psyche" myth was completely irrelevant to Buffy is that there is no character corresponding to Aphrodite. But does there have to be? Remember, Spike is "Love's Bitch": his actions compelled by her bidding "working its will" within him. Like Eros, he can be seen as love's emissary -- keeping clear that by "love" here we mean the type of confused, bivalent, nurturing/destructive force represented by Aphrodite in the Eros and Psyche myth.

When Spike first comes to the Slayer, he comes in effect at the behest of his obsession with killing her -- but as has often been observed, that is already for him a fundamentally erotic preoccupation. Angelus says "to kill this girl, you have to love her". For Spike, to begin with, it's just the opposite. To love this girl, he has to kill her. But like Eros in the myth, his mission at some point becomes transformed: he falls in love with the girl, and spirits her off into the darkness, away from her friends and family, where he makes love to her under cover of night.

But what about Buffy? In what way, other than the previously discussed significance of the name, is she related to Psyche? I would have to say that the issues of beauty, or being worshipped by people, or incurring the jealousy of the gods, are completely irrelevant in Buffy and are simply a case of the comparison breaking down. But there are other parallels. Psyche's loveliness sets her apart to such an extent that though all admire her, none woo her; similarly, Buffy's special calling and special gifts have impaired her ability to form any lasting relationship with a man. Psyche's father consults with the oracle of Apollo as to what to do with her, and the oracle decrees that she be tied to a crag as, in effect, a sacrifice to propritiate the gods. A special fate has been picked out for both these women, and the patriarchal hierarchy -- in Buffy's case, the Watcher's Council -- decrees that she shall be a sacrificial lamb, holding off the destruction of the numinous powers from the rest of mankind.

In Psyche's case, this sacrifice is viewed as being a marriage to a supernatural monster. "Hope for no bridegroom born of mortal seed, But fierce and wild and of the dragon breed". It is also interesting that Psyche accepts her fate heroically: "Lead me on and set me on the crag that fate has appointed. I hasten to meet that blest union, I hasten to behold the noble husband that awaits me. Why do I put off and shun his coming? Was he not born to destroy all the world?" The parallel with Buffy is not entirely obvious -- and yet, isn't it possible to see Buffy's mission as Slayer as being, in part, just such an appointment with the powers of darkness? Buffy is surely, in some way in a ritual relationship with the powers of chaos and death.

We now come to a part of the myth which seems at first to be a definite divergence from the Buffy story: it looks at first glance as though the myth is saying that Eros disobeyed orders, that instead of providing Psyche with a monster husband, he substituted himself, a beneficent and divine being. And there is no way to argue that when Buffy gets together with Spike (much as I love him), it is with a beneficent and divine being.

The key here, I think, is that Eros at this stage of the myth is himself the monster foretold by the oracle. At least in the Apuleius version of the story, there is absolutely no point at which it is said that Eros relents regarding his mission of vengeance on his mother's behalf, or that he sees Psyche, pities her, and decides to substitute for the monster. On the contrary, the narrative goes without pause or comment from the point at which Psyche is seen as being sacrificed to a monster at Aphrodite's behest, with Eros as her agent, to the point at which she is spirited off to his palace.

One can infer that Eros is rebelling against his mother's wishes both from the secrecy that subsequently attaches to the relationship, and from Aphrodite's anger later when she finds out what has been going on. But in terms of the structure and meaning of the mythic narrative, it seems fair to interpret Eros as still being, in a symbolic sense, in monster mode at this point in the story. Not only has he been introduced as the "wicked boy" of the above quote -- without his character having undergone any subsequent development -- but in his liaison with Psyche he hides her away from his mother and peers, sees her only at night, only in secret, and by implication largely for sexual purposes. The relationship certainly corresponds to many other tales of irresponsible and ultimately destructive divine dalliance with mortals, but not with any kind of depiction of good or noble love.

This stage of the relationship, during which Psyche dwells in Eros' palace, being with him only at night, unable to actually see him, and in a secrecy that is without any type of communal sanction or ties, is passionate and highly eroticized but still immature: blind, inarticulate, irresponsible, incomplete. As Neumann has it "Psyche's existence is a nonexistence, a being-in-the-dark, a rapture of sexual sensuality which may fittingly be characerized as a being devoured by a demon, a monster. Eros as an unseen fascination is everything that the oracle of Apollo has said of him . . ." Buffy's descent into the underworld of her passionate but twisted sexual obsession with the monster Spike, which takes place both literally and figuratively in the darkness, is a clear parallel to the first stage of the Eros and Psyche myth.

End Part I

[> Buffy, Psyche and Eros II: The Wounding -- Anne, 11:35:21 04/15/02 Mon

Here's where things start getting sticky in terms of drawing parallels, among other things because in the Buffy storyline we start moving to the (to me) loathesome "As You Were" episode. I must admit, though, that much as I dislike this episode for reasons I have discussed elsewhere, I do think in certain ways it carries out the Eros and Psyche mythical narrative.

During the next phase of the myth, Psyche starts to feel isolated from her friends and family and becomes lonely. Thus, when her sisters try to find her she implores Eros, despite his warnings that it could destroy their happiness, to let her see them and talk to them. These two unpleasant characters, when they meet Psyche, become jealous of her obvious wealth and happiness, and attempt to destroy it by turning her against her lover. They tell her that because he won't let her see him, Eros must be a monster. They therefore suggest that she conceal a lamp and a knife in her chamber, light the lamp while he is sleeping to see if he is in truth a monster, and then if necessary kill him.

Psyche lets herself be moved by their persuasion, more willing to see Eros through their eyes than through her own, and though conflicted -- "in the same body hating the beast and loving the husband" -- lays her plans to follow their suggestions. In BtVS, of course, there are no sisters. But there certainly are friends from whom Buffy feels the relationship isolates her, and she certainly is terribly, terribly concerned with what they will think about it. And of course at least some of them -- Xander and Riley come to mind -- would be happy to come up with any device to separate her from any relationship with Spike.

Now comes the turning point of the myth: the wounding. Here again there are features that are not at all parallel in the two works, however there are other critical points that are shared. And frankly, I think we'll need to wait to see more episodes in order to tell in truth just how closely (if at all) the two narratives are tracking.

What has to happen for Psyche and Eros, soul and love, to break out of the primitive libidinous relationship in which they have been engaged and to achieve a mature, spiritual love? Or, as Neumann puts it, they must go from experiencing "love only in the darkness, as a wanton game, as an onslaught of sensual desire in the willing service of Aphrodite" to "a travail of the personality, leading through suffering to transformation and illumination".

According to the myth, they have to be wounded and separated, and for a while pursue their individual paths to healing. In the Greek myth, this happens when a bit of burning oil from Psyche's lamp falls on Eros, burning him. At the same time, Psyche pricks herself on one of Eros' arrows -- and truly falls in love for the first time. "So, all unwitting, yet of her own doing, Psyche fell in love with Love". In a sense, then, although before this she has certainly had a sensuous infatuation with Eros, it is only after this double wounding, brought on by her own betrayal, that Psyche falls in love. Eros, however, upon waking up wounded and seeing that she has disobeyed his command never to try to see him, flies off to his mother's house to tend to his wound.

The Riley-inspired search to prove Spike's monstrousness, and the grenades thrown into his basement and the brilliant explosion they produce, give us a kind of version of the wounding with the lamp oil at the envious sisters' instigation. However, there are some big differences here. It isn't Spike who leaves, it's Buffy. And she certainly doesn't give any evidence of falling fully in love with him at this stage; quite the contrary. Nor is there a physical wounding on either side.

But in terms of the overall structure of the myth I do think it's possible that future Buffy episodes could prove to carry it out. What is crucial is not so much whether there is a physical wounding, or whether Buffy falls in love at the particular instant of wounding, but that the incident creates some kind of hurt on both sides which provides the impetus for the journeys that lead to their eventual reconciliation. And hurt was certainly created on both sides, as we know from the "Hell's Bells" dialogue. Whether the future paths of Buffy and Spike parallel those of Psyche and Eros remains to be seen.

End part II

[> [> Buffy, Psyche and Eros III: Where do we go from here? -- Anne, 12:02:09 04/15/02 Mon

What exactly would we expect to see in future episodes if the Buffy narrative more or less plays out along the lines of the Eros and Psyche myth?

Well, first of all, we would expect Spike to take himself off for a while, either literally or figuratively, to heal his wounds. Since we don't have a parallel in Buffy to Aphrodite or her abode, there's no particular physical place we would expect him to go, or person we would expect him to go to. But in a figurative sense, going home to his "mother" love might mean to have him regress a bit into the darker, less conscious, more devouring aspects of love -- being obsessively jealous, angry, even violent. I'm personally a Spike redemptionist and don't particularly want to see a Spike-is-evil storyline, but one might expect a bit of a regression according to this scenario before he could move forward again.

Buffy, to follow in Psyche's footsteps, would initially still be running away from her issues with love, just as Psyche initially flees Aphrodite's wrath. But Psyche eventually realizes she can't run any more and faces up to Aphrodite, accepting a series of tasks from the latter in the hopes of eventually winning back Eros' love. To me the episodes after "As You Were" show Buffy still running; how long we'll see that go on there's no way to tell. But to carry out the myth, we would not only see her undergoing certain trials next season (which we know she will do, win lose or draw), but also see that some of those tasks are done more or less explicitly for the sake of love.

The climax of the myth comes with the last trial, when Psyche is sent to the underworld to retrieve a casket containing the beauty of Persephone, queen of the underworld. She manages to get the casket, and even to bring it up to earth -- but then blows it. She can't resist opening it to get some of Persephone's beauty in the hope's of winning Eros back again. But once released, this potent elixir reduces her to death-like unconsciousness. It is only now, at the very end, that Eros finally rouses himself and flies to her aid. He wakens her from her coma, and realizing that he is no longer willing to do without her, goes to Zeus to plead his case. Zeus overrides Aphrodite and makes Psyche immortal. She joins Eros in the pantheon of the Gods, and they have a child named Voluptas, which is to say, joy or pleasure.

This ending seems a bit annoying. After being the one to do all the hard work, Psyche needs to be bailed out by Eros, who so far hasn't been doing much other than lolling around at Mommy's house. And her error, to make matters worse, seems to come out of pure vanity. But if we pull back a bit I think it's possible to take a different perspective. The point here may not be so much that Psyche wants to be beautiful for her lover, as that, given that she is human and he is divine, she feels she needs to partake of something trans-mortal in order to be united to him; something, worse, that comes from the realm of death itself and that she therefore is risking her life to expose herself to. Thus even this mistake is a gift and a sacrifice she makes for the relationship, and is what finally enables it to become whole. Per Neumann:

"By her failure . . . Psyche has repaired precisely what was undone by the act that drove Eros away. On that occasion, impelled by something that appeared to her as hatred, at the risk of losing Eros she "made light"; now, impelled by a motive that appears to her as love, she is prepared to "make darkness" in order to gain Eros. And it is this situation . . . that gives Eros the possibility of encountering her again on a new plane, as savior and hero. In sacrificing the masculine side which, necessary as it was, had led to separation, she enters into a situation in which, by her very helplessness and need of salvation, she saves the captive Eros."

What could this mean in terms of a Buffy plot, supposing the Eros and Psyche myth were to actually play out (I consider the odds to be about 100-1 against)? Well, she's died too many times already for them to do another death, so they'd have to find another way to signify a trip to the underworld -- but around the Hellmouth there are plenty of other ways to present that imagery. In addition, according to this scenario it would not in the end be a matter of Spike getting a soul or becoming human or whatever in order to become a suitable mate for Buffy. It would mean Buffy taking some kind of great risk to become a suitable mate for Spike. (That's obviously not to say that Spike doesn't need to progress from where he is now to be a suitable partner for Buffy; just that that would not be the focus of a single, final, decisive event).

Lastly it would mean that Buffy would finally, finally, finally, succeed in not only facing her own darkness, but in actively seeking it and taking it consciously and deliberately into herself. I don't see it happening in a million years, but for what it's worth, there it is.

One final point: there's been some speculation that the "you're glowing" comment in Hell's Bells might mean Buffy is pregnant. I personally would reach for the barf bags if that were true, but I must reluctantly concede that it would be consistent with this myth. Psyche is actually already pregnant at the time of her breakup with Eros.

[> [> [> Very interresting -- Etrangere, 13:08:51 04/15/02 Mon

I merely wanted to add to your brillant theory this two little things :

- If I remember correctly the light that Psychee used to see who her husband was came froma candle and she woke Eros with the hot wax. That reminds me of Wrecked : "Someone should learn you how to use candle in foreplay"

- Brief compareason between the name Psychee and Sophie, both indicates wisdom and a wisdom we can relate to the knowledge of good and evil.
One can wonder if the same can apply with Clem (Clemency) and Eros, but the similitude isn't as good I think.

[> [> [> [> Re: Very interresting -- Anne, 13:46:42 04/15/02 Mon

I've seen the story told both with hot wax, and with lamp oil -- the Apuleius version I was using happens to use lamp oil. However, the imagery is similar enough that I'm not sure it makes a difference -- and the parallel with "Wrecked" is interesting.

[> [> [> Great post! I was wondering... -- Dichotomy, 13:13:57 04/15/02 Mon

The parallels you point out are very compelling. It almost seems to me though, that the roles have been switched at this point in the season, with Buffy as Eros, and Spike as Psyche.Buffy has never admitted to being romantically in love with Spike, and she is definitely removing herself from him. Spike, on the other hand, has repeatedly subjected himself to more than one test or trial--allowing Glory to torture him rather than revealing Dawn's identity, taking a beating from Buffy to stop her from turning herself in to the police, helping the Scoobies after her death despite the fact that they often deride and exclude him, etc. It seems that it would be more in character for him to be willing to go through another trial of some sort to win her love, even though he has backed off at present. What do you think?

Also, have there been other instances where characters in the Buffyverse have paralleled the behavior of a figure in a particular myth, then switched to another mid-story arch? It seems that I read a post here making such a claim in regards to another myth; I could most definitely be wrong.

[> [> [> [> Re: Great post! I was wondering... -- Anne, 13:40:42 04/15/02 Mon

I'm not sure whether there are Buffy characters who have switched mythical roles in just the way you describe -- but what does seem to be the case is that Joss loves having Buffy and other characters take roles opposite from what we might expect, whether with regard to myths or not. "I Only Have Eyes for You", reshown the other night, is an example -- one would expect Buffy to have been possessed by the ghost of the female teacher; but in fact she was possessed by the male student. Joss seems to love pulling that kind of stuff, especially if he can get a gender switch out of it.

So yeah, I would think that's a possible with regard to the "Eros & Psyche" myth.

[> [> [> [> [> Maybe that was the example I was thinking of. Thanks! -- Dichotomy, 15:11:52 04/15/02 Mon

[> [> [> Re: I'm gobsmacked! And would stress... -- Dead Soul, 17:09:17 04/15/02 Mon

the function of the Scoobies as Psyche/Buffy's family meddling in what is none of their business (if only demonstrated in Buffy's fear of their disapproval). That's a big reason why I so often want to smack Xander this season!

Wonderful, wonderful post and not a word too long.

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [> Thank you Anne! That was great -- Rahael, 18:36:46 04/15/02 Mon

I read Apuleius quite recently, so that story was fresh in my mind; and it really does have startling parallels, though I do agree, that Joss plays around with these narratives. He may take the idea, and use it for his own purposes.

Going slightly off topic, I remember another tv show which used the Psyche/Eros story, in a much more light hearted way. It was the episode of Frasier where he starts dating a supermodel. The supermodel can only go out with him if he doesn't tell anybody. Though he's dying to boast to everyone, he can't because he might lose her. So he resorts to taking a secret photo of her while she sleeps - she wakes, and storms off. That particular scene was titled 'Psycho' which I thought was delightfully witty, referencing two different narratives at once! Suggesting that Frasier was mad, a Pscycho to risk losing this woman; and also suggesting that he was a male version of Psyche. The scene of Eros carrying Psyche away was depicted as a airplane journey.

[> [> [> Brilliant! -- Caroline, 07:14:18 04/16/02 Tue

So happy that the day I checked in, I found this wonderful piece on the Board. As the main proponent of the Buffy/Persephone parallels, I must admit that one of the unsatisfying things about the myth is that it does not really tell us how Kore integrates her darkness and becomes Persephone and Hades does not seem to have to do too much to win/deserve her - at least, the details of it are very unclear in the accounts I have read. So, it's wonderful that you found s