December 2001 posts

Previous December 2001  

More December 2001

Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla -- The Last Jack, 09:00:49 12/04/01 Tue

Angelus was one of the most cruel, sadistic vampires ever created. Spike was a thrill seeker who managed to kill two slayers singlehandedly. Darla was the favorite "daughter" of the Master, one of the most powerful vampires ever. And Drusilla was a mad fortune teller who could bewitch the senses. For a time they travelled the world together, inspiring chaos and fear wherever they went. But then something happened...

Angelus soul was restored, and he became Angel, an outcast and tortured soul, who finally found the road to redemption in the form of a beautiful slayer named Buffy.

Spike, rendered harmless to humans due to a special microchip, also found himself changing and evolving thanks to the infulence of a certain blonde Slayer.

Darla, brought back from death and then made pregnant by an unknown force, found a form of redemption when she sacrificed herself for her child.

In each case, a situation occured that changed each vampire's life, but it wasn't until love was added to the equation that they started to change for the better. Buffy's love inspired Angel to become an active force for good, rather than a miserable creature who stood on the sidlines. Spike's love for Buffy made him reevalute what it is he truely wants out of his unlife, and what kind of person he wants to be. And her son's instinctive love for her allowed Darla to become a true mother, sacrificing herself for him.

Will the same thing happen to Drusilla? Will something occur to brings her to the crossroads of life, and will someone's love allow her to achieve her own redemption? Or, will her string of bad luck continue to hold (cursed with visions, made insane by Angelus, abandoned by her "family"), and will she ultimatley end up like most vampires, on the wrong side of a stake?
[> Re: Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla -- vandalia, 09:30:44 12/04/01 Tue

Even I, the founding member of the 'don't count Darla out yet' school of redemption, am unsure as to the fate of Drusilla. Her madness doesn't help her, because she is incapable of reason, which appears to be a necessary factor in choosing the path of redemption. (It also doesn't help that the actress herself is unavailable so they can't really plan ahead like they can for the more regular characters).

In short, while I was sure Darla would come through in the end, given her realization at the end of her (second) time as a human, Drusilla's end is a mystery to me. I guess what we have to look at is what would it say about the possibility of redemption if she were killed? Some people simply cannot be saved? The insane aren't capable of redemption because they lack reason? Neither of these messages really strikes me as the kind of story ME is about telling. But I can't see a way for her to redeem herself that hasn't already been done (Darla sacrificed herself, which is how I would see Dru doing it. Perhaps Dru sacrifices herself for Darla's baby (or Spike, depending on which show she ends up on)? Ideas?
[> [> Maybe her madness gives her more humanity? -- The Last Jack, 10:28:58 12/04/01 Tue

During season two's "What's My Line?", Drusilla had a little torture session going on with Angel right before she was made strong again. During this she made all sorts of comments about her human family, and she seemed genually upset about what Angelus did to them. She talked foundly of them, and was visiably mad at Angel for taking them away from her. Maybe being insane when you are turned allows the vampire to hang onto more of the host body's humanity than usual.

Of course, when Angelus returend later that season, she seemed to be entralled with him again. Was she just pretending to care about her human family before to torture Angel a little more, or was she acting like a battered woman, afraid of what he might do to her if she spoke up again?
[> I'd like to see some Drusilla / Tara interraction -- Stranger, 23:26:03 12/04/01 Tue

You know they might have a lot in common (well Drusilla mortal life with Tara pre-Scooby life)
[> Re: Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla -- maddog, 08:54:32 12/05/01 Wed

Ya know...where she's not currently on any of the shows it makes me wonder if they've even thought of it...though can you imagine her returning to Buffy after what's happened with Buffy and Spike? can we say "fireworks"? :)
[> [> Re: Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla -- Kimberly, 09:08:37 12/05/01 Wed

I'm not so sure. Isn't that why she left Spike for the antler-demon (can't remember what he actually was) in the first place? If she already believed that she had lost Spike to Buffy, why would there be fireworks? At the end of Crush, Dru seemed to realize that Spike was with Buffy, no matter how she felt about it.
[> [> [> Re: Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla -- maddog, 09:40:34 12/05/01 Wed

Because physical attraction and acting on it are completely different things(though I can't seem to remember the end of Crush right now). If she just thought Spike was "hopeless" for being attracted to Buffy(and therefore helping her) then maybe she comes back, hurt by something herself, looking for a Spike who, possibly has been scorned by Buffy(which up until recently was true in the romantic sense)...only to find that they've had sex. He wouldn't even need to tell her, that intuition she has is amazing. I think she'd go through the roof. Eccentric behavior and all.
[> [> [> [> Re: Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla Spoilers Seasons Two through Six -- Kimberly, 11:32:11 12/05/01 Wed

My initial thought was that you were completely right. Then I went to Psyche's site to check the transcript. Right at the end of the episode, Spike unlocks Buffy (right before it appears that Dru is going to bite her). She looks at the two of them and says (quote from Psyche) "Poor Spike... (shot of Spike and Buffy staring at her) so lost. (tearfully) Even I can't help you now." With her intuition, I expect she knows that the sex is a foregone conclusion.

Also, hasn't Dru always contolled Spike? Even when she was weak, she controlled Spike through her disability. Spike is now standing up for himself; I doubt he'd be willing to let anyone control him anymore. That includes Buffy; he wants her, but he won't be her whipping boy any more.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Will love redeem her? AKA The fate of Drusilla Spoilers Seasons Two through Six -- Rufus, 01:57:35 12/06/01 Thu

I don't think that Dru controlled Spike through her disability. She controlled him by her ability to make him feel efflugent. She saw his strengths, his wisdom and glory. She may be a nut but she is a nut with vision. Spike may have treated Dru well while she was incapacitated, but the power in that relationship was always hers. She made him a vampire and started him on the road of discovery that eventually excluded her. I can never stay angry at Dru because she is one of the most tragic figures in the show. She was purity and love, twisted into insantiy and fear. Her destruction of life goes against all she lived for. She still is in a desperate search for the family lost when Angelus decided to become enamoured of her. She is the only vampire I want dead for reasons other than they are evil killers. She deserves to be returned to the love of her family to make right what Angelus did over a century ago. She is lost and needs to find the peace taken from her by Angelus and Darla.
Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- Darby, 09:34:54 12/04/01 Tue

The assumption always seems to be that the gypsies invented a curse for Angel that happened to have a hard-to-explain "happiness" clause in it. What if they just appropriated a curse already known to them, a type of zombie (well, not really) activation?

Say someone who has done you major wrong has died and presumably gone somewhere very unpleasant - that's not enough, you want to SEE them tormented. Bring them back into their body with a curse that gives them life but forces them to, upon pain of death and a return to damnation, avoid any activity that might make them "truly" happy. That would be a fairly nasty torment.

Along comes Angelus. Bad stuff, need for revenge, what can we do, well we've got THIS thing... The gypsies assumed that ANY souled human would be appalled at Angel's actions and would be tormented by the memories of his actions. There's the "escape" clause, but so what - how could such a tormented soul ever experience happiness as might come from the totally accepting love of a soulmate? And if Angel did not know that there WAS such a clause, he couldn't purposely flee from his guilt. And hey, it worked pretty well for what, a century-?

There is no way to know, but I assume that Jenny (and subsequently Willow) tracked back to some version of the original spell and invoked it, happiness clause and all, so Angel is still cursed the same way.

If there are parents on the Angel writing staff, I'd start to worry about this "child of Angel" storyline - hooking up with a sweetie is not the only way to get a moment of pure happiness in this world...
[> Re: Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- Wolfhowl3, 10:17:10 12/04/01 Tue

I think, when Willow re-cursed him, she didn't include the whole Total Happiness Clause, and she didn't even know it.

I think this, because when Angel got out of hell, and realized where he was, he would have been very happy! Since he still has a soul now, that means that the happy clause is not there.

I know there was an story in Angel where he got drugged, and Angelous came back for a little while, but that is because the human soul was high, and thus not strong enough to hold the Demon back. Also, they didn't have to recast the spell to get Angel back, so that part of the curse is gone.

You know what that means, he can Love is son, and Cordy. (they seem to be getting much closer!)

All questions, comments and Flames are welcome

[> [> Intersting theory -- The Last Jack, 10:36:21 12/04/01 Tue

I like your explaination of what happened to Angel when he got high. It makes alot of sense, and explains why he didn't lose his soul.

However, I still think Angel is cursed with the happiness clause. Sorry ;)
[> [> Re: Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- maddog, 08:16:47 12/05/01 Wed

What you say makes sense...cause also, remember in Pylea when he notices that the sun isn't burning him? How crazy happy was he then?
[> Re: Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- Rufus, 14:32:25 12/04/01 Tue

The people that did this curse are long dead and their wisdom lost. They were the real deal and were very specific in their punishment of Angel. Angel was always meant to suffer. The soul wasn't placed in him to protect humanity, it was there to punish him. His actions proved that for many years. It was the interevention of the PTB's that put Angel on the road to redemption.

Enyos: Jenny Calendar.

Jenny spins around, startled. She stares at him in surprise.

Jenny: You startled me.

Enyos: You look well. (steps up to her desk)

Jenny: Yes, I'm fine. (goes around her desk) I know I haven't written as much lately. I've been busy.

Enyos: I cannot imagine what is so important to make you ignore the responsibility to your people.

Jenny: Well, I've been working and...

Enyos: (interrupts) The elder woman has been reading signs. Something is different.

Jenny: Nothing has changed. The curse still holds.

Enyos: The elder woman is never wrong. She says his pain is lessening. She can feel it.

Jenny: (looks down) There is...

Enyos: There is what?

Jenny: (looks up) A girl.

Enyos: (exhales in disgust) What? How could you let this happen?

Jenny: I promise you. Angel still suffers. And he makes amends for his evil. He even saved my life.

Enyos: So you just forget that he destroyed the most beloved daughter of your tribe?! That he *killed* every man, woman and child that touched her life?! Vengeance demands that his pain be eternal as ours is! If this, this girl gives him one *minute* of happiness, it is one minute too much!

Jenny: I'm sorry. I thought...

Enyos: You thought what?! You thought you are Jenny Calendar now?! You are still Janna, of the Kalderash people! A Gypsy.

Jenny: I know... Uncle. I know.

Enyos: Then prove it. Your time for watching is past. The girl and him, it ends now! Do what you must to take her from him!

Jenny: I will see to it.

Jenny was a new world girl. She, unlike her family could see that there could be a higher purpose for Angel. Her family did not. They were in the revenge business..that is what they lived for.

Cut to Enyos' hotel room. He lectures Jenny.

Enyos: You know what it is, this thing vengeance?

Jenny: Uncle, I have served you. I have been faithful. I need to know...

Enyos: (interrupts) To the modern man vengeance is a verb, an idea. Payback. One thing for another. Like commerce. Not with us. Vengeance is a living thing. It passes through generations. It commands. It kills.

Jenny: You told me to watch Angel. You told me to keep him from the Slayer. I tried. But there are other factors. There are terrible things happening here that we cannot control.

Enyos: We control nothing. We are not wizards, Janna. We merely play our part.

Jenny: Angel could be of help to us. I mean, he may be the only chance we have to stop the Judge.

Enyos: It is too late for that.

Jenny: Why?

Enyos: The curse. Angel is meant to suffer, not to live as human. One moment of true happiness, of contentment, one moment where the soul that we restored no longer plagues his thoughts, and that soul is taken from him.

Jenny: Then, if somehow, if... if it's happened... then Angelus is back.

Enyos: I hoped to stop it. But I realize now it was arranged to be so.

Jenny: Buffy loves him.

Enyos: And now she will have to kill him.

Jenny: (stands up) Unless he kills her first! Uncle, this is insanity! People are going to die.

Enyos: Yes. It is not justice we serve. It is vengeance.

Jenny: (exhales and grabs her coat and bag) You are a fool. We're all fools.

Her uncle just watches her go and shakes his head.

There was a battle between a new and old way of thinking. Enyos could only stay in the past with it's need for revenge, even if at the price of future generations and countless other innocent people. I think it says something about some of our own tendencies to only look at our hurt and miss a bigger picture. It also asks a bigger question about how much vengeance is enough before people can forgive each other. Vengeance can take over lives, destroy countries, all for causes that no longer have reason. Angel was to suffer, and he did. So, how much suffering is enough for a vampire that has killed thousands? If he can serve a higher purpose, can we forget what he did and let him at least atone for some of what he did? Vengeance isn't just payback, it can be a force that becomes out of control. It can kill countless amounts of innocents, all for payback. The gypsies wanted Angel to suffer, it didn't much matter who suffered with him. The loss of their favorite daughter so long ago was tragic, the loss the future generations chained to Angels curse suffered, is tragic and pointless. Jenny had the right idea, she knew that the curse and it's consequences were foolish. Only some people change many get stuck in old ways unable to see the benefits of getting on with life.
[> I never had a problem with Angel's curse... -- Moose, 15:33:26 12/04/01 Tue

It was a "curse" afterall, the whole point to punish Angel. What good is it if it allows him to feel pure happiness and bliss? It was meant to torment him!

The pure happiness clause isn't so much a clause in a contract as a way of breaking the spell. People seem to be mixing the end result with the spell itself. Yes, the gypsie curse wasn't an effective way to end Angelus's reign of terror, but it wasn't supposed to be. Their goal was to torment Angel. The curse was a reflection of that.

They didn't want Angel dead, they wanted to punish him. When the curse fails to do just that (ie., when Angel experiences pure happiness) the curse is broken. Simple.

And I agree with the commentary on vengeance. It was a short-sighted curse, one that had "damn the consequences-I want him to suffer" written all over it. Little wonder that it backfires and many more suffer. But hey, that's vengeance for you.
[> Re: Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- maddog, 08:15:17 12/05/01 Wed

What was Jenny/WIllow's spell though? Was it anti hapiness? cause I always thought it was soul restoration. And it's always made me wonder if the curse was still intact. Cause if it's not then he could have stayed with Buffy...course that kills the spinoff but hey....
[> Re: Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- MrDave, 22:29:07 12/05/01 Wed

What will REALLY twist your noodle is...
The spell was lost for years but the spell ingrdients were common enough that a run-of-the-mill magic store had the ingredients. Now that the spell has been re-discovered by Willow, they could give ANY vampire a soul, right?
anyone else we could add to this list?
[> [> Giving a soul back to Dru ? That would just be cruel and probably pointless -- Stranger, 22:52:27 12/05/01 Wed

[> [> Re: Was Angel's curse "off the rack"? -- maddog, 09:22:51 12/06/01 Thu

No, but imagine if it were's Spike's wish? They could do that for him...then he'd be an Angel clone, but at least then he'd be more "fit" in most people's eyes(was gonna say everyone, but forgot that Xander never liked the souled Vampire concept) eyes.
Today's poll: What's wrong with Buffy? -- Iago, 09:37:41 12/04/01 Tue

[> That poll sucked! -- vampire hunter D, 11:33:12 12/04/01 Tue

I didn't like any of those choices. And I don't think any of them are what Joss has in store for us.
[> [> yeah: "She's an angel/immortal/dying again/a new key/a demon/a vampire." I forget simplicity here. -- res, 19:57:45 12/04/01 Tue

[> [> Re: That poll sucked! -- maddog, 08:00:24 12/05/01 Wed

I guessed an angel, just for the hell of it. But overall I don't think it's fair to say what's wrong with a show when there's nothing wrong with it...just my opinion though.
[> [> [> Re: That poll sucked! (spoilers for "smashed") -- Rob, 08:46:15 12/05/01 Wed

Oh, they weren't referring to the show being wrong. They were referring to Spike's assumption that Buffy came back wrong when she was resurrected.
[> [> [> [> Re: The title of that poll sucked! -- CW, 09:25:59 12/05/01 Wed

Right Rob, but when I first saw the title, I also thought they meant there was something wrong with the show.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: The title of that poll sucked! -- Rob, 12:46:16 12/05/01 Wed

Oh, I get what you mean. Yeah I thought the wording of the title was weird, too. I clicked on it originally to make sure they weren't referring to the quality of the show. Thankfully, they were not.

Some people, (such as Wanda from E! grr arrgh) have been saying that "Buffy," as a show, is not up-to-par this year. Of course, most people, me included, think that episode quality is at amazing highs and the yearlong story arc is turning into something pretty intriguing.

Fictionary Corner Update -- Liq, 10:00:34 12/04/01 Tue

You guys are wearing me out with your incredible output of essays and stories. Here's some updates:

* Malandanza's 3rd chapter: Jedi Mind Tricks has been added to his story:
Newton's Third Law
* Several essays have been added, including Rowan's Kissing A Fool, and
Power & Control in Smashed, as well as D'Herblay's apocryphal Buffy 2.
* Lady Starlight has some great stories for us and I might even put a
little one of my own if I decide to share it.
* I am also in the process of new sections for OnM's amazing episode
reviews and Classic Movies of the Week.
* The Essay menu page is in the process of being fixed (yea, I know,
finally) and I might even give the appropriate credit to the
appropriate writers if the mood strikes me (Dedalus and dH :)
* The September Board Archives are also ready to post thanks to the
efforts of Masq and dH.

Keep those cards and letters coming folks!

xo LJ
[> Re: Fictionary Corner Update -- Rob, 10:06:48 12/04/01 Tue

On the Fictionary Corner page, when I click on "Essays," I get a pic of Spike saying "Where's the bloody page?"
[> [> Rob, click on the HERE to get the graphics free version. -- rowan, 10:14:40 12/04/01 Tue

[> Please use this link until the graphics are fixed ... -- Liq, 10:15:17 12/04/01 Tue

Fictionary Corner Index
[> Thanks for all the hard work! -- rowan, 10:15:57 12/04/01 Tue

[> [> Thanks for the link, guys! :) -- Rob, 10:24:07 12/04/01 Tue

[> Re: Be sure to hit the refresh button many times on my essays.... -- mundusmundi, 13:13:26 12/04/01 Tue

If I'm going to catch up on hits with Ded and d'Herb. (Ja, right.)

More annoying busy work for you, Liq: My "Now and Then" essay comes up as "page cannot be found." The other one is fine.
[> [> fixed! -- Liq, 13:52:24 12/04/01 Tue

[> [> [> Re: Danke -- mm, 14:30:50 12/04/01 Tue

[> OMG! -- GreatRewards, 14:16:42 12/04/01 Tue

I just read the first three chapters of malandanza's "Newton's Third Law". It was phenomenal!! I giggled like a little schoolgirl at the banter between the Nerd Troika! LOL!

More! More! More! Please?
[> Re: Nice to See You Again, Liquidram -- Dedalus, 19:34:06 12/04/01 Tue

Is Xander a Schlemiel? (longish) -- Zus, 10:29:59 12/04/01 Tue

I have often seen discussions on this board concerning Buffy and the hero's journey. Where does Xander fit in this journey? Some have speculated that he may be the fool. I would like to offer some evidence that Xander does fit with that archetype based on a book I've been reading by Ruth Wisse called The Schlemiel as Modern Hero. For anyone who doesn't know, the schlemiel is a well established jewish character-type. He appears in literature as far back as Purim plays in the 15th century and is embodied in more recent literature by such characters as Gimpel the Fool and Tevye. While I realize, of course, that Xander is probably not Jewish (it would seem to have been mentioned, as it has been for Willow), I do think that much of what he does and says can be paralleled with the classic definition of the schlemiel. For example, the schlemiel is often vulnerable and ineffectual in his efforts at self-advancement and self-preservation. He is always a potential victim. However, he "is the model of endurance, his innocence a shield against corruption, his absolute defenselessness the only guaranteed defense against the brutalizing potential of might" (Wisse 5). He appears weak and foolish to those who dominate him, and up to a point he shares that view. But, he survives; so, is he as foolish as he seems?
Additionally, the traditional schlemiel often displays a perpensity for inappropriately-timed humor, but his innapropriate responses often relieve the tension of a desperate moment. His unusual outlook and interpretation of reality may permit optimism; whereas, a rational response would lead to despair. He is often seen as luckless or inept. "He owns little, accomplishes little, and [has] little effect on his environment, yet, his littleness impresses us with its size" (Wisse 24). The schlemiel is loved by the audience because he challenges the whole accepted notion of heroism. Ben Zoma says, "Who is Mighty? He who subdues his urges." The schlemiel is mighty because he subdues his urge to be a hero. The schlemiel is generally (and maybe the only) survivor of any epic story. Powerless and unlucky, he often triumphs psychologically or spiritually. Also, the schlemiel character may not be such a fool as he appears. He may be choosing to play the fool in order to retain his moral sanity in the face of universal doom or cynicism. Finally, the schlemiel remains a boy-man even when fully grown. Saul Bellow said of the schlemiel, "We make what we can of our condition with the means available. We must accept what we find--impurity, tragedy," and from that the schlemiel finds hope.
Therefor, I respectfully submit that Xander is the fool in this hero's journey. It explains so much. And I wonder if Joss is aware of this convention. I would guess yes.
[> Slayin' in the Sixties when the Air was Cool (spoilers) -- Yellowork, 11:35:19 12/04/01 Tue

In the novel, *V* Thomas Pynchon presents the anti-hero as a 'schlemiel', which was my only other real experience of the term — one which I like, probably because of the way it sounds (little things for little minds!). *Buffy* reminds me of *V*, which takes place in the mid 1950s, and as someone was saying on the board last week, the link between the two are the currents which were rising up against the 1950s conformist mid-American lifestyle which Cordelia and to some extent Joyce symbolise in the series. These currents I think can be seen to feed into the origins of the beatniks and later the 1960s counter-culture. I imagine the Slayer in the period was manifest as someone a bit like Grandma Simpson, a young married 'square' who is forced into the real world of uncertainties by her calling.

Black polo necks rule! [ Poor George :-( ]

But that's all by the by: I think you have got Xander sussed much!
[> No ... -- Shiver, 12:14:49 12/04/01 Tue

I would agree with the assumption right up to The Zeppo, when Xander comes into his own. He is a far cry from helpless, evolves beyond comic relief. His leftover military knowledge from the ill-fated Halloween episode has helped the gang on more than one occasion and he's learned to throw a mean punch over the past 6 years.

I think Xander has a few S-like qualities, but to say he fits the archetype to the letter, is stretching it IMO.
[> [> Re: No ... -- Zus, 12:31:06 12/04/01 Tue

I believe that part of the point that Wisse and I are both trying to make is that this schlemiel character, while appearing powerless and ineffectual to those around him, really has many heroic and praise-worthy qualities. Part of his appeal is the dramatic irony that we as the audience can see his heroic qualities in his simple actions, but the other characters either cannot or will not see them. I would by no means characterize the character of Xander as simply comic relief. I am among those who believe that he, if no one else, will see this journey through to the end along with Buffy.
[> [> [> Re: No ... -- Shiver, 20:29:57 12/04/01 Tue

Nope, still disagree, the only one who rags on Xander any more is Spike, and that's just Spike. Anya frets and worries over him, but he goes patrolling with everyone else and no one tells him to stay out of the way or he'll get hurt. In fact Buffy specifically chooses him to go into the Initiative with her (to Anya's dismay) because of his military memories. Nobody thinks he's powerless and ineffectual any more. He made a fairly good showing against Olaf the Troll, so much so that Olaf decided to only kill one of the girls instead of both. Xander hasn't had a whole lot of storylines to himself since The Replacement, but he's not the whipping boy of the series any more. He's got the job, the girl, and he's often Voice-Of-Reason guy. S1 and S2, and even early S3 Xander - yes, you can call him a schlemiel. Current Xander, a resounding NO.
[> [> [> Re: No ... -- maddog, 07:12:03 12/05/01 Wed

I'd have to disagree that the other characters don't see Xander's heroic qualities. While they know he lacks the superpowerish qualities that they have, I think they fully appreciate his efforts. If anything, the reason they attempt to hold him back is because they know he'll be such a hard worker that he'll end up hurting himself, or worse.
[> [> [> [> Re: No ... -- MrDave, 22:21:37 12/05/01 Wed

I have to agree that the S4+ X-man is not a Schlemiel archetype. He is more of the hero-we-all-want- to be. In a world like Sunnydale where the word "Monster" on the front page of the Newspaper is likely a regular event, the average Joe must harbor a tremendous amount of fear and self-loathing theat they are unable or unwilling to act.

No so, Xander. As Buffy tells the council, "The 'boy' has logged more field-time than all of you combined. He Stays." Xander is a footsoldier in the service of officers. When you are surrounded by chiefs, someone has to be the Indian. Despite the fact he has no magic of his own (although in OMwF he demonstrates at least a willingness to try--envy maybe?), no super strength, no super intelligence, he has repeatedly demonstrated the ONE skill that no-one else in the SG seems to have...Determination. Xander acts. He does not waffle, ponder, avoid, second-guess, or procrastinate. He might delay somewhat (in reference to the Wedding for example), but it is always a decision to do so (with his reasons carefully considered) rather than an attempt to avoid the inevitable. He will go through with it because he has decided to do it. These are not the qualities of a Schlemiel...
[> [> [> [> [> Re: No ... -- maddog, 09:18:43 12/06/01 Thu

That trait...that die hard determination, acting on impulse, is what also makes him very human, and at times annoying though. He's so protective of Buffy it's sad at times...first with Angel, then with Riley. I mean, I like Xander...just one of those character faults that sticks in your head.
[> Well, if Xander is the Schlemiel... -- WillowFan, 20:03:09 12/04/01 Tue

...then who's the Schlamazel? A Schlamazel fares even worse than a Schlemiel. The old Yiddish joke is that the Schlemiel is always spilling hot soup all over the Schlamazel. The poor Schlamazel!

And another question: Can a Schlemiel be female? Wasn't Tara kind of a Schlemiel when Willow first met her? Or was Willow the Schlemiel, and Tara the Schlamazel? (Or am I thinking of Laverne and Shirley?)
[> Re: Is Xander a Schlemiel? (longish) -- maddog, 06:59:13 12/05/01 Wed

You had me in agreement til it hit the part where the schlemiel "subdues his urge to be a hero". That's not Xander...he lacks the naturally given gifts of Buffy and/or the amazing Willowy brain power(that leads into her magic too). He gives the hero's effort even though he has little to give. So yeah, that mostly sounds right except for the one part I pointed out.
[> [> Re: Is Xander a Schlemiel? -- Yellowork, 15:41:05 12/05/01 Wed

I think Xander 'is' the 'schlemiel' in the same way Buffy 'is' Red Riding Hood in 'Helpless'. That is, the 'prototype' is used, built on, subverted and even ignored in places; but it is used to help the audience to understand the character as he exists, which is somewhere between the archetype and the individual, surely? It reminds me of the idea of 'différance' which is basically the theory that texts are full of holes and they vacillate endlessly between alternative meanings and interpretations.

I think Willow seen as the schlemiel or the schlamazel in early seasons, but she has changed now; and other archetypes now come into play for her. She no longer subdues her 'urge to be a hero' - isn't that what the current storyline is all about? — and thus we can't really see a way to view her as a schlemiel / schlamazel on these grounds any more.
[> Re: Is Xander a Schlemiel? (Also longish) -- Eric, 19:31:21 12/06/01 Thu

That's a pretty good essay. Zander may very well be that. Unfortunately, I haven't seen many scenes where this is evident. I recently saw the ep where he had the slap fight with Harmony and realized he'd been reduced to the Buffyverse Joxer. This is terribly inconsistant, since Zander always amounted to more in previous season. Unlike Joxer, who believes he's a hero, Zander rarely labors under that delusion. At best, he pretends to pretend. His soldier costume choice revealed an adolescent desire to become what soldiers in popular culture resemble: brave, capable, and in control. This image promotes the idea that heroic men feel no fear. In reality, heroism is feeling the fear and doing the job anyway. Z does not seem to have ever cleared that mental hurdle in the face of his own fear. But he does want to be a hero. In the alternate universe Zander was a "bad ass vampire". Willow vamp rather eclipsed him in that ep, but it was apparent that he was equally her partner and lover. Becoming a vampire in BtVS allows people to reveal their shadow selves. By this I mean not only becoming a disciple of the dark side, but displaying portions of the personality rejected by the rational mind. The fascades of self imposed identity vanish to allow them out. Some of these are quite normal and good when expressed properly in the proper context. In Willow's case, vampirism revealed dormant powers of her personality and lesbianism. Likewise, Evil Zander revealed personality traits unknown to human Zander. He was mature in expressing his emotions and a very capable, competent fighter. Of course, vampirism ensures these things are never expressed properly or in the proper context. Its a crummy cure for psychosis. Willow's lesbianism is a mere footnote to her sadism and both are servants of the Master.
Z may not be a great hero in BtVS, and he might be a Schlemiel. But he does care for his friends and willingly risks his fear, life, and dignity to help them when he can. And this shouldn't be taken for granted in the Buffyverse - in fact its a courage that borders on the insane. A similar act in our world would be to buy tickets to Afganistan and present yourself, as is, sans language, weapon, or combat skills, to the Northern Alliance as a foot soldier.
Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- diagnoztix, 10:47:52 12/04/01 Tue

I just wondered whether Buffy was invented as a sort of feminist thing - or whether the program came about cus guys would get kicks seeing a girl kicking ass (The whole Lara Croft thing) Are there just a load of hollow gender role reversals here - or is Buffy in a new Genre?
[> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- LoriAnn, 11:05:42 12/04/01 Tue

Isn't it possible that BtVS is neither of your choices? Does everything have to be about either power or titillation? As far as being a new genre, you question seems to imply that the only two options you offer are genres. They're not. BtVS's genre is a mixed one, horror, sci-fi, comedy, drama, even musical comedy.
[> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- Shiver, 12:16:48 12/04/01 Tue

Buffy doesn't fit any stereotypical molds (unlike Angel, where the writers seem to like applying anvillic stereotypes to the characters on a weekly basis). Hence the beauty that is the series.
[> Yea it's about Girl Power, but it's still better than Charmed. -- change, 17:25:16 12/04/01 Tue

BtVS used to try to appeal to a very wide audience. However, it's devolving into a Girl Power show as time goes by. The female characters are being built up, and the story lines revolve more and more around them. Buffy just becomes stronger and stronger. Last season she defeated a god. Now she's no longer human. Willow's magic powers are also increasing and a large amount of this year's story arc apparently evolves around her and Tara. Anya has gone (in one year) from being a shop girl to running the shop.

The guys, on the other hand, are either being removed or made weak. Riley and Angel (the two strongest male characters) have been removed. Riley was removed in a particularly ugly way. Giles has been sent back to England. Xander has gone from being a hero who saves Buffy's life in the first season, to "hiding behind his Buffy" whenever things get tough in the sixth season. Spike had to be (figuratively) castrated before he could date Buffy. The villians for the season appear to be a trio of geeks.

Although the show still has some elements of the original show, it is definitely written for the girls now. I hope that changes because it's beginning to drag, but I'm not counting on it. On the other hand, it's still a lot better than Charmed (which I have never been able to watch through a whole episode).
[> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- Age, 19:51:36 12/04/01 Tue

If you are interested, after the section on symbolic interpretation, I make reference to the theme of Girl Power in my posting below called:

Look at 'Smashed', 'Lullaby', 'Wrecked', Eden Myth Spoilers Part One -- Age, 10:08:11 11/30/01 Fri

The gist of my concern is that Girl Power is simple mimicking of male power; not the empowerment of the feminine, but the empowering of women, ie the assimilation of women into the male power culture. While our society has changed in that women have equality with men, this equality is simply the green light for women to become men and take on all the same problems that men have in dealing with their emotions, ie using power as a means of masking their own insecurities and fears. This is shown through Buffy's and Willow's predicament this season.

[> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- maddog, 06:44:19 12/05/01 Wed

I think the answer lies in both of your assumptions(more so in the former than the latter). I think it was made with the idea that it would be a very pro girl power idea, but they know with that concept will bring young men out of the woodwork too.
[> Re: Niether, it's about -adolescence- -- Lucifer_Sponge, 11:07:42 12/05/01 Wed

[> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- purplegrrl, 12:06:05 12/05/01 Wed

Joss has said that the creative impetus behind BtVS is that he he wanted to write about a blonde young woman in a horror situation who would kick evil butt rather than being just so much monster chow and turn up dead before the second act.

So it's not really a genre decision. (Besides, BtVS doesn't really fit very neatly in any of the genre boxes -- there are parts hanging out over the edges!)
[> [> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- Rufus, 12:58:09 12/05/01 Wed

Gee, maybe that's why we've gotten to see Xander and Wesley and a few times even Giles and Spike, yelp or scream at a surprise or scary thing. I was sick of the typical horror flick that had the same formula of screaming girls being slashed(specially if they had engaged in sexual behavior). This way the girl who looks the most like she should be screaming is the one making the demons scream....I like that.
[> [> [> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- purplegrrl, 13:58:51 12/06/01 Thu

Being blonde, I was always annoyed that the blonde in the horror movies was the first one to die. (Although it was rather tongue in cheek that Sarah Michelle Geller's character was the first to die in "I Know What You Did Last Summer.")
[> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- Eric, 18:32:51 12/06/01 Thu

Speaking as an, um, "lad" I DO enjoy watching Buffy in part because the women are hot. (Yep, go ahead and feel that Righteous Indignation.) Of course I was raised during 40+ years of feminism's modern incarnation. So while Buffy attracts the usual hormonal responses, I really like the fact that she kicks ass. This is far more appealing than the women raised to be doormats in the 40's and 50's. I might add that as a character she appeals because she displays a certain emotional vulnerability I (and many others) can sympathize with. After all, who hasn't faced at least one problem they felt emotionally unable to deal with? This is often mistaken by villains as a critical liability, but is actually evidence of emotional strength. It helps her in the long run. And when the chips are down Buffy STILL kicks ass.
Now is this just another example perpetuating male stupidity by putting a skirt on it? Possibly - depending on what you consider male stupidity. I agree that ridgid gender roles qualify. But on BtVS none of the white hats get to battle Evil on their own terms.
I do not wish to see the show as nothing more than Girl Power promotion. The poster above is correct in that it is leaning that way. My favorite male character is Zander - a person completely ill suited to battle the forces of Evil. No special powers, no money, average intellect, just a guy willing to help his friends whether it getting donuts, doing obscure research, or getting beaten like a red headed step child. The only source of annoyance is his selfish protection/adoration of them that sometimes translates into snide, inappropriate remarks. Unfortunately he's degenerating into the Buffyverse Joxer.
[> [> Re: Is BTVS all about Girl Power - or just kicks 4 the lads? -- Shaglio, 05:36:04 12/07/01 Fri

Whenever my friends tease me about watching Buffy because it's a "chick show," I always say, "Hot chicks kicking the crap out of mosters with medieval weapons - what more could a guy want?" That usually shuts them up.
September archives are up! -- Masquerade, 11:13:16 12/04/01 Tue

Go to The ATPoBtVS Discussion Board Archives

And click on "September 2001"

Read our season 6/season 3 speculations! See the keen insights that came out of our summer stir- craziness! Reflect on our reactions to the tragic events of 9/11!

And much, much thanks to d'Herblay for pulling this together! clap, clap, clap
Live in N.E. OH? A "Hush" won't fall over the crowd on the 11th. -- Simplicity, 15:01:16 12/04/01 Tue

I looked up the Buffy schedule on for December 11th (the rebroadcast of 'Hush'. We have something called "Jacob's Ladder" instead. Should we go to and complain?
[> According to Yahoo! TV, it's Hush playing. -- Masq, 16:07:55 12/04/01 Tue

Is Yahoo's main Buffy page geared to the network at large, or local showings?
[> [> WBZ (Boston?) showed Afterlife (UPN 38)... -- Wisewoman, 18:16:15 12/04/01 Tue

We got it on cable at 5 pm, and they showed scenes from "the UPN Premiere" of Hush for next week.
[> Re: Live in N.E. OH? A "Hush" won't fall over the crowd on the 11th. -- d'Herblay, 20:21:45 12/04/01 Tue

According to my handy-dandy basketball schedule, the Cavaliers play the Houston Rockets on channel 43 that night with an 8:30 tip-off. "Hush" will be shown at 8 pm, Saturday the 15th.
inane musings -- yabyumpan, 15:37:28 12/04/01 Tue

There's a running joke in BtVS & AtS about Angel using "hair products", I've just watched In the Dark again, where Spike goes to LA to get the Ring of Amarah from Angel and listening to his opening speech he talks about Angel wearing "nancy boy hair gel" and I thought - Pot calling the kettle black much....have we ever seen a hair out of place on the admitedly lovely head of Spike, Angel's may well be "nancy boy gel" (no offence to Angel fans of which I'm a huge one myself), but surely Spike's has got to be "industrial strength". Maybe it's more "macho man hair gel"!!!!
Just thought I'd share this inane and totally anti-intellectual musing, I do like to lower the tone.
he he he he
[> Re: inane musings -- Masq, 15:44:36 12/04/01 Tue

In retrospect, his whole speech in "in the dark" is ironic, considering he said Angel's love for Buffy and his curse defanged him and now he was just a "big fluffy puppy with bad teeth". Spike's chip and his love for buffy defanged him.
[> [> Ah, but now he has...his rocks back. -- rowan, 15:49:35 12/04/01 Tue

[> [> [> It remains to be seen what he does with them. -- Masq, 15:56:11 12/04/01 Tue

In the short term, he seems more interested in shagging her than harming her.
[> [> [> [> Re: It remains to be seen what he does with them. -- rowan, 16:43:47 12/04/01 Tue

More power to Buffy -- it's about time ME let her have a decent sex life. I mean, doesn't she get some joy for putting her life on the line every night? I'll have to check into whether that's allowed in the hero's handbook.


[> Re: inane musings -- fresne, 16:49:12 12/04/01 Tue

Which brings us to some deep philosophical musings which have long vexed me.

Clearly many vampires use hair care products, makeup etc. How exactly do they do that without a mirror? Is it a special (although not much discussed) power that vampires have, the ability to put on eyeliner without looking?

I'd say yeah, except Angel's clear use of hair products to stick his hair straight up would argue against extra-sensory grooming abilities. Or, is that because he has a soul. It interferes with his abilities?

And Spike's hair. Was that a one time bleach job (he's dead his hair don't grow) or does he have to touch up the roots (he's undead, his hair grows just fine)? If touched up, just how does a guy sans bathroom and no mirror access privileges do that?

And ultimately, what does the obsession with hair products mean? Philosophically that is?

These products are used to structure hair that sits upon the head, the seat of reason and therefore must indicate a desire to shape and restructure oneself.

In many ways hair represents vampires…hair beyond a certain length is dead and is virtually indestructible, although a trifle flammable and is inclined to spit ends.

Don't so much take it and run, as walk slowly away. Nodding and smiling. Smiling and nodding.
[> [> Vamp Hair has to grow... :) -- Ardent, 18:17:28 12/04/01 Tue

Look at Angel Flashbacks... He has sideburns at times, among other things.
[> [> [> As long as we're talking hair and gel.... -- Nina, 19:34:04 12/04/01 Tue

In Wrecked we have a "sans gel Spike" when Buffy wakes him up in his crypt. His hair are not slick back or anything. Next shot he has gel... Does this mean that Spike decided to put gel to go out before looking for Dawn? "Oh wait Buffy.... I want to help you find little bit, but I have to put some gel in my hair or I won't be fit to go out!"

I know it's probably just a mistake.. still it's funny!
[> [> [> [> Demon hair stylists -- Deeva, 21:37:27 12/04/01 Tue

Maybe there are demon hair stylists out there, just like there are demon bars and bath houses and so on. I don't think that Spike bleaches his own hair, so someone has to do it. And as for Angel, someone had to tell him what to do with his hair after he lost the ponytail. What a job, huh?
[> Ha!!!! -- sl, 17:42:45 12/04/01 Tue

[> Re: inane musings -- Cynthia, 19:08:31 12/04/01 Tue

I love how either Buffy's or Spike's hair as out of place despite a long passionate night. And while bruised and scratched, not a a smig of dirt or plaster on them. And the clothes, spotless.

Wish I could do that LOL.
[> [> Re: inane musings -- Deeva, 21:38:53 12/04/01 Tue

I thought I saw a bit of soot on Spike but maybe it was just a shadow.
[> [> [> Re: inane musings -- RH, 07:07:38 12/05/01 Wed

It could have been a bruise...
[> [> Re: inane musings -- Bill C, 07:21:18 12/05/01 Wed

And the clothes, spotless. Wish I could do that

So does that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.
[> [> [> Boy, that would have saved us a ton of trouble! -- Jen C., 14:45:28 12/05/01 Wed

[> [> [> [> Demon hair care -- Yellowork, 15:55:13 12/05/01 Wed

I grew up rather fast in a house where all the mirrors didn't. The result of this was that after a while it was awkward to see myself above my shoulders in them. So ... I didn't look. Just ask a blind guy; it's perfectly possible to style your hair, shave, put on make up and so on without looking at your image in a mirror. The mirror doesn't quite present the world as it really is, anyway.
[> Re: inane musings -- anom, 21:56:07 12/05/01 Wed

I've referred in a couple of earlier posts to Spike's "punky-boy hair dye that he likes so much." Didn't get much of a response.

And how ridiculous is it that Angel "didn't know" his hair stood up (when he can see his reflection in Pylea)? He'd seen it in I Will Remember You & didn't comment on it. And come on, hair doesn't get that way by itself. Cordelia knows he must have hair gel when she stays (uninvited) w/him in the ep whose title I can't remember, the one where she finds her haunted apt. He puts the stuff on his hair but he doesn't know it makes the hair stand up?

About why vampires are concerned w/their looks, I don't think it matters that they can't see themselves. They're more interested in having a "look"--whether menacing, innocent (the better to lure victims), cool, or whatever. It's not about seeing themselves, it's about how others, human or vamp, perceive them. After all, they see these looks on humans & know what they "mean" in the context of the society of the day.
New Angel Ep Next Week -- Wisewoman, 18:31:33 12/04/01 Tue

The Angel's Acolyte spoiler site ( is reporting that next week's (Dec. 10) episode of Angel will be "Dad," a new episode.

Yay! Takes the sting out of no Buffy...

[> Re: You bringer of good news. Please bring more. ;-) -- bible belt, 19:18:54 12/04/01 Tue

[> Re: New Angel Ep Next Week -- Rufus, 19:34:29 12/04/01 Tue

Can hardly wait. I just have to find out what they are going to do with the baby storyline.....
[> [> Ending it quickly, with any luck -- Tanker, 22:38:33 12/04/01 Tue

I am SO not interested in the Angel baby storyline, I don't have words to express it. My interest in the show is hanging by a thread.
[> Yes, but next week's Buffy is "Hush"!!!! Not that new Angel is not good but "Hush"! ;o) -- Deeva, 21:26:36 12/04/01 Tue

[> [> I'm so excited! I've never seen Hush before!! -- MayaPapaya9, 22:07:56 12/04/01 Tue

[> [> [> You're in for quite a treat!! -- Kimberly, 06:19:40 12/05/01 Wed

[> [> [> It's a keeper, MayaPapaya! I couldn't walk by a dark uncurtained window for a long time!! -- Deeva, 09:34:22 12/05/01 Wed

[> There was a teaser for it after this week's Angel rerun... -- Iago, 01:12:09 12/05/01 Wed

So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- Diagnoztix, 06:38:50 12/05/01 Wed

To continue my earlier Q -If the show's becoming a bit tired now - has the show's audience changed? Is it watched predominantly by females now? (You can really tell I'm a student writing an essay on Buffy, can't you!!)Thanx 4 ur help Age :-)
[> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- maddog, 06:45:35 12/05/01 Wed

I haven't exactly gotten to your previous posts but I was under the assumption that teenager girls was it's main people have the numbers to disgree?
[> [> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- JM, 07:05:14 12/05/01 Wed

Don't have numbers, but some research may be in order. I'm pretty sure that I have seen a number of articles mentioning that the fanbase is twenties to thirties, and the teen thing is a misperception.

Don't think it's getting tired. In a different artistic phase than S1.
[> [> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- Lilac, 07:13:02 12/05/01 Wed

I don't know if the official stats will support what I have observed in my own family -- but my husband and I both see Buffy and Angel both as no miss TV, as does our 14 year old son, as did my 67 year old mother (who LOVES Spike) until her compromised eyesight made watching it impossible for her. So, none of us are teenage girls and we are all devoted watchers -- but no one official has ever asked us about it.
[> [> [> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- maddog, 07:33:24 12/05/01 Wed

I know Joss has always said that he aimed the show at the late teen, early twenty crowd. And by the last two posts it's obvious it has quite the span of ages watching it. hmm, where to dig those numbers from. :)
[> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- Rattletrap, 08:50:33 12/05/01 Wed

Remember that the audience changes with the show. Someone watching "Welcome to the Hellmouth" in 1996 as a 15 year-old HS freshman would now be 21 and likely in college. The audiences ages along with the characters, something that the WB never fully understood.

That said, Buffy is a show that can, I think, be resonant with people of all ages, sexes, and backgrounds. Just the diversity of posters represented on this board is astounding, and everyone seems to get something out of it. The show is well served by the move to UPN, where it is marketed to a broader audience than just teenage girls. In response to the earlier thread--yes, on some level Buffy is about girl power, but that is not necessarily exclusive. Many men are supportive of women's rights and gender equality and are not put off by a show that advances those themes. Moreover, in the last few seasons, I feel like BtVS has moved beyond simplistic gender themes to a much broader appeal, despite the steadily declining male representation in the regular cast. The things Buffy, Willow, and the others experience are not that different from the things I experience in my life as a 25 year-old man. In other words, yes, Buffy is about girl power, and oh so much more.
[> Hard to say. -- Solitude1056, 08:50:41 12/05/01 Wed

The only significant numbers are those of the Neilson ratings, and that's just not a statistically valid system as far as I'm concerned. I mean, it's only like one in every so many households, and normally very whitebread designation... so determining the makeup of the audience is a guesstimate at best. The advertisements are usually the best indicator of who the station/distributor thinks is going to watch a show, and both AtS and BtVS seem to be top-heavy on late-teen type products. Let's see, various hair dye products showing lots of nubile young females bouncing around & looking happy, Old Navy (with more nubile folks doing the happy bounce), AOL (again showing various nubile late-teens of both genders bouncing around looking excited about chat rooms), fast food chains (with yet more nubile folks of both genders), and pre-paid cell phone ads (yet again highlighting nubile late-teens). Hm, Victoria's Secret is probably going for the twenties-age crowd (with a side benefit of eye candy for some other members of the audience). Gee, you think they're expecting late high school & college age kids to be the major audience?

It's possible that this age group is the majority of the audience, but it's not all. The median age of the writers appears to be roughly in the thirties, so there's naturally going to be an element of maturity that sneaks in here & there - and both shows have (or had, prior to Giles' departure) characters that reflected the POV of any older audience members. I'd suggest that while the bulk of the expected audience is under 25, the rest - maybe as high as 40% - is made up of adults up to seniors who also enjoy the show. However, the only ones who'd spend the time & money to investigate the audience might be advertisers wanting to make sure they're reaching the intended audience for their product, and they're not going to bother as long as WB, UPN, and Fox are insistent that the audience is predominantly aged 14 to 25.

As for the gender of the audience, I've met as many females who are bored by the show (for whatever reason) as I've met males who think it's a chick show. And among friends who enjoy the show, there are as many guys if not slightly more. A few months ago, I took a general poll off the listings on the "meet the posters" pages. Roughly 50% of the folks did not explicitly or implicitly list a gender (implicit = using "girl" or "boy" in the name, identifying as a "mom" or "dad," for instance). Of the folks who could be identified, the division was almost equal between male and female, with the largest audience group falling in the 29-35 age group. Obviously not the most statistically accurate, and the details are probably in the August or September archives if you want more info. That's just a segment of the population. A noisier board such as BAPS may make it look like the bulk of the audience is 29-45 aged women who like Spike... so it's going to be hard to get an accurate idea, but I think it's reasonable to suggest we can debunk the notion that it's 90% women who are watching the show. ;-)
[> [> Re: Hard to say. -- Rattletrap, 08:55:26 12/05/01 Wed

Good points, Sol. It's also worth mentioning that the Nielsens historically neglect some groups. College students huddled around a TV in a dorm room watching Buffy would rarely show up at all, and even young singles tend to be a bit more invisible than do nuclear families. It is distinctly possible that BtVS has a much larger following than its generally low ratings would lead one to conclude. Drawing any conclusions about the makeup of its audience seems even more spurious.

I do get the feeling this board breaks down roughly 50-50 between men and women, but that's just a guess.
[> [> Re: Hard to say. -- maddog, 09:29:25 12/05/01 Wed

Well Angel was always meant for an older crowd...that's why they spun him off(besides the fact that Boreanz and Carpenter were both in their late 20's and looking for more mature themes). I think Buffy's always had maturity in it, especially for the age group they were dealing with and that's what made it so watchable for the older(20+) crowd.

The one reason I've never considered the Nielsen's fair is the market for the non big 4 it fair to blame the WB and UPN for not being in as many households? That's why they're stuck constantly above the 100 mark. If everything was evenly distributed(as many NBC affiliates as WB or UPN) then I have a feeling those Nielsen's would be quite different.

The only problem with your poll(even with "a noisier board") is your talking about a very narrow field...first of all, you're cutting off viewers who aren't on the internet...and as common as it's becoming, it's still isn't as big as you'd think. Then of those that are, you're cutting off those that actually are SO interested in it that they want to learn something about it, maybe even discuss it. Cause believe it or not there are people out there who watch the show for pure enjoyment and don't do any of this internet stuff. :)
[> [> [> Re: Hard to say. -- Kimberly, 11:10:55 12/05/01 Wed

"Cause believe it or not there are people out there who watch the show for pure enjoyment and don't do any of this internet stuff. :)"

Hard to believe, isn't it. This is almost more fun than watching the show.
(Then again, I've been known to read non-fiction just to keep the brain cells alive. :-))
[> [> [> [> Re: Hard to say. -- Edward, 19:21:02 12/05/01 Wed

(Then again I've been known to read non-fiction just to keep the brain cells alive. :-))

Speaking as her spouse, don't let her fool you all, Kimberly will read ANYTHING that is printed. When desperate that includes things like Kleenex boxes etc. :-)

A family joke is that when the Grim Reaper finally comes for her, she will tell him "Just let me finish the chapter.."
[> [> [> [> [> Oooooo that remark requires punishment..........;) -- Rufus, 21:00:29 12/05/01 Wed

Kleenex boxes have a wealth of information on them.....but it is much better she come here where we will make her use kleenex to either cry or laugh.....much more fun....:):)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oooooo that remark requires punishment..........;) -- Edward, 22:11:55 12/05/01 Wed

True, she hasn't been reading any Kleenex boxes since she discovered this forum...

We do seem to be rewatching alot of old episodes though ;)

As to punishment, I think Spike would say something like "Yes have some." I'm more Xander like though (Hence the ill timed remark), so I'm cringing at the thought. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But you are watching them together............ -- Rufus, 23:47:05 12/05/01 Wed

The good part of all this is even though most people are going Oooo and Ahhh over the bad girl or boy...think Spike or Faith/Evil Willow too....most people end up back in reality and find a Xander/Riley or Willow. I'm just not fond of bad boys myself, finding I have a rather sadistic streak when it comes to players. So I married a Riley type of guy. So, for Christmas buy her an Action Spike and she will think you are the Big Bad.......;)
My husband also watches the show, even though he denies knowing much about it. But I'm the Big Bad in this house........
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But you are watching them together............ -- Kimberly, 06:14:34 12/06/01 Thu

Definitely Xander. And he gets punished. And punished. And punished. :-)

And the kid told me last night that I'm the Big Bad in the house. (I'm meaner; I actually make him do what I say I will. :-))

Yeah, no more time for Kleenex boxes, cereal boxes, and other stray pieces of paper. And don't let him fool you; he's loving rewatching the old episodes, except I have to keep reminding him where they are in sequence. No, dear, he doesn't get killed for several more episodes. Etc.
[> [> [> [> Re: Hard to say. -- maddog, 09:00:35 12/06/01 Thu

Though it would be nice if we could all do this in person...the ideas would flow better.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hard to say. -- Kimberly, 09:04:43 12/06/01 Thu

Yeah, in some ways this is worse than a phone conversation, which I hate. Of course, this way I can actually think of what I want to say and say it, instead of losing the conversation in the process, so that's cool.
[> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- Rob, 09:42:02 12/05/01 Wed

Diagnoztix said:

"If the show's becoming a bit tired now - has the show's audience changed? Is it watched predominantly by females now?"

First off, I have to say, jumping up and down and screaming, THE SHOW IS NOT TIRED NOW! Episode quality is at an all-time high, and the show is tackling multitudes of complex themes. Yes, the show may be going in a different direction than we would have imagined in Season One, but a show must develop and change as its characters do.

Rattletrap said:

"Remember that the audience changes with the show. Someone watching "Welcome to the Hellmouth" in 1996 as a 15 year-old HS freshman would now be 21 and likely in college. The audiences ages along with the characters, something that the WB never fully understood."

This is the exact situation that happened to me. I am proud to be the same age as the characters on "Buffy." It is, in fact, why I relate to this show more than any other I have ever watched. These characters have literally grown up with me, since I started watching around the age of 16, until now. The level of maturity the show has reached now parallels the level of maturity its audience has reached. That is why "Buffy" appeals to all ages and both sexes. It does not remain stagnant in its beliefs and does not try to only pander to one audience. And, as I said before, it is a show that has grown with its audience in many ways. Compare the mature characters on "Buffy" to the emotionally stilted ones on "Dawson's Creek," for example. The characters on shows like DC have not grown one bit, NOT ONE BIT since the first episode. How do I know? My mom is a big DC fan, and it's on every week in my house. And I can tell you the characters are stuck in a neverending soap opera in which they repeat the same dumb mistakes over and over again. Look at the first season of "Buffy" and then look at the characters now. They have changed a great deal. That is why every new season of "Buffy" becomes my favorite while it is first on.

And as far as the question about a female audience goes, I don't understand why your claim that the show is getting "a bit tired" would tie in with having a largely female audience. As far as I know, and from the evidence in the previous posts, people of all ages, sexes, faiths, etc. watch and adore "Buffy."

[> Re: So is BTVS: Some Spoilers for Buffy and Angel, especially 'Billy.' -- Age, 11:11:37 12/05/01 Wed

You are welcome.

Of the few people I know personally who watch it, the majority of them are guys, including myself.

I see 'Buffy' as a human, not a feminist show. We all have feminine and masculine qualities in us to some degree, and it's just the attachment to absolute oppositional thinking that demands that we negate one in us for the other. It is this splitting of the world into two that has allowed the attachment to the male as dominant, and which has led to the creation of a predatory society in which denial of self, especially in connection with the emotions people judge to be bad, and denial of the feminine(trust, love, respect, caring) in both men and women have led to the kind of destructive strategies and behaviours that we see in 'Buffy.' It is the denial of self which creates the kind of rage that is the point of contact between men and women in such a society. It is this rage also that creates the tendency towards destablization of the society through violence and provides the reason for the continued need for repressive measures by a governing power, ie it is a self perpetuating system where repression causes the very tendency to chaos that the system is trying to prevent from happening.

There seems to be this year, as the symbolism of gaining adulthood would demand(in a patriarchal society you simply get told, like a child, what your identity is), the re-invention of the identities of the characters as the society we live in grows to a sort of maturity of vision. Perhaps Rowan's(? sorry if I'm wrong) idea that both Spike and Buffy have to let go of the influence of Angel and Dru, represents, in the terms that I usually assign to my postings, the undoing of the inter generational scarring by the sexual predator(Angelus) and the results of that sexual predator, the emasculator, Dru, that has occurred as Buffy's generation must deal with the lingering and formative influence of the society from which we have been emerging these past thirty years.

While women have taken the brunt of the abuse at the hands of the male culture, men have suffered also. This is not about male bashing, nor is it about devaluing the masculine. Girl Power isn't a matter of women striking back, that's simply doing what the men have been taught to do and thus playing into the emasculator role: the phallic symbol in Buffy's hands may be meant to symbolize this power struggle between men and women, with the slayer being an emasculating and deconstructing figure rolled into one: the slayer is part of the fight between sexual predator and female, but also the deconstruction of that structure by having Buffy the human being left after the staking: the human person, who has just used her so-called masculine side in the fight, but who also symbolizes the value of the feminine by being a female character.

It is rather empowering the feminine in both men and women.(I've nothing at all against women and men learning martial arts to strike back in a literal sense when needed, and both sexes have to one degree or other a natural aggression, but that's only allowing the women to open to their masculine side. It still leaves the other aspect of humanity abandoned and devalued, the feminine aspect.)

Or, I may just simply be projecting my own focus on this subject.

There's an episode of the old series 'Kung Fu' that I used in an E mail analysis of the 'Angel' ep 'Billy' that might help here:

There is an episode of 'Kung Fu', starring David Carradine as a pseudo buddhist monk of the Shaolin order who has come to America to escape the mercenary assassins of the Emperor of China after having killed the Emperor's nephew in a fit of rage after the latter had killed without just cause his beloved master Po, where Kwai Chang Caine, the monk, spies a man who resembles someone he had met in China. As it happens the man turns out to be the son of the guy who once saved Caine's father, and Caine feels that a debt is owed to the man. The man does not accept that such a debt is owed, but Caine persists and will not leave.

Now, it so happens that the village where the man lives is being terrorized by a band of bandits who have fought as soldiers in a war, but who feel they now have no place in society. They believe that their self worth is tied up in soldiering, and that to farm would be degrading because farmers, to them, are all sheep, frightened sheep who cannot face the life and death struggles of battle. Because of their denigrating attitude towards the villagers, they are exacting tribute/protection money from them, but the crop has failed and the day of payment is drawing close.

The scene is set up to show three types of entrapment or helplessness: the feeling of helplessness as the bandits cannot extricate themselves from their belief that farming is below them and so feel they have no worth left in society(as there's no war); the feeling of helplessness on the part of the villagers as they find themselves terrorized by the bandits, knowing that the crop has failed and they can't pay their tribute; and the helplessness of Caine as he is trapped by the debt he owes(it is not a burden to him at all.) He's not really helpless in the sense of feeling that way, but he cannot leave until his debt is paid.

Now, the Shaolin order of monks practises Kung Fu for self defence and meditation, and once it is discovered that Caine has martial arts skills, the man to whom he owes the debt demands that he teach him to kill. His intention is to challenge the leader of the bandits to a fight, but clearly his demand is also motivated by anger. At first Caine refuses. But, then he aquiesces as the man makes it clear that Caine is endebted to him. Caine teaches the man how to defend himself, not kill.

Unfortunately before the day of the duel, one of the younger members of the village, unable to control his anger, sets off to kill the bandit chief, and is killed himself while trying. The anger on the part of the man Caine is now training intensifies.

When the time comes for the tribute to be paid, the bandit leader is challenged to a duel, and surprised by the courage of the villager, accepts. The terms of the duel are that if the villager wins, the bandits will leave in peace. The fight is hand-to- hand with knives, but it's not important. At some point, the anger and passion coupled with the control and skill that Caine has taught him win over the efforts of the bandit chief, and the villager gets the upper hand. At this point the anger and rage at being made to feel helpless takes him over, and he raises his knife above his head with the intention of killing the bandit chief who is on the ground. At that point Caine intervenes, and asks him whether now the sheep would become the wolf; where will the killing end, with him(another bandit) or with me?

Reluctantly, the man puts down the knife, and the bandits live up to their end of the bargain. In fact, the courage of the duel has given the bandit leader pause to open up to the idea of farming for when Caine suggests that it is an honourable way of living done by men, the bandit leader says he will consider it. In this way, all three instances of helplessness are done away with. Caine walks out of the village, his debt having been paid.

While violence was still needed in this instance to effect change, it was the cessation of violence that made sure that that change had a lasting effect. It was not the exchange of one power structure for another, but the deconstruction of that power structure itself for something much more valuable: self worth. As in 'Buffy' these characters had gotten themselves into a frozen state from which they could not extricate themselves, and were using power as a means of not dealing with their concerns.

(As an aside, no I wasn't arguing in my 'Billy' analysis that men have no responsibility for the violence they commit because they are helpless in the face of a culturally infected(a la Billy) misogyny. I was arguing that indeed, the ideas we have in our brains, even if we've been taught them at an early age, we have to, at some point in our lives, if we are to be adults, take responsibility for, even if we are not responsible for those ideas being there in the first place, even as the characters in 'Billy' were not responsible for their having been infected. In this way, not only women are hurt by this culture of hatred, but men are too as they either have to give into it or assume responsibility for what their beliefs are, and take on the guilt for their actions. It is the difference between men per se hard wired to be misogynist as Lilah incorrectly assumes, and Fred's explanation that it is a cultural phenomenon, ie something done to the men, and something that they can rid themselves of. In season arcs of both series which seem to be dealing with growing up, at some point men have to look at their beliefs and take responsibility for them, or they just will, like children, make the excuse that society did this to them and they aren't responsible. None of us is responsible for anything: we didn't ask to be born or pick our bodies, our minds, our parents. But, if we don't take responsibility for ourselves, then we aren't really persons. We are just then human animals. And I think, on the contrary, 'Buffy' is about what it means to be a human being.)

Hope this helps the discussion.

[> Re: So is BTVS now more popular with a female audience? -- Edward, 19:29:40 12/05/01 Wed

I don't know what the gender makeup of the show is now, but one thing I have always found interesting is if you look at first season episodes Buffy wore clothing and probably underclothing that accentuated her breasts.

That was probably because they expected the show to be popular amongst teen boys. Since then, I don't remember when it changed, but it did, they have de-emphasized her looks, not making her unattractive but going away from the early years emphasis on looks.

That would imply that they found the audience wasn't coming just to look at Buffy in a Baywatch kind of way, and that it wasn't necessary.
[> Me no teenage girl! Rargh! Grifter smash puny statistics! -- grifter, 05:16:07 12/06/01 Thu

sorry, being silly again
Thoughts on Afterlife -- Cactus Watcher, 06:58:41 12/05/01 Wed

Of course, we all saw it the first time, but the way Spike treats Buffy in Afterlife is very interesting considering what happened in Crashed and Wrecked.

In Afterlife Dawn treats Buffy as if she'd never left, and at least in the beginning Buffy nearly ignores her. The rest of the Scoobies alternate between timidly keeping their distance from Buffy and giving her great big hugs. The hugs, even those from Dawn seem too much for Buffy as if she doesn't know these people anymore.

With Spike it's different. When Dawn found Buffy she seemed on the verge of killing herself. So Dawn had to be loud and forceful to bring her sister 'back to life.' She didn't get a moment of tender joy, just immense relief when Buffy came back from the brink. But, Spike got that moment of tender surprise, when it was impossible to hide from Buffy exactly how he felt about her. Instead of grabbing her in his arms like everyone else, he gingerly took her hands to tend the injuries she gotten clawing out of her grave (I'd forgotten that being buried alive had been one of her great fears in the episode Nightmares). Moments earlier when Dawn had wanted to look at these wounds, Buffy had jerked her hand away. With Spike's gentle touch she let him. While Spike didn't have the time to treat those wounds, it does seem that was the moment Buffy's mind began to accept what had happened and began to heal.

Buffy didn't see Spike weeping the front yard later. He seemed to be weeping for joy that Buffy was back, that the people he'd worked so closely all summer hadn't told him they were going to bring Buffy back, and that what they had done had been so dangerous that they might have been forced to destroy what they brought back. It was perhaps the first and only time, that just maybe, Spike showed emotion for the rest of the gang, that he was concerned about all of them not just Dawn.

Time has passed. Now Spike has grabbed Buffy in his arms, and Buffy has grabbed back. Buffy still doesn't seem like she can relate fully to that embrace. Spike is back to his blustery self, but inside he's still that crazy vampire who gently held the slayer's hand.
[> Re: Thoughts on Afterlife -- Kimberly, 07:13:04 12/05/01 Wed

The look on his face when he realizes that it's Buffy and not the 'bot is perhaps more awed than when Buffy (can't think of any way to say it delicately) with him in Smashed. Total awe, wonder and love, and I can't help but think that THAT was the real Spike. He certainly was more in tune with what Buffy needed right then than the Scoobies; probably because he, too, had been there. Was he wishing someone had been gentle with him at that point in his existence?

Sorry for the randomness of the thoughts; just wanted to get them down.
[> [> Re: Thoughts on Afterlife -- spoiler spec -- B, 09:02:08 12/05/01 Wed

Another thing I noticed. When the gang is in the library researching the demon that had possessed Anya the night before, Buffy suddenly states, "I miss Giles." One beat later, she gets up to leave, and as we know, she goes to see Spike. Could this be foreshadowing Spike taking Giles' place as counselor/Watcher?
[> [> [> I wondered the same thing -- Jen C., 15:37:36 12/05/01 Wed

[> More Thoughts on "Afterlife" -- RH, 09:01:48 12/05/01 Wed

After re-watching "Afterlife" last night, something else struck me as strange. The demon hitch-hiker that the SG creates possesses Anya, Dawn and Xander - noticeably it does not possess Willow and Tara, although it appears to them and rebukes Willow. The demon also "possesses" Buffy - only it doesn't really because it mysteriously disappears and when Willow and Tara check, the real Buffy is sound asleep in bed. Willow states later that the demon is "out of synch" with this dimension and was using their bodies, but did it actually use Buffy's body? And if not, how could it create a clone of her? How could it have known the things Willow did to resurrect Buffy, (the references to the killing of the Fawn?) How come it only attacked the SG and not other people, (ie. someone purchasing something in the Magic Box)? How did it know who all was associated with Buffy, (had it been watching her from it's own dimension before she died? Did it "steal" her thoughts and memories?), and yet it didn't know how to effect it's own "re-embodiment" (until Willow mentioned that it had to kill Buffy)? Could the demon have been PART of Buffy somehow - a part of her subconscious?

And if the demon were somehow a result of the resurrection spell, how come Dawn was possessed? (Sure, she carries Buffy's blood, but she wasn't part of the ritual.)

I'm just wondering what all this may have to do with the fact that Buffy's humanity has recently been called into question, (because of Spike's chip reaction)?
[> Re: Thoughts on Afterlife -- Deeva, 09:31:20 12/05/01 Wed

Watching Afterlife after having seen Smashed & Wrecked made me wonder whether Buffy even remembered those first few hours of her return. Has she forgotten how protective Dawn & Spike were? Or maybe it was just too traumatic and she has blocked outmost of that day. I can't speak from Buffy's POV (haven't died & come back) but I would remember if any guy treated me like that.
Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 07:07:47 12/05/01 Wed

I was thinking about the different reasons Giles left and came up with a barrelful. Most have been discussed, but I haven't seen them all mentioned, so I'll throw them all out for discussion.

The obvious two are of course: to make Buffy take on her adult responsibilities (his stated reason) and because ASH wanted more time at home (the real-life reason). I see three others. One, he's overwhelmed at the concept of actually having to parent two young women; as a bachelor, he has no experience. Two, he's homesick (never stated, but it's definitely implied). Three, could it be that he resents Buffy forcing him to kill Ben? He obviously felt it was morally wrong (something a Hero couldn't do, but a Ripper could), and yet he still felt forced to do it to protect the world. Right call in my book, but something I would suspect he feels guilty about. That would leave him resenting Buffy for putting him in that position in the first place.

Comments, discussion?
[> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 07:29:07 12/05/01 Wed

I'd debate that your first two are the only reasons for his departure. First off, that man's been like a father to all of them for years. Buffy's the only one who's had active parenting...we saw Willow's mom once(Gingerbread) and though we hear about Xander's parents we never see the indication that the parenting isn't all that good. I can't imagine all of a sudden he gets overwhelmed...especially where there's no real addition, Buffy was there 6 months prior. I might be inclined to the homesick part...but he's changed so much over the years...and besides, if he were really homesick he would have packed his bags the first time the watcher's council told him to take a hike. See, I've rewatched The Gift about sixty times...I never saw Giles not liking to kill Ben. He knew to kill Ben in essence killed Glory...besides, he made a sacrifice in acting like the Ripper, but Buffy's sacrifice far outweighed his so I don't think he ever held it against her.
[> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) (longish) -- Kimberly, 08:16:49 12/05/01 Wed

OK, let me see if I can explain myself so it makes sense or so we can continue to debate on through the day. Note: I'm addressing the motives from easiest to hardest, not in the same order as my original post.

Easiest first: Homesickness would not be the primary reason Giles left, merely one more motive into the mix. He does talk about getting together with friends when he gets back to England; as far as I can see, he has no friends his own age in Sunnydale, with the exception of Joyce.

Second: The parenting thang. Yes, he has been acting in a parenting role, but, until this season, he did not actually have to step up to the plate and actually BE a parent. Neither Willow's nor Xander's parents are involved or effective, but they are there, they exist. Up until last season, Joyce has been there to parent Buffy and Dawn. Giles has been able to be mentor, advisor, adult friend and father figure, without having to do the hardest part of parenting, discipline (which is where we see him start to draw away). He has been able to be the "rakish uncle", not the "father". When Joyce died, Buffy originally tried to push off disciplining Dawn to Giles, which he (properly IMHO) refused. After Buffy died, Willow and Tara took over the Dawn-parenting, with help from Spike. When Buffy came back, Willow and Tara (again properly) deferred to Buffy, who pushed Giles into the position of disciplinarian, a role for which he has no preparation nor moral authority.

Now, out comes the Mommy-part of me. Advice, comfort, love, guidance: all these things are comparatively easy to give if you're a half-way mature adult. Children (which is how Giles views the Scoobies one and all) elicit these things. Giles clearly loves the whole gang and is able to give them what they need. Except for discipline, which is an entirely different kettle of fish and much more difficult to do. Discipline is very tough, especially if you're being careful to be nonabusive and teaching at the same time. You have to come up with something appropriate to the offense and something that will actually work. Now, I'm OK with children up to grade school age, because that's what I've been doing the last six years. I have no idea what the appropriate punishment for a 15- year-old lying about her whereabouts, especially one with the implicit power of Dawn, because I haven't started dealing with teen issues yet (and, thank you, I'm more than willing to wait for them). Giles has less of a clue because he's never done any disciplining. He's overwhelmed with a responsibility he wasn't expecting and isn't prepared for.

(Sorry for the rant: trying to explain my point hit one of my parenting buttons. Can't you tell? :- )

Finally, I agree that Giles does not CONSCIOUSLY hold what he had to do against Buffy. He truly believes that Buffy acted according to her own nature, and that he did what had to be done to "clean up after her". But, he also clearly believes, in the speech he gave Ben while he was suffocating him, that killing Ben was morally wrong, and unheroic. That paves the way to an unconscious resentment of Buffy, the hero who forced him to do the "cleaning up". When faced with having to, again, do Buffy's "dirty work" with Dawn, he rebelled, and went running to England. I think he would deny these motives, I think he believes that he went only for his stated reason of forcing Buffy to take on her responsibilities, but I think his unconscious motives are there nonetheless.

Thanks for forcing me to clarify my thoughts; I hope it's not too repetitive.
[> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) (longish) -- maddog, 08:40:22 12/05/01 Wed

While I might be able to give you homesick as being a side reason I still say it's contrived simply because his original idea of leaving was after Buffy's like he felt he had no place need for a watcher without a slayer.

I don't see how you can say that any parent on that show exists with the exception of Joyce(and now we don't even have her). If they really existed in their kids lives then they'd be part of more storylines(and don't think the simple omission of what could be key characters isn't a deliberate ploy on Joss's part to prove a point).

Your other points however seem to have merit...he does seem more like an uncle, giving support but not doling out discipline. However do you really think that he left because he didn't want to handle the punishments? and as I read that last statement it makes me think that maybe we're arguing the same point...could Gile's wish to have Buffy take more responsibility be the same as him not wanting to discipline Dawn? they could be the same reason.

I wasn't really talking about whether it was conscious or not. I personally find no fault in what he did...Ben becomes Glory...Glory can't be the only way to get rid of Glory is to get rid of Ben...with VERY little attachment to him I never really saw that as a problem and was actually quite glad that he did what he did. And who says Giles had to be the one to do it...why not Xander...or Willow...truth is Giles took it upon himself to handle that situation...maybe he thought he was the only one willing to, but the fact still remains Buffy never asked him to do it, never insinuated that he handle it, he did it out of his own accord...I can't see even subconsciously Giles being upset at Buffy for an action he decided he had to do. And if that truly is the case(as you're attempting to say) then I'd say Giles needs to rethink that...cause it was his decision.
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) (longish) -- Cactus Watcher, 08:49:20 12/05/01 Wed

Have to agree with maddog. Since Giles would have learned, after the fact, that Ben had betrayed Dawn, there is very little chance he would feel much anguish over having killed him. Even if for some reason he did, he would be much more likely to blame fate than Buffy. Most men I know just don't operate that way.
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 08:54:30 12/05/01 Wed

I think we're mostly in agreement here.

I'm not actually saying that Willow's and Xander's parents are present, but that Giles can behave as if they are. He doesn't have to discipline them; he can just be there for them.

As far as Ben, I agree he had to die. I'm basing my hypothesis of Giles resenting having to kill him on this: He told Ben that it wasn't something a hero could do (he believes it was morally imperfect, if practically necessary). Over the summer, there was some discussion about how Giles would handle his guilt over that action (which BTW I happen to think was the only thing to do). It occurred to me that, without realizing it, Giles feels that Buffy is forcing him to do her dirty work: killing Ben, disciplining Dawn. He can see and intellectually justify that he has to insist that Buffy be the one to discipline Dawn; he's right even if he could have handled the whole situation better. At the same time, an action he feels guilty about could be forcing him to a more extreme action than is strictly justified. It is HIS problem, but I don't think he's even aware that he is equating the two actions. (Just because he decided he had to do it, doesn't mean he can't subconsciously resent Buffy for making him do it. The subconscious, or maybe I mean the unconscious, isn't logical. That's why so many things we as humans do are so damn puzzling.)

And, I always wish after several rounds of reposting, that I could EDIT the initial post to make it better. Thank you for forcing me to clean out the crud in my thinking.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 09:13:00 12/05/01 Wed

See I'm only around for short times when I post so I like this two cause it's almost like a conversation. I wasn't around for the guilt conversations this summer, but if I were then I would have said that I don't think Giles felt guilt...only duty. I'm still not clear on your reasoning for why Gile's subconscious would blame Buffy....for instance, how does he know that she wouldn't kill Ben? He's guessing, but he can't be sure. In fact, I'm pretty sure she would have had she not been trying to rescue Dawn...I mean, he lied to her from day 1, he put all of them in danger by showing up...if I were her I would have done him in. I still say he took it upon himself with an assumption that may not even be true. If he does blame Buffy then he's got some issues to work out.

By taking your definition of how we do things unconsciously then we'd be speculating all day. Hell, maybe Spike doesn't feel bad UNCONSCIOUSLY for not being able to help Dawn because he knew he did his best...he doesn't act that way, would never say that, but you never know... :) Get my point(and if you think human actions are puzzling, think about a nuetered vampire in love with a slayer). :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 10:16:14 12/05/01 Wed

I don't say that sub/unconscious motives are completely mysterious, merely that we typically ignore them. It'll be interesting to see how ME handles it if/when Giles comes back. No matter what his reasons, I expect Buffy's going to be icy to him when that happens.

The motivations of a neutered vampire in love with a slayer. Twisted, confusing, but, in their own way beautiful. And loads of fun to watch and speculate on.

I agree with the conversation thing. It's enjoyable seeing your image of a person and having a conversation about a topic of mutual obsession. (Oh, you're only around for short times; maybe you're not obsessed. ) It also helps figure out what I mean to me; compared to some of the posters here, I feel muddle-brained.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Rufus, 10:21:59 12/05/01 Wed

(Oh, you're only around for short times; maybe you're not obsessed. )

Short times......for now it is.....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:09:59 12/06/01 Thu

Trust me, my short visits aren't of my own doing...I have work and school to fit in around it. :)

I completely agree that Buffy's gonna be cold...just maybe not at first, cause I can see Willow hitting bottom as when he decides to come once everything's settled she'll remember that she thinks he abandoned her and she'll get cold.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 08:21:25 12/06/01 Thu

I think he's going to feel ice the first time he tells her what to do. Even if he phrases it as a suggestion, she's going to fling his leaving in his face and freeze him out. Or she's going to explode and he could find himself in real trouble.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:31:08 12/06/01 Thu

If I were Giles I'd stay away from direct orders all together. Yeah, I think you've hit it on the head..."you're not my watcher anymore, remember"...I can even hear the tone. And that'll end up snowballing.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 08:33:23 12/06/01 Thu

Fun to watch; hell to live through. I can hear the tone and see his complete bewilderment. He's frequently puzzled by the way people around him react and can also take a while to get a clue.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:46:56 12/06/01 Thu

Well, he's a Brit, and the culture's just not the same over there...add that to the fact that he's got 20 years on them and I'm sure he does get confused.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 08:51:32 12/06/01 Thu

Doesn't help, but I'm not sure he entirely understands people more like him. Although we don't know about his interpersonal interactions in England, he may be more adept there. Think about times like his initial interactions with Jenny Calendar.
[> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Shiver, 08:00:12 12/05/01 Wed

They never sold me on the reason for Giles leaving being that Buffy needed to be more independent. Since when - in the few weeks since she came back from the dead? Last season, Buffy was nothing but independent - doing everything she could to protect Dawn from Glory. This is the same Buffy that told Giles in no uncertain terms that she would kill him if he tried to kill Dawn. The same Giles who, for most of S4 and early S5, was relegated to the sidelines and barely present through most of the episodes. Suddenly, we are to believe that Giles thinks Buffy - who has been through the trauma of death and resurrection so soon after losing her mother and Riley too - needs to be on her own, without his influence, that's he's around TOO MUCH? Rubbish. If anything, Buffy needed Giles to be around even more than ever, at least in the background, helping her readjust to being alive again. Buffy reveals she was in Heaven and is horribly depressed, and Giles takes that as his cue to abandon her? I never bought the premise, not for one second, it was wweak and contrived and I still think of the only reason that Giles left the show - the only VALID reason - being that the actor, ASH wanted out.
[> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:05:18 12/05/01 Wed

Does anybody actually believe this storyline besides me? ok, I know Buffy protected Dawn last season, but there's more to parenting than protection...there's also discipline. And Giles isn't Dawn's father...Buffy's the only one that should truly be admonishing her for anything and she's I don't see this as contrived as it seems everyone else does.
[> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 08:21:32 12/05/01 Wed

See my post to you above. Nobody is disciplining Dawn right now; that's why she's acting out. She's hoping someone will love her enough to stop her. (Again, unconscious motivation. No kid will ever admit they want discipline--at least, not to the disciplinarian.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:42:09 12/05/01 Wed

that I can agree with...and it became more obvious when she started what would have been her solo in her bedroom in OMWF, had the demon henchmen not nabbed her...makes me wonder if Joss wrote a whole song there or if the wrote the first few words to confirm that theory for the rest of us.
[> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Shiver, 10:10:10 12/05/01 Wed

I believe that part of the storyline - that Buffy needs to be there for Dawn. What I don't believe is that the only way to bring that about is for Giles to leave. What I don't believe is that it was the presence of Giles holding her back. It wasn't holding her back last season when she was taking care of Dawn after Joyce died.
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:13:02 12/06/01 Thu

I think it's more of a potential problem that Giles was seeing and he's trying to nip it early as to avoid Buffy always differing to him. Besides, Buffy had to protect Dawn from supernatural stuff last year...this is more the day to day problems that Giles is talking about. And while leaving may not have been the right answer it's the only one he could think of that would literaly force Buffy to handle it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 08:24:15 12/06/01 Thu

Interestingly, he was able to handle it better last year. When Buffy found out Dawn was cutting school, she tried to get Giles to handle it and he refused. She did handle it, and did a decent job.

Then again, she wasn't dealing with Heaven withdrawal at the time.
[> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Rattletrap, 09:08:17 12/05/01 Wed

I basically agree with your first two points. Giles has, in some ways always been a father figure, but you rightly point out that he has never really had the day-to-day duties of disciplinarian and provider. The "rakish uncle" analogy may be closer. His homesickness I also find believable because it would have been aggravated by his recent, maybe week-long, return to England and meetings with old friends. Returning to Sunnydale, he finds everything different and no real place left for him. Buffy's back, but not completely, Anya's got the magic shop covered, Xander and Willow are more independent than ever, Giles and Dawn have never been particularly close and there isn't much room in her life for him. The whole thing is a bit like something out of Thomas Wolfe.

That said, I don't buy the 3rd point. Giles has never been one to morally second-guess what he has to do. He tends to bet he sort of person who figures out what needs to happen and does it, even if he gets dirty in the process. We've seen no evidence that the killing of Ben had any long-term emotional effect.
[> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 09:16:09 12/05/01 Wed

I'm pretty sure Giles was only back in England for like a day or two. But still, very good point about his lack of ties and the growing non need for him to be around. Seems to be more of reason to leave than being plain homesick(though like I've stated, it may somehow be a small reason for his departure).
[> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 10:19:33 12/05/01 Wed

Yeah, we've never seen him with friends his own age in Sunnydale. And, because of the nature of the relationships he has with the Scoobies, I'd hesitate to call them "friends"; friendship is between equals and Giles is very much the "adult" to their "children/youth". When he has nothing else to do, it must have become very lonely. (An even better motive than homesickness. Or maybe contributory.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- JM, 14:52:58 12/05/01 Wed

I can definitely buy homesickness. He didn't choose to leave leave England in the first place, work made him do it. And this is not the first time he's tried to return. See BvD.

I also agree that he has a lack of interest in actively parenting the Scoobs and Dawn. And I think your disciplinarian points were quite insightful. (Though he has had to occassionally do it for Buffy, and was quite good at. However, in was in the role of mentor, semi-boss, and not parent. Personal issues he has mostly stayed out of.)

I posted awhile back on buying Giles' belief in his reasons. He strongly values strength and self- discipline. Especially considering the damage he did as a youth when he failed to exercise them. I think that it might be here where his feelings about executing Ben come into play. I am sure he suffers anguish and pain at the memory of what he did, though probably not guilt. He is not one to take killing lightly, even though it was necessary. I don't think that he resents for having to do it for Buffy. Personally I think he would far darker things in her service. I suspect, though, that he would include as one of the instances that he enabled her to avoid the hard decision. I think he's right that Buffy would never kill a human that was not directly, immediately threatening her. He did, and she was spared the hard choice and dark act or consequences of choosing not to. I don't think that Giles thinks she should have to make these decisions, but he does condemn himself for weakening enough to allow her avoid even one of them. His leaving is to discipline himself as much for his indulgence as her for her dependency. It may be skewed to the rest of us, but seems consistent to the character.

There are probably also other unspoken, unrealized reasons. He probably never wanted to be a Watcher. It was his destiny, and possibly an amends for his Ripper years. He has served his time, and in someways wants to get away from the demands and suffering of the job, finally start his life. He sounded envious that Anya and Xander had a future before them. Remember his dream in Restless.

Someone on the MBTV board posted the intringuing notion that part of it may be that he cannot face waiting for Buffy to die again. She's still the Slayer, she stil has an expiriation date. Her death was probably the most agonizing experience for him. I suspect a dark part of him, like Buffy in WotW, wishes she were dead now. No more fear, just dealing with the grief. "Wish I could lay your arms down, and let you rest at last."

PS Thanks for starting this discussion. One of my absolute favorite characters. So deep, intriguing, well-acted. Plus the man is just poured sex. Done now.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 18:31:04 12/05/01 Wed

Good points. Maybe instead of homesickness, I should amend to "life of his own". He doesn't ever seem to have had one--not a healthy one at least. And, as my husband is pointing out, any time he tries for one in Sunnydale, the Scoobies rag on him about how he's too old, "that's sick", and other supportive comments of that ilk.

You may be right about the Ben thing; I'm going to have to meditate on it. Probably tomorrow morning in the car; that's where I have most of my posting ideas. (Or at night in the car. I spend too much time in the car.)

And I'm glad someone other than me thinks Giles is the sexy one on the show. I keep hearing about Spike, who's not bad, but it's Giles I drool over.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Rufus, 23:51:08 12/05/01 Wed

Giles, he's even my age so I can have naughty thoughts about him. So much for you getting an Action Spike figure....I should amend that to the Action Giles figure..which I fancy myself. There is always the Pangs Spike Figure complete with arrows......bear sold seperately....if I say this enough maybe someone will make it.
I like Giles, Xander, and Riley(I know he went to vamp hookers). But the situation with Spike is very fun to post about because of all the nifty ethical questions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- Kimberly, 05:59:10 12/06/01 Thu

Oh, I've been enjoying the development of the character of Spike greatly. Moral complexity and change have always attracted me; the best characters are those who have the farthest to go to achieve some form of "goodness". I just don't find him as sexy as many posters on this board do. (OTOH, I wasn't upset over seeing lots of him in Wrecked; nice body.)

Pangs was one of Spike's funniest moments, and Spike is great when he's being funny, even if unintentionally. So, yes, the Pangs Spike action figure, arrows, bear and all. And the Giles Action Figure (with removable glasses to clean). Mmmm, Giles. (I'm with you Rufus; I'm close enough in age to have very naughty thoughts about him.)
[> [> [> [> Re: Giles' Leaving (spoilers for Season Five and Six) -- maddog, 08:17:38 12/06/01 Thu

Does he even HAVE friends in Sunnydale?
[> What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- bookworm, 18:23:56 12/05/01 Wed

In the Season 4 finale, didn't Giles dream of Olivia pushing a baby carriage? I saw that as foreshadowing. Maybe Giles just wants a life. He gave up his dreams, his career, his chance at a family of his own to become a Watcher. Now Buffy is grown and can manage on her own. Giles is in his mid-forties and may feel that it's now or never if he wants to remake himself, fall in life, have a child, go back to the British Museum or whatever he was doing before he was a Watcher. He still loves Buffy and will probably be available to her by Internet or phone call when she needs him, but he can't wait around in Sunnydale for her to come calling. He may also not want to see her die again. The grief was probably unbearable enough the first time. Maybe he's withdrawing emotionally to protect himself. He's being a little selfish, but it's a very human thing to do.
[> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- Kimberly, 18:35:39 12/05/01 Wed

I thought in Hush, Olivia kind of implied that she couldn't handle the supernatural stuff. Even if GIles is no longer a Watcher, he's unlikely to be able to stay away from the supernatural altogether. (Hubby: Plus it would make a very boring BBC show.)

About not wanting to see Buffy die again, yes I can see that. He was devastated by her death, both times, and hadn't seemed to completely assimilate her resurrection. And withdrawing to avoid the pain again, which will almost certainly happen, is a very human and understandable thing to do. (OK, I'm now up to five reasons on the show.)
[> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- maddog, 08:41:45 12/06/01 Thu

Speaking of the BBC show, does anyone know if he'll play Rupert Giles on it? Cause then it could be like an extension of'd have to watch both shows to know the whole story. :)
[> [> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- Kimberly, 08:57:43 12/06/01 Thu

I suspect so, since the title (it may be a "working title") is Ripper. And that says to me, Rupert Giles.

I hope so. I also hope we get to see it here in the US.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- maddog, 09:06:09 12/06/01 Thu

Yeah, maybe on PBS. :)

I feel like you're following me down the line of Kimberly. :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- Kimberly, 10:36:53 12/06/01 Thu

We do seem to be the two most interested right here. I think we both check the board at the same time, so that exacerbates it. (Have to keep it going. ;-))
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- MaryAnn, 11:59:30 12/06/01 Thu

Yes, Tony Head will be Rupert Giles, but according to an interview with Marti Noxon on the BBC's BUFFY site, the rest of the cast of RIPPER will be new, so probably no Olivia. Although there is the chance of some cross-over guest stars. Joss asked JM, for one, if he would be interested - he said yes. I'm hoping for Ethan Rayne too!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- Halcyon, 04:15:11 12/07/01 Fri

Was nt there a rumour going round that Alexis Denisoff would be guest starring?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- MaryAnn, 10:53:09 12/07/01 Fri

Yes, and I think Alexis Denisof would be a great choice for a guest appearance. But the spoiler plot associated with this rumour looked very weak to me. I'm pretty suspicious about it, unless we get firmer confirmation.
[> [> Re: What if Olivia is waiting for him in England? -- JM, 05:32:30 12/06/01 Thu

I always secretly suspected that's what he was doing in BvD. He wasn't reinstated as a Watcher yet, so he would be leaving the supernatural behind. But then he chose Buffy. So I bet she's not still waiting. (Of course this is entirely spec. But I reserve the right. I always liked Olivia.)
Did Willow bring Buffy back? -- Yellowork, 07:46:22 12/05/01 Wed

Hi, interesting to see stuff posters had to say about the notion of whether Buffy is in this world for any other reason *besides* the fact that Willow worked powerful magick. It is interesting people see it that if Osiris or some other external force prompted the passage of Buffy's spirit back to the world, and the revivification of her body, it follows that Willow is somehow less culpable for the consequences of her actions? Why?!

Surely Willow can do herself some damnfool thing *and* have it assist the plans of larger forces? Did you for example see the monster that turned up in the most recent new US screening? That thing *was* external, but Willow's magical "trip" gave it the means to enter the physical world.

I am of the impression that it is very difficult to open the "door" to any other world, which is why Sunnydale is not *entirely* inundated with demonkind. So, if Willow *is* responsible for summoning Buffy's spirit and preparing her body to rejoin its soul, wouldn't it still require the acquiescence of the underworld gatekeeper / guardian / ruler in order to have Buffy's spirit accept the call?

Of course, there is a possibility that the spirit heard the call and *did not* want to accept it, as being explored currently in the series (from 'Afterlife' onwards). Perhaps it is possible to see a situation wherein *something* seized an occasion to have Buffy's soul returned to the physical world and essentially took the opportunity to expel her. Willow's guilt is in no way relieved by any of this though; without her interference, this opening would not have presented itself to ?.

This argument, I hasten to add, leaves hanging the question of whether what we are looking at is mad, bad or merely dangerous to know (i.e. good). And indeed, it is possible we are just looking at the issue through the wrong end of the telescope: perhaps the Underworld is indifferent to our world and they just wanted rid of *her*. Do you think she kept on doing her hair like that in Hell?
[> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back?(Spilers) -- maddog, 08:10:23 12/05/01 Wed

If the external power brought Buffy back then why did she come mere minutes after Willow finished her spell? And I do think Willow bringing back Buffy was supposed to be the catalyst for what's going on now with Willow and the magic OD.
[> [> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back?(Spilers) -- darrenK, 09:27:55 12/05/01 Wed

I don't think Yellowork was suggesting that Willow played NO role in Buffy's return.

I think Yellowork is suggesting that other forces were at work through Willow.

Buffy is a primary champion of good. Willow as one of her powerful allies and the conduit by which another champion, Angel, had his soul restored is a prime candidate for pawnhood in the great game of gods. dK
[> [> [> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back?(Spilers) -- maddog, 09:34:17 12/05/01 Wed

Sorry, didn't get that meaning through the post. Cause that I could definitely see...however it still wouldn't lend to the current "Willow goes overboard with the magic" storyline. So it's still up in the air.
[> [> [> [> Paying the Price -- darrenK, 10:50:18 12/05/01 Wed

Well, it's just like when Willow gave Angel his soul back and Giles said that "it would open a door that couldn't be closed."

Willow was crossing a line [bringing back someone from the dead] she shouldn't cross, maybe the Powers wanted her to cross that line and she was acting as their pawn, but she still shouldn't have crossed that line. She'll still have to pay the price for crossing that line.

Mythology is full of stories where mortals act as agents for gods, only to find themselves in a worse predicament for doing so.

Ulysses and John the Baptist are two examples that immediately come to mind.

And there have been plenty of myths where humans have to accomplish tasks that the Gods aren't allowed to. But the humans in question are usually abandoned to their fate...dK
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Paying the Price -- Yellowork, 15:24:46 12/05/01 Wed

DarrenK — yes! you get me! I wasn't trying to contradict anyone — you can't deny that Willow has been wading in the deep black water lately. My point was: *what* is she tampering with?; what undercurrents are down there that she doesn't know about?

The Classical Gods in Greek Tragedy are a nice example of elemental forces presented like fickle children on a grand scale; they are not necessarily *Good* or *Evil*, but there are always consequences to their involvement in the mortal sphere. Hence, one is best to avoid the gifts of the gods, in fact even any particular attention on their behalf, as this can be withdrawn with the ease it was provided, with dire consequences as you have noted.

BTW There is a lovely bit of the "Republic" wherein Plato describes the soul of Ulysses choosing the life of a lowly, unremarkable man in order to shy away from the attention of gods and men that so often goes awry.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Capricious Fortune -- Rahael, 02:16:22 12/06/01 Thu

I agree Yellowork - Willow does not lose moral culpability for the action. Ends and Means still count.

And there is a definite sense in the Buffyverse of capricious fortune.. like the Gypsy curse, like Faith and Buffy encountering Alan Finch when they do, like Spike getting chipped. Capricious, ironic and tragicomic.

Reminds me of Shakespeare's line "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods - they play with us for sport"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Capricious Fortune -- Shaglio, 06:59:17 12/06/01 Thu

"Reminds me of Shakespeare's line "Like flies to wanton boys are we to the Gods - they play with us for sport""

Reminds me of Clash Of The Titans where all the Gods gather around and play with the miniature stone figures that represent all the humans. What a disturbing thought! I'd like to think I have some sort of control over my own life and not just be under the control of some higher power. That would also make it too easy to lay blame on the Gods for all the bad things we've done in life instead of taking responsibility for our own actions.

I'm babbling again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Capricious Fortune -- maddog, 07:46:25 12/06/01 Thu

What you say makes perfect sense except for one thing...that encounter with Finch had many was Faith's recklessness that ended up making it so tragic. Finch could have been very helpful.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, yes, that's what increases the irony of it all! -- Rahael, 12:56:51 12/06/01 Thu

Faith came so close not to doing it. She could have pulled back, she might have heeded Buffy's warning, Finch could have helped them.

That's why it was Faith's capricious fortune to have been running down that alley, and to have Finch chance by at that precise moment.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Capricious Fortune -- Yellowork, 08:22:48 12/06/01 Thu

Hello Rahael. Just popped back to say I like your sense of what "irony" really might mean. In the mid-1990s it seemed not an hour would pass without some latest rehashed fad being labelled with the term, quite erroneously in my opinion. People don't listen to ABBA or whatever 'because' it is bad — they listen to it because it is 'unsophisticated' or at least it doesn't fit into the current fashion for 'sophistication'. But don't you listen to music and read and go to films because you enjoy them? So where's the revolution in that?

I don't mind that so much, only the original meaning of 'irony' tends to get buried under the 'pop lite' one. To me, irony is sadness, bitterness, sometimes humour: it is any literary / televisual technique wherein two tendencies, both partially true, compete and are unified in a single element of a text, thus bearing on the interpretation of the text as a whole. This is a very sketched, very provisional definition, I'll grant you: on the other hand, it would be difficult to fit the 'faux ABBA fan' phenomenon in it, and that, IMO is a step forward!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks Yellowork -- Rahael, 05:07:16 12/07/01 Fri

that was a useful step toward defining irony for me. I use words I think are appropriate without always knowing what it stands for. Its a pitfall of learning a second language only from books as opposed to studying it or growing up among native speakers.

Irony is so overused, as you point out, especially in Britain to describe anything people want to enjoy, but are embarrassed by. It always seemed to me that to love something sincerely, or passionately here is to be somehow lacking in breeding or good taste.

I suppose the sense in which I used irony there is 'dramatic irony'. My favourite example is in Richard III, as the future Henry VII promises the Elizabethan audience that the Tudors would bring plenty, and fair cheeked peace.

The irony was of course that the play was written and staged in the 1590s, when famine stalked the land, the ageing queen was unpopular, there was no heir, and the threat of a Catholic invasion was everpresent. Elizabeth had never been more unpopular. The millenarian uneasiness that would explode thirty years later started its life at this time. Some plenty. Some peace.

And the added irony? many modern commentators seem to think that Shakespeare was some gung ho monarchist, and Tudor propagandist. The best irony is always the subtlest - that silent gap between reality and pretence which is indicated with the sideways glance.

It raining on your wedding day, is of course not ironic at all. Simply unfortunate.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Paying the Price -- maddog, 07:40:34 12/06/01 Thu

I'd beg to differ with John the Baptist...because overall he ended up with a far better future. I would hope that if TPTB used Willow that they would be willing to help if she ever went too far. Who knows though...they do some screwed up things on "Angel".
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Paying the Price -- Kimberly, 11:08:55 12/06/01 Thu

Another way of viewing this is that the gods need mortals to initiate an action; they break the rules if they start things on their own. So, even if they wanted Buffy back in the world, however they wanted her back, they couldn't do anything until Willow started the spell. Of course, then they could twist the spell to do what it wants. All of which still leaves Willow completely culpable for her actions in collecting the components and casting the spell in the first place, and equally culpable for the slide into addiction she's been working on at least since Season Two.

"Ulysses and John the Baptist are two examples that immediately come to mind."

Can't comment on Ulysses; I'm ashamed to admit I don't know enough to discuss that one. On John the Baptist, could you be referring to Judas Iscariot instead? John the Baptist gets beheaded, but is generally believed to be one of the righteous. Judas, OTOH, did what had to be done, even what he was told to do depending on how you read it, and still has been confined to Hell.
[> [> [> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back?(Spilers) -- skeve, 10:33:25 12/06/01 Thu

darrenK wrote:
Buffy is a primary champion of good. Willow as one of her powerful allies and the conduit by which another champion, Angel, had his soul restored is a prime candidate for pawnhood in the great game of gods.

"And they always cheat, right up to the end." -- Terry Pratchett
[> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back? -- Rufus, 10:03:33 12/05/01 Wed

Willow brought Buffy back, we know that, but the emphasis was on retrieving her from hell. Giles warned Willow about opening the gates of hell. The question I have is what are the consequences of opening the gates of heaven?
[> [> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back? -- maddog, 08:06:26 12/06/01 Thu

A very good point...because at first glance you wouldn't think much of it cause heaven has a nicer connation, but then, well wait a minute, heaven's a more "holy" place, a more revered place...and now some witch is screwing with it...Willow could be in some deep doo doo. :(
[> Re: Did Willow bring Buffy back? -- Eric, 20:20:32 12/06/01 Thu

Willow brought Buffy back. Yeah she used a weird, exotic spell and asked/invoked the favor of remote Egyptian deities to do it. Certain higher (or even lower) powers may have favored and possibly aided her for their own agendas. Its even possible Buffy herself helped in some way (miles to go...). But if she asked Giles for donuts and he lent her some money and his car because he wanted some too, it doesn't mean Giles got the donuts. It just means he gets some jellies. It was her choice, made from the heart, to
do so.
OT - 5th Christmas POem -- Brian, 08:38:02 12/05/01 Wed

For me, this poem always evokes the image of Angel and Buffy's doomed love.



With sorrow, I reject the stars.
Their truth now bitter falsehood,
And their promise, only deceiving starfire.
Here, in this forbidden tomb,
I embrace my lost love this last time,
And drink a sweet cordial to the cold wave of eternity.
May it carry us to the fire beyond the betraying stars.


Sweet Juliet breathes the sour, festering air.
She knows how to separate hope from fair.
She sees the shadow of her lover's flight,
In the spreading contagion of too early sunlight.

She turns from those dark eyes;
Her dreams of destiny in agony dies.
She severs her soul, ending her life,
With his still, still, too warm knife.
[> Re: OT - 5th Christmas POem -- Kimberly, 08:40:54 12/05/01 Wed

Very nice. Especially evokes the image of Buffy killing Angel at the end of Becoming Part Two.

Are you the poet? I've been greatly enjoying your twelve days of Christmas.
[> [> Re: OT - 5th Christmas Poem - -- Brian, 11:07:37 12/05/01 Wed

Yes, all the poems are mine, written over a period of 30 years or so. I'm glad you like them. Thank you.
Send some brilliant ideas my way, please! :-) -- Rob, 11:53:12 12/05/01 Wed

I'm sitting here at my desk at work, and, as usual, am ignorning the files I should be busy preparing in order to stop here at my favorite place on the net. And I've been thinking lately that I feel like writing a really long essay on "Buffy." While I have been known to make pretty long posts (esp. when I say I only have a minute lol), I haven't yet made a multi-part, huge, blowout length one, and I want to, darn it!

Only thing is, I find myself not sure where to begin, or what to write about. Such a great deal has already been covered here!

So I thought I'd ask you guys if any of you have an amazing idea for a lengthy "Buffy" essay, so I can get some ideas. Much appreciated. :)

Thanks, everybody!

[> It really has to be about what interests you -- Masq, 12:09:08 12/05/01 Wed

or what really bugs you. And you can't know that unless you immerse yourself in rewatching episodes or reading posts others have written on the board.

You can't write a long essay without some passion. Otherwise, it's just homework, and therefore boring.

One suggestion: do a character analysis on a character who hasn't been written on -- or a character who has been written on, but that you have a different view of.
[> [> Thanks, Masq; you just solved a problem I've been having (OT) -- Kimberly, 12:17:00 12/05/01 Wed

[> Re: Send some brilliant ideas my way, please! :-) -- Kimberly, 12:11:44 12/05/01 Wed

Sorry. If I come up with a amazing idea for a lengthy essay, I'm writing it! Good luck, though; I love reading them.

[> [> Re: Send some brilliant ideas my way, please! :-) -- Rob, 13:08:21 12/05/01 Wed

"Sorry. If I come up with a amazing idea for a lengthy essay, I'm writing it! Good luck, though; I love reading them."

LOL! Point taken! :-)

Oh, and thanks, Masq, for your thoughts. And, ya know what? Just the act of writing out the question gave me some ideas!

So I'm gonna start working on my essay today.

Here's a hint: It has something to do with Joss' "I'm A Freaking Genius" Trilogy.

[> [> [> That's also a good way to solve a problem -- Masq, 13:58:56 12/05/01 Wed

Next time you have a problem you can't solve, try writing it out in detail as if you were sending an explanation to someone you wanted to ask help from. Often times, new solutions to try out will pop in your head, and the more accurately you describe your problem, the better the chances you'll hit on a solution that works.

(At which point you slap your forehead and say, "D'oh!")
[> Re: Send some brilliant ideas my way, please! :-) -- Rufus, 13:00:16 12/05/01 Wed

How about giving me a few hints about the things you've been tempted to write about? Chances are we will be interested.
Joss Whedon's Fray -- Spyder, 13:10:23 12/05/01 Wed

has anyone heard of the comic book series from Joss Whedon called The Fray about a vampire slayer in the far off future? The series appears to take place in the future of the Buffy verse as she is mentioned it seems along with the origins of the Slayer being slightly explained. It tells of shamans who channeled a dark power into a young girl creating the First Slayer. Those shamans would eventually form the Watcher's Council. Anyone know if the show is true to this or if they ever explained anything like this or if they're going to?
[> Re: Joss Whedon's Fray -- Tanker, 20:23:00 12/05/01 Wed

Answers to your questions...

Yes, some of us have not only heard of it but have been reading it.

The show has made no mention of how the Slayers were created.

There's no way to know if the show ever will get into it, or if it will match what was in "Fray."

Keep in mind that what Melaka was told about the origins of the Slayer might not be 100% correct.
[> [> "You hib my nobe wib a girder..." -- grifter, 04:54:04 12/06/01 Thu

...aah. those of you who read it will understand...

Also, keep in mind who is telling her all the stuff about the Council and the last Slayer...a demon, certainly not the most reliable source of information!
[> [> [> Re: "You hib my nobe wib a girder..." -- cat, 10:04:26 12/06/01 Thu

I do like the way that Fray is going though, and this month's issue raises LOTS of yummy "What if" types of questions! :)
[> [> [> [> The Sun and the Moon-or Why's the Slayer a Chick? -- Eric, 20:42:42 12/06/01 Thu

Why is the Slayer a chick? Traditionally warriors are guys - and this is especially strange considering the Slayer tradition may go way back indeed. I've speculated that the first Slayer was Chosen in a manner similar to the Aztec Sun myth. The Aztecs were big on human sacrifices, so it figures as an important part in the myth.
The myth goes like this: The world was dark and cold, so the first High Priest or Shaman decided to create a light in the heavens. To do this required a willing human sacrifice. A beautiful young man had to leap onto a blazing pyre to "become" the sun. The ceremony was prepared, fire lit, chants chanted, etc. but at the last minute, the sacrifice wavered. Maybe it was the unending burden of immortality - or just a fiery death, but he froze in place. But a ceremonial maiden, realizing the need for a sun, seized the moment to leap into the flames. She ascended into the heavens reborn as the Sun. The man, shamed by her courage, sought to take his rightful place by following her into the flames. He too, ascended. But because he lacked the courage and was late, he became the Moon, destined to follow the Sun as a lesser light forever.
Being a Slayer takes heart, so perhaps the Chosen One is always a woman in recognition of this original sacrifice. And it might explain Faith, who had all the powers, but not that little extra something that made the difference.
[> [> [> [> Re: "You hib my nobe wib a girder..." -- Q, 17:24:46 12/07/01 Fri

My god! Issue 5 is amazing!!!! If Fray was a Buffy episode it would be one of the best episodes ever! Love all of the interesting questions brought up by having the character Harth! And the relationship between the whole family--how compelling is that?! WOW!
[> [> [> [> [> Well, what did you expect w/ JW writing it? :) -- grifter, 02:19:46 12/08/01 Sat

Dawn as Slayer -- Copper, 13:35:41 12/05/01 Wed

Hi, I am new to this site, so if this topic has been discussed before, forgive me.

After watching Wrecked, and given that Dawn defended herself so competently, that Dawn was created with Buffy's blood, and that there is a folk belief that heredity is transmitted through blood, it occurred to me that Dawn may be a slayer, too. She would not technically be a new slayer because she is part of Buffy, more a "clone" slayer. And wasn't Buffy 15 when she was informed that she was the Slayer?

Maybe part of Buffy's new role towards Dawn is more than parent, but also Watcher/Trainer.
[> Re: Dawn as Slayer -- Spyder, 13:47:01 12/05/01 Wed

was thinking the same thing...they're saying that Joss Whedon approached Michelle asking if she would want to do a spinoff if Sarah Michelle Gellar decided to leave the show....sounds like Dawn might be a slayer in the making...I makes sense...if Buffy could close the portal because they shared the same blood then why couldn't Dawn adopt slayer characteristics....the monks did make Dawn out of Buffy literally
[> [> Re: Dawn as Slayer -- Hmmm, 14:06:08 12/05/01 Wed

Ok but is anyone considering...well.. BORING!!!

Dawn as a new Slayer is basically Buffy all over again, except that Dawn has already had the whole identity crisis thing so there isn't even that aspect to play off of.
[> [> [> Re: Dawn as Slayer -- Copper, 14:39:32 12/05/01 Wed

That would be assuming the focus would be on Dawn instead of on Buffy on how she feels about the competition from little sis and her new burdensome duties. Not so boring.
[> [> [> Also... -- RH, 06:29:17 12/06/01 Thu

Dawn is a "mystical energy key" - there might be some quirks in that fact that could be played upon for interest's sake.
Also, she's already got a big sister Slayer, an ex-demon acquaintance, and a vampire and witch guardian - Buffy didn't have any of those things! They could throw her in an alternate dimension, have her be a mystical-energy-key-slayer who's been turned into a vampire, (let her keep her soul, but mix and match with the vampire traits - she has to feed on blood but can walk around in the sunlight, etc.) They might change her status to "Dawn the Vampire Saviour"...

There are LOTS of interesting possibilities!
[> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- maddog, 07:21:12 12/06/01 Thu

well, can we be sure Dawn's still the key? Now that Buffy closed the portal can we be sure that Dawn is still the same? I'm not. As for Dawn being the slayer and that getting boring, have you ever known Joss & Co. to be boring for very long? He'll find an angle if necessary...Ye have little faith. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- Shaglio, 08:14:28 12/06/01 Thu

"well, can we be sure Dawn's still the key?"

While getting into a debate with my roommate about Dawn, I mentioned that Dawn was the key to which he matter-of-factly replied, "No she's not, Buffy is!" His reasoning was that when Buffy jumped into the portal, she then became the key and Dawn is now a mere human. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with him, but since he insisted it so strongly I started to wonder if maybe I missed something in an episode somewhere along the line (I have a terrible memory). He seemed so certain that I just ended the arguement right then and there rather than dragging it on without appropriate facts to back up a counterargument (besides, the commercial ended and Buffy came back on so I didn't want to miss anything).
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Also... -- maddog, 08:27:23 12/06/01 Thu

If his premise is true that could explain the Spike/chip problem....course, it opens up a can of worms with questions like, "well if Buffy's now the key, is Dawn the slayer?"....but we won't get into that. :)
[> Yeah, Dawn as slayer is too predictable and lazy writing. <nt> -- Jod, 16:33:35 12/05/01 Wed

[> [> Have faith -- JLP, 18:24:15 12/05/01 Wed

They do seem to be heading toward a superpowered Dawn. Not just the "Wrecked" kick, but also the fact that when she punched her vampire date in "All the Way" it actually hurt him a little. Personally I rather like the idea of Dawn the Slayer, but those who are skeptical should remember that many, many things that have happened on the shows, including the basic set- up, looked silly or unoriginal on paper or when first introduced. Joss and company have made an art of transcending, redeeming, or inverting obvious plot developments and stale sci-fi plot tropes. Think about it: doubles, robot doubles, worst fears realized, radical personality shifts caused by supernatural events (alternate universes, spells, potions, or what have you), even amnesia. How many others have their been? What did you all think when you first heard that Buffy was going to get a sister? How good do the high concept episodes that we all love, where suddenly no can talk or everyone has to sing, sound in the abstract? (They sing all the time on "Ally McBeal" and such, but somehow they never come up with OMWF). I remember when I first saw Spike, the first time I watched the show, I though oh of course a show called Buffy the Vampire Slayer has a punk rock vampire. A Billy Idol vampire even. How obvious! But he turned out to be one of the most complex and interesting characters I have ever encountered in any medium. It's all in the execution.
[> [> [> Thing is I don't like Dawn, it was a bad choice to keep her on. Joss does mess up sometimes.<nt> -- Jod, 00:58:27 12/06/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> Too bad we aren't polled on the changes! ;) -- RH, 06:32:43 12/06/01 Thu

Not everyone is going to be pleased with Joss' choices, but I for one think that Michelle T. is FABULOUS! They need to start putting a lot more effort into her character writing!
[> Re: Dawn as Slayer -- MrDave, 21:34:35 12/05/01 Wed

I'll be honest that Dawn immediately made me thing that Buffy had "Jumped the Shark". (see for the origin of this term) But gladly the crew of Buffy seem determined to bust every cliche that television has every set out as benchmarks of failure. From killing/writing out favored characters to swapping networks, to the dreaded "kid sister" every time, they have made it work with brilliance. Who's to say Dawn isn't a potential slayer/slayer clone in the making? Actually, Buffy is really a dead end as far as Slayers go...her replacement (Kendra) has already been actived and replaced by Faith. Perhaps the PTB see the Buffy line as a new kind of Slayer. Not so much the "vampire slayer" as much as the "Apocolypse Fighter". A new kind of warrior in the War on Darkness to supplement the overwhelmed forces of good. Who knows how her replacement is chosen? It could be a voluntary passing of the torch, or it might be a rite of succession, or something we (as the speculating masses) may not have even considered.
I really hate to draw this parallel, but here goes...Death is a transformation. It transforms us from being to not-being. Like the Immortals from Highlander, they are not immortals until they die...until they are transformed by dying into the Immortal schema. So might Buffy's death and ressurection be her final transformation into this "Apocolypse Fighter". Dawn was transformed from non-being to being Just like Buffy and so might also be a candidate (come to think of it, so was Angel). Maybe I am reading too much into this, but I wonder in the long line of Slayers how many of them faced the potential "End of the World" even once (much less six times)!
[> Re: Dawn as Slayer -- Rufus, 01:47:43 12/06/01 Thu

Dawn is the key...her potential is unknown by everyone. The monks changed the form of the key to that of a human girl. Absolute power aside, Dawn has acted as a connection for Buffy to selfless love. Buffy had always been an only child, the star in her universe. That left her at times a tad self centered. She loved her mother and friends, but it took the key, made from her own stuff, to introduce Buffy to the love that could cause one to sacrifice all.
Dawn gave that demon a slayer like kick. Was it lucky placement based upon watching her slayer sister, or is it the stuff that is Buffy in Dawn asserting itself...we don't know as of yet. With Buffy going through the motion of living, Dawn has been ignored by everyone, left to operate on auto pilot. She is withering from a lack of love. I hope the events in Wrecked start to wake Buffy from her perpetual dream state to join the world and love her sister and her life again.
[> [> Re: Dawn as Slayer -- Kimberly, 10:29:33 12/06/01 Thu

Dawn definitely appears to be the key to unfreezing, and maybe even deciphering, Buffy this season. Although the "Need some action, put Dawn in trouble" routine this season is getting old, maybe ME is implying that it is the energy of the Key that is attracting all of the trouble. It is reassuring to see that she is losing her damsel-in-distress attitude and is starting to fight back.

A wayward (and un-contemplated) thought: could one reason the writers decided to morph her crush on Xander to Spike because Dawn is evolving to become more like Xander? No special powers (the Key doesn't seem to give her anything), just courage and determination.

Another thought: did Spike ever try to hurt her last season? (Another poster mentioned the possibility that Buffy may now be the Key; that piece of information would be useful in figuring it out.)
[> Dawn as Dawn -- CaptainPugwash, 03:19:46 12/06/01 Thu

I am very fond of Dawn as a character. If she is annoying, then she is no more annoying than Xander, Tara, Willow, or Anya in their faux-dippy/stupid modes. As far as I am concerned, the 'core' of the show now consists of Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Dawn. Everyone else (especially X/A) is just a chorus/mirror.

I don't want Dawn (or anyone) to become the Slayer because I really don't want BtVS to run more than 8 Seasons (or even 7)....

I hope that one day Joss will have the guts to let BtVS go and eventually wind-up the show. I strongly believe in the philosophy of 'quit while you're ahead' with TV shows. A show should have a beginning, a middle, and a definite end; there is nothing worse than a once great show being drawn out into mediocrity (the classic example being B5 with all its wretched spin-offs)

So, no Dawn the Vampire Slayer for me. I'm quite content with Dawn's role as the Key/Buffy's sister, and I hope she stays (and grows) in this role until BtVS ends.
[> [> X/A minor? Nay! -- Rob, 09:15:34 12/06/01 Thu

CaptainPugwash said:

"As far as I am concerned, the 'core' of the show now consists of Buffy, Spike, Willow, and Dawn. Everyone else (especially X/A) is just a chorus/mirror."

I couldn't disagree with you more! For one, I love Dawn, but this season, she seems to have devolved into "the-thing-that-needs-to-be-rescued-and-everyone-ignores-the-rest-of-the-time-except-for- Tara." (Pretty long name, huh? LOL.) I really think the writers need to spend more time developing her character, b/c they were very good with her last year. This year, she seems to be getting the short end of the stick.

Xander and Anya do, also. And I think that's a shame. But I assume that, with the wedding approaching, they will be back in the forefront of the story soon. The fact is that "Buffy" has many characters, and, at times, some of them have to be pushed into the background, out of necessity for how the story must be presented. Once the winter eps begin, I can almost guarantee that X/A will be important to the story once again.

And as far as a show "bowing out gracefully," I for one think that a show should last as long as it possibly can. Six or Seven Years is too short for a show that is still at the height of its popularity and creative growth. "Buffy" will never age or become strained, as many older shows do, because "Buffy" is constantly changing. It has not tried to hold onto the same, stagnant storylines that plague other so-called teen dramas. It has let the characters evolve. Not many shows in their sixth season are still as exciting or fresh as "Buffy." If the show could maintain this indefinitely, I wouldn't be upset if the show ran 25 years. I'd be downright glad!

And since I know that's unrealistic and can't really happen, I say BRING ON THE SPIN-OFFS!!! :-D :-D :-D

[> [> [> Re: X/A minor? Nay! -- maddog, 09:27:27 12/06/01 Thu

The spinoffs could be interesting...I mean, there's Angel now...Ripper coming soon...and say they do end up having a Dawn spinoff....when was the last time the same show spawned 3 spinoffs?
[> [> [> [> And don't forget the animated "Buffy" series coming out next year! -- Rob, 09:38:26 12/06/01 Thu

[> [> [> [> Re: X/A minor? Nay! -- Shaglio, 11:02:50 12/06/01 Thu

"when was the last time the same show spawned 3 spinoffs?"

All In The Family. They had The Jefferson's, Maude, Archie's Place (where Archie ran a bar), and Gloria (I think that was the name).

I know Happy Days had at least 2 spin offs: Laverne & Shirley and Joanie Loves Chatchy (I have no idea how to spell that one).
[> [> [> [> [> Spinoffs -- Kimberly, 11:10:33 12/06/01 Thu

"I know Happy Days had at least 2 spin offs: Laverne & Shirley and Joanie Loves Chatchy (I have no idea how to spell that one)."

You forgot Mork and Mindy, which gives us three.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spinoffs -- Simon Agenbroad, 06:46:51 12/07/01 Fri

"All in the Family" spunoff "Maude," "Archie Bunker's Place" and "The Jeffersons" which spunoff "Good times"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spinoffs -- maddog, 09:48:34 12/07/01 Fri

I'd forgotten about Mork and Mindy...ok, so I guess it's a little more common than I'd thought, but still not very recently....and a spin off of a spin off doesn't count...but nice try. :)
[> [> [> [> [> Re: X/A minor? Nay! -- maddog, 09:45:09 12/07/01 Fri

I'd known about Happy Days...but only the first two you mentioned about All in the Family.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: X/A minor? Nay! -- Shaglio, 10:30:40 12/07/01 Fri

I personally have never seen the show Gloria, though I've heard about it. From what I heard, it was about Mike and Gloria's life after they moved out of Archie's house. It didn't last very long though.
[> [> [> [> Re: X/A minor? Nay! -- Cactus Watcher, 11:59:59 12/06/01 Thu

Adding to other people's lists of 3 spinoff shows; Mary Tyler Moore Show: Rhoda, Phyllis, and Lou Grant
Star Trek- of course.

Fun game!
[> [> [> [> Re: X/A minor? Nay! -- Caligo, 12:11:41 12/06/01 Thu

"when was the last time the same show spawned 3 spinoffs?"

Star Trek? It's kind of tricky though, because DS9 and Voyager were more spin-off of TNG than the original.

[> [> [> [> [> exactly...spin offs of spin offs don't count -- maddog, 09:57:26 12/07/01 Fri

[> [> [> oh, I very much believe it's better to end sooner with a bang... -- res, 21:51:09 12/06/01 Thu

rather than run the risk (however slight) of tainting the series with a humdrum ending. And I don't think many people - even people like Joss - can go on for too much longer than 7 seasons with this kind of quality. Not saying it's impossible, just incredibly unlikely. Stories do need to end, and need to have an end in sight... like life, but on a television series-scale rather than human-lifespan scale.
[> [> [> [> Yeah, but... -- Moose, 13:24:23 12/07/01 Fri

The amount of creative talent working on Buffy is enormous! I can't help but feel that if they wanted to they could easily go 9 seasons (or further) without harming the quality. There is just so many stories that can be told, especially with the characters growing older and facing more "real life" problems mixed in with all sorts of nasty demons and whatnot. (I actually like the darker feel of this season. BtVS needs an injection of horror to keep it interesting to avoid the humdrum research-demon-kill-demon stories.)

The only thing that will kill the show is if Joss stops being involved or SMG decides to leave. Though, I like the idea of spin-offs. Angel worked very well.
Can someone please explain the Lucifer story? -- MayaPapaya9, 16:17:06 12/05/01 Wed

It's constantly being mentioned here and I don't know the story. Can someone help me out? Thanks!!
[> Assuming you mean Satan... -- CaptainPugwash, 18:32:00 12/05/01 Wed

Ok, the best (for me) exposition of the Lucifer story is found in John Milton's 'Paradise Lost'...

Lucifer was originally an angel (of very high rank) in Heaven; 'Lucifer' means 'Bringer of Light'.

One day (sorry), God summoned all of Heaven and presented his Son (Christ). He also described his plan for creating a new race of beings (Mankind), but foresaw that they would trangress and therefore require an intercessor. The offer is made to all, but only Christ responds. Thus, Christ is exalted above all...

Lucifer is filled with pride, jealousy and rage, describing Mankind as a race of 'upstart beings'. He thus resolves to overthrow God and rule over Heaven himself. In order to do this he has to convince himself (and others) that they are 'self-made', i.e not created by God. After all, rebelling against your Creator is a pretty silly thing to do...

He eventually persuades a third of Heaven to ally with him, but inevitably loses the ensuing battle. Lucifer (now Satan) and his allies are expelled from Heaven and thrown into Hell.

Having recovered from the hurt of defeat, Satan and the other fallen angels resolve (after considering other options) to seek out the new world (Earth) that God has created and take it for themselves.

Satan journeys through Hell towards its Gates, where he encounters Sin (in the form of a woman). With Sin is a dark shade with a 'deadly dart' called Death. We are then told that Death is the product of a liason between Satan & Sin (I can't remember where she came from)...

Death is hungry. Satan manages to persuade his son to open the gates of Hell by telling him about Earth and the 'food' therein. Whilst Satan journeys across 'the void' (chaos) to Earth, Death & Sin set about building a bridge between Hell & Earth...

Satan sets foot upon the Earth (after lamenting his loss of Heaven) and is consumed with lust/desire when he first sees Eve. He then takes the form of a serpent and tricks Eve into eating the Forbidden Fruit from the Tree of Knowledge (Good & Evil) by appealing to her vanity and pride...

Mankind trangresses and is expelled from Eden. Satan's treachery is discovered and he is thus commanded to walk on his belly and eat stones etc. Fleeing back to Hell, Satan discovers that his invasion army has also been turned into snakes...

There may be a few innacuracies, but that's the gist of it. It's a fabulous read.

Lucifer was basically a proud & jealous angel who rebelled against God, but chose to take out his vengeance on Mankind. The delicious irony of the whole story is that Satan end ups becoming a crucial agent in God's greater plan without actually realising it.
[> [> I agree..nothing beats Milton's Lucifer -- Rahael, 02:09:23 12/06/01 Thu

His version pretty much dominates modern Western culture in my opinion.

There's a slightly different but very Milton echoey version of the battle between God and the fallen Angels in Philip Pullman's 'His Dark Materials' Trilogy.
[> [> [> Re: I agree..nothing beats Milton's Lucifer -- Shiver, 06:51:07 12/06/01 Thu

Yes! Pullman is a great read!
[> Re: Can someone please explain the Lucifer story? -- vandalia, 18:38:46 12/05/01 Wed

I'm assuming you mean the whole 'where Satan came from' Christian mythology thing, so here goes:

Lucifer (his name means 'morning star' or lightbringer, he's referred to in Isaiah as 'son of the dawn') was the favored angel of God. The passage is as follows:

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit."

Lucifer's crime, as tradition has it, was that he wanted to be above God. His pride was his downfall, however, and God cast him out. Lucifer later came to be synonymous with the Christian Devil, or Satan.
[> [> Totally OT: Book Recommend -- fresne, 20:44:50 12/05/01 Wed

As we wait for re-run heck to end, try a nice redemptionista retelling Requiem for the Devil by Jeri Smith-Ready. Its sort of a philosophical, fantasy, mind bender.

Its impossible to describe without sounding treacly, which it isn't. Basically, Beelzebub, Mephistopheles, and Lucifer go into a bar in Washington D.C. (they're moonlighting as political analysts) And then life/love/change happens.

Its sort of a continuation of Milton’s Paradise Lost and yet the emotion is straight Dante.

What can I say, I really liked the book. (We bought the on-line version, then sprang for the paper version.)
[> [> Re: Can someone please explain the Lucifer story? -- anom, 21:24:45 12/05/01 Wed

Vandalia, can you tell me the chapter & verse of the quote from Isaiah? I'm much less familiar w/the Prophets than w/the Torah, & I don't recognize the passage you quote. There's more I want to say about this topic, but not tonight--it's late & I can't afford the time to look things up.

BTW, the name Lucifer does not mean "morning star." It does mean "light- bringer," & an identification w/Venus as the morning star may have come from the idea that its rising, preceding the sun's, heralds/"brings" the sun's light. Kinda like the idea that the cock's crow makes the sun rise.
[> [> [> Re: Can someone please explain the Lucifer story? -- vandalia, 07:56:25 12/06/01 Thu

It is Isaiah 14:12-15 in the King James Version (I found it online).
[> [> [> [> is isaiah quote really about lucifer? -- anom, 22:05:30 12/06/01 Thu

Thanks, Vandalia. I looked up the chapter, & the interesting thing is, that passage is addressed to the king of Babylon (per ch. 14, v. 3), to be delivered after he's overthrown & the people Israel restored to "their own land." There may be an implicit comparison to a Lucifer-figure, but I'm not aware of any such figure (as distinguished from Satan) in Judaism. The line about being brought down to hell is translated in my version (from the Jewish Publication Society) as "brought down to the nether-world"; I don't think Judaism at Isaiah's time had a concept of hell that resembled the Xtian one (although I'm not sure). It may simply refer to the realm of the dead. Verse 20 says, "Thou shalt not be joined with them [other dead kings, who "sleep in glory"] in burial, because thou hast destroyed thy land, thou hast slain thy people...." Lucifer would have had neither a land to destroy nor a people to slay that were "his." So this passage seems to be simply about an oppressive king who will meet his end & find no honor in death. I'm not sure how the reference to "day-star, son of the morning" fits in, but as far as I know, Judaism doesn't have any concept of Lucifer as having rebelled against God or as a "fallen angel."
[> [> [> [> [> Re: is isaiah quote really about lucifer? -- hope this helps, 06:26:37 12/07/01 Fri

Here's a link I found on google. I hasten to add (because of the overall nature of the site) that this site does not necessarily reflect my views.

If you search on "lucifer" in google you will find links along these lines as well as things (obviously) only tenuously related.
[> [> [> [> [> [> thanks -- anom, 20:58:05 12/09/01 Sun

That's basically what I was saying, only in a lot more detail. Plus it tells how we (or somebody) got from there to here.

I'm glad it mentioned Elaine Pagels, whose book The Origin of Satan I wanted to mention in my earlier post (but I think I searched on her name & "Lucifer" instead of "Satan," which didn't get me anywhere).

Interesting linguistic note: "lucifer" is also an expression, now little used, for a type of match in English, & "fósforo" (= phosphorus, mentioned in the linked article as the Greek equivalent) means a match in Spanish.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: is isaiah quote really about lucifer? -- Mara Schiffren, 09:03:24 12/07/01 Fri

Judaism has no such Lucifer tradition and particularly not in the era when Isaiah was written. As you state, it also had no concept of hell. It still doesn't. In that regard, it's not as dualistic as Christianity.

The Christian interpretation of this text is a later re-interpretation, several centuries after the text was written. OTOH, that's par for the course in the biblical tradition.

Just a note here: In Milton's version of the fall of Lucifier, Lucifer only resents his position as God's second, once Christ is introduced, and Lucifer understands finally his own distance from God and that that distance will never be overcome -- it is essentially despair over the distance between himself and God represented for him tangibly by the figure of Christ which precipitates his decision to fall. He can't bear the fact that he is not the closest thing to God.
[> Re: Can someone please explain the Lucifer story? -- Caligo, 07:46:30 12/06/01 Thu

basically all I know about the judeo-christian Lucifer is what has already been written.
BUT there was a little known diety in Ancient Greek Mythology called Lucifer. He was the son of Aurora (the dawn) and a torch-bearing deity. He was believed to procede ahead of his mother's chariot in the form of the morning star (the planet Venus). I haven't read much else on him and there doesn't seem to be any myths starring him.
[> [> now's my chance -- anom, 22:21:35 12/06/01 Thu

"basically all I know about the judeo-christian Lucifer is what has already been written."

I've been looking for an opening to say there's nothing "judeo-" about Lucifer. It's an Xtian concept that as far as I know has nothing to do w/Judaism. Satan in Judaism is very different from, & much less powerful than, "Lucifer" in Xtianity. (I've had a problem for a long time w/the use of "Judeo-Christian" when it assumes that anything Xtian is also Jewish. This term seemed to come into common use in about the '60s or '70s, when Jews objected to the characterization of many values shared by the 2 religions (& many others) as Xtian. At first it was a welcome inclusion, but later it was used more & more about concepts in Xtianity that are not part of Judaism. Made me feel as invisible any time as I usually do this time of year. OK, end of mini-rant.)

"BUT there was a little known diety in Ancient Greek Mythology called Lucifer."

That's interesting! I'd like to see what anyone else can unearth about this deity, esp. why he has a Latin name if he's Greek. Maybe for the same reason Jesus had a Mexican name even though he was Jewish!
[> [> [> Re: now's my chance -- Caligo, 08:37:50 12/07/01 Fri

"Satan in Judaism is very different from, & much less powerful than, "Lucifer" in Xtianity"

Cool. I never knew that. I kind of skimmed over most things concerning Satan and Lucifer. I've always felt that there was something just very misrepresented about that figure, almost like he's been used as the blame for everything that humans have ever done wrong. *shrug* but enough about that.

I'm humming the Adam Sandler "Hannukah Song" for you! :-)
[> [> More on Lucifer (Tuscany) -- Caligo, 13:34:29 12/10/01 Mon

Ok, I only read it in a few places
( but there is mention that the parents of the Tuscany Goddess of Witchcraft, Aradia was Diana, Goddess of the Moon and her brother, Lucifer, God of the Sun.
[> I might as well contribute the relevant Koran excerpt. -- A8, 17:03:59 12/10/01 Mon

I'm not a Muslim, but because of the events of this past year, I have spent a great deal of time reading the Koran lately in hopes to gain a better insight into the Islamic mindset. Here is the relevant excerpt, as I see it, pertaining to the origin of Satan.


We created man from dry clay, from black moulded loam, and before him Satan from smokeless fire. Your Lord said to the angels: 'I am creating man from dry clay, from black moulded loam. When I have fashioned him and breathed of My spirit into him, kneel down and prostrate yourselves before him.'

All the angels prostrated themselves, except Satan. He refused to prostrate himself.

'Satan,' said Allah, 'why do you not prostrate yourself?'

He replied: 'I will not bow to a mortal created of dry clay, of black moulded loam.'

'Begone,' said Allah, 'you are accursed. My curse shall be on you till Judgement-day.'

'Lord,' said Satan, 'reprieve me till the Day of Resurrection.'

He answered: 'You are reprieved till the Appointed Day.'

'Lord,' said Satan, 'since you have led me astray, I will seduce mankind on earth: I will seduce them all except those that faithfully serve you.'

He replied: 'This is the right course for Me. You shall nave no power over My servants, except the sinners who follow you. They are all destined for Hell. It has seven gates, and through these they shall come in separate bands. But the righteous shall dwell amongst the gardens and the fountains; in peace and safety they shall enter them. We shall remove all hatred from their hearts, and they shall recline on couches face to face, a band of brothers. Toil shall not weary them, nor shall they ever leave their Paradise.'

I hope this adds some useful info.

WhooHoo! I've got mine. -- JBone, 17:20:57 12/05/01 Wed

As some of you may be aware of, the website had a promotion in the spirit of charity following the Sept 11, attacks. If viewers donated at least $30 to the United Ways's Sept 11 Fund, the writing staff of Buffy the Vampire Slayer would send out a special gift to those who donated by a certain date. I barely sent my receipt in under the wire and have been checking my mailbox ever since. Well, TODAY WAS THE DAY!

I have, in my strong, greedy hands, a copy of the script for "The Body" signed by the writing staff of BtVS. ***a little soft shoe and snoopy dance*** And these aren't stamped on signatures either, I see that Marti Noxon used a red ink pen on the left side and did a little fang cartoon under her signature. There's David Fury off to the right side in blue ballpoint. To the right of Marti is Jane Espenson in a dark ballpoint. Below Marti and Jane in red ink I see Steve S. DeKnight. On the bottom right of Fury is Drew S. Greenberg in red ink. I'll be watching the writing credits for the rest of the year, because two of the last three are kind of hard to make out. One starts with a R (I think), then I don't know. The other starts with a D and I might guess Douglas Petrie, but it's pretty short. Oh, and finally, right beneath the "Written and Directed By Joss Whedon", in a big ole black sharpie (what a pro!) is Joss "I'm A Freaking Genius" Whedon. Joss touch pen to this paper.

One more thing at the top of the page in black sharpie is written "Jay, Thanks for your help." But since Joss and my name start with J, and they don't look alike, I don't think Joss wrote that. And there is a black sharpie circle 46 in the top right hand corner. I wonder what that could mean?... Well my Christmas came early this year.

I thought that I would share this with you since I have few friends who appreciate BtVS, let alone the writing staff. And I thought that this is the board with the knowing of who's on the writing staff.
[> Colour me green, JB! -- Wisewoman, 17:34:19 12/05/01 Wed

[> [> Me too! -- Traveler, 19:04:36 12/05/01 Wed

[> [> [> A Treasure - Congrats! -- Brian, 19:22:22 12/05/01 Wed

[> Wow...Spechless here! Just to hold something that Joss himself autographed!!! Wow! -- Rob, 09:31:22 12/06/01 Thu

Something that's been bugging me since yesterday - - Sheri, 18:09:54 12/05/01 Wed

I finally got to see the episode in which Buffy and Faith switched bodies. (Blanking on the title, but I'm sure you guys know which one I'm talking about).

We know that the Slayer line goes through Faith (Buffy died, we get Kendra, Kendra died, we get Faith). But what would have happened if the guys from the CoW (that's a terrible accronym... but "WC" looks even worse) had managed to kill Buffy-in-Faith's body?

If we got a new Slayer, than that would mean that the essense of the "Slayer" is housed in the body itself.

But that seems a bit stinky, no? The idea that it's simply the body that is responsible for the heroism... and not the woman herself.

I think Faith would have gone with the idea that body = Slayer because of the anger that she exibits when confronted with her own body. She calls the body "disgusting" and a "murderer"... If she can say that her body is "disgusting" and a "murderer" (rather than saying that she is these things), I think it would be reasonable to say that she would have viewed killing it as killing "Faith the Slayer"... because "Buffy the Slayer"s body would continue to exist.

Hope that makes sense... I'll try to clarify if there is much confusion.
[> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- MrDave, 21:18:49 12/05/01 Wed

I am fairly certain that the body is the key. Here are my data points:
1) The Slayer's body is transformed into the Slayer at the time it is chosen. There is no evidence that Buffy exhibited any "super" power prior to her being chosen as Slayer, and ther is no reason to suspect that any Slayer is supercharged prior to the changing of the guard.
2) In the Buffyverse there are distinctly three separate elements to any being: Body/Mind/Soul. The Body is all of your physical (and to a certain extent magical) properties, the mind is the personality and memory and the soul is the concience and spirituality of the being. Being as the Slayer is transformed (presumably by magic) then that is where the key to the triggering event lies.
3) Buffy's first death triggered the selection of a new slayer. her second death did not seem to have a similar effect. Only the death of Faith's body could trigger such an event--regardless of who was wearing it at the time.
4) Faith demonstrates some genuine pangs of concience as whe wears the Buffster's bod. The soul (being a seperate element) probably hung with the body. Buffy (in Faith's body) demonstrated a level of desperate ruthlessness that was (while understandable) uncharacteristic for her. Again, the weaker morals/spirit of Faith. So the soul may have absoulutely nothing to do with the choice of Slayer.

This brings up some interesting tangents in my mind (if you will forgive the meanding thought process)
This whole thing lines up to this...The watchers may have determined a method (whether through the use of Oracles, Divination or an inside line to the PTB) a way to detect potential Slayers (and get a head start on their training so they are ready when they are called and not pressed into service with little preparation like Buffy was) they cannot seem to always get the hang of being ahead of the game (Faith was an excellent example...I feel that if she had had a little more prep time before being activated she might have had a very different life).
Slayers are chosen, not made. The Watchers serve a useful purpose in that they help these young girls to adjust to the change. Giles is likely one of the very few watchers who in who-knows-how- many generations willingly let his Slayer step out on her own.
I see that most Watchers are probably locked into the "I'm in this until she dies" mindset that they really hold their Slayers back (as Giles realized he was doing). I'd be interested to see if someone from the Scoobies gets tapped as a potential slayer (Dawn for example). Would it become the current Slayer's job to prepare her (either Buffy or Faith) rather than the WC? Just wondering out loud.
[> [> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- MayaPapaya9, 21:30:20 12/05/01 Wed

"1) The Slayer's body is transformed into the Slayer at the time it is chosen. There is no evidence that Buffy exhibited any "super" power prior to her being chosen as Slayer, and ther is no reason to suspect that any Slayer is supercharged prior to the changing of the guard."

One thing that has always bugged me is how is it that Kendra knew she was a slayer since she was born? She said something about the calling being taken very seriously where she comes from, and that she was sent away at a really young age. So how come Buffy didn't know until she was 14? Was she not chosen until then? Then why was Kendra chosen so early? And since she and Buffy were around the same age, why were they both chosen at the same time? I'm so confused...
[> [> [> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- MrDave, 21:39:27 12/05/01 Wed

Actually Kendra's parents knew she was the Slayer and gave her to the WC to be raised as the Slayer. I suspect there was some sort of sign or portent that tipped them off (but that is pure speculation on my part). I also got the feeling that Kendra was a little younger than Buffy (again pure speculation) by a year or two.
Of course the Watchers are going to hammer in the idea that Kendra's "destiny" is to be the Slayer. That's part of their gig...controlling the Slayer has got be a real power-trip. In the rare instance that they get to lay their claws into a Slayer prior to the call, they must play some serious mind-trips to insure obediance to the WC.
[> [> [> answers? sort of -- Slayrunt, 00:13:18 12/06/01 Thu

In the movie, buffy had a birth mark,(a mole she had removed).

Presumably all slayers have this birth mark, so that may be how Kendra was identified. It is supposed that other countries/cultures are more in-tune with the vampire/demon world, and Kendra's people may be that type. I think Kendra made a comment about her people thinking the battle of the vampire/demons being important.

Buffy, living in the U.S., would have been unaware of vampire etc, but other perhaps more superstitious (not a put down, especially if monsters are real) cultures would know and teach about monsters and slayers.

I'm confused about who is chosen. Is there a list that they (who ever they are) go down?
[> [> [> [> Re: answers? sort of -- maddog, 07:10:33 12/06/01 Thu

By your definition with the birthmark that kinda makes sense. Not a list exactly, but they must have this group of which they can call anyone at any point and annoint them the's like, they have the capabilities, but don't use them until called upon. That's the only way to explain Kendra...cause otherwise you can't explain how she would have known since birth, cause Buffy had only died one year prior to her showing up. Don't they say something about slayers being "called"?
[> [> [> [> Re: answers? sort of -- pagangodess, 10:56:46 12/06/01 Thu

I just started reading 'Pretty Maids all in a Row' by Christopher Golden. This is Spike and Dru's story. Anyhow, in this novel Spike is in search of the list of upcoming slayers. He must find it and kill everyone on the list and the current slayer in order to get a special gift for Dru. To do so, of course, he must first infiltrate the WC. So from what I got so far is that the list exists. However, that only raises more questions.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: answers? sort of -- Rob, 11:17:31 12/06/01 Thu

As far as Kendra knowing she was the Slayer prior to being called, I think that it has to do with the culture in which she was raised. They were more in-tune with the signs of a girl who would become a Slayer than in L.A. I am not sure about the birthmark idea, since I really don't take anything as "canon" unless it is mentioned on either BtVS or AtS. I read "Pretty Maids in a Row" also, but, being a TV tie-in novel that Joss had nothing to do with, that cannot be taken as canon either, especially since it details Spike killing a Slayer who is a different one from the ones we saw him kill in FFL. Therefore, I'm not sure if there is an actual list, but I think that the Council is well aware in advance about some girls who might be the next called.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: answers? sort of -- pagangodess, 16:26:01 12/06/01 Thu

Thanks for clearing that up. I just started the book, so I don't have all the info yet. Up untill now though, I have found the novels quite in tune with the show.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: answers? sort of -- Rob, 11:29:26 12/07/01 Fri

Yeah, you're right about that. For the most part they are. "Pretty Maids All in a Row" is the first I found that had such a major error. But the book was written and published before FFL that is why there is that discrepancy. From an interview with Mr. Golden that I read, he said that he is not given any knowledge about what will happen on the show in the future. Therefore, his imagination is given free reign. Unfortunately, now and then it conflicts with the show. But that didn't stop "Pretty Maids" from being a very enjoyable read. I think he pretty much nailed the characters of Spike and Dru, and it was very cool to see them in their very own story, in a different time period.

[> [> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- Grushenka, 19:36:14 12/06/01 Thu

"4) Faith demonstrates some genuine pangs of concience as whe wears the Buffster's bod. The soul (being a seperate element) probably hung with the body. Buffy (in Faith's body) demonstrated a level of desperate ruthlessness that was (while understandable) uncharacteristic for her. Again, the weaker morals/spirit of Faith. So the soul may have absoulutely nothing to do with the choice of Slayer."

My interpretation of this episode was quite different; I think the point was about each Slayer developing empathy, the often judgemental Buffy empathy for Faith's situation--like when the guy from the CoW spit in her face--and Faith developing empathy for human beings in general. When Faith was given the same expectations and support as Buffy, she behaved accordingly, but only after said support and expectations were given/expressed. She was fantasising about killing Willow at first, and that was clearly a very Faith thought, not one I can see attached to Buffy's "soul." Ditto for her provocation of Spike, or her meanness to Tara. Slowly, though, during the course of the episode she absorbed the sense that she was supposed to be a hero rather than a "disgusting" "murderer," and she absorbed the support of the Scoobies, and ultimately she behaved as Buffy would have because of that. It wasn't automatic, though--she still meant to escape the country, but that developed empathy nagged at her to go save the folks in the church. In that scene there was clearly a conflict of desires/impulses, not just an automatic desire to do good based on her "soul". I think this makes the episode that much more powerful, because it's really her time in Buffy's situation--not with Buffy's soul--that ultimately changes Faith and leads to her redemption.

As for Buffy-in-Faith, she behaved the only way she could in order to escape from the CoW and stop Faith, and with more of a sense of ethics than Faith ever would have had--the other CoW guys left their buddy to die at her hands, expecting that's what Faith would do, but Buffy didn't kill him (though she easily could have). Again, not something Faith's "weaker" soul would have dictated, if indeed it were their souls directing their behaviour.

I know that's all rather off the topic of what you were asking, but I felt the need to point that out.
[> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- maddog, 06:59:57 12/06/01 Thu

I think if they'd somehow taken out Buffy in Faith's body then nothing would happen...I think the slayer is the actual person, not the we'd end up with Faith in Buffy's body...she'd end up hating herself, probably committ suicide and we'd have a new slayer.
[> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- Shaglio, 08:05:53 12/06/01 Thu

IMHO, I'd say that it's the "consciousness" that would effect a new slayer's calling, not the "body." If Buffy-in-Faith's-body was killed, a new slayer wouldn't have been chosen, but if Faith-in-Buffy's-body was killed then there would have been a new slayer in town.

My reasoning is that when Buffy first died by drowning and Kendra was called, her "body" never died. She lost consciousness and was resuscitated by Xander, but her body was still alive (warm to the touch, no riga mortis, etc.)

I hope that made sense to anyone other than myself. If not, just ignore my mad prattle.
[> Re: Something that's been bugging me since yesterday -- Kimberly, 08:48:07 12/06/01 Thu

Oooh, Sheri, what a wonderful thread of philosophical goodness you've started!

Where does identity reside? Does it reside in the body? Does it reside in the mind? Are the two separate, or does the mind arise from the activity within the brain?

What is the soul? Is it separate from the mind? Is it an individual thing, or is it something rather like a kidney, something which can be transplanted with few problems?

What is it about a girl in her teens that causes her to be the Slayer? We know it's something she's born with, but what is it? Not what marks her, but what offers the possibility of Slayerhood. And, most importantly, WHO DOES THE CHOOSING?

I will weigh in on the identity side of the issue: killing Buffy-in-Faith's body would not have created a new Slayer, at which point the Council would have known something was wrong. A little late, but what else is new with them?

I can't decide on these issues in the Realverse, but in the Buffyverse it's pretty clear that Body, Mind and Soul are three different things, related but not identical. The question we're still left with is is the Soul like the Body or the Mind?

Have I left you with unanswered questions? That's not too surprising; I don't know the answers myself. But, boy, it's fun thinking about them! (Realverse or Buffyverse)
[> [> Choosing answer... -- Adrenfreak, 08:13:00 12/11/01 Tue

I don't think they're "chosen"... when a slayer dies, another person begins to manifest the abilities of The Slayer.

I've seen too much fanfic with the idea that the CoW calls up the next slayer... it's singularly obvious that they're only around to "help" the slayer, not choose them.

And as for what would trigger the calling...

Let's look at Buffy's "death". She had been drowned, but she was close enough that she could be resucitated. This means that she still had some sort of brain activity. She wasn't breathing, and she had no pulse.

So could the abilities of a Slayer reside in the heart?

Current board | More December 2001