August 2002 Archives - Page 5

Prev August 2002 

More August 2002

Dawn of a New Buffy? (National Post Article - possible spoilers?!)
-- RabidHarpy, 06:43:09 08/08/02 Thu

Source: National Post, Toronto
Date: Thursday August 8, 2002
Author: Tara Ariano

Dawn of a New Buffy?

In every generation, there is a chosen one - or, if not a chosen one, the chosen one's "sister" who is actually otherworldly green energy in human form. This is the premise that producers of the cult hit TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer will have to work with if Sarah Michelle Gellar - who plays the show's titular heroine - makes good on the hints she's been dropping about leaving the show. Gellar's contract ends at the end of the show's upcoming seventh season, and in light o the box-office success of Gellar's latest movie, Scooby-Doo - which has grossed more than US$100-million so far - Gellar is seriously considering leaving Buffy.

Marti Noxon, the show's executive producer, has said it would be hard to continue with the show in the absence of its eponymous character, but since 20th Century Fox - which produces the series - may want to attempt it anyway, the show's writers are considering the possibility of making Buffy's sister Dawn the new vampire slayer.

As Buffy fans know, this eventuality would contradict the show's mythology, according to which the Slayer is chosen by a magic from which she also derives her slaying powers. But if trashing what has become a revered sci-fi institution is what it takes to bring the world Scooby-Two, it's all worth it, right? Right? Hello?

[>Huh! Could be interesting. -- HonorH, 12:42:50 08/08/02 Thu

I'm not going to jump on this one, as I really don't think it's going to happen (though ME has surprised me repeatedly in the past), but it could be interesting. They'd need to dig deeper into Dawn's character apart from Buffy in order to make it work. Of course, Buffy's reaction alone could be worth the price of admission, especially if the Watchers dropped in and tried to get *their* grubby mitts on Dawn. No way, British people.

"As Buffy fans know, this eventuality would contradict the show's mythology, according to which the Slayer is chosen by a magic from which she also derives her slaying powers. But if trashing what has become a revered sci-fi institution is what it takes to bring the world Scooby-Two, it's all worth it, right? Right? Hello?"

Really not getting this objection. Why would Dawn getting Chosen "trash" the show's mythology? She's a real human--that's established--and has Buffy's DNA. It's entirely possible Slayerhood *could* run along genetic lines in some cases; we just haven't heard of them. And if you want to get technical, the Choosing of another Slayer after Buffy's first death could be considered "trashing" the mythology as well.

Anyway, I'd be up for watching this one. If it happens. Which I doubt.

[>Don't belive Everything you Read... -- Amber, 00:58:50 08/09/02 Fri

If you still have it could you post the web link for this article. I searched the National Post Site (going back through 14 days worth of headlines) and couldn't find this article, much less any article on Buffy/SMG/or Michelle T.

As someone with three years experience as a reporter I'm a little suspicious about whether or not this is an actual National Post story. The last paragraph just sounds too biased, particularly "But if trashing what has become a revered sci-fi institution is what it takes to bring the world Scooby-Two, it's all worth it, right? Right? Hello?"

I really can't imagine an editor at a major newspaper allowing a line like that to be printed in a news article, which this is supposed to be. It's possible it would be printed in an editorial or a well-known reporter's column, but then the actual information (Dawn becoming a slayer) would be called into question since editorial pieces don't always have all the facts straight.

[> [>Re: Don't belive Everything you Read... -- RabidHarpy, 10:59:22 08/09/02 Fri

Actually, I re-typed that article word-for-word myself from the National Post newspaper we get sent to our office each morning - the date I posted was the date on the paper.

Sorry, I can't tell you much more than that I was holding the actual hard-copy in my hand and what I wrote is exactly what the article said.

Hope that helps...

[> [>Re: Don't belive Everything you Read... -- broderik, 12:09:42 08/10/02 Sat

Wow, I actually have insight into something for once! I feel able to post freely!

Tara Ariano writes a bi-weekly (Monday and Thursday) entertainment column for the Post. You can read the above article here (it's at the bottom of the page, buried under the important important nsync, britney, and american idol news):

Angel returns on...
-- Deeva, 08:17:09 08/08/02 Thu

Sunday, Oct. 6, 2002, 9 p.m.

This is one week after the "Alias" and "Law & Order: CI" season premieres and a good month before the "Malcolm in the Middle" Nov. 3 premiere.

I'm guessing, however, that Oct. 6 will be the night CBS premieres "Back to the Batcave," its TV movie about the old "Batman" TV series.

Willow! I need service!

That is according to Herc at Aint it

[>Wah! -- Masq, 08:55:21 08/08/02 Thu

Right in the middle of my European vacation! I wanted at least one ep before then! Well, time to get the vcr's cranking!

[> [>You, too, Masq? I'm missing BtVS 7.4 and 7.5, and Angel 5.2 & 5.3 -- cjl, 09:11:00 08/08/02 Thu

I'm missing the Vegas episode. NOT HAPPY!

Well, I'll have my minions man the videotape machines. No great crisis...

(cold sweats)

But I'm seeing my godson in Vienna, the vineyards in Slovenia, the steam baths in Budapest and the old city in Prague. That should district me from my Buffy withdrawal. (Mostly.)

[> [> [>Prague -- Maroon Lagoon, 13:21:39 08/08/02 Thu

Hmmmm, Gypsies, Gothic architecture, brooding cathedrals, dark cobblestone alleys, ancient cemetaries, townspeople with creepy accents, fog, a country shrouded in myth and legend.... Why would any of this make you think of VAMPIRES?

Google tells me that a few miles outside Prague in Celákovice there is the only Czech cemetery exclusively for (those who were thought to be) vampires from the 10-11th century. They've even dug up corpses, some with stakes through their hearts, some decapitated.

Forget about any of the cultural or historical significance of Prague, you'll probably just be thinking, "Oh, man! This is where Spike and Dru got attacked by the angry mob before coming to Sunnydale!"


[> [> [> [>I can see myself standing in the cemetary now... -- cjl, 13:50:42 08/08/02 Thu

CJL: Beautiful. And eerie...

CELAKOVICE NATIVE: You don't know the half of it. Local legend has it there were REAL vampires here, maybe six or seven years ago.

CJL: Oh come on. You're kidding.

CN: Why would I kid? I'm not saying I believe in this nonsense, but they WERE kind of strange...a dark-haired girl with a bad cockney accent, and the man sort of looked like...the rock star with the blonde hair...I can't remember the name right now...

CJL (growing queasy): Uh...Billy Idol?

CN: Yes! Exactly! Vampires (laughs)...amazing what people believe, even in this day and age.

CJL (looks around nervously): Getting kind of dark. When's the next bus back to Prague?

CN: Maybe another 45 minutes. Why?

CJL: No reason. Listen, could we take a look at the town church again? Maybe examine the altar a little more closely?

CN: You're really into the church architecture. I thought you were Jewish?

CJL: Yeah, kind of feel safe on holy ground, no matter what the religion, right?

CN: I suppose.

[The two men start to walk toward the cemetary gate, when CJL notices something placed on the side of one of the gravestones. It's a doll. With its head torn off. CJL picks up the pace, and they're gone just before sunset.

Twenty minutes later. A figure walks over to the gravestone and picks up the doll.]

DRUSILLA: Bad cockney accent, indeed. (Smooths out doll's dress) Mummy will have to teach the bad man a lesson, won't she, sweetie?

[> [> [> [> [>Origin of tombstones? -- Maroon Lagoon, 17:15:08 08/08/02 Thu

While googling for Czech folklore about vampires, I found one mention* that the reason tombstones are placed above the body's head is to prevent the body from sitting up and escaping the grave if it happens to be reanimated by a returning spirit.
Has anyone heard of this? I couldn't find anything else about the origins or history of tombstones.

Surely there are some folklore experts lurking about. I'm afraid search engines are the extent of my scholarliness.

*Vampire: The Complete Guide to the World of the Undead
by Manuela D Mascetti

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Origin of tombstones? (Minor spoiler) -- Darby, 06:01:35 08/09/02 Fri

I had heard that from a source I would NOT consider impeccable - I think it was an A&E special on the undead - but consider that they were called headstones rather than tombstones. It kinda sounds like one of those ideas, reasonable but totally false, someone has that spreads and becomes "common knowledge."

Anyone up for some research? I hear they've rebuilt the library...

And way off-topic, anyone who is entertaining by those "reasonable but totally false" stories should try

for similar treatment of word origins.


[> [> [> [> [>ROFLMAO! Brilliant, cjl! -- Rob, 17:30:31 08/08/02 Thu

...Although I gotta agree with Dru (doncha kinda have to? lol)...I like her cockney accent. ;o)


[> [> [> [> [>Re: I can see myself standing in the cemetary now...cute, cjl. -- aliera, 04:11:30 08/09/02 Fri

And the trip sound great, enjoy.

[> [> [> [> [> [>If I have some free time, I might actually go to Celakovice and check it out... -- cjl, 06:51:31 08/09/02 Fri

I promise to bring photographs for the board.

(And if you don't see me in any of the photographs, go to my apartment, stakes at the ready--because the CJL who comes back from Europe [dramatic pause] won't be me...)

[> [> [>Something spoilery in above, but in a vague way so I can't tell what it's a spoiler for -- Masq, 13:45:13 08/08/02 Thu

[> [>Masq, say 3 times, 'My minion, the Angel fanatic, has a vcr!' and you'll feel all better! :) -- zargon, 09:06:43 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [>Are you my minion? I have minions! -- Masq, 14:39:40 08/09/02 Fri

Now I see Buffy doubling over with laughter while Riley cracks a contagious grin.

"Masq has minions!" hee hee hee hee heee hee hee

[> [> [> [>Masq has minions? I thought Masq was my minion! -- Dead Soul, 15:13:04 08/09/02 Fri

With the numbers of FF rewrites I've inflicted on her - minions have it easy!

I owe you big time, Masq!

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [>Re: Are you my minion? I have minions! -- zargon, 10:10:47 08/10/02 Sat

Of course you do, Masq! Well, one anyway....and us minions do important stuff too (besides the watching of the AtS eps for you becuase you don't have the time...) like provide you the laugh of the day! :)

Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers
-- Purple Tulip, 08:36:16 08/08/02 Thu

Ok, this is what I have been wondering since reading these 'will Buffy continue without Buffy' posts: how could they plausibly do this? I mean, if you really think about it, how could they feasably get rid of Buffy and still have Dawn? What would the circumstances have to be for Buffy to leave her sister? She would never leave Dawn all alone- even if she did have Spike and Xander and whoever else there watching over her. The way I see it, the only way they could actually do this would be to kill Buffy - for good this time. Maybe she could die all heroic again---what with the saving the world and her green energied, keyed-up sister. Death would be the only way that she would leave Dawn for good. Then I could see them trying to continue the show without her and with Dawn as the title role. But then they would have to change the title wouldn't they? And there have already been many tired posts about the possible new title, so I won't even go into that now. And if they kill her off, then how could she come back and make those cameo appearances that they would obviously want?

I think that if SMG does decide to leave the show after this season, and ME decides to keep going without her, they are really going to have their work cut out for them---not offending, alienating and pissing off their viewers, keeping up ratings, and still mystifying nay-saying critics. Would you all continue to watch if we were suddenly presented with "Dawn the Vampire Slayer: the new Buffyless Buffy"?

[>"Sunnydale" - A Nice Place to Visit...But It's Hell to Live There -- cjl, 09:05:04 08/08/02 Thu

[Above is an ad for the spinoff, circa Aug. 2003. No charge to Fox.]

In traditional fantasy and science fiction, heroes often disappear into the mists, leaving loved ones behind, then miraculously reappear to provide wisdom and/or additional firepower, then vanish all over again. One example that comes to mind is Zelazny's Chronicles of Amber, wherein the hero of the first five books, Corwin of Amber, disappears after saving the Golden City and the Courts of Chaos, and only makes cameo appearances in the next five books, giving occasional advice to his son, Merlin. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Joss follows Zelazny's method of passing the torch.)

If Fox wants to continue the franchise without SMG, I don't see why we shouldn't give Joss a chance to take his best shot. But please...if Sarah's not there, don't call it BUFFY.

[>Re: Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Robert, 15:05:18 08/08/02 Thu

>> "Would you all continue to watch if we were suddenly presented with "Dawn the Vampire Slayer: the new Buffyless Buffy"?

Hell yes!

I don't watch BtVS just for Buffy, though she is my most favored character. I watch BtVS and AtS because of the story telling. My expectation is that the quality story telling will continue even if the show loses its star actress. As long as the quality of the stories continues to be high, I will continue to watch. If Ms Trachtenberg is given a bigger (or even dominant) role in the show, I could grow just as fond of Dawn. Regardless, it will be difficult to see Ms Geller leave, because her acting skills are such a good fit for the show.

Having written all this, my hope is that Ms Geller makes a clean break from the show, when she leaves. I feel that a portion of the blame for the shameful decline of "The X-Files" rests with the way Mr. Duchovny left the show. Even to the end, the viewing public never really knew whether he was in or out. I think this uncertainty was at least a partial cause for decline in the story telling. It certainly put some strange constraints upon the stories Chris Carter could tell.

[> [>Re: Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Marginal Drifter, 15:25:00 08/08/02 Thu

Yeah, I'll continue watching Buffy for ever and ever and then when it's cancelled I'll watch repeats and vids over and over and quote lines to my grandkids, for better or for worse til death (or being cancelled, whichever comes first) does us part. Well, at least that's how I feel this week.

I won't lie, keeping the series going on for years and years looks dodgy ( I prefer programs that quit while they're ahead, and it would break my heart to see Buffy go the way of the Simpsons), keeping it going without SMG looks dodgy, and seeing Dawn as the Slayer definitely looks dodgy. But then, basing a show on a cheerleader-esque blonde slaying vampires in her spare time looks dodgy. These are talented and imaginative people working on this show, and I feel that if anyone can take keeping a show going after it's central character has left and make it work, it's them.

[>Hey, I've got an idea! -- HonorH, 15:14:31 08/08/02 Thu

Do a "Brats" series! Dawn and Connor share the spotlight, with Spike as resident vampire & British person, then toss in an original character or so and let 'er rip! Or better yet, from my perspective, throw in the Spirit of Tara as their guide. Works for me!

Seriously, I could get into a Dawn series, as I've always liked the girl. They'd have to delve deeper into Dawn's character as separate from Buffy, of course, but MT has the acting chops to make it work.

[>Re: Fourth One's a charm (possibly in Buffy's future) possible spoilers -- Amber, 00:37:33 08/09/02 Fri

I don't think we should be too quick to assume that Buffy would be leaving Dawn. If Dawn is still a "key" that opens mystical doors, then perhaps Dawn would have to leave Sunnydale to fulfill her mission (whatever it is). Buffy has spent the last six years learning about the importance of fulfilling ones duty, etc.

If it was necessary she'd probably let Dawn go (for the sake of good, and being a champion and all the other good vs. evil themes Joss likes to use.)

Perhaps Buffy would be left in Sunnydale to continue the battle on the hellmouth with a few of her Scoobies, meanwhile we the viewers would follow Dawn on her journey in a new show that may, or may not, include members of the current Scooby Gang.

That's my theory, but I'd certainly cast a vote in favour of a Conner and Dawn centered spin-off.

[>What's Dawn done to deserve *that*? -- KdS, 04:56:49 08/09/02 Fri

OK, I wouldn't mind Dawn doing something mystical in the future as The Key, but I really hate the idea of Dawn becoming the Slayer. It seems to undercut the whole last six years and turn the Slayer position into some sort of Golden Ticket to the chocolate factory. If you look at it, BtVS and AtS have always portrayed superhuman powers as a burden rather than a gift (except recently with Cordy, and I'm still hoping for some really nasty downside to turn up in S4).

No sane individual (OK, maybe that might not include Dawn) would take the position on voluntarily, and I can't imagine Buffy allowing, let alone causing, it to happen to her sister. Even with a Scooby Gang, a Slayer's life is pretty much the definition of "nasty, brutish and short" and I've always hoped that the ending would see Dawn as being the one to get all the way out - of Sunnydale, of the Hellmouth, of fighting for your life every other week.

GLORIOUS News re: casting, season 7 (one spoiler for casting; one minor spoiler re: Anya)
-- Rob, 09:30:53 08/08/02 Thu

"Buffy the Vampire Slayer creator Joss Whedon told a crowd at Comic-Con International in San Diego that Eliza Dushku had finally found time in her schedule to reprise the role of Faith next year, the Ain't It Cool News Web site reported."

YES!!! YES!!! YES!!! I'm doing the Snoopy Dance and the Dance of Numfar as we speak!

"Whedon also reportedly said that Anya (Emma Caulfield) will sing again in a flashback to last season's musical episode 'Once More With Feeling.'"

Also sounds very cool. Yup, I'm stoked for Season 7!


P.S. I got the info here. Warning! There are a few more spoilers there that are a tiny bit more specific, so you may not want to go there. They are Joss spoilers, though, so, in my book, that's okay. My new resolve is to only read "Buffy" spoilers that Joss reveals. But that's just me...

[>Re: GLORIOUS News re: casting, season 7 (one spoiler for casting; one minor spoiler re: Anya) -- Dariel, 10:53:08 08/08/02 Thu

Thanks for the good news!

It's funny--back when I wasn't that into the show, I didn't like Dushku/Faith at all. She's really grown on me since. I can't wait to see what she and Willow have to say to each other.

My new resolve is to only read "Buffy" spoilers that Joss reveals. But that's just me...

That sounds good to me. Helps me rationalize reading your post when I've "sworn off" spoilers.

[> [>My staunch stance on Joss spoilers -- Rob, 11:21:14 08/08/02 Thu

I've "sworn them off" too, but I decided that Joss himself doesn't like spoilers, so anything he reveals I know will (a) not be the whole truth; (b) have a twist to it; or (c) possibly be an outright lie.

Spoilers from other sources are sometimes word for word accurate, while Joss' never are. That's why I like them. They give me the illusion of having some spoilers, to crave my Buffy-addiction, but don't make me feel sorry when the episode airs that I knew too much in advance.


[> [> [>I agree about Joss spoilers -- darvangi, 12:54:42 08/08/02 Thu

I do the same thing as you with spoilers, Rob. I'll read only what I consider 'legal' spoiler type info: whatever Joss or Marti say in interviews, and whatever's printed in TV Guide blurbs, because that information is coming out on an official basis. The spoilers that come from sneaky sources like stolen scripts and wild feeds - basically everything Joss doesn't approve of - are the ones I avoid.

[> [> [> [>Re: I agree about Joss spoilers -- Rob, 16:41:11 08/08/02 Thu

Yup, I forgot about Marti spoilers. I'll, of course, read them, too. If it's official, I'll read it, because I know they won't give away information I don't want to know. I like to have my appetite get a little hint of what's to come...I do not want a detailed account of every little thing that's going to happen on the show a la Aint it Cool News.


[> [>Re: ooh ooh - (insert lightbulb over head) -- Purple Tulip, 11:54:50 08/08/02 Thu

What if.....Faith is back as a possible new love interest for Willow??? What you just mentioned above about what they will have to say to each other made me think. And Joss has made mention that Willow might have a new girlfriend this season. I mean, they both have that guilt trip over killing a human, they are both powerful, but in different ways. Of course, there has never been any mention of Faith being gay or bi at the very least, but there never was with Willow either (ok, except for in Doppelgangland). And they would have that former enemy thing going on that Buffy and Spike had this season. Ok, I think this is probably way far off base, but it was just a fleeting idea. Don't really know how I'd feel about this if it were to really happen. Just another possibility in the land of Joss.

[> [> [>Personal opinion (spoilers & spec) -- HonorH, 12:31:17 08/08/02 Thu

Faith has always been *deeply* bi. Her attraction to Buffy was all but maintext. As to her and Willow getting together, it sounds like a Xenite wet dream (at least on the Xena board I still frequent), but dunno about the whole "girlfriend" thing. I could see them having a one-nighter, but I don't think Faith's exactly into commitment. Now:













The rumor is that Faith's two appearances on Angel (also confirmed) and Buffy will end with her death and possibly the calling of a new Slayer. So that would tend to cut commitment short. Besides, I wouldn't want Willow to lose *another* girlfriend.

[> [> [> [>Re: Personal opinion (spoilers & spec) -- acesgirl, 13:19:23 08/08/02 Thu

"Faith has always been *deeply* bi. Her attraction to Buffy was all but maintext."

I totally agree HonorH. Not to mention the chemistry between Faith & Lilah during the "pick-up" scene in Five by Five. There's even a note in the shooting script to the director and actors to mind the lesbian subtext and instructing them to keep it very "sub". So maybe they were trying to turn the Faith is "bi" vibe around? If they were, I don't think it worked very well.

[> [> [> [>Wow! Good spoiler! -- Dichotomy (a total spoiler trollop), 15:00:51 08/08/02 Thu

[> [> [> [>Wow! Good spoiler! -- Dichotomy (a total spoiler trollop), 15:04:42 08/08/02 Thu

[> [> [> [>Re: Personal opinion (spoilers & spec) -- Majin Gojira, 15:08:06 08/08/02 Thu

Man, I hope they won't kill Faith, or if they do, they at least make it worth it. Sure, They've been known to kill off interesting characters. But Faith's story need some good closure, even if she dies. I hope for self-sacrifice if anything. She at least diserves that.

[> [> [> [> [>Well, -- HonorH, 15:09:55 08/08/02 Thu

as to that--look at how they did in Darla. That's all I need to have Trust In Joss.

Low Moments
-- AngelVSAngelus, 12:51:45 08/08/02 Thu

Selective fandom has been discussed here before, the concept (odd to me, btw) of viewers watching for a single character or only liking portions of the cast.
Me personally, I've always liked the entirety of the cast. I may not like the directions that they take some of them, but the character itself remains in my good graces for the most part.
However, I've given the concept thought and realized that I've experienced it to a much more limited extent. I was curious to know when, or maybe just if, there has ever been a time, however short, when you just really disliked a character? I think I can list for myself one moment to almost every character, but they lasted an episode.

Buffy - Contrary to alot of people, apparently, there's only been one time when I felt disgusted with the Buffster's behavior, and felt her on immoral ground without sympathetic reason: During the first season of Angel, when she arrived in Los Angeles to find Angel trying to rehabilitate and redeem Faith. She barges into his town, into his life, and has no respect for what he does now: save souls. Then, of course, in Buffy's typically violent fashion, she punches him. I found myself rooting for Angel when he returned the favor. Things became worse when she told him about Riley specifically with the intention of hurting his feelings and gloating. Again, the only time I've ever had animosity for the girl, and it lasted but an episode until the next week.

Willow - Again with the rarities, but its happened. In something Blue I couldn't believe how self centered she was being. Got over it in an episode. In Two To Go, it was one thing to go after two indirectly involved in your love's death, its something else entirely to insult and/or beat up all of your friends. Seemed like there was much more going on there than grief.

Xander - Once more contrary to alot of people, I can't name a single moment when I've been disconcerted by Xander's behavior. He's made mistakes, and I've disagreed with his actions before, but I can't name a time when said mistakes weren't made on sympathetic, if wrong, grounds.

Giles - Same as Xander. I was tempted to say his treatment of Angel in Amends when he asked for help, but seeing the face, if not the same person, of your late girlfriend's killer kind of treads on sympathetic and understanding ground.

Anya - An anomaly. I've never in any moment felt her unsympathetic in any instance, despite the fact that I feel she's just as cold and wrong for not acknowledging her past transgressions as Spike is. Weird.

Spike - I can't really count any of his actions as a villain in seasons 2/3/4. He was made to be a sympathetic villain, the kind you love to watch do his evil thing. It was the snarkiness. In season 6, however, there's the AR scene. That's it.

Dawn - Only when she was somehow almost coerced by the young vamps in this year's halloween ep All The Way.

Angel - Nary a moment. I know some people were apalled and upset with him for the Reunion-Redefinition, Noir Angel period. I found it a mistaken path, but an interesting one, and felt with the combination of Wolfram and Hart driving him mad, Darla and Dru inducing more guilt than he already had, and protecting the rest of the gang from his rising darkness, he was on sympathetic ground.

Wesley - none.

Cordy - much as I'm disgusted with the St. Cordy story arc, I've never been with her character post Sunndydale. When she was there, of course, is a different story.

Gunn - I wanted to be angry with him in The Shroud of Rahmon when he punched Angel, but he was under the influence, so I can't really count that.

Kate - Where is she?! Her treatment of Angel as the person responsible for her father's death made me dislike her behavior for a long time. But she came around.

Groo- come on! When would the Groosalugg make a moral mistake? That guy's way too naive for that.

I know this post was really long. I was just curious as to if any one else had these short moments of disdain, as opposed to the "Buffy is a bitch" fan mentality.

[> Re: Low Moments -- HonorH, 13:37:24 08/08/02 Thu

Oh, I've had more than a few moments when I've deeply disliked a particular character. In fact, the whole lot of them are deeply dislikable. I mean:

Buffy--control freak, hits before she thinks, tendency toward self-righteousness

Willow--uses specialized skills to prove her value and, in some cases, to try to put others beneath her (this counts for both computers and witchcraft); lives in her emotions

Xander--is a young Guy. What's to love?

Dawn--is a teenager. Again, what's to love?

Anya--self-centered and money-obsessed

Giles--lives in his head where others are concerned, and his emotions where he himself is concerned; stubborn as all get-out

Spike--until very recently, was a soulless vampire. What's to love?

The reason I love this show, perversely, is that all the characters *have* their totally-unlikable sides, like Real People do. Their flaws aren't token flaws; they're the hallmarks of who they are. Now, I'm gonna turn this around:

Buffy--needs those characteristics I've listed because the whole world's fate rests on her shoulders. She needs to act quickly and believe in herself and what she's doing.

Willow--her emotions and spirit led her to volunteer herself and all she was for Buffy's cause, and she's stuck with it in spite of all manner of badness out of love for her friends.

Xander--is rapidly growing out of his Guy stage and is turning into a fine man.

Dawn--is also growing rapidly into a lovely, strong young woman.

Anya--learned enough in two short years to place her newly-limited life on the line for her lover and friends, and even now, as a demon, has retained enough humanity to continue doing so.

Giles--loves his "kids" more than life itself. Who cares that he can't express it verbally?

Spike--elected to go the hard route instead of the easy one, taking a soul instead of trying to regress to being a pure monster. That puts him ahead of a lot of humans.

Let's hear it for three-dimensional characters!

[> [> Re: Low Moments -- Tillow, 13:56:41 08/08/02 Thu

Haven't been around lately but just had to respond to one of the original points here. That ep, where Buffy goes to "Angel's city" and freaks out over Faith is one of my favorite all time Buffy moments ever from a writer's perspective. They've said that Buffy represents the female side and Angel represents the male. Duh. Yet, somehow their relationship looks kinda similar on both shows until that ep. They are the star crossed lovers who can't be together because of circum... blah blah blah...

Well, that is the first time we get to see Buffy through Angel's perspective and my, my... don't she look a wee bit tainted. It's awesome. Second best use of crossover ever! I hope we get some more in the future.

[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Shambleau, 15:06:42 08/08/02 Thu

Unlurking to say how much I agree with HonorH. Three dimensionality forevah! That said, I can't say I've ever disliked the characters. I've disliked what they've done sometimes, or I've been irritated by some part of their personalities, but that's different. Even if I did dislike them, they simply have to be interesting, complex and well-written. Character likability isn't a requirement for me if you've got the other things.

On Buffy's actions in Sanctuary, I've read posts that make a case for her actions and I agree with them. Everybody, including Angel, is in the wrong and in the right in that scene, and that's why I love it unreservedly.

[> [> Off topic, but short -- Apophis, 15:27:07 08/08/02 Thu

Just taking a short break in my summer-long torpor to say how pleased I am that one of my favorite fan-fiction authors (HonorH) is posting here.

[> [> [> Re: Off topic, but short -- SableHart, 15:34:16 08/08/02 Thu

Ditto to that, Apophis

[> [> [> [> *Chirping* Thanks, guys! -- HonorH, 16:01:40 08/08/02 Thu

So glad to hear that! Feedback gives me the warm tinglies. Now, if I could just tear myself away from this board long enough to finish my latest story . . .

Hey, and if you ever want to discuss writing or need a beta or anything, please do feel free to take advantage of my email. Everyone else does!

My FanFiction.Net Page

[> [> [> Re: Off topic, but short -- Sarand, 19:50:19 08/08/02 Thu

I agree. Loved the ones where the characters comment on fanfiction. Funny. Can't wait to read others.

[> Re: Low Moments -- Rendyl, 15:19:03 08/08/02 Thu

***Buffy - Contrary to alot of people, apparently, there's only been one time when I felt disgusted with the Buffster's behavior, and felt her on immoral ground without sympathetic reason: During the first season of Angel, when she arrived in Los Angeles to find Angel trying to rehabilitate and redeem Faith.***

Grin. What amazes me is how differently each person sees each scene. In the one above she goes to see Angel after Faith has stolen her body, stolen her life, slept with her boyfriend, and nearly gotten her killed. She is struggling to understand how Riley could have possibly mistaken Faith for her (after all, Tara and Willow figured it out pretty quickly) and then 'huge shock' Angel (Mr Perfect Love-who is supposed to understand her in ways beyond words) is actually helping Faith. To be completely honest Buffy's reaction was calm compared to what mine would be in that situation.

Ren - who is glad it was Buffy, not her, on the roof with Faith (cause I like Faith too-grin)

[> [> Re: Low Moments -- Shambleau, 15:30:13 08/08/02 Thu

And Angel tops it off by dismissing her concerns when she said she came because she heard he was in danger, by saying he's always in danger. Maybe, but not Faith-type danger. Faith came close to killing him twice and only failed because Buffy intervened. It was his brusque dismissal of her reasons and feelings that led to her cruelty with the Riley disclosure. It was ugly all around.

As for Faith and Buffy, if the Council goons hadn't intervened on the rooftop, it looked like Faith was getting through to her. I think there would have been some sort of recognition on Buffy's part that Faith was actually trying to change. And Buffy did push Faith to safety when the shooting started.

[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Robert, 21:45:18 08/11/02 Sun

Shambleau, I appreciate your illustration of the ambiguity of this situation.

[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Miss Edith, 09:55:18 08/14/02 Wed

Buffy wanted Faith beaten to death. She never had much sympathy towards Faith as right at the end of the episode even after Faith has turned herself in Buffy says "See Faith wins again". And she claimed to be unlike Faith and Angel because she had never murdered anyone but surely she could have used her killing Ted to emphasise? After all when she kicked him up and down her house she believed he was human and did suffer remorse for killing a human. The writers gave her a cop-out but that scene still makes me think Buffy isn't as different from Faith as she would like to think.
And Buffy was pretty cruel to Angel when telling him how much she loved and trusted her new boyfriend in a way that she couldn't with Angel. What annoyed me about Buffy was when she tried to smack Angel and he blocked her punch and hit back in self-defense. Her eyes started watering, she became a total girly girl and sniffed "you hit me". Buffy has never bugged me more than in that instance. Just the wya the actress played it made me grit my teeth. I love Buffy on her own show though.

[> Re: Low Moments -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:36:31 08/08/02 Thu

I think this is a long needed thread, and I thank you for starting it.

Buffy - never really had a dislike moment. There have been times when I thought her a little stoic, but that's about it.

Xander - In "Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered" he tried to make Cordelia love him, an act of removing someone's free will. However, I can forgive him since he got karmic retribution up the whazoo. Then there's his lying to Buffy in "Becoming II", but I can see how he came to that decision. While he is not blameless, I have always been able to see his side of the story.

Willow - "Bargaining" - "Wrecked", where she was basically a big jerk to a lot of people. Before that, I never had any real cause to dislike her, and I suppose, with time, she'll make up for that period (if you're wondering at the absence of Dark Willow, I've always thought that she was totally off her rocker at the time).

Giles - Giving Buffy the weakening injections in "Helpless" and leaving in "Tabula Rasa". The first was conforming to a tradition he knew to be senseless and very likely deadly to Buffy. In the second, his reasoning didn't warrant his actions. Him leaving certainly didn't help Buffy grow up. In fact, it furthered her on her downward spiral.

Tara - Never really disliked her, but I never got a lot of depth from her. She always seemed to be Willow's girlfriend, and little else besides.

Dawn - "Gone" and "Normal Again" when she went to annoying outbursts FAR to quickly. Outside of those two instances, I've never found her to be too whiny, as some people claim. Given what she's been through (her mother died, she nearly caused the end of the world, her sister died because of her, she's been heavily ignored and patronized by most of the Scooby Gang) I'd say she whines just enough.

Spike - What can I say? When a character is unrepentently evil, it's hard to be judgemental about him. While I have disagreed with some of his choices (getting a soul, demeaning himself in order to get Buffy) I can't say I ever felt disgusted with his behavior because I expect and desire only the worst from him.

That's my two cents.

[> [> Re: Low Moments -- MN, 07:01:58 08/09/02 Fri

I think this is a great thread as it reminds me of an argument my roommate and I had while watching Wrecked. He was disgusted with how angry Buffy was with Willow toward the end of the episode, claiming "she [Buffy] can really be an unfeeling bitch sometimes." I was really amazed with his reaction, as I have a younger sister myself, and if someone (even a friend) had been responsible for her getting hurt, I would have reacted the exact same way as Buffy, possibly worse. Still, there are always times whne you get fed up with a character...

Buffy: There have only been two moments in the history of the series that I've felt angered with Buffy (and even then I wouldn't go as far as to say disgusted). In Wild at Heart when she confronts Oz, she seems very cold and angered with him, while neither she nor Willow was even willing to listen to his side of the story. Her "trademark stoicism" line really ticked me off. The other instance was the previously discussed Buffy-Faith confrontation in Sanctuary, where I too side with Angel. There were moments in Season 6 where it wouldn't have killed her to treat Spike a little kinder, but their relationship was full of low points for both characters.

Xander: Xander's a different story. I haven't really liked him since the middle of Season 2 when he started treating Buffy so shamefully. There are really too many instances for me to count regarding disgust toward Xander, but if I had to narrow it down, I'd say his little speeches in Becoming Part I, Dead Man's Party, and Revelations all rank high on the list. Oh, and have to include his yelling at Anya in Entropy; IMO, she was right, she didn't owe him anything.

Willow: I've always really loved Willow, but starting in Season 3, she seemingly became quite self-centered (her bitterness toward Faith always got on my nerves, much like Xander's treatment of Angel), and some of her cutesy stuff came off as annoying instead of lovable. Don't get me wrong, I still really like Willow, particularly because AH does such a magnificent job playing her, but if I had to pick a low moment for her, I'd go with either her self-centered complaining in Dead Man's Party, or her treatment of her friends in Something Blue.

Dawn: I liked Dawn in Season 5 as I thought she was a very interesting addition to the cast. It was in Season 6 that she really started to irritate me, particularly because her logic was so incredibly screwed up: buffy slaves away at a horrible job to provide for her, but she thinks of it as being ignored. Low moments for Dawn in my book are her brattiness in Older and Far Away (terrible episode in my opinion BTW), and her bitterness toward Buffy in Normal Again.

Spike: As others have mentioned, it's kind of weird to try and judge Spike because of the whole soul issue. It's also weird because he's so damn charismatic! Anyway, I didn't like his "let yourself live" monologue in Normal Again. Obviously, the things Buffy said to him in the episode would be enough to infuriate anyone, but I still think he could have been more understanding of her mentally unstable situation, given that she hadn't even tried to take the antidote yet. In a way, his comments almost got all of the Scooby gang killed.

Anya: I've always liked Anya too, despite the fact that she's also been a bit too self-centered for my taste at times, eg. at the beginning of season 6 when she kept complaining about announcing the engagement. Anyway, she more than made up for it in the season finale (was it just me or was she, like, MVP for the good guys in Two to Go?)

Giles: None. No, seriously. I can't think of a single instance where I hated Giles. He's the man.

Anyway, that's about it for me I guess. I never had a problem with Tara either largely because I don't think she was ever given enough character development to have a problem with. Keep posting everybody, nothing like thinking about characters all time lows to get you excited about the new highs they're going to reach in the coming season.

[> [> [> Re: Low Moments -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:42:49 08/09/02 Fri

I forgot about Dead Man's Party. I guess it slipped my mind because everyone was meaner and less caring than they usually are. In fact, they struck me as acting far out of character, and they balanced each other out, so I have a hard time using it as evidence against them.

[> [> Re: Cruciamentum (spoilers for Helpless and Checkpoint) -- Robert, 12:58:20 08/09/02 Fri

>> "Giles - Giving Buffy the weakening injections in "Helpless" and leaving in "Tabula Rasa". The first was conforming to a tradition he knew to be senseless and very likely deadly to Buffy."

"Helpless" was a very interesting episode. The Cruciamentum was not senseless. It had a very sensible purpose (cruel though it was). The purpose was to ensure that the slayer always knew who the boss was. For all of her powers, the Cruciamentum was proof that the Council of Watchers could terminate the slayer whenever it suited them.

This was the first episode where we gained some insight into the Council of Watchers, and how they operate. Do not mistake the relationship between slayer and the Council as paternalistic. As far as the Council is concerned, the slayer is an easily replaceable part. The Council administered the Cruciamentum to assure that the slayer and her watcher would always kowtow to the Council. If the slayer died as a result, that was a small price to pay, as the Council knew that there was always a replacement right behind her.

What I find surprising is that the Council hasn't attempted to assassinate Buffy in the 3-1/2 years since the Cruciamentum. In the only sense that mattered to the Council, Buffy and Giles failed the Cruciamentum. They didn't kowtow to the Council, for which the Council fired Giles. Especially after "Checkpoint", I really expected the Council to take some action against Buffy. In a way, she is more of a rogue than Faith. Since Faith doesn't have the support structure of friends and family, she would be more susceptible to Council discipline.

[> [> [> Why the Council Hasn't Tried to "Take Her Out" (spoilers for S7) -- cjl, 13:16:03 08/09/02 Fri

1) She's doing a heck of a job.

Presumably, the Council is interested in fighting evil, and last year, Buffy took out a Hellgod. Would a new, untrained slayer do nearly as well against the threats the Scoobs have faced down? Would you put a 15 year-old Kendra-type up against Glory? (And would you pay to clean up the mess when Hellbitch eviscerates the poor thing?)

I grant you, it must irk the Council no end to have Buffy give them the good old American middle finger, but she's not doing anything they wouldn't want her to do anyway. She's pounding the Big Evil, staking vamps, skewering demons--what else could they ask for? Watcher Diaries? Heck, Giles can have Willow e-mail him updates. Might teach those old fogies to modernize.

2) I'M puzzled as to why they haven't sprung/iced Faith.

A perfectly good slayer in jail for the past three years. What a waste. Why hasn't the Council and QT used their considerable influence to spring our girl? (With all the spoilers we've been getting, though, maybe it just took a little longer than we thought.) And if they couldn't turn her loose, why didn't the Council kill her and get a new Slayer up and running?

3) They're not done yet.

Giles thinks they haven't got a clue. I think they're planning a surprise for the most powerful Summers woman for S7. (And I'm not talking about Buffy.)

[> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to "Take Her Out" (spoilers for S7) -- Tymen, 13:30:01 08/09/02 Fri

2) I'M puzzled as to why they haven't sprung/iced Faith.

A perfectly good slayer in jail for the past three years. What a waste. Why hasn't the Council and QT used their considerable influence to spring our girl? (With all the spoilers we've been getting, though, maybe it just took a little longer than we thought.) And if they couldn't turn her loose, why didn't the Council kill her and get a new Slayer up and running?

I've been toying with the idea of writing an Angel script based on just such an instance. Set between season two and three. Dealing with the Council's discovery that Buffy is dead.

[> [> [> [> Interesting! (S7 Spec, AtS S4 spoiler) -- HonorH, 13:37:10 08/09/02 Fri

So you think they're going to get into the Key business, eh? Could be interesting. I'd sure like to see them try it, actually; that'd get Buffy going like nothing else.

Now, as ED is contracted to appear in Angel's fourth season, we're apparently going to get her out of jail. Who knows how that's going to happen? Also, some have speculated that Faith will die and Dawn will become the next Slayer. Again, I'd like to see the Council try and get their grubby hands on her. With Buffy as a sister, Dawn wouldn't *need* a Watcher.

[> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- Robert, 14:11:00 08/10/02 Sat

>>> "1) She's doing a heck of a job. "

cjl, you've nailed the reason why the Council of Watchers should be supporting and protecting Buffy. I just don't believe that the Council holds to such altruistic motivations any longer.

>>> "Giles thinks they haven't got a clue. "

This is why I don't believe that the Council is the noble organization that it used to be. The Fray comic books explain the beginnings of the watchers and the ultimate disintegration of the Council. In the intervening centuries before Malaka Fray, the watchers lost their purpose and degenerated into insanity. I happen to believe that the process began before Buffy.

Just look at the absurdity of their actions in "Checkpoint". They were unable of collaborating with Buffy with any authenticity whatsoever. Buffy was an adult at this point (20 years old I believe) and she deserved better than they treated her. I'm a little sensitive to this because I've had bosses who thought it clever to trick subordinates into doing what they wanted, rather than making an authentic request. The end result is that the subordinate feels used and slightly dirty.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- Wizardman, 17:17:09 08/10/02 Sat

Okay, I'm a Buffy/Angel fan, but I've only heard of this "Fray" via this board. Granted, I don't go to the comic stores as much as I used to, but I'm sure that I'm not the only person in this predicament. Is what happens in Fray considered BtVS/Angel canon, or is it a possible future? From what I have heard of it, it seems to contradict what we have going on now, barring some highly devious Jossian stylings.

In any case, your right about the CoW. They are due for a major reality check- maybe we'll even see it this season. It would be a great Giles plotline.

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Role of Fray -- Robert, 19:26:15 08/10/02 Sat

>> "Is what happens in Fray considered BtVS/Angel canon, or is it a possible future?"

Wizardman, I happen to consider the Fray comic books to be a legitimate part of the BtVS continuity (what most people call the "canon"). Fray and the "Tales of the Slayers" are the comic books written by Mr. Whedon. Some of the other comic books and novels were written by or contributed to by some of the other BtVS writers. However, it is not clear to me that Mr. Whedon blessed them as part of the BtVS universe and story ark. By the same token, though the BtVS movie on HBO was originally written by Mr. Whedon, the finished product was very much changed.

My point here is that Joss Whedon is the keeper of the keys to the story ark and the BtVS universe. If he blessed a novel or comic book as part of the story ark (such as the "Tales of the Slayer" stories), then I would consider them to be "canon".

One other point I would like to raise ... again. I'm not convinced that we can describe BtVS and AtS as having one canon. I do not believe that Mr. Whedon is limiting himself to maintaining absolute continuity between the two TV shows.

>> "From what I have heard of it, it seems to contradict what we have going on now, barring some highly devious Jossian stylings."

What specifically have you heard? So far, we've only seen 6 of the 8 issues of Fray to be published, but I don't recall anything that would contradict BtVS.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Role of Fray -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:03:55 08/10/02 Sat

Then again, these comic books may be Joss seizing the opportunity to not worry too much about continuity while writing stories in his universe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Role of Fray -- Wizardman, 17:18:15 08/11/02 Sun

The thing that I heard about Fray is that it occurs after some event that has 'cleansed' the earth of all demonic presences, from big bad demons to vampires to floppy-eared type demons. I'm not sure if that's what actually happened in the series, but that was the impression that I got. If it's true, then it means along with no evil demons we have no Angel, Spike, Cordelia, Anya, Lorne, Clem, etc. So by 'contradict', I mean that it ignores the presence of AtS. Now, if 'Fray' is canon, then Angel could shanshu before this event, Anya become human (again), and Cordelia could lose her half-demon-ness. However, that would leave most of the others to go god knows where. Unless they are killed, most demons would probably go back to their ancestral hell-dimensions. Many demons are evil, but others are neutral or even good. I don't think that Joss is cruel enough to send good people to hell. Okay, he's done it once, but this will be on a far greater scale. That's what I mean by highly devious Jossian stylings- how will he get out of that specific trap?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Banishment of the Demons (SPOILERS for Fray) -- Robert, 21:38:27 08/11/02 Sun

>>I don't think that Joss is cruel enough to send good people to hell.

Hmmm ... I think you're wrong there. Both Angel (not Angelus) and Buffy have spent some time in hell. I think that Joss is more than willing to send good people to hell. In fact, I would not be surprised if Cordelia is headed to hell as we speak. However, let us look at some excerpts.

You can find the following excerpt in issue #3 of Fray. Urkonn is the demon who has taken on the role of teacher for Malaka Fray, since the Council of Watchers are (for any useful purpose) non-existent.


Why don't you tell me what happened to the last one?


Because I don't know.

It was some hundreds of years ago, in the twenty first century.

What we know is this -- there was a battle.

A slayer, possible with some mystical allies,
faced an apocalyptic army of demons.

And when it was done ...

They were gone, all demons, all magicks,
banished from this earthly dimension.


And the slayer? Did she ...


I do not know if she lived. But, the demons being gone,
she was the last to be called.

The line continued –- there were girls with
the power, but they were never called,
never trained, which may be why you have
no memories of your heritage.

Several points come out of this passage. First, Urkonn is relaying a legend to Malaka and the details are sparce or uncertain. Second, Urkonn never said that the demons and vampires were banished to hell, only that they were banished from this earthly dimension. Third, the final battle took place sometime in this century, so it is possible that Buffy was the slayer referenced above. On the other hand, there are 98 years left in this century.

Fourth, this passage claims that all demons and magic were banished, regardless of whether it was good or evil. However, I don't believe that this is a contradiction or lack on continuity. Joss Whedon is more than willing to have bad things happen to good people, in his stories. As an alternative theory, maybe only the evil demons were banished. Urkonn says otherwise, but his legends could be incomplete or in error.

The following is an earlier excerpt from the same magazine.


Your significance, you heritage, it should have surfaced,
in your dreams, in your --


Well it didn't.

So explain.


There was once a thing on this earth called magic.

There were demons, monsters beyond imagination, most
of them pure evil. They ruled this dimension as
they did so many others.


What's a dimension?


Eventually, as mortal animals evolved, under the
protection of certain mages and loranites --


a --


They left! All right? The demons, most of them, found
more hospitable dimen ... places, and left the earth
to the mortals, for the most part.

Some remained, hidden away, some bred within the
human community, their power weakened throughout
generations. Some assimilated.

And some ...

... infected.

It is not known when they first appeared ...

... but the vampires were a plague.

The elders of several villages met, calling for action.
They invoked the strongest and most dangerous magicks
they could summon, to create a power. A power that
could fight the vampires. A power that lived ...

... in the body of a girl.

This passage is interesting because it explains the beginnings of the vampires and the slayers. Elsewhere it is mentioned that the Council of Watchers descended from the shamans who created the first slayer. What I find interesting is that the demons left, apparently due to competition from the encroaching mortals.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- meritaten, 17:51:43 08/10/02 Sat

The Council is used to being in the position of power. Buffy has denied them that (rightfully so). I've also had bosses who try to trick employees into doing something rather than simply asking. That is also about power, or rather a fear of losing power.

Buffy is not the source of the problem - she just refused to be "co-dependant".

While I'd like to think that the Council is above outright murder, I think that they are realistic enough to realize that they are farther ahead with a powerful and "good" slayer, rather than taking the chance on triggering a new Slayer - one that would require training and could be another Faith.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why the Council Hasn't Tried to ... -- Robert, 19:55:42 08/10/02 Sat

>> "While I'd like to think that the Council is above outright murder, I think that they are realistic enough to realize that they are farther ahead with a powerful and "good" slayer, rather than taking the chance on triggering a new Slayer - one that would require training and could be another Faith."

I would like to believe this also, but the behavior exhibited in "Checkpoint" would seem to indicate otherwise. They put their position ahead of the interests of humanity (ie. putting a stop to Glorificus). The episodes "Who Are You" and "Sanctuary" also appear to indicate that the Council is not above murder if it serves their own interests.

[> [> [> [> [> I think we're all prematurely assuming the worst about the CoW... -- cjl, 07:06:55 08/11/02 Sun

I think I've been guilty of it too, considering option (2) in "why haven't they tried to kill Buffy."

The CoW has been around for thousands of years, training hundreds, perhaps thousands of slayers. They obviously believe they know what's best when it comes to battling vampires, and don't take it very well when a teenager stands up, tells them to go you-know-what, and kicks their collective ass out of town. Ancient organizations don't have a high humility factor, and they can get petty about it. When Travers and the CoW came back during "Checkpoint" and tried to intimidate Buffy, I don't think they ever intended to withhold the information about Glory. Travers was going to use it as leverage first (bad Quentin!), but look at the old man when Buffy called his bluff: his shoulders sagged, he sighed in resignation, and he knew he'd lost his little game. He spilled. He was ALWAYS going to spill. He just wanted to do it on his terms first.

Faith is another matter. She committed manslaughter by accidentally icing the mayor's assistant, and the Council had some hard and fast rules when a Slayer kills an innocent bystander. Giles wanted to work around them, but you know ancient organizations--not exactly great with the flexibility either. The Watchers are the self-appointed guardians of a potentially lethal weapon, and they take the responsibility very seriously. If they thought Faith was a menace to rather than a protector of humanity, they felt they had an obligation to keep her locked up or kill her. Not exactly the genteel behavior we expected from the tweedy boys, but logical.

So I think the CoW does want to fight the good fight. Are they stubborn old fogies with questionable methods that sometimes hinder their own mission? Yep. Are they evil? No. There's no solid evidence of true evil-osity. Yet. You never know what Joss is going to pull on us though...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we're all prematurely assuming the worst about the CoW... -- Robert, 13:15:36 08/11/02 Sun

>> "Are they evil? No. There's no solid evidence of true evil-osity."

No, they are worse. They are an uncaring selfish bureaucracy. Like most bureaucracies, they started out with the best of intentions and slowly devolved into an organization set upon maintaining their power, position and perquisites. Instead of being an active evil, this is the passive evil of laziness and indifference.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think we're all prematurely assuming the worst about the CoW... -- Wizardman, 14:38:23 08/12/02 Mon

"Are they stubborn old fogies with questionable methods that sometimes hinder their own mission? Yep. Are they evil? No. There's no solid evidence of true evil-osity. Yet."

Well, if you change 'stubborn old fogies' to 'inflexible soldiers,' then this statement could be applied to the Initiative, and we all know what happened to THEM. The only main difference between the two- other than age- is that the CoW knows not to mess around with demons. The CoW is an organization that is ripe for subversion by demonic forces. It wouldn't be all that hard- just rise to the top, and then slowly turn the Watchers away from their original principals. Or better yet, be a 'power behind the throne' and have some dupe do it for you. Imagine what kind of a threat that, say, Gwendolyn Post could have been if she remained a Watcher instead of openly going rogue- she could have used the organization to look for acient artifacts of powerful magic and then 'confiscated' them for safe keeping. "No solid evidence of evil-osity?" You're right- not yet. But it's coming. Maybe on BtVS, maybe on Angel, or maybe on Ripper- if it ever gets made- but it's coming.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the worst about the CoW... -- Robert, 18:00:04 08/12/02 Mon

>> "The CoW is an organization that is ripe for subversion by demonic forces."

Wizardman, this is a truly delicious thought. I hope that Joss gets around to doing a story based upon this theme.

[> [> [> [> [> Council is a plot device (no real spoilers, but spec) -- cjc36, 01:53:03 08/14/02 Wed

Wow, Watcher's Council (I've never taken to the revised C-o-W version!) talk.

I've devoted an entire fanfic thing on the Council, about an out-of-fashion fundamentalist Watcher and his eeeevil plans, just because the show has left me cold with this one plot angle.

I hope you folks are right - there will be Council activity this season, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. I fear the Council is a mere plot cog and nothing more. No Files-like mythology there, at least so far.

[> [> [> Re: Devils advocate on Cruciamentum -- KdS, 05:08:25 08/12/02 Mon

While the Cruciamentum is undoubtedly indefensible by modern standards of the sanctity of life and individual dignity, I think that Robert 's use of it to utterly condemn the Watcher's Council is a little overstated.

Robert wrote:

"Helpless" was a very interesting episode. The Cruciamentum was not senseless. It had a very sensible purpose (cruel though it was). The purpose was to ensure that the slayer always knew who the boss was. For all of her powers, the Cruciamentum was proof that the Council of Watchers could terminate the slayer whenever it suited them.

This was the first episode where we gained some insight into the Council of Watchers, and how they operate. Do not mistake the relationship between slayer and the Council as paternalistic. As far as the Council is concerned, the slayer is an easily replaceable part. The Council administered the Cruciamentum to assure that the slayer and her watcher would always kowtow to the Council. If the slayer died as a result, that was a small price to pay, as the Council knew that there was always a replacement right behind her.

I think that the false assumption here is that a Slayer who survives the Cruciamentum generally finds out what is going on. If there were a "Gotcha moment" at the end, then all Robert's criticisms would be justified. However, we must remember that Buffy only found out the true situation because of Giles's conscience, which was itself stimulated by Kralik's escape and abduction of Joyce. One hopes that this was not a routine event. I suspect that in the usual way of things, a Slayer who survives would simply remember it as an unexplained loss of powers, which may or may not have been coincidental with a vampire confrontation which would usually be seen as routine.

Given this, I believe that the original point of the Cruciamentum was not a test of intellectual resource in a "get out of that" sense. Rather it was a test of spiritual resource, to see whether a Slayer had the inner strength to face the enemy as herself, with no external powers. A Slayer who survived, in this case, would probably remember the event as a pivotal victory that showed her that her power came from her own personality and courage, rather than being a gift that could be taken away - the exact opposite of Robert's theory. It's poetic justice that Buffy did learn this lesson in spite of Quentin's bungling, and then used it first to break from the Council in GD2 and then to humiliate Quentin in Checkpoint.

While today we would undoubtedly see it as indefensible to expose a person to lethal danger merely as a test, I think that rather than interpret the Council as evil we should think historically. According to Giles in Helpless, the tradition is 1200 years old. This puts its inception in the second half of the first millenium AD. While it has never been explicitly confirmed, it seems to be fan consensus that at this time the WC was largely a European, or at least European-dominated, phenomenon. Although I'm not a theologian, and I accept correction from anyone better informed, I understand that in Dark Ages/Medieval Christian thought, Earthly existence was seen merely as prologue to the eternal bliss of the saved in Heaven. Furthermore, early death from disease, famine or violence was far more common in those times, and life in general cheaper. I think it's possible to argue that to a Dark Ages Christian intellect, the Cruciamentum vcould be seen as a win-win situation for a Slayer, if she passed the test and fought. If she survived, she would be mentally empowered as suggested earier. If she fought and died, she was liberated from her earthly duty and went on to spend eternity, to quote Charles Gunn, "rocked in the arms of Baby Jesus".

Of course, it's very hard to justify Quentin's individual conduct in Helpless/Checkpoint, especially after his subordinates' bungling had placed third parties in danger. However, I do believe that the episodes don't provide evidence to write off the WC as consciously evil. I'd like to second cjl, and argue that if the more extreme anti-Council interpretations are correct it's hard to explain why Faith, if not Buffy, hasn't received a sniper's bullet in the head yet. I don't think even a Slayer could dodge that...

[> [> [> [> I agree, and humbly step aside to advocate the superior post. -- cjl, 06:47:14 08/12/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, and no need to be humble... -- KdS, 07:15:40 08/12/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Re: Devils advocate on Cruciamentum -- Robert, 08:56:20 08/12/02 Mon

KdS, thank you for the thoughtful response to my posting. You have swayed me toward your position in degree, if not in totality.

I think you are correct about the Council in regards to their noble beginning, and the creation of the Cruciamentum. However, I still believe that the Council has become something loathsome in the intervening centuries. They have become a self-preserving bureaucracy. As you stated, "the Cruciamentum is undoubtedly indefensible by modern standards of the sanctity of life and individual dignity". More importantly, Quentin is indefensible.

[> [> [> [> [> No defending Quentin here... -- KdS, 09:16:07 08/12/02 Mon

Thanks for the rapid reply, and I think we virtually agree now.

Re Fray speculation: given Joss's nasty mind, what if it's Giles/Buffy/Faith/Wesley's well-intentioned attempts to reform the Council that lead to its final self-destruction?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No defending Quentin here... -- Robert, 12:20:46 08/12/02 Mon

>> "Re Fray speculation: given Joss's nasty mind, what if it's Giles/Buffy/Faith/Wesley's well-intentioned attempts to reform the Council that lead to its final self- destruction?"

Could be ...

Joss' sense of poetic justice is somewhat twisted.

[> [> [> [> Re: Devils advocate on Cruciamentum -- Wizardman, 14:55:32 08/12/02 Mon

The Cruciamentum as a primarily mental/spiritual test that has possibly been perverted in the centuries since its origin? Hmm... despite my general distaste for the organization that is the CoW, I buy your theory. It sounds like it came from the same organization that gave us Giles and Wes, rather than that which spawned Quentin. Yes, I do believe that there's a schism in the organization, and it exists between the field workers and the bureaucrats. Giles is a damned impressive person, and Wes quickly became one, once he was forced to think for himself. Even Gwen Post was impressive, in her own way- she played everyone in Sunnydale perfectly. If not for Angel, she might have actually gotten that Gauntlet. There's more to the CoW than we know. And I, for one, want to know. The Fan Consensus might be right about the European phenomenon, but I'm betting that the CoW has to be more international. I'm wondering if the present CoW isn't an amalgamation of many different organizations, one from each country/tribe/region, that formerly dealt with the supernatural/demonic for that region. The fact that it is currently based in Britain might simply reflect the fact that Brtiain was the lead imperial power. But that's just my opinion- I could be wrong.

[> [> [> [> May I suggest a better test for the Cruciamentum? -- Caesar Augustus, 03:05:08 08/13/02 Tue

I've always thought that the Watchers' Council served an invaluable purpose initially. Think of Faith's abuse of power, think of the destructive First Slayer - the Slayer is based in death, and slayers have a tremendous power. If a Slayer reaches 18, I think it would be far more valuable to have some sort of MORAL test (the image that comes to mind, for me, is when Luke goes into the cave on Yoda's planet and destroys the fake Darth Vader - something sort of along those lines), a test that the Slayer fights for what is right, and doesn't abuse her power. The Cruciamentum doesn't prove that, but then again it is "relatively" new - maybe the CoW had already become beauracratic and power-hungry by then, and the test was simply designed from a selfish perspective. But anyway, a test like that would make a helluvalot more sense.

Anyway, enough random ramblings.

[> Re: Low Moments -- Majin Gojira, 18:53:28 08/11/02 Sun


Buffy: Gotta go with the Sanctuary bit - though I am a sadistic bastard and laughed at her entrance at 'Just the right time'.

Xander: Hmm...Let's see. The perpetual screw-up. His lowest moments: Any time he brings up Jenny's death/most things concerning the Angel issue.

Willow: Damn. I can't think of any for her.

Giles: Nope. never been mad at him.

Spike: Oh, let me see: Most of his negative actions durring this season; the rape, the driving away from freinds into darkness, the obsession, the attempted cover-up for murder.
Spike proves that on TV, people with good looks can and DO get away with murder.

Dawn: Hmmm....nope. never hated her. Nor do I find her that annoying - though I liked her better on "The Adventures of Pete and Pete" :D

Well, that's just me.

But as a general rule, I don't really hate characters on TV. I enjoy the evil they show. Sure, I have a vehement hatred for Britney Spears, but that's another topic entierly and it's rooted in hypocracy - you don't often see hypocrites on TV that don't get their come-up-ins at least by the end of the episode.

[> Dead Man's Party -- Dochawk, 16:04:28 08/12/02 Mon

There is only one episode of either Angel or Buffy I refuse to watch again and that is Dead Man's Party. The behavior and utter selfishness of Joyce and especially Xander makes me revile both of them. Willow at least acts conflicted, but Xander blaming Buffy for everything, his total and complete unwillingness to listen or to realize that his selfish actions were significantly to blame for Buffy's departure. It took until Hell's Bells for me to have much in the way of sympathy for his character (not that I had alot before DMP either).

[> [> Hell's Bells gave you sympathy for his character?! -- Caesar Augustus, 16:50:12 08/12/02 Mon

[> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- shadowkat, 10:17:31 08/13/02 Tue

Okay so I'm terribly bored at work and feel need to add to the bottom of this thread...that and attempting not to think too much about yet another job interview (my attempt
to get out of the work situation...)

So recklessly jumping into the fray.

Dead Man's Party is a much malinged episode on this board and everyone hates Xander, Joyce and Willow in it. I found it oddly very realistic. Remember it is shot entirely from Buffy's pov. So you are feeling and thinking what she is.
Something the writers are apparently very good at. Actually they are brillant at placing us so deeply in a characters pov that we have a tendency to think that characters views of the other characters is the valid one or true one.
Nope. It's just one little angle.

The writers do give us snippets in Dead Man's Party and Anne
of what the other characters are thinking and feeling and if you watch closely - you can see that their reactions to Buffy aren't entirely unwarranted or unrealistic or cruel.

They saved the world with her in Becoming. At the end of that two-part episode: Xander barely got Giles out alive,
Willow had just come out of a coma and did an amazingly difficult spell, and Joyce wasn't sure if her daughter had gone off to her death. Buffy just leaves Joyce a note that she's leaving. (Buffy is 17 years of age and Joyce's only child). That's uh more than she left any of her friends with. They have no clue if she's okay, what happened with Angel, etc. As far as they know she and Angel could have taken off together or Angelus kidnapped her. All they know at the end of Becoming Part II? Is the world didn't end.
That's it. Not sure if Joyce shared her note with them or not. Would assume so...but still. That just means, Buffy only saw fit to tell Joyce. Not them.

All summer they fight vampires. Get injured. Try to make things work and try not to worry about Buffy. Has Buffy worried once about her friends? Not that we know of.
Has she thought about Giles? Not that we are aware of.
All Buffy thinks about is Angel. She hasn't sent her mother a note saying she's okay or any word to Giles. Giles in fact has been traveling around looking for her - this we find out in Anne.

So Buffy comes back to Sunnydale. She expects everyone and everything to be the same as she left. Sorry doesn't happen that way. Part of life is dealing with change and dealing with the consequences of leaving without any word or note. Also realizing that other people and their problems no matter how seemingly trival can be important. She was needed and loved by her friends as more than just the slayer. In Dead Man's Party she begins to realize that.

It's really not until the next episode that her friends find out the specifics of how Angel was killed. She tells them little. They on the other hand reveal quite a bit of how they feel. And to their credit? They attempt to deal with her. But Buff is not the sort to discuss her problems. She contains everything and wants to move forward without talking about it. Makes sense - after all up until Becoming she had to keep the whole slaying gig a secret from her mom.
So discussing things? Just does not come naturally.
This causes all the pent up emotions that everyone is trying to contain to erupt. Like they always do. In a very bad way.

I felt sorry for all the characters in Dead Man's PArty and I saw all of them at fault. Giles actually was the most adult but that had more to do with his own unresolved issues of guilt. Xander - had pent up feelings of jealousy, fear, and insecurity motivating him. (How would you feel if your best friend and Crush, disappeared? Not only disappeared but as far as you knew took off with a vampire?
A vampire you hated? He felt abandoned. And probably that she didn't care about him.) Willow - geeze, she is wondering if she did the right thing giving Angel his soul, maybe not, her best friend and only true girlfriend disappears after she did it. She doesn't know what she did wrong. (I've had these types of blow-ups with friends before and for a lot less valid reasons then these.)
Joyce - well, I don't have kids, but I do remember how mad mother got when she hadn't heard from my brother in 24 hours. Can you imagine three months?? And I'm sure she's still struggling to handle her daughter's calling as the chosen one, the fact vamps are running about Sunnydale,
her kid being kicked out of another school, almost getting killed, and oh wait...being afraid she'll take off again when she returns. And this kid is stronger than Joyce is.
Joyce can't do anything to make sure she stays safe.

I objectively think Buffy deserved a little of the ranting she got in that episode, even though from a purely subjective level? I find it incredibly painful to watch and hate the characters while they are doing it to her. And want her to bash them for it. But that's what the writers wanted. They wanted me to view the episode from the least justifiable pov. They do that a lot. Put you in the pov of the person who is actually, once you look at objectivel, in the wrong and make you take their side. Very clever. I've seen other shows do the whole running away theme and usually we are in everyone's pov but the runaway.
BTVS flipped it.

Anyways just another way of looking at it.

[> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- Sophist, 10:58:06 08/13/02 Tue

The problem I have is not that Buffy was completely in the right (she wasn't), but that her friends were so clearly in the wrong.

The main problem was this: not one of them tried to find out what had happened in the mansion or to understand what might have caused her to flee. They never even asked. They were all accusatory (Xander) or self-centered (Willow). And not once did they stop to consider that their own actions may have contributed to the problem. In fact, even when they did find out (at least Willow did in FHT), we never see any apology to Buffy or sense of contrition (at least, none from Xander or Joyce, maybe a smidgen from Willow at the end of FHT).

As for Buffy, I think her silence about Angel was the right approach. She knew her friends had tried to help. If she told them that their "help" was actually a disaster, that wouldn't change the result but it might make them less willing to help in the future.

Running away? Not the best solution, perhaps. I can completely identify with it, though. I find that people fall into 2 general categories: those who work through their problems by talking with others, and those who need to work it through internally and in the absence of others. Both are legitimate; whatever works. DMP portrayed Buffy's choice as wrong, and (worse) Buffy as accepting that she was wrong. It was not that clear.

I'm with Doc on this one.

[> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- shadowkat, 11:22:13 08/13/02 Tue

Actually I think they did try to find out. Remember that
scene towards the beginning where they are all hanging out at Giles' apartment? (Thanks to PSyche of course)

Oz: Hey, so you're not wanted for murder anymore.

Buffy: Good. That was such a drag.

""Xander: So where were you? Did you go to Belgium?""

Buffy: (gives him an odd look) Why would I go to Belgium?

Xander: I think the relevant question is why wouldn't you? (smiles
hugely and giggles) Bel-gium!

They both laugh.

Cut into the kitchen. Giles gets the cups out of his cupboard. He smiles
as he listens to the conversation in the living room, pleased that they
are getting along so well again so quickly.

Buffy: What about you, Xander? What's up with you?

Xander: Oh, you know, same old, same old.

Giles removes his glasses and leans with his arm against the cupboard,
enjoying the sound of his Slayer's voice again after so many months.

Cordelia: Hardly.

Xander: Okay, I lied, a whole lot is new.

Buffy: Well, that's good, isn't it? New is good.

Giles shakes himself out of his reverie and puts his glasses back on.

Xander: Oh, yeah, absolutely, except for the obvious. It's not too
much... (inaudible)

Cordelia: Yeah, 'cause you weren't at the hotel.

Giles lifts up the serving tray and takes it into the living room.

Xander: Cordelia's parents dragged her onto a luxury vacation.

Buffy: I feel for you.

Giles: Here we are then. (sets the tray on the coffee table) Cheer us

He sits down in his chair and takes the teapot. Buffy and Xander each
take a cookie from the tray.

Cordelia: So were you, like, living in a box, or what?

Buffy: Well, it's a long story.

""Xander: So skip the heartwarming stuff about kindly old people and
saving the farm and get right to the dirt."""

Giles: (pours several cups) Perhaps Buffy could use a little time to
adjust before we grill her on her summer activities.

Buffy: What he said.

Xander: Fair enough. In fact, you can leave the slaying to us while you
settle in. We got you covered.

See? Xander asks twice and she fluffs it off. I doubt she told them much of anything. They may have assumed she had a great time in LA when they were worrying about her.

Misunderstandings are weird. I thought all of them were in the wrong. Xander dealt with it poorly. But in this scene he did appear to be trying. Willow also tried. But they were scared. When Willow bursts and starts asking Buffy to stay - she's found her packing. Actually up until that moment, I was highly annoyed with her. But finally she tells Buffy why Buffy is important to her and why she wants her to stay. YEs it comes out wrong - but Willow is 17 years of age, not 30. I actually had more problems with Joyce who was doing her typical avoidance routine. Xander is also only 17, hardly mature at this point. If he had done that whole rant this year? I'd have been annoyed.
But at 17? He reminded me of my brother at that age.
I think we often hold these characters to unrealistic standards.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- Sophist, 15:03:57 08/13/02 Tue

See? Xander asks twice and she fluffs it off

No. My point was that no one asked what happened in the mansion. What Xander asked, twice, was where she went/what she did over the summer. Not the same thing.

What Buffy did over the summer (waiting tables in a cheap restaurant) was not very interesting from an outsider's perspective. What she was really doing was trying to come to terms with the fact that she had been left with nothing but herself:

Whistler: In the end, you're always by yourself. You're all you've got. That's the point.

That wasn't something she could tell Xander then or ever. But it also wasn't the key point in Xander's misbehavior in DMP. That had to do with Angel. And here's what Xander had to say:

Buffy: As if I even could've gone to you, Xander. You made your feelings about Angel and I perfectly clear.

Xander: Look. I'm sorry that your honey was a demon, but most girls don't hop a Greyhound over boy troubles.

Doesn't sound like much effort on his part to understand. And that's leaving out his betrayal of her in Becoming.

As for Willow, she didn't come to the room to understand, she came to accuse Buffy of ignoring Willow's problems:

Buffy: How could I talk to you when you were avoiding me?

Willow: This isn't easy, Buffy! I know you're going through stuff, but... so am I.

Buffy: I know that you were worried about me, but...

Willow: No! I don't just mean that. I mean, my life! You know? I, um... I'm having all sorts of... I'm dating, I'm having serious dating with a *werewolf*, a-and I'm studying witchcraft and killing vampires, and I didn't have anyone (starts sobbing) to talk to about all this scary life
stuff. And you were my best friend.

I know Xander and Willow were both 17. I just don't think that gives them any more of an excuse than it gives Buffy.

I'm not saying that Buffy was entirely in the right. She wasn't. But Buffy is shown to be entirely in the wrong, and, worse, accepting that conclusion:

Buffy: I am sorry.

Willow: It's okay. I understand you having to bail. I can forgive that. Mm, I have to make allowances for what you're going through a-and be a grownup about it. (gives Buffy a slightly smug look)

Buffy: (smiles) You're really enjoying this whole moral superiority thing, aren't you?

Willow: (smiles) It's like a drug!

Buffy: Fine! Okay. I'm the bad.

It's that combination of misbehavior by her friends and Buffy (as usual) taking the blame that makes the episode so difficult.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- shadowkat, 06:52:11 08/14/02 Wed

Okay concede on that point. is an interesting episode partly in how it corresponds with two other episodes dealing with a reunion with friends:

1. When She Was BAd - Buffy in this episode is the cold bitch and everyone else is actually nice and almost gets killed partly to her coldness. (Season 2)

2. Dead Man's Party - traumatized Buffy (she'd just been
to hell - that was actually what I was referring to not the waitressing job, I wondered if she'd told them about that.
Apparently - because they refer to it in Something Blue.)
deals with being kicked out of school and dealing with her life amongst friends again. She'd been alone and in hell most of the summer. (Oh speaking of ANN - did anyone else notice that lily who took the name Ann was reprised in
Blood Money? Then again in the Thin Dead Line? on ATs?)
She gets scewered by her friends and family. To the extent that you are almost rooting for the zombies to kill them.

3. Afterlife - the friends are possessed by a horrible
spirit demon who Xander inadvertently sends off to kill Buffy and Willow makes solid at the last possible moment.

Apparently reuniting and dealing with people and relationships is hell. Not excusable. But highly realistic.
I certainly suffered similar behavior from friends in the past. Forgave them as they did me.

What I find interesting is how ME stretches the theme over an arc of episodes. We start in Dead Man's then revisit the theme of Xander's difficulty with Angel in Revelations, Amends, and Enemies. We start in DM's with Willow's witchcraft problems and her struggles - revisit this in Gingerbread (getting a broader picture which shows how truly insecure and alone Willow really is, unlike Buffy, her mother truly doesn't notice her existence, she appears to have no one outside of the SG and hasn't found a way of handling this - so is resorting to magic to feel important to fulfill herself, Buffy has as you suggested found her own way to deal with being alone inside herself - a way that is far healthier than Willow's), Dopplegangerland,
and Choices. We also revisit Xander's insecurities with group and himself in the Zeppo. It's interesting how the characters flaws are shown then explained and the pov shifts. In DMP - we really don't see why these characters
are acting the way they are. YEs they may be in the wrong and I concede rude and inexcusable. (Believe me - everytime I see DMP I want to bash Xander over the head repeatedly - actually quite a few Btvs episodes make me want to do that..I have issues with Xander. Or the writers do.) But it's really not until the middle of Season 3 that I begin in retrospect to see why they reacted the way they did.
What motivated them to do so. And when I start to see some of the reasons - Xander's lack of any true family life, Willow's similar lack of one - actually once I see this, I'm amazed these two haven't run away. Notice Buffy is the only one who is celebrating the season and holidays with her family in Amends. Willow is attempting to do something with OZ, her parents are nowhere in sight. Xander is camping outside avoiding his. This is when I find myself forgiving them.
Their flaws make an odd sort of sense.

I think Btvs is interesting in the way each episode can be viewed as a stand alone but as well and sometimes better as part of the whole. DMP is an episode that doesn't really
work as a stand alone. I think it works better as part of the whole. And when viewed with the whole enterprise?
It's not so negative.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- Arethusa, 08:11:45 08/14/02 Wed

I've always had enormous sympathy with Willow and Xander despite their faults just because it's so clear they had nobody but each other to support them while growing up. It's no wonder that both looked to Buffy and Giles to feel important and give their lives direction. What's really interesting is that what makes them so flawed also makes them monster hunters. Why, of all the people in Sunnydale who know something is very wrong, do these two kids feel obligated to dedicate their entire lives to helping Buffy? None of the others that Buffy saved, except perhaps Cordelia, did.

I'm slowly working my way through William James' The Varieties of Religious Experience, and he states, "...the psychopathic temperment...often brings with it ardor and exciteability of character. The cranky person has extraordinary emotional susceptibility. His conceptions tend to pass immediately into belief and action...." The same emotional susceptibility that makes Xander and Willow insecure and full of self-hatred also makes them unwilling to hide in comfortable disbelief. Having found a source of self-affirmation, they can't go back to the sterile lives they lead before Buffy arrived.

Xander especially, having the more toxic home life, developes an idee fixe regarding monsters, to the point of being unable to tolerate Angel. It's like he has finally found some beings he feels superior to, and I'm still convinced that part of Xander's rejection of Anya has something to do with her having been a demon.

Agree? Disagree? Note: I'm not calling X and W psychopaths-just people with serious self-esteem problems.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good points -- Sophist, 08:24:24 08/14/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- LittleBit, 11:35:29 08/13/02 Tue

I find myself in between here. Buffy did indeed just leave everything and everyone hanging. Until she felt capable of dealing with everything.

Joyce had given her an ultimatum. Not one that any of is believed she truly meant from where wa sat, but Buffy wasn't where we were. She saw a shut door at the time.

Giles had just been horribly tortured by Angelus. Was he the one to go to for sympathy because Buffy had to send Angel into the hell dimension to save the world? Not at that time, not from her point of view.

As for Xander and Willow, well we know Willow was risking her life to perform the soul restoration, but what did Buffy now? She knew that Xander wanted Angel dead, and that according to him, so did Willow. What understanding would she be hoping for there? Not much, not when she was in that much turmoil.

So she left, she had to reach her own coping point without help, which was perhaps good practice for this past season. When she was ready (and yes, she was very wrong for not letting anyone know she was at least all right), she came back. After gong literally to hell and emerging whole.

And what happened? Joyce welcomes her home, gladly; but we then overhear that she thought it might have been easier when Buffy was missing. Willow welcomes her and then leaves her waiting, without any message, when they were supposed to have their first one-on-one get-together. Xander and Cordelia aren't available either. Only Giles seems so welcome her unreservedly.

A welcome dinner is planned. Buffy is looking forward to the chance to talk to everyone. And what happens? No one else, except Giles, wants this. They revise the plan to a large enough scale that all conversation of ant consequence is prohibited. When Buffy tries to talk to Willow she is shut out. Xander and Cordelia are clearly otherwise occupied. Oz is playing. Joyce is in the kitchen with the one person actually more annoying then Ted.

Buffy is as effectively 'not there' as if she hadn't come back. And yes, the feelings on both sides needed to be let out. Yes very harsh things were said. And while we saw it from Buffy's point of view, what we also saw was that her point of view was not accepted as having validity. Xander was worried about her. Joyce had been frantic. Willow had to deal with changes all by herself. Buffy needed to tell them how she felt.

But not where, when or how it was done. Not downstairs in a shouting match, not attacking her in front of all those people they decided should be there to insulate them from the situation until they decided the insulation was no longer necessary. It should have happened in the one-on-one Willow skipped on. It should have happened as a small group of her closet friends over a quiet dinner like the one that was planned, but was sabotaged by her friends.

Both parties were wrong here. Buffy for leaving and not letting any of them help her through this. I find that decision understandable, if unfortunate. The other were wrong for first shutting her out and then humiliating her with all her faults in a very public venue. Unfortunately, only Buffy admitted that she ahd been wrong, and only Buffy apololgized. And then she saved them. Once again.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- ponygirl, 11:56:59 08/13/02 Tue

Hmm, maybe the whole inappropriateness of Joyce and Xander calling Buffy on her behaviour in public was the point. It was a kind of stripping away of Buffy's power. From the others' perspective Buffy had been calling the shots first by leaving then by returning, it had all been on her terms. Joyce was trying to assert the control she had lost -- Joyce had played her trump card in B2 with her "if you walk out that door" and Buffy had called her bluff. I'm not saying that the scene wasn't painful to watch and I certainly think that all parties were at fault. But they end up working together, and Joyce gets to see what Buffy deals with on a daily basis. It's interesting that it's Joyce, Willow and Xander up in the bedroom with Buffy for the final battle, Oz and Cordie the people with no issues with Buffy are left downstairs and pretty much forgotten, while Giles who actually seems to understand Buffy arrives late.

[> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- ponygirl, 11:32:55 08/13/02 Tue

Thanks for the defence of DM'sP! It's a slow day at work and on the board so I'm grateful for the diversion.

I too find this episode incredibly painful to watch (abandonment by friends is a scary thing to me) yet in many ways it's the episode that caused me to respect ME the most. It was not an easy homecoming, Buffy may have got the well-deserved hug at the end of Anne but that did not erase the consequences of her actions. We as the audience were in the position of feeling far more sympathetic to Buffy because we had the privilege of seeing what had happened in Becoming and what she had endured in Anne, so to see the abuse that Buffy endures from her family and friends becomes almost unbearable. However the amazing thing is that the episode reverses this and Buffy comes to see that she is indeed at fault, that she needs to ask pardon from those she abandoned.

I usually wonder when watching this episode how things could have gone differently. Buffy goes out to find her friends and encounters Xander on his vampire hunt. There's a moment when they both look at each other all pain and awkwardness. It looks as though so much is about to be said. Then the vampires and the rest of the team arrives, and Buffy handily defeat the vamp while the gang gets knocked to the ground. Almost immediately the inequality of their positions is established. It's as though Buffy is mocking both their slaying efforts and their worry. Since Buffy doesn't offer them even a glimpse of her own pain they aren't going to show theirs. Instead we get the party, a huge amount of noise generated to cover up what everyone is feeling. And that feeling would be anger, with a healthy dose of resentment. Again utmost respect for ME in realizing that homecomings are not always happy.

As mad as everyone usually gets at Xander and Joyce, I give them credit for actually vocalizing their feelings. I get incredibly pissed off at Willow -- she's the one Buffy actually seems to be reaching out to, and Willow retreats first by standing Buffy up for coffee, then by blowing her off at the party. Maybe it's because Willow senses that Buffy will want to deal with her own pain, not Willow's.

There's so much foreshadowing in this episode. Buffy's inability to deal with emotional overload-- here she tries to physically flee, in s5 she will try to escape in other ways, through numbness and catatonia. The Scoobies' attempts at slaying sans Buffy are repeated in Bargaining, and their attempts at immediately forcing normality on an extraordinary sitaution will appear again in Afterlife ("let's order pizza"). And finally all of the characters' huge inability to articulate their issues and emotions will form the basis of that little event we like to call season 6. All in all Dead Man's Party is a great episode, it just makes me awfully sad.

Well, I've certainly had a ramble here! Thanks and good luck on the job interview!

[> [> [> [> Buffy's burden and "Dean Man's Party" -- cjl, 12:05:12 08/13/02 Tue

I was going to write a loooong post defending Xander, Joyce and the Scoobs, and I was two-thirds of the way through when my system crashed. (NYC on hot days. What can you do?) It doesn't matter, because just before I crashed, I typed a sentence that cuts to the heart of everything, rendering the rest of the post irrelevant. ponygirl touched on it when she mentioned the inequality of Buffy and the gang:

Buffy almost left a second time becase she thought what all teenagers think about emotional trauma: "I'm the only one in the world who feels this way, and you'll never understand." Most teenaged girls who say this are advised to GROW UP and consider the feelings of those she would leave behind.

But Buffy is RIGHT.

She is the Chosen One. She's the only one in the world with these problems. How could Xander, Willow, or Joyce understand? Buffy feels alone in her misery because the Burden of Slayerhood isn't something housewives or high school kids can relate to that easily.

So is she justified in her series-long string of emotional implosions? No. Because just as the Scoobs have to realize that Buffy has special problems and special burdens, Buffy has to realize that every one of her friends (yes, even Xander) has his or her own unique emotional journey, special in its own way, deserving of consideration and attention.

It's Season 7 now. They're 22 years old. Maybe it's finally going to sink in. We can only hope.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's burden and "Dean Man's Party" -- yabyumpan, 14:36:25 08/13/02 Tue

I'm not going to get into who was right or wrong, they all were to some degree. I just remember when I first watched it, being very impressed that ME played it like they did. They could have gone along the route of "oh, Buffy, we've missed you, glad you're home, lets go slay and get coffee" but instead they took the much more realistic and painful road of consequences, hurt, anger, pain etc. It was this episode which really showed me just how different and way above everything else the show is. It's one of the most painful episodes to watch but also one of the best.

[> [> [> [> Re: Dead Man's Party -- aliera, 15:35:29 08/13/02 Tue

And I can understand those feelings; I always hope for better too. But you know, when I look way way way way (OK that's enough) back on my twenties, we didn't do any better (and we were dealing with such world ending issues as getting a 'C' in a core class.) So I too, like the way they made it ring true. I also agree with what Sophist said above, I tend to internalize and limit contact while resolving things and Buffy's responses felt very,very natural to me (for her age) in seasons 2 & 3. Not saying they were the best choices; just spot on for her personality.

[> [> the importance of interior decorating -- skeeve, 16:01:15 08/13/02 Tue

Let's not forget one reason Buffy left: she was wanted for murder in a town where the political system is headed by RIchard Wilkins (III?).

Also, in this case Buffy was the better interior decorator:
"It's mad at the room. It wants the room to suffer."

Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers
-- Rufus, 20:33:10 08/08/02 Thu

I am ­ Hercules!!

David Simkins, announced at the end of May as David Greenwalt's replacement as "Angel" showrunner, has departed the show a little more than two months later. Simkins, whose terrifying resume includes stints as a writer-producer on "Charmed" and as the showrunner of "Freakylinks," has departed over "true creative differences," according to one source close to the situation. "It was a Herculean challenge to come into a well-established show with a deep mythology and prosper."

How will the show deal with the departure of Simkins, who also served as a writer on the terrible first season of "Dark Angel" and the shaky final season of "Roswell"?
Likely by promoting from within. Writer-producer-director Jeffrey Bell ­ an "X-Files" vet who joined "Angel" last season and has already written or co-written five "Angel" teleplays, including such fan favorites as "Billy" and "Forgiving" ­ will reportedly now play a bigger role in helping fellow writer-producer-directors Joss Whedon and Tim Minear oversee "Angel."
I am ­ Hercules!!

[>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Quentin Collins, 23:47:54 08/08/02 Thu

This sort of internal chaos does not bode well for "Angel" this season. I hope the speculation that Jeffrey Bell will be promoted is not true. While his work as a writer on "Angel" has been adequate, his work on "X-Files" was atrocious.

[> [>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- grifter, 04:18:24 08/09/02 Fri

But Simkins´ resumee sounds rather questionable too, so maybe it´s for the better anyway...let´s just hope that Joss will show Bell the way to greatness...

[> [>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Robert, 13:02:43 08/09/02 Fri

>> "... his work on "X-Files" was atrocious."

Can you site some examples? The reason I ask is that I have deeply personal experience that the quality of a person's work will be no better than his/her boss will allow. In other words, it may not have been Mr. Bell's fault.

[> [> [>Re: Ain't it Cool News...........Simkins out... Bell in on Angel no spoilers -- Arethusa, 13:29:31 08/09/02 Fri

He wrote "Rain King," about a weatherman who inadvertently could control the weather, and "Alpha," about a werewolf and a naturalist who tried to save him. Both episodes had some good Mulder-Scully interaction, some romance without being overly sentimental , and interesting supporting characters. He directly a movie called "Radio Inside," which I (and, evidently, everyone else) didn't see.

I can see why some would not like Bell's work-both episodes had a character who had a crush on Mulder, which makes me squirm, and not in a good way. They were fanciful episodes, for the "X-Files."

[> [> [> [>Re: OT - Rain King -- Brian, 13:51:29 08/09/02 Fri

One of my X-Files favorites. But I always liked the silly episodes anyway.

[> [> [> [> [>Me too-the vampire one was hysterical. -- Arethusa, 13:56:12 08/09/02 Fri

And it had Luke Wilson, too.

[>Creative differences? I'm not surprised. -- CW, 05:48:16 08/09/02 Fri

As I feared, Simkins must have been trying to bring Angel in line with mainstream pap, er, entertainment. Hope the new guy understands better.

[>Thanks Rufus!! -- Rahael, 06:30:09 08/09/02 Fri

I am focusing on the positive!!! Tim Minear to oversee? Great!

[> [>Its All About Minear! -- AngelVSAngelus, 08:57:34 08/09/02 Fri

So I'm glad to hear the news. Bell seems to be just there to aid in what Minear and Whedon are already doing. Makes me worry alot less. I mean, the Simkin's fellows resume gave me a heart attack thinking that he would influence my fav character's tales.
Freaky Links? CHARMED?! *heavy sigh of relief*

[> [>Can't help but like Minear....he has cats.....;) -- Rufus, 14:29:26 08/09/02 Fri

Joss Whedon on Season 6
-- Bachman, 20:53:09 08/08/02 Thu

After seeing how you people keep taking this show SO seriously, I asked a friend (well, former friend) of mine who watches Buffy to show me a tape of the show. Maybe there's something more to it than a pretty girl strutting around and fighting lame monsters.


Come on! Cowboy vampires, monsters in eggs, the lame this-egg-is-your-child health class experiment! It's totally camp. And, what's more, it's not even good camp. It may as well be animated and show on Saturday mornings. So, stop being all philosophical about this flaky trash and GROW UP!

[>--- Insert Monty Python's "Is this the right room for an argument?" skit here. --- -- OnM, 21:00:36 08/08/02 Thu

[>I love it when a troll crawls out from under the bridge... -- ZachsMind, 21:16:40 08/08/02 Thu

Whoever started you on BtVS by playing "Bad Eggs" really steered you wrong. He might as well have played "Restless" backwards for you.

I'd recommend "The Zeppo." A much better episode to start people off with. Or "Hush" which is one of the best produced episodes they've ever done. And if you can watch "The Body" for the first time without a tear in your eye, you're a more heartless one than I.

[>Funny, doesn't sound like Joss... -- LittleBit, 00:27:54 08/09/02 Fri

[> [>Ah, but Joss likes playing tricks on us, so maybe... ;P -- grifter, 04:12:57 08/09/02 Fri

[> [>Maybe this is like...... -- Non-Hostile Seventeen, 12:26:03 08/09/02 Fri

Maybe this is Joss doing his take on the Saturday Night Live skit with William Shatner where he attended a Star Trek convention and started making fun of all the Trekkies. Best part was when he pointed to Jon Lovitz who was dressed in a Star Trek uniform and was wearing Spock ears and said," you there...have you ever KISSED a girl?" Funny stuff. Any maybe this is Joss doing that? =)

[>You're baching up the wrong board here, man. -- NR, 01:38:09 08/09/02 Fri

[>If you don't like the show, why are you here telling us? -- JCC, 04:46:17 08/09/02 Fri

Plus, Bad Eggs- Bad Episode. You're entitled to your opinion, but this board is a form of getting away from small minded people ranting about something they know nothing about. If you don't like the show, then run along.

JCC severly tempted to qoute OnM here. See top of ATPoATPoBtVS board :o)

[>If that's the episode they showed you... -- CW, 06:05:13 08/09/02 Fri

the timing of when you ceased to be friends may be somewhat different than you think. Or did you just ask to see a 'bad one' to have a teensy bit of info when you came back to bother us again. Yeah, I remember your posting name from last time.

[>Re: one rotton apple... -- Purple Tulip, 06:21:09 08/09/02 Fri

You know, why does one person have to come in here to our happy little place and put us down? If you don't like the show, can't appreciate it, fine---you're not alone; a lot of people don't get this show and refuse to watch it. I have no problem with that, really, but you can keep it to yourself---it's not like we're imposing our thoughts and beliefs on you, so stop imposing on us! Anyone else with me on this?

BTW: isn't this the same guy who came in here before and said some nasty things along the line of "this show sucks, grow up"? Really dude, get a life---and find some other outlet for you misplaced hostility.

[>Trollish Bachman, Trollish Bachman, -- Arethusa, 06:35:17 08/09/02 Fri

How's by you? How's by you?
Very glad to see you
Whaddya care what we do?
Goodbye, gone. Goodbye, gone.

(Sung to Allan Sherman's "Sarah Brackman.")

And I can't wait until it's aminated, and on Sat. mornings!

[> [>ROTFLOL!!! And I sang it out loud too!!!! -- LittleBit, 06:48:42 08/09/02 Fri

Thanks for a very fun start to the morning!!!

[> [> [>And speaking of Allan Sherman... -- LittleBit, 07:22:32 08/09/02 Fri

I've occasionally thought of "You're Getting To Be A Rabbit With Me" as the Xander/Anya theme song.

But then again, I've been told that I am evil. :-D

[> [>Isn't that a bit like . . . -- d'Herblay, 07:30:18 08/09/02 Fri

. . . singing "I Am the Very Model of a Modern Major General" to the tune of Tom Lehrer's "The Elements"? Which works surprisingly well!

The tune is "Frere Jacques."

[> [> [>I could have used that in high school biology. -- Arethusa, 07:44:30 08/09/02 Fri

When my history class was tested on the preamble to the Constitution, every one of us was singing the "Schoolhouse Rock" version under our breath.

[>Are you impugning cartoons....? -- Caroline, 08:01:09 08/09/02 Fri

because I can still remember that moment of revelation as a child when I realized the SUBTEXT, SATIRE, METAPHOR under the surface narrative so many of my favourite 'toons. And I still watch such cartoons (esp early Pinky and the Brain - total fave) with the same awe, joy and delight. Can someone please deliver a treatise on cartoons and comic books as modern Literature with a capital T? If Bachman is going to be our guest, we may as well share with him/her!

[> [>comics and cartoons as Literature -- shadowkat, 09:16:51 08/09/02 Fri

"Can someone please deliver a treatise on cartoons and comic books as modern Literature with a capital T?"

You are taking me back to my undergrad days. While writing my own thesis comparison on James Joyce's Ulysses and
Faulkner's Sound and The Fury - comparing the female themes in each and using Freudian and Jungian analysis to do so.
(I went way over my head and my profs..LOL! Pretentiousness is english majors middle name.)Anyways - next to me sat a young man who was writing his thesis on Frank Miller's
The Dark Knight Returns and on the Batman Series Year One,
and something on Watchman. All three were dark satirical works on our society, vigilantism, law and order, and hero worship. But not considered as WORTHY as Joyce or Faulkner.
Why? because they were shudder the thought - comic books.

Being a comic book and cartoon lover myself. We got to chatting. We discussed the mighty English Canon and how incredibly subjective and pretentious and snobbish it was.
Also at times racist and misogynist. But that's another topic. People have a tendency to put down or push aside something that either threatens them or they don't understand. I don't like it - so it's bad. Gee - who made you the expert? Have you written some great work? Having some issues that you need to deal with? Narrow-minded much?
All of these thoughts come to mind.

Hate to say this - but some of our most prized works of literature were serials at one time. Came out as brief snippets in magazines. I know Dickens wrote in this manner.
Shakespear's works were for the masses.

How do we know what is a quality work? Is it because it appeals to us personally? We can analyze it? What makes something literature with a capital T?

Is it the awards it receives? I hope not. Some of the best movies have never won an Academy Award and are long remembered, maybe longer than the ones that did. I'm pretty sure North By Northwest never did. Nor did Wizard of OZ.
And Star Wars didn't win that year. Would you say any of these were lackluster or forgettable films? (Ok - watch someone tell me I'm wrong - if so I'm sure we can list numerous great films that never won: Alien, Dr. Strangelove,
Clockwork Orange, 2001, Psycho.)

Books are the same. I read one critic who sat on the board of the Booker Prize (This is the UK's equivalent of the National Book Award) state that most of the panelists didn't even read the books - it was all about politics.
So awards mean zip.

I think what makes something great Literature is how it affects the viewer, reader, watcher etc. How we interact with it. Great art - will garner some response. Not so great? May just sit on a bathroom wall as wallpaper.

Great comics? They find their way into our subsconsious or collective consciousness. Their characters become part of our culture. Did you know that the term superhero is trademarked by DC? It didn't exist before. So is the word Superman. Batman is equally trademarked. And how often do we use Superman to describe someone or something? To describe the ideal man?

The X-Men have become symbols of the disenfranchised hero. The minority in culture. And I've seen them referenced in numerous articles that have nothing to do with comics.
Buffy was listed in a government paper. Hmmm...has anyone written about the West Wing in this manner?

Before we put art down as pedesterian or plebian - perhaps we should take the time to sample it and to look at how it has influenced the culture around us. I do hear Buffyspeak.
Joss made up his own slang which somehow seeped into our culture. More fanfic has been written online about Buffy than any other tv show - just look at the numbers on Buffy appears in articles about gay rights, violence and government warfare. Universities have conferences on it. And academics discuss it's influence.
Why is that? Because the writers explore through the medium of science fiction and fantasy dark issues affecting us all.
Issues like guilt, rejection, sexual violence, mob violence,
etc. And they do it through layers of metaphor.

If you don't think metaphorically - it may be difficult for you to see it. And perhaps Buffy or a comic book or a cartoon isn't your medium. All these mediums speak with visual metaphors. But stomping on something we don't understand or don't appreciate is a little pedesterian and plebian don't you think?

(Sorry, Caroline - don't mean you of course. And I'm not sure I answered your query which may have been rhetorical.
It's just the English canon of Great Literature has always been one of my personal pet peeves.)

JMHO. And as Earl would say - take it and run.

[> [> [>Re: comics and cartoons as Literature -- Caroline, 09:45:33 08/09/02 Fri

Thanks shadowkat. My question was not rhetorical - I did want someone (everyone!) to come out in defense of toons and comics. You remind me of an experience I had several years ago. I was at a work dinner with colleagues and their families. I was talking to the high-school age son of my manager about Buffy (he was a huge fan) and comic books and Pinky and the Brain, and we were discussing themes, metaphor and about the post-modernist stuff about no such thing as 'high' and 'low' brow art etc (he really got this stuff). A colleague and his wife were listening to our conversation and the wife expressed shock because she thought (and I quote) that 'Masterpiece Theatre and West Wing' would be more my taste and what was I doing watching cartoons and reading comic books (West Wing - ack!! as Bill the Cat would say but do love MT - why can't I love both MT and Buffy?). I tried my standard defense of the abovementioned as speaking to us about our universal concerns - morality and ethics, growing up and making choices (or not), emotion/affection, desire etc, as well as the way speak to us - satire, subtext, metaphor which I happen to find rather entertaining. I kinda got carried away with my spiel and got into examples like Roger Ramjet which was basically created by a communist to say something about the nature of the political witch-hunt and anti-communist views prevalent in the US in the 1950s. I got blank stares or was teased good-naturedly for my 'juvenile' tastes. (lesson - you can be in a room with a bunch of people but you can also be really alone at the same time). But then, the high-school kid got it, so I didn't feel so alone.

I kinda feel bad for Bachman because s/he reminds me of what my colleagues said, which is really based on ignorance. I defend his/her right to be ignorant on this issue but not his/her right to rudely castigate us for our tastes and pleasures, which are perfectly harmless and fun.

[> [> [> [>Re: comics and cartoons as Literature -- Arethusa, 10:17:36 08/09/02 Fri

I looked up the definition of literature, and Mirriam Webster said " writings having excellence of form or expression and expressing ideas of permanent or universal interest." If these are the criteria, nothing but snobbery excludes any particular form. The best comic books and cartoons have explored many of the same themes as "Great Literature," and therefore would qualify as art, and be worthy of study. It's like saying paintings are works of art, but no drawings could ever be-tell that to DaVinci.

I've ready many, many romantic suspense books. Most people look at them with scorn, but I've learned a lot more history, mythology, psychology, geography, ethnology, etc from the best of these books than I ever did from some "great" writers. I started learning about Egyptology from Elizabeth Peters, Victorian mores and manners from Madeline Brent, how to deal with life's often cruel vicissitudes from Dorothy Gilman, and ancient and modern Greek culture from Mary Stewart. Let others laugh-I''ve sailed through a dozen history and literature courses because of my "low" tastes.

[> [> [> [>Agree entirely -- shadowkat, 10:19:16 08/09/02 Fri

Having been a victim of similar situations - I can really relate. I hide my comic collection. People who know about it are close friends or people who share a similar interest.
Got so tired of defending it to the "snobs".

Having watched West Wing (and yes Ack! is right, particularly about this year) and Masterpiece Theater - I haven't seen anything on either that is necessarily better than Buffy. Or Pinky and The Brain. Satire is very hard
to pull off. As is irony.

Now I find myself defending my fascination about Buffy to people. You write Buffy essays? (Then the laughter and I see them look at me like I'm nuts.) People just don't get it.
But there's lots of people out there who don't appreciate science-fiction/fantasy genre. We are a select group.
And within the group that does appreciate it? There are the snobs - who are probably quite a bit like Bachman who believe anything with a dragon or more character specific and less hardware specific is crap. Vampires? ugh - they say. Yet what an interesting metaphor vampires make. Must confess I share Joss Whedon's fascination with them.

My friends don't understand how I can love comics, the classics, romances, sci-fi, horror, fantasy, literary books, mysteries, non-fic, etc all at the same time. Sometimes preferring one over another depending on my mood.
My response? They are books. Same with tv. If it's a good story? With layers of meaning? I'm there.

I wish people would get past the medium the story is presented and actually see and appreciate it. I feel sorry for the people who haven't discovered the Buffyverse. It is a fascinating place to visit. And while you're there?
Take a peek in a comic store sometime and just look at the variety of graphic novels and stories presented.

Most are not for kids. Gaiman, Moore, Miller have all cut their teeth on comics. And now write novels. Gaiman is up for a Hugo with American Gods - novel not comic. But his Sandman comics series is quite provoking. As provoking as any novel.

Cartoons? Early Scooby-Doo makes fun of all sorts of counter-culture stuff as well as the formulaic tv mystery.
Now we have classics like Powerpuff Girls, Ren and Stimpy, Pinky and The Brain, Doug, Family Dog, King of The Hill,
and The Simpsons.

And a rather famous illustrated novel that is considered by some to be "great" literature is The Little Prince. (I can't remember the author right now). It has tons of pictures in it.

We also have some classic comic novels: Maus series - an illustrated comic on the Holocaust. Mice are portrayed as jews and Cats as Nazis. It's actually quite interesting. By Spieglman - I believe. Hardly a comic. Newspaper cartoon classics which I've seen analyzed in folklore classes and classes on black humor: Charlie Brown, Calvin and Hobbes,
political cartoons, Doonesberry.

Animation films: Disney has their classics of course. But to those let's add: Ghost in the Shell, Princess Monoke,
Toy Story, Shrek, Battle Angle Akita, and countless animes.

Anyone else want to join our defense of comics, cartoons
and genres? ;-)

PS: it is ironic that the troll Bachman uses a psuedonyme of a popular novelist who is considered to be a pulp writer and a waste of time by the literary canon. (Not my opion of course - I happen to think some of King's novels are fascinating.)

[> [> [> [> [>Classic literature not always immediately recognized -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 12:47:13 08/09/02 Fri

The classic example (pun intended) is Shakespeare; during his life time his plays were seen as ephemeral entertainment for the rude masses, not even worth recording.

Any educated Elizabethan "knew" that Real Art included sonnets and poetry, preferably written in Latin, or at least, Italian. Shakespeare? Funny enough, but just for the plebs in the pits. Nothing that would last.


[> [> [> [> [>Re: Agree entirely -- Passing by Ete, 06:34:39 08/10/02 Sat

Le Petit Prince is by Saint Exupery,

and it's Battle Angel Alita, or simply Gunnm as the vo name (my favorite manga 'till :)

About snobism in Litterature, you guys in America are mucky, things are way worse in France. At least here you can pretend that Science Fiction in general is good litterature, that idea would be looked in horror and scorn here !

I mean, there's even writers or cineasts who refuse to label their work SF though it obviously is because to mean that it's not that stupid, childlike and ridiculous genre with robots and aliens and laser guns.

[> [> [> [> [> [>And yet, -- Arethusa, 08:24:27 08/10/02 Sat

it was French writers and critics who named and recognized the merits of roman and film noir, which lead, in a long and winding path, to Noir Angel. Merci!

[> [> [> [>Some cartoons for your introspection -- fresne, 10:21:17 08/09/02 Fri

Well, I donıt know if could write a treatise, since I would need to have episodes on tape for review for true analysis. (Iıll apologize here for any misspelled names etc. I generally like to brood over my responses a bit more. But I really do need to get some work done. And from speed comes error.)

For a moment, I was all prepared to segue into how I had Neil Gaimanıs Dollıs House (to steal a phrase, roll over Ibsen) as one of my works for discussion in my Literature orals, but then I remembered, "animated" and "Saturday morning" being key components, so Iıll skip that bit.

The thesis of the argument would seem to be that programs, which are both animated (Iım assuming drawn and computer generated, although not specifically claymation) and play on Saturday morning are "campy" and "flaky trash". HmmmŠthat would appear to be a matter of opinion.

While I suppose the School House Rock shorts, mentioned by other posters, as Saturday morning cartoons might qualify as campy (whatıs not camp about how a Bill becomes a law or the government as a 3 ring circus. Campy and yet true whatever your political affiliation), Iım not sure that Iıd call them flaky trash.

However, given that we are discussing a current show, Buffy, Iıd rather talk about some relatively current cartoons: The Zeta Project, The New Adventures of Superman, The various incarnations of the recent Batman cartoons including Batman Beyond and Static Shock.

Static is one of my current favorites, not just because the main character is named Virgil (and trust me the writers have heard of the famous original), but because of the relative complexity of the plot lines, which is impressive given the half hour format. Static managed to pull off one of the few palatable "Very Special Episodes" that I have ever seen, which concentrates on a shooting incident at school. It was particularly poignant because as a firm part of the back story is that Virgil and his family are still emotionally dealing with the shooting death of his mother a year prior to the start of the story.

Actually, itıs quite a testament to the writing and drawing capabilities of all these shows that they pull off some of the plot lines that they do.

How could I ever forget the episode of Batman where Mr. Freeze having been thwarted in his attempt to get revenge on the man who, he believes, killed his wife, cries out that it is not fair. Batmanıs response, "No, it is not fair, but it just."

From there into a beautifully drawn dissolve of Mr. Freeze sitting isolated and alone in his Arkam Asylum cell, refrigerated to a temperature at which he can survive, staring at a snow globe containing a ballerina. A gentle shake and the snow swirls. Pan out to reveal Batman sitting on a ledge in the shadowy night, watching Mr. Freeze in the cold light of his cell. That momentary realization that the hero and the villain here are one. Both cut off from emotional closeness by the circumstances of their lives. Longing for connection. Mr. Freeze remembers loving his wife, but can no longer feel the emotion. Batman stunted by the childhood tragedy that he just canıt get over.

That growing understanding, particularly apparent in the Batman Beyond series, that Batman is not the secret identity of Bruce Wayne. Bruce Wayne is the secret identity of Batman. Wayne is the mask. The cowl is the true face. Something made pointedly clear in the episode where a villain tries to drive the elderly Bruce Wayne insane by projecting voices in his ear. When asked how he knew that he wasnıt creating the voices, his response, "In my head, I donıt call myself Bruce."

A statement which lends itself beautifully to the villain hero parallel. Batman is just as much a candidate for the Asylum as those he fights. Heıs just dealt with his instability in a more productive way. A choice, however, which has cost him his ability to emotionally connect with most of the people in his life. By the time Batman Beyond roles around, heıs a bitter old, but extremely cool, man living in a gothic horror on a hill. Not all that architecturally dissimilar to Arkum Asylum.

Which is not to say that the only Saturday morning cartoons worth watching are about Durm and Angst. The New Adventures of Superman also played very interestingly with concepts of identity and duality.

One of my favorite episodes for this deals with, you guessed it, costuming. It seems Batman has disappeared and young Robin (in his Tim Drake incarnation) wants Superman to take his place as Batman until they can figure out what has happened. Easily enough done, except when Clark Kent dons Batmanıs outfit, the clothes fit, but they style is completely different. Beyond trying to remember to jump out of the way when people shoot at him and the whole batarang, "On the left! On the left! Batman canıt fly." incident, Clark has difficulty submerging into Batmanıs identity. Clark has excellent posture, stands straight up, makes lots of eye contact, smiles. He struggles to loom, to brood, to frighten criminals with his mere presence. (which makes me think of a Kingdom Come quote which is very relevant but printed and not limited to Saturday morning, so weıll skip it.)

In the end, he achieves a brief semblance, but canıt maintain it. Batmanıs issues have no place within his own. The Batman persona shreds away in a whirl wind, to reveal Superman in his bright bullet shedding primary colors.

Another episode, a bit more useful for examining the Clark Kentıs brand of internal schisms, is one in which Clark Kent investigative reporter discovers evidence that will clear a man on death row. Since Clark never gets any of the glory, he decides to drive to see the relevant authorities. All of this is told in flashback, because he, his car and the evidence blew up before careening into the ocean. Superman is attending Clark Kentıs funeral. Clark/Superman spends the rest of the episode in a bit of a quandary. He is Clark and he needs to be Clark. A small town man who is not Kal-el, Superman, Last Son of Krypton, yada, yada, yada. However, the only way he can save the man on death row now is to reveal that Clark is Superman, but how then to save Clark from going mad under the pressure of being Superman full time? Thankfully, Lois gets to save the day, but the issue remains, who is Clark/Superman/Kal-el?

Which brings us to The Xeta Project and one of my favorite kinds of characters, the naïf in search of an identity. What makes this interesting is that Xeta, while a complete innocent, is/was a government infiltration android. His purpose, to infiltration, to gain information, to assassinate. Itıs not something they go into much in the series, but it is fairly implicit that Xeta has killed quite a few people.

However, one day, having infiltrated an assignmentıs home, he helps the manıs daughter ride by herself for the first time on her bicycle. Watching her, calculating the angle and speed that she needs to achieve to remain balanced, he concludes that he is no longer capable of performing his function, of killing.

Which isnıt to say that Xeta broods in Angel-like fashion. Think Data, delighting in all living things. Knowing of himself only that he no longer wishes to kill, he and a young teenage runaway Roe, embark on a typical road trip journey across future America seeking his creator. The interesting thing is that while Xeta is literally designed to be anyone (the identity which he rejects ­ infiltration droid.) the essential quest is to find himself.

All of which is my way of saying that Saturday morning cartoons certainly seem to have some small complexity and Iıve barely touched the surface here. As I write this, there certainly seem to be some thematic parallels to BtVS and AtS. So, perhaps Brachman is in some ways correct.

Although, I certainly have no intention of growing up. Iım too busy growing in.

[> [> [> [> [>Thank you, fresne! This is wonderful! (esp. the idea of "growing in"..) -- redcat, who's never watched a cartoon, but now just might, 10:44:35 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [>Re: Some cartoons for your introspection -- Rendyl, 11:18:53 08/09/02 Fri

I have to agree with Batman Beyond. My 7 yr old finds it boring but my husband and I are nearly addicted to it. On the other hand she is nuts for Static Shock.

Another good one to mention is Samurai Jack.

(I have a thing for Jack. Maybe it is hair? Or the sandals? Maybe the fedora from the gangster episode?)

I also love the transforming Japanese robots -v- mutant monster episode of Dexter. With spoofs of everything from the Power Rangers to the Justice League to old monster movies it is great.


[> [> [> [> [>genre wars -- matching mole, 11:25:57 08/09/02 Fri

The discussion reminds me of a famous quote by the late sf writer Theodore Sturgeon which goes something like this - sure, 99% of science fiction is crap. 99% of everything is crap. I may have got the exact percentage wrong but that's the gist of it. And an excellent comment it is.

I can't comment on comic books directly because I stopped reading them on a regular basis at the end of 1974. This was not (I gasp in horror at the very thought) because I had grown out of them but a matter of fiscal necessity. I had started keeping fish and my comic book money was needed to maintain my new hobby. Every now and then I thought about starting to buy them again but the price had always increased dramatically from the last time I had looked.

But I do agree wholeheartedly that making assumptions about artistic quality along genre lines is a very limiting exercise. In my personal experience the most satisifying things that I've read, watched, or listened to are those that work within the traditions of genre and also transcend/subvert/expand them at the same time. Unfortunately too many people have their genre-blinkers on all the time. Straying further afield I'll give an example from popular music about 20 years ago. I remember reading a review of a large concert of 'New Wave' acts outside of Toronto in 1980. Two of the most well known bands playing there were Talking Heads and The B52s. The reviewer said that comparing the two bands was like comparing a Bergman film to a Pink Panther movie. I thought that this comment did a tremendous injustice to the B52s in its intent (adding the last to avoid attack by Pink Panther fans). I remember hearing 'Planet Claire' for the first on the radio in 1979 and it ripped my head off and put it back on backwards. Not exactly the effect of a silly novelty band. Planet Claire showed me that everyone is an alien and that we all live on our own planets. This was all the more compelling coming from a band with beehive hairdos.

The Simpsons strike me as a particularly excellent example of this. The show has never allowed itself to stray from the conventions of a low-brow family comedy while constantly subverting them and using them to comment on almost everything imaginable. Also Pinky and the Brain which I was delighted to see Caroline mention (what a sad end that once glorious series had).

Genres exist because people like them. The trick is to not let them limit you. I read lots of science fiction and fantasy not because I think it is necessarily the best form of fiction but because the settings appeal to me and because it seems more interested in 'big picture' issues than a lot of other modern fiction. But there are lots of people out there who limit themselves. People who won't accept that comic books or sf can artistically meaningful. Also people who won't read anything other than their chosen genre, who want variants on the same thing served on their plate over and over again.

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: genre wars -- Rendyl, 11:45:49 08/09/02 Fri

***Also people who won't read anything other than their chosen genre, who want variants on the same thing served on their plate over and over again.***

While I am not guilty of sticking to one genre (I like variety) I do have to admit I am bad not to try out new authors. I tend to stick with ones I know and probably miss some good stories. I am not a snob, but many times when I try to branch out the book ends up being awful. I finished a decent sized one last week that I was very annoyed I ever started. The author spent the last half of the book in what seemed like a never ending shock-disturb fest. I could actually hear her over my shoulder assuring me "if you thought that revelation was shocking and disturbing just wait till you see the next one" and grinning maniacally while she did. In fact I was so annoyed I will never read another thing she writes.

We see what you are talking about with the awards shows for movie and TV. SF shows often win for special effects but the actors and storylines are usually ignored. Micheal Dorn and Patrick Stewart each gave performances in certain episodes that should have earned an emmy. There are many examples like that. Which is too bad.


[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Pinky and the Brain - What happened to this show? -- Brian, 12:20:58 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Pinky and the Brain - What happened to this show? -- matching mole, 14:20:05 08/09/02 Fri

Very sad - P&theB started out as one of several cartoons on the Animaniacs series. Presumably as a result of their propularity everyone's favourite lab mice eventually got their own show. And then, for some inexplicable reason, the Pinky and the Brain show went off the air and they reverted to being one of many cartoons on some other WB show. Theis wouldn't have been so bad but they were teamed up with this horrible little girl (Elmira?) who tortured them unmercilessly. The satiric content and pop culture parodies were completely gone. I think it vanished soon thereafter but after watching it twice I couldn't stand another viewing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>That was sad...Before Elmira, "Pinky and the Brain" were THE best cartoon on television. -- Rob, 15:07:09 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [>Re: comics and cartoons as Literature -- ponygirl, 11:22:34 08/09/02 Fri

It's funny how people will accept certain preferences if you present them as guilty pleasures rather than intellectual pursuits. Hah! My guilty pleasures are trashy novels and the first season of Survivor (the subsequent seasons fall under the heading of shameful secret), comics are something I read when I want to stretch my mind, hell, Alan Moore's Promethea probably gave me a sprain. I've had a number of people actually laugh in my face when I admitted to liking comic books and Buffy. I think there's a bit of insecurity at work, to paraphrase Warren, "you know what intellectual snobbery really says about you?".

[> [> [> [> [>Ebert on Intellectual Snobbery -- Rob, 11:31:12 08/09/02 Fri

This is a letter from a reader to Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column, and Ebert's response:

"Q. You didn't acquit yourself very well in your article on "Amadeus." You are presumably a film critic and quite evidently not a literary critic. Anyone who thinks Thomas Mann is not a great writer, worse still, that P. G. Wodehouse is, doesn't know much about literature.

Frank Schulze, Department of Art, Lake Forest College

The kind of person who thinks Mann a great writer and Wodehouse not a great writer is precisely the kind of person who would believe that professional credentials are necessary to make such judgments."


[> [> [> [> [> [>But Thomas Mann is a great writer!! -- Rah, self confessed snob, 13:11:19 08/09/02 Fri

I love Thomas Mann. I like P.G Wodehouse. Both add to my life.

Thomas Mann gives me those little Kaboom moments, where I kind of gasp at how structure and content merge together, putting huge panoramic word pictures in my mind, of societies, of human beings, of big historic moments. P.G Wodehouse is someone I've grown up with, entertaining and witty. There is something about him which transports me instantly to my childhood.

Quite obviously, the idea that Mann is not a good writer, and P.G Wodehouse is, or vice versa is just one of those annoying games the bastions of taste like to play, either displaying inverse or outverse (prob. not a real word?) snobbery. Either way it is a kind of posturing which seeks to say more about oneself than the merit of the subject discussed. A little like Bachmann probably!

I must say that I grew up with comics, but being from a different culture, a very different kind. There is a vast output of comics for children detailing the Hindu myths and legends, from the Ramayana, the Mahabaratha, the life of Krishna etc. Those comics not only brought me hours of pleausure, but taught me about epics and storytelling. I also used to love Tintin and Asterix - pretty much the limit of what was available to buy.

I must heartily second Fresne's endorsement of the Batman cartoons. They were great.

I am a bit of a snob. I find most modern literature unendurably dreary. The only modern novels I read are genre ones - crime, mystery, some fantasy, some SF, a whole lot of childrens books. Otherwise, the line is drawn roundabout the 1950s, though I do like JG Farrell's Siege of Krishnapur, which was written at the dangerously modern time of 1978.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Rah, have you read Robin McKinley's work? -- Arethusa, 13:37:36 08/09/02 Fri

I found "Beauty" in high school, and it made me interested in fairy tales all over again. "Deerskin," a retelling of "Donkeyskin," was terrible (in the awe-filled sense) and beautiful; utterly unforgetable, and not at all for children, unlike her wonderful Damar books, "The Hero and the Crown" (Newbery winner) "The Blue Sword." She is married to Peter Dickenson, and lives in England.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>oh, yes! -- Rahael, 13:48:04 08/09/02 Fri

She is a relatively new find for me - I read Beauty a couple of months ago, and have some other books of hers waiting in my Amazon shopping basket - her books don't seem readily available in British book shops.

She is apparently also a Buffy fan!

I like her a lot

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Get outta town! -- Arethusa, 13:53:05 08/09/02 Fri

I had no idea she is a Buffy fan.

My favorite vampire writer, Charlaine Harris, is also a Buffy fan-the main character suggests calling her new dog Buffy, but then gave it the name of Dean-a friend of Harris' that used to work at Murder by the Book in Houston. I also worked there for a short time, and it was so cool to see a reference to a guy I knew slightly in one of my favorite writer's books.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>OT, AtPO recs -- Rahael, 15:11:17 08/09/02 Fri

I was told so by the person who told me to read her!

Should I get a copy of her second retelling of the Beauty story? Is it worth it?

by the way, I have to thank Fresne and others for recommending that BBC Wimsey series. It's excellent! I have enjoyed Gaudy Night and Have his carcase, and I'm saving Strong Poison for later. I do really like the two leads, which is the important thing - so often this is where tv versions disappoint.

Reminds me of the TV dramatisation of Barchester Towers. Alan Rickman was a gloriously slimy Slope, but everyone else was terrible! He's a scene stealer, all right.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: OT, AtPO recs -- Arethusa, 15:24:43 08/09/02 Fri

Rose Daughter is very different; more sober and complex. Beauty was more fun to read, but Rose Daughter made me think more.

I loved the Wimsey series, too. I saw it when it came out in the 70s (?).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Ok, that's rec enough for me! -- Rahael, 15:33:20 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Robin McKinley ... -- LittleBit, 01:13:12 08/11/02 Sun my husband's cousin. No kidding.

It's funny that she's mentioned along with Lord Peter ... one of her hobbies is tailoring [with the bells].

And yes, Rose Red is worth the read.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Wow! -- Rahael, 15:58:52 08/11/02 Sun

I'm impressed. Maybe you will be able to ascertain whether she really is a fan of Buffy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Robin McKinley and Buffy -- ponygirl, 06:30:26 08/12/02 Mon

Fond this on Robin McKinley's official website. Ah sweet Google, answerer of all questions...

What is your idea of perfect happiness?

Are you talking to my good self or my bad self here? My good self would go for a seven-mile run and spend the rest of the day at the British Library. My bad self would curl up on the sofa with a bottle of (very cold) champagne, an enormous bowl of popcorn (hey, did you know that organic popcorn doesnıt pop nearly as well as the impure kind? Itıs like if youıre going to go for vice you might as well do it) and a large block of dark chocolate to follow, and watch tapes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel till my eyes fall out of my head, or I run out of things to eat and drink, depending on which comes first. Buffy and Angel Iım afraid have totally routed my previous fave, Deep Space Nine, because once Kira got it on with Odo she went all fatuous, and I never liked Odo much anyway.

What living person would you most like to meet?

Joss Whedon. Creator of Buffy and Angel (see above). Although I admit this is problematic too. I stay away from fan sites on pain of losing my adrenaline high about the whole Buffy thing. It would be just too down-bringing to find out that Sarah Michelle Gellar relaxes by inscribing the Gettysburg Address on the heads of pins and whose life goal is to row across the Atlantic in a double-ended dory, or that David Boreanaz has a PhD in modern philosophy from Yale. (Shuuudder.) Or vice versa. Joss Whedon may collect recipes for Best Lemon Meringue Pie (you only need one, and I have it) and spend his spare time compiling his bird watching life list and entering Iron Man Triathalons. But I think Iıd risk it.

There are a few (book) writers Iıd like to meet, but most of them I have some kind of tenuous contact with that I still have hopes of spinning into an actual thread I can follow to the heart of the labyrinth some day, so Iım not going to jinx myself by mentioning any names.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Robin McKinley and Buffy -- Rahael, 08:54:32 08/12/02 Mon

She's funny!

And has good taste - I too love the British Library and Buffy!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Robin McKinley ... -- Lyonors, 09:44:51 08/12/02 Mon

Niiiice.....I LOVE Robin McKinley. She's one of my top 3 favorite authors. The Hero and the Crown....Favorite book of all time...It's so nice to find a book where the hero has the same name as you...even if it is spelled better than yours!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Also a McKinely lover -- shadowkat, 17:30:08 08/09/02 Fri

She also wrote one of the best retellings I've seen of the Robin Hood legend. In this version Maid Marian is the better archer and wins the contest.

Another fairy tale reteller:

Sheri Tepper - Sleeping Beauty Stories
Angela Carter - who re-tells the Story in Company of Wolves.
and this another author - sci-fi, who retold Snow Queen, but can't remember the author's name.

Apparently fairy tales used to be written by adults in
the dark ages - and were changed over time into childrens tales.

Mckinely's retellings are amongst my favorite. Particularly her retelling of Beauty and the Beast.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Also a McKinly lover -- aliera, 06:56:19 08/10/02 Sat

'Blue Sword' was a favorite as a child; also books by Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper and Alan Garner particularly Owl Service. McKinley's Maid Marion wasn't a favorite although I enjoy most of her work. I fell in love with Guy Gavriel Kay, although I (again) like some of his earlier works better than his most recent series. I later found out he was involved with Tolkien's son in some of the work on T's papers and in the reconstruction of The Simarillion, I believe. His first series The Fionavar Tapestry is very pure fantasy and highly recommended and the later books more fantasy/alternate history. I enjoyed Tigana, A Song for Arbonne and The Lions of Al-rassan very much. I would add Patricia Mckillip to this list, one of my favorites the Atrix Wolf Tale and Winter Rose. There was so much great fantasy coming out in the 80's and 90's. I think it was Pam Dean that did the Tam Lin tale although sveral others did takes on this Emma Bull's War for the Oaks was great. Cross genre but great reading is Friesner's Swordspoint and McAvoys stories. I'm missing a lot of people; but I have to throw out De Lint for modern fairy tales incorporating legends, Tim Powers for mixing tarot and myths into something fantastical and Steven Brust particularly The Sun, Moon and Stars, Brokedown Palace and The Gypsy (with Megan Lindholm) drawing on Polish or is it Czech tales. My avatar actually comes from his other series, the Vlad Taltos books. I have to go out now but I'll check in later and see if the thread is still on the board.

I think many of the tales were granny tales told 'round the fire, retold later in the Salons, much darker and more risque. They were written down and published (often without credit to the teller) very, very popular in their day and were overset by the Oriental tales as their popularity was waning. (Beauty and the Beast would have been a great tale for Buffy to read at the end of Season 2.) It was the Victorians who were (dis) credited with the white washed also often drastically changing the character of the heroes to fit the suitable mores of the times.

from the back cover of Brokedown Palace:

Once upon a Time, there were four brothers--and a goddess, a wizard, an enigmatic talking stallion, a very hungry dragon--and a crumbling palace on the banks of the River of Faerie....and we're off... to points magical!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>I love Garner, Cooper and Lloyd Alexander too!! -- Rahael, 09:07:05 08/10/02 Sat

Especially the Dark is Rising and Seaward by Cooper, and the Owl Service by Garner, which was grand and mysterious.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: I love Garner, Cooper and Lloyd Alexander too!! -- shadowkat, 14:45:33 08/10/02 Sat

Well the comments on Mckinely sent me off on yet another book-buying spree which I sort of do whenever I get well bummed. (Books are like chocolat, indeed.) And while buying Mckinely - I discovered one Sci-Fi by Octavia Butler.
(Butler is one of the few African-American Women writers in sci-fi and has won awards.)

Here's what it says on the back of Wildseed - a mythic exploration of a gender struggle that transcends continents and ages.

"For centuries Anyanwu has created: birthed tribes, healed with her kisses, transformed into anything she wills herself to be. For millennia Doro has possessed: taken bodies as his own, killed with his whim, manipulated others to build a private race of witches and seers. And the power of their meeting of Anyanwu's nuture and passion, of Doro's force and ambition, of their immortal love and hatred, will burn a Pattern into the very destiney of the world."

Other cool books in Sci-fi to suggest?

Children of God and The Sparrow by Maria Doria Russell.
These books deal with religion, anthropology, linquistic differences and how misunderstanding a culture and pressing our own views on it can be destructive.

His Dark Materials Series : The Subtle Knife, The Golden Compass, The Amber Spyglass. This is Phillip Pullman's great children's series which literally turns the views of Genesis and the bible upside down.

Sherri Tepper's GRASS - one of the most horrifying and beautiful and disturbing books I've read. It discusses what happens when humans attempt to colonize a world and the tyranny of religion.

Also loved Lloyd Alexander, Susan Cooper and CS Lewis as a child. And of course the wonderful Ursula Le Guin who wrote the Wizard of Earthsea Series. Stephen Donaldson's White Gold Wielder - about a man with leprosy who travels to another world and discovers his leprosy and wedding ring to be sources of power.

AS Byatt - has done versions of fairy tales as well. See
POSSESSION - read the book before you see the movie - the book recreates four short tales in it. She also wrote
Angels and Insects.

For interesting horror/fantasy? Try the cult classic
Waking the Moon by Elizabeth Hand (about a girl who is
the daughter of the Great mother Goddess)
and Donna Tartt's Secret History (about a bunch of students
who attempt to recreat a violent Bacchia ritual and dealing with the murder of friend.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Byatt!! -- aliera, 07:34:50 08/11/02 Sun

Thanks for the Byatt reference...that's one of the ones I was trying to think of yesterday...and the mention of 'Chocolat' is delicious...that book spoiled me for the movie. There's another great one from the eighties that has a poet (Byron?) as one of the main characters and the villain is a female vampire or melusine...anyone remember?
Was it 'Like Water for Chocolate' that opened the door for magic realism? We're benefiting with many genre benders and the opportunity to taste test different traditions. Let me know how you like what you've got; I'm in a real dry spell for fiction this summer. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Magic as realism -- shadowkat, 08:46:47 08/11/02 Sun

Actually I think Gabriel Garcia-Marquez opened it with A Hundred Years of Solitude and Isabelle Allende with House of Spirits. (They, I think, predate, Like Water for Chocolat).

Also read Chocolat - book is much better than movie, I think. Deals with Catholicism and religion and spirtuality in a far more critical way. In the book, the head of the town is also the parish priest.

Will let you know. Still working my way through Sophie's World - A Journey Through the History of Philosophy.
Also studying some things on Marquis De Sade for an essay I'm sort of playing with on S&M metaphors in BTVs and ATs and the role of sexual fantasy in women's lives -
which may only be posted to my site...since well not sure this is a suitable topic for the board.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Magic as realism -- Ete, 09:30:58 08/11/02 Sun

"Also studying some things on Marquis De Sade for an essay I'm sort of playing with on S&M metaphors in BTVs and ATs and the role of sexual fantasy in women's lives -
which may only be posted to my site...since well not sure this is a suitable topic for the board."

Let me say, yay ! Can't wait for that ;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Ditto Mistress Ete! Sounds like a fab idea for an essay! -- ponygirl, 07:17:14 08/12/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Magic as realism -- wina, 10:10:34 08/11/02 Sun

as a lover of books I feel that having more than one language is quite an advantage. I live in london and have done so for some time, but my first loves in literature are from my home tongue, portuguese.Anyone who likes magic realism with a strong influence of catholic and african flavours should try Jorge Amado, brazilian.He is not stricktly magic realism .Still one my favourite living writers is Jose Saramago, his ' the gospel according to jesus christ' and 'baltasar & blimunda' move me everytime
ps: S.World, worth it. but I alwaysa felt it should be read by teenagers, 'open wide...think..question'

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Magic as realism -- aliera, 12:56:19 08/11/02 Sun

Let us know, I'll watch for it. I know you didn't get into LKH but she's dealing with some similar things through her series. Power, control, sex/pain, what makes a monster or a (wo)man. As per usual, I had a tougher time with the last offering; not sure why . Her vamps and werecreatures are very interesting though and the relationships much different than we see on BtVS.

Ben and I had a discussion about this thread (he's fourteen) and he reminded me about video games. (No discussion about the Marquis though; I'm not ready for that yet.) He's mentioned about the gaming end of things though. He reads mostly gaming books with a little Gary Paulson, comics; he whizzed through Harry Potter. But he pointed out how much myth and fantasy has affected the games he and his friends play. And it's something I hadn't really thought about; the games are pretty involved. The guys spend a lot more time with that than either books or TV so it's a point of impact.

I'm reading three books right now...Secret Gardens by Humphrey Carpenter, a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls by Norman Golb and History of Religious Ideas by Eliade. Trying to refresh on my keeshond stuff too since the new puppy will be joining the household on 8/24. Yeah! But I'll watch out for the other authors; thanks for the recommendations everyone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Byatt's "Possession" now a major motion picture... -- cjl, 07:29:12 08/12/02 Mon

Starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Aaron Eckhart. Written for the screen and directed by Neil LaBute. LaBute is known for his take-no-prisoners, war between the sexes movies like "The Company of Men," but I hear he did an excellent job with the material. (It looks like he's taken a few visual cues from Tom Stoppard's Arcadia, with characters from different time periods trading entrances and exits in the same room.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Robin McKinley and Asterix, so cool. -- oceloty, 23:56:27 08/11/02 Sun

People on this board like Robin McKinley and Asterix. Multiple people like Robin McKinley and Asterix, and Little Bit is related to her. You are all so cool. Next, someone's going to announce s/he likes Lisel Mueller (the poet) and I'll go evil from perfect happiness.

"These Romans are crazy." The Blue Sword rocks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Robin McKinley and Asterix, so cool. -- Arethusa, 05:36:54 08/12/02 Mon

I lke this poem; it reminds me of reading fairy tales and watching Buffy: "We'll walk alone in fear." (Once More, With Feeling)

Bedtime Story

The moon lies on the river
like a drop of oil.
The children come to the banks to be healed
of their wounds and bruises.
The fathers who gave them their wounds and bruises
come to be healed of their rage.
The mothers grow lovely; their faces soften,
the birds in their throats awake.
They all stand hand in hand
and the trees around them,
forever on the verge
of becoming one of them,
stop shuddering and speak their first word.

But that is not the beginning.
It is the end of the story,
and before we come to the end,
the mothers and fathers and children
must find their way to the river,
separately, with no one to guide them.
That is the long, pitiless part,
and it will scare you.

Found the poem here:

[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: But Thomas Mann is a great writer!! -- Caroline, 20:39:36 08/09/02 Fri

Rah, I've read enough of your posts by now to realize that you and I seem to have rather similar taste in literature (and also comics it seems - I too loved Tintin and Asterix and even tried to read Asterix in Latin to help my grades at one time!). I remember you saying that you don't go much for American lit and now you're saying that you don't go beyond the 1950s. But there is some fabulous stuff coming out of America right now - if you can find anything by a woman called Kathleen Cambor (In Sunlight, in a beautiful garden or The Book of Mercy) you may change your mind about American writers and your time period. She is the most incredibly beautiful writer - so important when you read so much stuff where words don't seem to matter.

There's also a ton of great stuff coming out from all over the world but I'm sure you are familiar with the works of Peter Hoeg (loved History of Danish Dreams, Tales of the Night, Borderliners and The Woman and the Ape), Bruce Chatwin, David Malouf, Amin Maalouf (the first para of the Rock of Tanios amazes me with how words can capture the feeling of being in a small village in Lebanon), Naguib Mahfouz, Rohintin Mistry, Christa Wolf, Helen Garner, Kate Grenville, Milan Kundera, Christina Stead, Amy Tan (although she does write the same book - I personally think The Hundred Secret Senses is the best), Ahdaf Soueif (read the Map of Love on a 12 hr plane trip and it will really fly by) and the entire Latin contingent (although the later Isabelle Allende seems less satisfying). THere's also that German guy whose name I can never remember who wrote a book called Perfume - gruesome and grisly but wonderfully taking an idea to its logical conclusion. This is just off the top of my head and I'm sure that I could keep on going with just a bit more thought.

But then again, you could just be taking the piss.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Patrick Susskind! -- Rahael, 09:04:09 08/10/02 Sat


Which does kind of prove that I do read modern novels! I liked Perfume too.

I've also got some Naguib Mahfouz in the house, which I've never got round to reading.

I guess I'm not really prejudiced, just really really unadventurous! But I shall follow up on your recs, cos that's how I do get round to reading novels.

The last recent work that I really really liked is Iain Pears' 'The dream of scipio'. Combines politics, history and love in an incredibly moving work.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Ian Pears, Caleb Carr, Peter Hoeg, etc.. -- shadowkat, 14:53:19 08/10/02 Sat

Speaking of Ian Pears - have you read Instance of The Fingerpost? (Huge book and very intriquing.)

Peter Hoeg - Smilla's Sense of Snow, amazingly lyrical

(I also have Perfume but haven't read it yet - been meaning to.)

Caleb Carr's The Alienist reminds me of Pears.

Also the wonderful Arturo Perez-Reverte - The Flander's Panel, The Seville Communion, The Club Dumas..

Garcia-Marquez - One Hundred Years of Solitude (if you like Joyce - you'll love Marquez.)

And one of my favorite British Mystery Writers - Minnette Walters. Her best books are the Ice house and The Sculptress

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>Will check these out -- Rahael, 15:09:23 08/10/02 Sat

I quite like Garcia Marquez, though I avoid magic realism like the plague. To be honest, I prefer Lorca.

I haven't tried Minnette Walters yet.

I've read everything Pears has written! he is great, and I find his art detective novels charming

[> [> [> [>The Lurking Animator Speaks -- Majin Gojira, 19:15:35 08/11/02 Sun

Cartoons/Comics with depth. Things with depth where you don't expect it. I got a few.

My favorite movie of all time, "Gamera 3: Incomplete Struggle" is not just typical Giant monster fare. It has enough layers to be rightly called "The Giant Monster Movie of the Post 9/11 generation" - this has got to be the 5th time i've said that on this board alone!

Now to cartoons.

Some good ones have already been named (Batman - especially the 1992 Cartoon-, Samurai Jack, The Simpsons) But I'd like to add a few.

The Comics: "Johnny the Homicidal Maniac" and "Squee"

As well as "Invader Zim" The recently cancelled cartoon series (CURSE YOU NICKELODEN! CURSE YOOOOOUUU!!!)

Johnny is an insight into the workings of a madman who is all appart of ourselves - the part that has been teased and beat down. it's very interesting to read - and gets out a good laugh when something smacks out of left feild. It also holds to the sad fact that, people tend to be rather stupid in many cases. Squee and Zim are similar in that vein, though Zim gets to do some intersting parodies.

One of my favorites concernes Paranormal Investigarion.

Dib: (After disprooving the existance of "Chickenfoot" to be nothing more than a very stupid person trapped in a chicken outfit) This prooves that Paranormal Investigations isn't just about a bunch a crazies who believe everything they hear. We Also Disprove the Hoaxes!

P.I. 1: Uh hu... I suppose this means that BIGFOOT Is a hoax too!

P.I. 2: And UFO's and Hobos!

Dib: Wait! Those are real! well, not hobos...wait...those are real..WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE!?

Host of Paranormal TV Show: And so Chickenfoot has been proven to be a hoax. calling into question all other monster sightings.

I'd go on a bit, but I'm getting sleepy...

[> [>Re: Are you impugning cartoons....?(spoilers for Swamp Thing 29 - 31/Moore) -- Rendyl, 10:59:06 08/09/02 Fri

I am no great shakes with a treatise but I often wonder if any of the writers for the show are Swamp Thing fans. Several characters (including the man/demon made of bugs) seem influenced by events and characters in Swamp Thing.

One of the hands down creepiest, scariest, and just 'ewwww' moments happens in Saga of the Swamp Thing #30. Abby's husband has been preserved/reanimated by the spirit of Anton Arcane and he is somewhat alive and mostly dead and his body is full of bugs. He and Abby make love and then she realizes what is wrong. She goes nuts because there places bugs should never be and...she tries but she can't get them all out..and they show the brush you was using freaks me out just remembering the storyline.

Sorry. It was one of the most horrifying things I have ever read. The whole four-issue storyline is just beyond creepy and it begins what was the first mainstream comic since the 50's to not be marked with the comics code symbol. (this one was -not- for the kiddies) It is also amazing. It has themes of love and duty, of incest, death and betrayal, a pact with evil, a descent into hell, a hero's quest, a rebirth and many other themes. All in four issues of what had been and still is sometimes perceived as a 'kids' medium.

Deep stuff for a 'comic book'. Just like BTVS is deep stuff for a 'teen show'.

As for our troll, dude you are sooooo missing out. ;)


[> [> [>Re: "she was using" it should read above (shiver) nt -- Rendyl, 11:23:15 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [>CJL's Recommendations for comic book virgins -- cjl, 11:32:41 08/09/02 Fri


From Hell - his immense, multi-layered meditation on Jack the Ripper

Watchmen (with artist Dave Gibbons) - the ultimate deconstruction of the superhero comic

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen - 19th century fantasy icons team up in proto-superhero extravaganza!)

Swamp Thing - see Rendyl's note, above.


Animal Man - lame 1960s DC superhero remodeled into bizarre,
almost hallucinogenic, enthralling meta-comic

The Doom Patrol - Yet another renovation job: as close to Borges as comics will probably ever get.

The Invisibles - Conspiracy theorists, this one's for you!

NEIL GAIMAN's Sandman comics, of course.

MAUS, written and drawn by Art Spiegelman.

TRANSMETROPOLITAN and 100 BULLETS (both from DC comics)


Daniel Clowes' GHOST WORLD (the comic book AND the movie), and just about anything else by Mr. Clowes...

(and for that sixties counterculture buzz, get some of that collected R. Crumb for your coffee table...)

All this off the top of my head. Any others come to mind?

[> [> [> [>great list,!! would add Love & Rockets -- ponygirl, 11:54:48 08/09/02 Fri

no not the band (though they're pretty good too), but the long running series written by Gilbert and Jaime Hernandez. Especially the Blood of Palomar graphic novel by Gilbert. He's been compared to Gabriel Garcia Marquez, which since I still haven't read Marquez I can't confirm, but it is amazing.

Glad you mentioned Doom Patrol, cjl! Have to say those issues where Paris was sucked inside a painting are among my favourite of all comic books. And one of the best explanations of dadaism ever. See comic books=intellectual!

[> [> [> [>Cartoon and Comic Recs -- shadowkat, 12:07:56 08/09/02 Fri

I think I mentioned Frank Miller?

Dark Knight Returns. - It is about Batman who has retired. He's aged. In his late 60's/70's feeling quilty about his losses of past Robins. Then he decides to go back to
the job of vigilante. Superman is a government stooge
and a girl is Robin. It is an amazing book that discusses
the prevalence of violence in our society. How our media
exploits it. And the government's role. Also role of the vigilante in Society. Joss Whedon mentioned in an interview I read how his dream for the third Batman Movie was to do this story.

Batman Year I - also by Frank Miller - very dark prehistory showing how Batman became Batman. Got me hooked on the series in college.

There's also the Magna books. These are basically about anything under the sun. In Japan - Comics are the main source of written entertainment and far more respected than they are here.

They Were 11 - is an interesting comic that discusses gender.

And I can't remember the name of it - but there was one about trying to make a movie in Hollywood that a friend picked up that was a riot.

The art in House of Secrets - Dark Horse is quite Trippy.


Samuri Jack on Cartoon Network is a favorite
As a child I loved Kimba the White Lion. (This is the one Disney stole for the Lion King) If you can find it - it's an interesting treat. And far more complex in its stories than you'd think.
Fairy Oddparents - actually quite ingenuious at times - it's on Nickleodian.
X-Men Evolution does some interesting things.

Hmmm I'm sure there's more - those are just off the top of my head.

[> [> [> [> [>Kimba!! -- ponygirl, 12:51:47 08/09/02 Fri

And I thought I was the only one to remember that cartoon! Despite watching it when I was very young, 4-6?, I have really vivid memories of watching it. There were some very dark moments, the deaths of Kimba's parents, that cave where the skins of his ancestors were kept -- that show so warped my brain!

Have you read the sequel to Dark Knight that's just come out? I won't spoil it here but it was a bit of a disappointment, some great moments but felt really rushed. Of course the first DK was such a watershed that I imagine it was hard for Miller to even attempt to top it.

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Kimba!! -- shadowkat, 17:24:47 08/09/02 Fri

Thought I was the only one as well ponygirl. Watched it
at the age of 4 too. For awhile I thought Kimba was a dream and not real - you know how memories are. But my mother remembered my insistence on watching it. My very first television obsession. LOL! A while back I discovered a tape of a few Kimba episodes in a comic store and bought it.
Not quite as beautiful as remembered, but certainly fascinating.

Kimba is by one of the greats of Animation - who influenced Disney and the animator of Princess Monoke.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: Kimba!! -- ponygirl, 18:05:47 08/09/02 Fri

Yes, Kimba probably would be my first obsession too! To bring it somewhat on topic I would argue that Kimba had a number of Buffy-like qualities-- set apart because of his heritage, devoted to protecting his little patch of Africa, a number of goofy yet lovable friends to help him out, and on occasion able to tap into some serious mystical forces in the form of the ghosts of his ancestors.

I remember reading an article when Lion King first came out listing the similarities/ripoffs of Kimba. I don't really want to see the show again, it lives too perfectly in my memory.

[> [> [> [>Re: CJL's Recommendations for comic book virgins -- Rendyl, 12:10:47 08/09/02 Fri

Cough. If you promise not to laugh at me I would be willing to recommend GROO THE WANDERER. (Sergio Aragones and Mark Evanier I think) I love Rufferto.

HELLBLAZER seems an obvious choice for BTVS fans but I never thought it was as well done as Swamp Thing. It is an example (as some people feel season 6 has been) of different writers interpreting a character in very different ways.

There is four part Nightcrawler (of X-men fame) miniseries where he bamfs across alternate realities. It includes Kitty Pryde as a pirate and a very short, female, beer swilling Wolverine alt called 'Mean.' (yes yes, I am demented)

KINGDOM COME and (aghh-brain freeze-cant think of the title but I want to say Keys to the Kingdom) are both very good.

CJL -what was the first Joker Graphic novel? I cannot remember the name and all ours are still packed away after the last move. He tries to drive Inspector Gordon insane.
It was very intense and probably one of the first 'graphic novels' they put out.


[> [> [> [> [>OOOOH! "The Killing Joke!" (Spoilers; not for the squeamish.) -- cjl, 12:29:00 08/09/02 Fri

Sorry. Had a full-on geek buzz there. "The Killing Joke" by Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons. Batman vs. the Joker, with the Joker testing the mental limits of both Bats and Commissioner Gordon.

Horribly upsetting scene when the Joker cripples poor Barbara Gordon, making jokes comparing our favorite librarian to one of her books--specifically about a broken "spine." Eucccch. (I get chills just thinking about it.)

[Note: Incidentally, Barbara Gordon, in her post-Batgirl role as Oracle, will be one of the three superheroines featured in the new "Birds of Prey" on the WB.]

KINGDOM COME by Alex Ross and Mark Waid is a marvelous extrapolation of the DC Universe; Ross is one the best artists in the game, and watching him draw (and reinterpret) the all the mythic characters of his childhood is breathtaking.

HELLBLAZER - Definitely. James Marsters as Constantine, anyone?

LOVE AND ROCKETS - How could I have forgotten the Hernandez Brothers? Collect 'em all!

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: All those oversized comic books written by Paul Dini & painted by Alex Ross -- Brian, 12:37:04 08/09/02 Fri

Big and Beautiful - There are 4 of them: They illustrate the concepts of Faith, Hope, Love, and Charity

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: OOOOH! "The Killing Joke!" (Spoilers; not for the squeamish.) -- Rendyl, 13:41:08 08/09/02 Fri

cjl - That is the one I was thinking of. Very disturbing.

Brian pointed out Green Arrow which I like as well but since this is a semi-serious discussion I have to refrain from comments that compliment how sexy he is drawn.

Ren - pondering if Marsters is old enough to play Constantine?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: JM is nearly 40 - Sure he could play Constantine -- Brian, 13:48:47 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [>Re: OOOOH! "The Killing Joke!" (Spoilers; not for the squeamish.) -- shadowkat, 17:35:28 08/09/02 Fri

The Killing Joke remains one of my all time favorites.
It gives the best characterization of The Joker I've seen. We actually get some back history on him - and he's far more interesting in this comic and far more similar to Batman than you'd think.

Through the comic - you get to see the choices each man made and why they made them. It's no longer a black and white view of good and evil.

Also beautifully drawn.

[> [> [> [> [> [>Alex Ross books...Marvels -- shadowkat, 17:42:39 08/09/02 Fri

After Kindom Come - they did two versions for Marvel.

One was called MARVELS - which were realistic renderings
of what it would be like to have heros in our realistic
world. And the stories instead of being told by the pov of the heros were told from the pov of the ordinary bystanders and people being saved.

Then there was the series - and can't remember the name but it was before Marvels - where each Marvel hero was actually diseased by their gift.

Spiderman was poisoned and disfigured. The X-men disabled and their gifts more disabilities than assets. Very dark
and very disturbing.

[> [> [> [> [> [>Graphic novels, you say? Then I must recommend The Crow. -- Forsaken, 18:04:23 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [>Re: The Crow. -- Brian, 18:39:06 08/09/02 Fri

Anyone who uses quotes from Hamlet and Rimbaud is definitely cool.

[> [> [> [> [>Don´t forget the new Crossgen line! (s6 BtVS spoiler) -- grifter, 06:48:22 08/10/02 Sat

"Ruse" (nominated for 4 Eisner Awards, I believe) is a Sherlock Holmes-like detective story with a fantasy-spin.

"Meridian" is about a young girl coping with the
responsibility of ruling a country and leading a rebellion against her evil uncle.

"Scion" and "Sojourn" are fantasy stories about themes such as loyalty, family, love, freedom, vengeance and stuff like that...not real literature my ass!

Also, I haven´t seen anyone mention the "X-Men´s" Dark Phoenix Saga, which BtVS s6 DarkMagicWillow was based on.

Then there´s "The Witching Hour" by Steven Bachalo and Jeph Loeb, which is probably my favorite comic of all time. It´s about wiccans in the modern age and during the witch trial times, and a meditation on the depths of the human soul (or something, I´m really not good at this stuff ;).

Speaking about Steve Bachalo, check out his "Steampunk", which is set in a kind of science fiction version of the 18th century.

Then there´s, of course, tons of Mangas which should be mentioned here; I´ll name just a few: Battle Angel Alita, Clover, Eden, Naru Taru, Neon Genesis Evangelium,...

[> [> [> [>Re: More recommendations for comic book virgins -- Brian, 12:32:44 08/09/02 Fri

Green Arrow written by Kevin Smith
Anything by Brian Bendis, but especially Powers
Bone by Jeff Smith
Fray by Joss
Fables by Bill Willingham
The Hulk issues written by Peter David
Cerebus by Dave Sim
Liberty Meadows by Frank Cho

[> [>Arethusa, s'kat, fresne, 'cat, mm, Ren, ponygirl, Rob, cjl -- Caroline, 11:47:06 08/09/02 Fri

Just want you to know how much I 'preciate ya. People on this board can make an amazing thread out of anything! I didn't realize that all this stuff was percolating in my mind until I started tapping away at my keyboard. Thanks for all the recommendations, treatises, defences and sharing of experiences. I'm inspired to head off to the comic book store as we speak...have a great weekend.

And matching mole, agreed about late Pinky and the Brain. .

[> [> [>Well that takes of tonight's reading. But what are you going to do tomorrow night, Caroline? -- cjl, 12:08:50 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [>Set-up achieved. Awaiting "Pinky and the Brain" closing punchline... -- cjl, 13:46:17 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [>Wait, I know.... Take over the world!! -- ponygirl, 13:53:17 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [>There we go. -- cjl, 13:55:09 08/09/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [>Sorry cjl - left work early to go to the pool... -- Caroline, 20:00:33 08/09/02 Fri

and couldn't deliver the punchline because I was offline. What can I say, it was a beautiful day in DC and it's August! Thanks again for all the recs - I feel as though when I come to this board there

'Gleams that untravell'd world, whose margin fades
For ever and for ever when I move.'

Okay, that just shows how you should never post after a few drinks - you get 'sweetly mawkish'. Yuck! I only start quoting poetry after a few drinks....

[> [> [>And thank you for helping to start the turnage of the lemon that began this thread...into lemonade! -- Rob, 15:30:56 08/09/02 Fri

[>Oh, my gosh, Bachman you're right, I-- I'm cured! I want the boys! :D(heehehehe..) -- SingedCat, 17:42:44 08/09/02 Fri

[> [>Do I have to fight to keep ya, SingedCat? Cause I'm not big on the butch! ;o) mwahahaha! -- Rob, 21:22:03 08/09/02 Fri

Current board | More August 2002