February 2003 posts

Previous February 2003  

More February 2003

Why I hated Storyteller : a bit of a ramble on why we like or dislike things -- s'kat, 11:44:18 02/27/03 Thu

I wasn't going to post on this. I told people I wouldn't.
And after reading all the beautiful raving posts on this board about this episode, I was afraid to. But hey I liked Him and I liked Bad Eggs. So this got me thinking, why does one person hate something while another likes it?

A bit of a foray into John Lock and the philosophy of taste, courtesy of the amateur's guide to Philosophy, Sophie's World, by Jostein Gaardner pp. 263-264:

"Lock's claim is that all our thoughts and ideas issue from that which we have taken in through the senses. Before we perceive anything, the mind is a tabula rasa - or an empty slate. Before we sense anything, then the mind is as bare and empty as a blackboard before the teacher arrives in the classroom. Locke also compared the mind to an unfurnished room. But then we begin to sense things. We see the world around us, we smell, taste, feel, and hear. And nobody does this more intensely than infants. In this way what Locke called simple ideas of sense arise. But the mind does not just passively receive information from outside it. Some activity happens in the mind as well. The singel sense ideas are worked on by thinking, reasoning, believing, and doubting, thus giving rise to what Lock calls reflection.
So he distinguished between 'sensation' and 'reflection'. The mind is not merely a passive receiver. It classifies and processes all sensations as they come streaming in. And this is just where one must be on guard....Lock emphasized that the only things we can perceive are simple sensations when I eat an apple for example I do not sense the whole apple in one single sensation. In actual fact I receive a whole series of simple sensations - such as that something is green, smells fresh, and tastes juicy and sharp.....[....]

In the final analysis all the material for our knowledge of the world comes to us through sensations. Knowledge that cannot be traced back to a simple senation is therefore false knowledge and must consequently be rejected."

So we can be sure that what we see, hear, tast and smell is how we sense it?

"Yes and no (Lock states). He had first answered the question of where we get our ideas from. Now he asked whether the world really is the way we perceive it. [To answer this question] Lock distinguished between what he called primary and secondary qualities.

By primary qualities - he meant - extension, weight, motion and number, and so on. When it is a question of qualities such as these, we can be certain that the senses reproduce them objectively. But we also sense other qualities in things. We say that something is sweet or sour, green or red, hot or cold. Lock calls these secondary qualities. Sensations like these - color, smell, taste, sound - do not reproduce the real qualties that are inherent in the things themselves. They reproduce only the effect of the outer reality on our senses.

Everyone to his own taste - in other words..

Everyone can agree on primary qualities like size and weight because they lie within the objects themselves. But the secondary qualities like color and taste can vary from person to person and from animal to animal, depending on the nature of the individual's sensations.

When [you] eat an orange, [you might] get a look [on your] face like when other people eat a lemon. [You] can't take more than one segment at a time. [You] say it tastes sour. I usually think the same orange is nice and sweet.

And neither one of [us] is right or wrong. You are just describing how the orange effects your senses. It's the same with the sense of color...etc."

Another example is well soy milk makes me ill. Regular milk makes my brother ill. He is lactose intolerant. I am soy intolerant. We are from the same parents. Or say: my brother loves Three's Company, I hated it. The list is endless.

I hated Storyteller. Not just mildly disliked. Hated.
It took me a while to figure out why. It was an emotional response.

How do we judge a good episode of Btvs from a bad episode of BTVS? Or an episode of any visual narrative? What makes us hate or love something? Is it really as simple as Lock states? Our senses just perceive the world differently from each other?

I've been wondering about this question a lot recently.
Particularly this week. Let's face it - we are a judgemental society. We rate things, pit things against each other, review them, or criticize them. We can't help it, it's our nature. Don't believe me? Check out the internet and see how many reviews you find criticising a work of art - any work of art. Or how about all those crazy award shows. We just had the Grammy's in New York this past weekend.

And what makes something good? Popular Opinion? Artistry?
What if everyone else loves something that you personally can't stand or vice versa? Is the fact that 100 people loved it and you, the one person, hated it - mean that they are right and you're nuts?

And what is it about it this particular piece of work that divided the opinion? Is it a fair professional objection or a purely emotional one? Or both?

What if two reviewers rate the movie Two Towers. One gives it an F or 0 stars. The other five stars. Top 10 best. Who's right?
I have friends who despised this movie. I loved it. Who's right? Neither? Both?

I'm asking these questions because of an experience I had this week. I've had the experience before - obviously - my friends don't get why I prefer Buffy over Survivor or Law and ORder. But it does feel weird when it happens. To find yourself hating something everyone else loves. And not just hate - despise. To the point of wanting to see it burn in effigy. You feel incredibly alone all of a sudden, disconnected. Probably a heck of a lot like Andrew. Ironic that.

Up until now - I can seriously state that every Buffy episode has been better than most television I've watched. There really isn't a Btvs episode I would rate beneath maybe C+ or 5. I can find something in all of them to love. I even liked Teacher's Pet to some extent. "She" wasn't all that bad. Silly in places. Forgettable - yep. But I didn't want to kill the characters and throw spitballs at the television screen like a juvenile delinguent. I don't think I've ever turned it off in the middle until now, although I can't remember. It's been awhile.

This week I saw an episode of Btvs that I hated. I rewatched it this morning - after reading all these lovely posts on it, posts I did not respond to because they are lovely and beautiful and I did not want to disrespect the writers. It did not improve upon re-watching. Even with the close captioning - although there were a few interesting line changes from the closed captioning and I did laugh once, briefly, on both occassions - once - the pig scene was funny. But it was the ONLY thing I found funny in this episode. I fast-forwarded through one scene. I forced myself to rewind and rewatch other sections. I was TRYING to like this episode, because friends of mine who I respect and admire loved it and I usually like the writer.But I'm sorry I still hate it.

So why? Why do I consider Storyteller the Worst Episode Ever and can't give it a higher rating than maybe a 2?

This is so hard to explain. Is it because the character of Andrew annoys me? Or that I feel he is what I'd call the anti-Mary Sue? (Anti-Mary Sue is my made up term for a character based on the writers or how the writers perceive themselves, it isn't a character really as a composite of numerous traits and characters - to demonstrate a theme - which in most cases is no big, except to make the character real the writers decided to give it all the worst character traits they could think of from themselves and exaggerate them. )Or that I felt the episode was self-indulgent and self-congragulatory in places? (Since I'm the only one who felt this...maybe I'm projecting? I don't know.)

It's an odd thing to be in the minority on something. But it is good in a way - since it makes you consider certain philosophical topics like what is taste? And how do we differ.

So why did I hate Storyteller, you ask...the point I keep circling around...so that if you don't want to know you can avoid finding out. Tee hee.

Okay Top 10 Things I hated in Storyteller

1. Andrew. The odd thing is, he was starting to grow on me. I was actually beginning to warm to the guy. Not any more.
The sooner they kill him the better. While other people saw his tears at the end as remorse - I saw them as fear that Buffy was going to kill him in the same way he killed his friend. The only remorse I saw was that he'd gotten himself into something he hadn't intended. I just didn't see what everyone else did. I tried. Why was this? Because I don't think Andrew knows what is real. He's a little kid. He got scared because suddenly at the end of the episode the toys were attacking him. He was the little kid who jumped into the holo-novel or virtual reality game thinking he was just watching then oops real. Yes - cool idea. Done far better with Jonathan in Superstar. Or some of the Star Trek episodes I've seen. It helps when you care about and like the character and don't want to bash him over the head repeatedly. Andrew's dreams and visions felt offensive to me. They made me want to turn the television off. I cringed emotionally through them. I did not like any of them.
Yes - Andrew is gay. I got that. But why couldn't he be cool like Willow and Tara? His voice - to me at least and this gets back to Lock - sounds like it's in a permanent whine. Since I'm the only one who felt this way...it is definitely a sense perception thing.

2. The story - can we say gimmicky. Yes ambitious. Yes it's the old story within a story tale. And I usually love this gimmick. Except when it gets silly - which it did in this episode. Gimmicky and silly and became well writer masturbation - look mom, no hands! See what I can do? Wheee!
And hey - I know - since Btvs is in it's final season anyway and the only viewers we really care about are on posting boards - I'll put in all these cool little one liners relating to those boards then lurk online afterwards and mop up the glory. That is writer masturbation in a nutshell. I don't mind it that much - but they've been doing it in every single episode this year. And in this one they went for overkill - including the fantasies. When Xena started doing this - sometime in Season 4? I stopped watching Xena. When Trek did it - I stopped watching Trek.
It annoys me. Some people get off on it. Again the orange metaphor - it tastes sour to me while it tastes sweet to you.

3. Principal Wood - this character just keeps getting creepier. If they were planning on having him come on to Buffy, could they at least have NOT made him her boss?
Or not have him hire her under false pretenses then reveal all in some romantic secluded restaraunt? And did he have to be such an egomaniac? The lines -"I'm a sexy vampire hunter" and look snappy dresser too! (actually I think he only owns two suites, he seems to wear the same ones in every episode). And the bat, the whip and the batanada? OR the closet full of knives but no stakes - but hey I kill vamps? Or the whole naked dream joke? Or taking her to the alley so he can show off? Also shouldn't this guy have a command of the English language closer to Giles? He's a principal, who went to college, who is in a position of authority - he shouldn't talk in Buffyspeak. This guy is creeping me out in a major way. The ONLY scenes I liked him in were with Spike. And ironies of ironies the only thing he did in the entire episode that wasn't creepy and made a lick of sense was when he tried to stake Spike. Oh - note of interest - they changed the line when he gets possessed.
I preferred closed captionings: "the monster who killed my..." to what they used "whore who sleeps with vampires"
which was borderline offensive and if I was Buffy I would hit him upside the head. Would have preferred the former line, but ME wants to drag it out.

4. Xander and Anya. Now I happen to love these two. But their naked scene in the basement, squicked me and bored me. Why? Is it how it was filmed? Maybe. Is it because of all the beds available they picked spike's cot? Possibly.
Or is it because there was close to 0 lead up and we never got much direction? We went from uhm maybe I still love you, yes I love you, but not sure what to do next, to oh they had sex and gee I wish buffy didn't take the chains down. I understand why they did it this way - two birds with one stone - we show spike's chains are no longer being used and he's safe now and we show X/A no longer should be an item. But it would have worked better after the scene in Never Leave Me or the scene in Selfless or the scene in First Date. Also as a friend mentioned to me - at this point, I'm no longer sure I quite care...they've already told us, subtly. But apparently we needed to be hammered over the head with it. Btvs is never preachy or obvious. Except in Storyteller - they were obvious and preachy and all so unsubtle.

5. Kennedy. I liked Kennedy until this episode. I thought she and Willow had chemistry until this episode. Now? I don't think they do. They looked bored. And awkward together. In one episode they undid the chemistry I saw in Killer in Me and Get it Done.

6. Spike. Well - I'm pretty sure the whole big bad act is yet another role he's put on for Buffy. Doesn't fit very well - he broke twice - first he helps Wood get up after the guy keeps broadsided in the school (I rewound to check so yes this happened), and the whole tape sequence with Andrew. Spike was okay in the episode. Neither great nor bad. I could have done without the Harelquinn moment - I felt sorry for the actors. So 6 would be the Harelquinn moment - I hated it.

7. The metanarration - outside of the line that the mirror told me I was fat, this is getting old. How many times do we have to refer to Marcy the invisible girl? We did it in Gone, now in Storyteller. We also have the whole reference to Nightmares, which was okay I guess. But also gave us out of character Buffy lines that made me cringe. Buffy: "He should have gotten the foot rub?" WTF??? Okay Btvs has just decided to become a SNL skit. Great. What fun. I know, I know, everyone else found this funny - I found it embarrassing.

8. Buffy - I did not like her very much in this episode. Oh I liked her better than Wood, Andrew. But she annoyed me.
Her lines. Her better than everyone else attitude. It's funny I'd just seen Yoko Factor and Primeval again - great episode, like it better each time I watch...and Xander accuses Buffy in it of acting all "superior", she really isn't in that scene. I loved her. In StoryTeller? Superior.
Also she really seems oblivious to certain things. I wasn't sure what to make of her. I didn't mind her scenes with Andrew too much - but it felt forced to me. And Andrew's remorse not that real.

9. The disarray at the school. Okay if they had built this up better and spent less time wandering around with the video camera (I think these Writers have seen Magnolia one too many times - another incredibly self-indulgent movie that I sort of liked, but bores most non-film buffs to tears b/c of its self-indulgence.)Anyways - would have liked it if they'd built it up. They didn't. One moment school is fine, people seem to be freaking out a bit. But I never got the sense of a riot. Nor did the Sunnydale Police or anyone else try to shut down the school. Then all of a sudden we come back and it's a ruin? And the only character who comments that the riot is still going on and has happened is Spike? Buffy and Wood seem shocked. Hmmm.
Someone fire these two pronto. Worste Prinicipal and Counselor awards go to Wood and Buffy. God how did this guy ever get to be a school prinicipal? Snyder did a better job.
I liked the riot. It just made no sense. Whatsoever. And I started to wonder if Andrew wasn't really just telling us a story outside the Buffyverse? At least in Nightmares - we got to see things slowly disintegrate. Now I know what the writers were trying to do here - in Nightmares you see it from kid's perspective, in Storyteller - the adult perspective...so it was supposed to seem sudden and lame and bad all at once. But it didn't work for me. Again probably just me.

10. The last scene where Andrew cries and Buffy gives him her speech. I rolled my eyes. Okay this is nice and all.
You feel bad for killing your best friend but only because Buffy is holding a knife to your chest and is threatening to kill you in the same way you killed him and now you feel his fear and gee it's real! Ugh. And the whole- you weren't going to kill me? Really? Well of course not Andrew, she's the good guy. How many comics have you read?
Sappy. Preachy. Unneccessary. And yes, I know it moved everyone else.

What I liked?
1. The pig line - very funny, absurd moment like the best of Jane. The one funny line I didn't see coming from a mile away.
2. Spike and Andrew taping the big bad. Interesting commentary on how Spike is such a performer. And very subtly done.
3. Anya and Andrew discussing outside the bathroom everyone is lining up for. The maturbation speech. Hmmm...maybe the writer meant for it to be perceived as writer masturbation.
Be interesting to see Espenson's commentary on this episode.
4. The kids turning into harbingers around the seal. Liked that. Very cool. Metaphors were great - evil blinds you to everything but itself. Wood's eyes turning white. The idea of being blinded by evil and possessed. A carry-over from Angel - and the blind assassin.
5. The books on the wall during the Masterpiece Theater scene. Nice touch. Loved the fact that the only philosophy book was Nietzche, which uhm could explain a lot. And it's next to the works of William Shakespear and below a Star Wars Comic. Or was that Star trek. Now that is subtle metanarration - not let's hammer them over the head until they get it metanarration.
6. Spike and Wood's interaction in the school after Buffy leaves. YEs - these two have chemistry. And the only time Wood doesn't seem creepy to me is in this scene.

So see - a completely different take from literally everyone else on this board. Possibly the only time I've ever posted anything really negative on an episode. Why did it happen? Don't know. We see things differently.
I think I wanted to explore something though - the idea that we do see and tast and hear and appreciate the world differently from one another and maybe that's a good thing?
There must be a reason for it, or we would all be robots marching to the same drummer.

Anyways hope I didn't offend anyone with this post.
I posted it separately to avoid doing just that. And I did enjoy the posts I read on the episode. I actually liked the episode a little better for them. But unfortunately wasn't able to enjoy it individually much better.

SK (looking forward to next week's Angel!!)

Nervously hitting Approve now and hoping you guys don't hurt me. Please don't hurt me.

[> Supporting your right to not like this episode (Spoilers for 7.16) -- Masq, 11:54:36 02/27/03 Thu

I laughed in parts, thought the end (Buffy pretending to threaten Andrew until he faces up to his actions and cries on the seal) had a certain significance. But mostly, I thought it was Lame. Like the exploding guy. That was either really Lame or utterly tastesless, depending if you took it as a metaphorical joke or took it as a serious actual event.

Andrew just kind of annoys me as a character. I don't know why they keep him around, since there are so many other core characters that get very little screen time these days.

Willow and Kennedy. I like Kennedy, I think she's cute. I like Willow having a new girlfriend, despite how much I loved Tara. But these heterosexual actresses playing the roles are really not using "Method" acting, are they? It's like those porno flicks claiming to be "hot girl on girl lesbian action" but featuring straight actresses who look like they want to be anywhere but there. It's not exploitative or ratings-hyping to show a little passion, ladies!

[> [> Re: w/k -- crgn, 12:29:33 02/27/03 Thu

I agree on the lack of chemistry between Willow and Kennedy. I'm sure it's harder for two str8 gals to act infatuated with one another than with some beefcake, but OTOH, Willow and Tara were _very_ convincing. I guess chemistry goes beyond overtly sexual to whether actors click and can truly portray emotional substance (whether it's love or rage) between the characters they play.

[> [> [> Re: w/k & POV -- MaeveRigan, 12:35:58 02/27/03 Thu

S/k noted that W/K seemed to have more chemistry in the previous episodes. Hmm. What changed? Could it be that in "Storyteller" we see them primarily from Andrew's point of view and he's just not that interested in them? He's much more intrigued by Xander's "extraordinary" carpentry.

Of course, not all will agree that W/K were clicking before "Storyteller."

[> [> [> [> Re: w/k & POV -- Alison, 15:41:53 02/27/03 Thu

And i think we can all agree that Andrew's POV is a little, um...skewed.
I haven't sensed much chemistry between W/K...but I think that might be on purpose. I don't think the relationship is supposed to be attractive and cute, at least not from what happened in GID.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: w/k & POV (spoilers for Storyteller) -- Just visiting- nice board, 08:46:20 02/28/03 Fri

Two cents, FWIW. At first I didn't like the W/K moments in Storyteller. Such a let-down after Spike and Buddy got their Harlequin moment and Anya glistened in the limelight. Such a waste of three seconds of kissing, by anyone. But then I realized they might be pointed purposeful non-chemistry moments (all resolution of dyke drama was off camera and presented as a fait accompli, and then the mild fondling in front of the window). This doesn't make me like the episode more, but maybe appreciate it a little more.

99 percent of lesbian/LGBT critiques of TV shows' treatment of lesbian characters focus on how we're injected just to provide a little titillation, either for guys or as the classic little bone thrown to us militant lesbos, whatever. Here was a direct shot of two women kissing, making out even (if you can call it that), that was distinctly un-titillating, commented on by the First Voyeur himself as less interesting than the woodwork, almost like just part of the furniture & the seamless fabric of life as usual. Darn it, isn't that what TV supposedly can never do, even "reality TV"?

Similarly, I've found Wood's behavior lately disturbingly creepy, but here I realized how the episode juxtaposes him hovering all over Buffy, almost cartoonish, with Spike holding back and sort of being respectful, as well as mugging for the camera showing how aware he is of his performance/manipulation of image. Wood became demonic and bristled with negativity, while Spike was distinctly non-demonic and almost maybe positively glowing in the Harlequin moment- more "life-like" than those mere humans in the background.

I didn't get the sense that the storytellers were unaware of their fingernails casually drifting down the chalkboard here. I still felt underwhelmed. Clever clever, happy happy joy joy. Bring back the flashcards.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Wecome and ...thank you for this -- s'kat, 10:18:42 02/28/03 Fri

Here was a direct shot of two women kissing, making out even (if you can call it that), that was distinctly un-titillating, commented on by the First Voyeur himself as less interesting than the woodwork, almost like just part of the furniture & the seamless fabric of life as usual. Darn it, isn't that what TV supposedly can never do, even "reality TV"?

Similarly, I've found Wood's behavior lately disturbingly creepy, but here I realized how the episode juxtaposes him hovering all over Buffy, almost cartoonish, with Spike holding back and sort of being respectful, as well as mugging for the camera showing how aware he is of his performance/manipulation of image. Wood became demonic and bristled with negativity, while Spike was distinctly non-demonic and almost maybe positively glowing in the Harlequin moment- more "life-like" than those mere humans in the background.

I didn't get the sense that the storytellers were unaware of their fingernails casually drifting down the chalkboard here. I still felt underwhelmed. Clever clever, happy happy joy joy. Bring back the flashcards.

This actually makes me see the episode in a way I hadn't.
When I decide to watch it again in April...maybe in a marathon with First Date - 7.17 ...I'll use your comments
and tomfool's and cjls to help me see the episode differently. I honestly think it was combination of frame of mind and emotional head space that caused the adverse reaction. But who can tell? Why we like or dislike things is such a weird thing, but it does have a heck of a lot to do with emotions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike? Harlequin moment? OH WHAT? -- Celebaelin, 14:44:43 03/01/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike? Harlequin moment? OH WHAT? -- s'kat, 22:13:32 03/01/03 Sat

The glowy scene with Spike's shirt off and Buffy eating cereal with Anya eating grapes in the kitchen = Harlequin Moment

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: w/k & POV (spoilers for Storyteller) -- madog, 20:20:20 02/28/03 Fri

More people have brought up Wood's actions as of late...but I'm wondering...can anyone blame him? Spike, whether he's good or bad now, killed his mother. So he's fighting with the urge not to blow up...not to just stake Spike...that makes him look creepy in the process. He lost that battle to the urge too this week but was fortunate enough to get tackled before he could land the stake.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: w/k & POV (spoilers for Storyteller) -- Peggin, 14:13:19 03/02/03 Sun

More people have brought up Wood's actions as of late...but I'm wondering...can anyone blame him?

I cannot blame Wood for having feelings of anger, resentment, or hatred towards Spike. I can blame him for acting on those feelings. Even if there was nothing else to consider (like the soul), it looks very much like they have a huge fight coming up, and they need every person they can get fighting on their side. Even if Wood's desire for revenge is 100% justified, it is still incredibly stupid and selfish of him to attempt anything before the fight with the First is over.

The only excuse I could see for killing Spike right now would be *if* Wood had a good reason to suspect that Spike is currently a danger. And I mean Spike himself must present a danger, not just in a "well, he might be a danger if the trigger goes off" kind of way. Using that rationale, Holtz was right to try to kill Angel, because who the heck knows when he might get a little too happy. If Wood has reason to believe that Spike himself is a real danger right now, and that the "good guy" thing is just an act, then he might be justified in taking some action, but he still wouldn't be justified in killing him. Not without discussing it with Buffy first. He knows Buffy knows that Spike is a vampire; he knows that she trusts him. Wood, OTOH, doesn't know Spike at all. If he has concerns, he should talk to Buffy about them, not try to stake one of her most trusted allies in the back.

As for whether Wood's desire for vengeance would be justified if they didn't have the whole situation with The First looming over their heads, that's a tougher call. First, there's the question of whether he's still the same person. A lot of people seem to believe that the soul and the demon are two seperate personalities occupying the same body. If that's the case, then Wood would be killing an innocent man. I happen to not completely agree with that idea. I don't think having the soul makes him a totally different person, but I do think it makes some difference. I would compare the soul more to a metaphysical drug for a mental illness. People can do horrible things while suffering from psychosis, things they would never have done if they weren't ill. If they later get a drug that cures their illness, are they still held to the same degree of culpability as someone who committed the same crime while not mentally ill? Should they be? That's a very difficult question, and I don't think any one person should be permitted to answer it alone, even if his life was personally affected by Spike's actions.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes -- dream, 08:58:09 02/28/03 Fri

I don't think we're supposed to get terribly emotionally involved in this relationship. I think it's there for a couple reasons:
1) To show Willow learning how to live without Tara
2) To make at least one of the Potentials stand out a bit
3) To give a little balance to BtVS all-angst-all-the-time relationship pattern. It's nice to see a couple who are pretty casual - liking each other, but not till-death-or-vamping-do-us-part love or I-can-barely-think-about-anything-else obsession. If Willow were a personal friend, and her lover had been killed just a year ago, I think this is the sort of relationship I would like to see her in - not too intense, with a person very unlike her old lover. They started out a little over the top, as one can with a new infatuation, GID gave them a cooling splash of reality. Now they are just enjoying things for now.
4) To let Kennedy act as a reflection of General Buffy. All our other characters are way too involved with her and complex in their own right to serve that function.
5) To lend a little reality to the situation. I mean, this is a terribly overcrowded house with piles of people (in their teens/twenties) facing what may be the end of the world. A little sex is to be expected.

I'm not expecting anything huge to come out of this relationship, but overall it's fine - though I will agree there was something a little weirdly forced about them this week.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes -- crgn, 10:47:37 02/28/03 Fri

I think a "Miss Right Now" for Willow is reasonable, but there still needs to be some 'Right Now' chemistry between the two characters to keep the viewer in the moment. What you see as forced about them this week I've seen throughout the season. The semi-playful flirting during their date at the Bronze a few eps back had the potential to really work, but it didn't. IOW, the writing was there, but the acting wasn't. I was too much aware of two actors trying to do a "play hard/hard to get" scene instead of carrying me into that part of the story.

[> [> [> Re: w/k -- Miss Edith, 12:39:14 02/27/03 Thu

I think Willow and Tara worked more because IMO Amber was more able to play a convincing lesbian, and thus helped Alyson's performance. Aly has never struck me as being particularly comfortable with kissing women on screen. JMHO.

[> [> [> [> Re: w/k -- crgn, 12:44:01 02/27/03 Thu

I haven't seen AH in any other performances, so can't comment on her comfort-level kissing other women on screen. Count me among those who have not seen any chemistry between Willow and Kennedy all season long.

[> [> [> [> [> Me neither. -- Rob, 12:58:27 02/27/03 Thu

And I think it all comes down to chemistry. With AB and AH, I truly felt the sparks between them. I completely bought 100% that they were in love. In fact, their chemistry was so strong that even in "Hush," before it was obvious that they would have a lesbian relationship, as an audience member, I felt an instant, unspoken (no pun intended) connection between the two of them.

Kennedy, besides being the Buffyverse equivalent of nails on a chalkboard for me, has a brash, loud quality that I really don't see the Willow I've known for 7 years falling for. In my eyes, Kennedy keeps seeming like a young tagalong whose objective since arriving there was to pester and make Will uncomfortable until she agreed to go out with her. I don't think that AH is an unconvincing lesbian, though. In KiM, in the scene at the Bronze, if you freeze frame all of Willow's shots, I think she looks genuinely interested in Kennedy. Unfortunately, when you freeze-frame Kennedy's shots, I don't see any sparks going the other way. It's funny, because while I don't see the character Willow falling for Kennedy, I do think AH is doing a very good job playing it. I think the fault lies with the actress who plays Kennedy, who IMO is completely flat. I'm not saying that every BtVS and AtS actor is of a Shakespearean level, but each, IMO, knows how to act. Kennedy, I'm sorry, I don't think has an ounce of talent. The actor is supposed to make the unbelievable (Willow would actually date one of the Potentials so soon after Tara's death, especially) seem believable. I do not believe for one second that Kennedy has any sexual attraction for Willow. I don't believe Willow has attraction to Kennedy, either, but, as I said, I think AH's acting her little heart out to trying to make it work. I think if a better actress were playing Kennedy, I might buy their relationship. But I don't. I understand why ME wanted to make sure everyone knows that Willow is still gay, so that it is clear that Tara was not killed off b/c she was a lesbian. But with this character, IMO, it just does not work. Anakin and Padme from Attack of the Clones had more chemistry.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Nails on a chalkboard -- s'kat, 16:35:26 02/27/03 Thu

Kennedy, besides being the Buffyverse equivalent of nails on a chalkboard for me

That's Andrew for me. The Buffyverse equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. Question - would you have liked StoryTeller
if it had been ALL ABOUT KENNEDY as opposed to Andrew?
Honestly - I feel the same way about Andrew that you feel about Kennedy. And I feel the same way about Kennedy normally that you feel about Andrew. Complete flip of the switch.

Not sure why it is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Now I understand what you're saying! -- Rob, 17:11:26 02/27/03 Thu

You're right. I would have hated an hour about Kennedy. In fact, I had to mentally delete her out of Killer in Me to enjoy the episode as much as I did! I get what you're saying now. It, of course, does come down to personal preference. I guess there's just something about Andrew that I love, since he's my favorite character at the moment. And that certain something happens to grate on your nerves like...well, like Kennedy does on mine.

Oh, btw, if you ever do hear of an upcoming Kennedy Hour O' Fun, please tell me so I can watch the hour with a paper bag over my head. ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Review of Alterna-BtVS 7.16: "The Next Slayer" (alterna-spoilers) -- cjl, 18:00:18 02/27/03 Thu

I was skeptical at first (a precious hour of the last season with a new character?), but in the end, I'm glad they spent the time with Kennedy, rather than go for a comedy episode with, say, Andrew.

I liked the additional details of Kennedy's background, her mysterious family, the hints that they might be tied in with the First Evil, and the reasons why Kennedy was attracted to Willow in the first place. I appreciated the fact that Kennedy's toughness ISN'T just an act, that she DOESN'T dissolve into a weepy little girl when the doors are closed and she's alone. I also appreciate how she's paid a price to hone that toughness. The parallels with Buffy were clearly drawn, and the similarities to Faith were even stronger, if not hammered home a little too hard. (Mucho foreshadowing there.) She's obviously emulating Field Marshall von Buffy, but not because of some misguided adulation for Buffy; it's just part of Kennedy's personality.

The exchanges with Xander about Willow's childhood were beautiful and funny, and so was her exasperation with Andrew (hmmm...maybe that solo Andrew episode wouldn't be so bad). Still dubious about the W/K "chemistry," but the two actresses had a bit more to work with in terms of character development, and their interaction was even better than "Killer In Me." (She'll never replace Tara, but there's nothing we can do about that, right?)

All in all, a quality episode, and a great jump off point for the big arc to come.


If Joss and ME wanted to, they could make it work.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beauty really does lie in the eye of the Beholder -- Doug, 18:32:17 02/27/03 Thu

If they'd done an entire episode of Kennedy I would be writing fiction involving characters of mine from the various White Wolf games killing her. I might even use Simon Strikes-like Lightning; the Shadowlord Ahroun who rid my mind of Sam Finn and Riley Finn.

The half-joking above paragraph aside (I only write those fics when I'm really steamed about the show, and I never post them online); you and Shadowkat have the right to your opinions and have nothing to apologize over. That being said, I am immensely grateful that it was Andrew and not Kennedy who was the focus of the episode.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nails on a chalkboard -- Shiraz, 08:26:12 02/28/03 Fri

"That's Andrew for me. The Buffyverse equivalent of nails on a chalkboard. Question - would you have liked StoryTeller
if it had been ALL ABOUT KENNEDY as opposed to Andrew?
Honestly - I feel the same way about Andrew that you feel about Kennedy. And I feel the same way about Kennedy normally that you feel about Andrew. Complete flip of the switch.

Not sure why it is."

My own personal lack of Kennedy love is a matter of record for this board (it actually coalessed from mere suspision to burning hatred in GiD). However, I'd have to say that yes, I would still have liked "Storyteller" PROVIDED Kennedy got the same reality check that Andrew got at the end of ep.

But you're definately right about Xander and Anya, there was just something not right about that scene. That and if the writers were'nt going to hook them up again, why wait until now to tell us? This needed to happen five episodes ago.


"It was always a considerable annoyance to any Disc citizen with pretensions to culture that they were ruled by gods whose idea of an uplifting artistic experience was a musical doorbell."

-Terry Pratchett "The Light Fantastic"

[> [> [> [> Agree about AB's performance. -- Masq, 12:46:06 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> Re: Supporting your right to not like this episode (Spoilers for 7.16) -- aliera, 12:39:12 02/27/03 Thu

I agree. I only wish you didn't feel that you needed to apologize for that. :-)

[> [> [> My apology, or s'kat's? -- Masq, 12:51:39 02/27/03 Thu

'cause I don't remember apologizing. ; )

[> [> [> [> Re: s'kat's, sorry guys. -- aliera, 14:22:28 02/27/03 Thu

Post in haste...regret at... no wait I don't get leisure! Just have to post less or correct more! :-)

[> [> [> Thank you -- s'kat, 14:44:50 02/27/03 Thu

One or two of the angry responses below will explain why I felt I did. A few people clearly didn't read that whole bit I painstakingly copied from Sophie's World or my lead up instead focusing on the criticism bit which I considered deleting - which annoys me to no end. Maybe I should have kept out the whole criticism part and did my original idea? Asked people point blank to defend why they hate an episode? sigh. And stayed ambiguous about the one I hated.

Oh well. Thanks for your support.


[> [> [> [> Re: -- aliera, 16:08:36 02/27/03 Thu

Discussion (and different POVs) is the fundemantal basis of the Board for me. It's how I try to learn and understand others. Which has importance for me. Otherwise, I'd just be in my own head. But I recognize that I have a weakness in this area (just like it can sometimes be a strength) in that I'm rarely able to argue a position in the wonderful way that you (and others here)can. I have difficulty with being limited in any way. Or making commitments. Or opposing opposites. So although I can admire that in others, I'm a little too willing to sometimes be convinced of the other ways of seeing. LOL. That being said, I like to see the opposing views on the board. I strongly believe in different ways of seeing not because one is more right than the other but because so many things are not. I'm droning on so I'll end it here; but, thanks again for the post.

[> [> [> [> [> PS...I need spellcheck for my browser! -- aliera, 16:10:23 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> Thanks Masq...nice to know I'm not alone ;-) -- s'kat, 14:22:03 02/27/03 Thu

But mostly, I thought it was Lame. Like the exploding guy. That was either really Lame or utterly tastesless, depending if you took it as a metaphorical joke or took it as a serious actual event.

Andrew just kind of annoys me as a character. I don't know why they keep him around, since there are so many other core characters that get very little screen time these days.

Willow and Kennedy. I like Kennedy, I think she's cute. I like Willow having a new girlfriend, despite how much I loved Tara. But these heterosexual actresses playing the roles are really not using "Method" acting, are they? It's like those porno flicks claiming to be "hot girl on girl lesbian action" but featuring straight actresses who look like they want to be anywhere but there. It's not exploitative or ratings-hyping to show a little passion, ladies!

Yes - I completely agree. All of these things bugged me too. I wonder if I'd have more tolerance for Andrew if I knew this wasn't the last season? I can't remember disliking the peripherial or recurring characters this much before? I loved Tara in Seasons 4-6. Joyce in 1-5, Jenny 1-2, Larry 1-3, Amy 1-7, Jonathan 1-7, even Percy, Harmony,
and Graham were fun. But Andrew - just grates on me.
I keep wanting to focus on the other characters.
I actually prefer Kennedy. Except the actress seems so uncomfortable playing a homosexual which makes it awkward at times. She was better I think in The Killer In Me.

Anyways thanks for your support. Was nervous about posting this - afraid people would leap down my throat. The friend who encouraged me to do it - said, come on! shake things up!
Be brave! I was like...uhm, me hate conflict. Don't want to be ostracized. But ...if people can say episodes like Bad Eggs (which I sort of liked) and Him (which I liked a lot) were bad...shouldn't I have the same right? Hmmm Go Fish is actually growing on me as well, I like it better each time I've seen it. So maybe in three years - when the Season 7 DVD comes out - I'll like Storyteller?

[> Oops Spoilers for Btvs 7.16 Storyteller -- s'kat, 11:55:56 02/27/03 Thu

[> Won't hurt you. ;o) -- Rob, 12:16:56 02/27/03 Thu

I completely disagree. In fact, I think I can say without a doubt that it has beat Selfless and CwDP and GiD as my favorite episode of the year. But it was interesting to see your perspective on it. I don't completely see how someone could possibly see this episode as bad, but I guess that was sort of your point wasn't it? ;o)


[> Actually, I'm with you on most of this -- dream, 12:22:48 02/27/03 Thu

The only big difference is that I thought the Xander/Anya thing was well done. They finished off their relationship with sex cause, well, that's always how they related to each other best. The basement thing didn't bother me - not much privacy around the house these days. I thought their mutual acceptance that things were really over was touching and sad. Anniversaries can bring these things to the surface, so I thought the timing worked.

And Andrew's reality moment I saw as just that - not full-on remorse, just a step on the way to it, an understanding that life is real, what he did was real, he didn't really believe the First was Warren, and hey! some empathy for Jonathon (more than Willow has expressed for Warren, though of course there is a reason for that.) It was a moment of fear above all else - but it was real, and that was the point, and I think it was offensive. (Did this make anyone else think of Willow torturing Warren, by the way? What has always struck me in that scene is her desperate need to break through to him, to get him to express some sense of what he and done. He couldn't.)

But, as for everything else - I agree. I found the gimmick too distracting, found it removed me from the characters just as I was starting to feel for them again after the string of blah that was Showtime and all the other war-prep episodes. I hated the Harlequin stuff, too. Embarrassing is the right word. Buffy was pretty annoying - I thought this episode would show a change in her behavior as a result of the end of Get It Done - but no. Kennedy was boring. The school stuff was not built up properly - it seemed to come out of nowhere. The whole episode felt jerky and off - again, the result of the gimmick, I think. Every time we had to watch Andrew's revised histories, I lost interest and the whole thing ground to a halt.

Oh, and I HATED HATED HATED the student exploding. What the hell? It was cheap gross-out humor over the death of an innocent student. Buffy isn't supposed to take the death of an innocent person so lightly. And Andrew can read this ancient demon language? Ok, fine - he probably knows Klingon, too, so that's okay. But he didn't notice the words on the knife? Couldn't Willow have just looked it up so that I didn't have to have one of those "wha?" moments?

I don't mind Principal Wood's creepiness, as I think he's supposed to be a little creepy. And I don't assume most high school principals would speak like Giles - I've met people who go into secondary school education and they generally aren't tweedy intellectuals.

I also liked the things you liked.

I didn't hate the episode, but I thought it was one of the most uneven episodes they've ever done - some brilliant moments, some stuff that was just terrible.

Then again, I thought Tabula Rasa was trite and tedious, but thought the Dawn-centered GetOutGetOUTGETOUT episode (what the heck was that called?) was an entertaining piece of classic horror. So I don't worry too much about disagreement with the majority view. I think actually people are much less likely to post if an episode isn't very good - what do you say? I've noticed this episode has not created many lengthy threads, and I think that's why. Don't worry about it.

[> [> Agree with you on one thing -- Scroll, 13:38:37 02/27/03 Thu

Oh, and I HATED HATED HATED the student exploding.

I too hated this part because, as hardened and desensitised as Buffy's become after 8 years of slaying, I don't think she'd ever take a kid exploding that casually. Also, it was gross and unncessary.

But I still loved this ep! Though I do accept that others may not have...

[> [> [> I know I'm going to come off as "have-to-defend-everything" guy again, but... -- Rob, 13:47:47 02/27/03 Thu

...I actually liked the student exploding, because this ep, had a mostly light comic touch for most of it that could have taken away from the gravity of the Seal of Danthazar sitch. I think the grossness of the head exploding brought us back to the seriousness of the situation, while in classic Buffy style, wrapping that in a laugh. While it was played as a joke, the fact that true harm was happening, besides the girl almost becoming invisible and the guys being angry at each other. was underlined here. The head exploding, IMO, made (paradoxically) the situation seem more real and threatening. I didn't see the humor as coming so much as from a mean-spirited angle (laughing that a kid died) so much as Buffy's "I told you so"/fearful/"Uh-oh!" expression to Wood. This was one of the first moments that foreshadowed the darkness that would take center stage in the final act.


[> [> [> [> Hey Rob... -- Tchaikovsky, 14:08:31 02/27/03 Thu

You just compared Willow and Kennedy's chemistry to that of the god-awful wooden Star Wars, and said that you thought the Star Wars chemistry was better. That's a hefty enough criticism for one week...;-)


[> [> [> [> [> Heh heh. -- Rob, 17:22:40 02/27/03 Thu

I guess I did! And I stand by my statement 100% (and that's not to say that I didn't think Padme and Anakin were so wooden that might as well have been made out of, well...wood!)!


[> [> [> [> I think I could've stomached it better... -- Scroll, 14:13:10 02/27/03 Thu

I think I could've stomached the kid's head exploding better if Buffy's reaction had been different. Yes, the brain splatter was disgusting and gross but if I had seen maybe a look of horror in Buffy's eyes instead of "I told you so", I would've been more accepting of it. A look of horror would have brought the seriousness back. Buffy's "foot rub" quip just seemed too... quippy.

But still loved this ep. Don't worry, I've got the pom-poms!

[> [> [> [> I agree, Rob. It seemed to me like "gallows humor",... -- Ixchel, 16:40:29 02/27/03 Thu

An element of many BtVS episodes (for some reason TPS comes to mind as an example). One of my favorite aspects of the show really.


[> [> [> [> [> Exactly! -- Rob, 17:13:16 02/27/03 Thu

[> Re: Why I hated Storyteller : a bit of a ramble on why we like or dislike things -- Arethusa, 12:38:48 02/27/03 Thu

I enjoyed the episode, but it had a couple of problems that have been bugging me all year. I don't know if it's laziness or trying to cram everything in the last year, but there have been too many loose threads, bits of illogic, and too-quick resolutions, something I though I wouldn't see on BtVS. Yes, Andrew changed much too quickly. The school imploded in one day. Last year the metapaphors were stripped away, and this year there's nothing to replace them except references to earlier, funnier metaphors. The second problem-I agree re. the metananarration, which used to be subtle. Now we're whacked over the head with it, and there's much too much of it. It feels self-indulgent and self-congradulatory. The writers' attitudes towards the fans, reflected in the dialogue and especially in Andrew, seems scornful and derrogatory. So some of what's been bothering you has been bothering me too.

It's been great, but I'm not terribly sad that the show is ending. I think it's time. I'm not claiming they've jumped the shark-I still think it's good. But the Scoobies are adults now and their story has been told. It would be nice if Whedon could concentrate on Angel for a while.

[> The lukewarmth of my feelings -- Gyrus, 12:39:56 02/27/03 Thu

I didn't like or hate this ep. What was interesting, however, was that most of the things I liked about it were the same things that I didn't like. For example:

The Andrew-as-Alastair-Cooke thing. Really funny in the teaser, beaten to death thereafter.

Wood trying to kill Spike. On the one hand, it was an exciting moment. On the other hand, since we don't know if he did it of his own free will or while under the First's influence (even if it was just general rage like the students were feeling), it meant nothing.

Andrew's narration of Buffy's final fight. Andrew had a moment of insight there, in that he could see Buffy's I-know-I'm-going-to-win attitude (established in CwDP). But that insight spoiled the drama of Buffy's "get real" speech to him afterwards -- she's telling him to stop living in a fantasy, even though we've just seen him perceive something real that others might not have noticed.

The whole Xander/Anya thing. I was glad they finally started dealing with it in some depth, but the end result was that we know nothing more about their relationship now than we did at the start of the ep. (And neither do they, from the looks of it.)

[> [> Re: The lukewarmth of my feelings -- maddog, 15:06:39 03/01/03 Sat

How would "The First" have taken over Wood at that moment? I thought it was pretty clear he'd gone after Spike on his own but was just tackled before he could do the job.

[> I thought you'd been kind of quiet lately! -- ponygirl, 12:43:06 02/27/03 Thu

The great thing about you shadowkat is that you can turn your dislike of an episode into a philosophical discussion on the nature of taste! Never change.

I really liked Storyteller but I won't lie and say that I didn't have more than a few moments where I expected it to go off the rails -- the opening, the Invisible Girl ref -- and a couple moments where I think it did -- the "we are as gods" scene I could have lived without seeing, and the DarkWillow bit felt like the ME version of a clips show. And yes, I find Wood creepy. I haven't trusted that guy from the beginning, and now I'm starting to hope he goes completely evil so he can be killed off. But I really felt that the ending of Storyteller pulled it all together and gave weight to the entire episode. That's just me though, and as you point out, this season it's all about different points of view.

[> Ten reasons why "Storyteller" worked (for me) -- cjl, 12:51:53 02/27/03 Thu

It IS a matter of taste, 'kat. Always has been. I've always loved "Go Fish," no matter how many people flush it down the loo as one the Worst Ever. And I will never like "Waiting in the Wings," no matter how many people extol it as Another Joss Classic. In the former, it's my response to Xander and the sheer, exhilirating cheesiness of the premise. In the latter, it's the total non-chemistry between David Boreanaz and Charisma Carpenter and the sleep-inducing premise. These opinions are definitely in the minority. This is why the phrase "JMHO" is so popular on these boards. (Or should be.)

Why does "Storyteller" work for me?

1. I could sympathize with Andrew. If the Troika were Joss, Fury and Petrie let loose in the Buffyverse in S6, Andrew has now broken loose from that direct parallel and branched out on his own. For most of S6 and S7, he was the most delusional aspects of every fanboy who dreamed of transporting himself into his favorite fictional world. But fanboys usually have to grow up and face the real world. (I know I did.) "Storyteller" was Andrew's turn to make that painful transition. (Jane E. hit every note perfectly. Is it the same for fangirls?) Tom Lenk is definitely an acquired taste, but I've acquired it.

2. Wood and Spike. (Thrilling battle scenes, bristling with tension. I liked the fact that Spike was saved from a staking by sheer luck.) Wood is our big disagreement. He does strike me as a fashion plate with a Hellmouth-sized chip on his shoulder, but I don't see him as "creepy." (Cruising for a bruising, maybe.) I don't take his employer-employee relationship with Buffy that seriously, since it has been generally acknowledged that she was brought in to be the Slayer, not a counselor. Yes, he's been less than honest with her and the gang, but...OK, I was about to let loose some spoilers. Almost got me there. Next point....

3. Xander and Anya. As many people noted, it was a flashback to "Harsh Light of Day" when Anya first seduced Xander. There's so much more water under the bridge, so much pain, and yet, the initial attraction and the mutual admiration that developed is still there. So why aren't they together? I'm not sure exactly, but consider this question: Anya and Xander may love each other, but do they like themselves?

4. Jonathan. Danny Strong was my favorite supporting player in the Buffyverse, next to Kristine Sutherland and Stephanie Romanov. He should have been the fifth Beatle, or the eighth Scooby--whatever. Jonathan's nervous bladder, the mutual affection between Jonathan and Andrew, despite their horrible circumstances in Mexico...I miss the guy. (Jane E. loves Jonathan so much, she can't let him rest in his grave.)

5. Spike acting as "Big Bad" for the camera. Does even HE know anymore where the role ends and the "real" man begins?

6. The Seal of Danzalthar. I like how it works. But I've blathered about the mechanics too much already in other posts. And speaking of the Seal...

7. Buffy. Buffy was the same Buffy we've always known: she doesn't follow the script. It's been that way from the beginning. If Andrew hadn't shed his tears, would Buffy have killed him? We didn't have to find out this week, but whether Buffy would be willing to sacrifice a member of her team to save the world is an open question after this episode.

8. Yes, the pig was funny.

9. The Masterpiece Theater opening and Anya's interruption. Classic.

10. Dawn. She's just so damn cute. (Cries of "perv" will not sway me, folks.)

What didn't I like?

The "we are Gods" musical fantasia didn't work as well as Jane probably thought it would, and yes, the situation at the school was handled sloppily. (There were logical lapses in "First Date," too, but they didn't ruin the episode for me, either.) Would it kill me if Kennedy disappeared into the Hellmouth, never to be seen again? No. But I'm willing to go along with her for now.

Don't worry about not liking the episode. We still love and respect you.

[> [> Wood and Andrew...trying to explain why I have problems (spoilers to Storyteller) -- s'kat, 19:25:14 02/27/03 Thu

I'm not sure if this is a gender thing or not, since the posters who seem to see the creepiness in Wood, I know from their other posts are women and the posters who don't appear to be men. This seems to be less true about Andrew, I've seen both genders reacte similarily.

Okay I'm going to try to explain my take on Wood b/c it is very very important that people see this, it affects me on a personal level - to a degree that if Buffy and Wood got together romantically? I would stop watching Btvs and ask my web site designer to dismantle my site. Sounds extreem doesn't it?

In Lessons - Wood flirts with Buffy then decides to hire her as counselor. She believes it's because he sees her counseling abilities. She buys his line. The poor girl has struggled in and out of horrible menial labor jobs for a year now. She has her whole life wanted to be seen as having other talents outside being just a slayer or a girl.
Wood tells her she would be great with the students.

In Beneath You - she asks him why he hired her. He tells her
that she would be a good counselor. Once again sort of comes on to her. She ignores it. Waves it off. (Now guys this happens to us women every day. Until I watched it on Btvs - I didn't realize the extent that my ex-boss did it to me...I ignored it. You have to. You pretend you don't hear these comments.)

In Help - again, she attempts to do a good job. She goes to him with a problem. Fear of a student in danger. He sluffs it off, but does sort of help. (This is the guy who knew she was a slayer the whole time??)

Later we have BoTN - where she finds him in the basement with a shovel. She had been sick. He demands she come back to the school. Uhm - he knows she's the slayer right? Couldn't he have come clean then? Or at least given her another day or so off after seeing what's in the basement?

Okay I was thinking he's okay at this point - but then he does the whole lurking bit around her cubicle and questions her about evil - all the while knowing what she is.

Then we have First Date - where Wood not only blatantly comes on to her - he takes her to a secluded place and sets her up. It was a set up. Not to get her killed. To show she's the slayer. To show off his fighting skills. And to do it together. I've been there. Being set up is not fun.
Then they enter the restaurant - romantic, secluded, and he tells her not only does he know who she is but that his mother was a slayer and whoa - biggie here, I hired you because you were a slayer, no I'm not promoting you. And when she says she thought it was her keen counseling skills - he responds with laughter. My god. I cringed.
Then he starts really coming on to her. Giving her pieces of pear, etc.

In Get it Done - he gives her his mother's kit. The kit he had since Lessons. He's been waiting. And he uses it to get into her house - to see where she does her other work.
And he wants to go there so he can see the vampire that she works with. Still boss, guys. Still the man in control of her money source - or did you forget why Buffy worked at DMP?? When they need to get the demon to get Buffy back - does Wood offer to help Spike? No.

In Storyteller - comes on to her again. Blatantly flirts.
And when he's possessed - he calls her a whore. And says evil is as evil does - wait I think that was before he was possessed.

For a show about female empowerment - I find the Prinicipal Wood situation incredibly offensive. I pray that they stop the flirtation scenes or just have her leave her job there soon. It's sexual harrassment and it happens every day.

This creeps me out for reasons I can barely mention. I worked for a guy like this for two years, all charm, nice suits, but every once and a while he'd do what wood does say something creepy which I ignored until it came and literally hit me in the face. Granted he didn't come on to me in any obvious way - thank god. But he did some of the same flirty/harrassing things Wood does with Buffy. I can't watch a romantic relationship develop between them. I just can't. So if anyone is spoiled to B/W action, such as kissing or making out or sex? Please email me and tell me ahead of time, so I can tape the episode and fast-forward?
In return I promise to warn Rob about an All About Kennedy episode, if I hear of one.

Andrew: I guess you had to be a fanboy. I never was a fangirl or a groupie. Oh I was a geek, but not quite the same thing. So I don't get Andrew. To me - the actor and the delivery is like nails on chalkboard. Just as Kennedy is to some posters. It really is the orange is sour or sweet argument. But I can sort of appreciate why others identify with them.

Hope the stuff above made some sense.


[> [> [> Re: Wood and Andrew...trying to explain why I have problems (spoilers to Storyteller) -- Rook, 03:54:30 02/28/03 Fri

A boss flirting with an employee is not sexual harrasment. I don't see where Wood has threatened Buffy's job or in any way made her work situation hostile due to his attraction to her.

Look at the scenes where Buffy is getting ready for the "date". She's interested. She very specifically says she's attracted to him:

BUFFY: I don't know. He's good-looking, and he's-he's solid, he's smart, he's normal. So, not the wicked energy, which is nice 'cause I don't want to only be attracted to wicked energy. Or what if he is wicked, in which case, is that why I'm attracted to him?

The simple existence of a boss-employee relationship does not automatically equate to sexual harrasment. Buffy doesn't feel threatened. She doesn't feel pressured. She feels attracted.

This isn't a case of a male boss flirting with an unwilling female employee, using the threat of being fired for sexual favors. It isn't even the case (just as common in the real world) of a female employee flirting with a male boss, in the hopes of trading sexual favors for preferrential treatment. It's a case of two people with a mutual attraction flirting with each other. It's common in the real world for this to work out too...I personally know two married couples that started out in a boss-employee relationship.

I'm sorry you had a bad experience, but I think it's making you see boogeymen where there aren't any.

[> [> [> [> Actually I put it wrong, trying again - Manipulation -- s'kat, 06:36:00 02/28/03 Fri

You're right employee/boss marriages do work but they aren't based on lies and manipulation.

I'd agree with what you said except for the following points that you are overlooking which will probably come up again in the next episode:

Wood from the get-go went after Buffy b/c she was the slayer. He hired her under false pretenses. Lied to her from the very beginning. (Which he finally admits in First Date while they are in a romantic restaurant.) This is different than a relationship naturally arising out of an employment situation. So if Wood just asked her out on a date and didn't reveal that he'd known she was the slayer from the get-go. Didn't take her to an alley where he knew there'd be vampires and knew he could show off and force her to reveal her prowess. Then it would not have bothered me. This is a case of man lying to someone, using charm to manipulate her into getting him closer to what he wants as opposed to being up front about it. That creeps me out.
It is VERY different than entering into an honest up-front relationship with your boss. The difference between say:
Angel and Cordelia's relationship and Buffy and Wood's.
Wood knew more about Buffy than she did about him and he has consistently used the information to manipulate.

I'm sorry I should have made this clearer - it's not the sexual comments I objected to - that wasn't my experience in my own life either - it was the manipulation.

Look back at that dialogue you quoted in First Date - when she's going to the Date, she's supicious of him, but she thinks he's interested in her as a)woman and b) counselor - an exceptionally good employee. She even mentions the possibility of a promotion. What she discovers is he asked her out because she's the slayer and he wants a piece of the action. That had to hurt. He is still manipulating her.
When she discovers the extent of his manipulation and what his goal is? Don't expect Wood to be welcomed into her heart. It's his continued manipulation that creeps me out.

[> [> [> [> [> I'm with you on the Wood question -- Dariel, 07:30:49 02/28/03 Fri

I agree that his behavior has been very manipulative, for many of the reasons you outline. (Although I don't really see it as sexual harassment.) And deceitful. Does he tell Buffy his feelings/intentions towards Spike? No. Does he tell her that he's been visited by the First? No. Meanwhile, Buffy's been very open to him.

Someone below brought up the idea that Wood may feel Buffy's judgement is off in regards to Spike. I think he does, conveniently, feel this way. What it amounts to is that his wishes regarding Spike are more important than hers. More important even than the battle with the First.

Like you, Wood really pushes my buttons. And to put it in a RL context, I dated men like this when I was younger and had little sense of self. Charming, attractive, smooth. Who could never quite respect my opinions, beliefs, needs. And always trying to run my life, in a way that just happened to benefit them. Uggh!

Like you, if there's a B/W relationship, I'm through with ME. I hope they realize what they are presenting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with you on the Wood question -- maddog, 16:37:20 03/01/03 Sat

I'm not so sure he doesn't respect her opinion on Spike as much as he thinks she can't sympathize. I mean, are we forgetting that Spike...yes, the same pussycat we see now, killed his mother! I think at least in this case we need to cut the man some slack. I mean, put yourself in his position.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm with you on the Wood question -- Dariel, 23:37:45 03/01/03 Sat

What you seem to be saying here is very interesting. Namely, that since Wood doesn't think Buffy will see things his way, he therefore has some kind of right to deceive her. I believe that this is exactly how Wood thinks. That it's okay to flirt with her, to enjoy her company, and to appear to care about her feelings, when he's really got a whole other agenda. Such as killing her friend and right hand behind her back.

I do sympathize with Wood's feelings about losing his mother. And I understand the desire for vengeance. Pretty natural reaction. Initially. Especially when you are 4 years old and an orphan. What I don't sympathize with is his single-minded pursuit of vengeance when an evil like the First is afoot. And his manipulation of Buffy. Wood is now a 30 year-old man, but he's still nurturing the pain of losing his mother like it was yesterday. And behaving as if nothing else matters.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not what I meant at all -- maddog, 08:05:40 03/02/03 Sun

I'm not saying he's right at all...I wouldn't defend deceit like that. What I'm saying is you have to see both sides. YOu have to think what revenge might do to someone's mental stability. He's not thinking clearly...that's all I'm trying to point out. Remember now, his whole motivation for going after Spike is because the First told him so. And people in real life do harbor pain that long...they hold on to grudges for years. And when your whole life is about vengance...well I can't imagine...but I can speculate that it would take quite a bit to deter me from my goal.

And As for the flirting, I really do think he likes Buffy. I think he finds that more of a bonus than the means to an end.

[> [> [> [> [> How is it different from... -- Rook, 09:17:17 02/28/03 Fri

Buffy's actions? She also bears her share of the blame. She's been creeping around the school and using her position to fight her war, just as Wood is using his position to manipulate her into fighting his (and I feel that this is his objective, and even the flirtation is just a matter of getting closer to Buffy to execute his real agenda, avenging his mother's death, even if he genuinely finds her attractive).

Buffy lied to him, or concealed the truth at any rate, regarding the school, her powers, etc. She didn't come clean until the restaraunt scene either. And although he has the power in the employee-employer relationship, when it comes to the war against the demons, their positions are reversed; she's the general, and he's the footsoldier.

I agree about the manipulation...his disregard for her as a person in pursuit of his goals, and I think it's there deliberately to draw parallels between those actions and Buffy's behavior in general, and specifically the way that she's been dealing with the rest of the Scoobs this season.

Both chataracters have their own personal agendas, which are the same in some respects and wildly contrasting in others...That's what, IMO, makes their relationship the most interesting one this season. I know I'm much more interested to see how that plays out than even some of the longer-running relationships on the series.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How is it different from... -- s'kat, 10:03:35 02/28/03 Fri

I guess the difference between us is I have personal issues here, having just known someone like Wood in my life and wishing...well we won't go there.

Okay putting on objective hat here...

How is it different?

Buffy did not have to tell him about being a slayer. Any more than you should have to tell your day-job boss about another job or that you go to school at nights, that's personal and unrelated to work. Her job at the school was unrelated to her slayer duties. Also she can't reveal her secret identity it gets her in trouble every time.

She did tell him about her background at the Double Meat Palace. He didn't care. It also wasn't relevant to her being hired at the school.

He had no business hiring an untrained counselor but then I think he lied to become a Principal. The more I find out about this guy the less I like him. Willow's discovery that there is 0 background on him, no past schools, no degrees, was creepy.

When he confronted Buffy - she let him know everything. She even let him see her headquarters and the girls she is training and protecting.

How has she lied to him? How has she been deceptive?
Her relationship with Spike is NONE of his business.
I'm sorry, employers do not have the right to know what you do in your time away from work. And the thing of it is, he did know. He knew who she was and what she did, in fact had a huge file on her before he met her. She knows zip about him.

Creepy. At least Angel knew Holtz.

If you don't see it, you don't see it. So maybe we should just agree to disagree.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Actually I think we agree. but... -- Rook, 13:13:49 02/28/03 Fri

...I think it adds a depth to the character, and is interesting, and makes their something that's fun to watch. I see B/W as a lot like B/S...two people that are headed for conflict at the same time they're attracted to each other. I'm enjoying it as one of the elements of this season...whereas you seem, and correct me if I'm wrong, to think that it's detracting from the quality of the episodes/season as a whole.

I disagree about terming it "sexual harrasment", but I'm not of the mind that Wood's a stand-up guy who's doing everything by the book, either.

[> [> [> [> [> I hope Wood gets eaten, it's tradition! And speaking of, why no Buffy B-day? -- Ixchel (attempting levity/pouting at lack of B-day episode), 16:34:00 02/28/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> Hee. True irony: -- Arethusa, 16:51:28 02/28/03 Fri

Scene: The open Hellmouth, post-apocalypse. All Turok-Han have been defeated.

Wood: "Spike, my name is Robin Wood and you killed my mother. Be prepared to die!"

The Hellmouth beast, which has been kept back by the ubervamps, rises out of the seal, eats his head, then is dispatched by Buffy. Thus all debates on vengance are ended, and the fine tradition of consumable principals is upheld.

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Me too! Glad to see not the only one. ;-) -- sk, 17:13:01 02/28/03 Fri

Yes - it is tradition isn't it.

Snyder = snake

Flutie = the hyenas (now why couldn't they have had hyena people in that episode? No, they already metanarrated on that in Lessons. sigh.)

Wood...the hellmouth bidet gobbles him up??

[> [> [> [> [> [> "Consumable principals" and hungry bidets! -- Ixchel (putting on an unseemly display of snort-laughing), 18:50:44 02/28/03 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL. There's always a risk when your principles are a movable feast. -- Celebaelin, 15:53:36 03/01/03 Sat

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually I put it wrong, trying again - Manipulation(spoiler for the next new episode) -- maddog, 15:50:02 03/01/03 Sat

I knew it would take me reading just about everything to understand your points of view. :) ok, at least I get the dislike of Wood. And while I can understand that part I'm wondering why that makes his part in the show bad. He's creepy...I'm with ya...but isn't that just a lead into the next new episode and how he and Giles manipulate Buffy and SPike as to give Wood the opportunity to dust him? and if that's the case then should you be complaining about Giles stooping to Wood's level? I'm just saying maybe you've been right all along and that his creepiness is part of the overall plan. Would that change your mind about his part in making the episode poor?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Arghh--seems to be a future spoiler in above post. Bad dog! -- Dariel, 10:40:56 03/02/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry--you did put it in your subject line. -- Dariel, 10:43:28 03/02/03 Sun

[> [> [> Re: Wood and Andrew...trying to explain why I have problems (spoilers to Storyteller) -- maddog, 15:37:02 03/01/03 Sat

ok, this is where I get confused...he's creepy, I get your reasoning for that. But how can you be 100% positive that he set her up in that alley? While it does look suspicious what happened to the innocent until proven guilty concept?

As for Get it Done...his entering the house...homebase, if you will...to me seemed like a natural progression. He is slowly becoming part of the Scoobies. Whether he can keep off Spike long enough to stay one is another question, but I never saw him as using the bag as his way in. And his not helping Spike with the demon seems kinda self explanitory...he doesn't like Spike...can't say I'm surprised. Whether Spike's a good guy or not he did kill Wood's mother. It's not all that easy to forgive something like that(not that I have experience there, but I can imagine it's hard).

Am I to assume that because he lied to her on the reason for hiring her that you won't give him the benefit of the doubt in any case? I can't defend the flirting except..well, he's human and he's a guy. Buffy's not exactly ugly. It's part of our DNA. Should he be holding back? Of course, he's her boss. But people are human, they make mistakes. So I guess his faults are enough for you to dislike him. Fair enough. I try not to pass judgement as I know I'm not perfect by any means. But to each their own. I can see where you say it may be a gender thing. Maybe males won't jump on the sexual harrassment comments as fast...we don't see it as much.

[> [> Agreement with CJL, and also, I love Jane E. -- Rochefort, 21:43:14 02/27/03 Thu

[> That isn't why, that was what -- lunasea, 12:55:22 02/27/03 Thu

The point about judgement is very good, but in listing WHAT you disliked, you really didn't go into WHY at all. When we have a strong reaction to anything, whether that is positive or negative, that says something about US.

I can say that I love Angel because he reminds me of myself. Even seeing Angelus locked in a cage got very personal for me. I can also strongly identify with Buffy, which is why after S6 I hated Spike. He hurt her and I remember being hurt like that. He is also symbolic of pretty much what I find to be wrong in the world. That is WHY I love/hate certain characters.

Same thing with episodes. Season 6 is still hard to watch for me. My own dark night wasn't that long ago. I thought watching Angelus was going to be more difficult than it has been, but that was a decade ago and I have come a long way. It has actually been good for me to see this. I am loving every minute of AtS this season. In a few years, I am sure I will be more comfortable with Season 6.

We can intellectualize our likes and dislikes, but that will do little for our own growth. I actually learn a lot about myself when I catch myself having a strong dislike of something. Certain bands, songs, TV shows, paintings, anything that speaks in the language of the unconscious, all teach us something. Whether we listen to it is up to us.

[> [> Very perceptive. -- Solitude1056, 13:22:27 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> There was a very good reason not to go there -- s'kat, 13:56:47 02/27/03 Thu

Actually I've told people why I can't stand Principal Wood - it has to do with my work experience last year. I didn't see a need for hammering them over the head with it again and again and again. But okay since you asked.

Wood reminds me of my ex boss. The words he uses, his mannerisms, the false charm is exactly like the man who made my life a living hell last year. I identify with Buffy in this situation and hate him.

Spike - I identify strongly with Spike. I know what it is like to have someone use you and put all their pain on you and treat you like scum until you want to hit them. Last year I channeled Spike and felt very strongly for him.

Buffy - I identify with as well - I felt her pain of depression and how hard it is to get a job and make things work and when you finally get a cool job, the person you respected turns out to have ulterior motives, and wanted you for the talents that you've been fighting your whole life to be more than. No matter what you do - that's it, I'm just the slayer. I understood that. I've been there.
Also why I can't stand Wood.

Angel - I have the same problems with this character oddly enough that you do with Spike. In my humble opinion he hurt Buffy worse than anyone. He is the spoiled frat boy I knew as a kid. He wants to be champion. He can't handle the girl being stronger than him. And when he finally gets what he wants - he hurts her in the worst way possible. I've worked past these feelings. And it helps they broke them up. But it's a character that will often push my personal emotional buttons.

Andrew? Really can't tell you. When I figure it out I'll let you know.

Now did that really enlighten anyone?
Personally - it's hard to explain emotional reactions to characters without falling into bashing, I was attempting to avoid that.


[> [> [> I thought you were eloquent and even-handed as ever -- Tchaikovsky, 14:11:03 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> Re: There was a very good reason not to go there -- maddog, 18:10:07 03/01/03 Sat

Maybe I'm missing something but where do you get all these impressions of Angel? I've got a specific defense for some of his actions but I may be defending the wrong actions so ill just wait on you for that. Maybe I've just forgotten the storyline that you're pulling your opinion from.

[> Defending to the death your right to say it. -- Sophist, 12:58:14 02/27/03 Thu

I'm certainly not going to question your right to dislike an episode. I dislike lots of 'em (I probably should name them again -- and add in the particular scenes I hate -- just to push everyone's buttons).

I generally agree with your overall views of episodes. Here, I couldn't disagree more. I LOVED this episode. I thought it was one of the 3 best this season, along with CwDP and Selfless. I also found myself disagreeing with every single reason you gave. C'est la vie, as Voltaire might have said.

Rob, can you hand me a pom-pom?

[> [> There ya go, Sophist! -- Rob, Official Licensed Buffyverse Pom-Pom Dispenser (TM), 13:03:34 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> *Swooooooosh* -- Sophomorica, chewing on a pom-pom, 13:33:05 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> I'm generally too existential for pom-poms, but Rob... GIMME! -- Rochefort, 21:45:05 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> And here's one for you! ;o) -- Rob, 22:02:37 02/27/03 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> Does a Queen C cheer for Jane E. -- Rochefort, 23:43:01 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> What Sophist said (except delete the pom-poms) -- Caroline, 13:54:42 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> What't the problem with pom poms? Can I be top of the pyramid? Its a family party trick! -- Helen (and I haven't even seen it), 05:52:36 02/28/03 Fri

[> [> The funny thing is... -- Sara, taking s'kats ramble and raising her a prattle, 15:52:44 02/28/03 Fri

I loved the episode, and agree with Sophist that it's one of the best three, along with CWDP and Selfless, and yet I actually agree with most of your points, but still loving, hmmmm....

I love your question about likes and dislikes - it seems like some stuff you know has quality even if you don't personally like it - I'm that way with Shakespeare, and I expect all those poor misguided folk who have indicated a lack of love for Russian novels would not consign them to the garbage heap, but instead say "not for me, that Tolstoy." (it hurts my fingers just typing that last sentence, but I know there are many out there who rightly feel I don't give old Will a fair shake, ah, but I digress...) Anyway, it's different from stuff you don't like that you're sure is bad, which is a whole other kettle of fish. I have felt that way about a number of the episodes in this season and season 6 and yet other people love them the way I love this episode. I keep wondering, in addition to what makes us like or dislike something personally, is what makes us judge something as having quality or not having quality?

- Sara, wondering if my prattle has actually risen to a blather?

[> [> [> Interesting question: like vs. dislike, quality vs. no quality? -- s'kat, 17:43:11 02/28/03 Fri

Yes - Sara, kudos - you are amongst the first posters to get to the root of my ramble.

Of course I screwed up by stating worst buffy ep. ever, which is hardly true quality wise. I'm not sure I can judge that. And certainly not in the heat of the moment.
What I should have stated is I disliked this one the most at this moment in time. Clarity? When I'm emotional?
Nope. Very weird. You know I've sworn on numerous occassions not to do another emotional post, not to get personal, not to do this...and every other month I break my own vow. It's incredibly embarrassing. Yet there are people out there who prefer my emotional ramblings to my more formal essays, so go figure.

At any rate back to the point.

I concede based on the number of excellent essays and positive posts that the episode had merit. It did from a purely objective sense. The story held more or less together. It stayed mostly in one central pov. It furthered the storylines of all the principal players. It furthered the plot. And it could stand more or less by itself.
Also it was fairly well edited and shot. It certainly did not have the production errors that plagued StSP, OAFA,
AYW. Nor the leaps in logic that plagued BoTN, Showtime and Potential to some degree.

OTOH...I just didn't like it. I hated it. It pushed every button on my body. Sigh. What is it about art that does that? And maybe the fact I hated it - makes it a quality piece in of itself? If a piece of work can elicit from us intense emotions such as "hate" or "love" than that piece of work is clearly worth recognizing in some way. If it on the other hand just elicits feelings of well ennui, boredom, or forgetfulness...then it may simply be mediocre or bad, unless of course there is another reason for the forgetfulness completely unrelated to the work.

As much as I may have hated Storyteller...I have to admit I still remember it, which is more than I can say for some of the other shows I've seen this week. Oh I enjoyed DareDevil, the movie on Wed...but as time passes I forget more and more of it. Usually I base my view on whether a work of art, be it a book, a play, a movie or a tv show - is any good - on well if I can remember it and it stays with me.

There are books that I can honestly say I did not enjoy while reading them. For Instance - American Gods, not a favorite, but for the life of me? I can't forget it. It stays with me. It haunts me. So that makes it a good book IMHO. Even if it wasn't necessarily an enjoyable one.

I won't be able to truly rate Storyteller until several months down the road. I'm not sure any of us can. Because as I think TCH once mentioned - it's better if the work is viewed as a whole, before you rate it individually. I know I appreciate HIM even more now than I did when I first saw it. Help...nope sorry, still forgettable. Although I liked it better than StoryTeller.

Yes, perhaps distinquishing between personal taste or what triggers our emotions and quality is what we should do here.

I sort of already came up with the whole personal taste view. So what is quality, how can we judge it?

For me, quality is determined by the following factors:

1. Did the work resonate emotionally in some way? Or was it forgettable?
2. Did it fulfill it's purpose - whatever that was, to entertain, to inform, to educate, to arose...?
3. Did it further whatever message the artist wished to convey?
4. Did it add another pov to the cultural medium? Or just add more junk to the garbag heap we often call pop culture?
(oops maybe should delete that. ;-) )
5. Did it advance us culturally? Is it lasting? Will we remember it in six months? A year? Is it something that others from diverse backgrounds and cultures can relate to, and will it work ten years from now? If not, will it at least serve to educate in some form ten years from now?

Personally? I think every single Btvs episode that has aired to date fits most of those points. But I'm hardly impartial.
I'm an obsessed fan. Talk to me in ten years and see if I've changed my mind. ;-)

Thanks sara...agree with your points. SK

[> [> [> [> like vs. dislike, quality vs. no quality-rather rambling -- Arethusa, 19:09:51 02/28/03 Fri

Regarding likes and dislikes-I think Wes' arc is a good example of what can polarize opinion. I think there's no question that the quality of AtS this year is generally excellent, and AD's a good actor. Yet some posters are so repulsed by his behavior that they can't even watch it. I can easily see why. His actions have been willfully shameful. Yet, his behavior utterly fascinates me, and has since I've Got You Under My Skin, when the demon revealed the reason for Wes' feelings of inferiority.

Since then I've watched his ambition and intellegence constantly be undercut by his insecurity and fears. The demon tells Angel that Wes is more afraid of Angel than the demon-and we see a year later how right that is, when Wes takes Connor from Angel. Wes tells no one about the prophecy, because he can't bear to be in the wrong, and he has messed up prophecies before, as Cordelia pointed out frequently. (Another reason for me to dislike Cordelia, and I have many. She pushes all my buttons.) The progression of his character is realistic, logical, and complex. And the fact that it's led us into the dark corners of his soul just makes him even more fascinating.

But lots of people dislike him, and just aren't interested in exploring what can go wrong with a man's brain and heart. It's just a matter of personal tastes, of what people are interested in-like being a fan of Season 6. I was fascinated with watching everything go wrong. I thought we learned much more about the characters through exploring their dark sides, at least for a while. Which probably means I watch the two shows for the excellent character development-the exploration of their psychological issues. And that might bore someone else stiff, if they're more interested in the mythology, or the action, or the stories of close, loving friends. So what makes a story good? Probably, how well it speaks to the universal conditions of humanity. How deeply it satisfies whatever we need to have satisfied inside us, whether it's boredom or love or (as in my case) vicarious therapy. And since each one of us needs something that is at once universal and individual, there is always room for discussion and dissent.

[> [> [> [> [> A Third Option Regarding Wesley -- Finn Mac Cool, 05:18:13 03/01/03 Sat

I have not been enjoying Wesley through most of Season 4, but it's not because of disgust for what he does. It's because, for several episodes, it was close to impossible to tell what he was thinking. He was just so stoic for so long that I couldn't read any emotions off of him (though, I missed "Slouching Towards Bethlehem", so I may have missed out on something others saw). He just seemed to do things (like rescuing Angel, helping Fred commit murder, or handing over info on his search for Cordelia) without allowing any insight into why he did it, or what he was thinking at the time. However, this began to grow away in "Spin the Bottle" and "Rain of Fire", and I have been able to understand his emotions and actions much better from "Habeas Corpses" onward.

Kind of off-topic, but I just felt like giving the third party perspective on this issue.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agreeing about Westley -- Dariel, 09:01:10 03/01/03 Sat

Yes, he was awfully wooden; he seemed barely human. Could be a less-than-stellar acting job (hard to go from nerdy but tough Wes to cowboy Wes). Or could mean he was supposed to be numb, which would make sense. Perhaps reconnecting with Fred was what brought him back to some feeling in the eps you mention.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think it was on purpose -- Scroll, 10:09:43 03/01/03 Sat

Yes, Wesley is very difficult to read the first few episodes of Angel S4 except when he's with Lilah. I think this is pretty intentional; he feels he has been wronged, he's doing the tough-guy act. He's hiding his feelings and retreating to a cold, emotionless place. Personally, I was fascinated to see this since Wesley, up to mid-S3, has always been an open book when it comes to his emotions. AD has a very expressive face, IMO. So while I'm glad to see Wes starting to thaw out and co-operate with the Fang Gang once more, I loved the not knowing what he was thinking/feeling in the beginning of S4.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Doesn't that make his character that much more interesting though? -- maddog, 08:35:14 03/02/03 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Re: like vs. dislike, quality vs. no quality-rather rambling -- maddog, 08:25:17 03/02/03 Sun

Ah, another good point. There are some that don't watch these shows to see character development. And to that I say, you're missing out on a whole lot. Since day 1 this show has put together fascinating characters with real development to them. To ignore that because your favorite character has either gone bad or done questionable things is too bad. I'm not saying it's bad, because...well...to each their own. It's just that with a show so well written it's terrible to miss certain things like the wonderful character development.

[> [> [> [> Re: Interesting question: like vs. dislike, quality vs. no quality? -- Sara, 20:07:52 02/28/03 Fri

First of sk, a little unasked for advice - stop worrying with the vows. Some of us are just emotional, see the world through a personal prism and others aren't. I learned a couple years ago that it was time to stop swimming against the tide and go with the me that is instead of the me that seems more appropriate. Been somewhat more comfortable in my own skin since then and hey just made a personal post, c'est la vie! Anyway, like all advice, feel free to ignore.

Back to the topic at hand, it's really funny that you're starting to be convinced that the episode you dislike might be of higher quality than you gave it credit for, because although you haven't changed my enjoyment of it, you did convince me that it wasn't quite as well written as was my original impression. I guess when something's kind of a mixed bag, it's easy to go either way. Quality in a tv show should contain among other things internal consistency and structure, good/interesting use of language, and character depth. I think this episode both had and lacked some of these important qualities. The consistency of the characters and story was certainly soft in spots, as it has been all season, but it had some really clever spots - I just loved the Masterpiece Theatre intro, and for me it developed Andrew in an interesting way. I really related to Andrew, although not a fan geek myself I have and had many good friends that fall into that category, and I certainly know enough about any incarnation of Star Trek to hold my own with someone dressed as a Klingon. Andrew really rang true for me. On the other hand I found your comments about self-indulgence on the writer's part to be very on target. So I guess that any work where the actually craft aspect is weak or flawed, will be judged on a more personal level - did it connect with me, does it have pretty colors, make me laugh, whereas a work that has a strong technical execution you recognize the quality more easily and say "doesn't appeal" instead of "bad." This is a question I find endlessly fascinating so thanks for the thread! Good job!

- Sara, weak on the execution but likes pretty colors

[> [> [> [> I'm sure it's theoretically possible -- Sophist, 20:30:46 02/28/03 Fri

But I doubt it in practice. If I dislike a piece of art, whether book, painting, TV show, or whatever, I can almost always articulate a reason for that dislike. Not always, I hasten to add; some aspects of taste are so below the radar of reason that I can only say "I just don't like mushy peas".

Anyway, once I can articulate a reason for my dislike, that becomes a flaw in the piece. The production value may be high; the acting terrific; the script brilliant; the emotional impact strong. But if the episode, for any reason at all, causes me to lose my suspension of disbelief or annoys me, I can no longer think of it as "great". This may be a very minor or even idiosyncratic flaw (hey, some people hate the smile on the Mona Lisa), but it doesn't matter. That's enough to take it off the list.

I can say this about BtVS: the episodes wear well. As several others have mentioned, the passage of time lets me enjoy episodes that, on first viewing, I dismissed. Your strategy of re-watching in April is a good one. I'm planning on doing something like that for AYW -- I'll watch it again shortly before the universe ends. Unless I find something else to do instead.

[> [> [> [> Re: Interesting question: like vs. dislike, quality vs. no quality? -- maddog, 21:32:04 03/01/03 Sat

Clarity in one sentence! See, that's all you had to say. Most people I know tie quality to how they feel about it. You're seperating the two and I didn't get that until now. ok, my apologies.

Course this doesn't mean I still won't discuss and maybe disagree with your points...but that's what we do here isn't it. ;)

[> Re: Why I hated Storyteller ... -- Robert, 12:59:28 02/27/03 Thu

>>> I hated Storyteller. Not just mildly disliked. Hated. It took me a while to figure out why. It was an emotional response.

Yes, I got that from your message. There are those episodes that I have not enjoyed as much as I might want. There is one episode that I actively hated, Where the Wild Things Are, and will likely not view it again.

Beyond that, there is something to be said for the purpose of bulletin boards, such as this. We are a community of people who gathered to discuss the tv show we love. This automatically removes the symmetry of discussions we expect to find here. It is for this reason that I am not nearly so inclined to post the things I hate about BtVS as I am about the things that I love. Similarly, I am distressed when I read a scathing review of an episode.

>>> Is the fact that 100 people loved it and you, the one person, hated it - mean that they are right and you're nuts?

It doesn't mean anything except that you have different wants, desires, and opinions than those 100 other people. I fully respect your desire to understand why you opinion differed from mine or others ...

right up until you wrote stuff like this;
>>> The story - can we say gimmicky.
>>> And did he have to be such an egomaniac?
>>> How many times do we have to refer to Marcy the invisible girl?
>>> Sappy. Preachy. Unneccessary.

It is not your opinion that I have a problem with. Your words however are caustic, biting, sarcastic and disrespective of my opinion. Your opinion does not take precedence over mine, but your words would seem to indicate otherwise.

I don't know why this episode failed to click with you. It is impossible for Joss to write a story so universal as to be loved by everyone. The best he can do is to hit the statistical "sweet spot" and rake in the money. On the other hand, some of the things you complained about are regular features of the show. I don't understand why they became so suddenly odious for you.

"Sappy" or "preachy" are words I might use in intimate conversation with people who know me well, such as my wife or brothers or very close friends. But, to throw them out onto a board populated with people who love the show and, more specifically, loved this episode is to toss the metaphorical lit match into a can of gasoline.

>>> I think I wanted to explore something though - the idea that we do see and tast and hear and appreciate the world differently from one another and maybe that's a good thing?

A worthy endeavor.
Less so for the ranting.

[> [> I don't think think there was ranting. -- Arethusa, 13:37:14 02/27/03 Thu

I disagree with some of shadowkat's opionion, yet don't feel the need to explode. Or feel insulted in any way. Shadowkat's critical faculities are well-respected and we all can handle a little disagreement.

[> [> [> Agreed. Ranting? What ranting? shadowkat is the antithesis of rant. -- cjl, 13:59:01 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> Re: ranting. -- Robert, 14:57:03 02/27/03 Thu

>>> Shadowkat's critical faculities are well-respected and we all can handle a little disagreement.

To all this I completely agree, and I handled my little disagreement by pointing out to S'kat how I felt about some of his use of the language. If we are going to have a large discussion thread about S'kat's right to disagree with the crowd, then somewhere in there should also be my right to disagree with the way that disagreement is presented.

I think there was ranting in S'kat's post. You disagree with me and I respect that. CJL also disagrees, but chooses to show it with sarcasm. This sarcasm leads me to feel that cjl not only rejects what I had to say, but also considers my opinions to be valueless.

>>> I disagree with some of shadowkat's opionion, yet don't feel the need to explode.

Ahhh, but I didn't explode. I spent a considered amount of time and effort to write my message. S'kat writes fantistic essays about BtVS which I enjoy greatly, but I did find ranting in this posting and I believe I adequately pointed out where it was. Please, allow me to explain my feelings.

S'kat wrote:
>>> The story - can we say gimmicky.

This form of sarcasm erupted out of the way that Fred Rogers spoke to children in Mister Roger's Neighborhood. Thus, I feel as if S'kat is speaking to me (the reader) as a child, presumably because I couldn't understand otherwise.

S'kat may have legitimately felt that the story was gimmicky, and I can respect that. If this is the case, then he should say how he feels, that he believes the story was gimmicky.

S'kat wrote:
>>> How many times do we have to refer to Marcy the invisible girl?

S'kat knows how many times this is; two times. More importantly, I found the phrasing of the question to be biting. "How many times do we have to ..." If you feel that Mutant Enemy is making too many internal continuity references, then say how you feel. Sarcasm dimishes the other side in a debate.

S'kat wrote:
>>> Sappy. Preachy. Unneccessary.

I am a pastor's son. I know what preaching is. I have listened to great preaching, good preaching and (unfortunately) really bad preaching. S'kat implies here that all preaching is inherently a bad activity. I feel as if S'kat is ridiculing who I am and where I came from. Albiet, this feeling rather specific to me. I would farther argue that just using the loaded terminology in this way is going to elicit a reaction. These words don't come across as feelings and opinions; more like official pronouncements from my boss, contrary to my own position.

[> [> We differ in perspective here -- Tchaikovsky, 14:41:30 02/27/03 Thu


Interesting post. I disagree with you on a few points.

We are a community of people who gathered to discuss the tv show we love. This automatically removes the symmetry of discussions we expect to find here. It is for this reason that I am not nearly so inclined to post the things I hate about BtVS as I am about the things that I love. Similarly, I am distressed when I read a scathing review of an episode.

Yes, I suppose there is a removal of symmetry. But should we automatically check ourselves every time we find something a little grating? I would say that in this case, there'd be much less discussion overall. For one thing, by airing grievances with particular episodes, other people can address exactly what you disliked, thus [sometimes] allowing you to appreciate it in a different way. But what I find really interesting is your final line above. I think to be distressed when reading a scathing review is to misunderstand the purpose that other people have for the board. I understand if you personally are loth to post things you dislike, but many others, (me included), think it is a fair option as long as it is justified and doesn't give an unwarranted attack on other posters personally.

right up until you wrote stuff like this;
>>> The story - can we say gimmicky.
>>> And did he have to be such an egomaniac?
>>> How many times do we have to refer to Marcy the invisible girl?
>>> Sappy. Preachy. Unneccessary.

Although these words were in the post, they're used very selectively by you here in your summary. Right next to Shadowkat's 'The story- can we say gimmicky.' is 'Yes ambitious. Yes it's the old story within a story tale. And I usually love this gimmick'. This rather balances the first sentence. There are six examples from the show of Shadowkat's perception of Wood's 'egomania'. This is a tricky business, because quoting what someone else writes tends to be an excellent way of short-handing one's argument, as well as showing that you have read and wish to build on points. But after being consistently being taken out of context in quotes by a certain poster in the last few weeks, I have started rather carefully quoting whole paragraphs, so that I get the complete ideas expressed, rather than distorted snapshots. Now I personally think that in the context they were given, shadowkat's words and arguments showed her trademark even-handedness. This is summed up by her relatively long list of things she liked, even though she repeated she hated the episode. The tone is sometimes short and punchy, but that makes the points clear. And I think she mentioned several times, and particularly at the end of her post, that she was not trying to denigrate anyone's opinions. And I thought it was remarkably calm and thought-through, even with a long, philosophical treatise acting as a disclaimer to what were obviously going to be strong opinions.

I think to sign off
A worthy endeavour.
Less so for the ranting

is to call shadowkat's argument something that it really isn't, and thus to use a particular word to invalidate the style of writing, which is rather like how you felt she was invalidating your opinions. It seems a little illogical to condemn the word 'rant' to it when it starts with a philosophical treatise on the nature of taste, and ends with a lengthy disclaimer about the strong opinions expressed. As a post it just seems remarkably considered.

I'm sorry if you felt this review was scathing, if you were therefore distressed, but I don't think shadowkat really transgressed in any way. I respond here only in an attempt to explain whay I genuinely disagree with you- not to automatically invalidate your opinion or cast aspertions on your post. I always enjoy your posts, which are frequently thought-provoking for me. I thought here that a defence of shadowkat was required.

TCH- wondering whether he's being a tad presumptuous. If so, sorry.

[> [> [> Thank you TCH, Aerustha and cjl, note to Robert -- s'kat, 15:07:10 02/27/03 Thu

Thank you TCH for that very well written defense. It was most appreciated.

I am sorry if I offended you Robert. I've come to like your posts and worked very hard to avoid doing just that.
I even wrote a four page intro about the nature of taste, which you may not have read. If not, please do.

TCH did a good job of emphasing what I was going for.
I was afraid to post this. And believe me I thought very hard before doing it. I told friends that I was NOT going to post on this episode and would just leave the board until Angel premiered again. Because I personally don't like negative reviews. But I remembered something - it was Rob's post below on Bad Eggs - an episode that I liked.
And I also remembered how much I loved Him, which Rob hated and others on this board hated. And I thought to myself...shouldn't I have the right to mention things I didn't like about something? Then I asked another question - what is it about tast - why do we hate some things and like others? And how do we deal when we are in the minority?

I was hoping that people would respond to this in an interesting way - and discuss why they hated a specific episode or loved one when everyone else felt the opposite.
Tast distinquishes us. I needed to show why and what I disliked about the episode to get there. I'm sorry if it pushed your buttons Robert - but that was not my intent.

As I told aliera above - this was why I felt I had to apologize.

Thank you again TCH, you weren't presumptuous and I think you may have explained my intent as well if not better than I have here.


[> [> [> [> My apology -- Robert, 15:17:56 02/27/03 Thu

In retrospect, I see that I came down heavier than I should have. I still believe that my feelings and reactions were valid, though I probably should have left them as such.

>>> I even wrote a four page intro about the nature of taste, which you may not have read.

I did read it. I read and enjoy all your postings.

[> [> [> Re: We differ in perspective here -- Robert, 15:10:01 02/27/03 Thu

>>> Yes, I suppose there is a removal of symmetry. But should we automatically check ourselves every time we find something a little grating?

I was attempting to explain how I felt about this post, with some support for my reasoning. I certainly do not believe that negative reviews are bad or should be banned. I do consider it a matter of personal restraint upon my part, to refrain from posting a negative review on an episode, at least in this forum.

>>> Although these words were in the post, they're used very selectively by you here in your summary.

I wasn't clear on what my concern was. S'kat did provide support for his opinions. It was the words and the usage thereof that bothered me, not the facts or opinions they were meant to convey. I give a more detailed expanation of my feelings in my posting above.

>>> It seems a little illogical to condemn the word 'rant' to it ...

I used the word "rant", because that was my opinion and it was how I felt about it. Again, I refer to my earlier post for more details.

[> [> [> [> Negativity is necessary, sometimes -- luna, 16:02:03 02/27/03 Thu

I do consider it a matter of personal restraint upon my part, to refrain from posting a negative review on an episode, at least in this forum.

Hmm, you and I see this forum very differently. I know that negativitiy in any form, on any subject, can be difficult. However, if we avoid it, we wind up, it seems to me, with lots of little polite evasions. Let me be clear: I find it totally devastating to read a personal slam, even a snide dig. I think personalities should be completely off limits. But I think ideas should be fair game. I've read many a post that was harshly critical of something I really liked, including several parts of Shadowcat's, but it just seemed to me to be an explanation of that person's particular take on things. And that's what I thought this forum was for. I would not enjoy posts, either pro or con, that weren't intelligent, clever, stylish, etc. (why you don't see many from me!), but a well-thought-out, honest critique to me is essential to what we are doing.

And it provokes us to think and respond, and that's really what we come here to do.

[> [> Re: Why I hated Storyteller ... -- Alison, 15:59:55 02/27/03 Thu

I'm just going to say this-- and maybe everyone will dispise me bc this is some kind of online faux pas( and I'm new to all this, so I really wouldn't know ). But I don't see whats wrong with expressing a negative opinion, with ranting a little. With using words that have some force to them. As long as the post isn't extemely hostile, I have no problem with someone using forceful or slightly sarcstic languge to express their feelings...IMO being excessively concerned with being completely PC and diplomatic can take away from discussion. I'm not saying that politness should be discarded, but that expressing emotion can and should be okay.

[> [> [> Re: Why I hated Storyteller ... -- Miss Edith, 16:32:32 02/27/03 Thu

I actually prefer posts with emotion and sarcasm. Reading an interesting and well thought out post is even better if it also gives you a good belly laugh. Snark away people I say. As long as other posters are off-limits.

[> [> Re: Why I hated Storyteller ... -- luna, 05:37:28 02/28/03 Fri

I meant to add one more thing: shadowcat criticized the episode, but you were far more critical of her. That to me is backwards: the show should be open for whatever (I'm sure we're not the worse thing that ever happened to ME!), but fellow posters should be disagreed with respectfully!

[> Oh, and another thing? Humor is terribly subjective -- dream, 13:00:02 02/27/03 Thu

If you don't find something funny, something that is obviously supposed to be funny, every second lasts an hour. I didn't find Andrew's fantasy world funny at all. Maybe it's because I'm not that type of geek (oh, yes - I'm a geek. But not a sci-fi geek.) So every time we had to take time out to do the Andrew thing, I wanted to leave the room. In fact, I did at one point - a first for me with Buffy. On the other hand, I found Him to be pretty funny - not wonderfully funny, but funny enough.

Humor - a definite case of one man's trash....

[> [> Thank you -- s'kat, 14:05:14 02/27/03 Thu

Yes, I agree I think Humor really is different for everyone. I can't stand SNL sketch comedy for example - it embarrasses me. I've tried. But I can't. And I guess the Andrew geek isn't quite the shadowkat geek. I'm a geek but not really a sci-fi geek.

I loved Him - an episode I remember lots of people hating.
I found parts of it to be hilarously funny. Parts bugged me.
I also oddly enough enjoyed DoubleMeat Palace in places.
That I know is odd. Humor is a completely subjective thing.

[> Not gonna hurt ya... -- Random, 13:18:23 02/27/03 Thu

...we all react badly to certain eps that others liked or even loved. Despite the near unanimous hurrahs, I loathed, and still dislike, "Amends" (the show that started it all! It, of course, being the whole FE thingie.) The problem with a gimmicky episode is the possibility that the gimmick will fall flat...and thus destroying much of the other potential virtues of said episode. The gimmick's been good to BtVS. Look at the list: "Hush" -- 35 minutes w/out dialogue. "The Body": no music, and lots of original camerawork. "The Wish": the obligatory "It's a Wonderful Life" gimmick. "OMWF": well, ya'll know how that goes. "Dopplegangland": less of a gimmick than the previous-mentioned, but can anyone say 'Evil Twin'? "Restless": the weird expository dreams episode. "Superstar": role reversal, screw with accepted Buffyverse hierarchy.

At first, I shared your concerns with "Storyteller." The first three minutes had me in the throes of disappointment and a dread at what the show would bring. It took me about twenty minutes after watching it to decide that it wasn't just a funny episode -- I actually liked it as a whole. So I totally understand your reaction (though not the extremity of it...worst episode ever? really? That's even counting "Doublemeat Palace?") Once I decided I liked the show, the rest of the things about it (annoying Andrew -- right there with you! Xander and Anya? Agree...plus they kinda creeped me out for some reason. And so on) just didn't seem so bad. Writer masturbation (author-eroticism?) can be a terrible thing -- I'd be a hypocrite if I didn't admit that it's wa-ay up on my list of things I absolutely hate with a passion when I'm reading. Especially when the self-indulgence is self-directed.

Re Wood: I get the feeling he's not actually qualified, i.e. he lied his ass off on the application. If he did go to college or have relevant work experience, why wouldn't he leave a paper trail? How could he even avoid it? There's a lot more going on here than meets the eye.

~Random, fulling supporting s'kat's right to hate an episode. He doesn't believe in killing the messenger. Well, not usually, but that's another issue.

[> [> Thank you Random -- s'kat, 14:12:41 02/27/03 Thu

Your previous posts on the episode along with Rahael's beautiful post responding to it - made me re-watch. As did cjl's brilliant 137-7 post.

But I just couldn't get past the Andrew bits and the rest of the metanarration overkill.
I actually liked DoubleMeat Palace in some places. I've been able to re-watch it. I've laughed during it.
The penis monster cracked me up. Yes it was bad, but it was funny absurd bad.

Storyteller just felt so Lame...it was so full of whew! look at me! moments that I wondered...when they'd get to the point. I got bored. Rare. And for some reason it hit me on a gut level in a negative way I can't quite explain.

But thanks for your post.


[> [> [> Re: Thank you Random -- Random, 08:23:08 03/02/03 Sun

Forgot to mention that I share your sympathies with some of the other "low-rated" eps. Bad Eggs didn't bother me nearly as much as it apparently bothered others. It was a nice light ep. Beer Bad definitely had its moments. Even Go Fish had some good parts. Xander saving Buffy. The "did it with the entire swim team" and "they really love their coach" lines. The entire scene when Xander comes in with his Speedos was great.

Get to the point...hmmm, hadn't really thought about that. Maybe I wasn't as critical of the pacing because I was too involved in the humor.

~Random, back after three days.

[> shocked. -- neaux, 13:39:04 02/27/03 Thu

I only write this because I figured out of all your posts on Point of View that I have read this year that you would have been all over this episode like Willow on Kennedy.

hmm.. you amaze me every week S'kat!

[> [> Why point of view jarred here -- s'kat, 14:32:08 02/27/03 Thu

Yep you'd think I'd love it because of the POV, except in this episode - they didn't stay in Andrew's pov, they made a big to-do about it being All About Andrew and in his POV, then they jumped into Buffy's. Then jumped into Wood's.
Leaving me to wonder if I was seeing Wood and Buffy through the haze of Andrew still. (Big no-no as a writer - when doing pov, stay consistent or make the transitions much clearer...they tried, but I was jarred.)

Also...I think I had troubles b/c this was the one character's whose pov I cared the least about. I already knew what Andrew thought. I didn't need to spend the whole episode in his head. I felt they were hammering me over the head with what he thought. When they already stated it very well, over and over and over again in numerous episodes.

I think the episode may work or not work for you based on whether or not you like being in Andrew's head and can identify with Andrew. I couldn't. I don't know why. Like dream said above...I'm a geek but not that type of geek.
I guess I was never "fangirl" or "fanboy". Don't know.

Thanks for the reply though. ;-)


[> [> [> Try this (crossbow sheathed) -- tomfool, 15:11:29 02/27/03 Thu

My reaction is similar to neaux's in thinking that the POV aspect would grab you. But you've certainly earned the right to wear your cranky pants for a few days.

I took the episode on two levels. It's a gift to long-term viewers with all of the meta and references. It's also a gift to the new viewers who may not have any idea about what's going on and want to check out the series finale. It can work on both levels. I found myself grinning just about the whole time. I won't comment on specifics because everyone else has already covered those. But here are two experiments. And they're kind of contradictory so you might not want to try them at the same time.

1. In view of your comments above, this probably won't work, but may be worth a try. Andrew is established as among the most unreliable of all narrators. Try viewing EVERYTHING happening in the episode through the filter of a completely unreliable narrator. Viewed this way, it may make some of the more egregious aspects (to you) easier to take.

2. Didn't work? Imagine Andrew = Joss. I find the episode works well if you view it as a Joss confessional. Here's this little story I've been making up for seven years. I know you've been taping. Pretty soon, it will be over and all that will be left are the video records (dvds). Etc.

Maybe you've already done both of those. 'sall right.

Visceral reactions are hard to explain and overcome. DMP just made me feel ill. It wasn't that horrible on repeat viewings, but the gut reaction remains. Sometimes I can write off my reaction to something (food, movie, book) as just a factor of my mood, lack of sleep, how tight my pants are fitting that day. Maybe give it a week and rewatch. Maybe you're trying too hard. It's ok to trust your gut. We still love you.

[> [> [> [> Thank you, you may be right -- s'kat, 15:39:17 02/27/03 Thu

Visceral reactions are hard to explain and overcome. DMP just made me feel ill. It wasn't that horrible on repeat viewings, but the gut reaction remains. Sometimes I can write off my reaction to something (food, movie, book) as just a factor of my mood, lack of sleep, how tight my pants are fitting that day. Maybe give it a week and rewatch. Maybe you're trying too hard. It's ok to trust your gut. We still love you.

Thank you. Been enjoying your posts too lately.

Yes, I have to admit I was in a really horrible emotional place when I watched StoryTeller. I'd lost a temp job.
I wasn't feeling well. Tense. Cranky. Etc. While Primeval was great...it fit my mood. Storyteller seemed to hit every single button.

And yep - I had the same initial response to DMP. I hated it when I first saw it. But six months later? Thought it was hilarous. Although like you parts of it will always rub me the wrong way.

Has anyone else discovered this odd phenomen with Btvs and Ats? On first viewing you don't really like it. But when you see it like say two years later or six months later - you think, whoa cool episode, why didn't I see that before?
This happened to me in IWMTLY which parts of still squick me in a majorly bad way, while others are fantastic. I realized how really cool it was - when I saw it again last year. So maybe there's hope...maybe by the time the DVD comes out and I actually have a DVD player - I'll appreciate everything you guys saw in the episode. Don't know.

Taste is a weird thing.

Thanks again for the suggestions. I'll wait for the death valley of rerun hell (April) and try them. Also when I'm in a better frame of mind.


[> [> [> [> [> Different views -- tomfool, 16:09:02 02/27/03 Thu

For what it's worth, looking at that other board where people tend to be much snarkier than here, this was definitely a polarizing episode. Lots of the comments make yours look very mild. Seems that you either jumped into the Andrew view or you didn't and that was the major factor in how it felt to you.

As a winemaker, I've come to appreciate the way my ability to evaluate a wine differs from day to day. Some days, nothing tastes good, other days, everything does. I've learned not to make critical decisions (that could have major financial implications) in either of those periods. Maybe that's like multiple viewing of a BtVS ep. Some days, you probably won't like whatever they put on the air. You have to come back to it to give it a proper evaluation.

Bad Eggs and Ted are two that have definitely grown on me with repeat viewings. Even though the titles together always remind me of Dr. Seuss - "I do not like Bad Eggs and Ted."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Well said, tomfool. And I feel the same about BE and Ted. :) -- Ixchel, 16:45:58 02/27/03 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> A note about what's to come....no specific spoilers -- Rufus, 13:22:24 02/28/03 Fri

I liked Storyteller it preps us for what is to come in ways that you may appreciate later.......like say ep 17. I think there will be enough surprises in that one to keep people talking for a long while.

Oh, and Wood....I wonder why his eyes went white like Cordy's when on that seal? And remember the line "you filthy whore"...;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> I love it when you tease Rufus! -- ponygirl, 13:36:46 02/28/03 Fri

Does that mean Wood is evil? No don't tell me! No do! Don't!

Three weeks huh?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Another slight spoilery tease for 17 and 18. -- Rufus, 13:58:05 02/28/03 Fri

Ep 17 ends with Wood speechless....and for those who miss Giles he's back....Ep 18 Wood contributes to Buffy's mission in an unlikely way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Uh huh... -- KdS, 03:41:26 03/01/03 Sat

Yes or no question. Does this have anything to do with the character who last called Buffy a "whore" in GD2?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Uh huh... -- Miss Edith, 18:32:08 03/01/03 Sat

I'm spoiled for episode 17 as well and no it has nothing to do with that character.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> No -- Rufus, 20:29:06 03/01/03 Sat

[> Re: Why I hated Storyteller : a bit of a ramble on why we like or dislike things -- maddog, 13:53:40 02/27/03 Thu

I skipped the beginning because honestly, I want to talk about the episode. yes, his voice is definitely whiny, but that's part of his annoyance as a character. Initially he is supposed to get on your nerves. And who said that all the gay characters had to be cool like Willow? It's not making fun of the sexuality of choice as much as it's making fun of the way Andrew related to Jonathon (and in this episode, Xander as well). Not everyone is good at expression of feelings, so in that way he's like a child emotionally. I also can agree with you that he was acting like he wasn't part of the reality until that very ending...that's where I disagree...I think by the time he started crying he'd realized that not only had he killed his best friend, but that he knew he wasn't talking to Warren and that he wasn't possesed at the time. Then the gravity of the situation really hit him and he realized he was no better than anyone else. I keep rewatching the last scene in front of the camera...it gives me chills...because while I've known all along that not everyone would make it through the finale(especially if there is no spinoff), it finally becomes real because barring a miracle Andrew's screwed...if any of the mortals(those without some sort of power) make it through to the end I'll be in shock(which makes me sad cause Xander falls in that category). Now if he'd given a half ass approach, even with the good dialogue he was given, then it wouldn't be so chilling...but I think he nailed it...he was speaking from the heart...from what he now knew as reality...and the sadness that came over him just resonated off the screen.

I can't say much on point 2 because I haven't seen it done as much as you have. Do you think that maybe if you hadn't seen it done on Xena and Trek this would have come off as bad?

As for point 3...picky much? Egomaniac? You couldn't see the humor? I felt it was kinda blatant? It's obvious that he's being sarcastic. The closet full of knives was a prop for us to think he was dangerous..not so that we'd automatically think slayer...don't you think if it were full of stakes that we'd have gotten the story a little too early? They wanted the reveal to come in the alleyway. It's all about timing. And why does everyone assume that just because they were attacked he was showing off? Could it be that vampires noticed the slayer with someone that had been giving them trouble and thought it might be a good time to get rid of them once and for all? Guess not. And the Buffspeak was such an obvious ploy to not only show us he's been spending a lot of time with the Scoobies, but also that he and Buffy were growing closer. As for the change in quote, I suppose you have a point that they'd be less offensive with the old quote but by changing it they've done two things. First off they've kept the secret from Buffy for just one more week that Spike's the one that killed Wood's mother. And two, it's for shock factor, Buffy can't really hold anyone accountable for what they've done when possessed by the hellmouth. ok, so I disagreed with a lot there, but it seems like you have issues with Wood that just don't really exist.

I admit I found the switch from the couch to the bed rather quick, but remember these two work on impulse. They don't really think things through and when they make decisions they tend to be for the wrong reason. So their rather quick jump into the sack isn't a surprise. And yes, the overkill of the Xander and Anya relationship was obvious.

What exactly did you see from Kennedy? She was in like 3 scenes. This episode wasn't about them. Not even a little. I'm missing where you're condenming from here.

Harelquinn moment was bad...agreed. But maybe they're trying to show just how hard it is for Spike to be his old self now that he's got that nasty soul.

As for 7, the whole point of showing past problems that they had at the high school was to show just how nuts the open seal had become thus giving Wood his conversation with Buffy about how these things never all happen at once. And Buffy's lines weren't funny...they were her usual quipping that she does. Hell, Willow even put the puns in the Buffy bot. They're part of her personality.

Buffy's been acting like the superior for weeks now. And you're just now complaining? She's doing it to make a point that seems to get lost on most every week. She's trying to instill a sense of urgency that they aren't showing.

The school was definitly out of hand. But I think they wanted to show us the growing gravity of what was to come. And it followed the pattern of what had been going on that day.

See I saw Buffy holding the knife to him, not as the reason he was crying, but a catalyst to the realization of what he'd done. The more she showed him what he was realy doing I think that he finally broke down and wept....she could have been just holding him there without the knife and I think the tactic would have worked the same.

So we agree on some and don't agree on others...ok most. What can I say, I thought it was again one of the string of good episodes they've had this season. I look forward to the next episode now...just wish it wasn't a month away. :(

I'll get to the first part of your post later on...I need to leave work now.

[> [> The first part of my post is the most important. -- s'kat, 14:53:35 02/27/03 Thu

I strongly suggest you focus on the first 4 pages of the post - it explains why I wrote the post and why I felt the way I did and the point of it. It's all about how our tasts differ. I did not see the episode the same way you did, obviously. I didn't see it the same way any one did.
I found that fact an interesting one to examine. It was the point of the post. The feeling of being in the minority. How it feels to dislike, to hate an episode, everyone else loves.

Why do I like an orange and maybe someone doesn't?
I don't really know. I know I despise Principal Wood with a passion. While several people on this board love him to death. It's the different tasts. For the reasons why I despise Wood - read my response to lunasea above.

[> [> [> Re: The first part of my post is the most important. -- maddog, 12:39:52 02/28/03 Fri

Well first off of course you're right. None of us has the right answer...you can't have a correct answer in an opinion...because it's just that...an opinion. Besides, I don't expect us to all agree, it would be boring otherwise. I guess I just saw more critcism, and very little explaination in what I read. Secondly, I was hoping you'd read my post and defend your answers a little more. I got a "this is my opinion and nothing's changing my mind!" kinda vibe, from your post. I made it very clear why I thought what they did made sense. Liking or disliking a character I can't say much in...because I can't tell you that you're wrong for say not liking Wood. I think he's funny...you see it as cocky. ok, maybe I should be asking questions instead of just throwing out my feelings....you said you liked Andrew but now you can't stand him...what changed your mind? I felt the exact opposite so it'll be interesting to see what you have to say. You have all these ideas, but I don't see much backup. But I'm sure I'm blind in some areas. Like you say it was self indulgent(to which I reply that may have been the point all along) and that it was self-congradulatory which is where I get lost because I don't see that. I guess what I'm coming down to is that I'm waiting for explainations more than opinons...because I can't debate an opinion because it can never be wrong. And seeing as what I do here is debate ideas I'm looking for more explaination so I can maybe understand your side.
Lastly, I can understand where you're coming from. There was a smaller group on this board last year that understood what Spike meant when he asked for his soul back. Most were confused...they were sure he wanted the chip out. So I had to sit here and daily defend myself. Hell, even James Marsters was a bit confused when Joss said that's what he'd wanted all along. So don't feel bad...we all fall into the minority sometimes.

[> [> [> [> Re: The first part of my post is the most important. -- s'kat, 14:10:46 02/28/03 Fri

All I can say is read the responses to the above threads.
I do explain in some depth my feelings about Wood and Andrew. We all have knee-jerk emotional moments and posting boards are good places to discuss them. If you don't like what someone has to say? You don't have to read it. It goes into archive pretty quickly.

I've done enough critical analysis, very in depth, with almost 0 emotion attached, that to do one that is the opposite is a nice change of pace, particularly when I'm trying to understand why I had such a negative reaction to an episode people were applauding. I didn't know why exactly, my post was an attempt to figure it out and to see if there was anyone else out there who felt the same way.
It was also an attempt to understand why it is we do have negative reactions to things.

I now have figured out the reasons...they aren't going to change this week - since as I've described in some of the threads above they are deeply emotional and not necessarily rational. One is a reaction to the character of Wood.
(The character pushes my buttons for reasons related in the thread with Rook above). Another is an intense dislike of fanboy/killer Andrew. I think Masq and some others covered that one pretty well, he was a character I could handle in small doses. I don't believe he has much personality - he seems to be a cipher to me, sort of a general stereotype of all the negative fanboy traits, a construct or anti-mary sue which is the character who will react to whatever you throw at him. I've listened to others posts on this. Aerustha had one of the best below. It just didn't work for me. I don't know why. Sometimes we can't explain reactions to something, sometimes we can't explain why something pushes a button - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to write about it to figure it out.

Not sure that made much sense.

Again all I can do is repeat what I said to Robert above and at the end of my post which you say you read.
I'm sorry I offended you, these were just my reactions to an episode that I am well aware you all liked.
Take it or leave it.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The first part of my post is the most important. -- maddog, 20:07:30 02/28/03 Fri

For one, you take this way too seriously...you haven't offended me, and if you have offended someone on this board they need to remember that at the end of the day this is just a tv show...it's not reality. Mind you it's a very good tv show, but still not life or death. And I never said I didn't like your responses...I said I didn't understand them. There's a difference. I might now go look through all the other posts now. You keep refering to certain ones but as you can tell you sparked quite the conversation and this one topic has quite a few responses.

As for Andrew, I can understand he gets on a lot of people's nerves. My question then is, who would you have liked to take his place and get the same message across. Xander maybe, but then they'd have to change the premise of the episode. I can't remember, did you say you liked the message they were sending? I really did. Because no matter how those last few episodes go we're going to lose some of the more human characters faster...they just don't have the line of defense that a slayer, vampire, witch, etc has. Maybe they thought picking the most pathetic of the normal ones would bring the gravity of the situation to our attention. Not defending their choice, just making a guess as to why they'd use a character like Andrews for that part.

Maybe it's a specific type of person when it comes to being able to explain things. Because I've alway said that if you believe something then there HAS to be a reason. I used to yell at my college roommate cause he kept saying that he felt something for no reason. or Maybe it's just cause I've always had to explain myself...who knows?

But you did make sense. I can't understand the overall conclusion...but you believe what you believe and that's your right. I'll go read all the other posts now.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ah...okay will try and answer -- s'kat, 20:44:40 02/28/03 Fri

yeah, well..taking life too seriously and myself has always been a fatal flaw...sigh.

My question then is, who would you have liked to take his place and get the same message across. Xander maybe, but then they'd have to change the premise of the episode. I can't remember, did you say you liked the message they were sending?

I think I would have preferred an ALL ABOUT XANDER episode, we haven't really had one in a while. Or maybe an episode that had focused on Dawn or even Amanda. I don't identify with Andrew. I don't know why - I have friends who were fanboys or fangirls and knew many in college. But they are nothing like Andrew in my head. Andrew feels like a stereotype to me and not a very flattering one. I would have preferred it have been Jonathan actually...who I did like and identified with.

That said I understand why they felt it had to be Andrew - they wanted to get across something and I think I liked the overall message. The execution? I despised. It urked me.
It felt heavy-handed in places and not very subtle. And ME is good with sublety. But dropped it here for some reason.
I think the problem lies in the fact that they are trying to cram all these things into each episode.

1. plot points they need to hit - they got this whole Spike/buffy/wood plot arc going. As well as Willow/Kennedy and Xander/Anya.

2. they need to wrap up past business

3. they need to set up the final end game

4. they need to explain this odd character hanging about

5.plus there's this huge overall theme going on about how everything is connected, we are who we are, and how what we see isn't always what is real.

To play out that theme - they need to include metanarration on the following:
1. past episodes
2. pop cultural visual references
3. pov

So we have all these dang points that have to be hit.
Plus the whole hellmouthy thing and the FE...and well, it gets cluttered. That got on my nerves.

Hope that's clearer.

Understand the frustration of not being able to comprehend.
There's post way above in French then in English that made my brain hurt.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Enjoyment based on identification question -- agent156, 23:38:58 02/28/03 Fri

Something I have noticed in a lot of posts is talk about relating to a character and enjoyment of the show/episode based on that. This is something that I find to be rather interesting, and I am intrigued as to why this would be the case.

From what I gathered from the posts recently about which show a person prefered, most of the posters prefer one show over the other because they identify with the characters in said show more. This also seems to be why people like a certain character or episode.

Perhaps someone here who knows about psychology can explain why this is the case. Why does not identifying with a character cause dislike? Is it some sort of fear of the unknown type thing going on? Is it an ego thing whereby people just prefer seeing themselves presented (whether consciously or not)? It would seem to me that characters one did not identify with would come across as something new and thus interesting, like a new experience.

Or perhaps it all has to do with attachment to the characters. I understand getting attached to the characters and so caring what happens to them, but does identifying with them have to go hand in hand with feeling an attachment? Surely at some point other posters here have felt an attachment to a character without identifying with the character.

Perhaps I am just odd (okay, I'm definitely odd), but it doesn't seem to work this way for me. I identify some with Xander's use of humor and sarcasm as a defence, and I identified with Angel's broodiness he hasn't really had since S1 AtS, but those were just parts of those characters. When I think of the characters in any more general sense, I don't identify with them. The only character I have ever really identified with out of the shows was Buffy in S6. And while I like that season a lot, it is not my favorite. I have enjoyed every season of all 3 shows despite lacking this identification though. I enjoy where the story takes them and how they progress whether I can identify with it or not. Is story progression itself not enough to make most people care?

I hope that made some bit of sense. I'm not the most articulate person here, but this is something I've been wondering about for quite a while and thought this thread would make a good spot for it. It may well be that I am just different than most people or that I have just completely misunderstood all that I've read and none of this happens anyway.

OT: Here is a link I wanted to share that I got off another board about a study being done on dialects within the US. I found it really interesting, and anyone who lives in the US should fill out the survey. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's a good question. -- Arethusa, 04:32:01 03/01/03 Sat

I don't personally identify with any of the characters on BtVS, yet I love the show and am very interested in the charactes' progression-which is more than enough to make me care about them. On AtS, I identify with Angel and Wes (despite the fact I'm female), but enjoy the action and other characters nearly as much. Cordelia's the only character I have a negative gut reaction to, since I'm not very sympathetic to the problems of formerly rich, cruel young women who are currently champions of good. (It's just a thing.) But I still enjoy watching the character's development, and find it easy to ignore my mild dislike of Cordelia.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's a good question. -- pilgrim, 07:27:31 03/01/03 Sat

Yeah, I don't see myself as any of the individual characters, either. Most of the characters--all of the main characters--strike me as plausible, real in an emotional sense, rounded out, and I get caught up in their struggles with the problems of growing up--human problems I connect to because I am human too. Interesting, isn't it, how the problems of growing up--moving from teenager to adult, continue to haunt even long after you've made that transition.
Thinking about it some more, I can see a little better why people are having a problem with Wood. At this point, he does seem less like a person and more like a plot device, which is fine for a bit part, but he's obviously supposed to be more important than that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Identifying with characters -- Dariel, 09:38:26 03/01/03 Sat

It's quite likely that some people identify with characters they don't like as well. It's just not the term they would use to describe their feelings, because they're unaware of the identification. (Actually, "projection" might be a better way of describing it.) For example, a female fan might be very hard on Buffy, because she possesses traits the fan rejects in herself. The fan doesn't see that, though, so just thinks it's a simple case of dislike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Identifying with characters -- Miss Edith, 18:42:04 03/01/03 Sat

I identify with Spike. Not the bad ass Spike and the killer from season 2. But certain traits in seasons 5 and 6. When he become the loathed outsider it brought back memories of being ostracised at school. I cannot watch the scene in IWMTLY where the scoobies all coldly gang up against Spike and Giles throws him out of the magic box. Saw it once and cringed in sympathy, now I have to fast forward it when watching my DVDs. In season 6 where Spike was Buffy's scapegoat, the soulless thing not to be acknowledged as a real person my heart went out to him. I guess I've loved Spike ever since FFL where he cries after Cecily's rejection. I just have a thing for the underdog. I can't say I relate to any of the characters on Angel though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: That's a good question. -- pilgrim, 07:29:42 03/01/03 Sat

Yeah, I don't see myself as any of the individual characters, either. Most of the characters--all of the main characters--strike me as plausible, real in an emotional sense, rounded out, and I get caught up in their struggles with the problems of growing up--human problems I connect to because I am human too. Interesting, isn't it, how the problems of growing up--moving from teenager to adult, continue to haunt even long after you've made that transition.
Thinking about it some more, I can see a little better why people are having a problem with Wood. At this point, he does seem less like a person and more like a plot device, which is fine for a bit part, but he's obviously supposed to be more important than that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah...okay will try and answer(minor season spoiler) -- maddog, 16:29:55 03/01/03 Sat

I know I would have enjoyed an all about Xander episode. I know I identify with him more. And we've had the Dawn ones lately so I think that could have been overkill. Amanda doesn't really fit into this category as she's at least a SIT and has potential power. They needed a regular person to make this point because their future is the bleakest out of all of them.

ME is very good with subtlety...but I don't think that's the angle they wanted here. I think they wanted an in your face show. With the final "5 episode arc" that I keep hearing about I think they want to make this as clear as possible....all culminating with Andrew's last speech. This will be bad...we will lose some that we've grown to care about over the years...this could be the toughest thing we've ever had to watch...and just by watching Andrew come to that conclusion gives it that doomsday attribute that I liked. I guess I wasn't as worried about how they got to their conlclusion as that when they got there they hit home. Maybe that's why we're on opposite ends.

They probably could have pulled the Willow/Kennedy stuff and put it as a side story for the next episode and I wouldn't have missed it. I know they're a couple...and even after the minor rift from the last show I don't think skipping a week would have killed them. and speaking of the clutter and stuffed information, maybe they should have split this up in two...just have an extra episode.

[> Jane Espenson -- Cactus Watcher, 15:01:55 02/27/03 Thu

It not suprising that an episode that so polarizes opinions was written by Jane Espenson. Frankly the lady has a very strange sense of humor. Either you get in synch with what she writes in an episode and enjoy it, or you start clashing and think its abominable. Frankly, I thought "Storyteller" was one of her better efforts. I consider "I Was Made to Love You" a complete piece of crap. But much of the same type of humor through exaggeration runs through both. I think part of the problem is that the context she aims for is sometimes so contrived that either you accept the whole package and laugh, accept part of it and yawn, or accept none it and start fuming.

Re: Chemistry.
Someone else has pointed this out before, but I think it's worth repeating. How many couples in real life look like they have chemistry? Frankly, I can think of only one couple I ever knew that seemed like they were made for each other. So Kennedy and Willow look like real people kissing instead of soap-opera idols? What's wrong with that?

[> [> Re: Jane Espenson -- s'kat, 15:19:58 02/27/03 Thu

Re: Chemistry.
Someone else has pointed this out before, but I think it's worth repeating. How many couples in real life look like they have chemistry? Frankly, I can think of only one couple I ever knew that seemed like they were made for each other. So Kennedy and Willow look like real people kissing instead of soap-opera idols? What's wrong with that?

The fact they aren't real people and we are watching them on a tv screen. I don't enjoy watching real people in the street or elsewhere kissing or etc. It's private. But on the screen - you need to feel an emotional tug. Reacte in some way. Actually soap opera idols have very little chemistry most of the time - and it doesn't always play and the story gets boring. We need to care - to watch.
We want to empathasize with them in some way. Now I'm not gay, so nothing Willow and Tara did turned me on - but when they kissed - I felt their love, I felt the attraction.
When Willow and Kennedy kissed I felt 0 attraction in Storyteller. I felt it in Get it Done and Killer in Me. Just not here. And I wasn't the only one. Masq had a similar response.

When you watch a movie and two people are kissing or involved - you want to care. If they have no chemistry - your either checking your watch or trying to look elsewhere.
Repellant chemistry can send you out of the theater.

That's the power of chemistry. It's true in books too. You need to work carefully as a writer to build it between characters - it's an art form, really. You don't just throw them together. On screen not only do you need to build it writing wise, but it has to be believeable visually. Something that might work in real life - may not work on screen. Unless of course you love reality shows...then well we're getting back to the whole point of post which is about taste and how we view things differently.

Regarding the humor bit. It's odd. I loved I Was Made To Love You and Intervention both by Espenson. I also liked DoubleMeat Palace. But I hated StoryTeller. Yep this is a case of sweet vs. sour orange. We have different tasts.

But why do we? I think maybe it has to do with who we are.
It is actually amazing we have as much in common as we do.
We all like Btvs.

[> [> [> Re: Jane Espenson -- CW, 15:50:22 02/27/03 Thu

It's certainly true that people looking for vastly different things in TV can find them in ME's work. ;o)

I'm sure a lot of people agree with you about chemistry. But, I'm not sure every relationship we see on screen has to be that engrossing for the audience. In soap-opera the story is secondary to getting that kind of reaction from the viewers. If a couple of actors don't click on screen, it's best for everybody to break them up quickly and start some new realationship. But, frankly in the end the whole thing is empty, because you care more about the relationships than the characters themselves, and half the secret of writing soap operas is that relationships never last.

[> [> Re: Jane Espenson -- mundusmundi, 16:10:25 02/27/03 Thu

For me, the typical JE episode is one that starts with an extremely clever and funny idea that after awhile becomes repetitive. It's always a race against the clock to see whether the funny and clever will outlast the repetition. The last eppy she wrote all by herself, which I faintly recall was something titled "Same Time, Same Place," I thought made it, but just barely. (Whereas last year's "Doublemeat Palace" was a consistent knee-slapper for, oh, about fifteen seconds....)

What JE has never been for me is particularly affecting or haunting -- up til now. And what's strange is that it happened in an episode that initially was growing as wearisome for me as shadowkat and some others here have expressed. Maybe "Storyteller" ultimately worked for me so well because its focal character is one whom I've always found pretty one-note. If the note has, against all odds, grown steadily funnier as we've gotten to know him, Andrew has still been a sideline character, used exclusively for comic filler. Ironically, it's somewhere between the halfway/three-quarter point in "Storyteller," the point where I was about to cover my ears to the usual Espenson echoes, that his character starts to change. Andrew's fantasies, which get increasingly wilder and more desperate, stop becoming just jokes and start being used as a defense mechanism. And it's as if Espenson, who in some ways in much of her previous work has seemed to hide behind glibness rather than deal with real emotion (the end of "Intervention" excepted), is suddenly left without her defenses as well. The writer and character's trajectories mirror each other. The result isn't entirely pretty. But what's funny is that I can agree with many of the flaws pointed out by others and still end up affected by this episode's whole. (And still giggle in memory of the silly stuff.) It's a mess, but it's one I prefer over flawless technique. "Storyteller" is a celebration of messes.

[> [> [> I like the point about how JE eps start. -- CW, 16:23:02 02/27/03 Thu

The first joke is almost always funny. But, it's iffy after that.

I guess much of what I liked, too, was that she made Andrew a character worth watching. A year and a half of episodes seemed to say that wasn't an easy task. ;o)

[> Re: Why I hated Storyteller : a bit of a ramble on why we like or dislike things -- Miss Edith, 15:12:47 02/27/03 Thu

Well if this is going to be a thread for talking about opinions differing from the majority then I've just got to say that I loved DMP. I am a fan of Jane even her less popular episodes like Triangle and IWMTLY. I can understand why people mind find DMP boring and it does have one scene I really dislike (the dumpster sex). But overall I found it really funny and an effective way of focusing on Buffy and her struggle with the world. It seems to be the episode that everyone accepts as being loathed by all fans. But I thought it was fantastic. Different tastes and all that.

[> [> OK, here's where "a matter of taste" really applies..... -- cjl, 15:23:02 02/27/03 Thu

Even if people say they like Doublemeat Palace, those same people almost invariably say they hate the dumpster scene.

The dumpster scene may be my favorite scene of the whole episode.

Why? Because it's ugly and depressing and so utterly de-glamorized that you practically smell the greasy burger wrappers piled into the dumpster and the ketchup stains on Buffy uniform melding with her perfume. (Graphic enough for you folks? Sorry.) It perfectly conveys the joylessness and depression of a fast food job with no future; not even sex with Spike can wipe the horrifying prospect of years of burger-flipping from Buffy's brain. The scene was great because it was brutally REAL.

Doublemeat Palace is one of my favorite JE scripts. The only down points were Xander-as-buffoon and the fight with the Penis Demon at the end. Otherwise, no complaints.

[> [> [> Re: OK, here's where "a matter of taste" really applies..... -- s'kat, 15:29:03 02/27/03 Thu

Now see - I loved Xander as a buffoon. The scene where he eats the burger in the Magic Box, then is told that it may be human - made me laugh sooo hard. It was real that he'd act that way - since it was so Buffy's pov of him at that point, of everything. See - an episode of Jane's that worked for me.

Now riddle me this? Why is it I laughed hard at DMP and
IWMTLY and Intervention and Life Serial yet...StoryTeller rubbed me the wrong way? Hmmm...now that I think about it.
I didn't find DMP funny the first round. It was when it was rerunned several months later that I found it hilarously funny. So, maybe ...that's the way to do this. Maybe comedy is a mood thing?

[> [> [> [> Fun with S6 Xander -- cjl, 12:41:12 02/28/03 Fri

Ozmandayus of the BC&S board pretty much summed up why the Xander scenes didn't work for me. He said that if Jane wrote this material with S2 or early S3 Xander in mind, it might have worked. But after The Replacement, when Xander's slow (VERY slow) path to maturity took a few giant steps forward, the burger buffoonery seemed out of place. It would be like putting S5 Willow back in the "softer side of Sears" overalls. (Yes, I know Jane wrote "The Replacement." Irony, anyone?)

It's not that I don't like seeing Nic Brendon with that discombobulated expression on his face. I do. But let it be consistent with where the character is at the moment. For instance, at the beginning of that same episode, when Xander makes the wisecrack about Anya's "go, money, go" speeches, and Willow cuts the legs right out from under him--yes, there's that expression! Now, THAT'S funny.

Jane's not above wrenching a character's out of his place in the continuity if she really wants to tell a good joke. Spike as bloodhound, anyone?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Fun with S6 Xander -- s'kat, 13:56:54 02/28/03 Fri

I think that was the key to some of my difficulties with StoryTeller. She does a lot with pov. But I felt that the regular characters were the brunt of jokes for the purposes of building up a recurring character I didn't care about.
In DMP - I saw Xander being used this way to further the lead's arc more, so didn't bother me as much, particularly since it did work in some ways towards exhibiting his nervousness towards the wedding.

In StoryTeller ....I found Buffy hard to relate to. At times she felt almost out of character to me. I don't know.
For some reason how she did the characters in STSP and DMP worked better, then again it could be a mood thing.

[> [> [> Actually, liked the dumpster scene, hated the rest (do I need help?) -- dream, 06:48:41 02/28/03 Fri

[> [> [> Totally agree cjl, right down to likes and dislikes! -- ponygirl, 11:30:16 02/28/03 Fri

[> A Ramble From Limbo... Or Not -- imp, 15:28:40 02/27/03 Thu

I'm glad you decided to post-even if, in my opinion, you were over-apologetic for it.

That being said, I really enjoyed watching Storyteller (episode 7.16). I have already watched it three times. I do not post often and I once stated that I am relatively ignorant about subjects such as metaphysics, philosophy, symbolism, pacing, plot advancement, directing/producing a TV show, etc. Lately, I have wondered if said ignorance about such things actually helps me enjoy watching BtVS/AtS instead of being obstacles to enjoyment.

For Storyteller in particular (and every episode of BtVS and AtS in general), my reaction falls somewhere in between yours and, oh say, Rob's. While 7.16 is not my favorite episode of all time or even of S7, I really did like it-for its parts and the sum of its parts. I "got into" Andrew's point-of-view from the outset and stayed in it.

I picked up on many of the metanarrative comments even though I know I missed a few. I caught some of the self-referentiality. I laughed out loud numerous times. But I also had a few WTF!?! moments as well. However, none of this detracted from my enjoyment of the episode. Through Andrew's eyes I could see what he thought of Willow and Kennedy's relationship. In his POV the cheesiness of the Buffy/Spike Harlequin Romance commercial (complete with Anya's hyper-sexualized grape-eating!)... the cheesiness of the "We are as gods" Elysian Fields romp (complete with unicorn!)... the apparent cheesiness of Andrew's "redemption" scene at the end (complete with tears!)... I liked it all because I understand that with Andrew the cheese-factor will be high!

Let me say something else about the last scene. While it may have appeared to be cheesy, I believe that Andrew has in no way been redeemed simply because Buffy got him to shed a few tears. I grokked that it was the depth of remorse and sincerity behind the tears that was important. I like this generalissimo!Buffy, let's have more of her-and she did not even smash the camcorder into his head!

I have ill-formed thoughts regarding Principal Hottie so I will not share them here. I will also reserve judgment on the Xander/Anya sex-without-shackles scene. Honestly, I thought ME were lampooning themselves with the meta moments-and I was OK with all of it. Oh, I have never had a problem with Andrew's gay/not gay characterization. I wonder if he even realizes he is. I don't know, I guess I find it refreshing that he is just... Andrew.

Getting back to my rambling enjoyment about BtVS... I have had many strong reactions to individual episodes over the years but they have not been persistent. For example, I stood up from my chair when The Lie came out during Selfless. When it occurred in Becoming II, I had a strong negative reaction to Xander. But over the years, I have never really held it against him. This is my attitude with BtVS/AtS and TV in general. If I dislike what I am watching so much-whether it be from crappy storylines, poor characterization, or just sheer boredom/lack of intrigue-I simply stop watching it; I let it go, without comment or lament. It is why I stopped watching AtS until the middle of its third season. I was not getting a lot from it then so I tuned out. Luckily for me, I rediscovered it and am faithfully watching it this season.

I have been an avid watcher of BtVS because it resonates with me more. Plus, I am unashamed to say that Buffy has always been my favorite character. Thus far, S7 is shaping up to be one of my favorite seasons. The FE's apparent lameness and low scare-factor does not bother me. Any implied or actual continuity error does not bother me (I can rationalize it away or someone else can do it for me). I would be wasting valuable time and energy getting worked up over nitpicks. But I am so determined to enjoy the show that I am willing to devote time and energy to suspending even more disbelief than is usual for me (at times, I did this for Storyteller). I also have a tendency to like episodes others may not have liked. How much I enjoy an episode is directly proportional to the number of times I re-watch it. With this in mind, my favorite episode for S7 is Showtime (I am particularly enthralled by the Thunderdome sequence). What, it's a thing!

To bring it all back, I thoroughly enjoyed Storyteller but I understand and appreciate your point-of-view as well. Like you said, there is a new episode of Angel on next Wednesday featuring you-know-who. I am looking forward to it, as well. Good luck with the job-hunting--unless you've landed a new job, in which case, congratulations!

[> [> Very nicely put -- tomfool, 15:43:28 02/27/03 Thu

[> Re: Why I hated Storyteller : a bit of a ramble on why we like or dislike things -- Rahael, 15:45:33 02/27/03 Thu

In my opinion, we should never have to apologise for liking or disliking an ep, a scene or a show.

As far as I'm concerned, I get as much thought and inspiration from the ideas of some of the lesser eps as the best ones. Most of the time, all I'm reacting to are ideas and scenes described by other posters. I haven't seen the eps, usually to defend them, unless we are having retrospective discussions.

Either way, if people have a strong opinion, its great for discussion, its great for the board. I enjoy them, either to disagree and write why, as I do when they inspire me to write about the themes and metaphors.

In conclusion, you aren't alone - dH hated the ep too, and he was saying that he felt a little out of place here, so for just that reason you should have posted! and also, differing points of view are good for meaty discussion.

See? big thread. Lots of posts to entertain and amuse and provoke and inspire me tomorrow at work.

(Heh, I have a disagreement to pick with you about Angel not being able to handle strong girls. Evidence: last scene in Halloween. The whole Darla arc. Angel is all about the strong women.)

[> [> Ahhh...I'm not alone? Cool. & Thanks. -- s'kat, 16:22:24 02/27/03 Thu

First on that bone?

Yeah...I Will Always Remember You made me hate Angel for the longest time. I think Guise Will Be Guise started the healing process. I'm almost there. Actually Season 4 is really helping, I'm beginning to groove to Angel again. Really beginning to like him. But the frat boy thing...ugh it's really hard.

HE likes strong women. He just wants to be the one saving them not the other way around. Of course in his defense, he was playing damsel a tad too much in Season 3, can see why he got sick of it. But I always got the feeling he wanted to be the one in control and dominant. Instead of being equals.

So d'H hated Storyteller too? This makes me feel a lot better. Really. Hmmm...seem to remember the only other episode I didn't like Help - D'H writing a fantastic demon critique of. And D'H and I both are grooving on Ats this year. Interesting.

Could someone convince D'Horrible to write one of his trade-mark demon critiques of the episode? Haven't seen one since Help and I loved that one.

Hmmm...by my count we got maybe three, possibly 4 out of 100 board members who didn't like Storyteller? LOL!
Wow. We few, we merry few, we band of buggered.

Thanks again. Oh and I did love your post on it. Also Aerustha's recent one below. I just wish that was the episode I watched.


[> [> [> Regarding Angel (spoilers for Awakening) -- Miss Edith, 16:42:05 02/27/03 Thu

In some respects I think Angel does have an old-fashioned view of the women in his life. In Awakening Angel is the big hero who melodramatically rescues the damsel in distress as she screams in terror and does nothing to save herself. As that episode was about his subconscious desires it does suggest it is his ideal to be the alpha male in the relationship. Although he certaintly didn't have much of a problem with Darla's forcefullness. Perhaps something to do with her being his sire?

[> [> [> [> Angel or Angelus? (season 2 spoilers) -- aliera, 17:07:51 02/27/03 Thu

There seems to have been a progression of roles when he (Angelus) was with Darla? At first, she showed him the world (blew the back of his head out as he phrases it) but eventually he became legendary in his viciousness and even she "couldn't keep up with him"? His first dream in season two does show Darla in a more supportive role? And then the next dream is darker and more Angeluslike? Honestly questioning, I'm try to understand the backstory better.

[> Me too, I think -- luna, 15:48:48 02/27/03 Thu

I haven't had a chance to see it but once, so I could change my mind. I thought I was bothered by the pacing--it seemed really slow--but as I read what you said, I think it was the obviousness of the scenes--spelling out what would have been cool if just hinted at. I liked the idea of it-- the metanarration, and selecting Andrew as PoV as a followup to Get It Done was brilliant*--but in general the execution sucked.

The Andrew PoV was such a great comment on points of view--how completely they distort things so that whoever is telling the story becomes the story. Also, the whole self-aggrandizing rewriting of the past is something that all the characters do a tiny bit of ( as Anya and Xander illustrate).

I think a real problem I have with Storytelling is that I really, really hated the trio in S6, and while Andrew wasn't the worst part of it, he was part of it. I liked s6 in many other ways, but found them completely obvious in the same way that this ep was.

However, there were some excellent moments, including many you list. And it was a great concept.

[> That's Groovy with me (vague spoilers for Showtime, Smallville's latest and the Unforgiven) -- fresne, 17:49:00 02/27/03 Thu

Well, I certainly respect your right not to like, well, anything. I don't like line dancing and I love waltz. I love Fred Astaire. I could take Gene Kelly or leave him. The reasons are personality deep. That's why the Meet the Posters thing was so great. Vive le difference, tres uber etc.

And just as an aside, during all the AtS should beat BtVS over the head with an Emmy, no wait BtVS should whack AtS with a Tony threads, I kept thinking, well Firefly should shoot both of them, but it's never gunna get the chance. Sob. Obsessions and dislikes are funny things. The wending whys of the whats.

My own reaction to Storyteller is somewhat occluded. I mean I quite liked it. Nice enough episode. All sorts of analyzable dangly bits. And seriously, when it comes to annotate this one, well, this will be a long one.

It's just for the very time since I have been watching both shows back to back, Buffy was okay and Smallville blew me away.

I feel all fraudulent and bizarre. This has never happened to me.

It's just. It was the Christopher Reeve episode. And it was well done. When CR told young Clark that he had to make his own destiny and then the Superman musical cue from the 1970s CR Superman movies played. And there's CR bound in this wheelchair, but making his own destiny, well the hairs went up on the back of my neck. It was like that moment in The Unforgiven when Clint gets on his pale horse and delivers his threats in the rain. If it had been anyone other than Clint, if it had been anyone other than CR. Just one of those perfect moments.

Something embedded childhood deep. Like hearing about Mr. Rogers this morning. You don't expect it to hit you, but there it is.

I'll have to wait a few weeks and then re-watch Showtime so I can get a purer sense. And possibly ponder the significance of presentation and reality and vision. Wood's white eyes. The Bringers. Tears. I've also just had my left (but not my right) eye dilated and it's doing weird perspective things.

Anyway, to touch back on tastes and Buffy, I did enjoy the Harlequin moment, but err, I enjoy Harlequins. They're like éclairs, but nowhere as nutritious as say, chocolate. Anyway, I think that Buffy being fully/glowing dressed while Spike, no shirt again, after we finally got the poor lad some clothes, well, that was pretty funny. And the We are as gods, I had a costuming moment. I need wildflowers and I need them stat. And possibly inflatable lyres, but that's just me.

[> [> Best episode of "Smallville" ever. (Spoilers for "Rosetta") -- cjl, 18:15:59 02/27/03 Thu

Clark flies! (Yeah, it's a dream, but...)

Christopher Reeve as Stephen Hawking!

Krypton! (Yeah, it's nothing but a big hole in the astronomical charts, but...)

The "Superman" movie theme music!


"I'm your father, and I know you better than anyone..."

The way the data conduit in the cave wall was shaped like the "S" on Superman's costume!

The entire episode worked beautifully. It was William Gibson via Siegel and Schuster. My only regret is that there's no way they can top it.

I spent the entirety of "Storyteller" empathizing as Andrew grew out of his fanboy delusions. I spent all of "Rosetta" slipping back into those delusions all over again.

Weird universe, isn't it?

[> [> [> Agreed (spoilers SM Rosetta and BtVS Storyteller) -- fresne, 10:46:08 02/28/03 Fri

"I spent the entirety of "Storyteller" empathizing as Andrew grew out of his fanboy delusions. I spent all of "Rosetta" slipping back into those delusions all over again.

Weird universe, isn't it?"

Yes it is.

I keep meaning to feel guilty about preferring the delusion to the outgrowth of same, but whatever.

Andrew's vision that by telling the story, he can control his place in it, rewind, revise, edit, observe. Watch.

We are as gods.
Rule them as a god.

The delusion that you are in a huge epic and the fear of same. I can't help but think that Andrew would be (have been) incredibly flattered by any sort of connection to this line of thinking. Although, really Andrew is more Rosencrantz. Or is he Guildenstern? Well, he may be dead soon, so the point may be moot.

And on a final note, Wood, Lex, hmmmm...

[> [> Thank you! thank you! -- Vickie, 11:14:21 02/28/03 Fri

I've been wracking my brain since Tuesday over this "Harlequin moment" everyone's talking about. Of course, I was thinking pale slender clowns, dressed in alternating diamonds of light and dark.


[> [> [> Re: Thank you! thank you! -- Celebaelin, 19:25:04 03/01/03 Sat

Or at least the Comedia del'Arte Arrlecchino Harlequin, he of the romance with Columbine. I think after reading the last few posts that I remember something about a publisher of romantic fiction in the US? What would be grouped as 'Mills and Boon' in the UK.

I was particularly freaked incidentally, as 'Harlequin' is a nom-de-crime used by Celebaelin in his more larcenous moments.

"Harlequin - In the British pantomime, a sprite supposed to be invisible to all eyes but those of his faithful Columbine. His office is to dance through the world and frustrate all the knavish tricks of the Clown, who is supposed to be in love with Columbine."

Courtesy of 'The Readers Encyclopedia' William Rose Benet

Whilst I think about it SK your negative reaction to Andrew may be what you're supposed to feel. Positive portrayals of gay men have been done, and done, and done, well, ad nauseam in fact. The same of course cannot be said for the portrayal of lesbians. I wouldn't say Andrew has been exactly vilified within the context of Buffy miscreants (from what I've seen) but he's certainly on the naive side of omniscient, which is an unusual slant on the (positive) male homosexual stereotype.


[> Re: Why I hated Storyteller : a bit of a ramble on why we like or dislike things -- Ylang Ylang (Deb), 11:52:13 02/28/03 Fri

On one level, this ep was quite satisfying for me, but on a more personal level, it holds meaning for me only because there are only five more eps. left in Buffy.

It was wonderful for finding pop culture references and themes. It felt like -- and that's how I take in film and telvision primarily -- watching a so-so remake of the mythology of the film "Amadeus" -- more so the director's cut. We have this "evil" narrator, who also is the protagonist of the story, who confesses to murder. When he tells his story, it's quite apparent that though he knows he killed, he sees himself as being the person done wrong. There is no actual remorse for the killing, but remorse for being in the very position he attempted to place Mozart. In other words, Andrew's tears at the end were for himself, not for Jonathon. His one seemingly emphatic sentence: "This must be how Jonathon felt" was more a statement on how he felt.

Then we have Andrew's twisted POV regarding Buffy, Spike and Anya -- Greek gods. In "Amadeus" Salieri believes God is personally playing a cruel joke on him by denying him of his true station in life and history, and giving it to someone he consideres to be beneath the calling. In the director's cut of "Amadeus" we see a more "realistic" (meaning troubling and human and suffering Mozart) to juxtaposition with Salieri's POV. This person God has blessed by using as his incarnate and vessel isn't exactly flourishing but is floundering close to the abyss. As we see, so are Buffy, Spike and Anya.

Andrew's "introduction" of the three was a take from a scene in "Amadeus" that at first I found funny, but it is also disturbing. In "Amadeus" (known hereforth as "A"). Mozart returns home one evening with a group of people. He introduces three of them to his wife Constance (humm) and comes to the fourth, and he doesn't know her name so he introduces her as this nice, pretty, girl. Andrew also does this in his story. Within context, though, in "A" three men are waiting in Mozart's home with Constance and when Mozart is finished with the introductions, Constance tells him that the men are from Salzburg (Mozart's hometown) and they've come to tell him that his father has died.

I could do a much better job at this if I had a few hours, like 50 or 60 or so, but continuing............

In the high school, there is chemistry between Spike and Wood much as between Salieri and Mozart -- hate makes for great chemistry. I was waiting for Wood to commission a Requium from Spike at this point. When Wood makes his move to stake Spike, "luck" defeats him. In "A" Salieri's hate of God is sealed when he believes that God purposefully killed Mozart before he could finish dictating his Requium to Salieri. (The importance of this being that he would have this God-given masterpiece in his own handwriting and so would be remembered forever for being "touched by God."
Andrew's view of himself as having been an evil genius might be applied to Salieri also. If no one sees your talent as a force of good, well, just might as well use it for the Big Bad.

On a thematic level, Salieri saw Mozart as being beneath him morally, but the fact that God chose Mozart to be his representative on Earth (it is a formal name afterall) was an abomination that devoured Salieri completely.

I know I haven't presented a complete argument here, but like I said, that would require hours.

On the personal level: It was not an outstanding episode, but it is one of the last episodes. It lacked any emotional appeal to me, but it certainly supplied material that requires more critical analysis.

I might post this above since I've kinda wandered and wondered from S'Kat's main points, and because I have a habit of posting late in a thread and then the thread is archieved.

[> some responses -- anom, 13:24:36 02/28/03 Fri

I can't address everything I'd like to in this post...it'd take too long. (I don't even have time to read the whole thread! So I hope I'm not repeating anyone.) But there are some things.

A lot of the problem, s'kat, seems to be that many things in this episode pushed your buttons. That's not the same as its being a bad episode. As you say elsewhere, your reaction to Wood is based on your awful experience w/your own boss, but that doesn't mean the character is really like him. People like your boss are putting on a persona that often works for them--i.e., covers up their sickness--because it imitates the real personalities of people who are sincere. Some level of sexual banter in an office is not necessarily a bad thing, but there's a line that shouldn't be crossed. Obviously, your boss crossed it. And that kind of thing can make a person who's been subjected to it extra sensitive to things that don't bother some other people, or at least not as much.

"While other people saw his tears at the end as remorse - I saw them as fear that Buffy was going to kill him in the same way he killed his friend. The only remorse I saw was that he'd gotten himself into something he hadn't intended. I just didn't see what everyone else did. I tried. Why was this? Because I don't think Andrew knows what is real."

I think that was the point. But now he does. Buffy didn't just hold him over the seal & let him think she was about to kill him. If he'd just cried out of fear, that wouldn't have been enough. She leads him step by step. Not just "it might save the world" but "will it redeem you?" (no "epic redemption" like in the story he was telling himself while tied up in the chair) & then "why not?" She makes him think about it & face what he did, so the tears really are from remorse. Yes, at knifepoint, but they don't have time for years of therapy.

"Yes - Andrew is gay. I got that."

Sure. We all do, since last season. But I honestly don't think Andrew has any idea. I also think this is going change pretty soon now that he's left (or at least started to leave) fantasyland behind.

"Gimmicky and silly and became well writer masturbation - look mom, no hands! See what I can do? Wheee!"

Masturbation w/no hands? Don't even want to know how! And showing mom--eeeeewwwww! (Sorry, just getting overly literal again...needed a little comic relief!)

"And hey - I know - since Btvs is in it's final season anyway and the only viewers we really care about are on posting boards - I'll put in all these cool little one liners relating to those boards then lurk online afterwards and mop up the glory. That is writer masturbation in a nutshell. I don't mind it that much - but they've been doing it in every single episode this year. And in this one they went for overkill - including the fantasies."

Again, I think this was the point. Andrew's overdramatizations had been getting to me, but now I see the writers were building up to this ep, where they brought the whole thing to a head...in order to undercut it. Kinda like letting a boil come to a point so you can lance it. Oh, & I doubt we board posters are really the only viewers they care about. They may have been comparing us to Andrew...well, not us, of course....

"Or the whole naked dream joke? Or taking her to the alley so he can show off?"

Well, Buffy brought up the dream. And Wood asked about the bus part, not the naked part. And I wouldn't assume he knew they'd be attacked in the alley. That may have happened because the vamps wanted to get the Slayer, or were sent by the First. I don't think Wood would have set himself up for a situation he might not be able to handle (1st time fighting 2 vamps at once). OK, it's possible he lied about that last part, but it didn't play that way, to me at least.

"He's a principal, who went to college, who is in a position of authority - he shouldn't talk in Buffyspeak."

I was in high school in the '60s, & I know there were plenty of principals who tried to show the kids they were hip. We've seen him let some kids off w/a warning when maybe he shouldn't have. Also, he's still pretty young himself (I liked how his voice went up in Lessons when Buffy said she'd take the job [Really?"]--I think that was when--& when he asked Buffy out & when he asked about the bus [sorry].)

"I preferred closed captionings: 'the monster who killed my...' to what they used 'whore who sleeps with vampires' which was borderline offensive and if I was Buffy I would hit him upside the head."

Well, she kinda did, didn't she? But we don't know how responsible he was for what he said, w/the white eyes of possession & all. That was strange about the caption discrepancy. I'd guess the writers decided they didn't want Buffy to know (for sure) about that yet.

"I liked Kennedy until this episode. I thought she and Willow had chemistry until this episode. Now? I don't think they do. They looked bored. And awkward together."

It just looked to me like they were being more sweet than hot. And why wouldn't they still be awkward after the life-sucking last ep? Another possibility: ahem, Ms. POV, we're seeing them through Andrew's eyes, & he's not interested in watching them kiss! I mean, you don't think Jonathan really said that stuff that sounded exactly like Andrew in México, do you? @>)

"And the whole- you weren't going to kill me? Really? Well of course not Andrew, she's the good guy. How many comics have you read?"

Except she just said it's not like all the stories. She's making it up. What kind of hero/good guy does that make her? The whole idea is to get Andrew's mind out of the comic-book framework.

So I disagree on a lot of things. But I support your right to see it differently & to feel differently about it. Especially when it leads to the kind of discussion in this thread!

[> [> As for Willow and Kennedy -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:54:55 02/28/03 Fri

I doubt they'd let themselves get too chemistry-ish while some guy was standing in the same room with a video camera. If they had shown a lot of chemistry there, we'd probably have posters complaining about it being too voyeuristic or that it was out of character for Willow to be so sexually open.

[> [> Buttons instead of criticism for a change, and hopefully some answers -- s'kat, 14:56:47 02/28/03 Fri

Yep - as I responded above - this episode pushed way too many of my buttons. To the extent that I wasn't going to post on it or post on the board until all discussion of it went away. But then it occurred to me that maybe that was the wrong way to approach it - maybe I should discuss the buttons for a change. Maybe that was valid. After all we reacte to art emotionally as well as mentally right?
And sometimes the art that creates a purely emotional response is far more what's the word - effective?

The trick is how to post on a "negative" response and explore one's responses particularly when one is in the minority? I tried to do it with the whole Lock thing.
Not sure anyone really got it. It's hard to be clear when your mind is clouded with emotion.

My difficulty with Wood - and I explained it wrong - did it better with Rook above, was his continuous lying and manipulation with Buffy, which I am not alone in seeing.
At least ten posters above this thread also comment on it.
In fact I've seen numerous people comment on it, who did not have my experience. So it wasn't something I imagined.
Wood is incredibly manipulative. He knew she was the slayer when he hired her - he had a file on her. He hired her because she was the slayer. He took her to an alley out of the way - one he had been to before and fought vamps before.
And...he charms her into taking him to her home where she works so he can see the vampire. As several people mentioned in the threads above there's certain things he does in the episode that are deliberately shown as being deceptive. Wood's manipulation of Buffy is unfortunately very close to something I experienced and it triggered a PTS moment for me, that I did not understand or realize until after I posted this. A friend figured it out from my posts. So yes - there was a button - but it was seen by others who are unspoiled and did not necessarily have the same one.

On Andrew - that's another button - and I don't get it at all. When I figure it out, I'll let you know.

The rest of the episode? It had aspects that have been bugging me all year long. One is the POV thing - which is why I keep posting on it. The writers are obsessed with it but they keep screwing it up and confusing the heck out of their audience. Jane actually comes the closest to doing it well but she makes the same mistake both times first in STSP and then in StoryTeller. She uses two or three pov's and jumbles them together. We have Andrews. We have Buffy's and We have Wood's. At one point - I wasn't sure if we were in Buffy, Wood's or Andrew's at the school. That's a no-no in writing. Now to her credit, the pov in Storyteller is a lot clearer than Killer in Me, but I enjoyed Killer in Me a heck of a lot more. (Maybe because there was less of Andrew and Wood?)

My difficulty with Andrew - is partly that this is the last season of the series and as Masq stated above, why are we focusing on an annoying recurring character when there are so many other cool regular characters for screen time?
That's my problem with Btvs this year. We have a crowded cast. And I'm frustrated that instead of spending more time getting to know Dawn (who is still underdeveloped), Xander (little screen time this year), Anya, Spike, Buffy, Giles,
and Willow. (Who all have tons of issues to explore.) We are wasting, okay maybe that's too strong, we are spending time with Andrew??? Also of all their peripheral supporting characters and villains, Andrew is well the least interesting. He's a non-entity - Tucker's brother. I'd rather have learned more about Amanda or Kennedy. But hey that's just me, apparently.

Regarding the writer masturbation - this is another thing that's been bugging me this year. I've largely ignored it since I appreciate their need for experimentation and actually applaud it and in most episodes enjoyed this. But in this one? It was over-kill. We had one too many dream flashes. We spent too much time with the video camera.
Too much commentary on "reality tv". It felt like a hammer instead of a pat. It wasn't as subtle as usual. Compare this to the subtle flashes and streamlined writing of Selfless, where each flash moves story forward and doesn't jar. In Storyteller - we have the Masterpiece Theater scene, then the Harlequinn moment, then the DarkWillow (which was a clip and didn't add much that was new), the dark geniuses...I don't know for some reason these flashes bugged me more here while in Selfless I loved them.
PArt of the problem could very well be that the whole Wood/buffy bit didn't quite meld with the whole Andrew bit.
While in Selfless the Spike/buffy and the Willow/Xander/Buffy scenes melded beautifully with Anya's.

The metanarration is beginning to grate. It's too much.
They keep referring to past episodes. I keep wishing they'd stop already. At first I enjoyed it. Now it's beginning to feel like well masturbation. (Selfindulgent or like they can't come up with anything new.) In Get it Done - I thought the metanarration was brillant - it was subtle and filled with metaphorical references. Here it is well blunt like a hammar and almost tasteless, and I tend to have a pretty black sense of humor, but the exploding boy reference to Nightmares (tasteless) and the disappearing girl (repetitive). It's almost as if they are cramming metanarration on all Season 1 and 2 and 3 episodes into this year and we'll get an award at the end if we can find them all. Where's Waldo...idea. And while this didn't bug me in past episodes so much, because it was so subtle, it did in this one.

Not sure if that clears it up or not.

My mistake may have been including my emotional feelings on the episode, i wonder what responses I would have gotten if I'd said: This episode pushed all my buttons. I hated it for these reasons - and has this ever happened to anyone else?


[> [> [> There is no mistake here -- Sara, who has read this entire thread! Yea Me!, 16:32:29 02/28/03 Fri

You posted a very interesting discussion both about the episode and about likes and dislikes, created a monster thread (The Thread That Ate the Bronx in theatres now!) and generated a ton of great conversation - where's the mistake?

[> [> [> Thanks for pushing my button, s'kat! (spoilerish thru 1-Storyteller) -- WickedBuffy, 22:05:38 02/28/03 Fri

Thank you very much, s'kat.

Your paragraph about Andrew cleared my confusion about why the episode bothered me. (I admit, first I blamed it on this Forum - I thought I didn't enjoy Storyteller as much because I was watching it as if I would need to defend my thoughts about it on this Board. LOL. Defensively.)

I feel the same as you about Andrews extended screentime. I know this is the last season - I want more of the core cast onscreen. I'm hungry for more Xander and Buffy and Anya and Willow and Spike and Giles and ::koff:: Dawn. And knowing there isn't much time left, makes it worse.

I love Andrews character, but I wish he had been introduced around Jonathons entrance and maybe gotten killed off in Season 5. He just seems to me to fit more "back in those days". As much as his character makes me laugh, he seems like more of a cartoonish plot device. When he cried over the Seal was the first time he seemed like a "real" character to me.

With a whole house of SITs added in, the original cast has even LESS "me" time. (OK, Kennedy I wish had been introduced earlier - I like her alot.)

I'm afraid my disappointment after the last episode will be more for having wanted to see more of the Scoobies in the last few episodes, than that the series itself is over.

And I'm going to be hungry AND grouchy about it all. aarghh

[> A thought about Wood -- Gyrus, 15:54:24 02/28/03 Fri

Several people have cited Wood's repeated manipulation of Buffy in order to obtain information, and that he only seems to give out information when he will get some in return. This sort of conduct is very typical of the late Quentin Travers, and the Watchers Council in general. So maybe Wood has adopted the methods of the Watcher who raised him.

[> [> The Watchers - part of the problem? part of the cure? (Spoilers to GiD Btvs and Ats Awakening) -- s'kat, 18:01:31 02/28/03 Fri

This sort of conduct is very typical of the late Quentin Travers, and the Watchers Council in general. So maybe Wood has adopted the methods of the Watcher who raised him.

Quentin Travers...oh if there was ever a man who deserved to be blown to smithereens for arrogance alone.
He was responsible for HELPLESS and Cruciatoriam (sp?).
ME appears saying something very interesting about Watchers - the past six years?

I'm wondering about this. We keep getting very negative views of Watchers - in both Ats and Btvs. Wes the former Watcher has turned quite dark...and practices the ruthless methods of ends justify the means. We wonder where he got it from and are told in Spin The Bottle if you listened carefully, Joss Whedon who wrote the episode states - Wes thinks they've been locked in the hotel with a vampire as a test just like the cruciatorium - he even uses the same term. Wes' view of how to deal with Faith was to call the Watcher Council on her and their tact? To kill her. Buffy and Angel ended up saving her both times. As Buffy puts it regarding the Watcher Council - in Triangle, before Giles leaves - "Watcher Council tried to kill me twice."

We go back in time to the first Watcher Council - The Shadowmen who attempt to literally impregnate her with the power - a type of rape.

When the Watcher Council learns what's up with the First, they don't tell Buffy, they don't reveal Giles' whereabouts, they lie to her and make their own plans to travel to sunnydale. One wonders what chaos they may have caused if they weren't blown up. Did the FE do Buffy a favor?

Also why are we mislead to believe Giles could be the FE?
What was the point? Perhaps again...ME is making a point about the Watchers.

Also why is FE killing all the Watchers and The Beast is killing all the lawyers in Ats? Maybe there's a connection between the two?

Part of the point of this season is to show the evil in humans, in us. What if the Watcher's are the Btvs equivalent of the Wolfram and Hart? They are about order.
They aren't evil. But are they good?

I don't know. But my hunch tells me based on what I've seen on both shows over the years - trusting a Watcher is NOT a good idea. And I keep remember Giles' dream in Restless, how completely thrown he was by the First Slayer and how his residence was literally in the crypt.

The fact Wood was brought up by a Watcher, and not any Watcher, his dead mother's...(wonder if that Watcher was his biological father?) makes me distrust him even more.
"evil is as evil does" reminds me of Holtz, also reminds me of Quentin Travers and his speech about war, justifying
the cruciatorium to Giles in Helpless.


[> [> [> Re: The Watchers - part of the problem? part of the cure? (Spoilers to GiD Btvs and Ats Awakening) -- Gyrus, 09:26:32 03/01/03 Sat

As JW is a self-proclaimed feminist, it seems that the Watchers were meant to represent patriarchal authority. They were not evil per se, but they were too stuck in their traditional, sexist ways to do any good. This is why they were never really effective, and why they were ultimately destroyed.

The CoW also seemed less interested in the triumph of good over evil than in man over demon. Wood appears to be similarly inclined -- he doesn't much care about what side Spike is on, only that he's the vampire who murdered Wood's mother.

(Interesting side note: HonorH told me that, according to a German friend of hers, the German word for "wood" is "holz" -- pronounced like "Holtz".)

That said, I can't envision a connection between the CoW and W&H. The lawyers at W&H know that their 'senior partners' are demons, and I can't imagine the Watchers would abide that.

[> Denial -- Malandanza, 22:46:27 02/28/03 Fri

I agree with anom on most of these points. In particular, that Andrew's remorse was real. It wasn't just fear of punishment -- it was a recognition of his own responsibility. Not "the First made me do it", or "I didn't know what I was doing" or "even It wasn't me/I'm a different person now." It was an understanding of how terrified Jonathan must have felt and genuine repentance. Symbolically, it just wouldn't work to have tears of self-pity reverse a selfish spell. Buffy might have just as well held an onion under Andrew's eyes if all it takes is a few drops of salt water. It would be as if I suggested that the kiss between Warren/Willow and Kennedy was pure lust. It just wouldn't fit.

Did Andrew know Buffy wouldn't kill him? If he thought about it calmly and rationally, maybe. On the other hand, Buffy did kill Angel, the love of her life, to save the world. She also tried to slay Anya (as Anya keeps mentioning). As much as an observer and fan as Andrew is, I suspect he's learned most of Buffy's history from her other fans by now. Plus there's the influence of the Seal -- who knows what it would do to her? All around him, Andrew sees the destruction wrought by those under the influence of the First and Buffy mentioned the Principal being taken over by the Seal -- why shouldn't he think that Buffy might be susceptible as well? Or perhaps not all of Andrew's fantasies are happy -- there are some horror comics out there along with the fairy tale ending varieties -- perhaps in some of Andrew's fantasies Buffy is capable of gutting him. All this assumes that he calmly reflected on what was happening instead of blindly panicking. It looked like he was in panic mode to me, however, so I can understand why he might find an armed slayer, who led him away from the relative safety of Spike and Wood, stalking him at the scene where he murdered his best friend while chaos reigns about him to be a bit frightening. And, anyway, we weren't told what Andrew's blood would do to the Seal -- Buffy never answered him when he asked what she'd do if the tears hadn't worked. Knifing Andrew may have been Plan B.

I agree about the Buffy/Wood work/romance -- perhaps there are some relationships where a boss and his subordinate can date without the power of the workplace intruding, but I suspect they are rare. Add to that, Buffy is being paid to do a job for which she has no qualifications, and we get at the very least an appearance of impropriety. I also agree about how manipulative Wood is -- in fact, he boasts that he maneuvered Buffy into her job just as he maneuvered himself into his own job. He's a clever guy -- just ask him. Just like Wesley of last season on AtS. And like Wesley, he's bound to get into trouble because he's so busy congratulating himself on manipulating others he doesn't stop to see that he's being manipulated.

The Kennedy/Willow lack of passion on Kennedy's part doesn't bother me in the least. On their date, Kennedy revealed that she had a great deal of experience seducing girls, that she enjoyed the chase, and even sees getting her date drunk to get her into bed as fair play. She's more like Parker than Tara -- passionate during the seduction phase but looking for the next conquest afterwards. The novelty is gone.

But I suspect that your biggest problem with the episode is that it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that ME intend Andrew to be Spike stripped of any Romantic illusions. Spike has lived in a fantasy world just as surely as has Andrew -- he even went along with the play-acting for Andrew's documentary. He puffs himself up first as the "Big Bad" (as Andrew was part of the Trio) but now claims to be a good guy (as did Andrew). He hasn't really taken responsibility for anything -- Buffy made him get the soul, it was all for her. Before that, he didn't have free will. Sure he was a killer, but he's really sorry, he cried and everything a couple of times -- the coat? an old habit, not a trophy. A sign of his virility (stripped from a dead woman). Insensitive to Wood, perhaps, but, hey! Wood's a bad guy. Probably. Or the thrall of a bad guy, anyway.

It doesn't fit with Harlequin!Spike to point out that William was a nerd who became the Bully he hated, that he has difficulty distinguishing between violence and sex (this is the guy who got excited just recounting his kills to Buffy), that he spent his life trying to kill strong women again and again (just as Penn tried to kill his father again and again), that he has only a tenuous attachment to reality, believing his own stories, and that he has not, and perhaps cannot, accepted responsibility for anything he does. That he is, in short, a nastier version of Andrew. But that's one of the reasons I liked this episode -- especially the Harlequin scene, which I believe the actors and actresses loved doing. (The exploding student was stupid, though).

[> [> Good post. -- Arethusa, 04:52:05 03/01/03 Sat

I like your merciless description of over-romanticized Spike. So you don't think there's any real difference between Spike with and without a soul? Has he not accepted any responsibility for his behavior as a vampire?

[> [> [> Liam/Spike vs William/Angel -- WickedBuffy, 09:12:00 03/01/03 Sat

AngelwithaSoul broods extensively about his past, tormented by what he's done and perpetually seeking atonement. The past seems to be his continuous motivation.

Spike has reacted differently post-soul - he's focused on the here and now. More of a "that was then, this is now" attitude.

Isn't it ironic that Liam was a drunken loafer pre-vampire, living in the moment and William was the ultra-sensitive, melancholic one.

Now Angel is *stil*l coming to terms with his past and Spike lives in the moment, let's just move on.

In some ways, they've switched perceptions in how they see trhe world and behave in it.

(yahyah, so "melancholic" isn't a word, you know what I meant!)

[> [> [> Re: Good post. -- Dariel, 10:03:19 03/01/03 Sat

I think Spike has accepted responsibility for his past, or had, at least, with ME now backpedaling on the subject. Places where Spike has taken responsibility: Begins helping fight the baddies again, beginning in BY. Makes sure that the teenage cultists "don't hurt the girl" in Help, certainly a reflection on Spike's past sins. Turns himself in in Sleeper the minute he knows he's killing again, then accepts/urges Buffy to stake him. Urges her to stake him again in Never Leave Me. Insists on chaining himself in the Killer in Me.

Since then, ME has taken an about face. The chip is out, and Spike's chains are gone. He's got his coat on, delights in the kill, and is strutting around like the Big Bad again. I, for one, don't know what to make of this.

[> [> [> [> Re: Good post. -- Malandanza, 10:59:39 03/01/03 Sat

"I think Spike has accepted responsibility for his past, or had, at least, with ME now backpedaling on the subject."

I think that if we compare Spike's story to some of the other redemption stories, we see that ME is being consistent. There are three phase: regret, relapse, redemption.

Lindsey initially seeks Angel's help ostensibly because killing children bothers him -- but Angel sees through the facade -- fear is the primary motivation. Naturally enough, Lindsey relapses, returning to W&H to become one of their best and brightest. Eventually (when he visits the Evil Hand doctors and sees the during bodies) he gets it -- and seeks genuine redemption.

When Faith comes to Sunnydale, she's scared. She tries to be the best Slayer possible for a while, but after Kakistos is dusted, there isn't much motivation. She quickly switches to want/take/have and ends up on the wrong side of the conflict. Later, she has a real epiphany and rejoins the side of light -- and, more importantly, accepts responsibility for her past action.

Willow has a break down -- she's scared, the magic is controlling her. She needs help. She relapses and kills Warren. Now she's on the path to reform (not there yet).

Angel is souled and is filled with regret and self-pity -- but mostly self-pity. He blames the gypsies and almost blames Darla (she brought him the girl). He tries to "get the whirlwind back" but fails when Darla demands he eat a baby. After a century of more self-pity, a failed attempt to be a hero and a little help from a demon, he finally gets his act together. Well, sort of -- there was that Noir period.

So I think Spike's "reform" is the same temporary reform we've seen time and time again. He feels sorry for himself and he blames Buffy (he got the soul for her -- and she didn't even thank him!) She used him -- he's still dwelling on that. His confessions were when he was barely lucid -- once he got back his senses, he stopped accepting responsibility for anything. He delayed telling Buffy about his black outs -- she had to confront him to get a confession -- and the he lied. All that talk about just wanting to go out and talk to a girl after the trouble Buffy had put him through -- when he remembered nothing about what he'd actually done.

"Since then, ME has taken an about face. The chip is out, and Spike's chains are gone. He's got his coat on, delights in the kill, and is strutting around like the Big Bad again. I, for one, don't know what to make of this."

I think he's gotten his balance back. He wants the whirlwind -- to be the Big Bad again
. Back to his fantasy world where he commands respect and fear and women grovel before him. Eventually, Wood will confront him about the jacket -- probably in front of Buffy. That should be the point that propels Spike into genuine repentance -- his epiphany when he realizes that he is not the cool Gothic Hero or Courtly Lover, he's just a killer wearing a dead girl's jacket.

The jacket is what really bother me. Spike's past crimes are in the past -- he has a better claim to being a different person now than any other reformed criminal. The soul makes him a different person. But wearing the jacket is awful -- he hasn't reformed as long as he wears it.

Think of it this was -- suppose Warren escaped Dark Willow. She went on a vengeance crusade for a few years killing Evil Nerds, but eventually grew tired of it and settled down to do good. Later, she meets a changed Warren. He's a new man -- he's working for Habitat for Humanity now, devoting his time and genius to helping the poor. He's a good guy -- he recognizes that he was evil in the past and even tells Willow (who he doesn't recognize) that he's doing his best to be good now. Yet when she looks closer, she sees he's wearing a necklace of teeth taken from Tara. Is he still a good guy? Or does the trophy kind of put a pall on his good deeds?

[> [> [> [> [> ayup - Spike wants it "all". Both ways. -- WickedBuffy, 12:38:12 03/01/03 Sat


Very nicely put - and I'll probably have nightmares about that necklace for months! I hadn't thought of Spike that way until after reading your post.

To me, right now he IS acting like he wants it both ways - and it's what's been confusing me. I thought I was just feeling wishy-washy about him, but it's him who's straddling the fence. Or hopping from one side to the other. Maybe if he was broody about his sins of the past, like Angel is, he wouldn't seem so "fickle", he'd have integrated the good with the evil more. But, Spike lives pretty much in the moment - like Liam did. And now Angel is the sensitive brooder, like William once was. What a difference a few hundred years can make. ;>

and again - the jacket thing. Does ME always do that on purpose or is it subconscious? One of the first things I remember about Buffy&Angel was her wearing his leather jacket. The "I kill ghastlyvampires while stylishly sporting my vampire boyfriends kewl jacket" message.

[> [> [> [> [> Like your analogy (GiD spoilers) -- Scroll, 12:43:41 03/01/03 Sat

To me, Spike hasn't been "redeemed" yet. Yes, his soul makes him a new person, but Spike himself hasn't really come to grips with his past yet. He knows he's a danger to people, and for a while he kinda wanted Buffy to stake him so he wouldn't have to live with himself. But he hasn't taken responsibility for what having a soul means yet. The soul gives him free will and yet Spike has yet to make any real choices. Buffy is right in GiD; she's been carrying them too long. Spike is still doing the same thing he did in S5-S6; he fights bad guys, sure, but he doesn't fight bad guys because he cares about the innocent, but because it's what Buffy wants. Spike needs to start defining himself instead of clinging to Buffy's apron strings.

Later, she meets a changed Warren. He's a new man -- he's working for Habitat for Humanity now, devoting his time and genius to helping the poor. He's a good guy -- he recognizes that he was evil in the past and even tells Willow (who he doesn't recognize) that he's doing his best to be good now. Yet when she looks closer, she sees he's wearing a necklace of teeth taken from Tara. Is he still a good guy? Or does the trophy kind of put a pall on his good deeds?

Excellent analogy, Mal. That's why I think Wood is key to Spike's redemption. Spike needs to look Wood in the face and realise without a doubt that, no matter how sorry he is for his past, he can never really make up for it. The past isn't the past just because Spike says it is; soul or no soul, the past will come up to bite him in the ass. Just ask Angel ; )

[> I loved it because it opens with NIETZSCHE & Shakespeare -- frisby, 15:17:52 03/01/03 Sat

How could I not love this episode? The opening first shot centers NIETZSCHE and Shakespeare together! (There are others reasons too of course -- but that one says a lot -- I know they all work on Shakespeare on Sundays, but do they read Nietzsche or just this board?)

[> [> Re: I loved it because it opens with NIETZSCHE & Shakespeare -- Arethusa, 15:24:18 03/01/03 Sat

What do you think they are saying about Andrew and/or Nietzsche by putting the book in Andrew's fantasy?

[> [> [> Wasn't Nietzsche all about turning your life into a work of art? -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:01:55 03/01/03 Sat

Kinda fits how Andrew tries to turn everything into a story of some kind.

[> [> [> [> personally -- Clen, 12:22:52 03/02/03 Sun

I think the two would get together like oil and water, as I mentioned in another thread.

Current board | More February 2003