February 2002 posts

Previous February 2002  

More February 2002


Any thoughts on the black leather coat? -- Anne, 05:51:42 02/13/02 Wed

The first thought that entered my mind when Dawn took out the black leather coat and tried it on was "Spike". I don't know what to make of this but it can't possibly be accidental that the item they chose to have Dawn steal, try on for herself obviously liking how she looked in it, and then give to her beloved sister, was something so rampantly reminiscent of Spike's trademark.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Woops spoilers above -- Anne, 10:42:28 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: black leather coat: Dawn's identity -- Lupe, 11:04:19 02/13/02 Wed
Interesting thought regarding the black leather coat and a tie in with Spike...Here are my random ramblings on the subject:

When Dawn tried on the coat, I actually thought more of Buffy than Spike. Buffy herself has worn quite a lot of black leather coats (we'll ignore the reality of how much leather coats cost - unless, of course, everyone's wardrobe was shoplifted). Dawn tries it on, but she's not Buffy: she's not the superhero of the family. And yet without any super powers, Dawn has many of the same trials that Buffy had as a teen. Until Buffy came to Sunnydale and ended up with friends who knew her Slayer secret, her life and the life of most Slayers was destined to be a lonely one. Buffy bucked this rule and so we have a Slayer with friends. Now look at Dawn. It's the same dilemma: how can you have close friends when you have a huge secret? Buffy has the luxury (necessity, though, really) of having friends who know and can share her secret: but Dawn only has Buffy and Buffy's friends. Dawn needs her own circle of friends, friends her own age, but how can she find people she could confide in not just about her sister being a Slayer, but also her very own bizarre existence as a girl formed from energy by monks? Oh yeah, and a vampire with computer chip in his brain is her main babysitter. And plus all that other stuff about magic and monsters. How very isolating!

I also have read some people post that surely Dawn would have seen the tag on the coat when she wrapped it. I agree - but that's the point. Dawn's stealing has been a cry for help all along. With no one noticing, she had to make it more obvious. On the one hand, yes, she was afraid for everyone to find out: but at the same time all along what she wanted was for ANYBODY to notice (especially Buffy).

So back to the coat itself: if it was actually a representation of Buffy, then we have Dawn "stealing" that identity, trying it on, only to find it's not really her. Oh sure, it fit, but it wasn't her. But when you have been created mystically, how do you know who you really are? And isn't that every teenager's dilemma anyway: who am I, really? And don't we all "try on" many different personas along the way (and certainly those of older siblings)? She also tried stealing bits of others, too: Anya's earrings, Willow's shoes, etc. But none of those things can give her the answer to who SHE is.

Dawn needs her own identity, and her own friends, and her own life! Although I think Buffy would initially be freaked for Dawn to share any "family secrets," she needs to realize that Dawn needs a support system, too. The trick will be finding someone who could be trusted with those secrets, or even believe them in the first place. Makes you realize how so very lucky Buffy is to have her circle of friends.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: black leather coat: Dawn's identity -- a, 11:25:38 02/13/02 Wed
Or maybe, just maybe. she stole something to advance the plotline and it doesn't mean a bloody thing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: black leather coat: Dawn's identity -- maddog, 13:06:36 02/13/02 Wed
Leaving the tag on was definitely deliberate...I think this was the breaking point for Dawn. It's not like she's been completely hiding the fact that everything she had lately was stolen...if that were the case she would have taken the tags off all the stuff she stole from the magic shop.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Tags and stealing (spoilers) -- LadyStarlight, 14:38:47 02/13/02 Wed
Taking the tags off the items she stole would have made the stealing 'real'. As long as the tags were on, she could pretend that she could take them back, undo the damage, make things 'right'.

Also, taking the tags off would have made the feelings behind the thievery 'real' as well and something to be dealt with.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's and Dawn's secrets: parallels -- Lupe, 15:13:30 02/13/02 Wed
maddog writes: "It's not like she's been completely hiding the fact that everything she had lately was stolen" - that totally made me think back to the episode when Joyce finally learns the truth about Buffy being the Slayer:
********************
(from Becoming, Part II)
BUFFY
I told you. I'm a vampire slayer.

JOYCE
Well, I don't accept that!

BUFFY
Open your eyes, Mom! What do you
think has been going on for the last
two years? The fights, the weird occurrences -
how many times have you washed blood
out of my clothes, you still haven't figured it out?
******************
I could totally hear Dawn saying something similar: Open your eyes, Buffy! All those missing things, me sneaking in late, I give you a coat with the tags still on it: when were you ever going to figure it out? Buffy even says something similar to Joyce: tell Anya you didn't do this (or something like that). Ah, the denial!

If the stealing had been about stealing - just taking stuff to have - sure she would have removed the tags, and maybe never get caught. But it was never about the things that she stole, or getting away with it - it was about getting noticed: wanting to know that someone cared enough to see what was going on. Buffy was really hurt and pained that for two years of being a Slayer her mom never realized what was going on. Sure she kept it a secret - but she still would have wanted Joyce to pay close enough attention to see what was going on. Again, this is classic teenage stuff revisited: why don't my parents know who I really am? Why can't they see what's going on?

And many troubled teens will also find a way to externalize their inner feelings in a way to try to communicate. The "bad" or acting out behavior is the cry for help: a way to make visible an inner turmoil. Dawn feels empty, alone - the stealing of things is just a way to externalize and show these feelings to the outside world since she isn't able to find a way to communicate those feelings directly. (At least that's what I learned in Psych 101).

Ironically, Buffy and Joyce's "heart to heart" ended in complete opposite to Buffy and Dawn's:
*******************
Again from Becoming:
JOYCE
I'm not letting you out of this house.

BUFFY
You can't stop me.

She tries to leave and Joyce grabs her arm -- Buffy flings her hand off -- Joyce tries to grab her again and Buffy pushes her hard against the wall. Goes to the door.

JOYCE
You walk out of this house,
don't even think about coming back.
*********************
But for Dawn, just when everyone is finally able to leave the house, Buffy shuts the door, not having even set a foot onto the porch. For Buffy, her "coming out" was all about leaving that house. For Dawn, it's about staying.

Anyway - I thought there were some interesting parallels there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> great insight re: joyce and buffy parallels -- juliaabra, 17:03:50 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: thanks, because... -- Lupe, 17:54:39 02/13/02 Wed
...today has been only the second time I've ever tried posting on this board and after the response I got from "a" above ("maybe it doesn't mean a bloody thing"), I was feeling a little discouraged. I don't claim to have especially insightful (or even coherent) thoughts, but this is a board for discussion of "All Things Philosophical", not "All Things Meaningless," right? I mean, sheesh.

So: thank you for your post to me!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: thanks, because... -- DEN, 18:21:51 02/13/02 Wed
Lupe, stay with it! Sometimes I think a person needs at least an MA to post on this board--but most regulars are both friendly and helpful most of the time.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> ah, yes, the dreaded rude/indifferent response, or worse(!!!)... -- yuri (pride to wannabe philosophers everywhere!), 22:17:19 02/13/02 Wed
no response at all! Known to paralyze the "post new message" muscle in anyone recently delurked.

I don't think you need it, but I personally wouldn't mind a AtPoBtVS support group/tutorial for those of us struggling to keep our heads above the confounding and quick moving (though beautiful and intriguing, of course) waters that are the great minds of the board. We could watch a clip of Buffy, and then the tutor would say "okay, class, what did the blossoming flower on Willow's shirt represent in this scene? Can anyone relate Spike's behavior to one of the philosophers we reviewed last week? What did the nuances of Buffy's facial expressions connote in terms of her current morality? How many references were made to monotheistic religions, and why? And can anyone relate the plot arc to the workings of a transistor radio?"

Oh, and btw, I'm glad you mentioned the tag being intentional and cry-for-help ish. That's the first thing that went through my mind when I saw it. I knew a girl who admitted the only reason she stole was to get caught, and was insanely frustrated because she never did.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> aug, didn't mean to connote that anyone else is a wannabe philosopher. Just that I am. -- yuri, 22:19:06 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Rule one.....don't feed trolls...... -- Rufus, 02:26:57 02/14/02 Thu
Lupe, I saw the response to your above post, the one lettered reply is a troll. Ignore trolls as they are only here to create problems. Once you've been on the board for awhile you will begin to know them from the regular posters, namely the rude, one sentence post with a non-name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah... Where's TrollBot when you need her? -- Marie, 04:16:52 02/14/02 Thu
Lupe - I had a snotty response to my first post, too (actually not from a troll, but a regular poster!), and it was a long time before I ventured to post again. Now I don't take any notice, though there *are* times I think I should put a "c" in the middle of my name!

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah... Where's TrollBot when you need her? -- Rufus, 05:56:01 02/14/02 Thu
Just as long as it wasn't me that was rude...I hope, I do have abrupt moments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rufus - never you! -- Marie, 06:59:40 02/14/02 Thu
I don't want to say who it was, 'cos he/she's been very friendly since that long-ago occasion, but you never forget your first time!

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And again, I say... -- Lupe, 11:18:17 02/14/02 Thu
Thank you! Thanks to Juliaabra, Yuri, Rufus and Marie:

Yeah, I know I'm supposed to ignore the Trolls, I was just feeling a little crappy yesterday, so I let it bother me more than I should. You guys didn't have to go out of your way to respond to me, but you did - so, thanks!

Personally, I'm not sure I can even aspire to be a philosopher, but I am really good at overanalyzing and making things more complicated than they need to be, so that might count for something! I always love reading the posts here - it really adds to my enjoyment and appreciation of the show. So, I hope to start adding in my own 2 cents here and there...

Hope to see y'all around the board!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> no, marie, you're neither invisible nor unnoticed... -- anom, 16:05:57 02/14/02 Thu
"...there *are* times I think I should put a 'c' in the middle of my name!"

You don't need to do that, we "c" you!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: no, marie, you're neither invisible nor unnoticed... -- Marie, 01:28:29 02/15/02 Fri
Heh! I knew one of you bright sparks'd get it!

(And thank you!)

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Take it from one the regulars to probably never realize their full philosophical potential... -- VampRiley, 14:52:12 02/14/02 Thu
My actual available time to post and attempt philosophical waxing has gone down to next to nothing since the summer, which mightily sucks. But when I come across a post, like this one, I do my best to make time to explain how we are, although I'm not the HelloBot. I've been around since Masq first put up a Discussion Board when it was at insidetheweb.com. And since then, there have been the full gamet of people that have posted, whether they were "especially insightful" or not. We are very tolerant.

Trolls are bad.

Very bad.

You stick around long enough, you will learn how to easily spot them and avoid the headache that follows. Please don't feel like you can't say what you feel. Most of us here are very polite.


Welcoming with open arms,

VR
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Blood and Tags. -- Rufus, 02:22:45 02/14/02 Thu
I remember when Joyce first found out about Buffy's slayer status, she tried to deny such a thing existed, even when a vampire attacked her outside her home. The truth is something that isn't always accepted as a fact if it is painful enough for the person to wish it wasn't real. This thing this year is that the SG are becoming adults and with that finding out that that new status may include some adult with blinders on thinking. Buffy said to Dawn something to the effect of "tell her you didn't do it" and then looked inside the gift box to really see that store tag for what it was. By the time the Vengeance errrr Justice demon arrived they didn't need her to see how much they had missed in their passion to get on with their lives. Buffy said that her most important job was Dawn, someone she had reduced to a mundane chore, something to get done, ticked off a list, then get on to better things. Buffy wasn't the only one guilty of that as we can see by Anya's obsession with her wedding. All things stop at that wedding and god help anyone that disturbs the progress of the traditional wedding celebration. Of course "cold feet" ignored as well. Dawn may have been a brat, but she was created by her surroundings. Part of growing up for the Gang will be including Dawn in their lives as more than a burden to be watched over.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOW do you see? -- Rochefort, 06:57:52 02/13/02 Wed

Now....really guys, after THAT episode you have to admit this season is a BIG BIG BIG step down in quality from last season. That was yet ANOTHER poor story boarded, stupid line'd, silly plotted, unfunny season six episode.

But I figured out what's going on. Joss is working directly on The Firefly. This new show, I think for Fox. He's writing and directing it.

So he's IGNORING poor Buffy. And, I don't know if any of you can provide any information on this, but I'm SURRE he's taken some of his crack writing staff over to Firefly with him leaving us with newbies and scrubs. : (

Buffy is still great, don't get me wrong, but we've got to convince Joss to come back and get his heroine out of this mess! I mean yesterday's episode was just ridiculous! It was like watching a 60s Batman...

"Think Robin, the whole thing is such a riddle."
"A riddle! Batman! The Riddler!"
"YES Robin! And where did it all take place?"
"The sea?"
"Yes, and what starts with C!"
"Holy ferocious feline, Batman! CATWOMAN!"

I mean that was about the equivelent of Buffy working out what happened with Dawn, "Good lord, DAWNY! You talked to a GUIDANCE COUNSELER!? YOU DIDN"T MAKE A WISH DID YOU! OH DAWNY, TELL ME YOU DIDN"T MAKE A WISH!"

good lord.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Maybe, maybe not. (OaFA spoilers) -- Darby, 07:46:40 02/13/02 Wed
I've got to admit, I enjoyed the episode, but mostly for the group interactions and a chance to at least see the main cast do something more than hang in the background.

However, I have to agree with you about the logic of the whole thing. And why would Buffy be so aware of how vengeance demons work? She, and everybody but Anya (who should have been the one to figure it out), is only dimly aware of the events of The Wish, and there's no indication that anybody but Xander has heard (or listened to) Anya's tales of wishing and cursing (isn't that an old Dusty Springfield song?).

I have to disagree with several posters, though, who see little logic in Halfrek's actions. We've been shown that, as a demon, she's a ditz! How much do you think the "Dark Powers" care if she's "cursing the wrong guy" or the wrong parents? It's ironic that Anyanka was actually more of a "Justice" demon than Hallie, but didn't hide behind the label.

What won't make sense is if the fallout from these events is all on the adults and not on Dawn.

I still choose to think that, rather than showing Joss' indifference, he and the rest have chosen a path that just isn't really working. He likes to shake up his audience, and there was purpose here, but I don't think annoyance was what he was shooting for. This is more like Chris Carter's X Files, which wandered purposely but seriously astray long before cast problems sank it, rather than David E. Kelley's shows, which have quickly shown neglect whenever he shifts focus from them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe, maybe not. (OaFA spoilers) -- Andy, 09:42:06 02/13/02 Wed
"I still choose to think that, rather than showing Joss' indifference, he and the rest have chosen a path
that just isn't really working. He likes to shake up his audience, and there was purpose here, but I
don't think annoyance was what he was shooting for. This is more like Chris Carter's X Files, which
wandered purposely but seriously astray long before cast problems sank it, rather than David E.
Kelley's shows, which have quickly shown neglect whenever he shifts focus from them."

I'd have to agree with this. I do believe that while Joss probably isn't doing much if any rewriting anymore, he is still overseeing the show and is paying attention to how it goes. I have no reason to doubt him when he says that he draws up plans for each season well ahead of time and approves what gets on the air. But he's also a writer who's always been very sure of himself and absolutely committed to the directions he takes regardless of what his peers or fans think. I think that's a very laudable quality for an artist to have but sometimes you get situations when maybe the direction that's been chosen isn't to the liking of everyone and then problems can come up because Joss probably isn't going to bend just because other people don't like what's going on.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Maybe, maybe not. (OaFA spoilers) -- maddog, 12:58:53 02/13/02 Wed
How could the fallout escape Dawn...at the very least she'll be working at the Magic Shop until her 18th birthday. And then there's the trust issues with Buffy. I somehow doubt she'll escape this problem.

Though I haven't read below I still don't understand what isn't working...it's definitely been a different path they've taken this year to show us the problems...but then again we're not dealing with external problems. They're not only within the group, but within themselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Disagree! Disagree! Give me something good to eat! -- grifter, 07:53:19 02/13/02 Wed
1. What are you on? and 2. Where can I get some?

Naw, sorry, seariously, I couldn´t disagree more...season 6 is the best season yet IMHO.

The way Buffy figured it all out was a little lame, I give you that, but was it lamer then "Giles looks it up in a book"? Not really.

And also, it mirrored nicely (as has the whole season so far) how Buffy feels now...the supernatural stuff? Not a problem anymore...she´s got that down. It´s the personal stuff she can´t figure out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I agree to disagree err um.. agree to the above post -- neaux, 07:57:14 02/13/02 Wed
I thought the episode was great..and I agree with grifter..

I also think to have an episode finally bringing many unanswered questions answered is a good one..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> And Giles is AWESOME! -- Marie, 08:21:29 02/13/02 Wed
Remember:

They can't help her. This is a bloodstone vengeance spell.

from "The Witch", S1.

Giles knew what was wrong with Buffy without even having to open a book - he just had to take her pulse!! That's pretty cool, *grin*.

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Completely agree with grifter, neaux and Marie (NT) -- Caroline, 10:07:05 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Completely agree with grifter, neaux and Marie (NT) -- Chris, 14:17:00 02/13/02 Wed
As a relative newcomer to Buffy, but having watched all the previous seasons on Fx, I also don't agree that season 6 is artistically inferior to 1-5. What I do think is that writing and televising the "oh grow up" theme is more difficult than what Joss was doing previously. While, I don't think every episode this season has been superior, taken overall, IMHO, S6 has been topnotch. As an adult, I think I relate better to this season than any other.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Right there with you Chris(NT) -- Caroline, 14:28:00 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Unevenness, thy name is Season 6 -- LeeAnn, 04:35:32 02/14/02 Thu
I think Season 6 has had the best and worst episodes ever. So you can call it the best season or the worst and still be right.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Bad road building. -- cjc36, 06:12:58 02/14/02 Thu
The ground work isn't being handled properly, I think. Okay, we got a big 'revelation' episode with Dawn's problems, but it was handled so badly. Remember Dead Man's Party? That was classic Buffy angst. Here in S6 it's just lame.

Willow's magick addiction? Perhaps, to be fair, an evil!Willow seemed too trite to M/E. But they didn't *build* roads for addicted!Willow, did they? If they had, it'd been accepted, I think. Not once in any previous season did we see a psychotropic effect happen as consequence to magick use. Willow liked the power of magick, but it was never, until S6, shown to be a high-giver. Bad planning, folks. They showed us, up to and peaking with the kitchen encounter with Giles early this season, a Willow increasingly unconcerned with the people involved in her magick dealings. And we fans hated her for it! But, sorry, it was addiction. Not evil. Not the next Big Bad (unless M/E's plans are more long range.) But enough with this addiction thing, please.

Joss obviously isn't as involved as he had been. But I still don't think the people he has working are complete dolts, either. I do think they can pull the thing out of the fire. Just realize what you have (very talented actors) and give them great stories to tell.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Bad roads smoother than you remember -- Sophist, 09:21:08 02/14/02 Thu
You said: "Not once in any previous season did we see a psychotropic effect happen as consequence to magick use." Actually, Giles said exactly that about summoning Eyghon all the way back in S2. And the physical effects were clearly foreshadowed by Willow's nosebleeds and headaches in S5.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad roads smoother than you remember -- Rattletrap, 12:02:38 02/14/02 Thu
This exchange from Becoming I has always seemed, IMO, to foreshadow Willow's future problems:

Giles: Um, well, this, um... certainly points the way, but... the ritual itself requires a greater knowledge of the black arts than I, I, I can claim.
Willow: Well, I've been going through her files and, and researching the black arts, for fun, or educational fun, and I may be able to work this.
Giles: (very concerned) W-Willow... channeling... such potent magicks through yourself, it could open a door that you may not be able to close.
Buffy: I don't want you putting yourself in any danger, Will.
Willow: And I don't want danger. Big 'no' to danger, but I may be the best person to do this.

I think Joss and Co. were already formulating a storyline about the negative consequences to magic back as early as S2, given the above dialogue and the Eyghon story. These elements almost vanished in S3, but seemed to be revived in S4 w/ "Something Blue" especially. This is why, for me, S6 doesn't show any significant deviation from what's gone before, just the same story taken to its logical conclusion.

Just my $.02

'trap
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad roads smoother than you remember -- cjc36, 01:28:44 02/15/02 Fri
The warning from Giles on opening doors one cannot close could mean anything bad, from, yeah, addiction (but was that anyone's first guess back then?) to demon possession (my first guess). Did I guess wrong? I guess so :). It's just that this swerve, by itself, isn't bad. Angelus's curse and how he came to be in S2 was a swerve, but the payoff was excellent--a play on the boy turning bad after the first night.

Anyway, since the magick-addiction has been handled with as much subtlety as if Willow had a coke problem, then the metaphor-ness of past BtVS is missing for me. Perhaps we're overloading on young-adult problems 'cause we're missing a traditional-style Big Bad to mix with said problems. Or maybe Joss has backed away from the show and the mix of comedy-horror-soap drama he has a master's ear for escapes the day-to-day staff.

I dunno.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad road building. -- Simon A., 18:20:16 02/14/02 Thu
Interestingly enough, I come to somewhat the same place but I take the completely opposite route. ISTM that the one of the problem's that they're having is the fact that they build up a possibly interesting story arc and then do little with it. While magic was never shown to be psychotropic before, it was certainly shown to be dangerous and corrupting. They build up Willow's addiction kind of gradually, and then we get dreck like wrecked, an episode completly lacking in sublety, which doesn't fit well with other eps.
my 2¢
They've been building up the "Dawn is turning into a juvenile delinquint all season, and we get this as the cilmax. It is an episode that thematicly centers on her, and yet she hardly talks. Pouts: yes, screams: yes but actually talks: not much and mostly banalities.
On the other hand Buffy breaking down to Tara last week was an excellent climax to the "Buffy's conflicting feelings about her relationship with Spike.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: NOW do you see? -- maddog, 12:50:17 02/13/02 Wed
*rolling his eyes*
Does everyone hear themselves bitching? Could people be any more pouty? People...the show's changed...just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad...just means you don't see the neccesity of the change. We've read countless articles...Joss sees EVERYTHING...so stop blaming Firefly, and the cartoon, and Ripper and just face the fact that he's decided this is the way the show needs to go.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> it's not the new direction... -- Rochefort, 14:14:27 02/13/02 Wed
It really isn't the new direction that I think I'm feeling lacks quality. As has been said above, the episode had some good things but suffered from poor writing. Direction shmirection, that was poor writing. Poor pacing. Not witty. And not subtle.

I don't care about Big Bads. I LIKE the focus on the characters INNER struggles but these inner struggles are not being handled in interesting ways.

Spike and Buffy's ambiguous relationship seems to be cast in terms of "sexual addiction" or "sadomasochism" and it could be SO MUCH MORE THAN THAT. Yes, I think their relationship should suck, but it should not conventionally suck.

Willow's addiction to magic has been building for SEASONS and SEASONS! As has her need for power. I've been WAITING for the build up, loving the build up, and in a few crappy unsubtle episodes the drug metaphor that has always been there was paraded about like a fat guy in red polka dot boxer shorts. Willow "hit bottom" when the scooby gang had only just identified the problem, and her hitting bottom was not believable.

I LIKE the trio. I think they could be interesting villains. And they're a heck of a lot better than poofy looking demons who vanish into the walls. (wha?) (great waste of special effects by the way)

Oh and another example of poor writing in that episode. The friend for Buffy was absolutely stupid and they stabbed him for NO reason and then forgot about him for the most of the episode, remembering to help him limp out of the house at the end. Holy yawn. Maybe Buffy can start introducing a new character each episode that can get stabbed. His entire character had no pay off except Spike's jealousy and usually Joss makes sure to have so much more than that.

Dawn's stealing problem, too, was built up for episode after episode and her LONLINESS was built up in episode after episode and we had to put up with sooooo many scenes of her stealing and sooo many mooooore scenes of her whining and pouting so that we could all have this GREAT pay off last night of a messy revelation with no punch, no fun, and no drama.

Oh, by the way, I entirely agree that David E. Kelly's shows fall apart when he isn't paying attention to them. More so than Joss's do. But I really think this is not a question of new directions but a question of here to for unseen ham-handedness in many of the plot arcs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I just wish I had some of everyone's conviction. (O/T, not important at all.) -- yuri, 22:31:12 02/13/02 Wed
I read Vandalia's message and am like, "oh, yeah," but read her opposition and think that they've made an excellent case, and read Rochefort's and say "you know, he's right" but then read grifter's and decide that I've finally figured out my opinion. but no, it just goes on and on into oblivion. It's nice to have convictions, makes stuff simpler and easier to sort. I should be less impressionable, I know.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> It's called "Short Episode Syndrome" -- vampire hunter D, 13:02:29 02/13/02 Wed
The writers tried to do more than they had time for in a 44 minute episode. So for Buffy to figure out what's wrong and still have time to fix it before the show ends, she had to make this leap of intuition. I agree that there had to be a better way to do it (maybe Dawn telling Buffy about here meeting with the guidance councelor and mentioning she the wish she made without even realizing that was the key to it). And why is it so unbelievable that Buffy would have some idea how vengence demons work (you make a wish to a stranger and they make it come true)? After all, that would be what they know about Anya's first visit (she did tell them this in Doppelgangland). So while it is a stretch, it is not that unbelievable.

And btw, I think this was a good ep was a good idea that suffered from bad writing at times. It could have been better. But still, not bad.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Rochefort smells right. The scoobygangsters smell "wrong." -- theonewhonose, 13:08:29 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> the *real* metaphor!...or is that what it is? -- anom, 12:52:07 02/14/02 Thu
"Joss is working directly on The Firefly....He's writing and directing it....So he's IGNORING poor Buffy. And...I'm SURRE he's taken some of his crack writing staff over to Firefly with him leaving us with newbies and scrubs."

Wait! That's it! The characters' not being able to leave the house isn't a metaphor for the responsibilities of parenthood. It's not even a metaphor so much as metanarration: The actors/the fans/maybe the newbie writers?/the show itself want Joss to stay home with BtVS! So Dawn is not only an alter ego for Buffy the character but for "Buffy" the show, & by extension to all of us who are involved with it.

If only we could make Joss stick around all the time...then he'd make everything all right again!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Nice! Suddenly I like the episode! JOSS COME HOME! -- Rochefort, 16:54:15 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Brilliant, anom! ;o) -- dubdub, 18:07:19 02/14/02 Thu
I only hope there's a possibility that you're right...
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody notice on last night's ep... -- KDM, 08:45:31 02/13/02 Wed

I'll start off by saying that I really didn't like last night's episode, as it seemed incredibly choppy and sloppily put together. However, it did have its moments, as all Buffy episodes do (even the stinkers). One thing that I noticed in watching the episode however, was that Spike truly seems to have developed a sort of loyalty to members of the Scooby Gang. First off, the moment he heard Xander cry out for help, he rushed to go and assist him against the demon. Then there was the part where Anya began her tirade against Willow. Like Tara, he looked annoyed when Xander asked Willow to go back to using magic, and it looked like he was about to get on Anya's case as well before Tara beat him to the punch. Though last night's ep. was a real bad egg in what has otherwise been, IMHO, an excellent season for the show, I really enjoyed seeing some of the changes in Spike that were apparent throughout the episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I noticed :) -- Traveler, 11:55:57 02/13/02 Wed
But then, Spike has been helping them out for some time. Remember at the beginning of the season he saved Gile's life. Dawn wasn't there and Buffy was dead, so he didn't do it entirely for either of their sakes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: I noticed :) -- JM, 15:17:06 02/13/02 Wed
I didn't so much notice with Xander, I'm just so used to see Spike in the thick of the fight, but I agree with you that it's indicative. I did however notice his reaction to Anya's attack on Willow and liked him for it. Though Anya's definitely got a lot of good points. (Also drummed home how scared of herself and magic Willow is. I'm thinking that though it was addictive it wasn't altoghether pleasant. I don't think she was exaggerating the relief and the negatives of doing magic to Buffy in Wrecked. Not all addictions are pleasant. Think cigarettes. By the time your badly hooked, you're also experiencing a lot of negatives, and very little genuine enjoyment anymore, you're too inured to the sensation to get that old hit anymore. This is not a PSA. Take it from a current smoker.)

Spike's concern for Willow is a great moment of continuity, for it's Spike who sends Buffy back to comfort Willow in Wrecked. Makes me think that TR was telling, he's just not instintively evil anymore.

Sorry can't agree with the rest though. Loved last night. Partly because as a kid, about Dawn's age, I had a recurring fantasy that a bunch of friends and strangers would get snowed in and we'd have to make it work. Then I actually got snowed in with my best friend. Reality not as much fun.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: I noticed :) -- Isabel, 16:32:29 02/13/02 Wed
I wonder feels he has something in common with Willow now. She won't allow herself to do magic because she can't stop herself from losing control, but she WANTS TO and it eats at her.

Spike's a vampire who hasn't drunk fresh human blood in a year and he's having an affair with a woman he can sink his teeth into. And it's not just any blood, it's Slayer blood. He's thought about it, "If you don't stop being such a b*tch, the next time I just might bite you!" But he loves Buffy. He knows that if he bites her, he has to kill her or she WILL kill him. He doesn't want her dead, but he's got to sense that blood just under her skin.

So I think he's got a bit of empathy with Willow's struggle. If they ever deactivate that chip, this could be a practice run in self control for him.

Older and Far Away - the image. (minor spoilers) -- Darby, 10:22:39 02/13/02 Wed

This may not be it, but I think I may be in the neighborhood.

Many have remarked on the star motif to this latest ep. Because of the distances involved, when we look up into the sky, the farther away a star is, the longer the light has travelled from it - the light is older.

As I look back over what growing up I've done, it seems to be all about perspective. My perspective for day-to-day circumstances has definitely improved, but I'm losing some perspective on my earlier life (I judge Dawn more by teenagers I know than my own teen years, which are harder and harder to really grasp emotionally) as I get older and farther away from it.

And isn't the ep about the connection between the older characters and an emotional distance from Dawn?

Man, I think it's in here somewhere...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Older and Far Away - the image. (minor spoilers) -- Rachel, 10:50:33 02/13/02 Wed
I think you're on to something, too. If you'll humor me some sci-fi-babble...Einstein's special theory of reletivity postulates that there is nothing new under the sun. All the mass/energy we have in this cosmos has always been and will always be. It might be said that we're all "mystical keys," like Dawn, because to keep things balanced our physical mass had to suck energy from somewhere. And when our physical mass ceases to be, that energy is re-deposited elsewhere.

Buffy's essence has done a fair bit of back and forth over these six seasons, what with dying and coming back twice. As a result, she must be more in touch with her roots than the average Jane. (Her roots being whatever we come from before we get our bodies). Birthdays mark time's passage. If we think of time in a linear fashion, then the older we get, the farther away we travel. From what, exactly, I'm not sure. But I suspect Buffy knows, having been across the great beyond.

Them's my mid-day ramblings...Hope it made a modicum of sense!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Yeah, whatever the hell Rahael just said..;)... and....... -- Rufus, 01:01:49 02/14/02 Thu
As I look back over what growing up I've done, it seems to be all about perspective. My perspective for day-to-day circumstances has definitely improved, but I'm losing some perspective on my earlier life (I judge Dawn more by teenagers I know than my own teen years, which are harder and harder to really grasp emotionally) as I get older and farther away from it.

That brings to mind the conversation that Dawn had with Anya, where Dawn insists she understands what Xander and Anya are talking about in respect to setting Buffy up with a guy. Anya, in a very patronizing way pats Dawn on the head, ignoring her. That is so ironic when you consider that Dawn as a human is relatively new, but, as the Key she is way older than even Anya. I guess people only consider the packaging when they make their judgments of others.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> aargh! -- The real Rahael, 02:21:12 02/14/02 Thu
This is very worrying. There's a Rachel on the board and I'm Rahael which is just another version of Rachel anyway. Though Rachel's post was neither pretentious, poetry quoting nor big with the over analysis. So not so easy to confuse as mine, surely!

Solutions anyone? I'm unwilling to abbreviate my name. I like Rahael.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Best solution, teach Rufus how to spell...:):):) -- Rufus, 03:36:19 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> No, no, Rufus - we need to teach you how to read! As for you, Rahael... -- Marie, 03:52:14 02/14/02 Thu
...everyone else here CAN read, so don't change your name!

(Rufus, I hear chocolate is good for the reading-genes).

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Oh I know, chocolate is good for everything......:):) -- Rufus, 05:54:18 02/14/02 Thu
No I read the name right and went ahead and spelled it the way I was used to here. But send me chocolate, just because, and if there is anything else you want me to screw up just send more chocolate and I'd be happy to oblige...:):):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Chocolate and Unique Names for Everyone!! -- RaChel, 06:13:39 02/14/02 Thu
Rahael -- keep the name, it's a good one. But then, I might be biased. Maybe I could make my "C" stand out. I entirely support bolstering the gene pool with chocolate, too. 100% behind that one! But will Godiva improve my spelling?

RaChel
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Sending some right now, and also to Raphael... -- Marie, 06:56:10 02/14/02 Thu
... yeah, okay, that was my feeble way of saying "I want an excuse to eat some chocolate, too!"... and who the heck am I kidding, I don't need an excuse..nibble, nibble... eat'n dribble...

M
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sending some right now, and also to Raphael... -- RaChel, 06:59:28 02/14/02 Thu
In honor of St. Valentine, let us all raise a chocolate bar. Here's to The Slayer...Cheers!

Rachel (not Rahael, not Raphael, just me)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Sending some right now, and also to Raphael... -- Rahael, 08:48:35 02/14/02 Thu
mmm....Godiva choccies!

No danger of me pining away with all these goodies. Thanks Rachel (and Ruf and Marie!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> you don't like it shortened, rahael? -- anom, 18:55:32 02/14/02 Thu
"I'm unwilling to abbreviate my name."

OK--no more Rah, Rah, Rah!

"I like Rahael."

Who doesn't? @>)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Awwwww! -- Rahael, 05:56:08 02/15/02 Fri
I like Rah Rah Rah too!

Just prefer that others call me that, rather than me proclaiming myself as such. Kind of adds to the charm! Does that make sense?

Cyber chocolates to Anom! (Since peanut butter pie is too salty for the anomalous one!)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Perspective vs. POV -- Humanitas, 12:31:40 02/15/02 Fri
My perspective for day-to-day circumstances has definitely improved, but I'm losing some perspective on my earlier life (I judge Dawn more by teenagers I know than my own teen years, which are harder and harder to really grasp emotionally) as I get older and farther away from it.

There is certainly some truth in what you say. However, I think that part of it is also in the Point Of View we are given on the characters. I, too, jusdge Dawn more by other teens than by my own experiences, but when I go back and watch the old episodes, I'm drawing more on my own experiences in judging Buffy. My suspicion is that this is a deliberate choice on the part of the writers, to emphasize that Buffy is becoming an adult.

Or, it may simply be that my experience is different from yours. ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- Wisewoman, 12:41:15 02/13/02 Wed

I'm not going to get involved in the debate on the quality of Older and Far Away, but I did want to make mention of one thing that bothered me in the ep.

Anya freaks and turns out to be claustrophic--okay, that could happen to anyone. Believe me, I know claustrophobia! Xander is understanding and talks her down; he's very loving and concerned. I'm really liking this interaction between them.

Then, Xander gets slashed by the demon's sword. He's basically lying on the floor, rolling around in agony and gnashing his teeth in pain, when Anya approaches in a sort of daze--no alarm, no running to his aid, just "Xander?"

So he makes the supreme effort and struggles to his feet as quickly a possible, masking his pain as well as he can, in order to, once again, comfort her!

I love Anya. I did my character post on Anya. She's one of my faves. Last night I couldn't have cared whether she lived or died, quite frankly. And it wasn't EC's fault; she was brilliant, as usual, it was what she was working with in terms of the scripted situation.

I'm hoping things start to come together a little better in the next couple of eps, but I'm fairly worried...

:o|
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- Sebastian, 13:53:42 02/13/02 Wed
forgive my ignorance, but i don't understand the 'albatross' reference.

is that in reference to anya being the possible 'scooby death' this season?

educate me, please. :-)

- S
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Rime of the Ancient Mariner... -- dubdub, 16:19:57 02/13/02 Wed
...it's been a long time, but I think he killed an albatross and then had to wear it around his neck; it's a cliche for a kind of worrisome burden, which is what I fear Anya is becoming to Xander.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Albatross defamation! -- matching mole, 19:42:10 02/13/02 Wed
Although I understood the Coleridge reference my mind went immediately to a Monty Python sketch in which some guy is selling Albatross on the street. 'Albatross! Get yer albatross!' The kind of thing Anya would do if she thought she could make a buck at it.

Seeing an Albatross on the open ocean has been a dream of mine so I felt compelled to answer your post WW even though I really have nothing to say (haven't even seen OaFA yet).

m. mole who is listening to the Arrogant Worms and thus probably a touch off kilter
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: ROFLMAO!! -- WW, 20:33:41 02/13/02 Wed
I did actually consider specifying that I was not referring to the MP albatross, but I thought it might prove confusing...what a fool I was!

;o) (who has never seen an albatross, or a condor)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> how can it be defamation when... -- anom, 18:09:01 02/14/02 Thu
...an albatross was considered to be a sign of good luck? I think they used to fly alongside ships (maybe for whatever edibles were tossed overboard). But it was bad luck to kill one, & that's what the Ancient Mariner did. The other sailors hung it around his neck to mark him. I don't know if that was a real custom, or just something Coleridge made up. Musta smelled awful after a coupla days!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: how can it be defamation when... -- matching mole, 11:29:34 02/15/02 Fri
yeah, I know I didn't really think it through very logically. I could argue that comparing Anya to an albatross was the defamation but I am fond of both Anya and albatrosses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> worrisome burden(?) -- yuri, 22:51:27 02/13/02 Wed
don't remember it as such, really. Is that typically what it's supposed to imply? I don't feel like Anya was a worrisome burden to Xander, I felt that he gains from the love he gives her and the ability he has to soothe her. Sometimes it's a burden, but in this episode I felt it was a gift, like when a friend or lover is really truly upset and you're the one who knows how to calm them down - it feels good.

I thought the albatross was more a reminder to be guilty and feel ashamed for something done wrong, in which case I don't understand the reference. I trust WW though, and know it makes sense in some way I haven't figured out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: worrisome burden(?) -- WW, 07:02:48 02/14/02 Thu
In Coleridge's original sense you're right on the meaning of the albatross to the Ancient Mariner, but like most ideas that become cliched, the meaning has become bastardized. The last time I actually heard someone use it, they were referring to a person they'd hired as a favour who turned out to be a dud, and now he was "an albatross around my neck."

The only sense of guilt there is that it was something the person had brought on themselves that became a burden they had to carry, which could be said of Xander/Anya if you see Anya as albatross--Xander has freely chosen to "wear" Anya around his neck.

In general I agree with you--I don't see their relationship this way, but that moment when Xander had to leap to his feet and comfort her through his pain just seemed to me to be more than should be accepted. He deserved to be the comforted, rather than the comforter.

And thanks for your trust! I hope it's not misplaced...

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> ah I see. bastardly bastardized. too bad. and I may misplace my keys and wallet, but not much else. -- yuri ; ), 23:26:32 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- JM, 13:59:14 02/13/02 Wed
I think it was supposed to be jarring. It's very at odds with her usual behavior. When there is danger he is the first person she looks for and she never fails to throw herself into a fight in his defense. Olaf, Glory, Bargaining. Tonight she only stumbles out, blindly seeking him, terrified of what she'll see.

The usually vibrant and deliberately cheerful young woman is sullen, distracted, and hovering on the edge of hyperventilating. Anya is very freaked out by the fact that they are trapped, reminders of mortality are looming, and the threat is intangible. (I am wondering if this is a fear of marriage metaphor.) It is notable that as soon as the danger materialized she was a spitfire once more.

I don't think it was so much out of character as an illustration of what lies under the facade. Some of cheery, sunny Anya is entirely natural, some of it a projection of an acceptable persona. She is trying very hard to be human, fit in, and secure Xander's approval. Under so much strain, she can't pull it off anymore. Last night's Anya was a woman who would believably curse her lover and take up a career as a vengence demon.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- Sebastian, 14:16:39 02/13/02 Wed
ironically, i thought last night's ep was the first time it seemed that anya was not trying to 'act' human. the only other times she seems 'nonacting' is during intimate moments with xander.

other times she has (or wanted to) show anger/resentment/dissatisfaction she is usually adjusting her behavior to seem more 'properly human'. (for example, her 'i am unthreatened. proceed.' line to dawn in 'forever', which turned out to be terribly ironic due to last night's revelations...)

in 'OaFA', her fear, anger and resentment were genuine and not something she was concentrating on fixing to 'blend' in. and this time she didn't have someone (xander) reining her in.

even her tone of voice - particularly in the pivotal 'confrontation scenes' - were remarkably different from her slightly robotic way of speaking.

just my thoughts.

- S (a posting machine today, it seems...) :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Anya as Albatross (***SPOILERS*** for OaFA) -- Rochefort, 14:29:55 02/13/02 Wed
I agree that Anya's actions were one of the only good things about this episode. It was, as was everything else, ham-handed, but I have been perturbed since Anya's beginnings with Xander that the Anya of season three and the first part of season four seemed to very quickly go bye-bye for cheery cheery ditzy money bunny girl. If it hadn't been handled so badly I think a realization that Anya has been hiding TONS of her old demon traits would make THE most interesting plot of the season. Ain't it part of love to realize what a demon the other person can be? And also to start not being able to hide one's own demon-ness? oooh, spooky. Of course, unless Joss comes back it's going to be handled like this episode was... and it just hurts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> very, *very* well said! -- Solitude1056, 18:07:50 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> And another thing... (and more ***SPOILERS***) -- dubdub, 20:42:06 02/13/02 Wed
What about the whole self-fulfilling prophecy hooey that's been going on around Buffy's Spike-addiction for the last few eps? I mean, in Smashed and Wrecked we had all her double-entendre discussions with Willow about addiction, and her continually working herself around to, "But it hurts people, so it's wrong," while we were all saying, "Huh? Who does it hurt??!!"

Well, see, now we know...it was hurting Dawny!! Of course, Buffy didn't know that until last night, but hey, she must have been subsconsciously intuiting it weeks ago...yeah, right.

Okay, rant over, until another sore point pops into my mind.

;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anya and the amulet -- Simon A., 17:52:51 02/14/02 Thu
Whan Anya was going for Halfrek's(sp?) amulet, did anyone else momentarily think that the episode was going to get very interesting? (*sigh*)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> D'Hofryn gave Willow his talisman. She may still have it. Hmm. -- Sophist, 20:29:35 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: D'Hofryn gave Willow his talisman. She may still have it. Hmm. -- Simon A., 04:05:28 02/15/02 Fri
I was trying to get a good look at the talisman when they rern the ep thursday on FX to get an idea ow whether we've seen it in Dawn's loot box. You just don't get a good enough look.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for OAFA) -- darrenK, 14:40:56 02/13/02 Wed

...with Buffy--out of the blue--deducing that Dawn has had a confrontation with a Vengeance Demon?

In Sunnydale, there are a million things that could keep you trapped in your house. It could have been a new Stuck-in-house-ray built by the Trio. It could have been a spell by Amy, or by Rack, or by Ethan Rayne. It could have been a whole new Demon King summoned by Xander when he tried to do a "Happy Household" spell.

The fact is, high schools all over the US hire new guidance counselors EVERY day, why is this one any different?

That would be the last thing I would think of. Yet Buffy figures it out in under 15 seconds.

And other things bothered me...

One minute Dawn was freaking out, the next minute she's fine again. There's a whole little subplot about the stealing, but there are no ramifications, no big talk from Big Sis. Buffy barely even reacts to the situation.

Dawn and Spike didn't say a word to each other. They didn't even look at each other, yet from Blood Ties to Bargaining their relationship wasn't only close, it was the most interesting on the show. Now, the writer's have dumped it in favor of SexFest 2002. Are they worried that the sensitivity Spike shows Dawn will undermine their attempts to keep him ambiguous?

Instead it just looks inconsistent. The Scoobs were Spike's friends all summer. He was a suitable companion and baby sitter for Dawn. But now he can't have a friendly scene with anyone but Buffy? LAME.

I just don't think Drew Z. Greenberg has the magic. He's lame on the magic.

dK
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for OAFA) -- manwitch, 14:51:24 02/13/02 Wed
Tara's interaction with Spike was delightful. And I thought very friendly. No one else seemed particularly hostile to him. Spike did come to Xander's aid, without Buffy present.

Spike has seemed to cool on the scoobies since they kept him out of the loop about Buffy's resurrection. But I think he does ultimately want their acceptance.

I think Buffy has redefined his relationship with them. Until she comes out, what can he really do?

I think some of the things that bother you are exactly what the rest of the season will resolve. It's supposed to be bothering you.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Like fungus on a banana, low-quality writing bothers me. -- monkeypants, 15:22:03 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I thought that bananas just turned black and shriveled up. -- Deeva, 16:14:00 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> (points at his monkey-shirt) Kiss the zookeeper for bad bananas and you'll get more. -- monkeypants, 17:15:15 02/13/02 Wed
MONKEY-SPEAK UNIVERSAL TRANSLATION:

Praising low quality lowers the quality of the world.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for OAFA) -- Deeva, 16:12:41 02/13/02 Wed
Yeah. The whole Dawn & Spike "not really all that close anymore" thing is weird. They went through all that trouble in the beginning of this season to set up that Spike spent the WHOLE summer fighting with the Scoobs and watching over Dawn, all for what? It looks like it's been ditched but maybe it will be picked up on again, when it's convenient. But it does look a little sloppy. Makes you wonder.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> OK, in defense of the episode... -- Traveler, 22:17:48 02/13/02 Wed
I too would have loved to see more Spike/Dawn interaction, but I can see how that would be difficult for a number of reasons. First of all, Spike has not been welcome in the Buffy household... at least, not for long. This last episode was the longest amount of time he has spent there, probably ever. So, he wouldn't have had a chance to talk with Dawn unless he sought her out (not likely, because Buffy would freak) or Dawn sought him out. But she never really had a strong enough reason to, since she wants her sister's love/company, not Spike's.

In OaFA, Spike obviously wanted to help Dawn, but the show was really about Buffy and Dawn's relationship, so he got pushed to the background. And frankly, there were just too many people and too much going on for us to see all of the character interaction we might have wanted in a 45 minute episode.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Did anyone else have a problem with...(spoilers for OAFA) -- mundusmundi, 17:08:51 02/13/02 Wed
This was a bad episode that I enjoyed, as opposed to the recent string of bad episodes that I could barely finish watching.("Doublemeat Palace," "Wrecked.") Like Darby wrote, I think I was just grateful for the cast interaction -- nonsensical plot developments bedamned -- though not giving Dawn and Spike any dialogue together was a big mistake. What's the point of putting two of your best actors who have arguably the show's best chemistry in the same room for nearly an entire episode if you're not going to take advantage of it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Re: Dawn/Spike -- LeeAnn, 03:36:32 02/14/02 Thu
Why no Dawn/Spike interation:
1. Dawn is a whiney brat who NO ONE wants to interact with. Her whine can shatter glass and call dogs from 3 miles away.
2. JM can have chemistry with air. Remember when he almost stroked her hair in "Tough Love." There is already Spike/Dawn fanfiction. ME might want to discourage that.
3. Dawn had a crush on Spike. Don't want to fan that flame.
4. Can't have Dawn so comfortable with Spike that she drops by while her sister is boinking him.
5. Doesn't JM do most of his scenes at night while most of the other actors do theirs during the day? So isn't it as much logistics as anything that keeps him out of their scenes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike...also -- manwitch, 05:29:05 02/14/02 Thu
Spike was staying with dawn over the summer and into bargaining precisely because he had failed to do so in the Gift. It was a promise to Buffy. Buffy's back.

Spike left the house when the gang barged in and revealed what they had done. Prior to that, only Spike and Dawn had responded to Buffy's return with compassion. Spike was particularly notable in contrast to the other scoobs.

When Buffy accused Dawn of having a crush on Spike in Season 5"'s Crush, Dawn responded, yeah, like he'd ever notice me. Now Buffy is back. Who is Spike gonna notice. Especially now that he's gettin a li'l bit o' what he wants.

Spike has continued to look out for Dawn, as he did in the Car Crash episode whose name is too much like one of the other one's for me to remember right now, and, I believe, the Halloween episode. So my jury is still out. I don't see him abandoning Dawn, necessarily, nor do I see the show dropping that relationship. To the degree that Spike has missed it in his obsession with BuffySex, he was appropriately included in the curse.

And now going off on a tangent regarding how I feel about a lot of the posts I've been reading, not really this thread here per se, Older and Far Away was about what it was about. It was not about what it was not about. Its not the writer's fault if some viewers wanted to watch West Wing or 7th Heaven during the Buffy timeslot. There are so many layers to this show, and judging character or plotline consistency based on the most superficial layer, that of what you actually see, just seems to me to be willingly throwing the whole show out the window. There's a lot going on here, and its worth working it out. Just becaue its not immediately visible, doesn't mean it isn't there and it isn't tighly written. I hope that doesn't come off hostile. I don't mean it that way. People have the right to not like it or to think it sucks. But I think its jumping the gun. People have the right to think Shakespeare sucks, but their opinion isn't a reflection on Shakespeare.

I'm just saying take the time to work it out. My apologies in advance to all those that may take offense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike...also -- Rufus, 05:52:09 02/14/02 Thu
I agree with you, this show has layers that make it hard to determine what they are doing with the story at times. Upon a closer look you can see that much of what Buffy is doing this year is going through the trial of learning how to live in this world, be a part of it. That's where an episode like DMP comes in, Buffy was in what seems to be a degrading, soul killing, job. She hated it. But part of learning to live is learning that we have to start at the beginning sometimes. Xander had to start in a menial job, numerous menial jobs before he found out what he was meant for, what makes him feel good about himself. Buffy is now finding that out. Slaying is a job that is not of this world, people don't understand that there are monsters to slay, so Buffy really only gets a certain amount of identity from what no one knows she can do. For Buffy to be part of this world she has to experience it, live it, even the parts that suck. These will all be just stops in what she may find will give her as much satisfaction as slaying. Another part of Buffy coming back has been her reluctance to become too emotionally involved in her surroundings including her friends. Spike was the first to detect that she came back differently and mistakenly deduced that she came back wrong. Buffy in her discomfort in her own skin lept at that to give her the excuse to give in to her inner cravings....one of them turning out to be Spike. After Dead Things, Buffy found out that she is just the same old Buffy, and with that realization came a great shame. She had been perhaps, no perhaps, she had been using Spike because out of anyone she knew, he made her feel alive. This year is about growing up, and growing up may be harder than is seemed just a year ago. When Buffy was on that platform last year she knew the hardest part of life was living it, participating in life. Season six has been about Buffy through trial and error, recapturing that drive to live. Whereever Buffy was she may have felt complete and at peace but what kind of peace was that? Or was it only an illusion created to keep Buffy at a stage of non being that was just as tempting as the power addiction Willow faces, the need to stay children the Geeky Peter Pan Gang cling to, or was is just a pause in the trials Buffy has gone through for some much needed rest? OAFW brought Buffy back to the reality that she is responsible for not just herself and Slaying, but to the sister who had become an afterthought. Learning to live again isn't going to be easy, but it will reap a reward that may be at first disguised by pain. I'm loving season six and I feel when it is concluded that we will at the very least be surprised by the consequences of bringing a loved one back from beyond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: Dawn/Spike...also -- Deeva, 12:15:40 02/14/02 Thu
There's no offense to be taken, nothing to apologize for. You don't sound hostile, just a little fed up, which I get. I think that what we're all just basically whining (what else do you call it when you love a show this much?) about or for is just more. More of everything. And, as you point out, it's just 45 minutes. We're just sitting here on our hands wanting more, when we know it's not possible. It's great. Keeps us tuning in every other week (sure feels that way, huh?). Just think, if they gave the viewers exactly what they wanted, would everybody still watch every single show. Nope. I can think of more than a few shows where the writers did exactly just that. I could watch an ep. a month maybe and nothing really dynamic would have happened to any of the characters. Boring and mindless. But that's what a lot of people want, something that does not challenge them. I'm all for entertainment but it's nice to be challenged. To go in and immerse yourself in something that seems to be one thing but is another. When I really think about the mythology and all the stories involved, it appears to be endless and never-ending. Very beguiling.

I'm not really trying to defend people who feel negatively about this season or this particular ep. or whatever. I myself don't hate or dislike any of the episodes. I measure it all with many degrees of like-love. I like where the writers take us every time, sometimes I don't understand the direction but I eventually get on board. I always say that I'm just along for the ride. If I didn't like the route or the scenery then I should've got off sooner. But I like it just fine and the snacks are good, too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A silly idea but then something a bit more serious -- jbb, 17:26:54 02/13/02 Wed

This is my first post to this forum, but I've been reading for nearly a year now. I've been hesitant to speak because the eloquence and thoughfulness of of the regulars can intimidate one who lack the same qualities, but here goes!



First the silly part. There's been some talk about the decline of the quality of writing, especially this season. Some have commented that the cast is less that enthusiastic about the scripts (ie... saying "eeewww" upon reading them) and phoning in their performances. SMG being most notable in this respect.



Wouldn't it be nice to see the regulars unite and approach Joss to tell him enough is enough. "If we can't have scripts that are worthy of this show then we can't continue to perform". This would force ME to change the status quo or cancel the show. I know this is professional suicide for the actors and something that would never happen but it's fun to contemplate.



On a more serious side, perhaps Joss is not capable of guiding a series that is not set in an adolescent setting. Is that why he brought in Wesley, umm I mean Dawn? Was he making an attempt at returning the show to its High School roots? Or perhaps he's bored with his eldest child and wants to move on to (back to) what he does best. Why else would he be pursing the animated series?



My gut feeling is that Joss is perfectly capable of continueing his brilliance in a twenty-something setting but chooses not to. I wish he would.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Hmm, I agree. Perhaps, a petition, you think? -- Solitude1056, 19:09:21 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Truth is immune to community opinion (he said strategically) -- Gorgias, 21:59:13 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Two notches too subtle for Sunnydale. (Excellent!) -- platonic friend, 23:58:40 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Three. -- pf, 01:19:11 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> She said "eeeeew?" (hadn't heard.) dare I ask in reference to what? -- yuri, 22:58:30 02/13/02 Wed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Clarify the "eeeeew," and perhaps I can help. -- new philosopher tutorials & support group, 02:18:00 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> The majority of the board opinion . . . -- votecounter, 15:06:44 02/14/02 Thu
. . . has a Whedon-knows-what-he's-doing-and-I-like-it-well-enough bias, so don't expect much comment.

There are a few intrepid souls, however, who think the show is off-the-rails ("ham-handed" etc).

I am among the second group, but if you want to be popular with the crowd, you might want to invert your perceptions and sing a different tune -- even if it defiles your soul to do so.
(wink)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I'm all for revolution... -- Rochefort, 16:49:26 02/14/02 Thu
I think the actors should revolt against these scripts, yes.

And then the proletariat should too.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Someone should write the Anti-Hamhanded Party Manefesto. -- votecounter, 00:46:03 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyone who liked OaFA? (spoilers/review) -- Tillow, 18:14:27 02/13/02 Wed

I've never posted an episode review on here but I couldn't believe my fellow posters had such different opinions. I'm usually right in sync with the general tone of this board. I thought it was a great follow up to Dead Things.

Of course Dawn is in severe teen angst. She has severe issues. Many teens go through a lot less and end up doing a lot worse than stealing a few magic charms. And she is crying out for attention and help from Buffy's friends because these people are not just her sister's friends, they are her family. Dawn has friends but Buffy's circle is tighter than friends. They deal with life and death on a daily basis and they are more than likely the only people that know Dawn's true origins. And they are all ignoring her and treating her like a child. It was a good ep for her. We get to see her in school. The theft plot is finally exposed in a dramatic way. Buffy and Dawn make a connection and open the lines of communication. She gets a champion of sorts in Halfrek (ok and how bizarre is that?) And Dawn says clearly "I'm through being talked to like a kid." That's great because, Buffy was off answering her calling at your age Dawn. Great ep for Dawn. Would have liked to have seen some Spike interaction but Buffy does throw the "Stay with Spike" line in there.

I thought Anya was fabulous. Being so newly human and experiencing everything for the first time, she is often the mirror for us. This time it was just the full range of human emotions. It was like being on a carnival ride and EC pulled it off perfectly. I admit I was freaked out when she went after Willow and worried about how she would react to Dawn. But when she immediately had the tenderness to calm down and talk to Dawn in a way that would reach Dawn. "This is how you say thank you." I mean this is Anya! She was more hurt by her trust being betrayed than the money! She's growing up...

Then we have Tara. I mean, not a lot has to be said about Tara besides, where did this new and improved model come from and please, please can we keep her. "In your pants?" "Maybe you want to put some ice on that.." And again in the Scooby confrontation with Dawn, "Do you know something cause we want you to feel like you can tell us?"

Willow. I have my doubts about what is happening with Willow's character overall but I had no problems with what happened this episode.

As far as overall character grouping: Clem walks in and no one makes a fuss. Clem and Sophie chillin' on the couch and dancing. Are we finally seeing shades of grey in the Buffyverse like we do on Angel? Spike is back with the Scoobies. He saves Xander without hesitation, he moves to defend Willow under Anya's verbal attack. We have demons and humans playing poker. I was thrilled to see the Buffy and Tara interaction and it really worked. It also helped Buffy to be a little lighter. She has a confidante besides someone she's sleeping with.

Spike and Buffy! Loved them. Again no one blinks that Spike is there. I loved how Spike didn't really take Richard as a serious threat (and really now, why would he???). Spike covered for her with Tara, trying to keep their secret even though that's not what he wants. As mentioned before, he was part of the Scoobies in planning and action though a little lacking in the Dawn affection. They end up playing cards in the morning (no one cares that Buffy isn't threatening to stake Spike?). She asks him to watch things downstairs and he agrees with a nod of the head. Their 'working' partnership is still in tact through it all. And was it just me of did Buffy seem more than a little curious about the nature of Halfrek and Spike's relationship. And is it me or did the ease with which Buffy dealt with Spike make it seem like maybe they were the 'norm' for her particularly with convenient normal guy walking around asking questions and making judgements. Hmmm....

I was really very surprised about Halfrek's reaction to William. Was it just me or did her raw demony little face just blush. (I know spoilers so that's all I'll say here!! So hard to hold back!

No it's not all a lovefest...
I thought spellcasters anonymous was silly. Dawn going to the mall by herself? How? I thought Spike's "oh shut up he's sweet line" was a little too 'super' for Spike... particularly after the bronze scene of last week. I mean it's just not something he would say and it felt like it slowed the show down a bit. And Buffy picking up on the Wish by herself was a tad flimsy. But we allow...

I thought it was refreshing and funny. It moved some important plots, set up some new ones and brought some of the secondary Scoobies to the forefront. Good for DG!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> I adored "OAFA," as evidenced in my post a bit farther down... -- Rob, 19:26:02 02/13/02 Wed
I said I wanted to give Drew Greenberg a big, fat heterosexual kiss on the lips...So that pretty much sums up my feelings about the ep. ;o)

Rob
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I knew you would Rob, just didn't see your post! :) -- Tillow, 18:00:08 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> Re: Anyone who liked OaFA? (spoilers/review) -- Traveler, 21:56:20 02/13/02 Wed
I just watched OaFA for the second time, and for some reason enjoyed it more. Maybe the first time I was hoping for more Spike/Buffy interaction. Maybe I found Dawn's attitude a little extreme. But the second time, I just relaxed and took it for what it was worth, and gained much more from the experience.

For example, I think the Spike/Tara interactions are REALLY interesting. Spike's used to being treated like a bad boy. Tara doesn't condemn him as Buffy did, nor does she fear him. Rather, she smiles knowingly and makes inside jokes at his expense. No wonder Spike is nonplussed by Tara this episode. He probably doesn't deal with this reaction often.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Loved it for Tara alone! -- grifter, 10:53:39 02/14/02 Thu
Hey, I´m a kitten-boarder, what do you expect of me? :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roundtables can be carried too far - spoilers for OaFA -- Solitude1056, 18:22:17 02/13/02 Wed

Ham-handed to say the least... that, and the feeling that the writers are raising issues and then dropping them completely (see Halfrek's doubt-raising visit, or Buffy's fast acceptance of Dawn's stealing without much reaction, or even the cast o' characters last night that seemed to conveniently disappear when it was time for a Scooby Powwow!), or letting the characters solve things *much* faster than ever before ("oh, it was Warren who did the deed, not me!" or the even worse and far-fetched, "gee, is your guidance counselor a vengeance demon?"). Altogether, I don't care if folks say Joss has a hand in things - the episodes are beginning to feel like one of those horrible experiences in high school when the "creative writing" teacher has each person write a chapter and then hand it to the next person - only now we're getting that feeling from commercial break to commercial break.

(Note: I wouldn't have been surprised if Anya had put two and two together to figure out it must've been a Vengeance Demon - that being her line of work, after all - but as others have mentioned, it did seem bizarre. This is a town where a hundred, a thousand different non-realistic things could be the reason a bunch of people are trapped in a house... what made Buffy think it would be a vengeance demon? If we'd had a scene with Anya prior to the convo, or perhaps an indication of how Buffy made that intuitive leap, then maybe I would've gone for it. But otherwise it seems just like Buffy's made two too many "intuitive leaps" that have conveniently turned out to be the exact key to solving the week's puzzle. Bleah, I say, bleah!)

I mean, hello, can we make Dawn and Anya - two potentially charismatic characters - any more disconcertingly schizophrenic from scene to scene? (And what was with Anya trying to take her shirt off, anyway? I was expecting her to proposition Xander suddenly, which at least would've been more like the Anya I know and adore.) I agree with the lack o' Dawn/Spike interaction... I would've thought that Spike ignoring Dawn would've been an additional sore point for Dawn, since Spike was such a constant presence during Buffy's hiatus. And while I can groove with the idea that Spike's completely fixated on Buffy for the SexFest2002 (as someone else so eloquently put it), would it have taken that much screen time to show Dawn's reaction to being ignored, yet again? Instead, without her reaction, I'm vaguely suspicious that it didn't even occur to ME that Dawn would even care - and that seems way out of character for her. Sheesh.

I mean, are these writers even reading each other's weekly scripts? Are they asleep on the job? Could they stop turning all the wonderful characters into one-note clowns? Let's see:

Dawn: whiny and sullen.
Willow: drug addict.
Spike: buffy-sex-obsessed.
Xander: 'adult', aka 'the boring one'
Anya: money-obsessed (alternating with appearance-obsessed)
Buffy: self-obsessed, sex-obsessed, spike-obsessed, money-obsessed, obsessed, blah blah blah.

Tara: sole bright spot left, and that seems due to the fact that her complexity is rooted almost solely in the fact that her motives aren't clear (is she still in love, is she getting over Willow, etc etc).

On top of all that... are my housemate and I the only ones who've noticed that the Scoobies are losing their distinctive voices? Careful listening reveals that it's getting harder to guess who-said-what, in terms of the specific voices and phrases that each character used to have. Man, what I wouldn't give for a solid "good lord!" and some frantic glasses-polishing.

*sigh* How soon til Joss writes another episode? ;-(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> But you're not bitter, right? (more spoilers for OaFA) -- Traveler, 23:00:28 02/13/02 Wed
To summarize, I can see your point. I disagree. I agree, but I don't know why it bothers you.

The fact that Buffy figured out what Warren did wasn't that worrisome to me. That is exactly the sort of intuitive leap that people sometimes make. Spike had just said "you always hurt the ones you love," and Warren was a good example of that for many reasons. However, I have to agree that Buffy didn't just make a intuitive leap to figure out that the counselor was a vengance demon; she strapped on a jet pack and flew there. I suppose that Buffy probably knew from Anya that there was a new vengance demon in town, but still. She kept asking Dawn leading questions as if she already knew their answers. That was bad writing, but is it really enough to destroy the episode so thoroughly? I don't think so.

As for Spike, I must disagree completely. He obviously was very concerned about Dawn, but he was pushed to the fringes by the others. Maybe he could have gotten Dawn to open up, but this episode was about Dawn and Buffy's relationship, not Dawn and Spike's. Buffy had to be the one to get through to Dawn, or else the healing process couldn't begin.

As for having "schizophrenic" characters, I have to ask, what did you expect? All of the character on the show are having a major identity crisis, Anya and Dawn most certainly included. Personally, I think this is what makes the season so interesting. The characters are stepping out of their normal roles and becoming... something else. Half the fun is just watching their journey and wondering where it will take them.

Finally, I would like to mention that there were a lot of good things about this episode. The Spike/Buffy interactions may have seemed like same old same old, but I noticed some subtle and important differences between this and other episodes. Tara/Spike was a new and very interesting element. A lot of people noticed how Tara has gotten a lot cooler, and I can't help but wonder if the time she spent away from Willow has been good for her. Perhaps she will be less dependant on Willow now, should they get back together. I even liked some of the changes in Anya. She panicked, but it was a controlled panic which motivated her to act. She was mean and selfish, but she said hard things that needed to be said. Also, a number of plot hooks were set up, and one important issue was addressed, namely Dawn's problems/stealing. Buffy's reaction was entirely appropriate. She was shocked and horrified, but not angry. Remember, she loves her sister, but she also has been feeling incredibly guilty about the job she has been doing as "mother." She probably blamed herself more for what was going on than she blamed Dawn. This is also consistant with her character.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying this was the best episode of the season, or even a particularly strong one. However, I don't believe it (or its writer) deserve the harsh criticism you have heaped upon them. They have their flaws, but they also have notable strengths, just like most things human.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> To celebrate trivial felicities in accidental monkey-doo formations is an unworthy pastime. -- monkeypants, 00:33:25 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Is someone channeling the deceased Buffybot? (exercises in dadaism) -- Darby, 07:34:36 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> We are fans here. Constructive criticism, even negative, is appreciated. Bashing is not. -- OnM, 07:40:59 02/14/02 Thu
If you cannot respect this, there are other forums where you may engage in this activity.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Perhaps a course in forum etiquette for the multiple-personalitied? -- Wisewoman, 08:24:43 02/14/02 Thu
We're about the most tolerant group around but, hey, even we have limits...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> "Perhaps it has something to do with the rhetoricity of Masquerading." -- Lyotard in tights Redux, 13:48:16 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> When philosophers bunch like bananas, someone must shake the tree. -- monkeypants (flashing his Propriety-Breaching License), 13:08:11 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> Point/Counterpoint: Two Excellent Posts Above -- mundusmundi, 07:37:51 02/14/02 Thu
I'm somewhere in between on this particular episode, though more in tune with Sol's view of the season as a whole. Traveler, though, raises some compelling arguments, especially in addressing the good things about the ep (Tara's character development, why it had to be Buffy who reacted, etc.)

My biggest qualm, however, concerns the claim made by some posters that it is the changing nature of the characters that accounts for much of the erratic behavior that we are witnessing. My problem with this line of reasoning is that it always gives the writers an avenue of escape out of any seeming inconsistency. I believe Sol's point about Buffy's newfound leaps of intuition wasn't that it's ruining entire episodes, but that it's only one example of a larger problem -- a growing laziness -- with a few of this season's scripts. (Of course, returning to the subject of loopholes, I suppose Greenberg or whoever could say, "Erm, well, y'all wanted Buffy to come back with new powers -- here they are!" ;)

My throwaway comment about no Spike/Dawn scenes in another thread was apparently less clear about a similar point. I can buy that Spike might ignore her. What I find out of character is that Dawn wouldn't even attempt to talk to the her guardian over the summer, or get angry with him. (It's a good point, whoever wrote it, that maybe there is a concern about fan shippiness; though one might wonder, especially concerning this season, since when has ME become shy?) I'm not endorsing a D/S re-lay-shun-ship; I'm endorsing a D/S dynamic. You've got two great actors there, both of whom are growing static, losing the shadings that made them interesting last year. I'm reminded of when Howard Hawks made Rio Bravo and included an incongruous but enjoyable singing duet between Dean Martin and Ricky Nelson. Hawks defended the scene with something like, "You've got all that talent together in one room -- what's the point if you don't use it?"

Despite this, as I've said elsewhere, I kinda liked "Older and Far Away." They didn't fully exploit the metaphor they had concocted, but at least they had a metaphor this time, so I apprecate the effort. Again, great posts from both Traveler and Sol (among others), with thought-provoking comments. Keep 'em coming.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Regarding Dawn/Spike interaction -- Annie, 08:29:10 02/14/02 Thu
I remember reading an interview (possibly over at The Buzz, though I'm not sure on that) where Drew Greenberg was questioned on this very point. Basically, his reply was that as long as we didn't see any evidence to the contrary, we should assume that everything was status quo. (This is obviously not verbatim!) Hence, Dawn and Spike's relationship hasn't changed; we're just not seeing it portrayed on screen.

This, IMHO, is not how storytelling works. If it's not shown or at least alluded to on screen, it isn't there. I suppose an argument could be made for there being only 43 minutes in an episode and a lot of stories to tell, but still - it wouldn't take much to get points like these across.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> The transcript for that interview is at the Succubus Club..quote and link inside.. -- Rufus, 08:43:15 02/14/02 Thu
www.thecuccubusclub.com
09Jan02

FROM CLAIREL: IN THE REST OF SEASON 6, WHAT KIND OF RELATIONSHIP WILL WE BE SEEING BETWEEN SPIKE AND DAWN, AND BETWEEN SPIKE AND THE OTHER SCOOBIES?

Drew: I love the relationship between Dawn and Spike, too, and I think a lot of us really do. The difficulty of only being able to present one hour a week is that you have to service the story that's being told, and you can assume that the relationship between Spike and Dawn is still what it was. And every chance we get, we try to put in a little moment with them, but there are only 43 minutes in an hour.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes -- leslie, 09:29:48 02/14/02 Thu
The idea of having a "seamless narrative" with no noticeable plot holes is a very modern (i.e., post-Enlightenment) concept. However, plot holes can provide a very important function in analysing a narrative. (What I am about to say derives from a vaguely Freudian approach to the study of mythology and folktales, supplemented by a certain irreversible Levi-Straussian bent on my part. So be prepared for a certain amount of academic pretentiousness here!)

When you are dealing with a medieval or ancient narrative, especially one that has been transmitted over a long period of time, there tend to be huge, gaping plot holes that you simply cannot ignore. There are also very small, subtle weirdnesses that often derive from some smart-ass scribe along the way substituting a word for what was in the original, or making the highly popular "scribal error." To wit, modern scholar reads text and says, "Hey, this story doesn't say what I think it should say: scribal error!" In any case, these holes and wierdnesses are often termed "cruxes," and present, metaphorically, a "crossroad" in interpretation.

The easy way out is to just go with scribal error. However--bringing in the vaguely Freudian part--why did the scribe make *that* error? In fact, some scribal errors look remarkably like classic Freudian slips. In which case, the crux can be not only two-dimensional (on the face of the page, as it were) but a three-dimensional intersection, the door that brings you deeper into the underlying meaning of the narrative. This is how I think about it, anyway--there is this web of words that lies on the page, that presents you with a charming, weblike pattern that you can look at but also keeps you on *this* side of the narrative, it's public persona as it were. The crux is a hole in the web that allows you to slide underneath the text and get at its narrative unconscious, its true meaning. Often, as Levi-Strauss pointed out, what's missing is the key--the presence of one pole of a binary opposition implies the presence of the other end of the pole, even if you can't see it.

As I've said before, the thing about BtVS is that it is, like myth, "good to think with," and it is full of cruxes. Some of them literal (I do notice that people aren't using crosses to ward off vamps quite so much these days, though.) The problem arises when you have a script that is too crux-y. It's a little too easy to get away with "I meant that to be enigmatic" as an excuse for bad writing.

For instance, in OaFA, what was Richard doing there? He was not a character, he was something to arouse tension with Spike and to get slashed by the demon. I can suspend my disbelief that vampires exist, but I can't bring myself to believe that a normal human being could sustain a cut to the side of that magnitude and not bleed to death in the 24 hours that elapse before they can get him to the hospital. The thing is, that plot hole does open up the underlying meaning of what's going on here--that the point is the relationship between Spike and Buffy, her choice between a "normal" and an "unnatural" lover--but it's *so* obvious that we feel cheated--we knew this was the problem all along, we don't need to have it pointed out to us with bells and whistles and flahsing lights. The attraction of the show is not the fact that it has cruxes, but the subtlety of its cruxes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes -- Darby, 10:59:57 02/14/02 Thu
First, a measure of my ignorance: I thought the opening Levi-Strauss reference was a clever slant on "blue jeans philosophy." Guess not, huh? But how can you know you're dealing with a polar-opposite quantity with no view of the pole? And if you know, the implication of the other end gives no real inference into its true existence, does it? It should be there, but is it really?

Anyway, the Richard thing works due to the way the blow was delivered - it was a broad swipe across the chest from almost full extension distance, producing a long, nasty cut but not a particularly deep one. He may have needed a hundred or so stitches, but some tape and pressure in the house would have kept it from being a life-threatening situation.

Since the demon and the sword were part of the same "stuff," though, there are possible infection implications - nah, they probably won't go there.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes -- leslie, 15:39:14 02/14/02 Thu
"But how can you know you're dealing with a polar-opposite quantity with no view of the pole? And if you know, the implication of the other end gives no real inference into its true existence, does it? It should be there, but is it really?"

Well, this *is* one of the reasons some people think old Claude is full of crap.... The orthodox answer is that the oppositions are self evident--raw/cooked, animal/human, female/male, culture/nature, and so on. One very interesting analysis I heard at a folklore conference several years ago pointed out that traditional myth works on the theory of "nature is to culture as animal is to human as prey is to predator" and that stories of alien abduction are both interesting and disturbing because they posit that "nature is to culture as human is to alien as prey is to predator". I think this works very well with the relationship of humans and vampires--human is to vampire as prey is to predator--but, at least in the Buffyverse, you could make an argument as to who is "nature" and who is "culture"--humans certainly seem to regard themselves as "culture" and vampires as "nature (red in tooth and claw)", but the mythology of the vampires themselves, as is explicated in the stories Giles tells of the origin of vampires, suggest that the vampires and demons regard themselves as "culture" and humans as animal-like vermin.

So in terms of the other end of the pole, it isn't just any old pole where you can infer the presence of its opposite end--it's the big poles. If you've got nature running around all over the place, and no culture anywhere in sight, then you can assume that the myth is, in fact, about the opposition of nature and culture, even if you can't see the culture. You're on slightly shakier territory when you have a myth that runs ramapant with forks--are we dealing with missing knives, in a myth that may have something to do with aggression and stabbing versus cutting? Or is this one of Levi-Strauss's myths about the origin of table manners (which is, in fact, the title of one of his books).

Again, it is worth remembering that someone criticized Levi-Strauss about whether it was valid for him, as a French academic, to be making statements about what is "really" in South American Indian myths. He said, "If I see it, it is there." Structuralism is a useful tool, but needs to be used with caution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow! That's pretty weird... -- Darby, 20:31:23 02/14/02 Thu
...It's odd that of the prime examples you give - I'm only guessing that they're the prototypical examples from the philosophy - most of them don't strike me as being polar opposites at all, certainly not self-evident. Must be that my world-view is very different from L-S'.

Animal / human - polar based on what? In what way are they supposed to be ends, and of what spectrum?

Female / male - I can see how they get viewed as opposites, but I don't like the implications at all. It kind of highlights the inherent problem - if your perspective is to see the world as full of opposites, then opposites are everywhere you look.

Nature / culture is missing a pole - there's no real link to put them in opposition to each other. I can't get any closer than to say that culture is a reflection of nature, but what you've shared may explain why a recent push to apply the term "culture" to animal behavior is getting such resistance (like any terminology, it doesn't seem to matter to the animals much).

Just to be clear on this, I am in no way levelling any criticism at you, Leslie - I'm just having some fun exploring an area that I don't get much chance to experience any more. Thanks for the opportunity.

And I'm sure that my background and experience makes me resistant - maybe overly so - to seeing the world in these terms, so to some extent I'm doing what I think Levi-Strauss was doing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> delightfully head-scratching debate. thanks. and the merit of plotholes -really interesting. -- yuri, 23:29:57 02/14/02 Thu
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Purity and Danger -- Rahael, 05:50:12 02/15/02 Fri
Interesting indeed!

I must say that I found structuralism interesting but dated. There have been many useful critques and adjustments made by post-structuralists.

I only spent a couple of weeks on anthropology as part of my history degree, so I am by no means the person to comment on this, and I am pretty sure that Leslie is formidably well informed on this topic! But anyways.

I found some part useful, other parts not. For example, a structuralist view of human culture would deny an element of change that is at the heart of a historical perspective of human culture. One could argue that views about men/women and race have changed considerably over the course of the 20th century, and that the old dichotomies are being broken down.

I would say the dichotomy between Nature and Culture is something I have encountered, in a very specific time and place. In 18th Century England, the growth of large cities (which finally were able to maintain their own population growth) led to a split between the idea of the city (cultured, urbane, sophisticated to some, sinful, corrupt, dangerous, polluting to others) and that of the Country (rural, unsophisticated, unlearned, backward to some, pure, possessing integrity, patriotic to others). This split can be found in the literature of the period, and was deeply influential in politics. In Tobias Smollet's Humphrey Clinker, Matthew Bramble notices the 'dirtiness' of Bath, both in terms of actual dirt, and the danger presented by the rise of a middle class, which, shock, horror! could pass for their betters. He actually faints at the unpleasantness of the whole experience. He then travels on to Scotland, and contrasts it with the moral integrity and cleanliness he notes there. The air is literally purer. In Jane Austen's Mansfield Park, the virtues of Mansfield (a symbol for England) are contrasted with the sinfulness of London. Mansfield may be under bad management, but it's the visit of the charming, attractive but ultimately immoral Crawfords which leads to the undoing of the Bertrams. The Crawfords are from London, and are depicted as having no understanding of the rhythms and values of the countryside.

Of course, most of the people who argued that the countryside was somehow superior in value (especially politicians) actually lived in the city. It wasn't actually important as a physical dichotomy, but as an ideological one. So I think these dichotomies which are employed time and time again in human cultures are inherently contradictory and contain tensions. Precisely because life is not easily split into neat pairings. It's just that we often find it too attractive not to do so. For example, Spike has to be either good or evil. Buffy has to be either human or demon, or so some viewers think.

I agree that man vs animal is an uneasy opposition to make. We are after all animals. But you only need to look at the furore that Darwin's theories still create to see that human beings wish to see themselves as fundamentally different. We attach a value judgement to the concept of humanity. We talk of 'humane' behaviour even though we know that human beings are capable of mind bogglingly awful behaviour. So when one group of human beings want to subjugate another set, they automatically start 'dehumanising' them. I won't resort to the usual example. But let's look at anthropology itself. When early pioneers of anthropology explored more 'primitive' human cultures (what an opposition there! Primitive vs civilised) they thought that these tribes had a simplicity which must make them socially backward. They must still be in the state that European civilisations had long 'evolved' away from. By studying them, they thought, they would find out about the origins of European social groupings. Instead, time has taught us that these 'face to face' societies were governed by rules as complex, and subtle as more 'indirect' ones. Europe's encounter with the 'Other', and the language in which it was couched falls under man/animal dichotomies. There is the famous case of the very well educated former black slave in 18th Century London who was dismissed by some as a 'clever parrot'. The implication being that black people were not capable of real intelligence. They were closer to animals than humans. How else could slavery be accomodated into paternalistic Christian societies?

The anthropologist who I found really inspirational re examinations of dichotomous thinking is Mary Douglas, especially her emphasis on 'pollution' and the dichotomous split between clean/dirty. Going back to the theme of dehumanisation. Let's look at the caste system in India. The 'untouchables' are precisely that because they are 'polluted'. Their job involved in 'dirt' - cleaning the toilets of those more fortunate than themselves. People avoid them because they fear that it is contagious. This of course has been used to justify an incredibly unjust and (personally speaking, apoplexy inducing) social set up. The fear of 'dirt' is insiduous in many different cultures. In modern western society, we are becoming so 'sterile' as to actually make ourselves more vulnerable to diseases. Whenever people describe a group of people they are disturbed by, the idea of a general 'uncleanliness' soon crops up.

So of course oppositions are only perceived. We perceive them there because we are inclined to do so.

I am interested in your comment about culture arising from nature. I would argue that the idea of 'nature' itself (which changes from society to society, and which changes over time) is actually a part of human culture. Once, western societies perceived the natural world in a very teleological way. From a nature there for human exploitation, a nature which had to be fought, controlled and tame, to a growing appreciation of the wilderness, and now to a view as human beings as destroyers of nature. Of course, how we define culture itself is a controversial topic. Once could see it as arising from specific 'artifacts' or one could see it as a shared understanding, an elaborate code and idiom which one participates in.

I myself think that we should avoid viewing things in dichotomous terms. It's much more interesting to see things in their manifold complexity. But its important to understand why and how people resort to them.

A small Buffy example would be Buffy's need to see herself as 'wrong'. She can't accept that she, Buffy is capable of both good and bad. That she always has been thus. In her view, Vampires like Spike are 'bad', she is 'good'. This season, ME have been muddying the waters, to Buffy's discomfit.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This is fun... -- Darby, 08:10:37 02/15/02 Fri
And I've kind of run out of things to add, but it occurs to me that the distinctions we're discussing mimic perspective stages the adolescents and adults are supposed to progress through. If so, then the underlying biology would lead to a perpetuation, in different groups, of the ideas somewhat independent of culture. Sort of the way that certain philosophies tend to attract persons of a certain age range in other areas as well.

Just to clarify, "culture" the way it seems to be currently defined zoologically is a set of behaviors that are superficially the same (dealing with the "same" situations) but that vary between different populations, mostly of primates but now being more broadly applied as the basic idea draws support. Almost exactly the pattern of spread that you outlined in your history of these ideas.

Since I'm running dry, I may not post another response, but I'd love to hear what others have to say on the subject(s). Anybody still out there?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Purity and Danger -- leslie, 08:31:42 02/15/02 Fri
I am writing very hurriedly because I am waiting for the airport shuttle--but me, I think the thing about nature/culture is that culture is human as opposed to "animal" nature, yet because, as you point out, humans are animals, I would argue that culture is part of nature, not vice versa. And therefore, culture is something that nature creates--animals *are* capable of culture, because we are animals and we have culture. When I get back from this blasted wedding, I want to go further into the question of mediation and the relationships among humans, vampires, and demons...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dichotomies (getting further OT) -- matching mole, 10:09:12 02/15/02 Fri
I'm going to leap into this discussion although I have absolutely no training, formal or informal in anthropology at all, although I did know that Levi-Strauss was a person as well as a corporation making denim clothing. Not surprisingly, as we are both professional biologists, I am in strong agreement with Darby's sentiment that considering humans and animals or nature and culture as opposites doesn't really make much sense from a biological perspective. Humans and gorillas have vastly more in common with one another than either do with sharks much less with sea anemones, fungi, or bacteria.
I think that both Leslie and Rahael raised excellent points about nature: Leslie that culture is a part of nature and Rahael that views of nature have changed culturally. From my point of view nature is everything: the organic and inorganic constituents of our planet and the interactions between these constituents. Under this view all of human culture and economic activity is clearly a subset of nature. Both of the cultural perspectives of nature that Rahael describes (if I understand them correctly) view nature as something distinct from human society, either something lesser to be exploited, or something purer to be preserved. Although I am far more in sympathy with the latter view than the former they both have serious short-comings when making practical decisions about human interactions with the rest of the world. The exploitive view applies the rules of economics to human activities post 'extraction' (i.e. when moving resources into the human component of the world economic system) but ignores what is going on pre-extraction. The preservationist view (in its extreme form) ignores the necessary interactions between humans and the rest of nature.
I agree with Rahael that dichotomies are usually simplistic. I offer up the a few biological examples. First, the nature/nurture debate over human behavior. Quantitative geneticists (people, like my wife, who study the genetics of complex traits influenced by many genes) will tell you that most characteristics of organisms are influenced both by genetics and the environment and that the interactions within and between the two can be very complex. Studies that purport to have found a gene for homosexuality or for watching TV are often naively interpreted. These particular genes may have an effect on human behavior but they act in the context of the other genes found in a particular individual and the environment experienced by that individual leading to widely varying outcomes.
A second example, probably less familiar to non-biologists is community ecology theory. Community ecologists try to explain the number and kinds of species present in any particular area. A simple example would be why does one patch of desert have seven kinds of lizard and another have twelve? This has been a hotly debated area of biology because quite a few different explanations have been offered and no one explanation seems to have universal explanatory power. Attempts to test mutually exclusive ideas (a dichotomy) have not given consistent results. From the point of view of scientists seeking basic principles this is frustrating but it makes perfect sense to me. Community ecology is based on complex interactions between components that are themselves complicated and all of this takes place within a unique historical perspective. Sounds a lot like studying humans doesn't it? It doesn't seem surprising that there isn't a single unifying principle (like gravity or DNA).
Finally a more explicitly human oriented example involving the creation/evolution non-debate. To avoid offending anyone I would like to preface this by saying that my contention here is not with those who have a religious belief in a special creation and for that reason disregard scientific evidence for biological evolution (or have a belief in both evolution and special creation). I don't share their world view but respect their view to have it. I am contending with those who misuse science to serve ideological ends, i.e. the 'creation scientists'. One of the most common claims of creation scientists is that the fossil record lacks any evidence of transitional forms between 'kinds' of organisms. In other words we don't see something that is half way between a bear and a seal. In fact the fossil record is full of transitional specimens. The transition from 'reptile' (I'm putting the word reptile in quotes for technical reasons) to mammal is so well documented that deciding where to draw the line is basically arbitrary. Similarly the fossil bird Archaeopteryx has a skeleton that is indistinguishable, except for the modified forelimbs, from that of many other small dinosaurs of the era. The fossilized feathers link it to the birds. When confronted with these examples Creation Scientists resort to an irrational dichotomization. Archaeopteryx is a bird because it has feathers therefore it can't be a transitional form. The other small dinosaurs are 'reptiles' because they lack feathers. It has been pointed out that under this scheme no transitional forms are possible except perhaps nonsensical ones (a relative of Archaeopteryx with one feathered wing and one scaled wing?).
I guess the point of this long-winded exposition is that if dichotomization proves so unsatisfactory on these purely pragmatic issues (I am saying that the questions have pragmatic answers not that they don't have moral aspects) how much more unlikely is it to prove accurate in more complex situations such as those we see on BtVS and AtS? Humans seem to like to view things dichotomously which seems to me to be unfortunate and self-defeating in solving the complex problems that surround us.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks leslie, Darby, Rahael and the mole -- mundusmundi, 10:37:32 02/15/02 Fri
Admittedly, I don't understand half of what you're talking about, but I'm enjoying the discussion anyway.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ditto! ;o) -- dubdub, 10:46:06 02/15/02 Fri
Damn, I love you guys!
;o)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can't agree more : culture is the natural state of men, nature is a cultural concept -- Etrangere, 13:11:25 02/15/02 Fri
And I just wanted to add that in Buffy, Season 4 was especially dealing with this concepts, using the pattern of the tale of the fall from the Garden of Eden for several characters. (Opposition between a state of nature without concience and the learning of morality)
If anyone's interrested, I can translate from french the analysis I had done about that :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'd like to see it! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 13:45:21 02/15/02 Fri
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Purity and Danger -- leslie, 08:32:57 02/15/02 Fri
I am writing very hurriedly because I am waiting for the airport shuttle--but me, I think the thing about nature/culture is that culture is human as opposed to "animal" nature, yet because, as you point out, humans are animals, I would argue that culture is part of nature, not vice versa. And therefore, culture is something that nature creates--animals *are* capable of culture, because we are animals and we have culture. When I get back from this blasted wedding, I want to go further into the question of mediation and the relationships among humans, vampires, and demons...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Purity and Danger -- Rufus, 01:19:30 02/16/02 Sat
A small Buffy example would be Buffy's need to see herself as 'wrong'. She can't accept that she, Buffy is capable of both good and bad. That she always has been thus. In her view, Vampires like Spike are 'bad', she is 'good'. This season, ME have been muddying the waters, to Buffy's discomfit.

I kinda see it as Buffy learning about the complex nature of good and bad by checking out what has been swept under the carpet....:):)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> [> Re: the function of plot holes -- Rahael, 12:14:33 02/14/02 Thu
That was great! I really enjoyed your exposition on 'cruxes'.

As for Levi-Strauss, I often wondered whether I was the only person who saw the label on the jeans and thought "wow, a fan of the raw and the cooked" Only for a split second, of course!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> Re: Point/Counterpoint: Two Excellent Posts Above (spoilers for Gone) -- Sophist, 08:52:59 02/14/02 Thu
Plotholes, real or not, seem to bother some posters quite a bit. I don't see this as a new issue. Plotholes have existed since S1. In IRYJ, Buffy follows a car on foot and arrives at the same time. There are many others. Why are we willing to suspend our disbelief about vampires, but not about whether Spike should have noticed that Katrina's body was cold? There are plotholes in Shakespeare, but we overlook them because we value other things.

As far as character interaction goes, I think some degree of patience is justified. Sure, there could have been interaction between D/S. Maybe it'll happen in two weeks. It's not clear that it must happen NOW, even if there seemed to be a natural place for it. Character development is a long term process, not an event for a particular episode. Besides, there are so many aspects to each character (a tribute to the show's richness) that someone can always justify a particular behavior. Hey, I justify Spike (to the horror of many) and others have justified Dawn (to my shock).

There are many times when I've watched an ep and thought "eh" because I didn't see all the implications of it. When someone pointed them out, or when the season played out, I had to re-evaluate it and realized only in retrospect how good it was. While I don't think S6 is the strongest season, I count 3 classic eps (OMWF, TR, and Smashed), and it isn't over yet. The best part is, I've discovered this Board and am getting so much more out of even the eps I think are weaker.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> I can see both sides of the coin -- Solitude1056, 08:30:32 02/14/02 Thu
Yet I remained unconvinced that the episodes are as flawless as some of the ones I've seen from previous seasons. The "on the other hand" part of me pops up to remind myself that not every season has continually flawless episodes, though... but they do all have consistently excellent writing, even if the plots or demons were a bit hokey. And that's what bothers me most - the voices are starting to all sound more similar. One of the biggest joys of discovering this series was that each character had a distinctive voice. It just seems that with the new writers - who may have the basic groove thing down otherwise - they need more work on cultivating a distinctive voice for each character. It's not an easy thing to do, which is why I give newer ME writers credit for trying, but I do have standards. Coming up with a witty pop-phrase and saying, well, this is a Spike thing but it's really Anya who needs to make the announcement so we'll have her say it instead..? Nope, that doesn't work when each character speaks differently, intuits differently, reacts differently. But that's sort of what it feels like is going on, from a writer's viewpoint, observing the current season... and that's just shoddy craftsmanship.

The demonic metaphors are still (kind of) holding up, if less clear than they used to be (for various reasons). But the continuity sucks rocks at points - harsh, but there's been some truly crummy examples this season, the likes of which we haven't seen since season 1 when Joss was still working out the kinks on how-to-direct. ME seems out-of-practice with ensemble scenes, leaving characters adrift in "other rooms" for the sake of convenience, and of course, there's that pathetic Buffy-guesses-the-answer sitch twice now. Okay. Yeah. I could forgive all that as momentary lapses of skill - if only they'd bloody well keep the voices distinctive. Otherwise we're floating into Charmed or soap-opera territory, where it's all melodrama, big finales, long buildup/fast letdown, and a few demons in our after school special about bad parents and various addictions. The characters always drove the plot before, not the other way around.

Okay, okay, rant over. Mostly. But I'm not going to stop grumbling about the way the voices are all starting to sound the same...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> I know *exactly* what you mean, Sol. -- Marie, 08:57:24 02/14/02 Thu
That's how I write my fiction about these characters - I 'hear' their voices in my head, and very often I write a line for someone, and it turns into a line for someone else, because it sounds more like them. Also, when I read other people's stuff, I 'hear' them (the characters) speak as I read, and sometimes it doesn't sound quite right... which can be excused in fanfic, but not in ME's case.

Marie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[> [> [> [> You´re complaining about the voices?? -- grifter, 10:51:36 02/14/02 Thu
What´s up with that? I had to watch BtVS up until now in GERMAN! BAD german! Eeek! ;)

I can understand what you mean though, even though I didn´t notice it. The language and voices are a big part of the whole BtVS-experience, but by far not the biggest concern I have. It´s actually quite a compliment for BtVS i