April 2003 posts

Previous April 2003  

More April 2003

More literary Buffy references -- ponygirl, 09:26:20 04/07/03 Mon

I was reading an online interview with Kelly Link, an author whose amazing collection of short stories Strangers Things Happen I picked up primarily because the Salon review compared it to BtVS. The chat (which is up on her site www.kellylink.net) briefly turned into a discussion of the merits of Buffy seasons and some finale speculations. Link slams Marti Noxon a bit unfairly I thought, but I was pretty amused at more proof that all things do lead eventually to Buffy. She also mentioned admiring Kate Atkinson's new collection for its ability to mention Buffy in almost every story. Since I was snowbound this weekend I went and got Atkinson's It's Not The End Of The World. I'm about halfway through, very impressed with the writing, the Buffy mentions are pretty much just that, mentions-- but it gave me a great deal of satisfaction to see in the quotes that front each story, among lines from Ovid, Blake and Virgil, Buffy's speech from The Gift.

[> Re: More literary Buffy references -- shambleau, 14:59:32 04/07/03 Mon

I zipped down to the library and got a copy of Link's book. I've finished three of the stories (the shortest ones). Salon got it right. Borges, Raymond Carver and Buffy, all slooshed together. It's resemblance to Buffy is in it's horror-as-metaphor aspect, mostly. Very cool.

[> [> Re: More literary Buffy references -- ponygirl, 15:20:40 04/07/03 Mon

Cool! Did you read The Girl Detective yet? Prepare to be blown away. That and Travels With The Snow Queen were my favourites.

[> [> [> Re: More literary Buffy references -- shambleau, 18:24:16 04/07/03 Mon

Just started The Girl Detective. She's the basis for the Nancy Drew type on the cover, I assume.

USA Today - Vote for Angel -- yabyumpan, 09:26:41 04/07/03 Mon

USA Today has a poll of various shows which have yet to be renewed, Angel is one of them. The address to go vote is:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/television/2003-04-05- sos.htm

(sorry, I don't know how to do the link thingy for addresses)

[> Ack, they make you vote for all of them -- Masq, 09:32:57 04/07/03 Mon

It looks very weird when you have "Don't Care" for everything but Angel. It's not that I "Don't Care", I've just never seen a single episode of any of those other shows.

Well, I did vote to keep "Big Fat Greek Life". Haven't seen that show, wasn't aware it had started episodes. But I did like the movie!

[> [> Dude, if I'm going to spawn a long sub-thread, don't even bother answering this, but... -- AngelVSAngelus, 12:55:13 04/07/03 Mon

didn't you think the resolution of that movie completely and totally undermined what was being set up as the purpose behind its premise?
Toula feels stifled and constrained by her family's oddly misogynistic and racist conceptions of a Greek woman's role in the world, but in the end completely conforms to their whims and lets them dictate exactly how her marriage should go?
And her father's 180 degree turn from racism was something that seemed completely abrupt and contrived to me.
But that's me. I was just curious about your thoughts on the subject, Masq.

[> [> [> What's wrong with long sub-threads? -- CW, 13:41:02 04/07/03 Mon

The TV series is okay, but it turns out that Nia is the weak acting link of the show. I watch occaisionally, but it isn't something I'd miss if it got cancelled.

Like most people, I loved the movie. Unlike most people I dated a Greek-American girl in high school, and many many of the jokes were very familiar; everything good comes from Greece, all words are derived from Greek, Grandma who speaks with an accent is more than a little nutsy about Turks and Bulgarians... The girl used to compare everything I did with what Greek guys did (sometimes unfavorably; sometimes not just favorably, but with great gratitude). She didn't go to Greek school, but her best friend did. Her father was not in the restaurant business, had no particular feelings about Windex, but he did seem to be the only guy in the neighborhood who thought T-shirts were the proper uniform shirt at all times at home. She was Orthodox. I didn't get close to asking her to marry me, but if I had and I'd found out anyone was going to spit on her during the ceremony, there would have been war!

I don't think it's fair to call Nia's father a racist. A Greek nationalist certainly; a partisan for the Greek Orthodox Church. But racism is a different matter. My girl friend's family would have been happier if she'd ended up marrying someone who was from their religion, I'm sure. But the two of us who dated her the most in high school and her eventual husband were all not overly-religious protestants. The idea that Nia's father would eventually accept a "Frank," as Greeks call western Christians, isn't surprising at all to me. Nor is it that Nia accepted some of her father's wishes.

[> [> [> [> Well, I don't think there's anything wrong, but I didn't want the board to hate me... -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:09:50 04/07/03 Mon

You're right about my misnomer, but despite being a different form of discrimination, discrimination it was. That having been the case, it bothered me that either of them would even bother considering the wishes of their parents when their motivations were obviously dubious.
I'm an African American male, a fact that's only important and brought up to set up context for the statements of my family's racist (and here's it accurate) misgivings regarding my relationships. I've been seriously involved with two caucasian girls (one of them German, which made some of my family even angrier) and an Asian girl.
My family's many infuriating paradigms are exactly why we DON'T get along and I'd never consider letting them have the amount of control of my life's situations that Toula granted her family in that movie.
I guess because of how immoral I consider that kind of behavior, from anyone, be they family or not, the fact that those people were presented in a comedic light and thus granted ethical immunity by many movie-goers bothers me.
Well, that and the fact that most actual conversation to demonstrate those two's relationship is supplanted by the kind of awkward-stammer-quirky-behavior dance that too many writers today thinks can fool the viewer into buying a couple's validity. See problems with Romeo and Juliet and Moulin Rouge for details of anger with Hollywood regarding relationships.

[> [> [> [> Re: What's wrong with long sub-threads? -- s'kat, 20:23:04 04/07/03 Mon

I tend to agree with you on this. The situation comedy is not up to the movie's standards. It's weak. The movie was much stronger. Not sure why.

Could be because they seem to back-pedal on some of what was accomplished in the movie. Nia is working at a travel agency not the restaurant in the movie, in the comedy she's back at the restaurant and her husband just has zip to do.
I can understand why John Corbett passed on it.

I liked the movie for the same reasons CW did. I thought it was realistic, but then I live in a city and have been to these types of weddings.

I didn't vote for the situation comedy, just don't care.
Actually this worked out fine for me, outside of Angel and KingPin and maybe Dragnet - didn't care about any of the programs listed. TV has become a complete and utter wasteland for me, what can I say?

Oh if you want Angel renewed - do as much as possible.
I've sent an email tv guid post-card. Voted for it for Kristin chat Online (used to be Wanda). And voted here.

I really really want it renewed. And from what I've heard in interviews and online? Looks like it will be. ME is putting everything they have behind it and not working on developing anything else according to the online rumors.
Which means S5 could be the best season ever.

;-) SK

[> [> [> Sub-thread mania! (or, My denouncement of Greek Wedding) -- skyMatrix, 21:19:55 04/07/03 Mon

Personally, I was immensely aggravated by this movie, and I find myself unable to hold my peace! I will be advancing somewhat controversial notions on the films racial politics, and I hope this is not taken as an attack on anyone who enjoyed it, as I fully respect the opposing viewpoint, and also itís been a while so some of my original objections have been forgotten or weakened.

My feeling on this movie is that it is racist. However, my problem is not the father's insistence that his daughter marry another Greek-American. While that is racist in the strictest sense, I understand the factors that make minorities in America worry that their culture will disappear after the first intermarriage. Yes, it's ultimately a wrong response, but I am not one to speak for too long on "reverse racism," as I figure that racism in the ordinary direction is a MUCH bigger problem! (for various reasons which I won't address here).

There is a third kind of racism, and that is the brand of "racial self-hatred." The notion in America is that racial humor is only okay when you're making fun of your own race. In my opinion, there is a validity to this, but only to a certain degree. I recall one time watching a little known African-American comic on HBO go on at length with jokes such as "[black people] are so dumb that..." (obvious slur deleted), with no real sense of irony or satire, and I realized that the jokes were still racist even though the comic was "only making fun of his own." I wouldn't go out and get him censored, but I personally was offended by his humor. And, if this man suddenly became the biggest comic sensation for mainstream (white) Americans, I would wonder if these whites weren't enjoying him so much because he expressed their own negative feelings about blacks in a format that was somehow acceptable.

So you're asking what can this possibly have to do with Greek Wedding? Well, the movie shows us a family that is uniformly loud, boisterous, lovable, traditional, proud at the expense of other cultures, illogical and quaint (the Windex and the faulty etymology), overprotective, and etc. Already, this family now represents the only Greek-Americans that many of us in America will ever meet, and theyíre nothing more than enormous, simplistic stereotypes. Are they negative? Not entirely, but stereotypes to me can be almost as destructive when positive. (Consider the notion that all Asian-Americans are more intelligent, which creates a standard many decent average people wonít live up to). The film just doesnít stop at this though, in fact it repeatedly tells us (through Vardalos' narration) that all Greek-Americans are like this.

It seems to me that Vardalos has a lot of issues with her own cultural identity, and basically decided to make a joke out of it for Americans at large. I donít mean to say that everyone who enjoys this movie enjoys it because of these racial undertones, after all Iíve enjoyed many a film only to realize afterwards the racism inherent in a main character (cf the mentally retarded, "magical" black man in The Green Mile, a ubiquitous film stereotype that is worth another prolonged post!).

In conclusion, I really donít know anyone of Greek descent, and there may be many Greek-Americans who do resemble members of this family in some ways or others. Nonetheless, the whole thing just leaves a bad taste in my mouth, because no group should be painted so recklessly with so wide a brush for perhaps their only mass-market film representation for the next 50 years, even if it was done by "one of their own."

I'm sure someone will ask me if I was offended by the portrayal of John Corbett's White Anglo-Saxon Protestant family, and as someone who roughly corresponds with that category, no, I wasnít. Yes it was stereotypical as well, but considering that people with that ethnic & cultural background are represented ubiquitously in filmed media (such as our favorite shows, for instance), I wouldnít worry about that group being stereotyped. Furthermore, no one tries to assert in the movie that all people of this background resemble Corbettís parents!

Finally, as far as the film itself goes, Time said it best in their year-end cultural rundown when they described the movie as having "three decent jokes and no conflict!" The appeal seemed to be that it was good-natured, but canít a film be good-natured and also high quality?

[> Let's keep this on the board -- pellenaka, 15:11:29 04/07/03 Mon

I voted "don't care" for everyone but Angel, simply because I don't know any of those shows.
Except for Jamie Kennedy. So I also voted 'keep' for him. He's cute.

[> Just told USA Today: "If they cancel Angel, the WB can kiss my TV screen goobye." -- cjl, 11:46:40 04/08/03 Tue

OK, not my best work. But it conveys the sentiment.

[> [> Oooh, I bet you got them quaking in their shallowly juvenile boots! -- Masq, 12:16:40 04/08/03 Tue

But what if a spin-off ends up there?

Mmm, maybe not.

FCC rulings on limiting ownership of media outlets (possibly OT) -- luna, 12:27:20 04/07/03 Mon

I don't really think this is OT, and I hope it is not inappropriate to post this here--I can't think of a group that is more aware of the dangers of limited ownership of media outlets. In my area, WB and UPN are now on one channel, and I never know from week to week if they will decide to cut either Buffy or Angel. These are two different networks and should not be owned by the same company.

I'm posting this here to ask you to consider writing a letter in support. I'm also giving my email address so you can bash me in person, more or less, if I should not have done this!

This Issue Affects All of Us

Whether you are conservative, liberal, or somewhere in between, this issue has immense importance for you and your future ability to find out what you need to know.

The Federal Communications Commission will be making decisions about changing the rules for limits on media ownership in this country. For many decades the limits on media ownership have protected the independence and diversity of information and opinion. Changes being considered could radically alter and reduce the protections of independent media that we have enjoyed. We could find the same concentration of ownership that has developed in radio since 1996 extended to include television and newspapers.

Our ability to find out what is going on in our government, in our communities, in our environment, and in the world will be affected by the decisions that are made on media ownership in this country.

Whether diverse points of view will be broadcast and published for us to consider, debate, and use to inform our political opinions, our votes, and our civic actions will be profoundly affected by the decisions that the commissioners of the FCC make on this issue.

Our access to information, the sources of information available to us, our ability to make informed choices, and the political health and future of our democracy are all profoundly affected by this issue.

The radio and television airwaves are public property; they cannot be anything else.

Tell your Senators and congressmen what you think until this issue is resolved in the public interest.

Insist that the FCC Commissioners act in the interest of the public, not in the interest of corporations ñ which have many other, more beneficial, ways to make money. Our rights as citizens should come before the rights of large corporations to make millions through government grants of monopoly use of publically owned airwaves.

Some of the important questions are:

Can remotely operated stations owned by large corporations and "manned" by computers respond when local emergencies or natural disasters happen? Can the computers running the stations even know what is going on outside the station?

How much local investigative reporting will take place when local stations and newspapers are owned by large corporations that "share" the same groups of reporters?

Do large media corporations care more about local concerns or more about the bottom line?

Is public service for use of the public airwaves too much to ask?

Should reporting over the public airwaves fairly report the different sides of political arguments, or should it reflect only the views of the owners of the stations?

Is the only proper measure of journalism and broadcasting profitability?

Should commercial values be our main values?

Below are some web sites that provide important views and information on this crucial subject. Please read and think carefully about the issue. We stand to lose a great deal if the wrong decisions are made. Let your Senators, congressmen, and the commissioners of the FCC know what you want done to protect your rights as citizens. You can use one of the links given below to find addresses for congressmen. FCC links, telephone numbers, and the Washington FCC address are also given below.

We must act soon to protect our rights. The FCC wants to decide on June 2, after only one public hearing! Ask for more public hearings. Let the officials know your views.

Read what Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists, and Tom Rosenstiel, director of the Project for Excellence in Journalism, said in their editorial which appeared in The New York Times on January 7, 2003, at

http://www.journalism.org/resources/publications/articles/de regulation.asp

See what Molly Ivins said in "FCC and Right-Wing Radio Helping U.S. Press Freedom Slip Away" for The Salt Lake Tribune at


Read what the conservative William Safire said "On Media Giantism" in his article in The New York Times at


Other Sources of Information

The site for the Committee of Concerned Journalists, at www.journalism.org has background information on ownership and deregulation as well as many articles, commentaries, results of research, and links to other related sites. Click on

Media Ownership Deregulation under Special Daily Briefing Archives, or go directly to:

http://www.journalism.org/resources/research/reports/ownersh ip/deregulation2.asp

Go to http://www.pbs.org/now/ to reach the Bill Moyers' NOW program site. Type FCC in the Search box to find a list of information including transcripts of NOW programs on the subject and several useful links to more information from other sources.

Sites Promoting Media Diversity

Media Access Project http://www.mediaaccess.org/programs/diversity/index.html

Center for Digital Democracy http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/mediaownership/index.h tml

MediaChannel http://www.mediachannel.org/news/indepth/fcc/

I Want Media - Media Consolidation Page http://www.iwantmedia.com/consolidation.html

How to Contact U.S. Senators and Representatives

THOMAS - U.S. Congress on the Internet http://thomas.loc.gov/

Next to Quick Links click on House Directory or Senate Directory to find address information.

How to Contact the FCC http://www.fcc.gov/ & http://www.fcc.gov/contacts.html

For Media Ownership Policy Reexamination information go to:


To file public comments in this proceeding, use ECFS Express or go to ECFS and enter "02-277" in the "Proceeding" box and complete the other required information.

To Contact the Commissioners via E-mail

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov

Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov

Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov

Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov

Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

To Obtain Information via E-mail

General information and inquiries: fccinfo@fcc.gov

Freedom of Information Act requests: FOIA@fcc.gov

To Obtain Information via Telephone

1 - 888 - 225 - 5322 (1 - 888 - CALL FCC) Voice: toll- free

(888) 835 - 5322 (1 - 888 - TELL FCC) TTY: toll-free

United States Postal Service First-Class Mail, Express Mail & Priority Mail

Federal Communications Commission

445 12th Street, SW

Washington, DC 20554

Please pass this message on to others.

[> Re: FCC rulings on limiting ownership of media outlets (possibly OT) -- 110v3w1110w, 14:09:16 04/07/03 Mon

i have no problem with media outlets being owned by whoever pay the most for them reguardless of how many other media outlets they own. the market economy will allow the public to decide for themselves what is in their interests to watch by paying for the channels they want it does not matter who owns the media if they do not give the public the service they want they will go out of bussiness. what the public does not need is people like your trying to get the government to control who supplys them with their news and entertainment because you think you know what best for them

[> [> Re: FCC rulings on limiting ownership of media outlets (possibly OT) -- luna, 16:54:39 04/07/03 Mon

Well, actually, the point of what I posted is that we should have many, many different stations, not just one big one-- which I think WOULD tell you what you can watch and what you can't.

For those fairly new to Philosophical Buffy... -- DL, 13:23:52 04/07/03 Mon

Hi! I'm DL, and I am currently in the process of delurking - in fact, I've met a few of you in chat. I have to admit that I am fairly new to Buffy. For approximately 2 years, I've been watching the show, and for almost a year, I've been lurking on these boards. To be honest, I don't go more than a couple of days without reading the posts because I find that you all have added new perspective into my life.

However, with the impending end of the series, there won't be new episodes to discuss. This is why I think it's a really opportune time to revisit the past. With the DVD sets, the first three (and soon to be four) seasons will be available to lots of us, and I wanted to gauge whether or not anyone would be interested in an online discussion "club," kind of in the book-of-the-month style. I think it'd be great for people like me who haven't seen everything or been able to discuss a lot of the show, and also for others just to gain new perspectives. Over the summer, we could do a new episode every week and meet in the chatroom to discuss.

So, is anybody interested? I'll leave my email address just in case this thread disappears quickly. Thanks!

[> There is an ongoing project -- Sophist, 13:40:43 04/07/03 Mon

coordinated by Rob to analyze past shows. He has a site called The Annotated Buffy. You might want to visit there and then follow the discussion when he's ready to do the next episode.

[> [> Or... (taking DL's idea and adding to it) -- Masq, 14:17:10 04/07/03 Mon

We could just start a weekly thread from the beginning. Rob's analyses are focused on cultural annotations, but there is a lot more to discuss. Plus Rob's well along in Season 2 now. It'd be fun to start from the beginning, and it would continue to give the board "Buffy" life after the show is over.

I for one don't want to see the fun end on this board!

[> [> [> I like the weekly thread idea a lot. Let's do it, starting in the summer! -- CW, 15:18:28 04/07/03 Mon

[> [> [> What about doing Angel episodes too? -- s'kat, 16:22:51 04/07/03 Mon

What about doing one for Angel the Series as well? Rob's only been doing Buffy. We could start doing some of the Angel episodes - particularly since TNT is supposed to start showing Angel reruns in September.

TCH has set the stage for it with his Odyssey. I'd love to see us do both series.


[> [> [> [> Plenty of summer action for all -- Masq, 16:30:20 04/07/03 Mon

Revisiting Buffy I think will be interesting because we'll have the benefit of the whole series as perspective. Looking at things in retrospect without having to speculate about what's coming up next and how ME might change things.

Of course, that might be true as well for AtS as well if AtS doesn't come back, but... I think our thinking about AtS will be from a different perspective than we'll have on BtVS.

I'm not ready to speculate about what the summer AtS talk will be like. It all depends on what sort of AtS we have--in terms of renewal or cancellation, in terms of possible retconning of early story lines, and in terms of syndicated episodes.

[> [> [> [> [> Also...I might be able to add some stuff from these discussions into the annotations. -- Rob, 17:19:32 04/07/03 Mon

[> [> [> Re: Or... (taking DL's idea and adding to it) -- luna, 17:45:22 04/07/03 Mon

I really like this idea a lot. I too joined late and would really like to have the chance to go back. It would be especially interesting to analyze the early shows with the knowledge of what finally happens.

[> Oh, jumping jehosphat, please, not that. -- Solitude1056, 15:56:19 04/07/03 Mon

How about if we could actually - gasp! - have the conversations here, in the forum, where we could all read them. Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd really rather have posts that I can read, peruse, ponder, and reply to, than have to track three to seventeen conversations scrolling past at top speed.

Much appreciated.

[> [> Re: Oh, jumping jehosphat, please, not that. -- DL, 17:10:31 04/07/03 Mon

Oh, I'm up for whatever the consensus is. I just want to hear everyone's opinions and I really don't care how it's done. I'm actually just glad someone else wants to do it.

[> [> I've always wondered how you spell "jehosphat". Thanks:) -- Calvin, 23:22:29 04/07/03 Mon

[> [> [> It's "Jehosophat" - one more syllable. Biblical King. -- Darby, wondering why he's jumping., 06:29:22 04/08/03 Tue

[> Re: For those fairly new to Philosophical Buffy... -- Giles6688, 19:36:40 04/07/03 Mon

i wanna help

[> I was puzzling through an idea where... -- Tchaikovsky, 02:25:59 04/08/03 Tue

I take one poem a week and relate it to an episode of Buffy, somewhat like I did with 'Slouching Towards Bethlehem', but with less reason. I thought I might be able to enlist the help of people who are more knowledgable and have a different angle than me, (offf the top of my head- Rahael, Dedalus, Random, Scroll anyone else who wants to help), to take turns. If we have a weekly thread, I could let this run along side it. Anyone interested?


[> [> Re: I was puzzling through an idea where... -- Rahael, 07:12:39 04/08/03 Tue

I did once think about doing this - a poem a week, a while ago, but didn't think there would be any interest. It would be cool especially now there might be posters who would respond.

Also, am being seriously tempted to do a long post about a particular poem and its relevance to the Angel character, but that depends on my (non-existant) discipline and notoriously short concentration span!

[> [> [> Poems and other literature and BtVS/AtS -- Masq, 09:18:15 04/08/03 Tue

I used to hang a bit at the salon.com Angel board and those wonderful folks (every bit as erudite as ATPo'ers) started taking classic poems, literary pieces, songs, even prayers and re-writing them to fit Buffyverse characters and situations. It's a real hoot:

BtVS and Angel Filk Collection

I think there's at least one Yeats in there.

[> Great! How about after the June Boardmeet? -- DL, 10:19:55 04/08/03 Tue

My analysis of "Inside Out" is up -- Masq, 14:30:00 04/07/03 Mon


Oooh, this was a toughy. The temptation to read between the text and start spinning out theories about what's really going on was tough to fight. But that's why we have the board.

And just figuring out what the text itself meant was challenge enough! But that's why I have the board.

I'm going to crawl into a nice hole and sleep now. It was a loooong weekend. But not the good kind with the extra days.

[> Excellent analysis as always, Masq. One thought... -- Ixchel, 16:33:44 04/07/03 Mon

IMHO, it's when you recognize the posibility that you may be a pawn that you can break free from another's control. Unfortunately for Connor, he's both fairly new to this world and was raised by a master manipulator. Did he really stand a chance against EvilCordelia, who makes Holtz's machinations look simple by comparison?


[> [> Good point on Holtz -- Masq, 17:04:37 04/07/03 Mon

The larger issue of pawns and control and free will have been debated in threads below, but I don't know how much of Holtz came up, except for the fact that he turned Connor against any real chance of seeing his parents for who they are now, which makes Connor turn his back on what both Angel and Darla might have to offer him in this situation.

But as far as prepping Connor to be the pawn, to be the kind of kid who only knows how to be manipulated, who doesn't really know how to think for himself, that's a very valid point. No matter how much Holtz professed to love Steven in "Tomorrow", you could see by his actions in "Benediction" that he had that boy completely well--is "brain washed" the right term here? I'm thinking of that scene in the motel room where Holtz and Connor are going through that "God gave me to you" routine.

I hesitate on the word "brain-washed" because Holtz believed it as much as Connor did. I don't know to what degree Holtz really realized that he was manipulating and using Connor. EvilCordelia knows full well what she's doing, but Holtz I think really believed he wanted what was best for Connor. That he loved him. But what he actually did was use him as a pawn, even up to the very end, in his revenge.

And that's the only role-model Connor's ever had. No wonder Angel's "hands off" fathering failed so miserably. I'm not taking Angel off the hook for the way he failed Connor this season, but Connor does not respond well to people giving him lee-way and choices. He was raised to take on the "mission' whoever was manipulating him gave him with single- minded passion. And "Angel's mission was "maybe someday you'll choose to be a champion". Holtz and EvilCordelia's missions were "I want you to do somethings for me. You'll do this, right, because you love me/our baby/etc."

Some people no longer feel sorry for Connor after "Inside Out". I still do.

[> [> [> Thank you. I believe Holtz permeates Connor's entire psyche. -- Ixchel, 18:41:53 04/07/03 Mon

I believe as long as Connor exists, Holtz will cast a shadow on him. (This is one of the best aspects of ME's shows, perceiving a character's influence long after separation or death.)

You have it exactly, Connor _doesn't_ know how to think for himself. IMHO, IO made that very clear with his repetition of "Cordelia's" and "Darla's" words.

And I believe Holtz did love Connor (as much as what was left of him could), but he (like Medea) loved his vengeance more. He may have even lied about it to himself.

Perhaps the word "indoctrinated" would serve better than "brain washed"?

Excellent point about Connor being mission oriented. I also believe he wants something solid, when everything he has ever known has been inverted and twisted so many times.

I'm with you. He is a very sympathetic character to me.


[> [> [> [> Re: Thank you. I believe Holtz permeates Connor's entire psyche. -- Angelus, 02:26:31 04/08/03 Tue

This is my first post here. This board looks quite fascinating.

Regarding Connor, I believe Holtz did love him in a way and I also believe that Cordy (or the thing controlling her) has intentionally replaced Holtz in Connor's mind. Connor feels alone and desperately needs a connection to someone. With Holtz gone Cordy became that attachment, his mother in every way that matters. He desperately needs to convince himself that what she is telling him is true even when his common sense tells him she is lying. To accept that she is lying would be to lose the emotionsal attachment he so desperately needs. Its the same reason he still feels hate for Angel against the evidence. To accept that Angel isn't what Holtz said he was would be to accept that the one person who loved him, the one human he knew at all for the first eighteen years of his life, was lying to him and using him. He just cannot accept that yet and I can't blame him.

[> [> [> [> [> I agree completely, Angelus. And welcome. :) -- Ixchel, 09:46:17 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> The problem here, though -- Shiraz, 09:04:08 04/08/03 Tue

Is that Holz would have been just as appalled at Connor's actions as Angel.

While it is true that Holtz raised him as an instrument of revenge, it's reasonable to assume that he also tried to instill in him some sense of his original mission; protecting the innocent from the supernaturals who prey on them.

I can't really blame Holtz for this; Connor had the intellegence to make this decision, and enough of a moral grounding to know the difference between right and wrong, and he chose to commit an act which was unambiguously WRONG. A lot of my symapathy for the character drained away in this ep.

There comes a time when a lousy childhood is no longer an excuse.


"[T]his particular hero was a heroine. A redheaded one.

Now, there's a tendence at a point like this to look over one's shoulder at the cover artist and start going on at length about leather, thighboots and naked blades.

Words like "full," "round" and even "pert" creep into the narrative, until the writer has to go and have a cold shower and a lie down."

Terry Pratchett, "The Light Fantastic"
-Commenting on issues Joss knows only too well

[> [> [> [> [> Connor's false dilemma -- Masq, 10:08:06 04/08/03 Tue

Yes, Holtz would be appalled. But part of the fault lies with him, and the way he raised Connor.

Understand me, I am not trying to take Connor off the hook. But indulge me for a second while I show you the way this situation must have appeared from Connor's point of view.

In his mind, he had a dilemma--the life of a stranger over the life of his own child. We know from a larger vantage point that what Cordelia was giving birth to was no child. But Connor had, in his own head, a real moral dilemma. A braver person than Connor might have decided they had to sacrifice the life of their child and spare an innocent stranger death. And still other people would argue on rational moral grounds that Connor had an obligation to his family first and strangers second.

In more abstract terms--think of it this way: what if you had a child and they were dying and you knew they could only be saved if you killed another, random innocent human being? Would you not even be tempted for a second?

Now, you'll no doubt argue that this wasn't Connor's situation at all. And that's true, I think, from a larger perspective. But in Connor's mind, this was the situation he was in. And what might Holtz have told him to do if this situation as exactly what it appeared to be to Connor?

Connor's failing was in letting himself get into this situation in the first place. Letting Cordelia create this false dilemma for him. The situation was very different from Connor's perception of it. Cordelia spun a web so fantastic and so relentlessly that what it finally boiled down to for Connor was innocent stranger vs. my child.

Connor had his doubts about Cordelia. And we all hoped he would listen to those doubts. But he didn't. He listened to his intense desire for approval instead. He listened to his intense desire for family. He did not think for himself. He let himself be manipulated.

And there will be fall-out. Connor will, and should, come to doubt his moral core for what what he did. He should come to doubt his ability to really think for himself. If he doesn't agonize about this situation and try to change himself and the way he thinks about and reacts to situations, I will be disappointed in the story line and in the character.

He crossed the line through his own failings as a person, I agree absolutely. Some of those failings--like the inability to think for himself--were the result of Holtz' upbringing.

Connor needs to change his ways. But I don't think there was an absolute, clear-cut moral failing here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> To me, its a question of empathy. -- Shiraz, 11:50:40 04/08/03 Tue

True, Holtz did mess up Connor fantastically, and certainly set the stage for evil!Cordy's manipulation of him. This has made him the sulking brat we've known for the past year.

However, until now I could at least see the beginnings of a likeable person under all of that messed-up baggage.

All of that changed for me when he couldn't bring himself to help a terrified girl, pleading for her life in front of him.

Forget Darla, mere human empathy should have been enough!
And empathy is something everyone deserves.

Connor has now joined the long list of people who defend their actions with the phrase "I was only following orders".

I'm going to need some VERY good reason VERY soon to not hold Connor at the same level of contempt I hold the rest of people in that category.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The problem here, though -- Angelus, 12:11:26 04/08/03 Tue

I'm not sure if I can completely agree here because I think Holtz had reached a point where revenge mattered to him more than anything. At the end he was even willing to have his minion cut Wesley's throat (that he survived was not part of the plan I think) when Wesley thought he was in league with Holtz. As I said, Holtz had reached a point where nothing would stand in the way of revenge so if Holtz would be appalled by Connor's choice in "Inside Out" it would only be because it was an evil act that didn't serve the cause of revenge against Angel. Had it somehow served that cause I think it would have been okay with Holtz. He would have been more angry had Connor not staked Angelus after realizing he was Angel (ignoring that Faith was there to stop him).

Regarding Connor's horrible act in this episode, I agree that in spite of all the emotional turmoil he is in its hard to have any sympathy for him but I compare the act itself to those committed by many characters of myth.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The problem here, though -- random lurker, 13:01:17 04/08/03 Tue

I completely agree with you Angelus. Connor is in no way innocent, and what he did was completely wrong, but I don't think that Holtz gave Connor sufficient grounding in what is morally right and wrong. As you mentioned, Holtz probably wanted Wesley to die, if only to prevent him from running to Angel to tell him that Holtz had Connor. I don't think Holtz had any inhibitions about killing humans as long as it furthered the mission. (e.g. slitting Wesley's throat, having Justine kill Holtz to frame Angel).

In addition to this, I also think that Holtz instilled in Connor a strong sense of family. I think that Holtz even went so far as to tell Connor that anything is justified if it is done for the good of the family. Holtz himself kidnapped Connor and raised him to kill his father (Angel), all in the name of family. Therefore, I think Connor is justified in believing that Holtz would support his decision to sacrifice a stranger to save the life of his son, his family.

I still have a lot of sympathy with Connor, but what he did was so very wrong, in so many ways - and I think he knew it too, he just didn't know how to stop, and to get out of the situation he was in.

Connor's background doesn't excuse what he did, but I think that it played a large part in his decison making process. Holtz taught him that anything is justified if it is done in the name of family. (how else could Holtz justify stealing Connor from Angel and raising him to kill Angel)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: this will change the father/son dynamic -- Lupe, 14:50:21 04/08/03 Tue

Along that same line (that all that mattered to Holtz in the end was the revenge), anything that Connor does that is opposite of what Angel would want him to do is what Holtz would want. It was that division, that seperation of father and son that was Holtz's ultimate goal as his last revenge. And because it is so central to Connor's core identity that he NOT be like Angel, that he does want to oppose Angel that made it easy for evilCordy to manipulate him. Despite first hand evidence to the contrary, years of indoctrination have taught Connor that Angel is a threat.

Angel was a threat to Holtz's own children when he killed them as Angelus. Connor believes Holtz "rescued" him from Angel as a child. After all that, why wouldn't Angel be a threat to his own child now (in Connor's mind and with evilCordy's prodding)? (Again, first hand experience which should now tell him differently, not withstanding).

What Connor's failure to have empathy and to make the right choice does, however, is completely change the dynamics going forward (at least once whatever brainfreeze that the new evil brings is over). Connor will no longer have some sort of moral high ground over Angel. Like Angel said about Faith, once you take a life it changes you. It will change Connor, but whether he will take a road a la Faith (I'm special, it's okay [that I took an innocent life], denial, denial, denial) or perhaps something more immediately self destructive (oh my god, I AM just like my real Dad - evil and loathesome and perhaps beyond redemption). Or something entirely different. And knowing ME, I'll bet on something entirely different.

I'm looking forward to seeing how this changed dynamic plays out.

[> It all reminds me of what Whistler said in Becoming Part 1 -- Helen, 03:54:38 04/08/03 Tue

Bottom line is, even if you see 'em coming, you're not ready for the big moments.
No one asks for their life to change, not really. But it
does. So what are we, helpless? Puppets? No. The big moments are gonna come. You can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you are.

Buffy, the Birth of American Feminism and the Solitude of Self (long; spoilery speculation) -- cjl, 23:06:15 04/07/03 Mon

This ramble is in response to Shadowkatís incisive treatise on the necessity and centrality of human connection in Buffyís world. Actually, itís not so much a response as an expansion--because, even though shadowkat presents a comprehensive analysis, I think an essential aspect of life in the Buffyverse needs to be included in order to paint a complete picture.

1. "In our extremity we must depend on ourselves"

Letís return to one of the seminal moments in the history of the series--the climax of Becoming II. Angelus had Buffy pinned down, and tried to psychologically intimidate her, play up her isolation from her friends, break down her resistance so he could land the deathblow. But Buffy was made of tougher stuff than Angelus (or Angel) could ever dream, and in that spine-tingling moment when she immobilized the blade of the oncoming sword, just inches away from her face, she displayed the inner strength (to go along with the fancy kung fu moves) that made her the heroine of postmodern feminists everywhere.

And yet, the episode was unquestionably a tragedy. Buffy triumphed, but she was forced to kill the only man she ever loved, a choice of love over duty that still haunted her in "Selfless." Thanks to Xanderís lie, the post-Becoming Buffy believed all of her friends wanted Angel dead, and that none of them understood her suffering. So she isolated herself in Los Angeles ("Anne"), turning away from her friends, her family, her calling, and herself, until Chanterelle brought her back to humanity. Like the mythic heroes of old, she descended into hell and was reborn with a fresh appreciation of her unique place in society.

The events from "Becoming" through "Dead Manís Party" (and there are similar sequences all through both Buffy and Angel) demonstrate the paradox of living in Joss Whedonís universe: you desperately need connections with other human beings in order to realize your potential and your place in the world; but when it comes down to the big decisions, you have to make them alone. Buffy never would have made it to- -and through--that final battle in "Becoming" without the love and support of Willow, Xander, Giles, Joyce (and Angel); but in her darkest moment, Buffy had to reach inside and summon up the strength to defeat Angelus when she thought she had no one else behind her.

For the existentialists in the audience, this is old, familiar territory. If there is no divine being, no God- given morality, then every person bears the weight of the world, and every decision we make is an act of creation in an absurd universe. We cannot shuttle the responsibility for those decisions on our loved ones, our community, our society, or the unseen force who sends the sun and the planets pinwheeling across the sky. Free will is a bitch, but thatís the deal. The hardest thing in this world is to live in it--and in a world of six billion people, weíre all faced with the solitude of self.

2. The Solitude of Self

The phrase "the solitude of self" has special resonance in this discussion, since it originated from one of the founders of modern American feminism, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. For those of you on the board whoíve never heard of Mrs. Stanton, sheís an amazing story, one thatís nearly been forgotten over the stormy course of the past hundred years.

Stanton (along with her lifelong friend, Susan B. Anthony) was the intellectual lifeblood of the American womenís suffrage movement from its conception in the late 1840s to her death in 1902. While Anthony forged political alliances and built the nationwide organization that would eventually bring women the right to vote in 1920, Stanton built the ideological structure of the movement, hammering home the ethical and moral necessity of suffrage, connecting the issue of womenís rights to its origins in abolitionism, then expanding the discussion outward to the plight of oppressed people everywhere.

In her later years--saddened by the death of her husband and hobbled by failing health--Stanton went off the lecture circuit and devoted her remaining strength to clarifying and explicating her principles in a series of brilliant (and controversial) texts. The most universal of these personal manifestos (to me, at least) was "The Solitude of Self," first and most gloriously presented to the public in her resignation speech to the Womenís Suffrage Association in 1892. Iím going to skip a few of the introductory paragraphs--but for the most part, Iím not going to cut a word.

To appreciate the importance of fitting every human soul for independent action, think for a moment of the immeasurable solitude of self. We come into the world alone, unlike all who have gone before us, we leave it alone, under circumstances peculiar to ourselves. No mortal ever has been, no mortal ever will be like the soul just launched on the sea of life. There can never again be just such a combination of prenatal influences; never again just such environments as make up the infancy, youth and manhood of this one. Nature never repeats herself, and the possibilities of one human soul will never be found in another. No one has ever found two blades of ribbon grass alike, and no one will ever find two human beings alike. Seeing, then, what must be the infinite diversity in human character, we can in a measure appreciate the loss to a nation when any class of the people is uneducated and unrepresented in the government.

We ask for the complete development of every individual, first, for his own benefit and happiness. In fitting out an army, we give each soldier his own knapsack, arms, powder, his blanket, cup, knife, fork and spoon. We provide alike for all their individual necessities; then each man bears his own burden.

Again, we ask complete individual development for the general good; for the consensus of the competent on the whole round of human interests, on all questions of national life; and here each man must bear his share of the general burden. It is sad to see how soon friendless children are left to bear their own burdens, before they can analyze their feelings; before they can even tell their joys and sorrows, they are thrown on their own resources. The great lesson that nature seems to teach us at all ages in self- dependence, self-protection, self-support. . . .

In youth our most bitter disappointments, our brightest hopes and ambitions, are known only to ourselves. Even our friendship and love we never fully share with another; there is something of every passion, in every situation, we conceal. Even so in our triumphs and our defeats. . . .

We ask no sympathy from others in the anxiety and agony of a broken friendship or shattered love. When death sunders our nearest ties, alone we sit in the shadow of our affliction. Alike amid the greatest triumphs and darkest tragedies of life, we walk alone. On the divine heights of human attainment, eulogized and worshipped as a hero or saint, we stand alone. In ignorance, poverty and vice, as a pauper or criminal, alone we starve or steal; alone we suffer the sneers and rebuffs of our fellows; alone we are hunted and hounded through dark courts and alleys, in by-ways and high- ways; alone we stand in the judgment seat; alone in the prison cell we lament our crimes and misfortunes; alone we expiate them on the gallows. In hours like these we realize the awful solitude of individual life, its pains, its penalties, its responsibilities, hours in which the youngest and most helpless are thrown on their own resources for guidance and consolation. Seeing, then, that life must ever be a march and a battle that each soldier must be equipped for his own protection, it is the height of cruelty to rob the individual of a single natural right.

To throw obstacles in the way of a complete education is like putting out the eyes; to deny the rights of property is like cutting off the hands. To refuse political equality is to rob the ostracized of all self-respect; of credit in the market place; of recompense in the world of work, of a voice in choosing those who make and administer the law, a choice in the jury before whom they are tried, and in the judge who decides their punishment. Think of . . . womanís position! Robbed of her natural rights, handicapped by law and custom at every turn, yet compelled to fight her own battles, and in the emergencies of life to fall back on herself for protection. . . .

The young wife and mother, at the head of some establishment, with a kind husband to shield her from the adverse winds of life, with wealth, fortune and position, has a certain harbor of safety, secure against the ordinary ills of life. But to manage a household, have a desirable influence in society, keep her friends and the affections of her husband, train her children and servants well, she must have rare common sense, wisdom, diplomacy, and a knowledge of human nature. To do all this, she needs the cardinal virtues and the strong points of character that the most successful statesman possesses. An uneducated woman trained to dependence, with no resources in herself, must make a failure of any position in life. But society says women do not need a knowledge of the world, the liberal training that experience in public life must give, all the advantages of collegiate education; but when for the lack of all this, the womanís happiness is wrecked, alone she bears her humiliation; and the solitude of the weak and the ignorant is indeed pitiable. In the wild chase for the prizes of life, they are ground to powder.

In age, when the pleasures of youth are passed, children grown up, married and gone, the hurry and bustle of life in a measure over, when the hands are weary of active service, when the old arm chair and the fireside are the chosen resorts, then men and women alike must fall hack on their own resources. If they cannot find companionship in books, if they have no interest in the vital questions of the hour, no interest in watching the consummation of reforms with which they might have been identified, they soon pass into their dotage. The more fully the faculties of the mind are developed and kept in use, the longer the period of vigor and active interest in all around us continues. If, from a life-long participation in public affairs, a woman feels responsible for the laws regulating our system of education, the discipline of our jails and prisons, the sanitary condition of our private homes, public buildings and thoroughfares, an interest in commerce, finance, our foreign relations, in any or all these questions, her solitude will at least be respectable, and she will not be driven to gossip or scandal for entertainment.

The chief reason for opening to every soul the doors to the whole round of human duties and pleasures is the individual development thus attained, the resources thus provided under all circumstances to mitigate the solitude that at times must come to everyone. . . .

Inasmuch, then, as woman shares equally the joys and sorrows of time and eternity, is it not the height of presumption in man to propose to represent her at the ballot box and the throne of grace, to do her voting in the state, her praying in the church, and to assume the position of high priest at the family altar?

Nothing strengthens the judgment and quickens the conscience like individual responsibility. Nothing adds such dignity to character as the recognition of oneís self-sovereignty; the right to an equal place, everywhere conceded--a place earned by personal merit, not an artificial attainment by inheritance, wealth, family and position. Conceding, then, that the responsibilities of life rest equally on man and woman, that their destiny is the same, they need the same preparation for time and eternity. The talk of sheltering woman from the fierce storms of life is the sheerest mockery, for they beat on her from every point of the compass, just as they do on man, and with more fatal results, for he has been trained to protect himself, to resist, and to conquer. Such are the facts in human experience, the responsibilities of individual sovereignty. Rich and poor, intelligent and ignorant, wise and foolish, virtuous and vicious, man and woman; it is ever the same, each soul must depend wholly on itself.

Whatever the theories may be of womanís dependence on man, in the supreme moments of her life, he cannot bear her burdens. Alone she goes to the gates of death to give life to every man that is born into the world; no one can share her fears, no one can mitigate her pangs; and if her sorrow is greater than she can bear, alone she passes beyond the gates into the vast unknown.

From the mountain-tops of Judea long ago, a heavenly voice bade his disciples, "Bear ye one anotherís burdens"; but humanity has not yet risen to that point of self-sacrifice; and if ever so willing, how few the burdens are that one soul can bear for another! . . .

So it ever must be in the conflicting scenes of life, in the long, weary march, each one walks alone. We may have many friends, love, kindness, sympathy and charity, to smooth our pathway in everyday life, but in the tragedies and triumphs of human experience, each mortal stands alone.

But when all artificial trammels are removed, and women are recognized as individuals, responsible for their own environments, thoroughly educated for all positions in life they may be called to fill; with all the resources in themselves that liberal thought and broad culture can give; guided by their own conscience and judgment, trained to self- protection, by a healthy development of the muscular system, and skill in the use of weapons and defence; and stimulated to self-support by a knowledge of the business world and the pleasure that pecuniary independence must ever give; when women are trained in this way, they will in a measure be fitted for those hours of solitude that come alike to all, whether prepared or otherwise. As in our extremity we must depend on ourselves, the dictates of wisdom point to complete individual development.

In talking of education, how shallow the argument that each class must be educated for the special work it proposes to do, and that all those faculties not needed in this special work must lie dormant and utterly wither for want of use, when, perhaps, these will be the very faculties needed in lifeís greatest emergencies! Some say, "Where is the use of drilling girls in the languages, the sciences, in law, medicine, theology. As wives, mothers, housekeepers, cooks, they need a different curriculum from boys who are to fill all positions. The chief cooks in our great hotels and ocean steamers are men. In our large cities, men run the bakeries; they make our bread, cake and pies. They manage the laundries; they are now considered our best milliners and dressmakers. Because some men fill these departments of usefulness, shall we regulate the curriculum in Harvard and Yale to their present necessities? If not, why this talk in our best colleges of a curriculum for girls who are crowding into the trades and professions, teachers in all our public schools, rapidly filling many lucrative and honorable positions in life?". . .

Women are already the equals of men in the whole realm of thought, in art, science, literature and government. . . . The poetry and novels of the century are theirs, and they have touched the keynote of reform, in religion, politics and social life. They fill the editorís and professorís chair, plead at the bar of justice, walk the wards of the hospital, speak from the pulpit and the platform. Such is the type of womanhood that an enlightened public sentiment welcomes to-day, and such the triumph of the facts of life over the false theories of the past.

Is it, then, consistent to hold the developed woman of this day within the same narrow political limits as the dame with the spinning wheel and knitting needle occupied in the past? No, no! Machinery has taken the labors of woman as well as man on its tireless shoulders; the loom and the spinning wheel are but dreams of the past; the pen, the brush, the easel, the chisel, have taken their places, while the hopes and ambitions of women are essentially changed.

We see reason sufficient in the outer conditions of human beings for individual liberty and development, but when we consider the self-dependence of every human soul, we see the need of courage, judgment and the exercise of every faculty of mind and body, strengthened and developed by use, in woman as well as man.

Whatever may be said of manís protecting power in ordinary conditions, amid all the terrible disasters by land and sea, in the supreme moments of danger, alone woman must ever meet the horrors of the situation. The Angel of Death even makes no royal pathway for her. Manís love and sympathy enter only into the sunshine of our lives. In that solemn solitude of self, that links us with the immeasurable and the eternal, each soul lives alone forever. A recent writer says: "I remember once, in crossing the Atlantic, to have gone upon the deck of the ship at midnight, when a dense black cloud enveloped the sky, and the great deep was roaring madly under the lashes of demoniac winds. My feeling was not of danger or fear (which is a base surrender of the immortal soul) but of utter desolation and loneliness; a little speck of life shut in by a tremendous darkness. . . ."

And yet, there is a solitude which each and every one of us has always carried with him, more inaccessible than the ice- cold mountains, more profound than the midnight sea; the solitude of self. Our inner being which we call ourself, no eye nor touch of man or angel has ever pierced. It is more hidden than the caves of the gnome; the sacred adytum of the oracle; the hidden chamber of Eleusinian mystery, for to it only omniscience is permitted to enter.

Such is individual life. Who, I ask you, can take, dare take on himself the rights, the duties, the responsibilities of another human soul?

I donít know if Joss has ever read "The Solitude of Self," but Mrs. Stantonís words permeate every frame of his beloved brainchild.

3. "Alone she goes to the gates of death...."

In the end, itís all about Buffy. All through Season 7, we have seen her searching for a new way to relate to her world, leaving behind the old truths exemplified by the Shadowmen and the Watcherís Council, and finally taking her rightful place as the general of her own life. But sheís still influenced by the past to the degree that she doesnít know how to forge ahead in a new direction. I think this is where all of the recent posts about the Dark Feminine will come in. I believe Buffy will revisit the circumstances of Becoming and Anne, as the slow process of alienation from her friends in S7 will culminate in a total break--and a metaphysical quest into the recesses of her own mind and heart. It is there that she will find the answers to the impossible question of the First Evil, in the dark power sheís feared for the length of the series. And when she emerges from the quest, she will share her joy with her friends and the world--because Buffy will realize (once again) that itís her friends who give her the support and love to face the decisions we all face alone.

It is the only possible ending for Buffy the character, because it is the only possible ending for Joss and the series as well. Joss has had Buffy inside of his head for the past ten to fifteen years, creating a complex and unique universe, and perhaps his greatest joy has been to share his creation with the world. Iím reminded (as usual) of a Jorge Luis Borges story, "The Secret Miracle," in which a Czech playwright is about to be executed by the Germans, and prays to God for the time to finish his masterpiece. The soldiers take aim, but the guns do not go off; in fact, the entire physical universe is suspended, leaving the writer alone with his consciousness. He spends a year constructing the play in his head, cutting and rewriting when necessary, adjusting the style and the plot until it is absolute perfection. And when the play is complete, down to the last detail, time resumes its course, and he is executed as pre- ordained.

I get the feeling Joss would consider the events of "The Secret Miracle" a punishment fit for the last circle of hell. To finish your masterpiece and be unable to share it with anyone would, for Joss, constitute a perversion of art. Because even though we make the big decisions alone, every decision we make is an act of creation, rippling out into the world. It is how our acts of creation influence the other people in our lives that gives our lives meaning, and I think Joss will want us to know how much his own life has been enriched before the series signs off once and for all...OW

[> Great stuff, CJL -- Rahael, 06:35:26 04/08/03 Tue

[> Wonderfully wonderfully written, cjl. Thank you. - - ponygirl, 07:12:05 04/08/03 Tue

[> I was with you for a while... -- Darby, 07:27:07 04/08/03 Tue

Fascinating quote. I wonder if it represented her true feelings about her place in the world - very much like Buffy at this stage - or was an exaggeration to make a point? It's not that I can say that the assertions of aloneness are wrong, but they are definitely not the whole story. Or shouldn't be. As stated, Stanton's words make her sound like a profoundly lonely woman. I've lived under that cloud, and it's not fun. Much better to share your inner world, as much as you can, with other human beings. Burdens can be shared.

But Buffy's story is, at its heart, Joss' story, and I'd hate to think that over the course of these years he's gotten more isolated and alone without realizing the dangers therein. But who knows, as he has taken on more power and responsibility, perhaps that's exactly how he feels. My feeling, though, is that he knows the temptation to be an island and the pitfalls, and is leading Buffy down this course to get her "back to the beginning," when she was successful only because of the support of her friends. Joss, now married with baby, running an organization that for about 8 minutes produced 3 hourlong tv shows, should be feeling a lot of scary worldly responsibilities but lots of supportive connections as well. In interviews this year he has indicated dissatisfaction with his own actions towards others, under the stress. I wonder how many inspirational speeches he's given? Do you think he really gave one to the phone guy? How does he pull himself through that? Is that something that can be best done alone?

I think that this was a good year to be uncertain about the future, to set in place a very open-ended arc, because what the year has done to Joss it's also doing to Buffy. And they are both going to survive only with the support of those around them, and a willingness to stop tilting at windmills.

Besides, even Joss likes a happy ending.

[> [> How closely does Joss' story parallel Buffy's? -- cjl, 10:23:07 04/08/03 Tue

Taking it point by point:

"I wonder if it represented [Stanton's] true feelings about her place in the world - very much like Buffy at this stage - or was an exaggeration to make a point? It's not that I can say that the assertions of aloneness are wrong, but they are definitely not the whole story. Or shouldn't be. As stated, Stanton's words make her sound like a profoundly lonely woman."

I'm not enough of an expert on American feminism in general or Stanton in particular to gauge her state of mind when she prepared that speech. [cjl bangs side of head to jog memory.] Granted, she was going through a rough transition period in 1892--she was 77 years old, widowed, and was forced, due to health reasons, to abandon the lecture circuit and resign the presidency of the organization that represented her life's mission.

Her relationship with Anthony was close and fulfilling but tempestuous; they had many ideological disagreements, most stemming from the conflict between Stanton's radical, uncompromising feminist vision, and Anthony's brilliant political strategy of incorporating conservative women's groups (like the Daughters of the American Revolution) into the suffrage movement. A case could be made that her increasing isolation was expressed through her writing.

But I'm not convinced. Stanton still had her daughter's love to give her strength, and no matter how much Stanton and Anthony sniped at each in other private or disagreed in public, their friendship was unbreakable. I think she had a clear vision of life from the cradle to the grave; she was an existentialist thinker before there was an existentialist movement in the U.S., a solid half-century before Simone de Beauvoir.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton would be the first to agree that you need the support of family, friends, colleagues, and even enlightened institutions--but she would also maintain that support systems can't make the hard decisions of life for you. They can give you strength, they can (somewhat) prepare you for the hard knocks, but how you handle those knocks is pretty much up to you. From Becoming, Part I:

WHISTLER: Bottom line is, even if you see 'em coming, you're not ready for the big moments. No one asks for their life to change, not really. But it does. So what are we, helpless? Puppets? No. The big moments are gonna come. You can't help that. It's what you do afterwards that counts. That's when you find out who you are.

"Buffy's story is, at its heart, Joss' story, and I'd hate to think that over the course of these years he's gotten more isolated and alone without realizing the dangers therein."

Sure he realizes the dangers. But Joss is the whole ballgame when it comes to Buffy--he knows it and we know it. If Joss keeled over in the middle of Season 4, could any of his associates have taken up the mantle and led Buffy into TV immortality? (Marti? Fury? Petrie? Don't think so.) There has always been a special burden on Joss as the creative genius, the fountainhead (everybody else is playing in his sandbox), and there's a certain degree of isolation that comes with the territory. Fortunately, he does have Marti, Fury, Petrie, the Drews and the rest of his crack staff to make things easier.

"In interviews this year he has indicated dissatisfaction with his own actions towards others, under the stress. I wonder how many inspirational speeches he's given? Do you think he really gave one to the phone guy? How does he pull himself through that? Is that something that can be best done alone?"

Sometimes you go through phases in your life when all the internal issues you've repressed or postponed or ignored come to a head and demand to be addressed. Your friends and family, your teachers and colleagues, they can help, they can provide examples, but you have to do the work yourself. Buffy can definitely incorporate the lessons she's learned from Willow, Xander, Giles, Spike, Dawn, Angel and her mom throughout the length of the series--but the journey to the Heart of Darkness is a solo voyage.

"I think that this was a good year to be uncertain about the future, to set in place a very open-ended arc, because what the year has done to Joss it's also doing to Buffy. And they are both going to survive only with the support of those around them, and a willingness to stop tilting at windmills."

I'm not sure the Joss of S7 is the same as the Buffy of S7. It may be more instructive to compare this year's Buffy to a younger Joss Whedon, who takes the comic books, movies and literature from his youth and suddenly has a vision of a way to elevate pulp fiction into high art. The end of BtVS may be Joss' way of conveying his original moment of creation-- the BtVS big bang.

"Besides, even Joss likes a happy ending."

And I think we'll get one.

[> [> [> It's the Jossy & Buffy Showwwww.... -- Darby, 12:07:42 04/08/03 Tue

Sung to the Itchy and Scratchy theme.

I had a lengthy and largely insane reply, but it got eaten by the evil computer gods. Let's see if I can recreate it...here's the theory:

When the show started, the premise represented the Hell that was Joss' high school years, with Xander being the clearest Joss alter ego. The horrors of high school became the demons. But once the characters were out of high school, Xander's path diverged from Joss, and the character he had the most invested in, Buffy, the character whose emotional development became each season's arc, started to follow paths metaphorical to Joss' course through life.

Was the Initiative a metaphor for Film School, or maybe Joss' experiences as a script doctor, appreciated but ignored, and a powerless writer? Think about how Buffy was treated through the arc, how she eventually found her power in a collaboration but remained the driving force, the decision-maker.

And who is more classic Hollywood than Glory, a shallow egomaniac disguised inside a reasonable human, surrounded by sycophantic minions bent on doing her will? Could this be a metaphor for Joss' experiences on Roseanne's show?

Season 5 was always supposed to be it, the big finish, ending with Buffy's death, but her co-worker buddies and innate sense of responsibility pulled her back into the fray, when she was done and satisfied, and put her back to work. Another year of being in charge but wanting to duck out of it and try something different, of dealing with money matters that had never seemed so critical before, of having those around you dealing with their own problems: the attention-grabbers, the substance abusers, the gradually- useless. Until your close associate takes on too much power that she loses control and almost destroys your world. Hey, I know that this is all a stretch.

So we come to this year, with three shows going, a huge production staff (filled with Joss wannabes, no doubt), and a system where the boss can write, and he can give inspiration, but a lot of the actual doing has been long-since-delegated. The future is fuzzy, probably bleak, with no clear enemy, and maybe he's really preparing everyone for their doom. This has been the open-ended arc, twisting on the fly toward an ending that is just recently solidifying, as around him the First Evil that is the Business itself undermines his decisions.

I suspect that some characters have themselves become metaphors for the production staff (the show has long had a reputation of being filled with in-jokes and private references). Could Fury be Spike, someone whom Joss considers essential but everyone else sees as a liability? Drew Goddard as Wood? David Greenwalt as Giles? I know this is all a huge reach, but I'm finding it surprising how far the analogy reaches now that I'm thinking about it. Ah, the power of self-deception.

[> This quote needs to be at the top of the board, methinks. -- OnM, 08:08:06 04/08/03 Tue

*** Free will is a bitch, but thatís the deal. The hardest thing in this world is to live in it--and in a world of six billion people, weíre all faced with the solitude of self. ***

Or at least just the first part-- pretty much sums up the Jossverse to me!

This post should be added to the collection over at ES, cjl. Suggest you submit it or just ask The Sidereal Coder to copy it over for you.

Great stuff!


[> [> Perhaps we need a new "Quote of the Week" section in ES -- Masq, 10:33:41 04/08/03 Tue

Or after a while the top of the board is going to start looking like a pretentious philosopher's convention.

Not that s'kat or cjl are in anyway pretentious, but we got a lot of quotable folks on this here board.

I'm just sayin'.

[> [> [> Masq, send me a reminder email. -- The Second Evil, 12:25:05 04/08/03 Tue

And I'll do up a Quotes page. Once it's coded, I'm sure LS will be more than able to take it from there. (As a matter of fact, I doubt I could stop her, if I wanted to. She's a woman on a mission these days.)

[> [> [> [> On a mission to code the First Anniversary Character Essays, I hope? -- Masq, 12:29:08 04/08/03 Tue

Not that I'm being naggy. It's just everytime I go to check the logs for ATPo, there are always numerous errors where folks tried to access one or more of those analyses. They're hungry for our brilliance!

I have a bunch of those "Quotes of the Week" that I have made note of over the past couple years. I can dig them up and send them to you.

[> [> [> [> [> We can only hope... (gripe, volunteer, reminder request) -- The Second Evil, 13:03:17 04/08/03 Tue

Side note: I am really not liking the New Voy. I'm on a T3, here on campus, and the add-post is timing out more than it does when I'm posting from home, on a much-slower dialup. Someone explain that logic to me. Voy's servers suck rocks, and their updates seem to have slowed down the system, not sped it up. But anyway...

Haven't heard anything of LS recently - either she's slacking, or she's up to no good coding who-knows-what and will post it soon. However, dumping the QotW on her, too, may be too much, so here I could ask for a volunteer from the audience. If someone were at least moderately versed in HTML (or able/willing to follow a template), that person could add new quotes as needed, send the file to myself or LS, and it'd be uploaded regularly. Anyone who wants to manage this single page on the ES pages, and thus participate in our grand maniacal scheme, feel free to post a comment here or email me directly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Just sent a sample to Masq of the Character Analysis... -- LadyStarlight, 13:14:32 04/08/03 Tue

I don't know what happened, but I forgot all about them. However, it's now at the forfront of my cluttered brain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Slacker! -- The Second Evil, 17:38:48 04/08/03 Tue

I've been wanting to say that. Bwahaha.

[> [> [> You could rotate them -- Vickie, 17:27:09 04/09/03 Wed

No need to add to the size of the board header. You could just rotate quotes out for new ones after a while.

If you wanted. Or not

[> [> [> [> Or even revolve them! -- d'Herblay, 17:57:44 04/09/03 Wed

This works, I think, only for those who browse through Microsoft-infected eyes, but you can have some fun with the <MARQUEE> code and end up with something like:
"You don't sit back on the couch watching 'Buffy,' you have to sit forward and think about it." --James Marsters   "When somebody says there is a philosophy behind 'Buffy' that is the truth. When they say there is symbolism and meaning in what we're doing, that's true too." --Joss Whedon   "Spike does not negate Angel and Angel does not negate Spike" -- shadowkat   "Free will is a bitch, but thatís the deal. The hardest thing in this world is to live in it--and in a world of six billion people, weíre all faced with the solitude of self." -- cjl   "I'm a little teapot, short and stout." -- d'Herblay

Ooh, that was fun. Not.

(There seems to be some sort of JavaScript code that makes this work across browsers. Just what we need! Now what's the tag that makes text blink? My eyeballs need a good bleeding.)

[> [> [> [> [> it works on my opera browser -- anom, 22:12:37 04/09/03 Wed

That is, if it's supposed to look like a large-scale font in colors.

[> [> [> [> [> AHHHH!!! ... No blinking!! No blinking!!! Back, back, evil java!! -- OnM, 07:54:10 04/10/03 Thu

Actually, just changing them out every week would be cool, like Vickie suggested.

[> [> [> [> [> I did that at the top of the board, once -- Masq, 12:35:46 04/10/03 Thu

The Marquee dealie. It messed everything up below it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Really? -- d'Herblay, 13:18:53 04/10/03 Thu

I used it while copying the archives a couple of times, and it worked fine.

NOT that I am seriously suggesting that we use it for quotes -- for one thing, it gives me headaches! I like Vickie's idea that we rotate the quotes more often. (Personally, I'm starting to think that Angel does negate Spike -- or, at least, the quality of Angel has negated the doubts I've had about the franchise since Buffy started to be all about Buffy jumping through hoops to keep Spike around.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> According to some people, it centered the board -- Masq, 13:45:59 04/10/03 Thu

Looked all right on my browser after I did it.

[> [> OT to Sidereal Coder -- cjl, 10:54:24 04/08/03 Tue

Please do. Copy the essay, that is. Heck, you can edit it, excerpt it, pour hot fudge and chocolate sprinkles on it, if you want. And if I get that banner quote? Cool. If not, no problem.

[> [> [> For hot fudge & sprinkles....no problem! -- The Sidereal Coder, 13:06:22 04/08/03 Tue

[> Self and Ego and Whitman -- luna, 10:59:41 04/08/03 Tue

That was a really well-written post, and I especially appreciate the insight into Stanton.

It's been interesting this season to see Buffy dealing with the problem of self and others in a different way--see the many, many discussions here about her egotism as she assumes the role of general, predicting that she's headed for a fall, etc., even mocked by Andrew in Storyteller. But I think the idea of self that you develop above is quite different from this superficial image that we're seeing right now, and more connected to the part of her that was willling to die for others in The Gift. In S6 we saw that self put itself back together, almost, through the human connection; in S7 we're seeing it transformed. I think the "ego" self, Buffy-the-General, will indeed not be successful and will ultimately be changed, partly because it separates her from the others, but the inner self, the true self of Stanton's vision, is what allows her to make the connection, as Whitman saw:

I celebrate myself;
And what I assume you shall assume;
For every atom belonging to me, as good belongs to you.

[> Re: Buffy, the Birth of American Feminism and the Solitude of Self (long; spoilery speculation) -- Angelus, 00:16:06 04/09/03 Wed

Very moving and beautiful cjl. Insightful how you realize that Buffy, the character and the series, sum all of that up in that one word, "Me!" uttered at that critical moment when Angelus asks what she's got when everything else is gone. That word is a very profound, lonely and moving one summing up the human condition.

[> The most ironic post I've written -- s'kat, 09:56:21 04/09/03 Wed

(First off: in case I forget, Good essay, cjl. Well written and insightful.)

Irony...is the word that best describes the post I'm writing in response to cjl's well-written and insightful essay. Which at one point, I may have agreed with. Why is it so ironic? Because I find that I disagree with him and Ms. Stanton on one thing - and the thing I disagree with them on believe me is incredibly and laughably ironic, if you knew me. And I think in a way Irony is the point of all of this. That is in a way the whole foundation of Buffy The Vampire Slayer - irony. What we think is true is often the complete opposite. Heck the title itself is ironic.

You see - I don't believe we make the big decisions alone as much as we think we do. We may feel we are alone but we aren't really. And that epiphany by itself is incredibly ironic for me to make, particularly this morning.

I am physically alone at the moment. I've been disconnected from the internet three times this morning. The only noise besides my typing is the hum of a chainsaw or machinery somewhere in the background. I've been alone physically all week more or less - connected by phones and electronics to the world. And while feeling incredibly sorry for myself, I thought I'd always gotten everything in my life, by myself, no one helped me. I've had long chats with my mother about how we must depend completely on ourselves and save ourselves and no one helps us. Then it hit me, how completely and utterly untrue that was. How much of a false illusion. And is for all of us. We are such literalists - we think that we are alone because no one is in the room with us or in Borjes story because it's only taking place in our head. But if we stop to think about it a moment, every thought, every idea is inspired by someone or something outside ourselves. Our decisions are not made in a vaccume. The job we get is given to us - someone hires us, someone desires our product, someone gives us inspiration or an idea. Someone loans us money. Someone if we are homeless - gives us shelter or the food kitchen gives us food. If we need comfort - someone gives us a hug.
Yes, it is up to us to decide whether to recieve these things to take advantage of them and that is a decision we make literally by ourselves, but and an interesting but here - the descision is influenced by others.

Let's look at Joss Whedon for a moment - did he really come up with the idea of Buffy the Vampire Slayer on his own? Uhm no. According to numerous interviews, he discussed this idea at length with his mother, an unpublished novelist living in a commune. And part of the reason he was so upset with the movie was he felt he'd hurt their vision. Joss Whedon's first writing job was gotten through his father's contacts. His father told him to write for TV, to get a job, not sit around moping. Do you really believe he got where he is alone? Sans contacts?? Take Stephen Deknight - in his interview he mentions how his friend Roland got him his first job on MTV and another friend got a script of his to Joss Whedon who never reads Buffy spec scripts. He didn't do it alone.

And Buffy The Vampire Slayer - in the credits of the series we see close to 15 names, credited with production, acting, writing, composition. The ideas for each show Whedon grabs from his writers and actors. What we see on the screen is not what is just in Whedon's head. It's what is in the heads of over 20 participants. Whedon,Marti, and Minear co- executive produce the shows. All the writers work as producers. When the show reaches the air it has been put together by numerous individuals. Before a single script is written, they all meet in a room and hatch out the story arc. It's not created alone. The ideas they get? Aren't found in a vaccume. The decisions they make? Aren't made by themselves - they ask advice from others. The idea, the notion, this is done alone is an ironic illusion.

Back to Becoming. What really happens in Becoming? Does Buffy really act alone? Think about it. When she's on the run from the police - she runs into first Whistler, who tells her what she must do, then Spike who tells her where Giles is and how he can help her defeat Angelus. He says something very important here: "None of us can defeat them alone." And they don't. In that pivotal scene with Buffy and Angelus - they aren't alone, they just believe they are.
Willow is busy in a hospital room getting Angel his soul back. Xander has just gotten Giles out of there. Spike just killed a vamp and got Dru out of the way. In the final scene Buffy is with Angel when she makes her choice. And even that choice wasn't one she did in a vaccume completely by herself. Others ideas and views affected it. Affected her. The sword she used was brought by Kendra. The knowledge she had that she had to seal Acathla with Angel's blood was given to her by Whistler and possibly Kendra.
Yes she had to make that choice and was physically by herself when she made it and makes a big deal of saying ME.
But the irony of the whole scene is in the background of this choice is 20 some people influencing it. Just as the irony of the whole idea that this show is all about Buffy or all about Joss - is there are 20 some other people influencing and changing every idea.

Truth is? We are only completely alone if we put ourselves in a sealed container or tower and never ever see a living soul.

They say we come into the world alone? But do we? Our genes are a combination of our parents DNA. We sleep in our mothers warm womb with her caring for us. When we come out people smile and hold us. We really aren't alone. We just think we are. When we die we are alone? But are we? Do we know this for certain? We get buried and our ashes join all the other ashes in the earth and our energy reconnects with the energy of the earth - not alone.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton believed she was alone. YEt her speech was made in front of lots of people. The Suffrage Movement was made with Susan B. Anthony. Nothing she did was really alone. None of her ideas came from just herself.
Everything was influenced by others.

The act of writing is a solitary art, but the ideas in the words come from elsewhere. Cjl's post above - has Elizabeth Cady Stanton's speech in the center of it and mentions my pseudonyme at the front - so obviously something I wrote inspired it. Just as this post in response to cjl's would never have been written if it weren't for his post above. ie. Not alone. If we think about it nothing we do, nothing we think, is not influenced in some way shape or form by our connections to others. However alone and isolated we may feel, we aren't. We are whether we like it or not dependent on each other. And believe me there are times, like today for instance, when life feels like the pits and I want to scream for all it's worth, that I wish we weren't dependent on others. That I feel completely and utterly cut off and alone and nothing will ever work out. But I'm not.
Evidence that I'm not alone props up every day, whether I choose to acknowledge it or not.

Even our choices, tend to be influenced by others choices. We don't make them alone as much as we think we do. They are influenced by the people around us. Think what choices you may have made in your life if you didn't have anyone else? No parents. No friends. No children. No family. No teachers. No employers. No one.

The victim in the Borges story - writes a play with people in it, his play is based on his experiences with people, he stands in front of a firing squad which is killing him for choices he made that affect other people. The irony, is that he thinks he's alone.

You have no idea how ironic this post is coming from me. I who have always believed that I'm alone. That I've done everything by myself and screw the rest of them. But over the past two years...I've realized something...that this idea that I am alone in the universe is an illusion. I'm not, even though there are times like this one that I'm completely and utterly convinced I am.


[> [> The Blind Men and the Elephant (Buffyverse edition) -- cjl, 12:01:12 04/09/03 Wed


It was six men of Indostan
To learning much inclined,
Who went to see the Elephant
(Though all of them were blind),
That each by observation
Might satisfy his mind.

The First approached the Elephant,
And happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
At once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the Elephant
Is very like a wall!"

The Second, feeling of the tusk
Cried, "Ho! what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me ëtis mighty clear
This wonder of an Elephant
Is very like a spear!"

The Third approached the animal,
And happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
Thus boldly up and spake:
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a snake!"

The Fourth reached out an eager hand
And felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like
Is mighty plain," quoth he;
"íTis clear enough the Elephant
Is very like a tree!"

The Fifth, who chanced to touch the ear,
added: "Eíen the blindest man can tell what this
resembles most;
Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an Elephant
Is very like a fan!"

The Sixth no sooner had begun
About the beast to grope,
Than, seizing on the swinging tail
That fell within his scope.
"I see," quoth he, "the Elephant
Is very like a rope!"

And so these men of Indostan
Disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
Exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right,
And all were in the wrong!

-- John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

This is what's so marvelous about the ATP board. Dozens of learned, witty people can look at the same object and produce dozens of different opinions. Each of us comes to the board with our own background, our own experience, and each of us brings own distinct perspective to the remarkable creation that is Buffy. We are all unique, and yet, Buffy connects us.

That is the paradox of the ATP board, of Buffy, of life. All of us connected, even in our loneliest hour; each us unique and alone, in a world of billions. If you try to define Joss Whedon's creation without dealing with the paradox, you're not getting the complete picture...

Which begs the question--can we, as the Blind Men of Indostan, ever grasp Absolute Truth?

Maybe we should save that for Sunday brunch and the company of friends.

[> [> [> Re: The Blind Men and the Elephant (Buffyverse edition) -- lunasea, 12:16:25 04/09/03 Wed

One of my favorite stories. If the men would just walk around the darn thing they would get a more complete picture. To me that is what the story is about. Each man felt one thing and went no further. We each think that our tiny corner of the world is "THE world." There is a world and we should all broaden our horizons (or not argue to forcefully)

The ultimate perspective would hold all other perspectives.

What I have found interesting lately is that this board is a way for us each to relate to the elephant (Buffy) from our tiny perspective. I know about X, so here is how Buffy relates to X. Often discussions get heated because the participants aren't talking from the same thing. One cares about X and the other Y. Since it is about Buffy, it is assumed that it is the same thing. Often it isn't.

I think we geeks are trying to connect to the learned men of the past by knowing what they did. We feel disconnected from the people with the screwed up priorities of today and instead find kinship in our prefered area of interest. When we read or see something and think "I feel that way" we don't feel so alone. "I'm not a complete freak" we think.

Or at least I do. Your mileage may vary.

[> [> Re: The most ironic post I've written -- ponygirl, 12:02:57 04/09/03 Wed

Is it ironic? It's not so unexpected really, this is the divide that we all face - how to connect to others while always being alone in our own heads. How to be self-reliant in a world where the slightest action of another can impact on us in countless ways. And for Buffy, the Slayer is always alone, yet is connected to every slayer who has gone before her. Apart from the world, yet trying to live in it. I wonder if anyone's told Buffy that it's all connected, she keeps being told that she's alone.

Glad that you were able to re-establish an electronic connection, shadowkat!

[> I've been thinking about this -- lunasea, 12:43:27 04/09/03 Wed

The Woman's Movement has been about one word to me, empowerment. That is why so many men are attracted to it, including Joss. The struggle of those early feminist will rival anything any fictional hero with a thousand faces has. Biography has "replaced" mythology in modern society.

Alone, connected. Words. Rhetoric. Motivation. There is the key. What perspective is "right"? Doesn't really matter? What matters is what we do with that perspective. Sometimes one perspective motivates us and sometimes the other. Sometimes one perspective used to work, but no longer does. Then we need to switch. Every now and then, it helps to have someone come along and kick us in our pants.

Calls to action. That is what speeches like this are. Talk about them, if you want, but to truly do them justice take them into your heart. What is important is that you put them into effect and live them.

Becoming struck me because typically so dramatic a change involves a baptism of some sort on the show. In this case it was a baptism by tears. Buffy baptised herself, in the ultimate symbol of her self-reliance and what that meant.

Connor and Mythical Themes -- Angelus, 02:54:55 04/08/03 Tue

I'm new to the board. This is only my second post but I thought I'd bring something up for discussion.

I believe one of the things that fascinates me about Connor as a character is that he plays out mythical themes in ways beyond other characters in the show. Granted Angel plays out many archetypal themes but, for instance, one of the qualifiers of a mythical hero is that he is predestined for greatness even from birth. Samson's parents are visited by angels who tell them that he will be the hero of his people. Heracles is the son of Zeus and strangles monsters while still in his crib. Jesus is born of a virgin.

Buffy may be the slayer but its never been indicated that she was destined from birth for greatness by any unusual circumstances. Same for Angel and so on. But Connor is born of two vampires yet a human with a soul and powers. He is kidnapped into a hell dimension where he spends his childhood.

I'm tempted to say he then grows up to be oh not too bright. But this is clearly not a requirement for our mythical heroes. Besides its not a matter of intelligence but in wanting to believe in someone.

Someone pointed out to me that, in addition to being destined for greatness by an unusual birth, a mythical hero is often the son of a god or king. In this context, the son of two vampires, one of them the only souled vampire until very recently, might qualify.

Another element often seen in mythical heroes is that there is a threat to his life by a parent, family member or loved one while he is still a child. So to save him he is taken away to a strange foreign land. We then see little or nothing of his childhood but he comes back a man and a hero who has achieved whatever superhuman powers he might possess.

Often he opposes his own father and possibly kills him. He establishes himself as a great hero and performs great tasks but is often duped by those he cares about and especially by some of the women in his life. Along the way, he often performs acts that are not altruistic or heroic at all. Some of them are heinous and he must perform great tasks and take long journeys as a means of repentance for his crimes.

My knowledge of myth is not all that great and I know this is only the tip of the iceberg but it seems to me that Connor touches upon many mythical themes that may explain why some of us see him as a profound character even while others see him as a shallow character.

The Angel 'Ship Chart -- KdS, 09:01:41 04/08/03 Tue

This has been a project of mine for a while now.


Interestingly, this was relatively sparse until mid-S3 but now has reached BtVS-like levels of incestuousness. My personal theory why is alluded to on the site.

[> Lindsey had an unrequited attraction to Angel? -- Masq, 09:12:36 04/08/03 Tue

In everyone's fanfic dreams, and in subtext, perhaps, but... makes me wonder about some of the other links you've made.

One iffy meaning of "It's not me you want to screw" taken as "canonical text"?

Just teasing. ; )

On another note, I notice it's only romantic relation 'ships. Is there a reason to leave out friendship/family ties? I'm a lot more shippy about those myself.

[> [> On the friendship issue -- KdS, 10:07:49 04/08/03 Tue

I left the friends and relations out because otherwise it would just have enbded up like a spider web.

[> Re: The Angel 'Ship Chart -- SableHart, 17:14:16 04/09/03 Wed

Brilliant! But don't forget about the Wes/Cordy kiss in Parting Gifts, which I though rather made up for GD.

Back to that Kali thing (spoilers thru 7.15ish, I suppose) -- Calamus, 11:51:21 04/08/03 Tue

Some random musings on the earlier trilogy of essays about Kali. I can't keep up with the board's gaping maw.

Those essays- I enjoyed them very much, but they filled me with questions. I admit I just don't get what's going on with the whole "First" thing and s. 7, cosmologically speaking. And I suspect I don't get the particular way the folks on this board have enthusiasms about mythology and psychology. (Or maybe it's just 'cos I don't read spoilers. Don't really want to know.) But I had doubts. I express them tentatively, not as a criticism. Just trying to puzzle through it all, in a muddley kind of way.

One set of questions involves the Slayer myth. The other, how the First fits in, if Buffy fits in as Kali. They're related questions.

First, I'm uncertain whether the whole "Slayer mythology" as an unambiguous "given" is one part big projection of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" (she sees what she wants to see, hears what she wants to hear, and so do we, wanting a classic TV heroine as bad as she wants to be one), one part misdirection from her (our) "guides," and one part what hasn't been said. What if Buffy's not Kali, but a black goat laid at Kali's feet, the first to get up and walk away long enough to wonder whether it really wants to offer itself up to her?

What if Buffy, the First Slayer, and the Slayers in between were given power (the demon essence, etc.), but not so that they would live long and prosper, fighting evil in all its guises. What if they were given power so that they would do their real job- the job given to so many lineages of pubescent girls over the generations, so many lines of Chosen- as sacrificial victims? Were they intended to fight the demons? Or propitiate the forces of darkness, by feeding the hungry maw? (After giving good fight, of course, a Lion and Gladiator kind of thing. Demons only like it when she puts up a fight, or some such deal.) So, was Buffy "supposed" to take the demon into her in the shadowbox in order to gain more power, or be overwhelmed by its essence, and so, the deathwish? What plan did she thwart?

The imagery of Kali sparked this question in my mind, because the main thing I've noticed about Kali is how linked her history is with blood sacrifice, actual blood sacrifice and iconic imagery of blood sacrifice. I can't help but notice how Tara/The First Slayer's lines in "Restless" fit the picture of The First Slayer as being a direct victim of blood sacrifice: "I have no speech. No name. I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. ...I am destruction. Absolute ... alone." These lines are ambiguous about who's doing the action of death, causing the penetrating wound- one can revel in destruction as sacrificial victim or wielder of the blade/teeth. In joining with the destructive force, as well as in annihilating it.

It would make sense that over time the Slayers gained skills, changed their attitude, and interpreted their role as "Vampire Slayer." Who wants to see themselves as a victim these days (even when we're really acting like one)? This development would parallel the transformation of other forms of sacrifice- from actual blood sacrifice to merely symbolic sacrifice, and from required to rejected role for women/girls.

This could mean that the Bel-Joxa's Eye thing's statement had something to do with Buffy disrupting the order of things because she didn't succeed in doing the Slayer death wish thing (or, equally, Faith "doing time" instead of offering herself up to the endless battles every night). Really trying to live a 'normal' superhero life as stepping out of the line of mythological footprints.

Why would this give the First a foot in the door? Dunno. If it's Buffy, maybe 'cos of the way Buffy's trying to do this, not what she's trying to do- i.e. because she's trying to shed her 'darkness' in order to "live" instead of embracing her 'darkness' (and the realization of hopelessness that was the little 'gift' dying gave her), or whatever. (Maybe Bel-Joxa's eye sees the big picture but eschews the subtleties or little details.)

The other issue that nags at the back of my mind is the image at the end of "GID" of the long line of baddies waiting to make their way through the Hellmouth. Is the whole dream-of-First-Slayer thing and the jacked-up--in-the- box thing really a warning that "it's not enough" and Buffy needs to bring out the big guns? Or is it something like a vision of the Buddha's First Truth- "all life is suffering"? (Interpreted by some as meaning "despair, give up," and by others as meaning "it's hopeless to pull out a big gun; if you insist on having and killing enemies, there's always another demon ready to take the last one's place. Hopeless, baby, go with that hopelessness.")

Which leads me to one more question: What if it's the First Evil that's more profoundly related to Kali? (Since Buffy seems to be deeply related to the First in some way, she'd still have a deep relationship to the images of Kali, the divine dark feminine, yadda yadda. Also, I guess it's about which vision of Kali you're thinking of. There are so many different sources, stories, and images of her.)

There's the way that in one story, Kali was born from Kausiki ("she of the sheath"), who was created when Siva's consort, Parvati, is embarrassed by and sheds her dark complexion- and only Kali, the discarded dark part, can fight off the demons. This could go either way- The Slayer as created by the Shadowmen to do their dirty work and fight off the demons (which would fit right into the tripartite essays nicely). Or, The First Evil as being constantly brought into the world, as a non-corporeal but "made-real" entity, whenever we try to shed our 'darkness' as if it's some embarrassing thing. (As if...).

There's the story in the Devi-bhagavata where Shiva gets royally pissed off at his wife, Sati, because she wants to go to Daksa's sacrifice, to which Shiva is the only god not invited in all of the heavens. He refuses her permission to go, so she assumes the "terrible" form of Kali, and manifests the ten heads of the dasa-mahavidyas. He asks where his lovely wife went, and she lets him on the little secret that she only assumed that form to reward him for his austerities, but being his wife is just a sideline, an amusing pasttime. She has this other gig where she, you know, sort of creates and destroys everything.

For some reason, that story reminds me not of Buffy, but of the way the First manifests in "our world" as dead people, to, like, "give us what we really want," until it gets bored. It seems like the force that in fairy tales grants people's wishes, on strictly literal terms- which is always a curse. What if what it does here, in this world in "real" form is just an amusing sideline that's no longer amusing (for the moment- maybe Buffy needs to try to amuse it instead of try to destroy it)?

The thing about Kali that's also so striking is the way non- devotees see images of her as simply images of evil, of horror. (I'm biased. Buffy's just too young, cute, blonde, and perky for me to superimpose any of the images of Kali over her. And imagery is so important with this particular mythology.)

Here's the quote that reminds me of the things said about the First (it existed even before the earth) and the emphasis on how it "devours." Wait, first, thinking a little more- "from beneath you" casts shadows of the vamacara or "left-hand" tantra- partaking of the forbidden and disgusting in the cremation ground, to seek union with the divinity, beyond such dualisms. "Starting with your bottom" - ack, a sly reference to the first chakra? That could cut both ways.

Anyway, the quote is from Arthur Avalon's translation of the Mahanirvana-tantra, quoted in David R. Kinsley's "The Sword and the Flute":

"At the dissolution of things, it is Kala [Time- male epithet] Who will devour all, and by reason of this He is called Mahakala [an epithet of Shiva], and since Thou devourest Mahakala Himself, it is Thou who art the Supreme primordial Kalika.

Because Thou devourest Kala, Thou art Kali, because Thou art the Origin of and devourest all things Thou art called the Adya [primordial] Kali. Resuming after dissolution Thine own nature, dark and formless, ineffable and inconceivable Thou alone remainest as the One. Though having a form, yet art Thou formless; though Thyself without beginning, multiform by the power of Maya, Thou art the Beginning of all, Creatrix, Protectress, and Destructress that Thou art."


In embracing Buffy-as-Kali-as-Shiva's-better-half, are we unknowingly drowning in the water contained in a cow's hoofprint? Is Buffy Kali, or is Buffy as much as victim as the rest of us of Kali's web of Maya? And, of course, is Joss merely a bubble arising from the mouth of Kali, along with Vishnu, Brahma, and Siva?


[> Preserving this thread... -- Random, 12:33:26 04/09/03 Wed

[> Also preserving -- LittleBit, 15:30:17 04/09/03 Wed

[> just a little more Vishnu action -- Vickie, 18:17:38 04/09/03 Wed

[> Holding steady -- Steady Holder ;-), 00:35:32 04/10/03 Thu

With Buffy winding down... -- Wolfhowl3, 13:02:16 04/08/03 Tue

I think it's time to look back over the past 7 years, and remember the greatest quotes that have come from this great Series.

I invite everyone to post there favirote quote from both shows.

For me, it has to be the following from Season 3, Lover's Walk.

"Your not friends, you'll love each other till it kills you both. You'll Fight, and you'll shag but you'll never be friends. Love isn't this, children" (points to his head) "It's Blood, screaming inside you to work it's will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

That speach always gives me chills, becuase I know that I am also very much, Love's Bitch.


[> Spike's rooftop monologue from "In the Dark" (ANGEL S1) -- cjl, 14:00:55 04/08/03 Tue

SPIKE (in high voice): How can I thank you, you mysterious, black-clad hunk of a night thing? (low voice) No need, little lady, your tears of gratitude are enough for me. You see, I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse defanged me. Now I’Äôm just a big, fluffy puppy with bad teeth. [Rachel steps closer to Angel, and Angel steps back warding her off with his hands] No, not the hair! Never the hair! (high voice) But there must be someway I can show my appreciation. (low voice) No, helping those in need’Äôs my job - and working up a load of sexual tension, and prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough! (high voice) I understand. I have a nephew who is gay, so’Ķ (low voice) Say no more. Evil’Äôs still afoot! And I’Äôm almost out of that Nancy-boy hair-gel that I like so much. Quickly, to the Angel-mobile, away!

[Spike lights a cigarette while he watches Angel lead Rachel away.]

Spike: Go on with you. Play the big, strapping hero while you can. You have a few surprises coming your way: the Ring of Amarra, a visit from your old pal Spike - and, oh yeah - your gruesome, horrible death.

[Smiles. Credits.]

Thanks to Psyche, as usual.

[> [> Which is one of those ringing ironies, in retrospect -- Masq, 14:31:28 04/08/03 Tue

I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse defanged me.

Love and a pesky chip.

Now I'm just a big, fluffy puppy with bad teeth.

Especially after that psychotherapy stone.

Say no more. Evil's still afoot! And I'm almost out of that Nancy-boy hair-gel that I like so much.

I mean, c'mon Spike, you're trying to tell us you don't get up every morning and swipe about 10 gallons of grease through your hair?

[> [> [> Re: Which is one of those ringing ironies, in retrospect -- lunasea, 14:43:35 04/08/03 Tue

And don't forget at least our Champion's hair is the color he was born with.

Gotta love that scene in light of what happened next. The irony was just too delicious.

I loved that Spike was the first character to really be a cross-over. He just had to follow Angel. Then he comes back to Sunnydale and gets his mini-soul.

[> [> [> [> Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- Masq, 15:07:21 04/08/03 Tue

OK, I read--accidentally, I'm not a trollop--that to sell Season 5 to the WB, Joss may be forced to bring Spike over as a regular.

Getting past how that is monumentally going to suck (Spike has a nasty habit of stealing scenes, and thinking a TV show is All About Him), I wonder what the Angel-Spike dynamic would be like on a show that is Angel's show, not Buffy's.

Those two boys have a lot of history. A LOT of history. History in the past, a la "Fool For Love", and history in the not-so-past, as in "I shagged your true love for months, gramps, what do you think of that?" "What do I think, Spike? *thud, crunch, crack*)

I also see this surreal scene where Spike meets Connor for the first time. "Hey! I guess that makes you my uncle.... Or possibly my great-uncle, I'm not sure."

[> [> [> [> [> Gotta tell you, Masq--the S/C scene? I'm laughing already. -- cjl, 15:14:28 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm tellin' ya, I coulda been in fan fics! -- Masq, 15:30:01 04/08/03 Tue

And if there is no Season 5 of AtS, I may very well have to be.

[> [> [> [> [> Hmm . . . let's think. (spec only, no spoilers) -- HonorH, 15:43:14 04/08/03 Tue

(Spike strides into the Hyperion as if he owns it. The Fang Gang, still recovering from the events of last season, all stare at him.)

Con: Who's that?

A: Spike.

S: 'Lo, Angel. I thought I'd drop by and see how my favorite grandsire's holding up.

Cor: And to think I thought things couldn't get any worse.

G: Hold on--this guy's a vampire?

A: With a soul.

F: I thought you were the only one.

A: Was. Spike here's not very original.

S: Why, Peaches, you wound me.

W: (with great irritation) As charming as it is to meet you, Spike, we've a great deal to do here.

S: (shedding his coat and plopping down on the couch beside Fred) Great! Bring me up to speed.

W/A/Cor: What?

S: Well, what with Sunnydale all out of commission and everything, I thought I'd join my old grandsire in this neck of the woods. Fight the good fight and all that.

Con: Grandsire?

S: (looking at Connor): Who's the kid? Smells like . . . Darla.

Con: She was my mother.

A: Connor, this is Spike, who's in my line of descent. Spike, this is Connor, my son with Darla.

S: How'd that happen?

W: (tiredly) Very long story.

Cor: And twisted. Don't forget the twisted.

(Spike and Connor give each other the once-over twice.)

S: So he'd be what? My uncle?

A: Yes, on my side. On Darla's, your nephew. Or possibly your great-uncle, depending on which vamping you're talking about.

S: Hmph. Least he looks more like his mum. Take my advice, Junior: never let your hair stick straight up.

Con: As if I would. Your hair's cool.

A: (to Cordy) Please don't tell me they're bonding.

Cor: Could be worse. Has been worse.

F: Hold on a minute. You said he's got a soul? How?

S: Did it for a girl.

A: He used to . . . work with Buffy. (Gives Spike a warning glare. Spike smirks, but says nothing.)

F: Why'd she work with him?

S: I had a chip. (indicates head) Kept me from hurting people. I could go after demons, though.

G: So you can't hurt people.

S: Actually, I can. I don't have the chip anymore, but my soul keeps me on the straight and narrow.

A: Except for that nasty little "trigger" incident.

F: He has a trigger?

S: Not anymore, since Giles shoved that rock in my brain.

F: There's a rock in your brain?

S: No, it crawled out.

F: This is very confusing.

S: Do yourself a favor and don't think about it too long, love. So, how about the Good Fight?

(Angel looks around the room. No one's especially trying to fight Spike's inclusion. They're all too exhausted.)

A: Fine. You're in. Just stay in line.

S: No problem, Peaches.

A: And stop calling me that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- Masq, 15:49:11 04/08/03 Tue

Just imagining Connor with Spike's hair-do.

wandering off into a corner, simpering

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> On the bright side . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:28:36 04/08/03 Tue

While there are rumors of James Marsters appearing on Angel Season Five, it appears to be merely idle speculation that he'll be a regular. As yet it is unknown (may even be unknown to the writers and actors) what capacity he would have. While a regular is a possibility, he may simply be a recurring character, like Drusilla was in Season 2, or Gwen is this season. Or he may only be in it for one episode as a special guest. Or, we can't even be sure it's the current Spike we'll see. We might instead have Angel/Angelus flashbacks that include Spike.

Personally, while I like the character of Spike, I do agree that making him an "Angel" regular would be a bad idea. For one thing, it undermines Angel's position as THE vampire with a soul. That remains in tact as long as the only other souled vamp is on a seperate show, but not otherwise. Also, a number of the points you said are very legitimate concerns. Of course, we have kept hearing Season 5 is going to be different. Spike being there would certainly be different. Though, honestly, I'm hoping that, at most, Spike's on Angel for two or three episodes. One ep might be better, and I think Spike appearing only in flashback(s) would be ideal.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed. -- Masq, 16:37:27 04/08/03 Tue

A few episodes, I can handle.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What I've heard (slight rant as gift with purchase) -- Doug, 17:31:09 04/08/03 Tue

I think it was Jane Espenson who put out the figure of 10+ episodes; I presume that includes episodes where he's only in flashbacks.

Ok, I have a question about something you said:

"For one thing, it undermines Angel's position as THE vampire with a soul. That remains in tact as long as the only other souled vamp is on a seperate show, but not otherwise."

Now, if AtS and BtVS are still in the same universe (as Willow's crossover this year would indicate) then Angel is A Vampire with a soul; still the original one, but no longer THE Vampire with a soul. So shouldn't the existence of another VwaS (acronyms are fun) have an effect on him, particularly when the other VwaS is from his own bloodline and a descendant of his. Now, that effect can either be shown, prefferably with the other VwaS on screen at least for a short time so the audience can see for themselves, or Angel can be delusional boy; rocking back and forth and repeating:

"I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one. I'm the only one."

rather than try to adjust his view of his own identity to absorb new information. Like it or not, Joss Chose to have Spike get that soul. Personally, as far as metaphors go I HATE the soul. Nevertheless it's there, and there are now two souled Vampires.

Personally I think this could also be fully part of Angel's storyline. Posters here have written far more eloquently than I could about Angel's focus on family. Well one member of Angelus's old family hasn't appeared on AtS since the first season; Spike. I think that if Season 5 is going to be the last Season, then Spike and Dru should both be in that season. Darla's already dead, but the rest of the family is still out there and if Angel's storyline is to be brought to a close than Angelus's will be as well. And what's left of the family should be a part of it.

Your mileage no doubt varies.

And sorry for the Rant; but I had to get that out of my system.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shanshu (spoiler Inside Out) -- lunasea, 18:27:26 04/08/03 Tue

The uniqueness of the Vampire with a soul only really matters with the prophecies of Aberjian. I think Shanshu is going to go away this season. We heard several interpretations of "shanshu." It means become human when it is proto-Bantu. When it is Sumerian, it means Death.

(since when does one word get interpreted out of context? When you do an interpretation, that word is in a sentence. Shanshu was surrounded by lots of words. What language where they in? Major difference between Ugarit and Bantu. Proto- Bantu isn't even written.)

Cordy/Jasmine seems to be speaking Sumerian to me. Her form before she is poured into Jasmine looks like Tiamat to me. Jasmine has been pulling a great many strings. It is completely plausible that she is the one who set up Aberjian for some reason.

If this season is about Free Will kicking the the prophecy over and starting over would be a powerful statement.

That doesn't mean that eventually Angel won't turn fully human. The idea was brought up back in "I Will Remember You" with both Doyle and the Oracles. That wasn't dependant on him being the vampire with a soul. That was Angel specific.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Even though Spike's in the same universe. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:38:44 04/08/03 Tue

He hasn't had any interaction with Angel since he got his soul. When I talked about Spike being disruptive to Angel's position, I meant in terms of group dynamic and how he thinks of himself. Also, if they're in the same city, it becomes to see why Angel is the #1 evil fighter and center of prophecies and what not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What I've heard (slight rant as gift with purchase) -- maddog, 12:37:04 04/09/03 Wed

Where are people getting numbers on episodes? I read practically every article on both shows and I haven't heard anything on how many shows he'll be on...in fact he's the only one I've read mention that he'd been asked to be on the show next year.

I kinda think it would be interesting to see Angel deal with Spike because Angel has a tendancy to pout...I can see him having a hard time dealing with Spike and their mutual situation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On the bright side . . . -- maddog, 12:28:23 04/09/03 Wed

If you call a rumor having the man himself saying that he's going to be on it then I'd like to know what you think fact is. If there's anything rumored it's the one about Giles and he's even said they've talked and they like the idea, but nothing concrete. And I'll say what I said in my other post here. Don't forget what Joss does...he surprises us. Hell, Spike may not be a vampire at all when he gets to LA...who knows?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> James Marsters has stated what's going to be coming on the show before. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:29:59 04/09/03 Wed

. . . and been wrong. As long as he's the only one saying it, I'm weary of trusting it too much.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: James Marsters has stated what's going to be coming on the show before. . . -- Dochawk, 19:10:16 04/09/03 Wed

He's backtracked from that statement. Now he says "he thinks" he will be on it and "we are discussing it". Not the same as a sure thing.

[> [> [> [> [> Angel wouldn't know what hit him -- Doug, 15:53:08 04/08/03 Tue

Could you imagine what would happen if Connor and Spike were to bond and team up? Angel's two surviving male descendants in one place at one time:

Oedipal Issues Squared.

I think those two would be a hoot if they were working together.

If Spike crosses over to Angel I hope they have him do opening monolgues like in "In the Dark".

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- lunasea, 17:51:49 04/08/03 Tue

(Spike has a nasty habit of stealing scenes, and thinking a TV show is All About Him)

Spike is a character. It is the actor that tends to steal the scenes. I think JM is a great actor, but I also think that he should tone it down sometimes. He is in the chorus, not the soloist. When we notice him so much, that isn't necessarily a good thing.

I'm not thrilled about the idea of Spike on Angel, either, especially if Cordy is on it also. There will be two characters whose interaction with Angel will involve mainly insults. Connor is a third.

I only see it really working if instead of working for AI, both souled vampires end up working for another entity (and I have my suspicions what entity it is). Then Spike can handle his stuff, Angel can handle his and occassionally they will be foreced to work together.

I can see Spike providing something interesting for Angel's growth. Angel is not going to be happy when he finds out about "Seeing Red" or pretty much any of S6. I don't see him being able to just dismiss it as pre-soul. In order for Angel to really be able to be mad with Spike, he will have to understand the correlation between souled and unsouled vampire. When he does this, he will have to accept Angelus.

Then maybe Angel will help Spike actually grow.

If anyone can find an interesting angle that makes me want to watch it and look forward to each week, it is Joss.

[> [> [> [> [> [> I'd like to see them meet too. -- Arethusa, 18:33:00 04/08/03 Tue

I can see Spike providing something interesting for Angel's growth.

That's a good point about Angel and Spike. If they were to meet and thrash it out, Angel would have to realize that while Spike became sickened by the pain he was causing as a vampire, Angelus reveled in hurting others. That says a lot about Liam and William, since "what we once were informs all that we have become," as Darla states. That might make Angel face the fact that Angelus is merely a facet of Angel, as the unsouled Spike is still a part of the new Spike. I just rewatched Never Leave Me, and it was interesting to see Spike declare that he and unsouled Spike are the same person, a fact that Angel has always denied. Since I am an even bigger fan of Angel than of Spike, I'd really like to see Angel incorprate all of his splintered personality, so he could finally grow as a person.

Wouldn't it be a kick if Angel does Shanshu and they have to bring Spike in to be the vampire-with-a-soul Champion with superpowers?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel hasn't always denied it -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:44:09 04/08/03 Tue

He seems to go back and forth. Sometimes he seems to take it all as his responsibility and his own acts. Other times he makes the distinction between souled and unsouled. For every occasion when Angel has declared himself to be two seperate beings, there's a case where he declared himself the same person as Angelus (most notably when he was on BtVS, when the name distinction between his souled and unsouled states didn't even exist).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel hasn't always denied it -- Arethusa, 19:44:20 04/08/03 Tue

It's a tricky issue. He and FakeCordy speak of Angelus as "he," as a different person, but he ssys "I" when talking about Angelus with Connor. If Rufus is right about the fact that Angel sees himself separate from Angelus, and I think she is, Angel pays lip service to the notion that they are the same, but doesn't really believe it. I think that part of his need to be a champion is his desire to be a good person, and seeing himself as both Angel and Angelus would make that very difficult. (Time for research, I think. What does Angel really believe in his heart?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- lunasea, 19:34:36 04/08/03 Tue

Angel would have to realize that while Spike became sickened by the pain he was causing as a vampire,

Spike became sickened by the non-existant pain he was causing because of the chip?

It isn't about Liam or William. It is about what pain they are both under *now.* Angelus, when we saw him again, wasn't formed by Liam's issues. It was formed by Angel's. Angel grew and Angelus was different. Angelus is more than a facet of Angel. He shows him what issues Angel needs to work on. He started reaching out to others because he didn't want to eat them. not hurting others is a big motivator for him. If he understood where Angelus comes from, he might work harder on himself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel or Angelus -- Arethusa, 20:27:59 04/08/03 Tue

Spike was chipless for a hundred years. He caused a lot of pain, which he could shrug off until it was the pain of someone he cared about very much.

Angel is the soul of Liam (older and more mature, of course), and the vampire demon. Either the issues arise from the soul or from the vampire, or Angel has no issues, and we both agree he does. So the issues arise from the soul or the demon. But the demon doesn't have issues-it's not a personality or memories, it's just the lack of a moral compass. The person becomes inclined towards evil instead of good and the personality and issues of the person become the basis for the behavior of the vampire. (Obviously, I believe in the soul-as-conscience theory.) If this is not the case, if the issues are Angelus' and not Liam's (young or "old"), than the demon has issues-and therefore personality-of its own, which according to canon is not the case. "Who we were informs all that we become [as vampires]," Darla said. (Quote by psyche.)

Souled Angel sought to help others. (Souless Spike sought to help others, for selfish reasons, of course because hello, vampire.) But yes, Angel does need to understand where Angelus comes from.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel or Angelus -- lunasea, 09:16:57 04/09/03 Wed

He caused a lot of pain, which he could shrug off until it was the pain of someone he cared about very much.

From "Lover's Walk"
"I'm gonna do what I shoulda done in the first place: I'll
find her, wherever she is, tie her up, torture her until she likes me again."

"Who we were informs all that we become [as vampires]," Darla said. (Quote by psyche.)

It is true. Who we were does inform all that we become. It is called Karma. It isn't just the switch from human to vamp that this applies to. It is every day. Which was my point. Angelus now isn't just Liam's issues. He is Angel's. Angel is everything from his birth as a human to the present. Angelus is the darker side of those issues (lashing out because of them as he explain in "Release").

When we start to divide Angel into soul, demon, etc, we miss the forest for the trees. Angel isn't the sum of certain things. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. The parts are just plot devices to explain what would be uncharacteristic behavior.

Issues don't arise from the soul or the demon. The soul isn't the Christian soul. It is just a switch that changes the moral compass. It doesn't do anything but give warm fuzzies and guilt. The demon is pure instinct. There is more to the personality than either of these.

Angelus comes more from Darla than from Daddy, just like Spike comes more from something that happened after he was vamped. Just because someone is vamped doesn't mean they are psychologically frozen. The only thing a vampire loses is the soul. The rest of the psyche is intact.

The only thing a soul does in regards to issues is give guilt when a person lashes at others in order to deal with those issues. A souled creature has to find another way to deal. A vampire, lacking a soul, gets positive feedback when he lashes out. This stops the pain temporarily.

Angel has lived for over 100 years with a soul. He has changed in that time. Angelus is also going to change. He is no longer Liam.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- yabyumpan, 22:40:51 04/08/03 Tue

and it was interesting to see Spike declare that he and unsouled Spike are the same person, a fact that Angel has always denied.

I don't think I've ever seen Angel deny that he and Angelus are the same person/vampire. He generally talks about "what I did" or When I was evil", how is that denying? When he does refer to 'Angelus' I see it just as a shorthand for 'me with out a soul', the same way that we, as fans, use Angel and Angelus.
What I do think is different between Spike and Angel is that Angel has over 100 years of distance from Angelus, not counting SD and recent events. I think what that means is that he's been able to develop a personality that incorperates Liam and Angelus but is also something more - Angel. Spike hasn't had the time to do this, he's had his soul for less than a year and for part of that time he's been controled by the First. Of course we'll probably never know, but it would be interesting to see Spike in 100 years, to see how much he's changed, see if he keeps his name which he got from torturing people with rail road spikes. For me that's one of the big problems in comparing souledSpike and Angel, their post-soul experiences have been very different.
And it's the constant comparisons which make me join in with Masq's AAAAAAAAGH Re: Spike joining AtS. The discussions/debates/arguments are bad enough now, I may just have to stay off line completely if JM/Spike does end up in L.A.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- Angelus, 02:48:18 04/09/03 Wed

For most of his unlife, Angel seems to have accepted that he and Angelus are more or less the same person, one with and one without a soul. When he became Angelus in Buffy season 2 he referred to things he did with a soul as "a phase I was going through" and generally used first person descriptions, "I did..." Likewise when he got his soul back he felt guilt over what he did without a soul and referred to them in the first person. The names Angel and Angelus were essentially conveniences.

But in more recent times Angel tended to refer to Angelus in the third person. When he lost his soul and took a walk down memory lane, he kept saying things like, "It wasn't me that did that. It was HIM." Likewise souled Angel seemed to consistently refer to his unsouled or Angelus self as a completely separate being. I know Lunasea has used the term disassociation. Its a new element.

That was one of the things I was dissapointed by in the recent appearance of Angelus (well, that and Angelus as a standup comedian). Especially in the scene where Angel and Angelus confront each other as two personas, I hoped for some sort of inner admission from Angelus that he is simply Angel with something missing and an admission from Angel that Angelus is the issues and the darkness within himself once you strip away the guiding moral compass of the soul. Instead you got the two aspects staying separate and in denial.

Regarding the "Angel and Spike on the same show" possibility, I am sure Joss will present it in such a way that it can work. Right now both characters seem to have been brought to a stage where they draw complete distinction between souled and unsouled. In Spike's case, he tells Wood that he was a vampire and Wood's Mom was a slayer. He feels no guilt over what he did because that's what a vampire (unsouled) is and lacking a soul there's nothing he could do about it. Angel presents much the same sentiment in saying he feels no guilt for anything Angelus did (note third person) in Angelus's most recent appearance. Its the same implication, that he can't control what Angelus does. In a sense both Spike and Angel are right. Whatever atrocities they committed pre-soul, anyone without a soul would do such things. Their souled selves are not to blame. On the other hand, this also means both of them are thinking of their pre- soul selves as separate beings to some degree though I think Angel is drawing an absolute difference between his souled and unsouled selves even more than Spike is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good post. -- Arethusa, 06:33:13 04/09/03 Wed

I do think that Spike and Angel feel guilt, though. If they didn't, they wouldn't feel so defensive about their behavior that they have to disassociate themselves from it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- lunasea, 08:54:00 04/09/03 Wed

But in more recent times Angel tended to refer to Angelus in the third person. When he lost his soul and took a walk down memory lane, he kept saying things like, "It wasn't me that did that. It was HIM." Likewise souled Angel seemed to consistently refer to his unsouled or Angelus self as a completely separate being. I know Lunasea has used the term disassociation. Its a new element.

As late as "Billy" Angel is still refering to when "I" was evil. So is Cordy. Cordy never really bought the massive distinction between Angel and Angelus. Perhaps that is why he has been able to talk to her. The end of Billy is one of my favorite Cordy/Angel moments. Wesley is the one that really draws a distinction between them, especially with Holtz.

Angel has had three unbelievable traumas in his life, being vamped (raped), being sent to hell and being stuck in the bottom of the ocean. It is a typical human reaction to trauma to dissociate. For the first one, Angel completely turned into Angelus and let all of his rage pour out on the world. (I wrote about this in more depth in the Rape of Angel(us)) Even as Angelus, he still "hurts to the bone"

The second one caused him to even lose that identity temporarily. I believe it is the third one that caused him to dissociate into the Angel/Angelus that we now see. In "Deep Down" he calls the experience "Unbelievable" but then in his next breath dismisses it compared with what Buffy did to him. I think the most important scene in that episode, Angel's turning point, is the Lorne hallucination on the boat. (From Psyche, where else)

Angel: "Why is it like this?"

Lorne: "Well, that's the age-old, bubby. I'll fire you off a postcard if I'll noodle the answer."

Angel: "Life should be beautiful and bright. But, no matter how hard I try, everything I touch - turns to ashes."

Lorne: "Well, there goes that encouraging hug I was planning. Snap to, buckaroo. The only one turning to ashes is that patricidal pup of yours. Hell, I'd take him out myself if I wasn't just a crappy hallucination."

Wes comes down the stairs: "How is he?"

Lorne: "How do you think?"

Justine: "He won't shut up."

Angel: "I have to stop him."

Lorne: "You wanna bitch-slap sour-puss over there for practice? I'm your cheering section."

Wes walks up to the table.

Wes: "Angel?"

Angel: "I have to do it."

Angel tires to get up and Wes puts a hand on his shoulder to stop him.

Wes: "Shh. You need to rest now."

Lorne, singing: "Hush, little baby, don't say a word. Mamma's gonna buy you a mockingbird. And if that mockingbird don't sing..."

Angel looks up and sees Connor standing over him.

Angel: "I should have killed you."

Angel deals with everything he touches turning to ashes by developing a scapegoat (way most people tend to deal with things they really can't control). His scapegoat is Angelus. An interesting post would be how and why each character dissociates Angel(us). Only Cordy and Buffy really understood that they were one. Angel used to, but due to his most recent trauma has split them. Angel has shit coping mechanisms.

That was one of the things I was dissapointed by in the recent appearance of Angelus (well, that and Angelus as a standup comedian). Especially in the scene where Angel and Angelus confront each other as two personas, I hoped for some sort of inner admission from Angelus that he is simply Angel with something missing and an admission from Angel that Angelus is the issues and the darkness within himself once you strip away the guiding moral compass of the soul. Instead you got the two aspects staying separate and in denial.

Ever since I heard Angelus was coming back, I thought they would be doing this. I have been wrong about pretty much everything this season. They have to leave things for next season. I actually like where they took Angelus. It was a great distraction. That is all it was supposed to be. Tackling the real good that is in Angel and the darkness is probably too much for one season.

And Welcome to the board. Sorry I missed your Connor post the other day. Things tend to go by fast here. I'm surprised people didn't elaborate on it. It was a great jumping off point.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'd like to see them meet too. -- Arethusa, 06:31:33 04/09/03 Wed

I'm trying to understand how the two different men/vampires deal with guilt and repentance. Does Angel sees himself as two separate entities? Is he trying to make amends for what the vampire did or for what the man is? And Spike-is he really able to accept what he did and move on with his unlife? How does he deal with guilt, now that he's no longer crazy?

I don't want to argue which one is better; that's futile and tedious. (Maybe I shouldn't have pointed out how both Spike and Angel have room for improvement. Can I say my demon made me do it?)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel's dissociation -- lunasea, 10:06:25 04/09/03 Wed

Does Angel sees himself as two separate entities? Is he trying to make amends for what the vampire did or for what the man is?

Not going to go into Spike, but I will tackle Angel for you, if you want.

two seperate entities? Yes and no. It is still the same body and even Angelus knows that even when the other is in control, he is always there beneath the surface. One is "me" and one is "not me" though. Angel can blame it on the demon (it needs to be blamed on the various traumas before healing can begin).

It was a process:

First Angel is overwhelmed by what he did as Angelus, something he really doesn't have any control over. It is like an alcoholic on a bender. Once the poison is in there system, they physically have no control. Their only control lies in not letting it get there in the first place.

Next, he doesn't see himself as anything but a monster. He is Angelus, not Angel. No dissociation yet. He tries to be that monster, but can't. He realizes he has changed. This happens in China.

He tries to dissociate himself physically from what he was. He doesn't hang with other vampires and leaves his family. He can't even handle being in Europe any more and comes to America. He tries very hard to shape what that new thing is. He tries to do good, but it is hard.

Then he slips and does eat someone. He doesn't think he is anything new. He is just the same monster he was before. The only difference is he doesn't want to be. He realizes he can't fight the monster, so he removes temptation.

Whistler shows him that there is a better way. Angel finds something worth fighting for. He tries again to be something different. He is still fighting the monster though. When he wants to eat Joyce, he feels that all he is is the monster again. Buffy shows him there is another side of him.

These are all still sides though. It is a mild dissociation. We all have it to some degree. We have fun sides and serious sides, for example.

Angel gets a pretty good handle on his cravings. He isn't so afraid he is going to let out the evil side of himself. Then in Pylea he faces the pure form of that side and he wins. He feels good about himself. He manages to deal with Buffy's death without going off the deep end. He doesn't think too much about what he did as Angelus except to understand the world in general.

Previously, Angel HAD to see himself as Angelus. One wrong step and he would go on another bender. When the fear of going on another bender was removed, he could then develop a different coping mechanism. That mechanism was full dissociation.

He didn't want to take the blame for what he did as Angelus any more, so that wasn't him. He was so different from Angelus now, that he could say that was a different creature. That was the demon. Angel thinks Angelus is the demon, in some ways a different entity.

As for Amends. Angel isn't making amends any more. He is just trying to hold his life together. He isn't champion to make up for what he did. It just gives his world order. He does what he has to.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes but -- Arethusa, 10:24:46 04/09/03 Wed

you are saying everything Angelus does stems only from bloodlust. That is like saying everything the alcoholic does is because of his alcoholism, while ignoring the reason he drinks in the first place. The booze made him do it. While I believe that someone gets drunk for internal reasons- a deep unhappiness about something. The drink doesn't take them over, their unhappiness takes them over, and they drink to alleviate the pain. And than do very bad things they probably wouldn't have done otherwise.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes but -- lunasea, 12:00:15 04/09/03 Wed

you are saying everything Angelus does stems only from bloodlust. That is like saying everything the alcoholic does is because of his alcoholism, while ignoring the reason he drinks in the first place. The booze made him do it. While I believe that someone gets drunk for internal reasons-a deep unhappiness about something. The drink doesn't take them over, their unhappiness takes them over, and they drink to alleviate the pain. And than do very bad things they probably wouldn't have done otherwise.

Not the model of addiction they use for Angel (wrote about this earlier in more depth). His addiction is caused by the physical nature of being a vampire. What you said applies more to Willow.

People don't just drink because they are unhappy. There is a physical nature to addiction. If there wasn't, people wouldn't have to take it one day at a time.

Everything Angelus does does stem from being a demon (combination bloodlust, violence/rage, chaos/destruction). How that is expressed is determined by his issues. It is like a drunk. He gets drunk, he gets violent. Who he takes that out on depends on his issues.

Not everyone drinks because they are unhappy. It is a drug. It often starts out recreationally and then screws with our brains, permanently. Even when you are happy, the rum bottle can talk to you. That is why it is called a craving. The pain is often the pain of withdrawal.

Life pretty much sucks. We all have a "deep unhappiness" about some thing. Why isn't everyone an alcoholic or some other type of addict? Some people can drink and be fine. Others can't. Some can do pot recreationally and for others it is a gateway. There is a genetic/physical component here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- dub, 13:24:02 04/09/03 Wed

Spike is a character. It is the actor that tends to steal the scenes. I think JM is a great actor, but I also think that he should tone it down sometimes. He is in the chorus, not the soloist. When we notice him so much, that isn't necessarily a good thing.


Are you at all familiar with the concepts of directing and editing, as they apply to the medium of television?

This isn't a live stage production you're talking about, where an experienced and possibly unprincipled bit player can take advantage of the situation to focus attention on themselves. JM has absolutely no control over the precise manner in which his performance is presented to the audience.

If indeed we "notice him so much" it is because that is Joss's ultimate intent. If you feel "that it isn't necessarily a good thing" then the fault lies with Joss, not JM.

Why am I not surprised you've graduated from dissing the character to dissing the actor who plays him?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree dub, getting tired of the Spikebashing myself. -- s'kat, 21:09:12 04/09/03 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Following in grand dad's footsteps (spec from alleged Season 5 AtS spoilers) -- maddog, 12:19:36 04/09/03 Wed

Forced? All the stuff I've read made it sound like not only did he want Spike over there but James loves the idea. That doesn't sound forced to me...unless you know something the rest of us don't. :)

as for how they'll handle it, don't we always do this? second guess Joss and then 99% of the time turn out to be wowed by how he pulls it off. Just let it flow and hope we get Angel back for another season...then we can start to worry about how Spike will fit in...besides, by then we'll know how he makes out in the finale(dead, alive, unknown).

[> Giles: "Oh--as usual--dear." -- leslie, 14:37:10 04/08/03 Tue

[> 'Me' -- TCH- being minimalist for once, 15:15:07 04/08/03 Tue

[> "Is everyone here very stoned?" -- Philistine, 17:05:33 04/08/03 Tue

[> One of my favorites., that no one ever mentions.. "Ice is cool. It's water. But its not." -- Alison, 18:30:29 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> Oz had some of the best lines: "Just a thought, poker: not your game." -- Helen, 01:15:15 04/09/03 Wed

[> What happened to "Bored now"? -- luna, 18:50:15 04/08/03 Tue

[> [> Perhaps eclipsed by the perennial favorite... -- The Second Evil, 19:03:45 04/08/03 Tue

"This is the part that's less fun, when there isn't any screaming."

(Oft misquoted as, "Too much talking, not enough screaming.")

[> memorable quotes -- Deacon, 18:58:21 04/08/03 Tue

Willow; I knew it, well not in the sence of having any idea, but I knew there was something I didn't know.

Willow: I'm a blood sucking fiend look at my outfit.

Spike: What are you doing pet
Drusilla: I am naming all the stars
Spike: You Can't see the stars that's the celling also it's daylight
DRUSILLA: I can see them but I named them all the same thing and there is terrible confusion.

SPIKE: If I want her back I know what I have to do I have to be the man I was, the man she feel in love with, first I'll find her, where ever she is, capture her, torture her, untill she likes me again

Anya: You know this isn't your world right
Vampire Willow: No. This is a dumb world, In my world there are people in chains and we can ride them around like ponies

Willow: That's me as a vampire, I am so evil and skanky and I think I am kind of gay

Buffy: Your logic doesn't resemble our earth logic.

Drusilla: Say uncle oh that right you killed my uncle

Spike: So when do we destroy the world already.

Buffy: vampires are creepes
Giles: Yes that is why one slays them

Willow: Six years as a sidekick and now I get to be the slayer.

Doc: I don't see a soul on you anywhere, why do you care
Spike: I made a promise to a lady.

Spike: It's a big rock I can't wait to tell my friends I bet they don't hav a rock this big.

Faith: Little Miss Muffet counting down to 7-3-0

Buffy: Dawn's in trouble it must be tuesday.

Spike: I may be dirt but your the one who like to roll around in it.

Spike: Angel, he should have warned me.

Tara: Be back before Dawn

Anya: If I get vamped I going to come back and bite your ass.

Willow: bored now.

Dawn: Oh my god is that for buffy, that so sad, I mean the box is all bent and choclates, lame, and you know that she would never accept any thing from you
Spike: Shouldn't you be tucked in your beddy bye where nothing can eat you.
Dawn: (laughs) is that suppost to scare me
Spike: a tremble wouldn't hurt

Spike: button, button someone got the button my money's on the witch.

Buffy: Oh I know this one, slaying entails certain sacerfices, blah blah blah biddy blay, I'm so stuffy give me a scone.

Buffy: You had sex with Giles. You had SEX with giles. Twice

Buffy: When giles sends me on a misson he says please and afterwards I get a cookie.

Tara: I am you know
Willow: what
Tara: yours

Willow: Nothing in the world can stop me now
Giles: I'd like to test that theory

Darla: I think our boys are going to fight
Drusilla: The king of cups expects a picnic but it is not his birthday
Darla: Good point

Dawn: Is this blood.

Buffy: Dawn Listen to me, I Love you, I will always love you. This is the work that I have to do. Tell Giles that I've figured it out, and I'm okay. Give my love to my friends. You have to take care of them now, you have take care of each other you have to be strong, Dawn the hardest thing in the world is to live in it. Be brave, live, for me.

[> Two more -- Mencius, 21:31:30 04/08/03 Tue

Giles: "Tea is soothing I wish to tense"

Drusilla: ìIím counting all the starsî

Spike: ìYou canít see the stars, loveî

Dresilla: ìI can see them, but Iíve named them all the same name and there is great is great confusionî

[> Re: With Buffy winding down... -- CW, 21:56:11 04/08/03 Tue

Joyce - "Neither of you is pregnant, failing or under indictment?"

Advice for us ATPo posters from Triangle? - "Stop being insightful. It's creepy!"

[> Anya's perspective on Thanksgiving... -- Corwin of Amber, 23:02:56 04/08/03 Tue

"To commemorate a past event, you kill and eat an animal. It's a ritual sacrifice. With pie."

Geez. I'm gonna miss Anya.

[> [> "You're referencing literature I have no way to be familiar with, and you're stealing!" -- Helen, 01:13:44 04/09/03 Wed

[> and I was having fruit punch, and I thought, well, Joyce will never have any more fruit punch ever -- Indri with more Anya wisdom, 23:49:45 04/08/03 Tue

[> Re: With Buffy winding down... -- TheAlmighty, 01:26:47 04/09/03 Wed

Most of my favorites are up already... but the one that characterizes the first six seasons of the show is conspicuously absent!

Spike: You should go back inside, join the group sing, get your kumba-ya-yas out.
Buffy: I don't want to.
Spike: The day you suss out what you _do_ want there'll probably be a parade - seventy six bloody trombones.

Current board | More April 2003