April 2003
posts
Thoughts on Jasmine, FE, Glory and moreÖ (minor
spoilage) -- ceej, 05:23:39 04/10/03 Thu
Bare with me this is my first major post. Itís very topic-
jumpy, but I hope everyone gets what Iím trying to say.
First off letís all pass the Dagon Sphere to Fred, sheís
gonna need it. ëCuz I think we already deja'd this vu of a
story thatís happening on AtS. Well, sorta but not really.
Okay, okay itís totally not the sameÖ
XANDER: We're going up against a god. An actual mightier-
than-thou god. (Blood Ties)
Jasmine according to Skip is this entity that has the big
WANT for getting into the Earthly Plane. Why? The Earthly
Plane is the dimension where all the meat-bags (humans) with
bile running through them run around being enslaved by
hormones, pheromones and those yucky feelings. So far the
entity claims to want to eradicate all EVIL in this
dimension by doing ìgood deedsî. Why not go after the First
Evil? (Or Why couldnít it just be something as simple as
getting the green shiny energy, the key.)
According to Anya there are thousands of demon dimensions.
All different. In contrast, Tara explains in Tabula Rasa
that there are a zillion heavenly dimensions. We know from
what Skip told the Fang Gang in Inside Out, that the entity
known as Jasmine merged with Cordy sometime after she
ascended into the higher plane one of the zillion heavenly
dimensions. When Skip tells Angel ìNobody comes back from
paradise. Okay, a Slayer once Öî this clearly suggests that
Cordy was in one of the zillion heavenly dimensions, like
Buffy. Buffyís personal description of this plane: ìWherever
I was, I was happy. At peace. I knew that everyone I cared
about was all right. I knew it. Time didn't mean anything.
Nothing had form. But I was still me, you know? And I was
warm... and I was loved. And I was finished.
Complete.î(Afterlife) Obliviously not the same dimension
Cordy was in during her stay in the Higher Realms. Cordy
definitely had form and she was very much wanting OUT of
there.
As a result of being in one of the higher realms, both Buffy
and Cordy (who are both demon hybrids: Buffyís slayer powers
are rooted in a demonís spirit and Cordy has demon parts)
had their moments of disorientation after descending back to
the Earthly Plane. Cordy lost her memory and Buffyís sense
of reality was in-a-funk to the point where she asks Dawn
ìIs this [Sunnydale] Hell?î Itís safe to say that Buffyís
memories were intact, possibly due to the fact that Cordy
physically ascended to the higher realms while Buffy
spiritual ascended there. Also, remember what Anya said in
Afterlife about ìhitchhikersî?
ANYA: I bet it's a hitchhiker.
XANDER: A hitchhiker?
ANYA: Um, standard way to travel through dimensions. Uh,
some demon-thing sees someone moving between worlds, and
grabs on for the ride.
More or less thatís what Jasmine is ìa hitchhikerî but, it
was more planned out and rather then joy-riding it took
Cordy overÖ Note also that Buffyís descending caused the
First Evil to get all peeved about the good and evil yada,
yada, blah, blah, bored of it.
Glory as we all should be familiar with is an entity from
one of the ìunpleasantî demon dimensions labeled the ìbitch-
dimensionî. So, we know where Glory's from. What else do we
know about her? She ruled with two other hellgods and did a
lot of destruction and chaos and somehow got imprisoned in a
mortal body (Ben) and sent to the lower realms ñ aka the
Earthly Plane to later die within a mortal body. In the
mortal body her powers are limited; she's super-strong,
immortal, invulnerable, and insane. In contrast to our
hellgod, we have Jasmine this entity has been manipulating
things on the Earthly Plane so that it could have a mortal
body to hold it in. It manipulates things in the Earthly
Plane making these miracles to make the perfect vessel for
itself. So we know where sheís from how sheís got here. What
else? In Shiny Happy People she says that she use to be a
Higher Power okayÖ Like Glory, Jasmine needs a mortal body
cuz her natural form is a-no-go in this realm. On a side
note the no-mortal-body gig seems to be a good plan that the
First Evil is using to its advantage. But most likely IT
will eventually inhabit a mortal body like itís Higher Being
cousins. Anwyay, Jasmine in the mortal body isnít
invulnerable, but she heals fast. She lacks Gloryís super
strength, insaneness and rather enjoys being in the mortal
coil (both Glory and FE seem to hate the mortal coil). Also,
Jasmine like Glory has some heavy duty mojo going on. Glory
was able to hide her morphing from Ben and back, from
everyone but the crazy folk. Jasmine is also able to enchant
and charm most ppl except for the insane as wellóand both
have the turn-you-into-a-Nut affect on ppl. Both also seem
to know magick: while in Cordy, Jasmine was casting spells;
Glory cast a spell to locate the key with a Snake.
Furthmore, Jasmine also has divine knowledge and insight
about every human: knowing their names, histories and how
they emotionally feel, which Glory lacked. Finally, neither
of the two curly haired goddesses have bolts of lightning,
blasts of fire, and all the stuff gods are suppose to have
(according to Buffy).
Jasmine says in the beginning before the dawn of man, great
beings walked the earth (I highly assume she means the
Earthly Plane our universe not just the planet Earth itself)
She says that untold forces emanated all over, and these
forces would later become what is known today in the
Buffyverse as good and evil. At some point the darkness
began to grow in the Earthly Plane and the stronger of the
great beings grew, which consequently turned the earth into
a demon realm. Those who had the will to resist left that
reality and went to other dimensions (during this time I
think the KEY was created). Hence the Lower Realms, Higher
Realms and all the adobes of realitiesÖ You know the things
that the Key would have melted all together like cheese if
Buffy didnít close the portal were madeÖ Jasmine then goes
on to say that a new race emerged ìmanî so basically how I
see it is this: Gods are the Higher beings, Man the Middle
Beings and the Demons are the Lower Beings. Also the story
suggests that if Jasmine is one of those great beings she
came before the First Evil and possibly Glory. My guess:
Glory is middle class Higher Being; Jasmine is High Class
Higher being and the first evil is low class Higher Being.
(Thatís just how I see it right now) Lastly, When Higher
Beings are in the Earthly Realm they arenít all powerful.
They need workers, worshippers, minons to do their work and
bodies to inhabit to actually affect things. In their realms
they are merely watchers and can do little in this realm.
Hope that made some sense. I donít even think I had a real
point? Do you guys see one? Anyway, thats what I've been
thinking of lately...
- ceej
[>
Very interesting stuff ceej (Spoilers, aired BtVS and
AtS eps) -- Rahael, 05:46:45 04/10/03 Thu
And sparked off another comparison in my mind. It seemed to
me that Jasmine is all about bringing people together -
telling Gunn and Wes that they shouldn't be split apart by
Fred. Everyone acts in unison, both physically and mentally
in reaction to her (falling down on their knees etc). She
also says she's there for everyone, can feel everything.
This is almost diametrically opposite to the FE, who tends
to work to disconnect and split apart and divide.
Is this another thematic connection?
I'm now thinking of CJL's essay on the solitude of self -
does that offer a way forward between the two dichotomies of
total, claustrophobic connection between everyone, and the
atomised, equally scary disconnection offered by the FE?
Where we recognise both the essential connections to other
people, and the times when we must recognise our solitude -
that when we make some of our crucial decisions, we might
need to stand alone.
[> [>
Trying to find the balance (Spoilers, aired BtVS and
AtS eps) -- ponygirl, 11:42:38 04/10/03 Thu
I haven't seen SHP yet due to a tragic VCR mishap (so now I
have to wait until frickin next week) but I'm really
impressed with the posts the episode has already generated.
So on one show we have the FE the embodiment of hate, who
isolates and divides, preying upon secret fears and doubts,
and worshipped by the blind (yet strangely mobile Bringers).
And now on AtS there's Jasmine the representation of love,
who unites everyone in a common purpose, worshipped by those
who may not be able to see her true face. The case for a
thematic link seems stronger than ever, hopefully we'll see
that apocalypses are not region-specific after all.
I am just so tickled by this turn of events, largely because
I've been tripped up. For a while now I've been thinking
that the answer for Buffy is to find connection again, to
embrace her dark side through love and forgiveness. I still
think this but now ME seems to be warning against the
dangers of surrendering to any force that requires us to
submerge our ability to choose, our personal
responsibilities. It's not about good or evil but about
power. The power we have over ourselves. Well, maybe,
we'll see. But I'm very excited about what's to come.
[>
Re: Thoughts on Jasmine, FE, Glory and moreÖ (minor
spoilage) -- Angelus,
14:11:16 04/10/03 Thu
Some interesting insights. I admit I've tended to think of
The First Evil as the Big Power and of The Beast/ Evil
Cordy/ Jasmine as some sort of minion. But if these
creatures were before evil or at least before human evil,
then she may very well predate the First Evil.
I'm not really sure where Glory fits into this. "Glory
isn't a demon. She's a god." I'm not entirely sure who is
where on the power scale either.
Physically the FE can't do anything but it seems to wield
vast knowledge. On the other hand it can't be hurt so far.
Jasmine seems to have great knowledge about who people are
yet seems unaware of what they are thinking in the sense of
say, Fred seeing its true form. She commands vast power to
make people believe in and do what it wants but is
physically very vulnerable.
Glory until the last episode she was in was just about
unstoppable but her powers were purely physical except for
that brain drain.
We don't know precisely the truthfulness of Jasmine's
statements. We don't know if there is a connection between
Jasmine and the FE or if they are opposed. It may well be
that Jasmine is trying to eliminate all supernatural evil in
LA because its eliminating the possibility of the FE getting
a foothold since the FE clearly uses evil minions.
Compared to Ats, Btvs seems straightforward. At least we
can more or less discern what the FE is. On Ats we are
still trying to figure out what the heck is going on and add
to that if there is any connection between the FE and
Jasmine.
Angel and Fred (spoilers) -- Barbs, 05:41:13
04/10/03 Thu
Did anyone see the preview of next week. I cant believe
that Fred and Angel are going to hook up. I mean i love
Fred but i dont know if i see her with Angel. Do you?
[>
Re: Angel and Fred (spoilers) -- ceej, 05:42:46
04/10/03 Thu
maybe thats how she snaps him out of it? the previews are
very misleading tho...
[> [>
Re: Angel and Fred (spoilers) -- Barbs, 05:50:42
04/10/03 Thu
Yea they are really misleading but i think that they hook up
after he snaps out of it. It is kinda weird but it could be
really cute. I still want him to be with Buffy but i know
it will never happen.
[> [> [>
Re: Angel and Fred (spoilers) -- maddog,
06:46:51 04/10/03 Thu
The WB is notorious for misleading previews. For all we
know that could be a dream of Fred's.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Angel and Fred (spoilers) -- Barbs, 15:12:31
04/10/03 Thu
True. I dont know i guess we'll just have to watch and
see.
The truth about Jasmine. (Spoilers for SHP) --
Dannyblue, 07:40:53 04/10/03 Thu
Does Jasmine have good intentions?
According to Jasmine, she is a Power That Was, a former PTB.
But, of course, you can't take anything a Big Bad in the
Jossverse says without a grain of salt. From what Jasmine
said, and what we've seen of her so far, which of these
possibilities do you think is closer to the mark?
1. Jasmine is a former Power who got tired of her peers'
hands off approach. Jasmine feels her fellow Powers failed
by not interfering more directly, and letting mortals suffer
as a result. In her opinion, giving mortals free will came
with too high a price. So, she's decided to get proactive
and create her ideal of a perfect world, one in which no-one
will suffer. And she's decided to use her power to enchant,
to "force" people to act and behave the way she wants them
to (to not fight or argue, to be happy and content) to make
that ideal a reality. In essence, she's a good, well-
intentioned, but mis-guided being.
2. Jasmine is a former Power who didn't feel powerful enough
as a higher being. Imagine being a PTB, and being forbidden
from using that power to interfere too much in mortal
affairs. You see something you think is wrong but, according
to your peers, you can't just fix it. You have to let the
mortals do most of the work, providing only the occasional
hint. (It must've have been like a kid with super speed,
having to lose every race so no one would figure out what
they were really capable of.) Looking down on mortal life,
Jasmine started to crave some of that existence. (She seems
to love being human. Even being hurt was a stimulating
experience.) She wanted to be able to use her powers withut
rules and limitations, to do whatever she wanted. She also
wants to be worshipped and adored. And while the Powers seem
to want to stop her (they sent Darla to keep her from being
"born") their own rules about not interfering prevent them
from doing too much. (Isn't that ironic.) So,
Jasmine's not evil in the strictest sense. But all she
really cares about is herself. Being worshipped, obeyed,
etc.
3. Jasmine is evil, plain and simple. Either she's a Power
gone bad (maybe she's developed a contempt and hatred of
mankind after watching mortals in action for so long), or
she's something else entirely, pretending to be a former
Power. Her "Bringer of Peace and Joy" act is just an act.
She doesn't care about mortal suffering. In fact, she wants
to cause a lot more. And maybe her true intentions are what
freaked Lorne out when he read Cordy in STB.
So, what do you think?
[>
Re: The truth about Jasmine. (Spoilers for SHP) I Pick
1 and 2 -- Mackenzie, 09:06:03 04/10/03 Thu
I am more inclined to pick 1, but I can see 2's point of
view.
I still think that we are wrong to assume that good winning
out and banishing evil would be good. Life is about balance.
Our free will is what makes us human. I see free will at
it's core being able to choose between good and evil in each
situation. Just like now, I am choosing to be evil by not
working and posting on this board.
[>
Re: The truth about Jasmine. (Spoilers for SHP) --
ceej, 10:06:43 04/10/03 Thu
Well she is definetly a former power whatever circle that
puts her in...
I'm leaning towards your #2 theory. Whatever Jasmine is up
to its MAJOR enough to provoke the Powers to get of their
asses. I wish we knew more about the politics and rules
about how much a Higher Power can affect the Earthly
Realm.
What bugs me is if they the great beings left this dimension
eons ago, why must they constantly tamper with it?
Attachment issues I guess... Shouldn't they just let it take
its course, they left according to Jasmine becuase things
got to wild over the earthly plane and darkness covered
everything...
Perhaps, the great beings want this dimension back? Minus
the demons and humans. This use to be a demon dimension, and
then man came and made it theirs, hence now there's this man
vs demon strife going on.
Jasmine wants to eraticate all EVIL, sounds like she's
trying to make this dimension what it was before all the non
Higher Beings started poping up here and there like
weeds...
-ceej
There's really no good place to put this, so... (SHP
spoiler) -- Rob, 08:18:57 04/10/03 Thu
...so I'm just going to make a totally frivolous post to
just say how fantastic Gina Torres was on AtS! She has such
a commanding and, at the same time, sweet and benign
presence that she was able to play "Jasmine" perfectly. I
can completely buy, watching her, why everyone is so in love
with her. Some shows would blow a character like this,
because it's incredibly hard to cast. She has to be
beautiful and able to convincingly portray an all-benevolent
seeming figure, with just a hint of being-not-so-benevolent
in the back of her voice.
And, depending on how this all works out, she may turn out
to be one of the most fascinating Buffyverse villains ever.
If she is indeed a vilain who believes wholeheartedly that
she is good, that would be such an amazing paradigm to
explore.
Rob
[>
Worshipping the Goddess -- cjl, 09:27:40
04/10/03 Thu
[N.Y. ATPers watch videotape of SHP; catching sight of Gina
Torres, cjl immediately falls to his knees and bows down in
supplication.]
ROB: Uh oh. He's fallen under Jasmine's spell.
SHADOWKAT: Nah. He's worshipped Gina Torres for
years....
[>
Re: There's really no good place to put this, so...
(SHP spoiler) -- CW, 09:38:45 04/10/03 Thu
Like Sol in an above post, questioning whether, Jasmine
actually ever said for anyone to kill Fred, I didn't really
hear anything in Gina's voice to indicate the character was
evil underneath. While it doesn't really take much acting
ability to play goody-goody, playing the character that way
faithfully is more insidious than hinting around with her
voice that something isn't right. Gina's a fine actress, but
let's see some more before claiming she's the best ever at
this.
[>
Re: There's really no good place to put this, so...
(SHP spoilers and speculation) -- Masq, 10:17:15
04/10/03 Thu
If she is indeed a vilain who believes wholeheartedly
that she is good, that would be such an amazing paradigm to
explore.
That's what I'm hoping, too, Rob. Just look at the number of
posts this morning debating the nature of good and evil, of
what these concepts mean, of who they apply to, about how we
can come to know them if they're real.
Crunchy philosophical goodness would ensue!
Plus, we are long overdue for some detailed explanation of
the Powers that Be on the show. I hope we'll get an
exploration of that, too.
The Big Bad Good? Spoilers SHP, Spec. Buffy/Angel
-- heywhynot, 08:34:40 04/10/03 Thu
I was thinking while watching SHP last night, wow uber-
goodness. And kept thinking we see the First Evil on Buffy.
Now this peace-loving good is on Angel. Look at the
juxtaposition. The First Evil materializes in the earthly
plane as ghosts of the dead, while Jasmine arrives into the
earthly plane by being born. If the spoilers for Buffy are
to be believed, the main person acting on behalf of the
First Evil will be male while Jasmine is female. LIke KKC i
think Jasmine is the First Good. The epitome of dogmatic
good, the ends justify the means if it is for the greater
good.
A major theme in BtVS expressed by Buffy, is that the means
matter. Another theme in both shows is redemption which
requires hope and the willingness to take on the risk of
evil. The First Evil seeks to destroy hope. Jasmine is
seeking to eraditcate evil. Dogmatic good and evil prevent
choice and redemption. The journey doesn't matter only the
destination matters. Humans though live and die. We are
not immortal, the journey is all we have.
In the end, dogmatic good will be vanquished and evil will
fall. Humanity will be left to the world on its own. No
longer being told what is good and what is evil by Mom and
Dad, but having to decide for itself. To be grown up, to be
an adult, to continue on the journey of life. Isn't that
how Buffy should end?
[>
LTNS! where ya been? ;-) -- Solitude1056,
08:38:02 04/10/03 Thu
You mean, as in conquer both the Big Bad and Big Good on
both ends? Heh, there's an awful lot of people who'd be lost
without their Powers That Be... ;-)
[>
Re: The Big Bad Good? My Question about it
(spoilers) -- Mackenzie, 08:50:21 04/10/03 Thu
I like your point of view. That Jasmine is the first good. I
was just plain confused by what we were supposed to believe
last night. She sure seems good but then there is the weird
trance everyone is in and the things Fred saw. The pesimist
in me says Fred is seeing the true being but maybe not,
maybe I am just jaded. I guess we can look at the happy
trance like we can look at the plants above where the first
evil was, they all died. Evil= death and sadness, goodness=
happy, controlled, mindless beings. So that brings me to
this. We obviously don't want the balance to go in favor of
the evil, but do we want it to go in favor of good. I don't
know why I think we don't but my gut tells me that we don't.
We need that balance to make us human, to make life worth
living. For some reason I think that the extremes are very
blind. Does anyone follow me? Am I nuts?
[> [>
But making life worth living is practically the
definition of good. -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:07:19
04/10/03 Thu
So if a force calling itself good gets the balance thrown in
its favor, and this makes life less worth living, than the
force is not truly good. I'm always a little irritated with
theorising that forces for good must be stopped from having
their way, since that would remove free will, make us less
than human, etc., because no truly good force would try to
make any of those things happen.
[> [> [>
The traditional sense of good... -- Doug,
09:42:45 04/10/03 Thu
The traditional sense of Good is whatever God says is good
is good; no matter how many murders it takes. If God says
something is bad then it is evil; no matter how many lives
it saves. If the powers that be are the Jossverse
equivalent of God, and Jasmine is one of them, then whatever
goes along with her will is thevery definition of good; and
opposing here is the darkest form of evil. In traditional
morality a deed is oly good or evil in so far as it relates
to the word of God.
Or, in this situation, the word of Jasmine.
[> [> [>
Re: But making life worth living is practically the
definition of good. -- Mackenzie, 09:51:15 04/10/03
Thu
I don't disagree with you, good should have it's way but we
still need a balance. I guess that if Jasmine is the
ultimate good then I don't want that good to win. Life would
not be worth living if all we did all day was stare into
space and say "isn't life wonderful".I don't think a true
good would take away our free will but I think it would just
happen. We need a little evil around to give us other
options. I think that when we take the good with the bad the
good is so much better. For example, hubby and I had a
horrible fight last night, some very mean and evil things
were said. When we made up the world seemed brighter, we
loved it each other more because we went through the bad
too. The bad, evil things that happen to us make the good
things so much better. I want a world of free will and free
choice. I want to make mistakes and choose the more evil
choice now and then so that I can appreciate when good
things happen and when blessings come into my life.
[> [> [>
Re: But making life worth living is practically the
definition of good. -- heywhynot, 10:07:11 04/10/03
Thu
Finn Mac Cool, I agree with you that a dogmatic good that
makes life less worth living is not good. That is the point
that Joss & Co. are trying to make. Dogmatic good and evil
are nice concepts for children to help them get through
life, but to grow up and become an adult one has to take
life into one's own hands. To make choices about what is
good and what is bad in any given situation, without the
constant oversight of parents telling you what is good and
evil. The end of the journey of the child but the begining
the journey of adulthood.
[> [> [> [>
some points: mortal vs godly perception -- ceej,
10:32:12 04/10/03 Thu
i just want to point out that the way we see good vs evil is
probably very different from the way a higher being sees
it... Like with God, were arent meant to fully understand
Him, cuz that would totally undermine the very concept of
God. Their divine beings and we are after all human and we
have no idea how such being's see things. Do they have
souls, a moral compass? Like Glory said "God's don't pay"
they dont follow rules they make them...
Anyway, we know very little about higher powers, what we
have seen are powers like Jasmine, PTB who seem to have
taken a clear STAND on the good vs evil scale. Glory on the
other hand just wanted to get the hell away from it all and
back home... FE just straight up is tired with all the
drama. And wants to go out with a bang.
-CEEJ
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: some points: mortal vs godly perception --
heywhynot, 11:01:31 04/10/03 Thu
CEEJ I think you stated it fairly well and pointed out a
good quote from Glory. Godlike beings don't view the world
the sameway as humans. Not only that they make the rules.
Much like how adults do not view the world like kids do but
it is the parents who make the rules. Of course eventually,
the children become the adults and inherit the world, making
the rules.
Gets me to thinking. Glory was a spoiled, me,me god (the
Yuppie God). Jasmine is a god of tranquility, isn't
everything wonderful, touchy-feely inspirational speaker
without much substance. The First Evil is a god of despair,
giving up on the world and as such mine as well have fun and
go out with a bang as you say. Basically, these are the
three stereotype of "bad" parents. Maybe I am reading way
too much into it all.
[> [> [>
Re: But making life worth living is practically the
definition of good. -- lunasea, 10:25:18 04/10/03
Thu
The founding fathers wrote against governments that had
total control, because of their experience with such
governments. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. The problem with totalitarian governments is
even if they start out benevolent (and often they don't),
they don't end up that way. When the people give away all
their power when the government is acting nicely, when they
stop acting that way, they have no power for change. We
distrust benevolence because historically it has been a way
to trick people.
But many have been removed from that history. Now it is down
with totalitarianism, rather than down with oppression.
Liberty for liberty's sake is the rallying cry, rather than
liberty for what can be done with it. Gone is the general
welfare. Instead it is rights, rights, rights. In theory any
way. Can't do anything with those rights because you are
poor, it doesn't matter. At least you have them. Rights in
theory only, IMO, are no rights.
I too tire of the arguments that good must have free will.
Free will is a vehicle to something. Should that something
be attainable another way and should free will be an
obsticle, out it should go.
If Jasmine is tricking people with promises that she isn't
going to deliver, that is one thing. What if she isn't? What
if she is legit? False Messiah? Been there done that. What
about as real a messiah as you can get? Now there is a
dilema for our heroes.
[> [>
Re: The Big Bad Good? My Question about it
(spoilers) -- heywhynot, 09:51:08 04/10/03 Thu
I agree with you about the extremes being blind. They see
in black and white. The world though is full of colors.
Dogmatic good blinds and can but us into a shiny happy
trance state. On the surface everything is great but
underneath it is devoid of substance, rotted. The richness
of humanity is lost. Evil is despair, without hope,
dogmatic good is false hope. Humanity needs hope with a
healthy dose of reality. You can't let good obliterate evil
just as you can't let evil destroy good. If one exists then
the other also must exist, a balance must be maintained.
"We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Arethusa,
09:12:19 04/10/03 Thu
I'm going to discuss religion from the viewpoint of a
godless heathen, so if you hate that sort of thing click the
back button now.
"We are gathered here in peace to love and serve the
Lord."
From the Catholic Mass service.
"We are gathered here in peace." Jasmine
"My God!"
"People keep saying that." Jasmine
It's entirely possible that Whedon-and I'm assuming this is
Whedon's philosophy presented in this episode-meant Jasmine
to be an anti-Christ, but I think Whedon is not just talking
about false gods-he's examining all gods. The Christian
God, Jesus, the whole idea of religion. The words used by
Jasmine are those of Christianity and its followers.
"You're not alone anymore. I'll be at your side. Guiding
your hands, giving you strength. With my help, all things
are possible. There will be no doubt, no worry, no fear."-
Jasmine
We are alone in this life when we die-a time in our lives
when we have no control over what happens to us at all. No
matter how many people we know and love in between, we all
will be alone when we need others the most. And that's
pretty freaking scary. So we take comfort in the idea that
we will have eternal life, that God is always by our side,
that there is nothing to fear. When God says "Believe in me
and you will never die," that might seem like a pretty good
bargain. All we have to do in return is believe. And obey.
"I know you.... You are not alone. We are all one."
Jasmine
Some posters were struck by the lonliness of Elizabeth Cady
Stanton's pov in someone's post . (sorry-can't find it in
the archives, so can't attribute) Jasmine promises that
noone need ever feel lonely or alone again. All they have
to do is give up their individualism.
"There is no fault.... You deserve all the happiness I can
bring you.... Everything will be alright." Jasmine
Jasmine promises the end of guilt. There's no need for
repentance since all is forgiven if you just ask. That's
much easier than working and fighting every day to be a good
person, as Faith and Angel and the rest of us must.
Everyone deserves to be happy, instead of feeling guilty,
right? But when I feel guilty I am forced to reexamine
myself, to see what I'm doing that makes me feel bad.
Negative emotions can be powerful catalysts for change.
Jasmine promises no guilt-and no growth.
"Now that she's here everything seems so easy. But have you
noticed how we all just do what she says? Don't ask
questions?" Fred
"Isn't it a relief? The constant questioning. It's finally
over." Angel
Existentialists have to constantly question themselves.
What is good, or bad? What are my moral standards? Every
decision must be made on one's own, without depending on
someone to tell you what to believe and how to act. It's
exhausting. Free will is hard, Andrew whined, and he was
right. It's so much easier to have someone to tell you what
is right, what to do.
Fred questions everything. "God, why did it have to be
[Cordy]" was the first thing she said this episode. A
familiar question to the faithful. Why her? Why me? Why
do bad things happen to good people? If there's no reason
for things to happen anybody could be a victim at any time.
So we find reasons. We blame the victim, as so many blamed
Nikki for her death. And we look to an all-powerful god or
entity to keep us safe.
"Be careful what you wish for." Mutant Enemy
We wanted Angel and Connor to bond. They did. ("You've got
to stop torturing yourself, Dad," Connor says.) We wanted
AI to win for once, to make a difference. They are. We
wanted Wes and Gunn to make up, Angel to stop brooding,
Connor to feel good about himself. They do. They just had
to become puppets to do so. AI is finally connected to
humanity. For the first time in, well, ever the hotel is
filled with people. AI has become a part of LA. All they
had to do is give up their individuality.
The scenes of AI fighting evil are very creepy. What once
might have made us cheer-evil being eradicated-is now
frightening, because it's a mindless killing on demand.
Jasmine says kill demons, and they do. Good triumphs. But
then Jasmine says to kill Fred, and AI also obeys, without
questioning. After all, it's for the greater good.
Free will or obedience. Freedom from fear, doubt and pain
or absolute personal responsibility. Heaven or Earth. A
person would have to be crazy to reject God, right?
[>
Calling Rufus, killing people, etc (spoilers for
SHP) -- Solitude1056, 09:26:05 04/10/03 Thu
But then Jasmine says to kill Fred, and AI also obeys,
without questioning. After all, it's for the greater
good.
Uh, wait.
I seem to recall that someone in AI concluded - either Angel
or Wes - that now they'd have to kill Fred. I do seem to
recall that it was agreed that Fred was dangerous - but at
the same time, I don't recall Jasmine being the one
who told them, "you must kill Fred." For that matter, she
told them not to act on this decision, yet. It seemed to me
that a) she genuinely didn't understand what Fred had
seen/felt to cause such antagonism, and b) she hoped that
her LA-wide message would bring Fred back around again. So
far, Jasmine's a good crime boss - she's yet to say,
explicitly, that she wants such-and-such a heinous thing to
happen, but her followers clearly assume that this is what
she wants, and does it.
Sort of like the person who says, "This backyard would be
nicer if it weren't in total shade," which someone else then
interpretes, on their own, as "cut down all of my neighbor's
trees." The end result is angry neighbors, pleased person,
and all the blame laid at the foot of the person who
chose to interpret the original statement as a demand
or request, rather than an observation. Whether it was an
actual observation or a cloaked demand is the hard part - so
far, I can't tell. Jasmine may be entirely innocent of any
malicious intentions towards Fred, and not expecting the one-
hundred-percent worshipfulness to turn into antagonism
towards those who don't go along - notice how she stopped
Angel from killing the guy.
Anyway, I think we need Rufus' transcripting and quoting-by-
heart abilities here, to set us on the right path.
[> [>
Re: Calling Rufus, killing people, etc (spoilers for
SHP) -- Arethusa, 10:10:31 04/10/03 Thu
"Jasmine: I doubt even Fred understands why she's so
determined to destroy evrything we're trying to create.
Which makes her even more dangerous.
Angel: We have to kill her. There's no other way.
Wesley: As long as she's out there she's a threat.
Jasmine: It may come to that, but first we have to
try to help her. Get to the root of the hatred that's
infected her heart.
Angel: The only way to do that is bring her home. Let's
go.
Jasmine: No. We'll find Fred, but not tonight. Tomorrow
will be easier than today. We'll have eyes everywhere."
I don't think I would call her malevolent. She wants
goodness and freedom from pain. But the events she sets
into motion are malevolent. Sure, she stopped Angel from
killing the guy, but she didn't stop him from beating him.
Those who don't go along with the Jasmine program are crazy,
misguided, evil. They must be stopped, and the ends justify
the means. Even if that means killing Fred. And this is all
being done in Her name. Jasmine does expect
worshipfullness to turn into antagonism towards those who
don't get along. She's standing right there when Angel
beats the assassin, when Angel, her General, plots Fred's
death.
This is the same question being asked over on BtVS. Is it
okay to do bad things in the name of good? If your motives
are good, can your actions be evil? You can't just suspend
moral judgment because you're working for good. Jasmine
isn't a crime boss, or anything like one. She's a god, who
just wants everyone to be happy. And her first step in
acheiving happiness is to manipulate Angel into despair, to
sleep with Darla and create Connor. Then she has Cordy
kidnapped, her personality subjegated, and her body
impregnated. Then the Beast is unleashed to do his mojo to
bring about Jasmine's birth, spilling buckets of blood in
the process. Finally, human sacrifice-one of the very
humans she seems so benevolent towards-is committed to give
her life. After her birth, the first thing she does is
eradicate free will. At this point I no longer care what
her motives are, benign or malevolent. By her deeds you
shall know her.
[> [> [>
Re: Calling Rufus, killing people, etc (spoilers for
SHP) -- Dochawk, 13:40:06 04/10/03 Thu
She didn't allow Angel to kill that guy so she could touch
him. Perhaps she was looking for the source of his
rejection in her touch, but the result was gross
disfigurement that eventually will kill him. Whatever
Jasmine is trying to do, its evident that she doesn't take
an individual life as being very important.
[> [> [>
Wizard of Oz and the field of poppies......spoilers for
Shiny Happy People -- Rufus, 22:42:05 04/10/03
Thu
The best way for me to describe what has happend to everyone
is using the movie "Wizard of Oz"...when Dorothy and her
friends enter a field of poppies they are overcome with the
need to sleep, forgetting the more important journey they
were on. They are saved by the Tinman and Scarecrow....
Wizard of Oz
They walked along listening to the singing of the
brightly colored birds and looking at the lovely flowers
which now became so thick that the ground was carpeted with
them. There were big yellow and white and blue and purple
blossoms, besides great clusters of scarlet poppies, which
were so brilliant in color they almost dazzled Dorothy's
eyes.
"Aren't they beautiful?" the girl asked, as she breathed in
the spicy scent of the bright flowers.
"I suppose so," answered the Scarecrow. "When I have brains,
I shall probably like them better."
"If I only had a heart, I should love them," added the Tin
Woodman.
"I always did like flowers," said the Lion. "They of seem so
helpless and frail. But there are none in the forest so
bright as these."
They now came upon more and more of the big scarlet poppies,
and fewer and fewer of the other flowers; and soon they
found themselves in the midst of a great meadow of poppies.
Now it is well known that when there are many of these
flowers together their odor is so powerful that anyone who
breathes it falls asleep, and if the sleeper is not carried
away from the scent of the flowers, he sleeps on and on
forever. But Dorothy did not know this, nor could she
get away from the bright red flowers that were everywhere
about; so presently her eyes grew heavy and she felt she
must sit down to rest and to sleep.
But the Tin Woodman would not let her do this.
"We must hurry and get back to the road of yellow brick
before dark," he said; and the Scarecrow agreed with him. So
they kept walking until Dorothy could stand no longer. Her
eyes closed in spite of herself and she forgot where she was
and fell among the poppies, fast asleep.
"What shall we do?" asked the Tin Woodman.
"If we leave her here she will die," said the Lion. "The
smell of the flowers is killing us all. I myself can
scarcely keep my eyes open, and the dog is asleep
already."
It was true; Toto had fallen down beside his little
mistress. But the Scarecrow and the Tin Woodman, not being
made of flesh, were not troubled by the scent of the
flowers.
Jasmine is such a flower in a human looking
container....most who see her are overcome with religious
type happiness, at the expense of living a real life. Angel
forgets what he is a Champion of when he sees
Jasmine...everyone, almost everyone reacts in the same way.
Once seen, Jasmine is like that poppy field where you get
caught up in a dream until you die. But for whatever reason
there are some like the Tinman and Scarecrow in Wizard of Oz
who can see the dream for what it is and attempt to wake
everyone up to the truth.
[> [> [> [>
Excellent analogy -- CW, 05:52:40 04/11/03
Fri
Last night in my dreams, I was back in my teaching days,
grading ATPo essays as if I'd assigned them. You get an 'A'
for this one; short, sweet and your quotation dead-on
perfect to make your case. ;o)
[> [> [> [>
The qualities of Jasmine -- yabyumpan, 10:26:31
04/11/03 Fri
As an Aromatherapist I thought it might be interesting to
look at the qualities of Jasmine from a theraputic view
point:
Jasmine is used mainly as an Anti-depressant for specific
situations; Post-Natal depression and depression caused by
psycho-sexual problems, which also explains why it's often
called an Aphrodisiac. It's not actually an Aphrodisiac in a
traditional sense in that it doesn't actually increase
sexual desire, what the oil does or helps to do is to
alleviate anxiety and increase self confidence.
Alleviating anxiety is probably the oil Jasmine's main
quality.
On the down side there are also major warnings attached to
the oil : it is highly toxic in large doses and also a
possible aborificacient(sp) and photo-toxic.
Make of all that what you will, I thought it was quite
intereseting :o)
[> [> [> [> [>
Well, I'm actually waiting for Jasmine to... --
Masq, 10:58:52 04/11/03 Fri
...make a sexual pass at someone. She was taking such
delight in her physical body--in having one, in its
sensations, even the painful ones.
And sexual pleasure is one of the most delightful
sensations.
Plus, if Jasmine is supposed to be a "cult leader" of sorts,
well, isn't that the sort of thing they stereotypically do?
Especially as a way of controlling others?
Let's just hope she doesn't hop on her "previous" partner,
the one she's calling "father". 'Cause that would just be...
old.
[> [> [> [>
Baseball bat of metaphor -- lunasea, 13:16:02
04/11/03 Fri
This scene/passage from The Wizard of Oz is about
drugs. It isn't even very subtle. It is barely even a
metaphor. Dorothy and friends go off the beaten path, even
though they are warned not to, and only brain and heart
aren't enthralled.
Jasmine as a cult. Talk about pointless. After that arc I
will feel like saying: ìI learned something, too. I
learned, uhm, - cults are evil? Oh, wait, - I knew that.
I learned that religion is full of self-serving phonies.
No, - had that one down, too. Uh... following others is
bad?î
Angel with a smile: ìWe all knew that.î
The metaphors on Buffy and Angel are metaphors for other
things. I love the layers to these shows. Every time I think
I have found the core of the onion, I find yet another
level. I love coming here and seeing people peeling away.
Often what someone says triggers something in another and a
chain reaction happens. It is great to watch that. It is
great to be a part of that.
Jasmine isn't just a flower, that metaphor is a metaphor. It
is like Buffy/Angel. They aren't just a relationship. They
are symbolic of something much greater. When I root for
them, I am not rooting for the relationship. I am rooting
for the something greater.
For me the story isn't in the cult. I would have bolded the
following:
When I have brains, I shall probably like them
better."
"If I only had a heart, I should love them,"
There is one big difference between Jasmine and cults. Cults
are led by human beings. Jasmine is something else, probably
a PTB. We aren't dealing with a cult, where someone says
they know the will of God and are majorly wrong. This is a
Messiah, either real or false. We aren't dealing with the
Moonies. We aren't dealing with Bob Jones or David Koresh.
We aren't dealing with Catholics or Southern Baptists. We
aren't dealing with The Tailiban.
I am surprised that no one has brought up the Lotus
Eaters yet. Is paradise truly paradise? There are so
many things to explore here, so many layers.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Baseball bat of metaphor -- Rufus, 22:50:36
04/11/03 Fri
This scene/passage from The Wizard of Oz is about drugs.
It isn't even very subtle. It is barely even a metaphor.
Dorothy and friends go off the beaten path, even though they
are warned not to, and only brain and heart aren't
enthralled.
No kidding.......and what happens when people are
addicted?
[> [>
Re: Calling Rufus, killing people, etc (spoilers for
SHP) -- Rufus, 20:06:00 04/10/03 Thu
Angel is the first to mention having to kill Fred...after
Wes (who is supposed to love Fred) goes on about who would
have known that Fred could be evil. The back and forth
between the characters leads up to the quick thumbs down for
Fred.
So....what is going on? Shiny Happy People...is that a good
thing? Does the fact that people seem to be having such a
profound religious type experience (I compared it to St
Theresa like estacsy) mean that what is happening is a good
thing? All we have to look at is how Jasmine came to
be.....and Darla mentioned snatching safety from an evil
act....Cordy (with an inhouse being controlling her) has
killed Lilah and Manny...she would have offed anyone who got
in the way. The final is the virgin sacrifice that brings
about the birth of Jasmine. Up to the moment Angel sees
Jasmine he is about to kill Cordy and whatever was to be
born. We saw an image of a thing that moulds itself into
human form (hmmmm thinking about what General Gregor said
about Dawn in season five). Being pressed into human form
doesn't mean that the results will be good. The fact that
none of the gang is acting in a remotely normal way should
be the tip off to big evil being behind this. Fred is one of
the first to see the truth and truth looks like something
you need the Orkin man for. Evil/good they are just words
and you have to look at what the people spouting all the
pretty words are doing or influencing to be done to figure
out what is the truth. Jasmine is good with the talk but she
is full of sh*t. Go back to the history lesson I transcribed
and figure out how much of it is true and how much is a
distortion of the truth.
[>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- MaeveRigan,
10:25:07 04/10/03 Thu
I'll go out on a limb here and agree, somewhat--from the
viewpoint of a monotheistic believer. But not the type
portrayed in "Shiny Happy People." Because those types are,
well...slaves. Cultists. Fundamentalists. A distortion of
what I was taught about God and what I believe. The idea
that there are only two options--either belief in and
worship of a deity OR free will--seems absurd to me. A
deity that eliminates free will is no god, but rather a
demon. Existentialists aren't the only people who should be
constantly questioning their decisions, although believers
(those who aren't cultists) may have some kind of guideline
to consult--maybe "What would Buffy do?" (I'm kidding!)
Even in heaven, from all accounts, confronted with what
might seem incontrovertible evidence of the presence of God,
Lucifer has free will to choose to rebel, and so
(presumably) does humanity in this world.
At the same time, ME is obviously using religious
terminology, probably intentionally attempting to tick off
the less-imaginative religious viewers, and also, as you
say, teasing viewers who complained about strife among the
characters. "Don't give them what they ask for, give them
what they need," or WTTE. The effects are chillingly
effective.
[> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Arethusa,
11:23:59 04/10/03 Thu
All believers give up at least a little free will.
Instead of forming their own beliefs, depending on their own
judgment and making their own rules to live by they follow
the rules of someone/something else. They show faith by
accepting without question (or with a limited amount of
questioning) that those beliefs are the right ones, that
their religion's definitions of good and evil are the right
ones.
The people depicted in SHP are cultists, slaves to their
belief. But some Protestants call Catholics cultists-a
visiting priest in my parish told how in one small town
where he worked the local religious book stores put Catholic
books in the cult section. Some might look on Wiccas as
deluded cultists, but the believers wouldn't. Same for
Muslims, Hindus, Druids, Baptists, and so on. For those
with no religious beliefs, any religious person might seem a
cultist.
For me, the most chilling thing of all is letting anyone
else tell me that I'm not allowed to think for myself, not
allowed to question everything. I don't think Whedon
(don't know about everyone else in ME) is saying that it's
okay to give up some free will if you give it up to the
"right" higher power. It really is an either/or situation.
Either I make my own decisions or I let someone else make
them for me. That someone might be a benevolent, loving
god, but it is not me. Do I place my trust in God, or do I
reject a higher power and believe in myself?
[> [> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Corwin of Amber,
13:09:24 04/10/03 Thu
Umm, why do you assume that religious believers don't
question what they're asked to believe in? That they have
to give up some degree of free will? I for one, questioned
EVERY belief of my particular religion, and over the years
each one was proven to my satisfaction. Have I therefore
given up my free will?
[> [> [> [>
Which raises the question... -- Solitude1056,
13:34:35 04/10/03 Thu
How can any of AI prove, beyond reasonable doubt,
what Jasmine is claiming? They can't prove her
version of history anymore than they can prove her
status amongst all-powerful beings. They can only go on her
word.
It's nearly as difficult as the issue of proving that
Ganesha really helped me quit smoking, or proving
that my Methodist grandmother's parking guardian angel
really helped her find the best spaces at the local shopping
mall. For that matter, how can one prove, to even a
marginal satisfaction, that after death one faces a
particular set of consequences, or even faces anything at
all? I'd have to say, none of the above are distinctly and
inherently provable - reminds me of that scientific rule of
thumb about whether one can posit a logical opposite to a
theory that determines whether the theory itself is
scientific. "God did it" as a theory has no logical opposite
- and no, "the devil did it" is not considered the
antithesis.
Anyway, the whole problem of religions and spirituality (and
I don't consider the two the same) is that more often than
not, there's no proof for belief. (If you've found this to
be untrue for you, then I'd say you're either a rare one
with a direct line to the Divine or you're worshipping at
the altar of something other than a Pie In The Sky deity.)
For that matter, there's rarely definitive answers that will
convince even the innocent passerby - they may convince the
choir, but that - IMO - hardly requires much effort. Once
you're a believer, you don't need proof; until you're a
believer, no proof will do. (In which case it's somewhat
irrelevant that no scientific proof is available,
anyway.)
Just another monkey wrench.
[> [> [> [>
The gap between belief and disbelief: -- dream,
14:04:29 04/10/03 Thu
I think the reason that non-believers tend to assume that
believers haven't questioned their beliefs is that
convincing answers based on belief are truly inconceivable
to those who are not inside the belief system. The gap
between belief and disbelief is enormous, and I fear
unbridgeable - not that there are not those who occupy a
middle ground, just that those who truly do or do not
believe are unable to converse in any meaningful way about
belief. I say this as someone who was once a hard-core
believer and is now an atheist. I think it's unfortunate,
but I think it's true.
[> [> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Angelus,
13:13:12 04/10/03 Thu
First, regarding Jasmine. One interesting note is that,
after the big buildup, she doesn't seem as invincible
physically as, say, Glory. She can be wounded and bleed.
On the benevolence/ malevolence issue, she doesn't have to
behave in an openly malevolent manner. She already knows
she has a power that automatically makes people believe
everything she says and obey her. I suspect we will find
out that, to a degree, she is merely playing a role that
fosters that belief. Then again, it is arguable that, from
her point of view, this is just the way it should be- with
her ruling. But I just can't quite buy that she really
believes in love.
While watching the episode, I wasn't paying that much
attention to whether it was a shot at religion. But I was a
Christian at one time in my life- that was before I lost my
soul and became Angelus (ahem that was a joke). I grew up
in a small, isolated town. There were 500 students in the
whole school kintergarten through 12th grade and that
included the whole surrounding rural area. Yet there were
three churches, all Protestant. Apparently a hundred years
ago there was a Catholic church out where the Track field is
currently located. The Protestants burned it down. There
was once a theater in the town (owned by my great
grandfather). It was closed down because movies were
immoral.
So anyway, I know very well the mindlessness Fundamentalism
can reach. No questioning and in fact its a lack of faith
to question, all BS designed to keep people from questioning
something that would collapse like a house of cards if
people *really* questioned it. Personally I don't know if
Joss was attacking religion as a whole or just
Fundamentalism. But literal (myth as history) religion
pretty much has to brush off facts and create vast
rationalizations to maintain itself even if its not purely
Fundamentalist. But I am sure he was at least mocking the
religion that we see on tv and that is most prevalent.
[> [> [> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Arethusa,
13:43:39 04/10/03 Thu
That's a good point about her human vulnerability. I wonder
if she will be affected by her new humanity-geek that I am,
I'm remembering a Star Trek episode where powerful beings
take human form to take over the Enterprise and are done in
by their new, human emotions.
[> [> [> [>
I don't think it was a shot at religion, any more than
(spoilers for SHP) -- lunasea, 14:59:43 04/10/03
Thu
Willow was a shot at drugs.
ME used the magick/drugs metaphor to explain Willow's
descent into evil. They temporarily vamped her and explored
how depending on someone else so heavily for your own self-
image can destroy a person. Buffy took out her self-loathing
on Spike and Willow turned hers into an extreme co-
dependency on Tara and magick.
I don't think Joss is making a direct statement about
religion. I have enjoyed reading the posts of atheists who
are taking this opportunity to slam religion or
fundamentalism. I think Joss is using what is going on with
Jasmine as a vehicle to explore hope.
What is Jasmine offering that is enchanting people? Is she
putting out "control" vibes that are brainwashing people? If
that is the case, what is with all the peace and love talk?
If she can just control people and she has malevolent
motives, why not just control them to do what she wants? It
works on demons (Lorne isn't immune, so it isn't just
Angel's soul), so why not just get the demons to do what she
wants?
I got caught up in the theme of identity this season. I
don't think that is it, any more. It is hope. That is
something the show has always been about to me. I used to
think it was "We help the hopeless."
"Kick over the board and start a new game." What a profound
statement of hope. There is no guarantee that new game is
going to be any better than the old one.
Hope has played out in many ways this season:
Angel lost his hope at the bottom of the ocean and recovers
it somewhat on the boat with his hallucination with Lorne.
Then he delivers his Champion speech, which shows he has
lost hope that the smallest act of kindness can make a
difference. Instead he is now an example. Angel's lack of
hope has driven this season.
Gwen has been a great character. She has gone through some
amazing changes this season. What Angel does with her
reminds me of what he does with Faith. (From Consequences)
"You and me, Faith, we're a lot alike. Time was, I thought
humans existed just to hurt each other. But then I came
here. And I found out that there are other types of people.
People who genuinely wanted to do right. And they make
mistakes. And they fall down. You know, but they keep
caring. Jeep trying. If you can trust us, Faith, this can
all change. You don't have to disappear into the
darkness."
How much Angel is willing to risk for Cordelia shows Gwen
something special. She is willing to turn to them in "Long
Days Journey" and in "Ground State" she actually is willing
to lose her powers in order to connect with another human
being. Gwen has been a wonderful sub-arc.
In THAW Angel loses his destiny, his future, his hope for a
future. He doesn't lose his love for his friends. He doesn't
lose his hope for their future. He fights to protect that
future. That is pretty much where our hero is this season.
Cordy got rewarded and he didn't. He doesn't have hopes for
himself. He hopes for his friends and family.
He still has hope that he and Connor will manage to fix
things. He even has hope that he and Cordy may have
something special (he doesn't know). Jasmine takes that away
from him in "Apocalypse Nowish."
Big beastie comes and Angel has hope they will beat it. As
it pummels them, he loses this hope and is willing to let
Angelus be brought forth. He loses his faith in the PTB.
When he finds out that he has to kill Cordy, he has no hope
about anything left.
That is what brings Jasmine into the world. Connor has lost
hope in everything prior to this also. Angel and Connor
bring Jasmine into the world in their dispair. She comes to
alleviate it. She blocked out the sun to replace it. She
removes hope from everyone so that she can give it back to
them. The sun is a symbol of hope. "The sun'll come out
tomorrow." (Joyce uses this with Buffy in her dreams)
Wesley is another great character for hope this season, but
I have written enough. Faith, Gunn, Fred, all about hope and
dispair.
I think the season will revolve around a moment similar to
Giles in "The Wish"
Anyanka: You trusting fool! How do you know the other world
is any better than this?
Giles: Because it has to be.
Religion also offers hope, so the parallels are going to be
there.
Here is something Marti said "And I think the idea of
destiny and serving God in a way, and Joss, by the way, is a
rabid atheist, but his work is full of yearning for belief.
And I think the show speaks to people who also have that
yearning. I mean, the whole show in a way, the whole show
ping pongs between the darkest night of the soul and this
whole yearning for belief."
To take this over to Buffy, Buffy has lost hope. That is why
we get Generalisimo Summers.
[> [> [> [> [>
It's a shot at what religion can be perverted
into..... -- Rufus, 20:07:34 04/10/03 Thu
[> [> [> [> [>
"We help the hopeless" WAS the original
slogan. -- Darby, remembering Doyle's "We hope
you're helpless.", 06:06:39 04/11/03 Fri
[> [> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Dochawk, 13:49:37
04/10/03 Thu
First off Arethusa let me say I LOVED your original post, it
really made me understand and like SHP much better.
But there is another way one can come to their beliefs and
their religiuos convictions. A person can evaluate the
things s/he believes in, what truths they are comfortable
with and then find a religious tradition that fits these
choices. People convert to a religion hopefully because
they find it answers their life questions in a more
satisfying way, not because they have no choice about it. A
main tenet of most of mainstream Judiasm is to question God
and her answers (Israel means to wrestle with God in hebrew)
(I can't speak for any other religions, but I believe this
to be true of others as well). Jasmine does remind one of a
cult leader and it may in fact be what Joss is examining. I
have alot more appreciation for what he has done becuase of
this discussion.
[> [> [> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- Arethusa,
14:37:42 04/10/03 Thu
That's fascinating, and something I haven't thought about
very much. All I know about Judaism is what I learn from
books, and it isn't much. In Catholicism, one of my
previous religions, we were actively discouraged from
questioning much of anything.
Choosing to believe in God is a choice, after all. But from
the point of view of an existentialist, you're choosing to
accept what you are told are God's laws instead of making up
your own. You're giving up the freedom to fully decide for
yourself what is right or wrong, and choosing to accept that
this being exists, is your creator, and has given you the
"right" laws to follow. I'm just beginning to realize what
a tricky concept this is, because who am I to say God
doesn't exist and I know what is right and what is wrong?
That my decisions are moral?-which is very important to me.
We are both exercising free will-you to believe and me to
not believe. I just can't or won't go that last step, to
accept anybody's word about something I feel in my heart is
not right.
I've got to run, or this post would probably be much longer.
Thanks very much for your response.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for Shiny, Happy People -- lunasea, 15:17:42
04/10/03 Thu
In Catholicism, one of my previous religions, we were
actively discouraged from questioning much of anything.
That's pre Vatican II thinking (maybe even pre-Baltimore).
Father Alexander DiLella, the man hand picked by the Pontiff
to oversee the NRSV (had him autograph it for me, closest
thing to an author. he got a kick out of it) taught me to
question the pejebers out of everything. Only those who
don't have faith in their Faith discourage questioning.
Father DiLella taught me that it was a Catholic's duty to
know their faith so well they could defend it and that could
only be accomplished by questioning it. Catholicism could
stand up to my questions.
this echoes the sentiments of St. John Henry Newman and Pope
Pius XII. Divino Afflante Spiritu is one of my
favorite ncylicals.
As for what are God's Laws, we were taught that "The Word of
God was written on the Heart." This appears in both the
Prophets (I forget which one) and in the Gospels. We don't
need no stickin' book or priest to tell us what God wants.
We just need to listen to our hearts.
[> [>
I'm with you MR -- Rahael, 05:33:03 04/11/03
Fri
The dichotomies as presented are hard for me to take
seriously. Hard and fast rules about other people,
dichotomies between 'them' and 'us', easy generalisations
about people's inner minds and beliefs don't exactly strike
me as going for the hard, rather than the easy truths.
[> [> [>
Could you explain, Rahael? -- Arethusa, 08:17:37
04/11/03 Fri
I don't want to make easy generalizations, or rules about
other people. None of this has been easy for me, especially
giving up the hope of heaven and support of God's love.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Could you explain, Rahael? -- Rahael,
10:08:19 04/11/03 Fri
Well, I've been trying not to post about this, and have
deleted half a dozen replies. But I'm a Christian and I
don't believe in heaven. It's not something I think greatly
about, and in any case I think trying to do what is right
while believing that doing so will earn you a reward...well,
it's not for me. I once said this to a colleague of mine who
is an evangelical Christian and she said "but why would you
do the right thing in that case?" and I said "Because it's
the right thing to do!"
So to conclude that all people of faith believe in eternal
rewards is an easy generalisation. I think the inner mind of
another human being, let alone a whole body of people is
very hard to categorise. Leslie referenced Carlo Ginzburg a
day or so ago - I'd say that Ginzburg's 'Cheese and the
Worms' is an excellent study in how belief systems are not
automatically formed by religious instruction, but interact
with the official church, with other strands of thought,
with their own peculiar ideas. When we talk about belief, we
are engaging with the world of the imagination and that's
something that's very hard to quantify.
When I read the poetry of George Herbert, Gerard Manley
Hopkins, and other religious poets I do not see brainwashed,
unquestioning minds. Quite the opposite. They are 'new,
tender, quick'. Alert, questioning, imbued with a compassion
that stretches out to me across the ages.
When I look at my 'faith' it's the very opposite of
unquestioning and unrigorous - in fact, it was the very
means I was taught to question the world. It's the very
first text that made me aware that texts can be
contradictory, full of tension. The disjuncture which this
book which I was supposed to accept as a guideline to live
life by, and the life I saw people leading made me think
hard about accepting texts, how to interpret them, how to
approach them. I never think 'faith' and 'belief' and think
unquestioning. Because of other things to - the community I
grew up in was steeped in faiths, in traditions, in
religious beliefs (three major world religions, not one) -
these were people who were not brainwashed. Some of them
derived the courage to stand up and disagree with
'groupthink'. Some of them got the courage to question, to
stand alone, to see the hard truths that others would not,
because of their faith.
My experience of growing up in a multi-faith community did
not lead to my being brainwashed by these religions, but to
value pluralism, tolerance and respect for the worldviews of
others.
Are there dogmatic, rigid people who use their world view to
lead unquestioning lives? Absolutely. Is this restricted to
religious people? No. Might the common denominator be
dogmatic beliefs rather than religious belief systems per
se? Yes, religion can encourage static, rigid, very unjust
views of the world. But so can political and philosophical
belief systems.
A great portion of my world view is formed by the religious
backgrounds of my parents. I find faiths of all kinds
fascinating, inspiring, engendering art and literature that
I love to engage with. I am in awe of the human imagination
that gets inspired and produces these things. I find belief
systems fascinating. If this belief system can produce art
that I can stare at for hours and hours, literature and
poetry that moves me, makes me think, and indeed, rather
than being full of certainty and easy comfort - is uncertain
and questioning..........
I think that the dichotomies suggested here - people of
belief who abrogate their right to choose, who automatically
have no hard questions to face, only certain comfort
contrasted with the emotionally courageous non-believers who
will always face the real, difficult truths of the world -
these are pretty unconvincing for me.
I know many, many atheists who have pretty firm, unchanging
ideas about how the world should be. I know many people of
faith who are thoughtful and always try to find their own
way to their decisions.
I also have to say, I don't spend much time thinking of
God's Love for me. It's not about that for me. It's about
how I display humanity toward others. How one goes about
doing that - well, that's always up to question and doubt
and change. Losing the hope of heaven isn't that hard when I
never hoped for it in the first place so I guess that's an
easy truth, rather than a hard one. In fact, when I was
younger I was tormented by the idea of heaven, of the people
I kept being told would never be allowed in.
Of course, having mounted this defence I'll admit that I can
never attend any congregation for long because some of my co-
congregationalists drive me round the bend to the point
where I want to leap up during the sermon and say something
sacrilegious. And every time my grandmother starts banging
on about something I'll argue against her to the point of
unkindness. But I'll do the same when she starts on her
socially conservative beliefs or her talk of ancient family
feuds too. And when people start dissing faith, of whatever
kind, I'll always have to say something, even when it's not
my own. I just respect it, and I respect a lot of people who
hold faith, just as I respect people without any belief
immensely. I just never think to think differently about
people because of their faith or lack of it. That just never
occurs to me. There are people who are emotionally and
morally courageous, and I don't think they separate on the
belief/no belief line.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Could you explain, Rahael? -- Arethusa,
11:47:16 04/11/03 Fri
I do sound all elitist and condescending and la la la I know
the secrets of the universe and everyone else doesn't, don't
I? Sigh.
But I really don't mean to. I should have been clearer that
I was looking at Shiny Happy People as an existentialist
statement, Whedon's view of religion or take on religion.
I'm making some big assumptions, I know-that I know and
understand what Whedon means when he calls himself an angry
existentialist atheist, and that this episode explores his
views. I could be totally wrong, and could be making an ass
of myself.
I do not think people of faith are unquestioning, or that
they take the easy way out by letting someone else think for
them. I really do not think people of faith are
incapable of emotional or moral courage-I'd have to be an
idiot not to recognize the enormous moral and emotional
courage faith gives people. Whedon could just be making a
statement about blind obedience which as you say could apply
to a lot of things-religion, politics, social interactions,
and so on. But I think by having Jasmine be a loving god
who only wants the best for everyone, and one of the Powers
That Be, the group that has been guiding Angel for his
entire stint as a Champion, Whedon is making a statement
about depending on anyone/anything for guidance in life. If
Jasmine were evil, it would be easy to see why her influence
has evil results. But she's not some cult leader, her
speeches very clearly echo good and moral ideas. She's
good, she wants everyone to be happy and not suffer. Her
evil acts are (I think) based on her disregard for the
rights of an individual to decide for himself what he will
do or think. Individualism is given up in exchange for
belief. So what is Whedon trying to say about following a
higher authority?
So far all the authorites shown in BtVS, Angel and even
Firefly have been shown to be a very mixed bag-the Watcher's
Council, the Shadowmen, the High School principals, mothers
and fathers, the Initiative, mayors, police, the Alliance.
Mal rejected the Alliance even though that made him a
virtual fugitive. Buffy rejects the authority of the CoW
and the watcher she loves like a father, to follow her own
instincts. Only Angel still depends on an outside authority
to give him aid and support. How many times has AI wondered
when the heck TPTB will send them a vision to help them
solve their problems? I think Whedon is leading up to
having Angel reject TPTB, to stop looking elsewhere for
guidance and assistance. It's the noir thing to do, it's
the existentialist thing to do, it's the Whedon thing to do.
I'm not sure, but I think it has nothing to do with the
validity of TPTB-they are trying to help him! It has to do
with taking full control and responsibility for his
decisions.
Whenever I'm afraid I don't know what I'm talking about I go
back to the dictionary. Free will, I just read, is
1 : voluntary choice or decision (I do this of my own free
will)
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not
determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
(Mirriam Webster)
Do I make choices based on belief or free will? This
decision has nothing to do with which is easier or more
courageous or more correct. Both are hard to do, both take
courage, and God alone knows what is "correct."
I think that if Whedon had a totalitarian government taking
over L. A. these discussions would not be taking place.
It's much more clear that other people telling us what we
can and can't do or think is a denial of personal
individuality and freedom of choice. But because he is an
atheist, we are being asked to look at our decision to give
up any free will in exchange for belief.
Here's hoping I haven't pissed anyone off even more.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I totally agree with you! -- Rahael, a deeply
heretical Christian, 12:03:40 04/11/03 Fri
I mean, I think I have a pretty similar vision of authority
and so on, and the importance of making one's own decisions
and not relying on, and the very difficult nature of the
universe. The importance of being questioning, of thinking
hard about life, of the value of the things we do. Life
before death, not afterward. But I find a lot of this
through people who have faith too. Faith and belief are
pretty quixotic things sometimes, and that's why I'm so
interested in it. I guess maybe a few qualifiers (such as,
atheists can be dogmatic, and people who believe in God can
have their own minds, and be very questioning of
authority).
With those qualifiers, I would have been able to agree with
you more (but me, I'm one of nature's contrarians, lol).
Anyways, you didn't piss me off. I just found myself in a
strange country where I couldn't recognise any of the
landmarks. I was wondering whether making a contribution to
this debate would have any credibility since I would also
have to confess that faith creates deep resonances within
me. Also, I'm so used to the being on the other side of the
debate that I gave myself mental whiplash.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Heehee. And regarding Nature's Contrarians --
Arethusa, 12:47:05 04/11/03 Fri
I'm one too. That's how I became an atheist in the first
place. But I want to believe, to quote another contrarian.
I go to Mass every Sunday and try to lead a good, moral
life. I was just unable to reconcile the idea of a loving,
all-seeing god with my daily life as a child. If bad things
happen to us because we have choices, I reasoned, than by
God they would be my choices, and no one else's.
That's my failing, not religion's.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Arethusa and Rahael, I've found this conversation
fascinating -- dream, 13:24:41 04/11/03 Fri
And lovely, respectful and thoughtful where emotions usually
run so high.
Arethusa, you remind me of me a few years ago - I don't know
how long ago you lost your faith, and don't know if the
situations are truly similar, so forgive me any assumptions.
But I continued attending Mass long after I had ceased to
believe, only stopping when I finally realized there were
things I couldn't grow into as long as I was still receiving
reinforcement of certain values (about marriage and
sexuality and authority, especially) that I rejected
intellectually, but resonated emotionally. But I miss the
beauty of the Mass, and confession, and Stations of the
Cross, particularly, which is such a beautiful meditation on
the suffering of others, an exercise in empathy.
Unfortunately, I don't CHOOSE not to believe - the belief
just isn't there. The image that comes to mind is a cartoon
character (Wile E. Coyote, maybe) running off a cliff, and
continuing to run, until suddenly he notices that there is
nothing beneath him. My faith was gone long before I
noticed it, but once I realized, nothing could prevent my
falling, nothing could convince me that there really was a
ground beneath my feet. Now, I'm finding other ways of
understanding my place in the universe, and the loss of
faith doesn't feel so much like a loss anymore. The gap is
being filled in ways that are much more satisfying to me. I
still have some Church-related anger, but it's fading. I
wonder what I'll believe in when I'm old...
That was probably incoherent, and forgive me for intruding
on your conversation, but I couldn't help chiming in.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Not incoherent at all! -- Rahael, 16:40:58
04/11/03 Fri
That was a very good post! And I loved the Wile E Coyote
analogy.
There's one thing that sticks in my mind. I believed for
years and years that my mother had no faith. And then I
learned later that she spent a lot of time involved in
helping a local church, not the big one the rest of the
family went to, but a smaller one in a poorer part of the
town. More radical too, I think. And then another memory
resurfaces, of when I was very young and I sat back,
watching as I always did as the adults went to receive Holy
Communion. My mother came back and sank to her knees to
pray. When she finished, and raised her head, I realised
that she had wept silently as she prayed. That struck me
very powerfully, more than any sermon could have.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Good comparison. -- Arethusa, 10:14:27 04/12/03
Sat
Thanks for responding, and of course you're not intruding at
all. Your comparison is very apt! It's like my feet were
pedaling away, but there was nothing underneath. Sometimes
it feels like a loss, but mostly it's just relief that I
finally can stop fighting against what I'm told versus what
I think.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I don't see Joss as so self-serving -- lunasea,
14:02:13 04/11/03 Fri
Whedon's view of religion or take on religion. I'm making
some big assumptions, I know-that I know and understand what
Whedon means when he calls himself an angry existentialist
atheist, and that this episode explores his views.
I think his views tend to be sub-text and the undercurrents
that form his story, but I don't think he is going to
explore this so overtly. He is using this metaphor like he
did magick/drugs S6, to explore something within the
characters themselves. It isn't about the higher authority.
It isn't authority is bad. It is why do people follow
authority. It is why don't some. It is what do we do if we
don't follow anyone. Much more interesting than authority
bad, tree pretty.
As Marti has said "And I think the idea of destiny and
serving God in a way, and Joss, by the way, is a rabid
atheist, but his work is full of yearning for belief. And I
think the show speaks to people who also have that yearning.
I mean, the whole show in a way, the whole show ping pongs
between the darkest night of the soul and this whole
yearning for belief."
SHP started to explore that yearning. Why do we have it? Not
that the yearning is bad, but what is it about humans that
cause us to want to believe? Even angry existentialist
atheists have this. Angel has been a great character for
this. It has been central to him. Angel wants to believe.
Why can't he? Why does he now?
Actually, after all this talk on the board, I think I want
to rewatch SHP this weekend.
[> [> [> [> [>
A quick note about heaven -- lunasea, 13:27:33
04/11/03 Fri
A few summers ago, the Pope made an announcment that Heaven
wasn't an actual place. It was a state of mind. I could find
the announcement if you are interested. It may put words to
what you feel.
It goes along with an interpretation I saw for The Prodigal
Son that I liked. That was always the parable I had the most
trouble with. Why should the prodigal son get rewarded and
the dutiful son get nothing? Great story for encouraging
people to return to God, but what about the rest of us? Then
at the mass for my younger daughter's Christening the priest
gave another interpretation. The dutiful son did have his
reward, a reward that surpassed the party. He got to be with
Dad all the time. That was better than any party.
Another thought, when people start talking about love of
God, one line always comes to mind. It is from Indiana
Jones and The Last Crusade "Why do you seek the Grail,
Dr. Jones. For God's Glory or for your own." Indy's response
is that he is doing it for his father.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: A quick note about heaven (Spoilers, aired AtS
eps) -- Rahael, 17:06:06 04/11/03 Fri
Thanks, Lunasea, I did was aware of those comments, and
thought they were very interesting indeed! Oh, and I like
the take on the parable - it's interesting - I think both
the 'Last Crusade' and the parable about the Prodigal son
contain resonances for AtS........(father and son both
interested in the same woman who turns out to have an agenda
of her own, let alone the fact that it turns up in Angel's
perfect day fantasy!)
[> [> [>
Maybe it's about what AI needs to believe (Spoilers for
SHP and speculation) -- Sara, 17:43:40 04/11/03
Fri
Not sure where to put this, so I picked here! What if the
exploration isn't about religion but about what draws some
people to strong even fundamentalist faiths. As an agnostic
who finds the concept of God kind of irrelevant (I keep
waiting for lightning to strike whenever I say that) I am
fascinated by other people's faiths and tend to chat a lot
on the topic. Since this is based on chit-chat (my favorite
hobby) it is totally unscientific, totally unscholarly and
completely anecdotal.
There are as many different reasons for faith as there are
different beliefs and different people so this is in no way
a portrait of all devout or fundamentalist people. Some
people develop their views of God as a way of making sense
of the world, some people are drawn to faith because of
family, community and connections to tradition, some people
truly find a spiritual answer deep in their hearts, but
there are also those who find a religion that fits something
that's missing in them. In that case the belief of God is
to help deal with fear of life, or of death, or to fill a
gap in a need for love - what is better for someone who does
not feel loved, or even worthy of love, than an all-loving
God who loves unconditionally regardless of
all those pesky flaws you can't seem to erase?
So here's my theory, probably wrong, but kind of fun to
speculate on why our pals at Angel Investigations are so
quickly influenced by Jasmine:
Angel needs to believe because it is the only way to
redemption. If there is no higher power/purpose, Powers
That Be, then no matter how much good he does, no matter how
many lives he saves, he can never make up for what he did as
Angelus. If we all just live to die and be done with it,
there is no cosmic balance that he can redeem himself with.
And I'm not talking about a reward, becoming human, being
happy, just the ability to be forgiven. Without faith the
only ones who have the ability to forgive him are already
dead - oops!
Wes and Gunn both have been part of a mission, have devoted
their lives to this mission, and sacrificed everything,
including people they loved to it. If they're wrong about
the war between good and evil, the entire structure of their
lives loses meaning.
Connor is starved for love. Holtz truly did love him, but
he always put his hatred for Angel first. Out comes this
beautiful God who says that he's worthy of love, deserves
happiness, what's not to worship?
I don't think Lorne fits into this theory, but I would say
that Jasmine's presence has an intoxicating effect on
everyone who believes in good, until they have reason to
wake up from it...which brings me to Fred. I don't think
Fred is in need of faith, her worldview depends on science.
When trapped in Pylea she never gives up on it and continues
to work on formulas to escape. After her return, she uses
her incredibly traumatic experience to come up with new and
ground-breaking theories. So in the bowling alley when
Jasmine says don't worry, we're safe, and is proven fallible
it just takes a while before something in Fred's analytical
head recognizes that if this God can be wrong once, she can
be wrong again and breaks the spell, allowing her to see
Jasmine as she truly is.
Of course Darbs says it's about blood to blood transfer and
he's probably right, but I like my version way better, and
am gonna keep it until next week when I'm told
otherwise!
- Sara, who really didn't mean to write such a long post but
once I start rattling on...
[> [> [> [>
EXACTLY!!!! -- lunasea, 18:28:41 04/11/03
Fri
I think a lot was said in their placement when they went
down on their knees and how they did this.
It isn't as simple as cult bad, tree pretty. There is a
metaphor behind it that will be explained away with some
mystical plot device. That doesn't mean that what you said
isn't one layer beneath that.
[>
Re: "We are all gathered here in peace."
Spoilers for SHP and BtVS CWDP -- Plin, 13:59:23
04/10/03 Thu
We are alone in this life when we die-a time
in our lives when we have no control over what happens to us
at all. No matter how many people we know and love in
between, we all will be alone when we need others the most.
And that's pretty freaking scary. So we take comfort in the
idea that we will have eternal life, that God is always by
our side, that there is nothing to fear. When God says
"Believe in me and you will never die," that might seem like
a pretty good bargain. All we have to do in return is
believe. And obey.
As a counterpoint to this, it's interesting to note what
Holden Webster tells Buffy in Conversations with Dead
People, after he's diagnosed her combination
inferiority/superiority complex:
Oh, it makes every kind of sense. And it all
adds up to you feeling alone. But Buffy, everybody feels
alone. Everybody is, until you die.
There's no mention of whether only vampires gain a sense of
being part of a greater whole after dying (hello, Evil!),
but I don't recall Buffy saying she felt any particular
connectedness when she was in He-eaven, did she? Only that
there was no pain and no suffering, and she knew she was
finished.
Interesting way of turning traditional ideas upside-
down.
[>
joss whedon in the onion on god -- anom,
00:04:55 04/13/03 Sun
The Onion has been running a feature in its "a.v. club" section where they ask various famous
people questions that you just don't find in standard
interviews. Joss Whedon's answers have been published in 2
of these:
"The Onion: Is there a God?
Joss Whedon: No.
O: That's it, end of story, no?
JW: Absolutely not. That's a very important and necessary
thing to learn."
"The Onion: Who could you take in a fight?
Joss Whedon: God. I'm constantly yelling at Him. A lot of my
writers are quite religious, and I'm always yelling, 'Come
on! Strike me down! Wuss!' I don't know why I have such
anger toward somebody who doesn't exist."
There you have it, straight from the Joss's mouth. What it
means in terms of what we saw in Shiny Happy People, I have
no idea.
--anom, realizing that subject line sounds strangely like a
"Clue" solution, or maybe a Beatles song title
[> [>
Re: joss whedon in the onion on god -- Arethusa,
09:14:31 04/13/03 Sun
Wow. "That's a very important and necessary thing to
learn." I feel a little better now. I was starting to feel
like I was projecting my own beliefs onto the show. Not to
mention feeling like the kid who tells everyone that Santa's
a fake.
[> [> [>
It's refreshing, isn't it? -- dream, 08:07:38
04/14/03 Mon
'Cause in general, atheism? Not so well-represented on
network t.v. The climate of the country is very strongly
against.
As an aside, Tony Blair made a speech a while back -- I
think it was shortly after September 11th. Bush, of course,
had been mentioning God every chance he could. He had
repeatedly referred to Americans of all faiths - as in, this
affects Americans of all faiths, Christians, Jews, Muslims,
and all people of God. I was so used to hearing this sort
of thing that I was nearly knocked over with shock when I
heard Tony Blair's version: "People of all faiths and people
of none." Not likely to hear that in the U.S. any time
soon...
A new theory on Cordelia -- Masq, 09:23:20
04/10/03 Thu
Watching the gang under the influence of Jasmine's mind-mojo
last night gave me a thought. We've been spending all season
trying to figure out if Cordelia is the "real" Cordelia, or
possessed, or a being pretending to be Cordelia, etc.
And it's been hard to come up with a coherent theory because
Cordelia so often seemed like herself, even when she was
alone. And then she would do these evil things.
So I'm thinking, what if our Cordelia has been with us, mind
and body, all along, but she has ben under Jasmine's mind-
mojo all season (well, since the end of "Spine the
Bottle")?
Angel, Fred, Lorne, Gunn, Wesley, Connor--they're still more
or less themselves, their personalities, their insecurities,
etc. They're just kind of "on drugs", not thinking clearly
about this Jasmine babe. Angel wouldn't kill Fred in his
right mind, but he might if he thinks it's what Jasmine
wanted, or if he decides it's the best thing for Jasmine's
purposes.
So what if Cordelia has been doing the same? Not possessed,
but just "under the influence"? Carrying out Jasmine's
wishes without clearly thinking through what they mean
because well, people don't do that when they're drunk,
drugged, mojo'ed.
[>
Spoilers up to Shiny Happy Peeps -- Masq,
09:24:29 04/10/03 Thu
And I meant Spin the Bottle!
Yikes.
[>
New for you maybe ;o) -- CW, 09:49:21 04/10/03
Thu
I wasn't the only one who mentioned "baby
controlling/influencing mommy" when Cordy was pregnant.
Clerihews, anyone? -- luna, 10:04:26 04/10/03
Thu
We've seen BtVS and AtS haiku and limericks--anyone want to
try clerihews? Here's the definition:
clerihew (KLER-uh-hyoo): A humorous, pseudo-biographical
verse of four lines of uneven length, with the rhyming
scheme AABB, and the first line containing the name of the
subject.[After writer Edmund Clerihew Bentley (1875-1956),
who originated it.]Here is one of the first clerihews he
wrote (apparently while feeling bored
in a science class):
Sir Humphrey Davy
Abominated gravy.
He lived in the odium
Of having discovered sodium.
My feeble attempts:
Buffy was a slayer
who took down the mayor.
She loved Angel
But sent him off to some strange hell.
Poor Willow, mourning Tara
Got black eyes and also hair-a
Word from Xander
Saved the world from Willow's dander.
[>
I'll play! -- d'Herblay, 13:07:28 04/10/03
Thu
I suck at scansion, so clerihews are right up my alley!
Unfortunately, as one of these will reveal, I also suck at
entymology.
Buffy Anne Summers,
Has had her share of bummers:
Her friends keep causing murders,
Plus, she used to flip burgers.
Alexander LaVelle Harris,
Is usually easy to embarrass.
He was once Dracula's flunky.
Can you say, "Butt-Monkey"?
Jamine,
Promises bliss ever-lastin',
But in her eye there's a larval drosophila
And are we forgetting that she killed Lilah?
Aud,
Never committed consumer fraud;
But she found vengeance very nice
-- So much for the workers' paradise.
William the Bloody, also known as Spike,
Is someone the viewers seem to really like,
But ever since he got himself chippethed,
Pfththpt.
Alysson Hannigan,
Can not be shown with a man again --
At least on the small screen, i.e.
There's always American Pie 3.
Marti Noxon,
Is Joss's coxswain,
But when she's the Captain on the deck,
The boat gets "Wrecked."
Solitude 1056,
There's not a snag in HTML he or she can't fix,
But when it comes to revealing hir gender --
I've given up on that mind-bender.
mundusmundi,
He was a fun guy,
He and Dedalus used to hang out here a lot.
Hey, guys! Think we forgot?
[> [>
Re: I'll play! -- mundus, 13:28:14 04/10/03
Thu
I'll take a pause from my lurk,
(And I too love Dedalus, but Star Wars -- urk!)
To say how much I enjoyed your joke.
But careful with the poetry, lest it draw out Boke!
-mm
[> [> [>
Wow! Ask and ye SHALL receive! Who else can I
invoke? -- d'Herblay, 13:39:57 04/10/03 Thu
vampire hunter D,
Always seemed like a . . .
I'd better leave it be.
[> [> [> [>
Some rhymes just shouldn't be allowed to live. --
Solitude1056, 13:49:17 04/10/03 Thu
[> [> [>
LOLOL everyone -- Rahael, 16:52:19 04/11/03
Fri
Bah. Wish I could express my appreciation in poetry (you
know, the kind I actually write myself).
[> [>
Uh... -- Solitude1056, 13:46:09 04/10/03 Thu
I think I've been immortalized. And I didn't even have to
kiss anything!
[>
Re: Clerihews, anyone? -- neaux, 14:03:07
04/10/03 Thu
A very studious Rupert Giles
reads his books in piles
we all thought he was dead
when someone took a blade to his head.
An overly bored neaux
knows no known node of his nose
dabbled in alliteration
but turned into an abomination
[>
can I try? -- MsGiles, 08:33:45 04/11/03 Fri
Spike as Willy:
rather silly,
then Dru bit:
Fit!
Giles is tweedy
but not seedy
the guy breaks necks!
(um .. pauses to clean specs)
Adam and Riley
Finished all smiley
But it was only a summing-up -the-series-theme
dream
Buffy took a running jump,
Went thump.
Sadly missed,
Came back well pissed.
(Ben was Glory,
But that's another story)
[>
Brilliance from All! -- luna, 11:04:16 04/11/03
Fri
Existential Scoobies wroteó
I think DíHerblayís got my vote!
But also Neaux, Ms. Giles, and Sol can wow,
And M. Mundus, take a bow!
[>
Re: Clerihews, anyone? -- Calamus, 19:21:45
04/11/03 Fri
Poor Kennedy, much maligned.
Ah, methinks her detractors must be blind.
The one thing she can't be faulted for is taste,
But what a shame- her storyline is much too chaste.
And what of Andrew the guestage?
More commonly known as a pestage.
Yet he's contributed more to his host
Than those lame Slayerettes who make only cereal and
toast.
One more, that's Dawn.
Don't leave your knick-knacks around, or they're gone.
And Buffy is not her mom, although
Asking seems to get you at least one date from the 'ho!
The Completely Insane Name Association Theory about
Shiny Happy People (spoils) -- neaux, 13:41:09
04/10/03 Thu
Ok. If I was playing the "First thing that pops into my
head" word association game with myself..
Shiny Happy People- REM
Shiny happy people laughing
Meet me in the crowd
People people
Throw your love around
Love me love me
Take it into town
Happy happy
Put it in the ground
Where the flowers grow
Gold and silver shine
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
Everyone around love them, love them
Put it in your hands
Take it take it
There's no time to cry
Happy happy
Put it in your heart
Where tomorrow shines
Gold and silver shine
Shiny happy people holding hands
Shiny happy people laughing
It seems like a nonsensical song..and the worst song REM has
ever recorded. but it is fitting dont you think?
Anyway.. my other thought was about the name Jasmine.
Jasmine. Aladdin.
Yes Disney's Aladdin.
Again.. this seems farfetched but the Idea of the Genie's
Lamp providing wishes is a common plotline used in fantasy
shows where whatever the person wishes for, comes true but
only at a surface level. The deeper level usually isnt that
great, holds some flaw, or the wish has a loophole.
Usually a wish is taken in the literal sense and ends up
haunting the wish-er. Jasmine looks like the real deal (as
if someone wished her existance) but we already know from
Fred's POV that looks are deceiving.
Just a thought.
[>
More names -- ponygirl, 16:09:01 04/10/03
Thu
I'm going off the wildfeed here (evil defective vcr, or
rather well-intentioned but misguided roommate who set the
vcr) so this may not be accurate but I thought the names Wes
and Gunn were suggesting for Jasmine were interesting. Gunn
offers Helen, his grandmother's name, but also possibly a
reference to Helen of Troy, a figure who had a great deal of
destruction done in her name. Among Wes' suggestions were
Iphigenia, another mythic Greek figure, whose father
sacrificed her to appease the goddess Artemis so his ships
could sail to Troy; and Dianthia, which means divine flower
or Zeus' flower, making the eventual choice of Jasmine even
more appropriate, and could also be a version of Diana, the
Roman name for Artemis. Well, it made me say hmm! or at
least think that the Greek tragedies this year aren't going
stop with Oedipus.
[> [>
Re: Helen, and question for those Xena/Hercules
Fans...(spoilers SHP) -- Belladonna, 19:50:10
04/10/03 Thu
I never really watched much of Hercules and Xena, but I seem
to remember Gina Torres guest starring on both shows,
playing different characters (they did often use the same
guest stars in different episodes). I think, and I could be
wrong, but I think Gina Torres played Helen of Troy on one
of the two shows. Ooh...wait a minute. Maybe that was
Cleopatra. Hmmm...well, there goes that thought. :) If
she did play Helen of Troy, then that would be a funny
reference. If she played Cleopatra, then this whole post is
meaningless - please ignore! ;)
[> [> [>
Gina Torres (a TV biography) -- cjl, 21:01:46
04/10/03 Thu
Gina Torres has been on SIX television series as a regular,
semi-regular or multi-epiosde guest star. Here's the
rundown:
XENA - Cleopatra, Queen o' the Nile.
HERCULES - Nebula, pirate queen and Sumerian princess (big
Nebula/Iolaus 'shipper here).
CLEOPATRA 2525 - Hel(en), kick-ass 26th century warrior
babe. (The series was an unwatchable load of dreck, but we
all must make sacrifices for our goddesses.)
FIREFLY - Zoe, Mal's second in command.
ALIAS - In S1, Syd's occasional rival for the components of
the Rimbaldi device. (I forget her character's name--Debbie
Alvarez? Espinoza? Rodriguez?)
ANGEL - Jasmine.
So yes, she did play a Helen, but nothing related to
Troy.
[> [> [> [>
One more... -- Darby, 20:01:59 04/11/03 Fri
She was on Any Day Now as the lawyer character's
conservative associate in a recurring role.
[> [> [> [>
She was "Anna Espinoza" on
"Alias." -- Rob, 07:43:53 04/13/03 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Cleopatria 2525 was perfectly watchable --
Slayrunt, 20:11:27 04/13/03 Sun
You just had to have the sound turned off.
[> [> [> [> [>
LOL! -- Rob, 10:52:34 04/14/03 Mon
I still think that it was a "so-bad-it's-good" kind of show.
The concept was so preposterous, so cheesy that you just had
to kind of drop your jaw and think, "NO...this can't be."
And yet it is. But Gina has this way of making even the
craziest stuff sound very important, so she was a very good
choice for this show. She spoke with such conviction that
every time she opened her mouth, I could almost forget that
the show was a complete pile of dreck (or dren, in Farscape-
speak).
And if you watch with the sound off, how could you ever hear
Voice? ;o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [>
How to describe "Cleopatra: 2525" to the
uninitiated? -- cjl, 11:29:07 04/14/03 Mon
Barbarella: The TV series?
The Sci-Fi equivalent of Pamela Anderson's "VIP"?
A "Xena" story conference gone horribly, horribly wrong?
In a way, Gina Torres may have been the worst possible
choice for Helen. She does grant a certain amount of
credibility to whatever's going on around her, and maybe the
show needed to descend into total kitsch in order to work.
Every time Gina was the center of the action, "Cleo" swerved
towards legitimate science fiction drama--but almost
everything else in the series screamed otherwise. Jarring
to the point of near-insensibility.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
That is a good point. Gina's greatness was at odds with
EVERYTHING else. -- Rob, 11:55:50 04/14/03 Mon
[> [> [>
now my posting name has (slight) Buffyverse
relevance -- Helen, 02:12:36 04/11/03 Fri
even though its just my name. Yah me!
[>
Anyone else think this could be significant? Spoilers
Shiny Happy People -- grifter, 02:39:12 04/11/03
Fri
"Jasmine" asked Fred to give her a name at the bowling hall.
Fred never gave her one, so "Jasmine" chose it herself. But,
as she says herself, even she has to follow some rules, like
no being born to this earth being able to give itself a
name.
Names are considered important and powerful tools in many
stories and legends. Demons can be banished by knowing their
real name. Fred now has power over "Jasmine" through being
the one to name her. A really weird ending for "Jasmine"
would be if Fred discovered that power and just named her
"nothing", for example, therefore turning her into
"nothing".
Or not. There was so much going on in this episode that
could serve as build-up for coming episodes. And people
complain that nothing happened in this episode...
Gina Torres¥ character in Alias was called Anna Espinoza,
Sydney Bristow¥s archenemy for a while, btw.
IOHEFY -- different perception -- Sia,
13:44:58 04/10/03 Thu
I'm a newbie [ducks head to avoid *seeing* all the laughing
and finger-pointing] so I was looking through some of the
info on specific topics or episodes. I went to "I Only Have
Eyes for You" (one of my fav epis), but I disagree with some
of the information.
I believe Grace *was* present at the school apart from
James' manifestations. Manifestions which involve
aggressive/violent circumstances (i.e. chalk terets [sp?],
Xander's locker, snakes, etc.) are connected with James.
Manifestions that *do not* involve aggression/violence (i.e.
the yearbook, 2 separate flashbacks) are connected with
GRACE. When Angel/Grace saves Buffy/James from suicide A/G
confides that A/G never stopped loving B/J. As far as I can
see that is the purpose for Buffy seeing the flashbacks of
the after-class encounter between Grace and James and well
as the dancing. Buffy saw those things to reinforce that
Grace really did love James (and also that Angel did/does
love her). I believe Grace needed to rectify her actions as
well. Of course she wasn't guilty on the same level as
James. But she *did* lie. She lied to the person that
meant the most to her about the most important reality in
her life.
My second difference of opinion deals with Buffy's "over-
identification" with the scenario. IIRC the page mentions
something about Jenny Calendar and the remorse that Buffy
feels for her death. I think the reason she identifies with
James is that in a "moment of passion" (sex) *she* murdered
the person that she loved (Angel). Her connection to James
has nothing to do with Jenny Calendar.
Sia
[>
Welcome. Good points. -- Sophist, 14:03:32
04/10/03 Thu
[>
(Starts to laugh and point, then
reconsiders)...welcome, Sia, glad to have you here! --
Random, 14:11:33 04/10/03 Thu
Good points. However, re the overidentification: her
moment with Angel was pretty much what I thought she was
talking about the first time I saw it. This does not mean
she wasn't overidentifying. Morally speaking, the positions
are not even close. James pulling a gun on his love and
threatening her was an act that makes him culpable for the
subsequent death, even if it was accidental. Buffy acted in
ignorance, performing an act that was both mutual and, by
any reasonable standards, completely understandable. The
equation of sex=bad is a cliche, of course...and what Joss
does is both pander to the cliche and turn it on it's head.
James, on the other hand, fell into the cliche of "pointing
a gun at the one you love"=bad...and, somehow, I don't think
I'm particularly tempted to disagree.
Anyway (sifling chuckles and resisting the urge to point),
welcome to the board. I promise, we won't laugh at you.
~Random, who was once a newbie himself, hard though it may
be to believe
The *only* reason I'd say, the *only* proof I'd accept
(spoilers for SHP) -- The Second Evil, 13:59:31
04/10/03 Thu
...to believe Jasmine is bad:
1. Joss/ME always follows happiness with angst.
2. The majority of AI (and its neighbors) are completely
happy right now.
3. Therefore, they're going to be miserable sometime very
soon.
As Jasmine is the source of this happiness, I say: look
out!
Heheh.
I just realized no one had commented on the simple fact that
"being happy," in the Jossverse, means "soon to be
thoroughly miserable and regretting life for at least a
season or so." Cause no one, and I mean NO ONE, gets away
with being happy in the Jossverse. It's just not done!
[>
"Nobody comes back from Paradise, .... well there
was a slayer once" -- Dochawk, 14:44:14 04/10/03
Thu
Actually you don't even get to be happy for very long even
after your dead. Makes me have shivers for poor Tara and
Doyle.
[> [>
Heaven and hell (dimensions) BtVS S6 spoilers only
-- skyWalker, 15:47:44 04/10/03 Thu
I just wanted to say, "huh?" I'm working according to the
"theology" of the Jossverse as we've seen so far. If Buffy
went to heaven/a heavenly dimension after her sacrifice in
"The Gift," then I can't imagine why Doyle wouldn't end up
in the same place after his similar act in "Hero." While
Tara's death in "Seeing Red" was senseless, it seems clear
that she was on the side of good, and has less on her
consicence than practically every major character, so I
would assume she'd end up some place like where Buffy
did.
Willow does assume in "Bargaining" that good people can be
condemned to hell dimensions just because they died
mystically or whatever, but Buffy's revelation in
"Afterlife" that she was in fact in heaven seems to explode
the notion that the Jossverse is that cruel to people after
their death. Admittedly, an aetheist such as Joss is
unlikely to beleive in heaven or hell (and there are plenty
of good reasons not to), so the creation of "heaven" in
Season 6 was really more to establish a greater level of
pathos and pain for Buffy after her return. Nevertheless,
"heavenly dimensions" are now canon and I wouldn't see why,
since they don't seem to be haunting Earth anymore, Doyle &
Tara wouldn't each be in one.
Maybe when you spoke of shivers, you meant something else,
but I just felt confused by your suggestion. Don't take this
an attack, I just think that there is some limit to
suffering in the Jossverse.
[> [> [>
Re: Heaven and hell (dimensions) BtVS S6 spoilers
only -- Dochawk, 16:14:13 04/10/03 Thu
Hmmmmmmm, that obviously didn't come across as intended. I
don't really think that Doyle and Tara are in someplace
other than Paradise (if it exists). Tara certainly deserves
it (as does Doyle), I was just joking that they are the
other two "good" characters that we know have died and given
the above theory they shouldn't have it do good either.
Not Good versus Evil, but -- Tymen,
17:46:20 04/10/03 Thu
Order versus Chaos.
Perhaps Jasmine represents Perfect Order and the First Evil
represents Perfect Chaos. Think Michael Moorcock.
[>
The First Evil doesn't seem too chaotic (also, Ats and
BtVS spoilers here and above) -- Finn Mac Cool,
17:56:49 04/10/03 Thu
Jasmine does seem very ordered, but the First doesn't seem
to be too much chaos centered. After all, the First's
primary minions are a very ordered priesthood.
Maniupulation of people's minds also strikes me as a more
ordered sort of evil rather than chaotic. While your theory
would be interesting if true, it doesn't seem to hold
up.
[> [>
Re: The First Evil doesn't seem too chaotic (also, Ats
and BtVS spoilers here and above) -- Tymen,
18:48:08 04/10/03 Thu
The First Evil is working to sow dissent among those who
oppose it. Chaos is its goal. With the opening of the
Hellmouth comes Chaos, Demons roaming the earth. Destroying
everything. Killing everyone. I would say that Chaos is
coming and the First knows exactly what it's doing.
[> [> [>
Re: The First Evil doesn't seem too chaotic (also, Ats
and BtVS spoilers here and above) -- Tymen,
19:06:38 04/10/03 Thu
"The First Evil is working to sow dissent among those who
oppose it. Chaos is its goal. With the opening of the
Hellmouth comes Chaos, Demons roaming the earth. Destroying
everything. Killing everyone. I would say that Chaos is
coming and the First knows exactly what it's doing."
To add to the above. In Michael Moorcock's works, the Agents
of Order and Chaos were not that different from one another.
Chaos' agents weren't always madly capering about in a
chaotic fashion and causing mayhem. Order's agents weren't
always perfectly harmonious. Both sides often used similar
methods to obtain their goals.
In Moorcock's most famous work, The Elric Chronicles, Elric
is a Melnibonean, a member of a cruel race that once ruled
the world upon which he lives. He is used by as both an
agent of Order and Chaos, but is truly an agent of balance
and change, destined to bring about the new age as the
previous agents did before.
(Actually I find Angel to be a close parallel to Elric which
is intriguing, but I'll get into that another time.)
[>
Re: Not Good versus Evil, ........reference to the
totems needed for the Rain of Fire -- Rufus, 20:43:04
04/10/03 Thu
Remember the little girl in the White Room? She was one of
five....some good some evil all there for balance. Killed to
blot out the sun forever. For a complete list of the Ra Tet
Masq put the
list together in her episode section. She said something to
Angel that you should remember.....
From season 3 Forgiving.....
Girl: "They were all about torture and death. You can
relate. Well, they caused a lot of trouble. Don't get me
wrong. I like trouble. But I hate chaos. So we
changed 'em."
Angel: "You made them immaterial."
Girl: "Smart boy."
We see Sahjhan attack another warrior, but their weapons go
right through the other without causing any kind of
damamge.
Girl: "Now they watch, and they can no longer
touch."
Now to Long Day's Journey (transcript from
Buffyworld)...
MAN:I am Manjet, sacred guardian of the Shen, keeper of
the Orb of Ma'at, and devotee of light. Off hours, I like
Manny.
ANGEL: You're Manjet?
MAN/MANNY: Right.
ANGEL: The last totem of the Ra-tet?
MANNY: Right.
GWEN: I thought you were in Belize.
MANNY: Was 'til I heard Mesektet got whacked. Never liked
that chickóevil, right down to her Mary Janes. But
family, what're you gonna do?
So we have god killers out there and the main one is the
beast master who used The Beast and Angel, Cordy, and Connor
to be born. Jasmine is the "beastmaster" in the flesh. So,
whatever she says about "the truth" is suspect. Does Jasmine
want balance? All you have to do is look at what has
happened so far and consider what Wes said...
Wes: All the events we've witnessed these past
months...all the madness...it was birth pains
The totems of the Ra Tet are gone and they were the ones
that dealt with balance.....and it's the beast master that
had them killed.
ANGEL
You're saying that once the totems are dead, the sun
disappears.
MANNY
Uh, not disappears, exactly. And it's not just killing us,
either. Uh, there's props and a ritual and a chant and a
thing and aósuffice it to say, it ain't east. And folks in
the Ra-tet, they got some serious juice which is why I never
felt worried before.
ANGEL: But you're worried now.
MANNY: Well, there's four out of five down. Let's just say,
I'm not looking forward to my retirement in Boca.
GWEN: So, the lights go out. Then what?
MANNY: The city sinks into never-ending darkness, that's
what. Vamps, creepies, crawlies, things that go bump in the
night are suddenly bumping 24/7. The whole of Los Angeles
turns into a, uhó
ANGEL: A demon playground.
MANNY: Bingo. And that's before it starts to spread.
California, North America...eventually, hello, global
blackout. The world is the Devil's oyster.
How do you get people to do what you want....for Jasmine it
is the use of bewitchment that clouds thinking and
judgement...then telling them what they want to hear....then
twisting it all into a directive to prepare the way for
paradise....by killing.....demons now..but does it stop with
demons?
[> [>
In actuality, both are a mix -- Finn Mac Cool,
20:54:50 04/10/03 Thu
The Beast, a chaotic being, made more organized attacks
under Jasmine's control. However, these attacks led to
greater chaos (demons rule the city). However, Jasmine
herself is making everyone follow her, very ordered.
Likewise, the First Evil released chaos with the Seal of
Danthalzar, and is trying to wipe out the Slayer line (which
might have effects akin to blotted out sun). However, it's
manipulations and priesthood of Harbingers are all very
structured and ordered.
Given that we still don't know the final plans of either
entity, it's wise not to label one as chaotic and one as
ordered until the end.
[> [>
Certainly not balance... -- Masq, 22:03:44
04/10/03 Thu
This is not a woman that wants balance. Every word out her
mouth is about the eradication of all evil, whether it is
demons, unhappiness, Angelus, sadness, or even having a bad
day. She wants it all to go away.
So no, she's not about balance. Unless she wants the Earth
to be all good so the she and her buddies can be all
bad.
Hey, that'd be balance.
[> [> [>
Re: Certainly not balance... (Spoilers and Speculation
for Buffy and Angel) -- Tymen,
20:43:24 04/11/03 Fri
What if Jasmine's actions are in direct opposition of the
Firsts? Hence the wish to cleanse evil from the Earth. To
remove all the possible tools of the First. Which brings me
to think that the manipulations were started in a counter to
The Firsts going after Angel in Amends. Which causes me to
think that it really was Buffy's being brought back to life
by Xander which started this whole confluence of events.
It's like one big cosmic chess game that's been going since
Buffy first became a Free Agent in the Universe.
With her first Death and rebirth, she moved beyond
prophecy. Buffy is the embodiment of Free Will. Her every
action from that moment forward was her own. Which is why I
think there is no mention of the Powers on Buffy, they no
longer have any hold on her. She is longer Chosen, she is
the Chooser.
[> [> [> [>
Whoops.. correction. That should be She is no longer
Chosen -- Tymen,
20:49:40 04/11/03 Fri
[> [> [> [>
I have some thoughts on that... -- Masq,
08:01:06 04/12/03 Sat
About whether Jasmine could be attempting to RESTORE balance
by bringing all-Good to the world as the First Evil attempts
to bring all-Bad, or whether she is trying to fight the
First Evil and eradicate Its attempts to tip the balance in
the favor of Evil.
But the way she is operating, she clearly doesn't want there
to be anything left that can be construed as "evil", at
least not in the perception of her followers.
I'm working up my thoughts in an essay I'm adding to my
episode analysis entitled "The necessity of evil".
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I have some thoughts on that... -- Tymen,
09:29:58 04/12/03 Sat
Sounds intriguing. I have two theories, either these are the
final moves in the game of Chess (or Go) which the First and
Jasmine are playing or one of them decided to flip over the
game board and play by their own rules.
Dissapointed with "Shiny Happy People"
(Spoilers for that ep and personal opinions abound) --
Finn Mac Cool, 17:52:19 04/10/03 Thu
Overall, I was dissapointed with the most recent Angel
episode, "Shiny Happy People". In my opinion, it is the
worst episode of the season on either show (I guess it's
possible I might revise this sentiment after seeing
"Slouching Towards Bethleham" or "Showtime", but it seems
unlikely).
Upon thinking about "Shiny Happy People", it reminded me of
"Superstar". Both episodes have a very interesting concept
(unpopular kid remakes reality, the Big Bad hypnotizes
everyone into following it), but the gimmick grows stale
very early in the episode*.
I admit, the big evil actually being a beautiful woman
spouting peace and love and enchancting everyone into
following her, while she might secretly be evil, is a good
concept. But, even when you suspect they're up to no good,
characters who are constantly moralizing and preaching their
philosophy just are not fun to watch. Jasmine is the
epitomy of this. Plus, there's also what she did to the
other characters. On a show with such deep, rich
characters, it is very difficult to pull off making them act
out of character. Yes, who they are informed their worship
of Jasmine, but, if you're going to twist a character's
behaviour around, you should at least make them funny or
menacing. The Jasmine-entranced people were neither; they
were just grating.
There are exceptions to this, though. Even in below average
episodes, ME fits in some good points. Lorne and Fred (even
while enchanted), managed to have the most personality, as
well as injecting a little humor to the obsessed devotee
role. Also, there were a couple of good scenes (Fred
walking silently away from the cafe as people slowly
gravitate towards Jasmine on the TV, and the vamp bowling
alley scene (funny in a campy sort of way)). I also liked
the scene with Fred at the hospital, though I expect that's
because it was a relief from the Jasmine worship (though the
parallels to Buffy Season 5 were interesting).
OK, my only complaints were geared towards Jasmine and her
effect on people. But, considering that almost all of the
episode focused on this, it's a reasonable complaint. While
the episode did raise some issues (as evidenced by
discussion on this board), I personally find that, if issues
raised are about the only interesting things in a show or
episode, than it isn't a success. As Joss once said "If I
made ëBuffy the Lesbian Separatist,í a series of lectures on
PBS on why there should be feminism, no one would be coming
to the party, and it would be boring."
"PROMO SPOILERS*
As you can imagine, I'm not too thrilled about Jasmine's
thrall being a multi-episode plot. However, at least it
looks like Angel will see the light/maggot-covered corpse.
That should expand the story and make it a little more
interesting (especially as I've always liked Angel more than
Fred).
If I've seemed too harsh on the episode, I'm sorry. But, as
I said in the subject line, this was all meant to be just my
personal opinion. If others managed to enjoy this episode,
well, I envy them.
*Of course, my judgement of "Superstar" might be unfair
since I saw it before I knew who Jonathan was. At first, I
thought he was supposed to be one of the writers, either
Joss or one of the other big shots. :)
[>
Not an episode I want to watch again (spoilers SHP)
-- lunasea, 18:19:49 04/10/03 Thu
But it did serve a purpose. Not only did it give the
necessary plot points and explain what is going on, but it
put me in Fred's shoes (which will become Angel's soon),
much like "Habeas Corpses" put me into Angel's with
Cordy/Connor. Talk about disgust. I wanted to smash things.
I NEVER want to see that again.
I fell in love with Angel and Oz right along side of Buffy
and Willow. When Angel was sent to hell, I was as devistated
as Buffy was. I cry with Buffy and I rejoice with her. I
felt Buffy's disgust everytime she slept with Spike. This
season, AtS has been very good at not only getting me to
understand what the characters are feeling, but to feel it
along with them. I think that is what Shiney Happy People
did.
[>
I completely agree... -- Belladonna, 19:38:16
04/10/03 Thu
I too was quite disappointed in SHP.
"But, even when you suspect they're up to no good,
characters who are constantly moralizing and preaching their
philosophy just are not fun to watch."
Wow...you really hit the nail on the head there. Though the
discussions on the board have been interesting, I found the
episode nearly painful to watch. I wished I had recorded
it, so that I could have fast forwarded through the
endlessly repetitive, "I bring you peace" scenes. Plus, I
watched it with a friend who already thinks my obsession
with Buffy and Angel is misplaced, so now she even more
firmly believes they're dumb