April 2003 posts
Joss-speak
(Lessons Spoiler) -- Anneth, 17:12:17 04/26/03 Sat
I ran into this:
This time it's Xander's turn to burst into the bathroom. He
too stops short of falling into the big gaping hole. He's pretty
excited about it, sure that it means "contract-y goodness"
for his crew. He makes his way to the sink to look for the talisman.
I just have to say that the show's practice of adding a "-y"
suffix to everything has completely ruined my ability to speak
English properly. This summer, when Britboy accused me of beingÖlet's
just say "differently correct" about something, I snapped
back with an indignant "I'm not errorful! I'm wisdomy!"
Since then, it's been a running joke between us. To the point
where I'm suspicious of any words ending in "-ful" or
"-y." When writing a paper last week, I actually had
to spend the better part of a minute puzzling out if "helpful"
or "helpy" was correct. And although "helpful"
is correct, I still think that "helpy" is funner. Certainly
funner than realer words.
at the television without pity recap of Lessons and it made me
giggle and giggle, being as about half of what I say these days
comes out in Joss. On a scale of evil mutant zombie-things to
ice cream and puppies, my language skills since becoming a Buffy-addict
rate a wonkiness over all- judgy. *sigh*
[> "Helpy." =====
FOOCL -- VR, 18:40:05 04/26/03 Sat
"Maybe
she's lonely." Some thoughts on Darla... -- Ixchel, 19:59:36
04/26/03 Sat
Been mostly lurking lately, but this idea has me and won't let
go.
I've been thinking that whoever decided the human Darla was a
prostitute (JW, TM?) couldn't have decided a more perfect history
for her. This revelation (for me) was brought on by reading a
novel called _Slammerkin_ about an 18th century girl who becomes
a prostitute, then a murderer, before she is sixteen. (This book
has been compared to Margaret Atwood's _Alias Grace_, but _Alias
Grace_ is the better of the two, IMHO. And not just because I
personally believe Margaret Atwood is a genius. This is not to
say _Slammerkin's_ not worth a look, it is.) The erosion of the
girl's ability to feel empathy is interesting and (because my
mind frequently strays to BtVS and AtS) made me wonder about Darla.
When did she become a prostitute and under what circumstances?
Did she lack most "softer" human emotions even before
she became a vampire? The reason I believe this history is so
perfect for her is her behavior even in her earliest appearances
on BtVS. While both she and Thomas lure their prey (Jesse and
Willow) in WTTH, she seems to take special pride in having hers
follow her. Then in B1 her conversation with Liam has a slight
commercial air to it. Of course, _he_ doesn't know that she's
not interested in his money (or lack thereof). Maybe this is all
just my perception now that we know more about Darla, but the
fit is good, IMHO.
One small extra note, was anyone else vaguely annoyed by the judgment
implied in Wesley's statement about Darla in IO? (Wesley: But
at least one of those was to save Darla's life. A mass-murdering,
ex-vampire dying of syphilis? A strong "no" is hardly
a shock.) The murderer/ex-vampire thing counting against her is
fine (though it does contradict any idea that human Darla and
vampire Darla are separate). But, the dying of syphilis thing
doesn't seem like a reason to not help someone. In fact it's an
offensive reason, IMHO.
Thanks for reading the above muddled thoughts. Even though we
have new BtVS and AtS coming up, I hope this may spark a little
discussion about a character I find more fascinating as time goes
on.
Ixchel
[> That line about Darla
was semi-opportunistic (spoilers up to AtS "Shiny Happy People")
-- Masq, 07:14:22 04/27/03 Sun
The writers needed a line about a time the PTB's refused to step
in and help Angel, and they also needed a line to remind us who
Darla was (because she would appear in Inside Out) and they also
needed a line to remind us about the episode "The Trial",
which would come up again in "Shiny Happy People" in
the metaphysical explanation for Connor's conception.
Kill three birds with one stone, and you have Wesley talking about
the PTB's being unwilling to save Darla in The Trial, and him
having to speculate about why. It doesn't end up being very flattering
to Darla.
But then Wesley still has some Victorian attitudes towards sex,
all things considered from his own roller-coaster sex life.
[> [> I understand and
agree that it was necessary... -- Ixchel, 20:43:36 04/27/03
Sun
It still bothers me a bit even so. And really it's mildly unkind
to Wesley, making him seem judgmental.
Yes, Wesley has issues (could he be a character on this show without
them?). It makes him interesting, even endearing.
Thanks for your response.
Ixchel
[> Re: "Maybe she's
lonely." Some thoughts on Darla... -- Dariel, 08:07:45
04/27/03 Sun
The murderer/ex-vampire thing counting against her is fine
(though it does contradict any idea that human Darla and vampire
Darla are separate).
Yes, but wasn't human Darla working with W & H right up to "The
Trial"? At that point, she still wanted desperately to go
back to her murdering ways. No wonder the PTB (and Wes) weren't
impressed by her human state. Darla only began to show promise
when she accepted her impending death as right and just.
I agree about the syphilis; as Masq says, a vestige of Victorianism.
Just think of Wes in season 3--that prissy fellow isn't entirely
gone!
[> Re: "Maybe she's
lonely." Some thoughts on Darla... -- Bronson,
15:03:06 04/27/03 Sun
Finding out that Darla was a prostitute made me more comfortable
with her appearance in B1. I thought that her presence should
have caused more of a stir than it did (and perhaps raised the
suspicions of even the doltish Liam,) for a couple of reasons:
1. Although I haven't had much luck researching this, I'm pretty
sure the name "Darla" wasn't in use in Ireland in 1753.
Perhaps Liam is distracted by her tracts of land, but he doesn't
bat an eyelid at the odd name.
2. Darla's dressed to the nines, apparently travelling by herself,
and hanging out in a seedy pub. I know it's dark, but shouldn't
she be getting more attention?
But, if Darla is sticking to her pre-vampire ways and posing as
(or actually being) a courtesan, her apparent slumming and lack
of companions wouldn't seem so out of place, and her name might
easily be shrugged off as an exotic, self- promoting pseudonym.
Or possibly I'm overanalyzing. It happens. Also I am still avoiding
my Mamet essay.
The
ATPo Discussion Board passes the 100,000th post! Yay us!! ...
:-) -- OnM, 21:37:38 04/26/03 Sat
The honor goes to:
Date Posted: 16:26:21 04/26/03 Sat
Author: Finn Mac Cool
Subject: But keep in mind (spoilers through "Storyteller")
In reply to: HonorH 's message, "Don't agree." on 16:26:21
04/26/03 Sat
'Tis been a busy week-- Honorificus gets elevated to Seventh,
Driz gets engaged, and now another numerical milestone passes
by and waves.
And down the road we go...
:-)
[> Re: The ATPo Discussion
Board passes the 100,000th post! Yay us!! ... :-) -- Cactus
Watcher, 06:29:45 04/27/03 Sun
May the road ahead be long. Congratulations. Masq.
Let every good poster now join in a song.
Vive la compagnie!
Good health to each other and pass it along!
Vive la compagnie!
[> Things to celebrate
-- Masq, 07:07:13 04/27/03 Sun
Thanks for the note, OnM, and the well-wishes, CW! Although here
is where I say that technically speaking, the voynak monster in
its infinite evilness stopped numbering us at 97700 and went back
to 0 and numbered us up somewhere in the 500's and then put us
back at 97700's again. So 100,000 is really just a number that
doesn't even represent itself. Plus, you know, we had a year at
the previous board, InsideTheWeb.
Not that there's nothing to celebrate!
We have the bitter-sweet ending to seven years of a fantastic
show coming up in May, and in June (the 14th, I think) we have
the third anniversary of the board (July 1st is the fourth and
a half anniversary of the ATPo site itself).
So in thinking of the "And many more" continuence of
this board and the family feeling we have here, I hope people
will start thinking of fun activities we can do to keep ourselves
out of trouble post-May 20th!
* The newbie DL of course came up with the idea to start talking
about BtVS from season 1, episode 1, and other folks developed
that into an idea to have a weekly discussion on the board of
each episode in sequence, starting with "Welcome to the Hellmouth".
It would be a lot like the weekly discussions we have of new episodes.
DL suggested we start the week after the June Board Meet, so that
would be Monday, June 9th.
* Someone else suggested doing the same for Angel, although personally
I'm hoping we won't have to be quite so nostalgic about AtS quite
yet. I'm still hoping summer will bring us lots of speculation
and (marked) spoilers for next Fall.
* Any other ideas?
[> [> Re: Things to celebrate
-- luna, 07:47:58 04/27/03 Sun
There have been some truly brilliant posts that are available
only in archives as far as I know. I know this means a lot of
work for someone (hopefully not you) but maybe we could do a "best
of" and bring back some of those great posts and let us have
another go at them in light of what finally happens. I'm thinking
of ones like S'kat's above and her Head-Hand-Heart essay from
last fall, manwitch's wonderful essay on Buffy and the Chakras,
the great Mother's Milk is Red Today by Rahael, Little Bit, and
Random. I'm sure there are many similarly great ones from this
year and previous years that I missed.
Maybe a way to make them less work would be for the nominators
just to find them in the archives and cut and paste them as new
posts--being sure to credit the originators of course.
I also think we could continue the annotations by Rob indefinitely.
[> [> Re: Things to celebrate
-- CW, 08:11:12 04/27/03 Sun
The anniversary Character threads folks did a couple summers ago
could use updating when its all over. Naturally the folks who
did the work on each character the first time ought to get the
first crack at finishing the job. But, we've had posters drift
away, and there are a few new characters that need to be explored,
so there ought to be plenty of work for those who want to write
essays.
I have an another idea for a series of essays I'll share after
I mow the lawn this morning. I always think better on my feet,
even if it's while cutting the *&!#%@ grass.
[> [> [> Essays, essays,
essays -- Masq, 08:45:26 04/27/03 Sun
I expect lots of essays from our finest essayists!
[> [> [> [> Re:
Essays, essays, essays -Topics! Topics! Topics! -- CW, 10:08:03
04/27/03 Sun
When Firefly began last fall, I mentioned on that board that before
I joined in here at ATPo, I kept a series of 'writer's' notes
on each episode of Buffy. Mostly it was strings of reminders to
myself about things similar to "Writer's Journal" I
wrote for the Firefly site, and the comments Darby has been making
ep by ep on Buffy here. But, also I kept track of a few reoccuring
themes that showed up in many episodes. Like Shadowkat's essay
on the Fatal throughout both series, I think it would be fun to
have essays on those themes in the Buffyverse that just wouldn't
go away. Unlike, the character essays where there is a definite
goal in sight of covering each important character, it's a little
harder to define each and every possible recurring theme in the
series. But, with the multiple view points we have, we ought to
have an interesting collection.
These are the reoccuring themes I noticed before the fourth season
of Buffy with some amendments in parentheses. I think most of
them would make fine essay topics. Some of these may sound inflamatory,
but remember it's all to get someone interested in writing an
essay down the road, not just to debate it now.
Don't make her mad. - Although Buffy is out-going and somewhat
stubborn she's had an underlying insecurity and compliant personality
(Has this changed in the last few seasons or is she still this
way underneath?) It's when she's pushed to anger that she becomes
dominant, forceful, and dangerous. Just how strong is Buffy? (emotionally?
physically?) How do her friends deal with her when she seems out
of control?
Poor lonely Buffy - Buffy's, perfectly normal emotional problems
weaken her ability to fight evil. How does she deal with the fact
no one really understands her
Oh, grow up, Buffy! - The show has been about growing up. How
has Buffy dealt with "rites up passage." Was it better
when Giles and her friends helped her, or was it better when she
was forced to be more independent?
That's crazy talk, Buffy! - In the beginning Buffy's opinions
were frequently ignored, and not simply because she was young.
Buffy was smarter than she let on in high school. As a teenager
her dumb-blonde act, often helped soften the blow when she was
critized for not knowing things she really should have. The bad
side is that people who know her well tend to discount her intuition
and deductive abilities. (As Giles and Wood do this season.) When
she acts contrary to what everyone else is thinking, she rarely
gets the benfit of the doubt. Through the series, how does Buffy
convince the others she's not crazy, and knows what's she's doing?
What doesn't kill you...(or at least what only kills you a little...)
When Buffy is closest to death's door she seems to draw on whole
new sources of power. What is the source of this power? What new
strengths in Buffy do these powers bring out?
Love hurts - The concerns of soap opera aside, Buffy's love life
is painful. So is that of all her friends. How does this affect
the way she developed?
No good deed goes unpunished - What happens when Buffy's best
intentions and gut feelings lead to bad things?
Some more topics from later seasons
WB Buffy vs UPN Buffy - is there soemthing besides maturity involved
in the differences in the characters since the change.
Dawn pro and con - Dawn had a central role in season five, yet
since then, she's largely been in the background. Not just repeating
the life and times of the character, which belong in the character
essays, was it worth the risk to intregrity of the series to introduce
a new charcter in such a fashion?
Religion and Joss - Was Joss and ME trying to promote a coherent
set of ethics, world view or even religion?
The generation gap - Has anything of any importance been said
in the series about the relationship of each generation with ones
before it and the ones after?
The Scoobies - Were their lives better for knowing Buffy? Or would
it have been better for them to have just cleared out of Sunnydale
in the early days?
Normal and supernatural in BtVS - Which was better: to be normal
in Buffy's world or to have superpowers. Were the good and powerful
in many ways as helpless the weak? Were the victims in Sunnydale
any more victimized than those who survived?
[> [> [> [> [>
Those sound GREAT, CW! -- WickedBuffy, 10:23:55 04/27/03
Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
The rich mine that is BtVS -- Masq, 10:39:45 04/27/03
Sun
I can see my fears about this board dissipating into an empty
room when the Jossverse disappears from our screens are unfounded.
Both shows are like the Bible or Shakespeare or some other rich
literary work--they'll keep us busy for years!
[> [> [> [> [>
Dibs on the last one -- KdS, 11:16:47 04/27/03 Sun
I'm still planning out a mega-essay on the portrayal of superpowers,
the supernatural in general, and fantasy in general on the Buffyverse,
tying it in to some of the more heretical UK and US fantasy in
the last few decades. I'm waiting until after 7:22 though, just
to make sure I haven't been completely misreading the shows all
these years...
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I think I'll take "Oh, grow up, Buffy!"
- - CW, 12:37:52 04/27/03 Sun
If enough people choose a topic for a thematic essay, we could
set up a schedule, like they did two years ago for the character
profiles, so they don't all hit the board in the same week. We
can worry about timing later, and we don't really want to start
till after the meet in Jume. But, if people want to participate
they might want to claim topics, now. Remember, I've just made
suggestions. There are plenty more possibilities.
[> [> [> I'm not gonna
be able to get a tan this summer, am I? ;) -- The Sidereal
Coder, 11:29:34 04/27/03 Sun
[> [> another idea!!!
-- WickedTongueinCheek, 09:51:44 04/27/03 Sun
We could start talking about the different ATPoBtVS&AtS
Discussion Forum posters - starting witht the posts they made
from season 1, episode 1.
Or have a weekly indepth discussion on the board of each Forum
Poster, in sequence, starting with the oldest to the newest person
- psychoanalyzing each post they made, relating their ideas to
their persona to classic literature characters and dissecting
their personalities according to what they wrote - starting with
"Welcome to the Hellmouth" or whatever place in Forum
history they began their journey.
It would be a lot like the weekly discussions we have of new episodes.
But it would be about us. We ARE all possible characters of a
tv show, when you stop to notice.
heh ok, seriously though ... congrats on such a long and exciting
run! Some intelligent producer (is that an oxymoron?) could glean
years of storylines from all these posts. kudos to all of you
who made it happen!! :>
[> [> [> Well, I was
the first poster -- Masq, 10:41:42 04/27/03 Sun
And Sol already did a complete psychoanalysis of me!!
; )
[> [> [> [> OK,
then, who was second? Put 'em on the table and strap him/her/it
down! -- WickedBuffy, 18:41:56 04/27/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> [>
The very first thread at ATPoBtVS -- Masq, 20:49:19
04/27/03 Sun
New discussion board
Wednesday, 14-Jun-2000 15:14:59
How to spend your summer vacation while waiting for new BtVS and
Angel episodes--talking about:
- "Restless" symbolism,
- Anya's status as human,
- Angel's destiny,
- Buffy's future,
- Cordelia's changes
- etc etc etc
Re: New discussion board
Thursday, 15-Jun-2000 10:48:40
Ahh, you beat me to it. :)
Vox
Re: Re: New discussion board
Thursday, 15-Jun-2000 12:02:40
Vox,
I've always thought my site was less visitor-friendly than yours,
and this was partly a response to my "AboveTheLaw"envy.
Feel free to chime in,
please!
Masquerade
Re: Wow, thank you
Friday, 16-Jun-2000 15:35:02
I love your site, and am glad you now have an open forum. I'd
say it's about bloody time, but that would be churlish.
Thanks for all your good work on the site.
Kuzibah
Re: Re: Wow, thank you
Friday, 16-Jun-2000 20:00:51
Your welcome! And all this chat is neat.
Masquerade
[> [> [> [> [>
[> So whatever happened to Vox and Sententia? -- OnM,
22:05:29 04/27/03 Sun
It's been quite a few months since I last visited their site,
but when I was there, it didn't seem to have been updated for
at least a year. Too tired to go there tonight, just about to
log off (been working on the DG review for the last few hours).
I used to visit Vox's site regularly in the 'old days'. Masq,
you have any info?
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> My link is out of date -- Masq, 06:35:28
04/28/03 Mon
The site I link to in my links page is 2 years out of date. But
if you go here:
http://www.abovethelaw.net/
It is up to date for the UK
Haven't talked to Vox and Sententia for a while now, but they
seem to be going strong with the Buffyverse love
[> [> For the less thoughtful,
blood thirsty of us... -- JBone, 19:56:31 04/27/03 Sun
I've kind of been working on a more complete tournament (like
last year), with a tweak or two or three. I really learned what
didn't work last summer. I want to start it earlier, the last
week of June at the latest, so that if I take a week off over
the summer we can still finish it before Angel premieres in the
fall. I'm thinking positive.
I've been working on it a little bit already, but no where near
as much as I need to actually commence match madness. And if I
can keep enough time cleared up over the summer, I would be honored
if this was a sanctioned part of the Third Anniversary Celebration.
For your approval.
[> [> [> Party on,
JBone! -- Masquerade, 06:45:35 04/28/03 Mon
[> How about.... essay speculation,
no spoilers ;) -- Anneth, 13:39:24 04/27/03 Sun
Posters, individually or in tandem, or three-dem (whatever!) could
write 'Season Wrap' essays, analysing the structure, content,
and themes of each season.
[> and still another flavor
to the Forum -- WickeBuffy, 18:46:50 04/27/03 Sun
or how about....
Posters take on the personna of a character from the episode being
discussed and writes about it from their perception.
dibs on Dawn muahahaha
Rob has to be Harmony!
[> [> I get to be Angelus!
-- Masq, 06:42:24 04/28/03 Mon
I ALWAYS get to be Angelus
[> [> [> ( ... just
watch the hair) -- WickedStylist ::whispering distinctly::,
11:21:30 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> The
Angelus flashback hair never bugged me -- Masq, 12:16:05
04/28/03 Mon
The wigs in Orpheus, on the other hand, (Angel's hair, not Angelus').
Man, was *THAT* bad.
Buffy:
Superhero or Ruthless Criminal? (Spoilers through "Dirty
Girls") -- Ravenus, 21:58:09 04/26/03 Sat
There has been criticism going on about Buffy recently, given
the unsuccessful attack on Caleb during "Dirty Girls",
including some saying Buffy is entirely to blame for the two potential
slayer deaths and Xander's disfiguring.
Personally, I find it odd that people criticise what was merely
a tactical error when Buffy has consistently shown her complete
lack of morality or integrity throughout the series.
Ever since the show began, Buffy has done whatever she wants,
whether it's good or evil. She has snuck into and out of various
buildings, regardless of the privacy she's invading by doing so.
She's a horrendous theif, taking whatever she wants to satisfy
herself. She even got Xander and Cordelia to steal a rocket launcher
from a military camp, which is probably a hanging offense.
And let's not even get into destruction of property. Perhaps most
heinously, when the series begins, we hear many references to
Buffy having burnt down her old school's gym, and not only is
she still supposed to be the hero, we're actually supposed to
pity her because not everyone overlooks it. Wel, EXCUSE ME if
endangering who knows how many lives in a fire, and destroying
a building that probably costs upwards of a hundred grand to rebuild
is supposed to be a "girls will be girls" offense. And
it wasn't just that one time that Buffy wantonly wreaked destruction.
Xander trusted her with a job at his construction site, and she
trashed most of the equipment and half-built structures. She's
burned down an abandoned vamp whore nest, trashed her mother's
and her sister's furniture countless times, and even blew up her
second high school (with stolen weapons I might add). People have
squandered thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars repairing the
damage that Buffy has done.
And then there's violence. Buffy has many times made very direct
threats against people (that boy in "Help", the Colonel
in "New Moon Rising"). If only that's where it ended.
But Buffy has many times carried out her threats, beating and
bullying people until they tell her what she wants to hear. Plus,
let's not forget all of her murders. She carefully planned and
carried out the murder of those two brothers in "Homecoming",
slaughtered ten of the Knights of Byzantium, and countless Bringers.
She even rammed a sword through Angel, someone she claimed to
love, and sent him into Hell, where he was tortured for a hundred
years.
Buffy has always been like this. She has willfully committed acts
that would land all normal people in prison and all slightly good
people with horrendous guilt. Aside from a few moments, Buffy
shows no guilt. She just goes on using people and their possessions
however she wants, as well as hurting and murdering whoever starts
to bug her when she's intent upon something. If the series ends
without Buffy dying, I will forever refuse to watch anything with
ties to Joss Whedon. What sort of message is it that some girl
can get away with anything just because she's stronger than everyone
else? Buffy's crimes have gone unpunished, and I greatly fear
that ME won't be changing that within the next four episodes.
[> I currently consider
Buffy a Ruthless Superhero -- WickedBuffy (Could she use some
redemption?), 09:25:31 04/27/03 Sun
I can't even fathom what her emotions are, other than crying about
herself when she overheard Xanders fairytale about her big heart.
In fact, I don't really know if it's the chararacter Buffy being
that way, or if it's a burnt out SMG pushing herself thru the
final shows.
But I do agree on her actions and most of what you posted about
them.
But I consider her a Ruthless SuperHero right now. She grew into
the role, she didn't start out as one. Is she too good for Redemption?
Everyone else seems to be getting a pretty fair dose of it lately.
What about her? Could that change her enough to be able to see
an answer to the First Evil situation?
[> [> Weighing In
-- Spike Lover, 10:40:47 04/28/03 Mon
Interesting... Does Buffy herself need redemption? (Yep.)
By the way, I just want to add to your list of 'bad' things Buffy
has done a few of my own. Everyone has seen them before. THey
regard her sorry treatment of Spike a few seasons ago.
I believe it was season 5 or maybe 4, when he first realized he
had a thing for her, and as a prisoner of his feelings, followed
her around everywhere. I had to watch her put downs of him, watch
the countless beatings at her hands, when he could not fight back
without a severe migraine. Next thing you know, she is going back,
demanding his help or cooperation. I really hated her.
It was so VERY PAINFUL to me because I have been through the put
downs (at least), by guys who I liked but who would not have been
caught dead with me. Every episode back then was a scraping off
of a scab for me.
When I posted, I got plenty of responses saying that 'Spike was
evil and deserved no better.' and 'How dare I criticize perfect
Buffy.'
[> [> [> I agree,
SpikeLover (vague spoilers @ Buffy 'n'Spike) -- WickedBuffy,
10:57:55 04/28/03 Mon
She treated him like an animal - something she never did with
Angel. And something he (Spike) never did to her. Her prejudice
and general unbalanced relationship dysfunctions with men seem
to be the second biggest drama focus, after destroying evil.
Don't be offended, but if she were gay like Willow, would she
have treated him as violently?
and that last part had nothing to do with anything, I'm rambling
- and CAN'T SHE EVEN PICK UP A FRIGGIN BOOK ABOUT LOVE to get
a CLUE?
[> [> [> [> Re:
I agree, SpikeLover (vague spoilers @ Buffy 'n'Spike) -- Angelus, 11:39:39
04/28/03 Mon
I think what you sort of meant was that if Buffy were gay and
the person she was abusing like that were a woman, would anyone
try to justify it? Or if it were a man abusing a woman like that
in a relationship, even if the woman was a vampire without a soul
but she had a chip and he kept beating her on the justification
that she's just a vampire without a soul, would anyone try to
justify it?
[> [> [> [> [>
Good Point!! -- Spike Lover, 11:14:32 04/29/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> Yeah,
but I blame the writers -- Spike Lover, 11:12:27 04/29/03
Tue
I am not offended (by the way).
What was really, really sick to me was that they started the Spike/Buffy
storyline in what? season 4? and at that time, it looked like
a S/B pairing would be wonderful...
He was made for her. He could fight by her side, without feeling
negated that she was the one in control (See Riley.)
He was a good listener. He had a history of loving relationships
with his mother and Dru. He was good with women and he knew what
love was. He could understand how she felt. He was tough enough
to put up with her bullshit without leaving. Remember, Spike was
the ONLY man who never left. (Even Xander walked.) She was finally
going to be loved the way she deserved, like every lucky woman
deserved.
Then the writers decided that they could not have a vampire quite
that interesting/appealing/non-evil, so they brought in the casual
relationship with Harmony. I admit that that relationship was
borderline abusive,(I think it was suppose to be comedy) but they
did write Harmony pretty annoying. After Harmony, they brought
in the Buffy bot, who Spike again was VERY GOOD with. He did not,
ironically, treat the bot like an object, but like a person. They
contrasted this the next season against Warren, the souled villian
who tries to turn a girlfriend into a robot, rape her, enslave
her, and kill her. This made Spike once again too worthy and too
popular with the audience. Then the writers in some sort of 'experiment'
(see interviews with Marti N) tried to make Spike a bit darker.
The turning point for me has always been 'Gone'. Where it begins
w/ Spike at Buffy's house, trying to do the kind boyfriend thing,
and she rebuffs him. She chops her hair off because he likes it.
They show her to be the utterly warped one.
Of course, the writers ditched the idea of Spike being the healthy
choice for a boyfriend idea, saying that he really needed a soul.
Then you got the AR scene which never worked for me. Then at the
beginning of this season, Buffy is confronted with the fact that
she was so warped last season, that she managed to seriously warp/wound/hurt
Spike.
If I am going to say anything about this FINAL season, I would
like to point out that the writers apparently are not interested
in having Buff work out her inner demons. I doubt she will have
any great ephiphany about herself or others around her. (Apparently,
there is no ephiphany for Xander either.) They are only focused
on the FE.
I like BTVS. It is a great achievement. I have seen every ep.
Some several times. But these last few seasons could have been
(imo) so much better. So much more gripping. So much richer. I
truly blame MN for running it into the ground. I suppose JOss
will have lots of time to mull these things over as BTVS ends
and Firefly was canceled- and Angel is???
Ok. maybe I am still bitter.
SL
[> [> [> Re: Weighing
In -- Angelus,
11:35:52 04/28/03 Mon
I agree with you that Buffy's treatment of Spike in seasons 5
and 6 is in a different category than the silliness that started
this thread. Her mistreatment of him is at least a real issue
in context.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Weighing In -- maddog, 11:50:28 04/28/03 Mon
Thank you...someone admitting that this is complete crap until
the ethical treatmenet of Spike topic came up. Yes, Buffy's clueless
when it comes to men. And that's definitely something that needed
to be addressed had they had more seasons. Of course, no one is
perfect. Buffy's one of many people out there that just don't
understand relationships.
[> [> Re: I currently
consider Buffy a Ruthless Superhero -- maddog, 11:39:12
04/28/03 Mon
Redemption? Redemption is for those that do bad. Buffy saves the
world. She's the one that doesn't need redemption. Where did everyone's
head go?
[> Re: Buffy: Superhero
or Ruthless Criminal? (Spoilers through "Dirty Girls")
-- 110v3w1110w, 09:25:35 04/27/03 Sun
i have 2 points 1. if you are stronger than everyone else you
can get away with anything that is the way the world is it may
not be nice or right in your view but there we are 2. sometimes
people in positions of power and responsibility have to make choices
that don't come down to right and wrong but us or them and buffy
has had to make those choices and has always choosen the course
of action that was won it for the side which she was called to
fight for
[> [> "Might makes
Right" Syndrome? -- WickedBuffy, 09:35:01 04/27/03
Sun
[> [> [> Re: "Might
makes Right" Syndrome? -- 110v3w1110w, 09:43:44 04/27/03
Sun
just because you don't like somthing does not make it not untrue.
might does make right our societys are based on that if it were
not the case we would not need police to enforce the laws and
order is only kept if the government keeps the monopoly of power
if it didn't we would see scenes like we have in iraq of anarchy
[> [> [> [> .....and
just because you like something does not make it true -- WickedPretzelbrain,
10:17:23 04/27/03 Sun
Each side can believe that "might makes right". Are
they both right?
Might does NOT make right. Sometimes it's a method, but it is
not The Human Slogan cast in stone.
And not to rile you up or anything, but you said:
". ..sometimes people in positions of power and responsibility
have to make choices that don't come down to right and wrong but
us or them and buffy has had to make those choices and has always
choosen the course of action that was won it for the side which
she was called to fight for"
She just lost the fight with Caleb this week. Does that mean that
Caleb got to wave the banner in front of his fort that says "Might
Makes Right"? And it automatically made it right? I really
don't so.
But that's what helps keep violent wars going strong - making
choices that aren't about what's right or wrong, but making it
about "them" or "us".
Maybe that's the chink in Buffys armor. She's made it about them
or us.... even though it's been admitted, mentioned and discussed
and her mom even reminded her - that theres some of "them"
in all of us, too. At what percentage of themness in someone should
that someone be considered a "them" and be destroyed?
Is Anya on the line? What about Willow - she's really got her
share of "them" in her.
... about that society and police stuff - it's too OT and touchy
and not directly relevant to this Forum in my idea of this Forums
focus, to comment on. We have very different thoughts on these
issues.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: .....and just because you like something does not make
it true -- 110v3w1110w, 10:48:15 04/27/03 Sun
as far as i know buffy was not called to fight for what is right
she was called to fight for humans against vampires and demons
so its us against them and somtimes buffy has to do some things
that are wrong to enable her side to win. as far as might is right
goes you seem to think that when i say right you think i mean
what is good in your concept of morality so let me put it another
way, the strongest side wins the strongest side creates the laws
writes the history and in doing so determins what is right by
changing societys so they belive the winners concept of what is
right.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> ::sigh:: -- WickedBuffy, 18:36:19 04/27/03 Sun
[> [> The Ayn Rand take
on Buffy? -- luna, 18:12:01 04/27/03 Sun
[> Corwin hits a homer!!!!
-- Corwin of Amber, 11:38:47 04/27/03 Sun
>Ever since the show began, Buffy has done whatever she wants,
whether it's good or evil.
What Buffy really wanted, was to be a normal teenage girl, and
later, a normal young adult. If that's evil, you've just condemned
pretty much the whole of hunmanity.
>She has snuck into and out of various buildings, regardless
of the privacy she's invading by doing so.
Yeah, those demons/cultists/vampires or whatever would have let
her in if she'd only knocked. Or maybe she should have gone to
a judge and gotten a search warrent - probable cuase, a prophecy.
>She's a horrendous theif, taking whatever she wants to satisfy
herself.
Examples, please.
>She even got Xander and Cordelia to steal a rocket launcher
from a military camp, which is probably a hanging offense.
Necessity. They needed that rocket launcher to prevent a demon
from basically destroying the world, and it would have taken too
much time to explain that to the military authorities, who would
have refused anyways. And if they hadn't taken the rocket launcher,
they'd be dead anyways, so why not steal the damn thing?
>And let's not even get into destruction of property.
So why did you? :)
>Perhaps most heinously, when the series begins, we hear many
references to Buffy having burnt down her old school's gym...
Well, we'd have to do a cost-benefit analysis...lives vs a school
gym. How many lives did she save? Did anyone other than vampires
actually get hurt in the school gym fire? If they had, Buffy would
be in juvie at the beginning of the series.
>And it wasn't just that one time that Buffy wantonly wreaked
destruction. Xander trusted her with a job at his construction
site, and she trashed most of the equipment and half-built structures.
She was being hit with the Nerds of Doom hallucinatory raygun
at the time. People under the influence of hallucingenic drugs
are generally assumed not to be in control of their actions, I'm
willing to extend that to Hallucintory Ray Guns.
>She's burned down an abandoned vamp whore nest
Yeah, I feel all this sympathy for the poor vamp ho's.
>trashed her mother's and her sister's furniture countless
times
Yeah, demons and vamps had NOTHING to do with that.
>and even blew up her second high school (with stolen weapons
I might add).
To destroy a demon that was going to feast on the students anyway,
and then bring about an apocalypse. Come on, give me something
here!
>People have squandered thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars
repairing the damage that Buffy has done.
Squandered? Are you suggesting that people shouldn't rebuild after
Buffy saves their lives? Strange phrasing there.
>And then there's violence. Buffy has many times made very
direct threats against people (that boy in "Help", the
Colonel in "New Moon Rising"). If only that's where
it ended. But Buffy has many times carried out her threats, beating
and bullying people until they tell her what she wants to hear.
*Choke* Ok, new tactic? How would *YOU* have gotten the necessary
information?
>Plus, let's not forget all of her murders. She carefully planned
and carried out the murder of those two brothers in "Homecoming",
slaughtered ten of the Knights of Byzantium, and countless Bringers.
I dont remember "homecoming" so I can't comment on that.
Do we even know if any of the Knights of Byzantium she fought
were killed? They were wearing plate armor and had attacked her
and her family first, en masse, so I have little sympathy if they
did. Buffy DOES have the right of self- defense under the law.
>
She even rammed a sword through Angel, someone she claimed to
love, and sent him into Hell, where he was tortured for a hundred
years.
I'm not even gonna bother. Those with better logic and rhetorics
skills than I have already argued this one into the ground.
(Skipping most of the conclusion of the straw man argument.)
>What sort of message is it that some girl can get away with
anything just because she's stronger than everyone else? Buffy's
crimes have gone unpunished, and I greatly fear that ME won't
be changing that within the next four episodes.
I would argue that Buffy hasn't gotten away with ANYTHING. She's
died twice, and she still chooses to protect us ugly- bags-of-mostly
water. Did you miss the entire sixth season? Remember her reaction
when she thought she'd murdered Katrina?
It's really easy to condemn someone as long as you take no account
of the circumstances surrounding their actions. It's also unjust,
and evil. And stay away from straw man arguments in the future,
I want to have something I can sink my teeth into next time!
(Corwin skips off into the distance, whistling a happy tune.)
[> [> Re: cordelia said
it best ! -- 110v3w1110w, 13:05:22 04/27/03 Sun
when she said that angelus had a way of twisting things and lying
with the truth. that is exactly what is happening here to
[> [> [> Re: cordelia
said it best ! -- lurker!drea, 13:40:31 04/27/03 Sun
What??? What are you saying?? I can't understand you! Learn to
type!!
[> [> Woohoo! *clapping
loudly* -- HonorH (cheering from the stands), 21:18:04
04/27/03 Sun
[> [> Re: Corwin hits
a homer!!!! -- maddog, 12:12:06 04/28/03 Mon
I can remember homecoming...um, it's kill or be killed. They were
using her as the hunted...and they weren't the only ones. Do you
realize how either stupid or lacking in common sense you are(refering
to the original author that is)?
[> Wow! You have no Idea
what Context is, do you!? -- Majin Gojira, 12:28:04 04/27/03
Sun
Ahem....
http://www.stardestroyer.net/BoardPics/FlameOn.jpg
"Personally, I find it odd that people criticise what was
merely a tactical error when Buffy has consistently shown her
complete lack of morality or integrity throughout the series."
Oh, this is going to hurt my brain...
"Ever since the show began, Buffy has done whatever she wants,
whether it's good or evil."
Sure, it's not like there were ever consequences for her doing
'evil'. Buffy isn't some stalward Superman who can do no wrong.
she's human and makes mistakes. Judgemental you are.
"She has snuck into and out of various buildings, regardless
of the privacy she's invading by doing so."
Context--all markable instances were dealing with known threats
to other human beings. Is it Immoral for SWAT teams to raid Drug
Labs because they are invading someones privacy?
"She's a horrendous theif, taking whatever she wants to satisfy
herself."
Back it up with clear, consise examples that are NOT the cause
of Spells or nessesary to save the world.
"She even got Xander and Cordelia to steal a rocket launcher
from a military camp, which is probably a hanging offense."
Gee-- You Wanted the Judge to win, didn't you? It was a Nessisary
"evil".
"And let's not even get into destruction of property."
Yeah, she's a regular uncaring Godzilla. Smashing things wantonly
without a care in the world.
You have watched the show, right?
"Perhaps most heinously, when the series begins, we hear
many references to Buffy having burnt down her old school's gym,
and not only is she still supposed to be the hero, we're actually
supposed to pity her because not everyone overlooks it. Wel, EXCUSE
ME if endangering who knows how many lives in a fire, and destroying
a building that probably costs upwards of a hundred grand to rebuild
is supposed to be a "girls will be girls" offense."
1. Defence, not Offence.
2. Completely out of context of the situation...you're proud of
doing that, aren't you.
"And it wasn't just that one time that Buffy wantonly wreaked
destruction."
We are still talking about Buffy, I'm thinking we're talking about
Faith, or Godzilla at this point.
"Xander trusted her with a job at his construction site,
and she trashed most of the equipment and half-built structures."
The Legion of Dorkness Summoning Demons for her to fight there
just isn't a good enough excuse, is it?
You make it sound like she's Godzilla...I just love that annalogy
so I'll abuse it all I want! Thank you very much.
"She's burned down an abandoned vamp whore nest,"
Excuse me if I don't feel your pain.
"trashed her mother's and her sister's furniture countless
times,"
Context you ignore, asshat.
"and even blew up her second high school (with stolen weapons
I might add)."
1. Bullcrap. it was a homemade fertilizer bomb.
2. SO you'd just let the mayor run around willy nilly, completely
destroying the town of SUnnydale and killing thousands? Who's
Amoral?
"People have squandered thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars
repairing the damage that Buffy has done."
Yeah, all those innocent demons she stopped because of it surely
can't make up for that...
"And then there's violence. Buffy has many times made very
direct threats against people (that boy in "Help", the
Colonel in "New Moon Rising")."
Put yourself in Buffy's shoes. How would you get the information
you need?
"If only that's where it ended. But Buffy has many times
carried out her threats, beating and bullying people until they
tell her what she wants to hear."
Gee, Who ever thought that Interrigation of Known threats to the
human race could not be violent. This is possibly your only 'legitimate'
point.
"Plus, let's not forget all of her murders. She carefully
planned and carried out the murder of those two brothers in "Homecoming","
Wow! You just supported a Terrorist! Who's Amoral?
"slaughtered ten of the Knights of Byzantium,"
Self Defence.
"and countless Bringers."
Who are brainwashed Zealots. What's your point?
"She even rammed a sword through Angel, someone she claimed
to love, and sent him into Hell, where he was tortured for a hundred
years."
To Save the world. Context is your enemy here.
"Buffy has always been like this. She has willfully committed
acts that would land all normal people in prison"
If she did half the things you claim she has to humans, yes she
would. But she does it to demons, Big difference.
Leap of Logic.
"and all slightly good people with horrendous guilt."
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
Buffy and Guilt are like peas in a pod most of the time.
"Aside from a few moments, Buffy shows no guilt."
Strawman
"She just goes on using people and their possessions however
she wants, as well as hurting and murdering whoever starts to
bug her when she's intent upon something."
HUGE Strawman.
"If the series ends without Buffy dying, I will forever refuse
to watch anything with ties to Joss Whedon. What sort of message
is it that some girl can get away with anything just because she's
stronger than everyone else? Buffy's crimes have gone unpunished,
and I greatly fear that ME won't be changing that within the next
four episodes."
Damn, that's a lot of Bullcrap you smeared on the web.
You obviously know nothing of the series, its symbolism and its
themes. You are a complete idiot-troll-Palm-Lover in the true
SD.net Tradition.
And in that tradition I shall Now Link to funny pictures:
http://www.geocities.com/icehawk_2010/foxtroll.txt
http://www.geocities.com/icehawk_2010/B5idiot.txt
http://www3.sympatico.ca/gcircle/Extreme-stupidity.png
yes, I know it's juvinile, but that doesn't make them any less
funny.
[> [> Hit the nail on
the head, Majin! -- HonorH, 21:16:49 04/27/03 Sun
The original post is just too ludicrous. Glad I don't have to
bother with it, as you and Corwin have done a fine job of answering
it. The way this guy would have it, Buffy shouldn't so much as
stake a vampire without first doing a cost/benefit analysis and
consulting Sunnydale city codes to make sure she isn't violating
any zoning ordinances, and furthermore, if saving the world requires
that Buffy break any laws, well, it's just not worth it then!
[> [> [> Well, if
she has to do something unethical/illegal to save the world
-- Ravenus, 21:36:53 04/27/03 Sun
Then that's like saying the ends justify the means!
[> [> [> [> I am
in Complete Agreement with you, Dear Boy. -- PrimHonor, 23:02:38
04/27/03 Sun
After all, we can't have just anyone saving the world, can we?
I'm certain all of Civilized Society would agree that the Law
being broken is far worse than any number of deaths. Better all
should die, certainly, than that a Shameless Hussy like Buffy
should take such extreme measures as Property Destruction and
Jaywalking in order to save them.
(Don't worry, I get the joke. Just playing along, Rav.)
[> [> [> [> Newsflash:
Sometimes they do. -- Majin Gojira -- Living up to the name,
04:43:26 04/28/03 Mon
If that's the best rebuttle you have, I suggest you take a nice
warm cup of STFU. I dare you to find valid proof for anything
that you have stated in your original post, or better yet, refute
my answers to your misconstrued, distorted statements.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Well, if she has to do something unethical/illegal to save the
world -- maddog, 12:17:53 04/28/03 Mon
Um, it does. :) Would you rather be dead? :)
[> I must admit, I thought
this post was *meant" to be parodic -- KdS, 12:43:18
04/27/03 Sun
[> [> Re: I must admit,
I thought this post was *meant" to be parodic -- Bronson, 14:24:13
04/27/03 Sun
That was my reaction as well, but since the original poster has
declined to comment, it's hard to say.
...Just goes to show ya that satire relying on sarcasm is a tricky
tricky thing, especially in a text-only medium.
Dog my cats. Must get back to Mamet paper & find way to include
BtVS...
[> [> [> Re: I must
admit, I thought this poster was *meant" to be a parody.
-- WickedBuffy I think so, 19:02:26 04/27/03 Sun
[> Is this a joke, a troll,
or for real? -- Robert, 19:23:35 04/27/03 Sun
[> [> Did I say anything
that wasn't true? -- Ravenus, 19:47:58 04/27/03 Sun
Go ahead, say that I said something that wasn't true in my post.
Dare ya.
You can disagree, but you'll just end up making a fool of yourself,
because I have the FACTS on my side. You can gloss over Buffy's
crimes, but, really, can you offer ANY justification for them?
Didn't think so.
[> [> [> Read Majin's
or my posts, and refute them, if you're not a troll :) --
Corwin of Amber, 20:06:21 04/27/03 Sun
[> [> [> [> Re:
Read Majin's or my posts, and refute them, if you're not a troll
:) -- Angelus,
01:15:35 04/28/03 Mon
So far his posts are on a par with the "Buffy is a murderer
because she stakes 'innocent' vampires" posts. The real test
of whether he's a troll is whether he posts in other threads that
shows a real interest in the show or whether he merely posts absurd
troll threads like this one (which are fun but silly). I'm too
new to the board to know if he posts on other threads.
And yes in a simplistic, completely out of context, omitting overwhelming
facts in Buffy's favor in each situation sort of way, the arguments
are factual. You just have to ignore motive and context.
[> [> [> I think all
those people who aren't dead justify her "crimes"
-- Helen, 00:56:39 04/28/03 Mon
We know what Sunnydale would be like (or at least what Sunnydale
1999 would have been like) without Buffy and her various crimes.
It was in The Wish and it didn't look fun.
[> [> [> Gotta be
a joke. -- HonorH (scratching her head), 07:10:21 04/28/03
Mon
I mean, nobody's *that* benighted that they don't think saving
the world is justification for a little B&E. Heck, saving
a *single* life is justification enough.
[> [> [> Re: Did I
say anything that wasn't true? -- maddog, 12:27:48 04/28/03
Mon
Facts...sure, you have facts. Now think about them logically.
All of them were done to save any part or all of Sunnydale...and
possibly more people. If you don't think saving the world is justification
for doing the things you charged her with then you obviously have
no compassion for humanity...and in that case then by all means
we'll send you to the fictional town of Sunnydale and remind Buffy
that around you she shouldn't pull these stunts. :) We'll see
how long you last with vampires. :)
[> Re: Buffy: Superhero
or Ruthless Criminal? (Spoilers through "Dirty Girls")
-- Angelus, 00:55:02
04/28/03 Mon
Okay I admit I'm torn between wondering if this is tongue in cheek
parody or meant to be taken seriously.
Quote: Personally, I find it odd that people criticise what was
merely a tactical error when Buffy has consistently shown her
complete lack of morality or integrity throughout the series.
Ever since the show began, Buffy has done whatever she wants,
whether it's good or evil. She has snuck into and out of various
buildings, regardless of the privacy she's invading by doing so.
She's a horrendous theif, taking whatever she wants to satisfy
herself. She even got Xander and Cordelia to steal a rocket launcher
from a military camp, which is probably a hanging offense.
Okay by a twisted Wolfram & Hart presentation of the facts everything
here is true and I suppose they could get a conviction. "Excuse
me Mr. Military people. I need to borrow a rocket launcher. Why?
Oh because a demon is going to murder every single person in a
shopping mall followed by everyone in this city followed by everyone
in the world unless I stop him. Oh you don't believe me. Okey
dokey. Better thousands die than that I break a law."
Quote: And let's not even get into destruction of property. Perhaps
most heinously, when the series begins, we hear many references
to Buffy having burnt down her old school's gym, and not only
is she still supposed to be the hero, we're actually supposed
to pity her because not everyone overlooks it. Wel, EXCUSE ME
if endangering who knows how many lives in a fire, and destroying
a building that probably costs upwards of a hundred grand to rebuild
is supposed to be a "girls will be girls" offense.
Uh huh. Of course let's just ignore the vampires and that the
fire started when she was saving the countless lives they were
trying to take in that school. Let's equally ignore that no one
would believe her explanation if she tried to tell them.
Quote: And it wasn't just that one time that Buffy wantonly wreaked
destruction. Xander trusted her with a job at his construction
site, and she trashed most of the equipment and half-built structures.
Oh yeah that would be when she was attacked and fought back rather
than saying, "Oh ok go ahead and kill me. We wouldn't want
to be accused of property damage here." Oh yeah she saved
the lives of men there too but hey, in your interesting view,
that doesn't count.
Quote: She's burned down an abandoned vamp whore nest, trashed
her mother's and her sister's furniture countless times, and even
blew up her second high school (with stolen weapons I might add).
People have squandered thousands, perhaps millions, of dollars
repairing the damage that Buffy has done.
You are right. She should have let an ascended super demon win,
eat the town and enslave those it didn't eat or feed to the vampires.
Quote: And then there's violence. Buffy has many times made very
direct threats against people (that boy in "Help", the
Colonel in "New Moon Rising"). If only that's where
it ended. But Buffy has many times carried out her threats, beating
and bullying people until they tell her what she wants to hear.
Yep like, for instance, beating up Willy rather than letting Angel
die.
Quote: Plus, let's not forget all of her murders.
Huh?
Quote: She carefully planned and carried out the murder of those
two brothers in "Homecoming",
Oh the ones who killed each other because they thought they were
shooting at her?
Quote: slaughtered ten of the Knights of Byzantium,
Oh the ones who were swinging swords at her, impaling Giles and
trying to kill Dawn without benefit of trial (since we are dealing
in a mere technicalese argument here anyway I thought I would
also bring up a legal technicality)?
Quote: and countless Bringers.
Oh those guys going around gutting innocent girls in the service
of the ultimate evil who were trying to kill her when she killed
them?
Quote: She even rammed a sword through Angel, someone she claimed
to love, and sent him into Hell, where he was tortured for a hundred
years.
Thus preventing him being thrown into hell anyway with the whole
world along for the ride.
Quote: Buffy has always been like this. She has willfully committed
acts that would land all normal people in prison and all slightly
good people with horrendous guilt. Aside from a few moments, Buffy
shows no guilt. She just goes on using people and their possessions
however she wants, as well as hurting and murdering whoever starts
to bug her when she's intent upon something. If the series ends
without Buffy dying, I will forever refuse to watch anything with
ties to Joss Whedon. What sort of message is it that some girl
can get away with anything just because she's stronger than everyone
else? Buffy's crimes have gone unpunished, and I greatly fear
that ME won't be changing that within the next four episodes.
Hmm, I know I might get into trouble for saying this but, do you
work for Wolfram&Hart? The interesting spin on the facts just
reminds me of them in first season Angel.
[> Re: If Buffy hadn't done
any of these things, what would we have? Ever see The Wish?
-- B, 07:18:47 04/28/03 Mon
[> Re: Buffy: Superhero
or Ruthless Criminal? (Spoilers through "Dirty Girls")
-- maddog, 11:35:42 04/28/03 Mon
I think you're confusing Buffy with what Faith was like. Buffy,
while yes, pulling some selfish stunts, is always thinking of
others when she does things. I think people are questioning the
attitude behind the tactical error. Buffy's need to get going
against EVERYONE's thoughts. She is so worked up about being the
great leader they keep saying that she is that she ignored the
fact that even leaders listen to others' opinions...especially
those of her closest friends.
Are you kidding me? Destruction of property. WOuld you rather
have the vampires running around killing people? Ok, fine, we'll
send you to Sunnydale and ask Buffy to help everyone but you because
you don't want anything around you to get destroyed. Things get
damaged in fights...especially fights with that much power involved.
She's bullying bad guys. :) Are you sure this whole thing isn't
some sort of joke? Cause I'm losin it here. You act like you're
forgetting she's saving the world from danger.
This feels like some late April Fool's joke or something. :(
[> I will not be tweaked
by a troll -- pr10n, 12:48:51 04/28/03 Mon
I considered some sort of argument with this twit based on the
overuse of adverbs and the bad writing indicated thereby, but
I have decided to dismiss the person as a troll -- bah.
Twit: I hope that one fine morning the sun rises over the hillside,
and turns you to stone. And that a bird nests in your ear.
Oh, and that you ever get to date, even once.
[> [> Had... had... had...
-- pr10n [whacking face with plank], 16:37:25 04/28/03 Mon
[> Ravenus was an experiment
-- Finn Mac Cool (he of the trollish alter-ego), 14:39:17 04/28/03
Mon
For a while a point has been adressed on this board: whether the
ends justify the means or not, at least in the Buffyverse. What
I mostly hear people saying is along the lines of "the ends
simply do not justify the means", or "if you think immoral
actions are justified if they serve the 'greater good', then you
are (or will be) as bad as the evil you hope to fight". Personally,
this is a position I have long disagreed with. I was going to
write a post trying to refute what seemed to be the all encompassing
opinion that the ends don't justify the means, when I got an idea:
I decided to apply the philosophy of "the ends DON'T justify
the means" to Buffy's actions throughout the series and post
the results on this board under the pseudonym "Ravenus".
I looked at actions like stealing the rocket launcher used to
destroy the Judge, or bullying the cult kid in order to save Cassie's
life, and took out the reason for why they were done. After all,
in "ends don't justify the means" philosophy, it doesn't
matter why you do something or what you hope to accomplish by
doing it; only the act itself matters. Under this lens of examination,
Buffy comes off looking very bad indeed. If you take the good
she accomplishes through illegal/immoral acts out of the equation,
she appears to be a violent, uncaring criminal.
Now, when I first checked back to see what responses had been
made to my post as "Ravenus", I was naturally quite
shocked to see the only reply was from someone expressing tentative
agreement. However, as time went on, what I expected to happen
happened. People refuted Ravenus's argument and justified Buffy's
actions. And what was the prevailing argument? That the acts mentioned
were taken out of context and were all done to save human lives.
That what Buffy did was justified because, in the end, it led
to far more good than bad. Which is the essence of the philosophy
"the ends justify the means".
OK, I could've just posted something saying "hey, look at
Buffy stealing the rocket launcher in "Surprise"! That
was wrong, but was justified in order to stop the Judge! The ends
CAN justify the means!" And, perhaps given that some people
are annoyed by troll-esque posts, that's what I should've done.
But, you must remember, I was operating under the impression that
something like 95% of the board believed that the "ends don't
justify the means" (I'm beginning to doubt that impression
now). Given this, I believed that any attempt to say the ends
DO justify the means would probably end up being argued against
by posters far more eloquent than me. So, I admit, I decided to
trick people into using an "ends justify the means"
defense in order to back up my argument. That way I could look
back and say "Well, you said right then that the ends justified
the means, so don't try to argue that they don't!"
Now that I've seen some of the posts, I'm beginning to doubt the
wisdom of this method. I created a somewhat negative reaction
a while back by posting trollish comments under the name "Bachman"
(although those were basically just saying "Buffy sucks!",
I like to think the Ravenus pseudonym wasn't quite as bad as that).
If I upset/offended anyone, I cry your pardon.
[> [> Ah..What do we
mean by The Ends Justify The MEans - - s'kat, 15:27:49
04/28/03 Mon
Interesting Ravenous/Finn. So, KdS and I were right in our initial
assumption that your post was meant somewhat satirically. Satire
is often used to point out the fallacy of an absolute argument.
Jonathan Swift did it best with a Modest Proposal which he wrote
in response to the hypocritcal aristocrats who didn't want to
help the poor or orphans. He offended quite a few people in the
process. So if your post offended? Count yourself in good company.
OTOH, I think you may have gotten a better response if you had
been a bit more forth-right. There are some people on this board
who I'm sure ignored your post that may not have if they knew
what you were after. I'm one of them. In fact I was resisting
replying to this thread until I saw your explanation above.
For a while a point has been adressed on this board: whether
the ends justify the means or not, at least in the Buffyverse.
What I mostly hear people saying is along the lines of "the
ends simply do not justify the means", or "if you think
immoral actions are justified if they serve the 'greater good',
then you are (or will be) as bad as the evil you hope to fight".
Personally, this is a position I have long disagreed with. I was
going to write a post trying to refute what seemed to be the all
encompassing opinion that the ends don't justify the means, when
I got an idea:
decided to apply the philosophy of "the ends DON'T justify
the means" to Buffy's actions throughout the series and post
the results on this board under the pseudonym "Ravenus".
End's Justify The Means. Touchy subject.
I think lots of people don't really understand what the philosophy
attributed to Machiavelli means, "ends justify the means".
I suggest for a more thorough understanding you pick up a book
called The Prince. It has been used by Corporate Leaders and Politicians
in the past. I remember studying in depth way back in 1985 in
high school. So my memories of it are a little sketchy.
The book deals in principal with the actions a Prince is willing
to take to solidify his power base and territories.
Some of these actions may seem rather ruthless but effective.
Machiavelli for his part, was imprisoned, can't remember why -
but always found it ironic.
The moral issue that arises within the ends justify the means
doctrine - is how far are you willing to go to obtain your goal?
Does it depend on the goal what ends you use?
Are some goals more morally justified than others? There are whole
books of philosophy that discuss these points.
Also religions. Then of course there is the other question, are
you willing to pay for the consequences of the actions you took
in order to reach that goal?
There is no absolute answer to this Finn. It is something that
must be decided on a case by case basis, hence the reason you
received the reactions you did. It does depend on the context
of the act.
If we for example decide that the ends always justify the means
- then everything Spike did in What's My Line Part I &
II would be justifiable since it was all to heal his lover Drusilla.
Now whether curing Dru is a justifiable end or not depends largely
on your point of view. In the context of the show, no it's not
justifiable, she's an evil vampire. Yet within the context of
her vampire lover and the vampires - it's more than justifiable.
By the same token Spike's pursuite of and killing of Nikki the
Vampire Slayer was justifiable - because hello, Spike is a vampire
and Nikki kills vampires. By killing Nikki, Spike has given his
kind a reprieve for a while. There's only one slayer supposedly.
He's killed the main enemy and killer of his kind. Makes him a
hero to vampires.
See? Ends Justify The MEans partly may depend on your point of
view.
By the same token, Giles desire to take out Spike and use Wood
to do it, seems justifiable. The difference between Giles and
Spike though, is: Spike goes after Nikki himself, he does not
put any of his kind in danger. Giles puts Wood in danger, knowing
full well that the odds are on a chipless Spike to take out Wood.
There is no guarantee Giles will get what he wants, best scenerio,
Wood kills Spike and is only slightly wounded, worst scenerio?
Wood is killed and Spike goes off on a killing spree. In this
case the means weren't leading to a foreseeable end. Bad tactical
planning. Was Giles right in wanting Spike put down? (shrug) Not
clear. On the other point Giles believes Spike should still be
chipped - again this isn't straight ends justify the means, since
there is no guarantee the chip will stop Spike from killing people.
The chip may in fact be allowing the FE access. Also the chip
is not much more than a muzzel. Buffy is right doing evil to stop
evil doesn't work.
Now compare this to Buffy - buffy works hard not to hurt people
when she tries to save the world. Yes they stole the rocket launcher,
but of the tools they could have used it caused the least amount
of destruction. Bombs would have killed people. It also saved
the most people from the judge with little to no collateral damage.
The only drawback?
The military's loss of a weapon that they were probably planning
on using to kill human enemies anyway. (Although we have no idea.)
And I'm sure the military had more. So Buffy's use of the rocket
launcher did justify her ends.
It caused the least damage.
So Finn, it's not that the ends NEVER justify the means or that
they ALWAYS justify the means, it's that it depends on what the
means and ends are. Life isn't absolute. It depends on the situation.
Sometimes the ends justify the means, sometimes they don't.
Wes' decision to save Connor from Angel was not justified.
But Fred's decision to shoot Jasmine and Angel with the same bullet,
was. See the difference? We have the ability to determine right
from wrong, to see the potential consequences of our actions -
it is up to us to decide how to handle situations we are in and
to solve them in the most moral way possible or ie. causing the
least amount of harm. I believe if you look back over Buffy's
decisions in past seven seasons you'll find more often than not,
her decisions resulted in the least amount of harm to those around
her. She has made mistakes, but then don't we all?
And the moral ambiguity of her actions as she gets older does
make us think about the moral ambiguity of our own.
I hope that made some sense. I'm no expert on Machiavelli so apologies
to any lurking scholars and historians out there that are.
Hopefully all I've done is started off a new discussion.
SK (Excuse the typos and errors...)
[> [> [> Never meant
to imply that the ends ALWAYS justified the means -- Finn
Mac Cool, 16:45:25 04/28/03 Mon
For example, I once read a fantasy novel that I've long since
forgotten the name of, but there was something about it I did
remember. In it, the group of heroes is captured by some guys
running a slave mining operation. The male characters are thrust
into grueling labour with a lot of other slaves, while the woman
among them is reserved for rape by the slave drivers. The male
characters decide they need to escape (though they make a show
of it being largely for their friend who's been made a sex slave),
and decide the only way to do it is by distracting the slave drivers
with a revolution. So they start to spark discontent among the
other slaves, which leads to an uprising. Now, the characters
knew full well beforehand that a conflict between the two would
lead to many deaths, mainly on the slaves' side, and had about
a million in one chance of actual success, but they hid this knowledge
from the other slaves. And it was never treated as a moral dilemma.
No one showed any remorse for causing a battle where many people
died in order to secure their own freedom. This was a case where
the ends didn't justify the means, because the means (many deaths)
were far more negative then the ends (escape) were positive.
How I always interpreted "ends justify the means" is
that, it's OK to commit immoral acts, so long as they lead to
an end that does more good than the acts did harm. If one believed
that the means were always justified, no matter what the ends,
then I can see how that could be viewed as highly immoral.
But, here's the thing: when you come right down to it, in the
Buffyverse, what is the biggest moral dilemma they've been able
to come up with? Quite easily: do you kill someone to save the
world? Usually when I heard people saying the ends didn't justify
the means, it was in regards to saying that killing someone in
order to stop the world from ending isn't OK. However, in such
a situation, I would say that the ends (saving billions of lives)
outweighs the means (killing one person). This has always annoyed
me, because it seems to assume that passively allowing something
very evil to happen is morally better than actively doing a minorly
evil act. Hence the desire to write as Ravenus.
There's actually a non-satirical post I'm planning to write on
this same issue, comparing "Becoming II", "The
Gift", and "Selfless", all episodes dealing with
similar moral dilemmas about the ends justify the means philosophy.
Guess this was a sort of prelude before I started writing that.
[> [> [> [> Interesting
...Selfless, Grave, Becoming, Gift...&
Jasmin(Spoilers to DG) -- s'kat, 20:34:24 04/28/03 Mon
Ah. Now the above was an interesting post.
This is just a suggestion - but would you consider doing a post
like the one above - to tackle this issue? I think that might
get some interesting responses.
I agree for what it's worth with D'Herbalay's post below, that
most of the posters here have not advocated that the ends never
justify the means nor that killing someone to save the world is
necessarly a bad thing. The show itself has wrestled with this.
Actually Angel The Series is also wrestling with it.
And as D'H states, some of this may be a question for ethisicists.
Regarding the Gift, Becoming Part II, and Selfless...I think each
issue should be tackled again in context.
In The Gift - I believe Buffy would have let Dawn jump/sacrifice
herself if she had not found a better option, jumping herself.
Whether you agree on if this was the better option is another
issue. To Buffy - Dawn was an innocent life representing all the
other innocent human lives, Buffy was the hero with the expiration
date, she'd already died once - it was her time not Dawn's. So
she jumped. I never saw it as suicide or wrong. And Buffy did
consider all the options, it was not an impulsive act.
Giles killing Ben - another issue. Was this a case of ends justifying
the means? Were there other options? Did Giles consider them?
Or was it impulsive? I have a feeling if this question is not
answered this year, it may be answered in the Ripper mini series.
But it has been debated to death on this and other boards. I remain
on the fence regarding the issue. I do find it to be a highly
ironic act. I'm also fascinated by the fact that they cut Giles
confession regarding it out of LMPTM and that in the shooting
script it's how Buffy comes to the realization Giles is stalling
her.
Becoming Part II - again Buffy considered and tried all her options.
She did not come to the decision to kill Angel - actually she
didn't really kill him, she just sent him to hell, I think he'd
have preferred death, but whatever, she did not come to it lightly.
She tried to ensoul him, she tried to delay him, she tried any
number of avenues. But he'd opened the gate and the only way to
close it was through him. Only his blood could. So she took his
life to save the world. The ends did justify the means.
Grave - would killing Willow have solved the problem? No.
The best was to get Willow to find her humanity. Now Willow in
Grave is an interesting twist on this. She believes killing/destroying
the whole world justifies her end which is to end all suffering.
Life is hell so let's end it.
Xander forces her to see the good in life, love, compassion.
Grave is in some ways the inverse of Becoming. Death is not always
necessary to save the world. Willow believes killing Warren and
the power she must engulf to do it is justified to rid the world
of Warren. But Warren is not the overwhelming threat she makes
him out to be. Killing Warren does nothing except push Willow
over the edge.
Selfless - was Buffy justified in deciding to kill Anya? Well
she had considered the options. She waited an awful long time.
Fully aware of what Anya was up to. And based on the limited info
she had available - killing Anya sounded like the only option.
OTOH - we know and Willow knew there were other options. So killing
Anya was not the best or only solution. By letting Anya live and
convincing her to take back her wish - the frat boys survived.
But Buffy had no idea anya would do this. Was Buffy's actions
in Selfless directed towards Anya going this route? I don't know.
Graduation Day I & II - Buffy's going after Faith to save Angel
- was this justified? Was Buffy's own self-sacrifice to save Angel
justified? None of the gang besides possibly Buffy believes so.
In fact it may be one of the reasons Angel took off at the end.
It really does depend on the context, the options available, and
the situation in the series. I think what you may be reacting
to is the comments on the board regarding Buffy's assertion in
LMPTM to Giles - I realize everyone is expendable, and I am willing
to let Dawn die to save the world. What people are reacting negatively
to is NOT that we shouldn't kill someone to save the world so
much as the comment that people are expendable. I think. I could
be wrong here. Because stating people are expendable or Dawn is...is
a bit like taking the untrained potentials into the winery in
Dirty Girls or Willow deciding to hurt whomever got in her way
in Two to Go. Or for that matter JAsmine eating people to heal
herself. JAsmine is an excellent example as are Connor and Cordelia.
Is it justifiable to kill an innocent girl to bring a goddess,
the messiah into the world? Connor believes it is.
Is it justifiable to eat others to stay alive and spread peace
and prosperity? Do Jasmine's ends justify her means?
SK
[> [> [> [> [>
Oops spoilers to sacrifice Ats as well. -- sk, 20:35:35
04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Ends and means in a Slayer's world -- Valheru, 00:53:50
04/29/03 Tue
I'm not a big fan of "ends justify the means" or "ends
don't justify the means" as ethical arguments for or against
the perpetrator of said means because so much is tied up in emotion,
circumstance, chance, foresight, and intent. There are so many
disparate elements that go into any decision that it's nearly
impossible to determine whether the choices we make are the ultimate
correct ones. In other words, while carrying out the means, it
is impossible to know what the final ends will be. The only real
determining factor is morality, which is not so much a personal
construct as it is a societal one. Which is exactly where Buffy
comes in.
In a world of vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness, the
human society of the Buffyverse is unable to even acknowledge
or comprehend the supernatural. Only a determined few have been
able to break free from the miasma of ignorance. Foremost among
these is the Watcher's Council. Sometime in the past, the predecessing
shamans of the Council took it upon themselves to create a being
capable of protecting the unknowing human world from the otherworldly
evils. "She is the Slayer."
But does the Slayer exist within the human world? The problem
with figuring out the moral and ethical boundaries of the Slayer
through Buffy is that Buffy--unique among Slayers--is still entrenched
in the dictates of human society. Her codes are influenced by
both sides of her life. To Buffy's more human side, it is wrong,
wrong, wrong!! to kill a human (even justifiable self-
defense reasons for killing are judged harshly), yet to a normal
Slayer, it is probably perfectly acceptable to kill a human to
save the world. Heck, in "Consequences", Giles even
alludes to the idea that Faith's non-world-in-peril killing of
Allan Finch is viewed almost off-handedly by the Council--as if
they would say, "Well, them's the breaks sometimes. Now off
you go back on patrol, Faith."
Because we've been seen so little of Slayers who operated outside
of Buffy's hybrid ethics, it is difficult to determine just what
is acceptable of the Slayer. But we can glean that the Slayer
is almost a law unto herself. She does whatever it takes to do
her job; almost anything is acceptable. She only has to answer
to the Council, and the Watchers have proven to have a much looser
standard even among themselves, much less the Slayer. It is a
very rare event that the Slayer does anything that violates the
ethics set down by the Council.
So in the case of the Slayers, "ends justify the means"
is a more liberal interpretation than it is to the rest of humanity.
The Slayers exist in their own ethical universe.
Buffy, however, is not a usual Slayer. Many of Buffy's ethical
quandries are beyond the experience of human ethics, yet she tries
hard to make them fit. For instance, we have no ethical guidelines
for how to deal with a Glory/Ben scenario. How could we? When
are we ever going to be faced with an unkillable hellgod? But
Buffy still struggled with the question of whether to kill Ben.
Thus, Giles had to come in, as the ethical representative of the
Watcher's Council (or at least the person who came the closest
to sharing the Council's views), and he killed Ben for the good
of the world. To our ethical view, both Giles's and Buffy's actions
are questionable, but to the view of the Council and Slayer, Giles
was right and Buffy was wrong.
The important thing to learn from Buffy, IMO, isn't that she always
does the right--the "human"--thing, but that she tries,
that she wades through a current of conflicting philosophical
systems (the demon system, vampire system, Slayer/Watcher system,
and human system) and comes somewhere close to a happy middle
ground (well, at least between the Slayer and human systems).
Where one says "the ends justify the means," the other
says they don't, so Buffy finds the alternate: There are no
means, there are no ends, there's only me. I justify myself.
Our rules do not apply.
I was going to write more, but it's late so I'll stop for now.
I might get into more specific stuff, but this is adequate for
now. It's all IMO, of course, so don't bite my head off if I get
something wrong here. I'm by no means an expert of ethics, so
I'm just glad I was able to write this thing semi-coherently.
;-)
[> [> Finn, you officially
have a Super-Evil Alter-Ego. - - HonorH, 15:46:41 04/28/03
Mon
Just be careful with him. Super-Evil Alter-Egos tend to take over
one's life when one isn't careful.
Kwitcherbitchen, ya simp.
Could you try, just try, to stay out of my posts occasionally?
Could you try, just try, to stay out of
my Sean Astin scheme?
I believe we're at an impasse.
Ladies and Gentlemen (and otherwise), behold
my Super-Perceptive Alter-Ego!
Shut *up*, H . . .
[> [> Re: Ravenus was
an experiment -- d'Herblay, 16:29:17 04/28/03 Mon
I will admit to taking a certain glee in responding to Bachman.
I have at times enjoyed troll attacks -- they give the board a
chance to let off some steam, preventing some of us from taking,
for example, Rob's pompoms and shoving them down his throat. (Of
course, I like Kennedy!) mundusmundi and I used to discuss
at great lengths the ethics and methods of responding to trolls.
He, while he certainly enjoyed troll-baiting, decided that the
pragmatic thing to do was to ignore them; I, however, kept trying
to impress on him that the primary purpose of responding to trolls
was not to try to win an argument or chase the bastards away,
but to keep the board light-hearted and entertained. I think that
in this case the attack itself was light-hearted enough to do
its own entertaining.
Anyway, I'm afraid I've missed the 95% of the posts here that
say that the ends never justify the means. I'm not sure whether
they related to Buffy's season 7 demeanor or something more geopolitical.
It has already been pointed out by shadowkat (to your pseudonymous
self) and Corwin and majin gojira (to your -- what? dysonym?)
that context is key, that some ends may well justify some means.
Which ends justify which means -- now that is a
question for the ethicists.
It is also a question that has been explored, if never fully answered,
within the Buffyverse. Buffy herself rejected the "ends justify
the means" argument when she refused to countenance the idea
of killing Dawn to save the world in "The Gift." On
the other hand, she was quite willing to believe that the end
of saving Angel justified the means of killing Faith in "Graduation
Day, Part One"; however neither Xander nor this viewer (nor,
I suspect, the writers) agreed with her. And then there is the
question of how sure one is that the means will lead to the intended
end: Wesley's plan to release Angelus in order to gain information
on how to kill the Beast may have in fact worked, but it sure
seemed as if it wasn't the brightest plan at times.
(I'd love to discuss some of the geopolitical expressions of this
sort of argument, but we've already had one regular pass as a
troll today. Plus, my cold is making me feel quite light-headed.)
It is apparent from your admission that you yourself must be questioning
whether or not the ends always justify (or indeed result from)
the means. After all, if fostering a discussion of whether or
not the ends sometimes justify the means was your intended
goal, it seems that being forthright may have been a more efficacious
way of achieving that. (I'm referring to being forthright with
your identity, that is, and not casting blood upon the waters
by appearing to be a troll. Satire has a long and important history
on this board; I remember quite fondly Malandanza's Damascan conversion
to the wondrousness and righteousness of Spike . . . )
[> [> [> OK, fess
up d'Herblay -- Masq, 16:33:45 04/28/03 Mon
Did you remember to check the ISP number to test for possible
polynymity of a regular poster re: Ravenus? Because I sure didn't.
Sometimes I just don't deserve my own power.
[> [> [> [> I did
indeed! -- d'Herblay, 18:34:25 04/28/03 Mon
But, due to either some sort of glitch in Voy or some weird effect
of AOL's caching/proxy servers, Ravenus had the same IP address
as not only Finn but aliera, lunasea, Sophist, cjl, Ixchel and
very almost (the first three of the four strings) Drizzt as well.
I eliminated, perhaps hastily, the possibility that they're all
the same person.
[> [> [> [> [>
They are all Kosh. -- Doug, 19:31:18 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
That durned AOL -- Masq, 21:02:47 04/28/03 Mon
You just can't ban an AOL troll, or you have to ban all the AOL
users. Not that Ravenus was in any danger of banning. I wasn't
paying much attention myself.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: I did indeed! -- aliera, 13:58:10 04/29/03 Tue
no...not the same person although I sometimes wish I were seventeen;
I don't ever recall wishing to be a male tho' or would that be
males? or other females for that matter, although I guess using
a nic qualifies as appearing as another female but of course no
one would ever confuse me with the (un)real aliera as you can
see... here
except for the small ancient bit... and perhaps the relationship
with or to dragons. :-)
The IP is perhaps a function of aol...I've noticed it on
other boards that display IP addresses, although I don't recall
ever seeing seeing anyone with my complete IP address and it seemed
to me that depending which account I was using I would show up
differently, certainly when I post from the office (shhhh) I do.
Does Voy display it's entirety? I do remember reading a long long
time ago something about aol in an article on PGP referring to
it as a good mask...but I admit that's really above me and may
have referred to something else entirely, very likely... I use
aol because it maintains older smaller versions of it's software
and I have a very retro attitude about my home tech or more accurately
a minimalistic attitude (I'm also not bright enough or bold enough
to use Opera or whatever.) That of course is subject to change
as soon as they develop a booksized PC that will allow me to do
what I want without leaving my bed. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [>
[> I've got to ask... -- Darby, 14:32:12 04/29/03
Tue
6th (and last) try...
(I had pretty much discounted this thread due to its trollish
beginnings, but snuck back in at Finn's confessional post.)
I followed the link - what's the significance of the "Kieron"
part? It's a somewhat uncommon spelling of a not very common name
(but my son's name, "o" and all).
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Walk through the door.... -- aliera, 15:01:57
04/29/03 Tue
the danger of following a link! Stephen Brust's the author the
character's from his Vlad Taltos series... look here...it
should be in there somewhere! Hungarian version? Let me know if
it's not want you want. I could tell you about Kieron the character
but then I'd end droning on a bit (low chuckle) as I am told I'm
wont to do ;-)but your son would probably like him if he's anything
like Ben.
[> [> [> I just have
to say that I jjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjjllllllllllllllllll
- - Rob, choking on a pom-pom ;o), 18:05:05 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> Finn, can you please
step a little closer so I can whack you upside the head?!?
-- RobAndMurder, 17:59:32 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> Okay, all
better now. You're forgiven! :o) -- Rob (who really hates
your evil alter ego!!), 18:00:36 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> I prefer
Misguided, Morally Ambigous Alter Ego, thank you. -- Ravenus,
18:09:27 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
I think I'm gonna take a tip from Stephen King and give Ravenus
a cancer of the pseudonym -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:14:46 04/28/03
Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> JUST GREAT!! Right when I thought I was FINALLY arguing
with someone as senseless as ME! -- WickedBuffy ::always tempted,
but never altered::, 19:10:18 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Buck up. You can still tussle with Honorificus.
-- HonorH (the nice one), 20:55:00 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> LOL! Now you're giving my misguided, morally ambiguous
alter ego a headache! -- Rob, 20:41:50 04/28/03 Mon
[> [> Actually I find
the killing of the Knights morally reprehensible -- Charlemagne, 23:02:31
04/28/03 Mon
It was plain and simple murder performed because Buffy felt that
the ends of their deaths were more important than their lives
(protecting Dawn).
Like destroying the Urn and thus killing Larry and Harmony by
proxy, the Buffy gang's ends are often distorted by the means.
My thoughts at least
[> [> [> Taking issue
here. -- HonorH, 23:31:28 04/28/03 Mon
The knights were armed. Buffy was not, initially.
The knights had armor on. Buffy did not. Nor did the Scoobies.
The knights were attacking. Buffy was defending.
The knights had numbers on their side. Buffy did not.
The knights were soldiers. Dawn was an innocent with only a few
to protect her. Buffy was her main protector.
Personally, I find it morally reprehensible that a squadron of
knights attacked a group of people who were only trying to protect
someone they loved, and very nearly killed them all. Buffy didn't
seek them out--in fact, she was trying to avoid them. Had they
not attacked her, they'd have lived. Buffy had the right to defend
herself and those she loved. It wasn't murder; it was self-defense
and defense of others. I'd do the same for my family. Call that
reprehensible if you want.
[> [> Re: Ravenus was
an experiment -- Angelus,
23:35:47 04/28/03 Mon
In regards to the ends justify the means argument, what I would
say is simply that if your experiment failed, it failed because
of the examples you used. By and large you used legal arguments
or so it seemed to me as opposed to ethical arguments. When people
argue that the ends doesn't justify the means, they are usually
referring to situations that are vastly different from most of
the situations you chose.
For instance, who cares if they stole a rocket launcher? To me
that's a legal argument. Superman would be guilty of breaking
and entering by those standards. You did touch on some ethical
arguments but you picked the wrong ones in my opinion. For instance
killing the knights when they were actively trying to kill her
and her sister at that moment.
To me "the ends doesn't justify the means" requires
either that the goal was not worthy or that there was another
way. For instance, one could argue that in stabbing Faith, Buffy
was letting the ends justify the means because she could have
taken the risk herself from the start. Regardless that Faith created
the situation, there was another way. Likewise, had the blood
of an innocent bystander been required, it would be a different
situation.
As I said though, you chose arguments that were all either legal
technicality arguments or immediate self-defense. The one exception
was probably killing the vampire "whore" and burning
down the place before that, arguably creating a situation where
the vamps would go back to the old ways of just killing people
and she clearly did it for revenge, not because it was her sacred
duty.
[> [> [> Re: Ravenus
was an experiment -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:16:11 04/29/03 Tue
I do admit, my arguments did come off in a more legal context
than I intended. However, with the possible exception of invading
privacy, I think all of the things I listed are usually regarded
as morally reprehensible. Theft, assault, and murder have commandments
against them in most major religions, and destruction of property
is viewed very negatively if it's someone else's property.
As for the Knights of Byzantium, think about it this way: as Ravenus,
I was operating under very strict "ends don't justify the
means" philosophy. Under this, Buffy shouldn't have fought
the knights. Yes, they were actively trying to kill Buffy and
Dawn, and probably the other Scoobies as well. So Buffy fought
and eventually killed them in self- defense and defense of others.
But, saying that act was justified is like saying that the ends
(saving lives) justified the means (fighting those who would take
those lives). Under strict "ends don't justify the means"
thinking, Buffy should have allowed herself to die and Dawn as
well, rather than commit the act of killing someone.
[> [> [> [> Re:
Ravenus was an experiment -- Angelus,
01:08:37 04/30/03 Wed
I think what you are trying to make people see here is that even
seemingly absolute arguments like "the ends never justify
the means" can only be absolute as slogans. As reality, the
situation does matter. I'll use your example and add a qualifier
of my own. Buffy has stated emphatically, "We don't kill
humans." We don't need to get into a big, philosopical argument
on that one. She has killed humans. The statement is wrong. She
killed the knights. She killed the two guys in "Homecoming"
or tricked them into killing each other in self-defense. Now had
she said, "We don't commit premeditated murder" it might
have been different. Buffy states an absolute that she doesn't
follow. She states that killing humans is wrong. But she killed
the knights because she felt the immediate self- defense and defense
of Dawn was a justified end. She tried to kill Faith because she
deemdd saving Angel from a situation Faith created was a justified
end. The bottom line is that you will end up doing gymnastics
to rationalize things when you state absolutes which is what I
think you wanted people to see. A truly honest person has a set
of criteria for what ends is justified by what means.
One of the most interesting takes I have seen on this was in a
Superman comic of all places in the late 80s. I'll try to not
get into the whole history. The "new" Superman found
his way into a remaining fragment of the universe from the old
DC Comics, where the old Superman was the guy who could literally
move a planet. The old Superman of that reality was dead but three
Kryptonian criminals had escaped from the Phantom Zone and destroyed
what was left of that reality. They were dozens of times more
powerful than the "new" Superman and he couldn't stop
them. But he found Kryptonite which did not affect him because
it was slightly off from the Kryptonite of his reality but it
stopped them. The three criminals bragged that just as they had
killed everyone left on that Earth, so they would eventually find
their way to his reality and kill everyone. Superman knew that
with their powers, all the heroes of his reality combined couldn't
stop them and that they would eventually find their way there
and carry out their threat. He did something he'd never done before
in his life. He exposed them to the Kryptonite and killed them.
They couldn't believe it but he knew he'd finally been faced with
no other choice, they would destroy the world sooner or later
if he didn't. It took maybe a year's worth of issues coping with
the guilt for what he had done but he finally accepted that there
was an exception to his greatest absolute. he finally found that
there was an end (the lives of everyone on Earth) that justified
the means of killing.
I just thought it was interesting as Superman is sort of the posterchild
for the 'Code against killing'.
[> [> Black and White
Fallacy. Buffy is in the large gray area between them. She's human.
-- Majin Gojira, 06:10:17 04/29/03 Tue
[> [> Physical versus
spiritual warfare -- KdS, 09:18:24 04/29/03 Tue
I think that the reason why so many people on the board (including
me) have been recently arguing that "ends don't justify means"
lies in our understanding of the rather special circumstances
of S7 (we may feel rather differently in relation to earlier acts).
In S7 it has been repeatedly pointed out that the Scoobs are fighting
the literal embodiment of evil. Now given the previous dilemmas
and responses to them that we've seen before in the Buffyverse,
I've rather assumed that we're seeing a build-up to a rejection
of the "needs justifying means" argument in relation
to grossly rather than trivially immoral acts, in particular in
relation to a) killing and b) betrayal of trust. The examples
which you referred to in your satirical post were so trivial (B
& E for instance) or so blatantly decontextualised that I dismissed
that post as either a troll or a parody of the "Buffy is
an evil bitch" type of troll. By contrast, the issues which
we have been attacking on the board relate to Buffy or others
murdering a non-evil human being (as in Dawn in The Gift)
or a souled vampire. Giles's and Wood's plot in LMPTM struck
many of us as uniquely reprehensible not just because it involved
the murder of an entity capable of moral judgement who was trying
to behave well, but because of the powerful element of betrayal
of Buffy's trust. (Spike's trust is less clear, because I don't
think he would have trusted Wood as far as Andrew could have thrown
him even before the attempted murder).
Returning to the FE issue, I, and I suspect most posters here,
have been arguing from the conscious or subconscious assumption
that the FE is in some way mystically empowered by "evil"
acts, or even that the gross corruption of a core character (say,
Buffy killing Spike because she thinks he may murder other people,
or Giles killing Buffy because he thinks her survival is the "disturbance"
that is empowering the FE [pure spec here, I know nothing]) will
act as a mystical "detonator" to bring the FE to some
apotheosis. Hence we do not have the luxury of measuring the evil
of the means to the good of the ends, because merely making the
calculations of what might qualify as a necessary evil will be
a victory for the enemy.
I hope this is clear, if not I'll try to clarify later, 'cos it's
a key point for me.
[> [> [> Re: Physical
versus spiritual warfare -- Tony
D, 01:07:46 04/30/03 Wed
I just wanted to comment on the nature of THE FIRST. KdS conjectures
that THE FIRST is conducting a kind of spritual warfare wherein
mortal's bad deeds constitute victory. If this is true, then THE
FIRST is being counterproductive. THE FIRST, in its couple of
sketchy statements of purpose, has expressed wishes of "leaving
the mortal coil" and ending the dialectic of good v. evil.
The Hellmouth wants to rise out of the pit. If THE FIRST fed on
"evil deeds" or betrayals it would chill in the HELLMOUTH
and soak up the "evil energy" that the conflict between
good and evil would generate. In a conflict where there are sides
and alliances betrayal is rife. But this is exactly what THE FIRST
wants to get rid of. THE FIRST is eternal and omnipresent. It
is sort of like transcendentalism's universal animating force.
It is concomitant with existence. It lives in every organism and
every thought. For instance, in EMPTY SPACES, the evil cops were
not possessed. THE FIRST is not a spirit or demon (as expressed
in ANGEL). The cops were and are and always will be a part of
THE FIRST. The FIRST simply exerted itself more strongly than
usually- exacerbating their latent EVIL proclivities. THE FIRST
"losing" will not be its death... simply the continuation
of the slayer line. No matter which way the FINALE goes, it is
sure that THE FIRST will survive it.
[> [> [> Re: Physical
versus spiritual warfare -- Tony
D, 02:10:22 04/30/03 Wed
I just wanted to comment on the nature of THE FIRST. KdS conjectures
that THE FIRST is conducting a kind of spritual warfare wherein
mortal's bad deeds constitute victory. If this is true, then THE
FIRST is being counterproductive. THE FIRST, in its couple of
sketchy statements of purpose, has expressed wishes of "leaving
the mortal coil" and ending the dialectic of good v. evil.
The Hellmouth wants to rise out of the pit. If THE FIRST fed on
"evil deeds" or betrayals it would chill in the HELLMOUTH
and soak up the "evil energy" that the conflict between
good and evil would generate. In a conflict where there are sides
and alliances betrayal is rife. But this is exactly what THE FIRST
wants to get rid of. THE FIRST is eternal and omnipresent. It
is sort of like transcendentalism's universal animating force.
It is concomitant with existence. It lives in every organism and
every thought. For instance, in EMPTY SPACES, the evil cops were
not possessed. THE FIRST is not a spirit or demon (as expressed
in ANGEL). The cops were and are and always will be a part of
THE FIRST. The FIRST simply exerted itself more strongly than
usually- exacerbating their latent EVIL proclivities. THE FIRST
"losing" will not be its death... simply the continuation
of the slayer line. No matter which way the FINALE goes, it is
sure that THE FIRST will survive it.
[> You're doing this *again,
Finn?* -- Arethusa, 10:33:15 04/29/03 Tue
Honestly, you don't need to pretend to be a troll to stir up debate.
Just make a blanket statement, usually false or misleading, and
insult a favorite character while you're at it. Then sit back
and let the fur fly. Here's some potential topics:
Race
Religion ("There is no god" never fails.)
War
Politics
Feminism
Canada-is it only for chocolate lovers?
Horticulture-is it only for the deranged?
Spike-shirtless sex god or evil killer?
Buffy-well, you already know this one.
Angel-hero or anti-hero?
Dawn-old enough to leer at?
Giles-who should he kill/attempt to kill now?
[> [> Arethusa, may I
use this at OBAFU? -- HonorH (the wicked mad ficcer), 11:14:53
04/29/03 Tue
I think it'd be perfect for one of Miss H's lectures on fandom.
I'd give you credit, of course.
(Oh, just say yes. You know I'll use it anyway.)
[> [> [> Yes, of course!
-- Arethusa, 15:29:35 04/29/03 Tue
[> [> Canada - it's not
just for chocolate lovers! our new slogan -- ponygirl, 12:12:48
04/29/03 Tue
Our Coca-cola tastes better too! So there.
ponygirl (looking for trouble, and a bit thirsty)
[> We all agree, then. Buffy
is a Spoiled SuperBarbie? (no stinkin' spoilers, just da truth)
-- Mat el Toizdore, 19:07:22 04/29/03 Tue
Subverting
the Traditional Function of The Fatal in Narratives (Spoilers
up to FD in Btvs 7) -- shadowkat, 22:01:36 04/26/03 Sat
(Hi, miss me? Well, probably not after seeing this post. Ugh.
Seems endless and Iím just writing it. Unlike the other
posts Iíve made recently, this really is an essay, complete
with Bibliography and references. Yep I actually motivated myself
to do some research, arenít you shocked? Itís fairly
rough and Iím not sure what, if anything, Iíll do
with it. I hope that most of the information in it, while largely
my own nutty opinion, is accurate. Comments, questions, corrections
and discussion are greatly appreciated. Better be quick about
it, since this post will no doubt fade into the archives once
the new episodes air and OnM finally posts his review of Dirty
Girls, which is as it should be.. Thanks for the indulgence, greatly
appreciated. Now letís hope I didnít drop a tag,
I am really hating Html right now.;- ))
Subverting the Traditional Function of The Fatal in Narratives
(Spoilers up to FD in Btvs 7)
This essay focuses on the roles of the fatal and how the traditional
view of the fatal is subverted in the cult television shows Buffy
The Vampire Slayer (Btvs) and Angel The Series (Ats).
It also deals with the functions of fatales in other popular culture
mediums including comic books, pulp fiction, and film noir.
Introduction: What is the fatal and their overall function
in the narrative?
French critics of film noire first coined the term ìfatalî
to describe the female antagonist/romantic foil in hardboiled
1930s and 1940s films. Later, this term enveloped the male antagonist/romantic
foil in gothic fiction and fantasy. Traditionally the fatal is
defined as an irresistibly attractive character, who leads
the protagonist (hero/heroine) into danger. ( See: The
Femme Fatale by William Marling at www.cwru.edu/artsci/engl/marling/hardboiled/FemmeFatale.H
tm ) This character is often the protagonistís romantic
interest or foil. Foil, in literary character terms not fencing
jargon, is defined as one that by contrast enhances the distinctive
characteristics of another. (See American Heritage Dictionary,
3rd. Edition ). Traditionally the protagonistís involvement
with the fatale may range from mild flirtation to passionate sex,
but in the denouement s/he must reject or leave the fatal, for
the revealed plot shows the fatale to be one of the causes of
the crime or horror. In very few cases does the hero end up with
the fatale or share the fataleís fate.
Fatales in popular fiction and cinema have a wide range of roles
ñ anything from provider of uncomfortable truths, damsels,
romantic foils to unpredictable villains. They can often serve
the purpose of being the hero/heroines one true confidante ñ
the one person the hero can reveal their sins to without feeling
ashamed, because the fatale has often done something far worse.
The fatale may also free the hero/heroine to express their best
or worst qualities and is often sought out romantically by the
hero/heroine when the hero/heroine is at their lowest emotional
point.
Examples of famous fatales include: Phyllis ñ the Barbara
Stanwyck character in Double Indemnity , Brigid OíShaughnessy
in The Maltese Falcon, Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights,
and Rita Hayworth in Gilda and The Lady from Shanghai.
More recent television fatales, again mostly female, include:
Xena from The Hercules Series, Juliette the female vampire
and club owner in Forever Knight, and Lilah in Angel
The Series. Recent male fatales in genre television would
be Ares in Xena Warrior Princess, Spike and Angel respectively
in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Without exception all of these
characters had at some point engaged in romantic flirtation with
the hero, some may have even consummated that in a passionate
relationship only to be rejected by the hero and cast off in some
manner towards the end.
Fatal as Sex Object
The fatal must be sexually attractive to the hero/heroine and
more often than not the writers/filmmaker will focus attention
on the blatant sexuality of the fatale. If female ñ weíll
see lots of leg, bust, etc. Example in Double Indemnity
ñ the filmmaker focused the camera on Phyllisí ankle
bracelet. When she enters the first frame, we watch the camera
slowly pan up from her ankle to her face, emphasizing that piece
of naked flesh which in 1940s cinema was quite risquÈ.
Today it would be a naked breast or she would be exposing her
bare back. In the Robert Mitchum film classic Out of The Past
ñ the camera spent time focused on Janet Greenís
bust. We the viewers saw her from the perspective of the hero,
in Out of the Past ñ the private dick, Robert Mitchum,
in Double Indemnity , the crooked Insurance Salesman, Fred
McMurray. In Angel the series , the character of Lilah,
a wicked female attorney who continuously is shown tempting Angel,
the showís anti-hero detective, into doing nasty deeds
ñ is often seen wearing outfits that emphasize her legs.
We see her through the eyes of the male protagonists ñ
first Angel then his friend and colleague, Wesley. Lilah usually
wears a short skirt, an open shirt, or tight slacks, the camera
will pan her length emphasizing her curves and physical appeal.
In Btvs ñ Spike, a vampire who has fallen in love
with a vampire slayer and was once amongst the showís principal
villains, is often seen wearing nothing but a silver necklace
around his neck. His chest is repeatedly and often blatantly emphasized.
Adorning jewelry is often used to heighten the effect or show
him as decidedly wicked, just as it is used on Phyllis, the temptress
in Double Indemnity, as the camera focuses on her ankle
bracelet. When Angel, a vampire, was the fatal in Btvs, he often
had his shirt off, an elaborate tattoo emphasized on his shoulder
to demonstrate his wickedness and unsuitability for the heroine.
Like Spike, Angel was bare-chested whenever Buffy came into his
living quarters. In Innocence S2 Btvs, shortly after he has slept
with the heroine and lost his soul, we see him with nothing but
a sliver chain and black leather pants. His pants were tight,
often leather, and the camera repeatedly emphasized how ìhotî
he was in comparison to the other male leads. Buffyís other
male friends, Xander, OZ, and Giles, humans, seldom if ever had
their shirts off or wore jewelry or tattoos. The rare moments
that Xander is shown shirtless are for comic effect ñ in
Go Fish, where he wears a speedo, in Nightmares, where he finds
himself in nothing but boxers in front of his peers, and in First
Date where he is hanging above the seal of Danzalthiar. The heroine
is not shown lusting after ìgoodî friend Xander,
rather sheís shown lusting after the dark twisted vampire
fatales.
The fatalís dark sexuality psychologically expresses the
protagonistís own fears of sexuality and their need to
control or repress it. The more exposed s/he is, the more tempted
and repressed the hero. In Season 2, Btvs ñ we see this
need to control or repress sexuality in how the fatal literally
turns on the heroine after they make love, while in Season 6,
the need for control is shown by the brutal sexual acts between
the two characters culminating in sexual violence by seasonís
end. In Btvsí sixth Season, viewers noted and often complained
that Buffy, the heroine, remained fully clothed or covered in
her scenes with Spike, while Spike is either nude or bare-chested.
The most we saw of Buffy, was her bare shoulders or ankles. Spike,
we often saw everything but his rear end and genitalia, which
were cleverly obscured by camera angles. In film, the femme fatal
is often the nude party while the male is fully clothed. An example
is Body Heat , where we glimpse the wicked female, Kathleen
Turnerís, breasts and naked form, but very little of the
hero, William Hurt. The fatal is shown free in their nakedness,
unabashed, seductive, almost as if they are taunting the hero.
Asking what the hero is so afraid of.
When the fatal and hero/heroine become sexually involved ñ
the fatal is often the seducer, the betraying party and the one
who pays for the act. The fatale takes on the sins while the hero
remains pure.
Other Traditional Roles/Functions of the fatal: (which
may or may not be explored in this essay.)
1. Damsel ñ the fatale makes a fascinating damsel,
far more interesting than the sidekick or the best friend or the
mentor/authority figure.
2. Informant/Guide to Underworldñ the fatale provides
the hero with information that no one else can, usually this information
comes with a price and may require the hero to sacrifice something
to the fatale. Also by taking information from the fatale, the
hero unwittingly draws the fatale closer to them.
3. Provider of Uncomfortable Truths ñ the fatale
often uncovers information about the protagonist that the protagonist
does NOT want to know. This is usually information regarding something
private, close to the protagonistís heart. The information
once revealed changes the protagonist in a major way. But it is
important to remember that the fatale is an unreliable informant,
and often the information the fatal provides are projections.
The irony of course is that fatal himself is a projection of the
heroineís own fears and uncertainties.
4. Nemesis ñ the fatale will often start out as
the hero/heroineís mortal enemy. Throughout the heroineís
relationship with the fatale will arise the feeling that they
should kill each other. They will at some point in the relationship
attempt to kill one another, but fail due to accident or fate.
The heroine will on numerous occasions be advised to kill the
fatale or vice versa, but something will prevent her. She may
even do so at some point ñ but the fatale will come back
to life changed or the death of the fatal will forever change
the heroine.
5. Romantic Foil ñ the fatale is the protagonistís
chief romantic interest, the one that she wants most but canít
have. The impossibility of their relationship creates a romantic
conflict that can sustain a series for years. The fatal represents
to the heroine all the things she subconsciously finds most attractive
in a person of the opposite sex, and all the things about her
own and others sexuality she feels the need to repress. Her desire
to repress or control her sexual urges just makes her attraction
to the fatale even more powerful. Once the heroine stops repressing
these urges and the fatale becomes a hero in his own right, the
chemistry between the two becomes almost non-existent. It dies.
Because the source of the chemistry in the narrative structure
comes from the attraction of opposites. (Oh they might still be
attracted to one another, possibly even love one another, but
once the character ceases being a fatale, he/she ceases being
the romantic foil.)
6. Shadow self ñ the fatale often serves as the
projection of all the things the heroine hates about herself.
She basically thrust all of her psychological garbage on to the
fatale. This in a way is an extension of the romantic foil function.
Subversion of the Fatalís Role in The Narrative
In Buffy The Vampire Slayer , (Btvs) and Angel The Series
(Ats), the writers subvert the idea of the fatal ñ they
follow it up to a point then do the opposite from the standard
formula. This is in part because BTvs is a satire of the traditional
horror and noir genres. Satires by their very nature invert and
subvert the rules, simultaneously making fun of and honoring the
genre it is based on. Instead of having the fatal die a villain,
the writers of Btvs and Ats often attempt to redeem him or her.
The fatal may even evolve from fatal to being an anti-hero, as
is seen by the character of Angel jumping from fatal status on
Btvs to anti-hero status on Ats. A pattern that was previously
set by the pop culture series Hercules the Legendary Journeys
and Xena Warrior Princess. In those two cult television dramas,
the femme fatale left Hercules and started her own series as the
hero. Buffy the Vampire Slayer has done this evolution with another
character ñ Faith and may be doing it with Spike as well.
Female/Femme Fatal vs. Male/Homme Fatal
Angel The Series (Ats), in keeping with the classic tradition
in which it is based (film noir), does not always subvert the
fatal. In some ways it has played out both the traditional and
subverted versions, updating the genre that it bases itself upon
in the process. But as I will explore in the sections that follow,
the way it does subvert this classic formula is in the way it
rewards the fatal for keeping her power and punishes her when
she lets it go. Flipping traditional gender themes and roles in
noir films on their head as seen through the development and pathes
of the following female characters: Cordelia, Darla, Lilah, Gwen,
and Fred.
Buffy The Vampire Slayer (Btvs) plays out the same formula
but in regards to the male fatal, which has a somewhat different
path in visual narratives than the femme. In Btvs, after the fatal
becomes sexually involved with the heroine and turns wicked, instead
of killing them, the writers start the process of redeeming the
fatale. While the femme fatal is rarely allowed to live or be
redeemed, the male fatal not only gets to live, he also gets a
second chance with the heroine and the possibility of being redeemed
through her acknowledgment of his good deeds. This appears on
its surface to be a classic subversion of the traditional role
of the fatal ñ but if you look over the maleís role
as fatal in classic literature, specifically romantic and gothic
works, youíll notice the male fatal often has a more positive
fate than the femme fatal of noir fiction. Possibly because the
fatal role was in a sense created with the female in mind and
as a reaction against female empowerment?
Examples of classic male fatals include Mr. Rochester and Heathcliff
of the Bronte Sisters novels. Or the fate of poor Mr. De Winter,
the brooding lead and possible murderer, in Dauphne DeMaurierís
classic Rebecca. All three men survive and are at some
point reunited with their lady loves. The only one that appears
to be somewhat doomed is possibly Heathcliff in Wuthering Heights.
The film director, Alfred Hitchcock, played around a bit with
male fatals as well ñ in Spellbound, we have the
amnesia victim, Gregory Peck, who could be a murderer and leading
poor Ingrid Bergman astray. We learn later that heís just
misunderstood and she helps him get to the root of it, in effect
saving him. Or Cary Grantís character in Suspicion,
which poor Joan Fontain becomes convinced is trying to kill her.
Both characters are redeemed in the end by their lady loves.
This not always the case of course, there are instances in popular
culture and literature, especially science fiction, neo female
noir, and horror, where the male fatal cannot be redeemed and
dooms the female heroine. Some of these arenít true fatals
so much as villains and include such characters as the Cardissian
villain of Star Trekís DS9, GíKat, who seduces
the female heroine Kira as well as the audience, yet remains to
his dying day a sadistic if somewhat seductive villain. Others
include Count Dracula ñ who seduces the lovely Mina Harker
in Bram Stokerís classic. Or David Hanover, a seductive
serial rapist, in Lizzie Bordenís Love Crimes.
I hope to explore these themes in greater depth through the characters
of Spike and Angel in Part II of this essay. Two characters who
are in many ways subversions of the male fatal noir and gothic
character arcs mentioned above.
Through exploring the paths of the male and female fatals in Ats
and Btvs ñ I hope to examine how the fat