January 2002 posts
SAME TOPICS, DIFFERENT REACTIONS! -- chuk_38, 02:14:36 01/27/02 Sun
this thought has been with me for a little while and i just never really said anything about it untill now.
This problably has been brought up hundreds of times before,so if they have then i am sorry :-)
Has anyone noticed how on Buffy/Angel,the same topics have had totally different reactions from the characters on each show.
For example the Homophobia issue.
in BUFFY, there was not one tiny bit of it from willow's friends,
but in ANGEL, as soon as cordelia even suspected that harmony was gay, she was straight on the phone demanding an answer to why the scoobies hadn't told her(only to get a quck shock though :-) )
The realisation that the main character was up againt an evil that could not easily be beat.
BUFFY, in realising that she couldn't beat glory,she kind of drew her friend closer, by willow looking up super strong spells and spike actually helping for once(ok so he broght the van that they ran away in, but it helps), and buffy was grateful for each bit of help that she got
but ANGEL, in having to fight Wolfram and Hart, Darla and Dru, he reacted by firing his friends and trting to do it himself.
I am sure there are other topics that have been raised in both shows, with totally different outcomes, but why?
I understand that the shows have to be different, but these differences sometimes seem totally different, i mean look what happened, Buffy died
So, what do you all think?
[> Re: SAME TOPICS, DIFFERENT REACTIONS! -- yabyumpan, 05:13:39 01/27/02 Sun
re-homophpobia: I agree that the reactions where different but i see it opposite to you. Think of Buffy's initial reaction to Willow telling her about Tara, she jumped up from the bed and backed away although she was fine with it in the end.The rest of the gang also seemed pretty wigged by it and Willow obviously didn't think Buffy had really accepted it, think back to her out burst in "the Yoko Factor", Spike only brought out what was already there. With Cordy, even though she thought harmony had just been trying to suduce her in her sleep, she didn't push her away but asked if she wanted to talk about it. Yes she phoned Willow the next day, but as I say, she did think Harmony had tried to jump her bones the night before.
Same shows,different perspectives....
[> Re: SAME TOPICS, DIFFERENT REACTIONS! -- change, 05:26:38 01/27/02 Sun
> Has anyone noticed how on Buffy/Angel,the same topics have had totally different reactions from the characters
> on each show.
Well, if they had the same reactions, then they would be the same show. That would be boring, as in "been there, done that".
Besides, the characters in the two shows are different characters. So, it makes sense that they would react to the same thing differently.
is willow now a character more suited for Angel? -- chuk_38, 02:26:54 01/27/02 Sun
ok, so before i start i have to admit that i have only seen the first four eps of buffy season 6.
But what i have read in spoilers and websites with the stories of some of the storylines, Does anyone think that Willow and what she has went through is more of an ANGEL storyline, and does this mean that she now is more suited to the show angel?
and is it me or does tara seem to fit in more with the scoobies now than willow does.
Coz Willow is always fighting with anya, and even giles had his turn of bawling at willow. And i kinda think that willow almost forced the scoobs to do the reserection spell because she felt 'guilty' or 'responsible' for what happend to buffy. " I cant leave her in some hell dimension"
Wheras, tara is becoming more of a scoob than she ever has been. She has that maternal relationship with dawn. and she has never had a fight with any of the scoobs apart from willow. She even is friendly with anya.
So is it just me or is Tara now more suited to the world of Buffy , while Willow has been transformed into a 'shouldbe' angel star?
Flooded-a UK fan -- yabyumpan, 04:58:27 01/27/02 Sun
Just watched Flooded here in the UK and apart from the fact that I thought it was pretty boring I have to ask, what have Willow and Tara been contributing to the upkeep of the Summers household? It seems they've all been relying on Joyce's insurance money but those two are living there too, using electricity etc, shouldn't they be contributing? I know they've been looking after Dawn but isn't part of taking that responsibility to make sure there was going to be enough money to carry on clothing and feeding her. It seems that they're quite happy to hand over the responsibility to Buffy now she's back, which seems pretty selfish and mean to me. They obviously knew there was money problems, what would they have done if they hadn't been able to bring Buffy back? Both Xander and Anya have work, couldn't they have contributed as well?
I must say that I'm finding it difficult to like any of the characters at the momment, the only one who seems to have any redeeming features and who I'm actually interested in is Spike! (And Giles now he's back)
Sorry if this seems like I'm venting my spleen here but It's actually about being sad and disappointed. I've watched and loved the show from the start but now it seems like a chore to watch, in fact my thought after watching Flooded was "ok, I've done my duty, now I'll re-watch Angel". I actually like the characters in Angel, I like the group's dynamics, I like the shows, they entertain me, sadly Buffy doesn't any more. I'll probably keep watching, I want to like it again and I want to see what happens with Spike but at the moment I just feel pretty sad about it.
Sorry if this has offended anyone but these thoughts just kept going round my head and I needed to "share"!
[> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- manwitch, 05:08:32 01/27/02 Sun
I do understand. All I can say is keep watching. Some BIG payoffs are on the way.
[> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- matching mole, 06:41:49 01/27/02 Sun
I can certainly understand your feelings. The beginning of this season definitely marked the low point of my interest in BtVS. Also, and I would guess this represents a minority opinion on this board, since the start of season 2 AtS, season 5 BtVS I have generally found AtS more interesting and more enjoyable than its parent series. I've actually spent quite a bit of time cogitating on this and discussing it with a couple of like-minded friends. Expect/dread a longer post in the near future.
However I would also agree with manwitch that if you keep watching BtVS you will find it picking up in the near future.
[> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- Cactus Watcher, 08:22:34 01/27/02 Sun
I had the same problems with the financial situation when Flooded aired here in the US. There are other holes I've noticed since then. One of the excuses why the money ran out was hospital bills. The fact is Joyce wasn't in the hospital anytime near her death. Buffy would have known about all the hospital bills before the events of The Gift. (One more big worry then!) Like not taking the time last year to have Buffy's and Dawn's blood checked (and found medically strikingly similar) last year in any of all those hospital scenes, not mentioning how Tara and Willow contribute to the living expenses during the ep. Flooded leaves a bad taste that won't go away.
[> [> why do they need their blood checked? -- vampire hunter D, 11:02:56 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> Re: why do they need their blood checked? -- CW, 13:31:37 01/27/02 Sun
That way we don't have to rely on Buffy's off-the-top-of-her-head, keep-Dawn-from-hurting-herself remark that their blood is the same to make the portal closing work. Otherwise, it might as well be Ben's blood to close the portal. Lots of folks don't agree with me, I know, but lots do. Testing the blood would have made everyone happy, and would have taken twenty seconds of air time if only the results were mentioned in passing on screen.
If nothing else they could have told Dawn on screen that she was too young to donate blood. Family members of people getting operations are often asked to donate. She could have griped that their family doctor had told her there was no difference between her blood and Buffy's.
[> [> [> [> Re: why do they need their blood checked? -- MayaPapaya9, 14:09:20 01/27/02 Sun
That would have ruined the moment. In The Gift, you're watching Buffy's face as she has this epiphany that their blood is the same. I don't know about anyone else but I was spoiler-free and it was the most powerful moment of the episode, when you realize at the same time that Buffy does that their blood is the same and what Buffy is going to do. Think about it. Testing their blood at the hospital wouldn't have had half the dramatic effect. Besides, this is Buffy the Vampire Slayer, not ER. It's about magic and emotion, not science and facts.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: why do they need their blood checked? -- CW, 14:36:34 01/27/02 Sun
It wouldn't have ruined the moment any more that Buffy's statement to Dawn did. Granted if they'd stopped the forward movement of an episode and had everyone waiting with bated breath for the results of a contrived blood test, it would have wrecked everything. No question about it. But, the point is that a lot of people are unhappy with happened in The Gift, and those who are happy with it ought to understand that. If Buffy didn't have 'facts' and an internal logic most of the time, many of us wouldn't bother to watch. There is plenty of emotion on the average soap opera. There is plenty of magic in the average saturday morning cartoon. Shows that can incorporate the emotion, magic, and still not wander too far from the facts of real life are the one's I want to watch.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why do they need their blood checked? -- robert, 15:42:06 01/27/02 Sun
" If Buffy didn't have 'facts' and an internal logic most of the time, many of us wouldn't bother to watch. There is plenty of emotion on the average soap opera."
I'm not sure I understand you. Buffy most definitely had more than just her emotions. Her guide, the spirit of the first slayer, told her that her gift was death. Her understanding, what that meant about her blood verses Dawn's blood, was merely a consequence if this fact.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was referring to the series not the character. Sorry for the confusion. ;o) -- CW, 16:43:49 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why do they need their blood checked? -- maddog, 08:32:56 01/28/02 Mon
ok, fine, people are upset...don't get it...would like to have someone explain it, but I'll go with you for a second. How could they have possibly done a blood test without making it painstakingly obvious that Buffy could replace herself with Dawn in the end? That would have been a dead giveaway.
[> [> [> [> [> I completely agree! -- maddog, 08:28:32 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- maddog, 08:24:13 01/28/02 Mon
ok, sure she knew about the bills...but she'd just been resurected...cut her some slack here. And why would she take the time to check Dawn's blood? It's not like she knew what she was going to do until that moment that she did it.
[> [> [> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- MayaPapaya9, 16:10:14 01/28/02 Mon
I really agree with maddog. It just takes away from the drama to have blood tests and such things. I (ever so respectfully!!) don't understand how anyone could be dissatisfied with the ending of The Gift. It made perfect sense to me as it was. Buffy even said in the beginning of the episode, "She is me, the monks made her out of me."
Besides the whole point is that we, the audience, is supposed to realize this at the EXACT same time as Buffy does. If we don't, if there are blood tests and things, then Buffy would never have had her epiphany and I probably wouldn't have enjoyed the episode half as much.
[> [> hospitals & blood tests -- anom, 22:06:08 01/28/02 Mon
"The fact is Joyce wasn't in the hospital anytime near her death."
Actually, her overnight stay for tests & her operation weren't very long before her death (a month or 2). Those bills were probably still wending their way through the insurance company's bureaucracy when she died. And if she worked at a small, private art gallery, her health insurance may have been minimal. There'd also be new bills from the EMS call, taking her body to the hospital, & the autopsy.
"Buffy would have known about all the hospital bills before the events of The Gift."
Not necessarily. Joyce may not have discussed it w/her before the operation, & when it seemed to be successful, she may have expected to be around to deal w/it, so she'd think Buffy wouldn't need to. (I would've thought Giles would be dealing w/that stuff after Buffy died. If he wasn't expecting her to come back, wouldn't he have taken steps to make sure the money didn't run out?)
"Like not taking the time last year to have Buffy's and Dawn's blood checked (and found medically strikingly similar)...."
There's no reason they would have checked Dawn's blood; she's too young to donate. And they certainly wouldn't have spent the money to do an unnecessary test on her, even if they could've put it on Joyce's bill. Finally, even if they had, for a blood donation, all they test for is blood type. It takes much more detailed testing for things that require a closer match (like bone marrow or organ donation), & even that wouldn't go into the detail required to tell that the blood was "the same"--since marrow/organs can be donated by unrelated people. I don't think that kind of testing is done except to identify criminals.
Buffy's conclusion that her blood could seal the opening btwn. dimensions was based on her realization that "the monks made her from me." No blood test necessary.
blood donor, bone marrow registry member, & medical editor (so I oughta know!) @>)
[> [> [> Re: hospitals & blood tests -- maddog, 09:46:52 01/29/02 Tue
Yeah, but how many months were between when Joyce died and when Buffy died? You're telling me in all that time bills would never have been brought up? Sounds a bit unrealistic to me.
[> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- OnM, 09:53:08 01/27/02 Sun
You're quite welcome to vent. While I would hazard a guess that the majority opinion on the board toward Flooded and S6 in general has been extremely favorable, to me the rising level of fan viewpoint polarization over season 6 must mean that the writers and producers have been successful in getting the viewer's attention. So much depends on ones expectations-- I expected the show would be very dark this year, because Joss said it would be.
I thoroughly enjoyed Flooded, and consider S6 the best season (so far) since S2. Interestingly, I have been very disappointed with most of A:tS this year. Angel seems less dark overall, and Buffy seems darker-- almost a reverse of the original tradition, if there is such a thing as 'tradition' at ME.
I would agree with some of the previous respondants that you need to stay with the new season for a while. If you haven't already, check out my 'Classic Movie' column this week for my thoughts on the need for patience as to the unfolding of long-term story arcs-- it is related somewhat to your comments.
Thanks for your thoughts!
[> [> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- maddog, 08:36:51 01/28/02 Mon
You don't consider Cordy's 2 vision problems, Darla not only having a baby, but then killing herself during delivery, the new Wolfram and Hart people, and Angel's new/old adversary dark? we must be watching different shows then. I mean, it's always been dark with a twist of humor. It's why I like the show.
[> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- Marie, 06:57:38 01/28/02 Mon
I was about to advise you to go down the board and read OnM's Movie of the Week post, but I see he beat me to it!
I, too, am watching the UK S6 series, although as a self-confessed trollop I know what's to come (!), and all I can say is "Stick With It!" Flooded, while not one of the best episodes ever penned, is certainly not one of the worst, I feel. The writer was trying to show us some of the problems of 'real life' Buffy is having to face after coming back to life. And the return of Giles made the episode worth watching, especially his talk with Willow - a chilling moment indeed! You know, all the reading I'd done just didn't prepare me for Willow's tone of voice, there.
[> Re: Flooded-a UK fan -- maddog, 08:09:52 01/28/02 Mon
Buffy's probably just too nice to ask for their help with the bills. I wouldn't worry too much...the storylines get better...trust me. :)
Pain or happiness. Shouldn't Buffy deserve to be happy? -- Nina, 07:09:09 01/27/02 Sun
I was with a friend yesterday and love was in the air and in the conversations. The serene atmosphere of mature love got me thinking about love in the Buffyverse. Especially Buffy's love life.
Here's a quote from "Illusions" by Richard Bach:
"What would you do if God spoke directly to your face and said, 'I COMMAND THAT YOU BE HAPPY IN THE WORLD AS LONG AS YOU LIVE' what would you do then?
And the multitude was silent, not a voice, not a sound was heard upon the hillsides."
How many of us expect to have to suffer at least a little bit to deserve happiness? For those who are not repressing and able to really say they don't, I respectfully bow before you, because that's one of the hardest thing for a human being to do.
Too many of us are conditioned to think that happiness has to be deserved and has to come with pain. Happiness is often seen as a wave we have to catch fast because it won't last and pain will come back until we can catch another wave. "Life's hard. Life's a fight. You have to win your battles to be happy" Sounds familiar?
In the Buffyverse we are presented with a reccurant equation.
Love = pain
We found it in the foundation of many plot lines and in many now famous speeches (Spike's speech in "Lover's Walk", Angel's speech in "Passion", "Love hurts, baby" in "Harsh light of Day", Willow and Buffy's dialogue in the cemetry at the beginning of "Something Blue"...)
We all want to be happy and yet many of us fail and Buffy's love life, like a mirror, reflects our own. Whether one person favors one ship or another, Buffy's never been happy in her love life. Not with Angel, not with Riley and not with Spike. Is it because we are used to live boring lives that so many of us think that pain will spark the couple? Who really wants to live in pain? Yet a lot of people expect Buffy to do just that. I wonder how much projection is transfered on Buffy and how much people need her to accept Spike to feel better about their own lives. Because when we think about it, what's more appealing to the human heart? fight or bliss? Buffy might be a slayer and I might have written an essay that said the exact contrary a month ago, but it doesn't change the fact that more than anything, Buffy, like any of us, deserves to be happy. Not Pain!Happy, but Bliss!Happy.
So Buffy and Spike represent what exactly? Neither of them is happy. Some fans are waiting for Buffy to come to her senses and finally admit the errors of her ways. But what if she's the one on the right path? The one who knows that deep down she deserves more than pain and darkness? When Marti Noxon refers to Buffy passing through a certain phase of her life where she is exploring great sex and going for the bad guy, I find myself suddenly understand her words. Love has to be more than pain. We can fall for the wrong person at the wrong time. We can learn from those experiences, but then we move on.
It's not about Spike being so cute, so in love, so sexy, so gentle and comprehensive. It's not even about the sexual chemestry. It's about happiness. When we think seriously about it, without projecting our own desires on Buffy, doesn't she deserve better? Because we are presented with three choices (Angel, Riley, Spike) does she automatically has to choose one of them? Is she stuck with Napolitain ice cream for the rest of her life? Brooding - boring - suffering?
I guess I am just trying to stir some water (am I ever doing something else?;) Making us think outside the box for a moment. Just to clarify things, I am not saying that Buffy and Spike have no chances to hit it off, but saying that she deserves more than what's offered to her right now and that wishing for her to settle with what seems the obvious choice is limiting her. It's disempowering her (sorry not sure it's a word!).
Who wants to be happy?
[> I don't -- Stranger, 08:10:32 01/27/02 Sun
Do we have to be happy ? Is it a must, an order ? 'cause, there is a lot of things I want in my life, joy, love, passion, learning, freedom... but really happiness is not my priority.
In this post you oppose happiness to pain. But can we really have happiness without pain ? Not as in "we should deserve happiness through pain", not even really "how can we know happiness without knowing pain", but can something as full as happiness exist without a part of pain ?
Buffy began this relation ship with Spike after he told her that :
"Life's not a song
Life isn't bliss
Life is just this
You'll get along
The pain that you feel
You only can heal
You have to go one living
So one of us is living."
Is happiness, the one that Buffy certainly deserves, the Bliss of Heaven that Buffy regrets ? Or is it the healing of pain that comes by living ?
Because Bliss, here, means the end of learning, the end of growing, aka Death.
It's not that happiness has to be earned, it is that it has to be built with your experiences that allow you to move on as you said.
And if Buffy is looking for happiness in Angel, Riley or Spike, or in any men for the matter, she will fail. You don't find happiness in other people, you find it in yourself. That's something she already realised in IWMTLY.
[> Re: Pain or happiness. Shouldn't Buffy deserve to be happy? -- CW, 08:52:39 01/27/02 Sun
Liked your thoughts Nina!
I have to say my big problem with Buffy and Spike is that it's too much like Buffy and Riley. Forget that most people find Riley boring and Spike cool and dangerous. The fact is that Riley loved Buffy and she didn't love him. The fact is that Spike loves Buffy and she doesn't love him. At least she doesn't think so, which is all that matters. Yes, Buffy and Riley must have had "boring missionary-style" sex, and Buffy and Spike have "wild-orgy" sex. But, the important thing is whether Buffy falls in love with Spike and whether she admits it to herself if she does fall in love.
[> [> Re: Pain or happiness. Shouldn't Buffy deserve to be happy? -- Arethusa, 15:36:56 01/27/02 Sun
I respectfully disagre-whether or not Bufy falls in love is not the important thing, no matter who is the object of her affections. What's important is how we learn and grow from our life experiences, and what kind of person we become. Love doesn't equal happiness, as many of us already know, and anyone expecting her relationships to make her happy is setting herself up for disappointment.
Many people spend their early 20s confused and unhappy, trying to understand who they are and where they fit in the world. We can't expect any one relationship to define us, or tell us who we are and what we want. Who wants to be defined by their relationships, anyway? Most of the inner peace and happiness I've achieved has developed by trying to understand and accept who and what I am, and trying to be the best person I can be-for my own sake.
The B/S ship is great fun, but I'm guessing the sexual heat will flame out, as it always does, and if they're lucky they'll be able to be friends.
[> [> [> Re: Pain or happiness. Shouldn't Buffy deserve to be happy? -- CW, 17:32:05 01/27/02 Sun
The theory is fine, but if your relationships, even the ones that don't work out in the end, don't make you happy on some level, why bother?
Also this is a rather specific case. Buffy was essentially using Riley, and she may very well just be using Spike. We can certainly excuse Buffy for what happened with Riley. She didn't understand what she was doing to him. But, now she's been there and knows that bad things happen when one-sided relationships blow up. Officially, it's still a one-sided relationship with Spike. Isn't she at least 'using' Spike to work out deep emotional problems regardless of what Spike wants? It would say a lot about what kind of person Buffy is to know whether there is something more to this business with Spike or whether she's just using him to accumulate life experiences.
[> [> [> [> Re: No, Buffy doesn't deserve to be happy yet(Some spoilers) -- Darby, 20:01:42 01/27/02 Sun
I'm not sure Buffy does deserve to be happy (if there is such a thing as deserving it).
Some of the other posts here have hit upon Buffy's immaturity, which we've been shown many times, and not just in her romantic relationships. The level of contempt she can show for her friends (such as Xander in Into the Woods) or for Dawn, still, would seem to indicate that she's still in that intensely egocentric stage where all relationships are totally defined by their impact on her. She was a Cordelia-type before becoming the Slayer, and emotionally she hasn't progressed much (maybe Cordelia exists as a way to show the path she should be taking - the path of Cordy with Angel, wherever it's going, is definitely growing into a relationship that is shared between the participants). Buffy's romantic relationships have see-sawed between one where she lost herself, with Angel, to one where she barely invested in her partner, with Riley. Spike, being one of the show's most insightful characters, may not have tremendously healthy relationships but I don't believe that he will put up with Buffy's current "This is all about me" attitude for long (we've already seen evidence). Maybe the whole purpose of the B/S 'ship is to force some perspective on her. One constant in Buffy's life has been her lack of understanding of her own role, especially the impact of her darker appetites, and of the people around her Spike is best equipped to help her answer some of those questions. Tara may fill a role here as well.
Maybe I'm projecting, because that's kind of what I went through in my twenties (no vampires, but amazingly similar emotional turmoil beyond that - I hooked up with someone who seemed to know me better than I knew myself but wound up being shortterm destructive and longterm - aftermath-wise - constructive), but I came out the other side to find that to be truly happy with someone you have to find that balance between really appreciating your needs and their needs simultaneously. And the balance radiates out to all relationships, including friends and family. And I sure like myself a helluva lot more now than I used to, even though I didn't realize it back then. It would be nice to see Buffy get to that place.
When did this become a confessional?
[> [> [> [> [> How can we not deserve happiness? -- TotallyconfusedNina, 14:46:53 01/28/02 Mon
"When did this become a confessional?"
Since I mistook "All things philophical on BtVS" for "All things emotional on BtVS". My bad! Bringing this kind of topic here is like bringing a bomb and I'll know better next time!
"Life hands you lemons then make lemonade. Simplistic, I know but it works."
I agree. And lemonades are good! :)
CW I very much agree with what you said concerning Buffy and Spike. The fact is that since Angel she is stuck in relationships where she's not involved emotionally. I'd say she's even setting herself up for disappointment at some point. And even if I think that Buffy deserves to be happy I think that she doesn't believe it herself. In that regard, I'd agree with you too Darby.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How can we not deserve happiness? -- Darby, 09:22:30 01/29/02 Tue
Many people are not accepting of the trappings of happiness - they don't expect to be happy, they pull the dark cloud back over every silver lining. It doesn't really fit with the word "deserve," which is why I led off with the comment I did, but it's in the definitional ballpark.
Buffy, for all of her California-girl, cheerleader origins, has shown over and over that she doesn't really want her destiny, her life, and since the beginning everything has filtered through that prism. Even when she started to talk more about finding out what she was all about, she couldn't even trust a statement to the effect that she was full of love.
This is a girl with deep and legitimate abandonment issues, who deep down blames herself for her parents' divorce, who brought ruin on her soulmate through happiness, who doesn't really believe that she deserves any happiness. It's a Catch-22: if you don't believe in it, you won't get it, and you need to get some to believe in it.
There's a parallel in Angel, who, although basically in a similar situation, is having happiness thrust upon him through his son - how will this affect him?
Ooooo, as usual, this is getting me thinking in a new direction...
[> Re: Pain or happiness. Shouldn't Buffy deserve to be happy? -- Deeva, 19:17:14 01/27/02 Sun
I don't think that you can have one without the other. But it depends on your definition of pain. To some it means all the little quibbles in life that all add up. To others it means earth shattering, novel inducing, life changing pain. I'm some where in between. Happiness is not what you look for, like looking for the mate to your other sock, searching hi and lo. It's what you are. Life hands you lemons then make lemonade. Simplistic, I know but it works.
*** When heroes git down *** ....... An OT but otherwise epic story of greatness ! -- OnM, 09:19:51 01/27/02 Sun
For the whole incredible story, go to:
Here are a few excerpts to, uhhh, whet your appetite. Enjoy!
El Wingador lay on his bathroom floor at 4 a.m. Friday. He hadn't slept all night. In just an hour, three stretch limos would arrive to take him and his entourage to Wing Bowl X. He could already hear his people gathering downstairs.
At 8 a.m., in front of nearly 23,000 fans at the First Union Center, El Wingador, the defending champion, was expected to devour plate after plate of chicken wings. Twenty-eight challengers - Big Rig, Wing-A-Brazee, Ali Blobba among them - would be going all out to outeat him. More than honor was at stake. He had dreams. He had a business. He had to win.
But . . . El Wingador had the runs.
El Wingador needed no pass to enter the building. "I'm the eater," he told the security guard. "I'm El Wingador." By 6:30 a.m., the center was filled with 20,000 people. Beer wouldn't go on sale until 7. Each contestant came with an entourage, many with women in G-strings or bikinis. Ali Blobba paraded in with a real cow's head.
As the champion, El Wingador was the last to enter, to make his ceremonial walk around the floor before taking the stage. The arena went dark, except for a spotlight on him. Throngs chanted: "El Wingador! El Wingador!" Following El Wingador was a giant 10th-anniversary cake from which emerged Miss Wing Bowl wearing next to nothing and doing an erotic dance. Alexis O'Hare, an old friend of El Wingador, explained Wing Bowl: "Men can be so easily entertained."
In the second round, his pace slowed only slightly. Coon Dog heaved. It was on the big screen. The crowd erupted. El Wingador didn't notice, and ended on top for the second round with 134 wings. As El Wingador sprinted the final two minutes, play-by-play man Angelo Cataldi told the arena: "We're in the presence of greatness."
OK guys, now you can never claim that my posts haven't been a source of inspiration to you all!
( All exerpts are (c) 2002 by Michael Vitez / The Philadelphia Inquirer )
[> BTW, congrats to us one and all - ATPo at Voy Forums passed the 30,000th post last night ! -- OnM, 09:35:47 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> WOW - now *that's* epic! -- Solitude1056, 14:00:39 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> Even with double posts... -- CW, 14:05:37 01/27/02 Sun
and multipart essays and stories, that's a lot of ideas, questions, opinions, poems, jokes and (NT) lines!
[> ****Huh??&What****and Oh, Ewwwwwwwww******* -- Rufus, 19:23:44 01/27/02 Sun
Don't say I never contribute....:):):):)
[> [> hey Rufus... I think it's moi who's been lacking in the contribution department -- Liq, 19:56:13 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> [> Oh but we have your **Glowing Magnificence** to revel in....;) -- Rufus..sycophant in training..:), 00:33:36 01/28/02 Mon
[> "men are easily amused" -- squireboy, 12:06:45 01/28/02 Mon
That says it all, we are not complex creatures. :)
Thanks, OnM, that was great. I'm glad I wasn't there, but that was great.
All right that's it... -- MayaPapaya9, 14:31:22 01/27/02 Sun
What the HELL is going on over there on "Angel"? I stopped watching this season, in fact the only episode I've seen all season was the one where Darla goes into labor. What is going on with Angel and Cordy? Am I the only one who is just thinking, EWWWWW much?
I could always go to some Buffy episode site and read up on the happenings at that other network but I'm lazy and this is the only Buffy website I go to anymore. Besides I wanna hear the always thought-provoking opinions of my fellow ATPoBtVS posters. Questions:
1.) How long has this been going on?? I watched all season of Angel last year and I did not notice any Angel-Cordy chemistry whatsoever. Then again, I wasn't reading this board yet and I may have missed many little but significant details. When did they start hinting at this atrocity?
2.) I'm reading scattered opinions that Angel likes Cordy, but she doesn't return this affection? What's that about?
3.) What do you guys think about this? Is it gonna work out, or not, and why? Hahahaha feels like I'm assigning homework.
Thanks for anyone who responds to this. I wish I could watch Angel on it's new night but I don't have time nowadays. I wish it was still after Buffy. But nevertheless, I still have to keep tabs on the extended Buffy family.
[> Re: All right that's it... -- Valhalla, 14:51:09 01/27/02 Sun
1) Toward the end of last season I read something about Angel that referred to his 'unrequited love' for Cordelia, as if it was an obvious and accepted plotline. Well, I hadn't seen it up until then, and I didn't really see it after -- but maybe I'm just dense.
This season their relationship has gotten a little more complicated (Cordy was mighty po'd that Angel had had sex with Darla in the first place) and she was super protective about Darla's pregnancy, and she's become the main one to prod Angel down the road of rightness. Also, they almost lost Cordy because the visions were fatally harming her health,and Angel was more freaked out about it than anyone. Angel in general has paid more attention to Cordy this season, and listens to her more than the others, when he listens to anyone.
I'm also thinking EWWWWWWW. No chemistry. The more 'good' they make Cordelia, the more boring she becomes. I miss her sarcasm -- I don't know what Joss is saying exactly - when you place yourself on the side of light you lose your wit? Only selfish/evil/undead people can be sharply ironic?
2) Since Angel hasn't actually declared his feelings, I haven't seen any evidence Cordy doesn't return them. (But I haven't seen that she does either).
That having been said, I tend to watch Buffy much closer than Angel, and have more fun anticipating BtVS developments than Angel, so as I said, maybe I missed out on a bunch of clues.
[> [> Re: All right that's it... -- maddog, 07:17:52 01/28/02 Mon
I'm not quite so sure we've seen the end of her wit...those snappy comebacks just seem to be in her nature.
[> Re: All right that's it... -- yabyumpan, 18:15:11 01/27/02 Sun
I personally love what's happening with Cordy and Angel and I think the signs have been there from S1. It's playing out in a very different way to most romances on tv in that it's base is in real friendship, caring and respect. They've known each other a long time(6 years +) and have both seen the best and definatly the worse in each other. I do see the chemistry there but no it's not fireworks and grand music etc, it's something a lot deeper and more solid than that.
As for Valhalla point about Cordy becoming to good and boring(or something like that), I think she's just growing up; she left Sunnydale with her life pretty much in tatters after her father's tax thing, lived in a roche infested crappy appartment, all of which was probably pretty "character building"; she then teams up with Angel, looses a really good friend(Doyle) and is then landed with the Visions. No she's not the bitchy Queen C any more, and she's also no longer 16 with a trust fund and use of Daddy's credit cards. She's gone through big changes and how many of us were the same at 21 as we were at 16?
Anyway, as you probably gathered , I don't see it as an "atrocity" but maybe you actually have to watch the show to appriciate it.
[> [> I'm with you on this one, yabyumpan -- pagangodess, 18:35:11 01/27/02 Sun
I must say that I didn't like Cordelia on 'Buffy', but on AtS she has been allowed to grow in a way she never could have on 'Buffy'. She has not lost her sense of tactless humor and still comes out with lines that can take on Anya's any time.
Angel and Cordy's relationship is deep and solid. I see lots of chemistry between them. That last scene on 'Provider' proved it for me.
I say give 'Angel' another chance, you may be surprised where it takes you. I've actually started re-watching 'Angel' eps. and I never used to.
P.S. It just occured to me that it's possible that after Kate's (the cop) character left the show, ME needed another romantic interest for the series' lead guy. So, they decided on Cordy.
[> [> [> Not unbelievable. -- Deeva, 18:59:14 01/27/02 Sun
I'm neither here nor there on Angel/Cordy. I could take it or leave it. I don't think that the last scene in "Provider" was meant to announce a romance. Rather it seemed to say that despite Connor's situation, he has a family, albeit not the American nuclear version.
In a way I can see how Cordy would be a good balance to Angel. He needs someone who is not afarid to step up to him and say it like it is. I don't think that Cordy has become boring, just more mature. And as for Angel, he has become very attentive to Cordy, more than he really has to if he were just trying to regain her trust and respect from when he flipped out and fired them. I think that the show is starting to pick up again. They've got a nice group dynamic going on.
[> Re: All right that's it... -- JM, 18:51:57 01/27/02 Sun
Well, there have been some indications since season one that Angel and Cordy have a special relationship. After Doyle's death she was very forthright in confronting Angel about dealing with his grief and reinforcing the depth of her friendship with him.
Season two, "Untouched" was a good illustration of her special concern for Angel and "Dear Boy" illustrated the special status she felt she held at AI. Starting with "Ephiphany," Angel expressed particular determination to make amends to Cordy. In "Disharmony" he is focused on placating her and in "Dead Hand," on relieving her pain. In "Belonging," he's furious about the director's rudeness. During the Pylea arc he's frantic to rescue her and a bit miffed with the "Not you, Dumbass."
Starting in season three with "Heartthrob," they've recovered that special dynamic. She's the only one to notice that all's not completely right yet. In "That Vision Thing," Angel will stoop to any depths to save her and she will endure almost anything to help him. In "Carpe Noctem," she takes special authority to tell him to clarify things with Fred, though it's possibly foreshadowing that she's oblivious to Marcus' come-ons. In "Fredless" and "Billy," Angel worries what she thinks of him. In "Offspring," he expresses more concern for Cordy than Darla, though it is Fred that is present for the birth. In "Dad," she takes the lead in intervening in his isolationist attitude toward his son. In "Birthday," there is the kiss. In "Provider," she's clearly second in command when it comes to Conor care.
The setting is definitely there for more to develop. They clearly have a special relationship. Angel seems to be leaning toward romance. Not sure with Cordelia.
It will all end painfully, but they will grow from it.
[> [> Re: All right that's it... -- Calluna, 19:13:08 01/27/02 Sun
Maybe romance is the only way Angel can interact with strong women. I mean most of the women who've had large rolls in his long life time (Darla, Drusilla, Buffy) were, at sometime, romantically involved with him. Even the relationship with Fred, started with him in a romantic role. Cordy's the only female character (except for Willow, and I think he knew she was a lesbian or at least bi-sexual, from the start) who doesn't have this gut-retching romanitc history with him. She knows all his demons and likes him anyway. Perhaps he can't understand the idea of friendship with a woman that has no "true love or sex" strings attatched. Hopefully (I pray to the plot gods) Cordy will nip this "puppy love" of Angel's in the bud and tell him that they're just friends. Very good platonic friends. Which is how, IMO, Cordy has been reacting to Angel. She called herself "Aunt Cordy" not "Mom" at the end of the last episode, a pretty good indication of how she sees her relationship with Angel. He's like a brother to her, not a lover.
I also have to agree that the caustic "Queen C" needs to return ASAP. Maybe now that she's not dying, the sarcastic Cordy we all love will return.
[> [> [> Re: All right that's it... -- Liz, 19:46:53 01/27/02 Sun
Angel has been quite interested in Cordy's opinion of him for a while now. When they were in the other world, and she told the guy (Gruselag?) that she loved him, Angel says, "You love me?" and he didn't sound nonchalant. Cordy of course responds, "Not YOU, dufus."
After that bit Angel hasn't really seemed to be way too infatuated. Mostly I see a very strong trust building. In fact I think there has been a very close friendship building for the entire series. As for romance, well I don't know. I think if it does happen it will be a kind of extension of the friendship, and thereby possibly be the most healthy relationship ever in the ME world.
There was one point where I decided that probably Angel and Cordy were heading to somewhere: when that guy who made all men beat the women around them (the one angel set free) was around. Everyone went after the person closest to them. At the end, when Angel and Cordy were swordfighting and talking about it, she accepted his explaination and said, "I'm kind of getting used to being creeped out and comforted at the same time." (I've only seen each Angel once and I could go look up the transcripts but I'm lazy.) That moment seemed to be a turning point for me. Not necessarily romantic, but I really see those two as very close and trusting.
Though I agree the actors don't have a hell of a lot of passionate chemistry between them. I don't think it's going to be an overwhelming, out-of-my-mind-with-passion sort of relationship. So in a way it seems appropriate.
[> [> Ahem...there was a kiss? -- MayaPapaya9, 22:48:00 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> Re: All right that's it... -- Tracey, 20:21:19 01/29/02 Tue
Friendships between heterosexual members of the opposite sex usually involve some degree of flirting, affection, etc. It's easy to play the role of girlfriend or boyfriend without all the hassles. Even though Angel and Cordelia's relationship can never be "normal", I see their growing affection and concern for each other as a natural progression. Anyone whose best friend has been of the opposite sex knows that at some point feelings develop, usually one-sided, and you either deal with it or move on. Perhaps the writers are trying to expose the characters to heartache instead of tragedy, exploring Angel's growing humanity.
[> Re: All right that's it... -- maddog, 06:58:09 01/28/02 Mon
I think it may have started near the end of last year with the whole Pylea incident and just grew this year as they've trained together and especially since Connor's been born because she takes such good care of him. The majority of it though has been fairly recent and has yet to be explored to it's fullest. And I believe the only reason people say she may not like him back is because of how early in the storyline we are. We're seeing hints of him seeing her as more than just a friend...now we have to see how the situation takes shape. I think it would be cool for him to have a romance...Lord knows he deserves one after the debacle with Kate last year.
[> So what happened to SPOILER WARNINGS??? -- Annoyed, 07:15:06 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> Re: So what happened to SPOILER WARNINGS??? -- JM, 09:22:13 01/28/02 Mon
Didn't read every post, but if this is reference to mine, it was just spec. I'm trying to avoid getting too spoiled.
I'm pretty sure anything that aired as long ago as last week isn't considered spoilerish. Though I could be wrong.
[> [> [> Spoiler warnings are polite, that's all... -- Annoyed, 01:22:58 01/29/02 Tue
...and viewers outside the US may not have seen these episodes and don't want to be spoiled. The subject matter at the top of the thread gave no indication as to content.
Just asking for a little consideration, which this board is famed for!
[> [> Thanks for the warning anyway, Annoyed! -- Dyna, 12:59:26 01/28/02 Mon
My analysis of "Provider" is up -- Masquerade, 16:44:34 01/27/02 Sun
[> kinda short -- sTalking Goat, 18:52:52 01/27/02 Sun
[> Thanks........can I punch Holtz too??????...;) -- Rufus, 19:25:32 01/27/02 Sun
[> [> The most interesting thing to me (Spoilers for Provider)... -- Marie, 07:24:58 01/28/02 Mon
...in reading this, and other stuff, is the difference in Cordelia when it come to the money-issue. Angel is the one chasing the money, and Cordelia is the one who wants to give the money back!!!
Granted, it is in exchange for Fred, but still!
I'm remembering all the past exchanges she had with Angel and Doyle over money, and how they kept trying to tell her it wasn't about the money!
Naked Spike brings them in every time!! -- AurraSing, 17:37:00 01/27/02 Sun
Okay,we all know that season 6 is dealing with a lot of dark issues ,heaven/hell and all that jazz but a comment by my sister the other night proves to me that nothing pulls the new viewers in like a good old fashioned dose of naked Spike.
My sister(*so* not a fan-she watched two eps while staying with me and was not impressed) said that one of her high-toned co-workers has become suspiciously gushy about "Buffy",saying how great it has been this year and recommending to all that will listen.This from a person who never mentioned the show before.
So I told her how Buffy and Spike are having lots of rather intense sex recently and that James Marsters in the buff is being featured rather prominently......she began to laugh and admitted that she figured that is why her co-worker got hooked on the show,but either way you look at it her friend is definitely hooked.So I guess there must be some wisdom to ME's madness since normally this woman would have been completely turning up her nose at "Buffy".My sister sounded somewhat intrigued but since she does not have cable she can't watch the show.
I'm debating sending her my season 6 tapes in an effort to try and lure her in too.....nah,I'll wait till she asks me for the tapes and then I know I'll have her hooked like a trout.....
[> *****Trout fishing*****........;) -- Rufus, 19:27:58 01/27/02 Sun
I bow down before your shining wonderfulness....you corruptor of innocents(hmmmmm)....your work in hooking fresh blood should be rewarded.........;):):):):):):):)
[> [> Hey Ruf,do you want my impressions of "D. Palace"? -- AurraSing, 21:26:23 01/27/02 Sun
I thought I could post tomorrow night on the Trollop board since Don will be away and I can sit at the computer in peace and quiet....
Looking forward to it,either way.
[> [> [> Oh YES please..........you know I would appreciate any input... -- Rufus, 23:40:05 01/27/02 Sun
I will sit patiently waiting for your comments after the show.....:):):)
[> And you'd think there was a limit to how shallow one can get ... -- verdantheart, 11:37:03 01/28/02 Mon
That's why jamesmarsters.com crashed and is available only in abbreviated form these days ... And they say women aren't as interested in the physical! LOL! Here's proof it ain't so ...
And to think I probably wouldn't be interested if a) I didn't like the character of Spike so much or b) Mr Marsters wasn't such a talented/expressive actor.
So I wrote a story. It is B/S but not terribly mushy. I hope! Pt.1 -- Deeva, 18:22:42 01/27/02 Sun
So I was on a the chair lift in Utah, when a little story just popped into my head. The only problem was that it was the core of the story that popped up. So I had to muddle through the beginning and ending. Not sure if this absolute dreck or what but here it is any how.
Buffy lay in the lush grass, gazing up into the starry night. She randomly connected the stars to make up her own constellations. She listened to the leaves rustling above her in the slight evening breeze. Her thoughts strayed from one thing to another, replaying the events from the past couples of days.
She sighed deeply and caught a whiff of jasmine in the air.
"Hmm...kind of late in the year for jasmines." she thought absentmindedly.
Buffy also noticed something else. Cigarettes and leather but mostly cigarettes. She knew that his presence would be inevitable. She had no idea how long he'd been there but no matter where she seemed to go, Spike always knew where to be. Not that she was running away or anything. Well, this time at least.
"Yeah. Like that really solved a lot." Recalling her time spent as Anne and the fall out from it.
Spike had wandered around several of Sunnydale's cemeteries, letting his feet go wherever they took him, looking for any baddies that might be out and about. This night was particularly light in the action department. He just wanted to be doing anything to keep him from being in his crypt, where Buffy might find him "convenient". He smirked at that.
In this evening's travels he even stopped by the Summers' residence to check up on Dawn and Tara, knowing that Buffy would be out patrolling. But after all that, his feet proved to be traitors to his heart, he found himself suddenly upon Buffy. He hadn't been to this place in months.
"Bloody hell! What's the Slayer doin' here?" he thought.
He stopped and stood behind some trees just before the clearing that she was in, watching her, hearing her sighs.
"Well, she's in a mood today."
It had been a couple of days since Spike had seen or spoken to Buffy. Well, not "seen" since she was invisible and all. He had been avoiding her to try and drive his point home but he was weakening on that stance with every moment that passed. Kicking her out was one of the hardest things he ever had to do but he knew that it was necessary.
"Why can't she admit to feeling something, anything? Not like I'm asking for much. Just a crumb will do for now. Haven't I proven myself to her? How many times can a bloke tell the stupid chit that he love's her before she gets it? If she thinks it's all just about the shagging then I could've just kept the bloody'Bot!" groused Spike.
"God! She's amazing! Just lying there in the moonlight like some kind of fairy tale. Does she know what she does to me? All she has to do is ask and I would go to the ends of the Earth for her. But she won't ask. Not likely since she doesn't want to acknowledge anything having to do with..."
Then Buffy interrupted his thoughts.
"So, are you going to stay there all night or are you going to keep me company?"
Spike finished his cigarette, then ground it out before stepping out from the shadows.
"Depends on your definition of'keeping company', pet." He countered while approaching her
"Not in the mood Spike." She said, rolling her eyes. "What are you doing here anyway?"
"Funny thing, that is. I was trying to avoid you." He quipped.
"Well, hate to point it out but I think that this is the opposite of avoidance."
"Sorry. Didn't mean to interrupt your exhilarating evening. Be on my way now." He turned to walk away. "Here we go again." He thought. "Getting bloody tired of always being the one to leave."
"No. You don't have to go." She called out to him. "Don't want to fight right now."
He stopped and stood for a moment before turning around to face her again. She tipped her head to look at him. He met her quiet gaze and tried to get a sense of her but only picked up on the pensive mood from earlier. He sat down on the grass, a few feet away from her.
"What brings you here, luv? I mean of all the places you can go and lay about in, why here?"
Buffy was silent for a beat, then answered. "I wanted to see why you guys choose this place. I haven't been here since…well, you know…" she faltered before speaking up again. "It's kind of nice, really. Pretty. Peaceful. Pastoral. Pleasant. Hmm...that's all the P's that I can think of for now." She said with a tiny smile.
"Glad you like it. Had nothin' to do with pickin' out anything. The Scoobies did it all. Willow picked this place. See this tree?" Spike pointed to the weeping willow that curved gracefully over part of the clearing they were in.
"Yeah." She answered.
"That's why Willow liked this spot. She felt it was a representation of her love, their love for you. Watching over you. Trying to protect you in another way. Even in de...when you weren't here." Spike wavered on the word death. It just didn't feel right to him. He continued solemnly. "I've only been here once before tonight. After that I couldn't bring myself near here. It was too much."
"Oh." She said in a small voice. She was struck by the feeling in Spike's voice and the depth of his words.
Spike hadn't meant to say so much about his misery over her death. But there it was out in the open. "Well, if it was even possible, you've gone and made yourself an even bigger nancy-boy than Peaches." He thought, shaking his head slightly while squeezing his eyes shut.
"So you came to see your not-so-final resting place?" Trying to be nonchalant about the last few minutes.
"No, not really. I came to just think about, you now, stuff." Buffy said, absently stroking the cool grass beneath her fingers.
[> Re: So I wrote a story. It is B/S but not terribly mushy. I hope! Pt.2 -- Deeva, 18:24:47 01/27/02 Sun
**One Evening Pt. 2**
He sat there not saying anything, letting the silence settle in. No sense in pushing her, she would only draw back, getting him nowhere. He leaned back, his hands supporting him and uncrossed his legs so that they were straight out in front of him. He tilted his head back and surveyed the evening sky.
"Spike?" ventured Buffy.
"I want to talk about...about us." Buffy just barely whispered the last two words. She started to fidget nervously.
Spike was surprised. "Did she just say that she wanted to talk? About us? Isn't that my line?"
Composing himself, he turned to look at Buffy. "Us, huh? Last I checked, according to you, there was no'us'. Change of heart?"
Buffy frowned a little at Spike's words. He was right. She never wanted to get to this point, admitting to the fact that there was something between them. She took a deep breath and thought "Well, here goes."
"That's part of what I've been trying to figure out. Remember a couple of weeks ago I said that what I feel for you is not love and you said 'Not yet.'"
"You were right. It's not love but it's not hate. Not anymore. I don't really know what it is but...it's okay for now. I don't want you to say anything to the gang. Somehow I think that they just wouldn't understand. I don't even understand. But there is a "thing", whatever it is. Okay, this sounded way better in my head. Did you get any of it?"
"You want me to shut my gob and pretend nothing's going on. Business as usual." Spike said resolutely, while sinking down into the grass.
"Yes. No! It's not like that." She sputtered. "Why do you always have to be so blunt?"
"It's called being truthful, pet. Somebody's got to say it especially since it's not going to come from you anytime soon." He said pointedly.
"'Fraid you're going to have to pull out a map cause you've lost me on this road, Slayer." He said, running a hand through his hair. This girl would be the end of him, he knew that and yet, he still hung around her like some bleedin' lovesick pup. Pathetic excuse for a vampire! A Master one at that! Hmph! Who knew? Well, apparently Dru did.
It was quiet between them before Buffy continued. "This past year has been kind of intense. A lot. It's a lot for even a whole bunch of people but I experienced it all. Mom got sick, got better then died. Riley left."
The mention of Riley drew a low growl from Spike.
"Down, boy. Hello? He left." Scolded Buffy, before continuing. "Fought with Glory. Stopped another apocalypse. You know, no matter how many of those I go through, you just never really get used to it. Died and came back. Have to be a mom to Dawn. Pay bills and take care of a house. Giles left. I'm like in this weird autopilot mode where I know that I'm overwhelmed but I'm past that point of feeling it. Even though I wish I could, I know that I can't escape this. I want to do the right thing but I don't know what that is." She paused, collecting herself, blinking back the tears that threatened to spill over, sniffling in the process.
It was the sniffle that caught his attention.
"Hey now. Not gonna cry are you?" He turned over onto his side, reached over and lightly touched her shoulder. When she didn't move to push away his hand, he gently rubbed her shoulder.
"What? No! So not crying. Something in my eye. Stupid piece of dust!" She said, stubbornly wiping her eyes.
"Right, then." His hand remained on her shoulder. Spike propped his head up with his right arm and looked down upon Buffy. "You're only human. You can't expect yourself to be able to do it all."
"I'm the Slayer, I'm supposed to know what to do! And besides, as your chip has pointed out, I might not even be human anymore!"
"You're wrong. Yes, you're the Slayer but you're also another 20-year old trying to figure things out. You do your duty as a slayer. There are books, a council and a watcher to tell you what to do, or there used to be the last two. You still have your friends in their place. Life is not so simple as being a slayer. There is not one right answer that works for everyone. We all make do with the lot we're dealt. And as for not being human, I don't know what that is all about, really. But I do know that you are the same Buffy Summers that I met 4 years ago."
Buffy looked at Spike quizzically,"When did you go all Yoda on me?"
"You don't hang about for a century and some quid without learning a few things." He shrugged.
She thought about what he had just said. "Damn! Why does he have to make so much sense?"
"Not that I'm not liking our recent extracurricular activities but why do you keep seeking me out, if you don't like me the way you say you do?"
"You really want to know?"
"Yeah. A bloke has the right to know what's on his lady's mind."
"Not your lady." She was serious before going on. "You're like a refuge from the real world, from my problems. I can forget with you." She waited for Spike's answer but none came.
"Uh, not the right answer?" She asked.
"No, it's an answer."
"But? I'm feeling a major buttage here."
Spike smiled at the words Buffy made up. He let that little slip escape for now.
[> [> Re: So I wrote a story. It is B/S but not terribly mushy. I hope! Pt.3 -- Deeva, 18:27:02 01/27/02 Sun
**One Evening Pt. 3**
"But that's just it, luv. You just said it. A refuge from the real world. You're hiding. This is not'real' to you. What I want is the real thing. All the pain and love and heart ache and passion. The whole bloody mess! That's what makes you real, it's what drives me crazy and makes me love you." He declared. "It's why I kicked you out last time. You bein' invisible and all, you were still hiding from the world."
"I know, I know. Bad InvisiBuffy! Trust me I'm not going back to that." She said somewhat apologetically.
"But you've got to admit it was funny having Xander walk in on us." She giggled at the memory of Spike's cover story. "Push ups in bed? Love the guy like a brother. He can be a little light in the'get a clue' department but I'm not so sure even he bought that."
Spike chuckled a bit, too. "Bloody scared me, what he did, walkin' in like that. Really should consider getting a lock put on the door. Your lot doesn't seem to know what knocking on a door is for."
"Oh, but where's the fun in that?"
"If we're going to keep this up, I think it would be wise. Unless you like having your friends barge in and watch while we shag."
"So not going there! What makes you think that I'll be at your crypt more often anyway?"
"Oh, so you're into a different venue every time, eh? Didn't know you had that in you, Slayer."
"What! No! Why do you always have to put words in my mouth?"
"You prefer I put something else in you mouth, luv?"
"Ugh! I give up! No more sex talk!" She said exasperated.
"Ok, ok. Sorry. But you set yourself up so well. Couldn't resist, pet." He said still laughing. "But you're still going to stop by."
"How would you know?"
"I'm hurt, Slayer. You should know by now that I know you better than you do yourself. Besides, I've got a hunch."
"Why does it feel like you're pressuring me?"
"Cause maybe I am."
"Haven't you been, according to you, in love with me, like what, 2 years? What's the deal?"
"Yeah well, when you're so close to getting what you want, you get impatient for things to happen. And for your information it's more like 445 days not 2 years."
"You're immortal. How can you be impatient? And what's with all the counting?"
"Got nothing to do with being immortal. Never was any good at waiting for things to take place. Preferred to make things happen. And when you're immortal the days, months and years all run into each other if you don't attach any significance to them. Just my way of marking time, I guess."
Spike noticed that Buffy had shivered slightly. "You're cold. Come here, luv." He motioned for to scoot closer to him.
She looked at him a bit suspiciously.
"I'm not going to bite ...much." He said cocking one of his eyebrows. "Come now we've been in far more compromising positions than this. Besides you know you want to." He lightly teased.
"You wish!" Having said that Buffy still moved over. She was now lying right next to Spike with very little space between them. He accommodated her by lying down on his back, allowing Buffy to rest her head on his shoulder. Her right hand lay casually on his chest. He carefully wrapped his arm around her shoulders. He took a deep breath and smelled the familiar faint aroma of vanilla.
"Thank you." She mumbled.
With his head resting on his left arm, Spike watched the stars above them. He remembered a time when he was a boy and had been on a visit into the country with his mother. He couldn't sleep and snuck out with his cousins to the stable. They lay in the clean hay and whispered stories to one another. They watched the night go by. Young William showed his cousins a few of the things he knew about the stars. That moment was one of a few in which he felt truly content. This night ranked pretty high as well.
"Why can't we have this."
"Have what? A moment just enjoying each other's company underneath the stars?"
"Can't? But that's exactly what were doing right now."
"You know what I mean, Spike. I...I like this right now, this moment, how it feels, just us. But I'm scared. I want to believe that this can be something of the good. But what if this turns out to be like everything else I've been through?
"You worried about me leaving? Me? That's a good one. Even when you wanted to be rid of me, I never took the hint."
"My track record isn't looking very good right now. Pretty good reason to be freaked out by it."
"So it's because of the other wankers that I get to enjoy this tasty torment?"
"I know that I treat you terribly sometimes and I'm sorry about that. But I can't seem to control myself around you. It's like all reason leaves me and I'm left with these raw emotions raging inside me. I can't promise you anything. I can't promise that I'll ever get to the part of loving you. I can't promise you that I'll treat you any better after tonight. I can't..."
"S'alright, luv. You'll come round. Like I said I want the whole bloody mess. Even if you never do love me the way I do for you, you can still count on me.'Sides, I don't want a promise. Those are only made to be broken."
"A while ago you said that you knew that what this was, between you and me, was wrong and went against everything that you knew. But you still owned up to loving me. Do you still feel that way?"
"Huh, that was a good one." He said, recalling that particular moment fondly. "I had you and Dru all chained up. Very sexy-like that was. Say do you think that we could try that all over again? Except, you know, this time without Dru unless, course, you're into that sort of thing then I'm game."
Buffy swatted Spike on the arm. "Ewww much?!"
"What?!" he exclaimed, ducking his head.
She continued to bat away at him. "Why do you have to be so, so gross? Pig!"
"You like it dirty Slayer. That's way you keep comin' back."
"Not true." She protested. "I keep coming back because of this." In one swift movement she propped herself up so that she was leaning over Spike and kissed him. Initially Buffy was tentative but the kiss became bolder as the seconds passed. Startled at first, Spike then settled into relishing the sweetness of her just as she was captivated by the ardor of his kisses. He growled with desire. Buffy broke off the kiss after a few moments.
"Bet you weren't expecting that?"
"No, but I'd love more of where that came from." He said lasciviously.
"Hmm...maybe later maybe not. I think that we were talking."
"Talk's cheap. Let's get to the action portion of this evening." He said while lightly nibbling her jaw line. She sighed happily under the gentle assault.
"You didn't answer the question." She persisted.
Spike sighed. He saw that there was no continuing till he obeyed. "What? Do I still love you? Yeah. Case you haven't noticed I only say it nearly every time I see you. Pitiful, I know but it's the truth. I could get a tattoo if you think that would help."
"I meant the part of this being wrong."
"No." He thoughtfully said. "I don't think that this is wrong. You can't choose who you fall in love with, case in point here. What I meant was that the rest of the world could see this as wrong. But they can all bugger off for all I care."
"I guess that I don't really see this as wrong, anymore. Unusual, maybe. I mean I'm not hurting anyone and no one's going to hell for it. It's wrong like in the most obvious sense. You know, vampire and vampire slayer. It's like in that movie, A Bug's Life, there's the praying mantis and the moth who love each other but shouldn't. Kinda tragic, there. And yet here I am, again."
Spike grinned a little, listening to Buffy prattle on. Only she could draw a parallel of her life to a bug cartoon.
"There is no'happily ever after' for me. I know that. But it doesn't stop me from wanting it. Somehow'and they lived happily for now" doesn't sound right."
"But it's better than never loving again. What is living without it? It's not." Spike pointed out.
"But loving also means opening yourself up to pain. I don't want any more. I've had more than my fair share. Why can't there be no pain?"
"Because then it wouldn't be love. It would something else entirely. In order to feel love you have to risk the pain."
Buffy experienced a moment of dejavue upon hearing the last three words. "Say, you haven't been visited by a woman with wild hair and white face paint have you? Kind of got the whole'Encino Man' look going on?"
"What?!" said Spike looking very perplexed.
Their banter tapered off and they allowed the quiet of the evening to fall over them. Buffy thought about this evening's chat. She had even laughed. This wasn't like the other encounters that she had with Spike. Neither had come here expecting to see the other and it had worked out. She liked the ease that fell between the two of them. She was comfortable with this.
"Maybe I am okay with'happily for now'." She said as she snuggled in a little closer to Spike. He reflexively tightened his arm around her.
"This is good for now. We'll get to the other stuff when we get there." He replied.
[> [> [> Nicely done, Deeva. -- Cactus Watcher, 20:30:14 01/27/02 Sun
Hope the skiing was as good. ;o)
[> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Deeva, 23:12:06 01/27/02 Sun
And the snow was amazing! I'll go again. Sundance was fun, too. But Utah sure does have weird laws about the bars and alcohol there. Not that I'm big on the drinking but my friends are.
Thanks, again, CW!
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Good Story, Deeva - sexy and complex and gentle -- Brian, 05:21:13 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> [> Aww! Nice. Now you need to send it to Fictionary Corner! -- Marie, 08:31:01 01/28/02 Mon
Liq has feedback forms, and everything!
[> [> [> Re: So I wrote a story. It is B/S but not terribly mushy. I hope! Pt.3 -- Sophist, 08:35:33 01/28/02 Mon
Very nice. You have a great ear for the speech patterns of both characters. And you hit just the right note for how I see the 2 of them.
[> May I add this to Fictionary Corner? (send me an email with the link below) -- Liq, 13:26:24 01/28/02 Mon
If (s)he be worthy... (spoilers for The Gift) -- Apophis, 20:19:09 01/27/02 Sun
Something's been rattling around in my fevered mind, and I'm going to eject it here so that I can move on. Since Olaf's hammer was a pretty obvious stand-in for Thor's (comic book version), and Buffy was the only one who could lift it (by virtue of strength), I got to thinking about what would happen if she encountered the "real" hammer of Thor (Mjollnir). Would she be worthy of lifting it (in the comics, only someone worthy can lift Thor's hammer; this includes Captain America and Wonder Woman, but not the Hulk, who has no upward limit of strength)? Wouldn't it be cool if she started wearing Kirby-style armor and vaporizing vampires with lightning and stuff? Huh? Wouldn't it?
[> Re: If (s)he be worthy... (spoilers for The Gift) -- MrDave, 20:45:53 01/27/02 Sun
Jack Kirby Does Buffy:
Buffy: I have to go and stop the Megawraiths from eating all of Sunnydale. I will die if I have to, but you can stand beside me as I fight to the end.
Willow: I can call upon the vast knowledge of the ages as stored within the Haven of Witches archives to help.
Tara: Yes, our sisterhood has withstood the evil for centuries.
Giles: You are foolish to go. The Watcher's Council will not want you to risk the Slayer's Crystal in such a fools errand.
Buffy: Forget the Council! The Crystal is my birthright, as granted to me by the First Slayer. They cannot dictate my destiny!
Xander: Yeah, man! Its hers, and no-one is going to take it from her! Anya and I will stand and guard the fort.
Anya: (Transforms into a huge goddess-like form of herself, complete with antennae and monsterous weapon) I'm sorry, dear. I have been keeping the secret of my demonic powers from you. I am Vengentor: Demon Queen of Justice and I will fight with Buffy on this day.
Xander: (Sobbing) How could you! We were going to have a normal life! How can I go on knowing that you will ever be facing dangers that threaten our very existance!
Anya: (tenderly hugging Xander) I love you. It will be enough.
Dawn: (sneaking out the back) I will hide in Buffy's Omni-car and then I will see some action. She can't keep me from this fight, and possibly die again!*
* see issue 14
Scene cuts to the underground lair of the Megawraiths
Megawraith Leader: Buffy Summers thinks she can defeat us. She is sadly mistaken. My dark master will not allow us to fail.
(a strange sillouetted "dark master" in the background crackles with black lightning)
...to be continued?
[> [> Hahahahahahahaha -- Raven_NightDragon, 21:00:12 01/27/02 Sun
That was really inspired. I almost fell out of my chair.
[> [> [> Thenk yew -- MrDave, 16:17:34 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> Re: If (s)he be worthy... (spoilers for The Gift) -- Apophis, 21:56:12 01/27/02 Sun
Say what you will, but Darkseid would give the slayer a run for her money.
[> Re: If (s)he be worthy... (spoilers for The Gift) -- maddog, 06:22:03 01/28/02 Mon
I'd say in her role as the slayer she fits the "champion" description that we hear a lot about on Angel and would definitely be worthy.
[> Re: If (s)he be worthy... (spoilers for The Gift) -- Erik, 21:40:58 01/29/02 Tue
Where was said the troll hammer could only be lifted by one worthy? The troll was hardly worthy himself.
we've got a chat going now -- vampire hunter D, 20:42:34 01/27/02 Sun
"Meet the Posters" updated -- Masquerade, 21:27:59 01/27/02 Sun
If you submitted a profile and you're not in there as of tonight, please email me.
Wildfeed for Doublemeat Palace is over at the Trollup board. -- Rufus, 05:47:48 01/28/02 Mon
TV Guide says that "Doublemeat" is "one of the season's strongest episodes"!!! Can't wait to see it! -- Rob, 06:04:49 01/28/02 Mon
[> Re: TV Guide says that "Doublemeat" is "one of the season's strongest episodes"!!! -- Doriander, 19:03:43 01/29/02 Tue
Delurking on account of extreme disappointment. Though the preview indicated otherwise I held on to this blurb's promise of a strong episode. If this constitutes one of this season's strongest episodes, then I'm panicking. I'm certain you guys can deconstruct it upon multiple viewings, but a strong episode to me must have a sense of urgency, must involve the viewer upon FIRST viewing, which BtVS rarely does anymore. It's upsetting that one has to search for something to appreciate. I'm beginning to wonder if ME is as rusty as the the newly resurrected Buffy.
[> Re: TV Guide says that "Doublemeat" is "one of the season's strongest episodes"!!! -- Doriander, 19:04:52 01/29/02 Tue
Delurking on account of extreme disappointment. Though the preview indicated otherwise I held on to this blurb's promise of a strong episode. If this constitutes one of this season's strongest episodes, then I'm panicking. I'm certain you guys can deconstruct it upon multiple viewings, but a strong episode to me must have a sense of urgency, must involve the viewer upon FIRST viewing, which BtVS rarely does anymore. It's upsetting that one has to search for something to appreciate. I'm beginning to wonder if ME is as rusty as the resurrected Buffy.
Eonline goes Buffy Crazy.. Major Spoilers at their site -- neaux, 06:42:53 01/28/02 Mon
check out the craziness... I think i spoiled myself
[> Re: Eonline goes Buffy Crazy.. Major Spoilers at their site -- maddog, 07:13:58 01/28/02 Mon
I actually didn't see much of anything there that we didn't already know(or at least were pretty sure with the speculation). I hate the way Wanda worded the big death though...cause first she asked who it would be and Marti said all the regulars would be back next year...now the next logical question is to ask if she considers Tara a regular...but no, she asks if Tara will be back to witch Marti completely avoids the answers and says she'll be around for 16 of the 22 episodes this year. Come on, these interviewers have to be smarter than that.
[> [> Re: Eonline goes Buffy Crazy.. Major Spoilers at their site -- neaux, 07:21:14 01/28/02 Mon
well the thing is.. i try to avoid all spoilers..
so the Riley thing was news to me... ^_^
[> [> [> You're avoiding spoilers and reading Wanda articles....sounds like an oximoron to me. :) -- maddog, 08:00:51 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> [> [> Re: You're avoiding spoilers and reading Wanda articles....sounds like an oximoron to me. :) -- neaux, 08:37:23 01/28/02 Mon
its a sickness isnt it... I try to handle minor spoilers.. so I go to sites like eonline where at least I know i wont get everything.. *shakes fist at his own sickness
[> [> [> [> [> Oxymoron (NT) -- Tara, 12:20:09 01/28/02 Mon
[> All this is at the Trollup Board the link above..... -- Rufus, 07:41:33 01/28/02 Mon
This is so some of our visitors don't get spoiled....:):):)
[> Remark about the slayers -- JCC, 11:59:09 01/28/02 Mon
She said in the interview for a new slayer to be sent,both Faith & Buffy would have to die.
Does this mean Faith will be killed off?There would be no consequences as nothing in the show would change.
[> [> Re: Remark about the slayers -- vampire hunter D, 12:31:10 01/28/02 Mon
That had to be a slip on Noxon's part. It can't be true. Remember, only Kendra needed to die for Faith to be called. So Buffy's death is not a requirement for Faith's sucessor to be called.
[> [> Re: Remark about the slayers -- maddog, 09:25:13 01/29/02 Tue
See I disagree with her(and yes, I know she knows more about the show than I do), but according to them, the slayer can only be called when the preceeding slayer dies. Buffy died for a minute, Kendra was called. Kendra died, Faith was called. Why would it now take BOTH slayers to die? Why wouldn't it just be, "if Faith dies we'd see a new slayer"...because while Buffy may "officially" be recognized by the council, it shouldn't change the Slayer Lore that we hear on a weekly basis.
[> [> [> besides... -- anom, 20:53:21 01/30/02 Wed
...Buffy has died (again). So even if calling a new Slayer did require both of them to die, that doesn't mean they have to both be dead at the same time...um, yeah, I know that sounds weird...anyway, the point is, now only Faith would have to die to call a new Slayer. (But I hope they don't go that route.)
[> And I thought Joss was bad at math. -- Solitude1056, 16:12:53 01/28/02 Mon
I'm dubious as to Marty's credibility, suddenly, or perhaps she's just really sleep-deprived... anyone else see major problems with the last sentence in this excerpt?
Why can't Buffy fully love [Spike]?
Because he's evil! Even though he has come a long way, I still wonder what would happen with that chip out of his head. He's not someone you should fully trust. And given that, how could she ever fully give herself to him? It's not like Angel, who has spent 300 years atoning.
[> [> Re: And I thought Joss was bad at math. -- Lunarchickk, 10:57:34 01/29/02 Tue
Maybe she's counting the "close to a hundred years" of torment Angel suffered in hell (according to the "Beauty and the Beasts" script)?
*shrug* Or maybe it's just catching... :)
willow ? (s6 spoiler) -- juliaabra, 09:58:34 01/28/02 Mon
i was just brushing my teeth and all of a sudden i'm wondering, and my apologies if this has already been addressed, but has anyone thought that willow's descent into big badness and magic addiction might be a result of the super mojo she had to conjure to bring buffy back? we're always being told in the buffyverse that, as in rl, actions have consequences and magic actions sometimes have nasty consequences. willow channeled some very dark energy (osiris/snake anyone?) perhaps she is caught up in these forces as they backlash.
[> Re: willow ? (s6 spoiler) -- grace, 20:06:29 01/28/02 Mon
I have had the same thought all season long. We saw some bad in the form of the ghost that piggy backed with Buf, but that couldn't be the only thing. I think the badness might be in the form of Buf herself and Willow will just go off the deep end when she finds out. Just a guess.
[> [> Re: willow ? (s6 spoiler) -- myra, 03:19:24 01/29/02 Tue
No, I don't think Willow's magical flaws are a result of the osiris spell. We already saw her handling darker magic in season 5, before she raised Buffy.
She crossed a (if not 'the')line when she pulled out the "Darkest Magicks" book to use for her little vengeance trip to glory (in 'Tough Love' I think it was). But I do agree that bringing buffy back was an important (and dangerous)step in her descent into her 'big-badness', she realised that she was more powerful than she thought and that's when she started abusing that power.
[> [> [> Re: willow ? (s6 spoiler) -- Mystery, 08:51:04 01/29/02 Tue
And don't forget Spike's warning "That's the thing about magic. There's always consequences. ALWAYS." I don't think he was just talking about the ghost. Willow was also "tested" in Bargaining, by Osiris and found worthy of wielding the magick necessary to drag Buffy out of heaven. And of course Giles confrontation with Willow:
GILES: Oh, there are others in this world who can do what you did. You just don't want to meet them. (turns away again)
GILES: (angry) You were lucky.
WILLOW: I wasn't lucky. I was amazing. And how would you know? You weren't even there.
GILES: If I had been, I'd have bloody well stopped you. The magicks you channeled are more ferocious and primal than anything you can hope to understand, (even more angry) and you are lucky to be alive, you rank, arrogant amateur!
Interesting how much Willow right now parallels Ripper. And we already saw the consequences of his little spell with Eyghon. Those came about gradually. Maybe that's Willow's choice: Giles' path or Ethan's path?
[> [> [> Re: willow ? (s6 spoiler) -- maddog, 09:05:47 01/29/02 Tue
exactly, it seems to be a more gradual thing. You could even trace it back to restoring the curse on Angel...if not before that. The second she began magic she could have been on a collison course with major problems.
possible source of the slayer's power? -- zombie, 10:18:46 01/28/02 Mon
I think it the slayers power is demonic then my theory is that the demon that made vampires had a like a subspecie's version of itself that had similar abilities. This subspecie's must of created the slayer by giving part of it's own spirit to a human girl like a vampire has part of the demon's spirit too.
[> Re: possible source of the slayer's power? -- Sofdog, 10:50:35 01/28/02 Mon
Actually the source of the Slayer's power is described in Fray comic #3.
This phenomenon was set in motion by a group of ancient shaman who sought to answer a plague of vampires by creating "[A] power that could fight the vampires. A power that lived in the body of a girl."
[> Re: possible source of the slayer's power? -- Darby, 11:27:47 01/28/02 Mon
If the ancient world according to Giles is accurate (the show always has an out to say that the Watchers' info is faulty), and the planet long ago was inhabited by demons, then it's safe to assume that they didn't all get along. The ones who get over here, or who have hosts over here, often barely tolerate each other.
Imagine this - years after being driven out, some demons get tired of the vampire guy going on and on about how he left a "present" behind, how he really didn't get his butt kicked like the rest of them. You know how irritating demons can be - it is a hell dimension, after all. One of them may have found a way (through Fray's shaman, perhaps) to pass a bit of its own demon power over to our side, to be used by the Slayer. Unlike vampires, who work from a contagion that started in this world and who exert much more power over their hosts, the Slayer power has no real consciousness beyond some slight animalistic urge-influences on its host. So at its base, this isn't a fight of good against evil but intertribal warfare with stand-ins. And somewhere, over a brimstone pit with cups of sour beer (watching the XFL, perhaps), each demon claims that it's winning the battle and nobody will hang out with either of them any more.
[> [> Re: possible source of the slayer's power? -- anom, 21:16:36 01/28/02 Mon
"And somewhere, over a brimstone pit with cups of sour beer (watching the XFL, perhaps), each demon claims that it's winning the battle and nobody will hang out with either of them any more."
Nice touch, Darby! I like your theory. Not that I don't have my own.
As soon as I read zombie's post, I thought of the monster in Superstar. The one created to balance Jonathan's super-good-guy. Well, the creation of vampires must have been an even more radical change in the world. Maybe it required the creation of the Slayer to balance it. Whether this means the 1st Slayer was literally made rather than born or whether the "Slayer-energy" was created & found a girl who had already been born, it could fit the statement that her power is "rooted in darkness." There's a certain parallel in the fact that "Slayerness" passes from one to the next & the way vampires are made. OK, except the old rather than the new one dies & there's (usually) only 1 at a time. Besides, the PTBs are big on balance.
As for the Watcher/shamans' claims...maybe they just took credit after the fact.
[> [> [> Re: possible source of the slayer's power? -- The Hat, 10:55:40 01/29/02 Tue
"Well, the creation of vampires must have been an even more radical change in the world. Maybe it required the creation of the Slayer to balance it."
I like this idea! I mean, I like the idea of feuding, beer-swilling demons in hell, too -- but this ties in nicely with not only the monster in "Superstar" but something that was discussed in "After Life":
WILLOW: Thaumogenesis is when doing a spell actually creates a being. In this case it was like, a, a side-effect, I guess. Like a price.
WILLOW: Think of it like, the world doesn't like you getting something for free, and we asked for this huge gift. Buffy. A-and so the world said, 'fine, but if you have that, you have to take this too.' And it made the demon.
ANYA: Well, technically, that's not a price. That's a gift with purchase.
This isn't exactly what you're talking about, but it's consistent with the tendency toward balance that you mention. Maybe the demon in "After Life" had a secondary thematic purpose -- in addition to demonstrating the consequences of bringing Buffy back. I guess we'll find out more as it's revealed to Buffy "what you are... what's to come."
Cordelia -- Cecilia, 10:47:24 01/28/02 Mon
I've been reading a lot lately about how much the character of Cordelia has changed, that perhaps she is becoming boring, she's not the same person. I must say that I disagree.
I've always thought that the Cordelia we saw in the early episodes was more of a facade than the real person. Time and again when she was forced to make tough choices, and I mean personal, tough choices, she always came through.
There were indications of her basic "goodness" beneath the exterior back in Sunnydale. In the episode "Invisible Girl", she gives Buffy the speech about knowing what it's like to be lonely, how she can be surrounded by people and be totally alone. She also says that none of her friends "really know me". In "Helpless", she walks in on Buffy and Giles in the library after Buffy found out that Giles was secretly drugging her and while she initially acted like she was oblivious to what was going on, when Buffy asked her for a ride home, she responded instantly with "Of course". The time that her friends had emotionaly blackmailed her into breaking up with Xander, in the end she came through and made the decision that was right for her. And who could forget the speech she gave to Buffy in "And When She Was Bad". She saw right to the heart of the issue and spoke up accordingly.
It's really no suprise to me that she has become the strong, independant, take-charge woman she is today. If you really think about it, Cordy's probably the only one without a dreary childhood looming over her adult life. All the sacrifices she made have been choices, unlike Buffy who had sacrifice thrust upon her and reconciled herself to the choices afterward.
It is not unbelievable that she is the one whom Angel leans upon. I think Cordy devotes so much time to Angel, Connor and Angel Investigations because she made a choice to take this path in her life. That is why the visions meant so much to her. It wasn't so much that Angel wouldn't need her if she stopped having them but that she would have no purpose without them. That is essentially why she chose to become part demon. She saw her purpose, her path in life and realized that nothing else was as important to her (even remaining tail-less).
As far as romance goes between Cordy and Angel, I think we're going to see her make the decision not to become involved with him. She is strong enought to put her friendship with him above any romantic inclinations she may have.
Basically, I think that Cordelia is one of the most evolved characters. Her evolution has been slow but entirely realistic within the confines of her basic nature.
[> I totally agree with you. -- JCC, 12:07:11 01/28/02 Mon
I really agree.I thought Cordy was always a caring person in disguise.She always helped the group in times of troubles and used the vain,head cheerleader persona as a cover.
[> Re: Cordelia -- gds, 20:18:24 01/28/02 Mon
Cordy's saving grace is that she is completely - even brutally - honest. Remember when Buffy could read minds that Cordy was the only one with nothing hidden. Anyone who is rigorously honest EVEN TO THEMSELVES is forced to learn from his or her mistakes and to evolve personally. It may not guarantee that a person will become a 'good' person, but it comes close. It also disposes a person to personal loyalties. Cordy has demonstrated this on several occasions.
Cordy has become more than a 'good' person, she has become a 'nice' person. The visions have made the suffering of others very real to her - in fact their suffering caused her to suffer. This would almost guarantee she developed an empathy with the suffering.
Notice that Cordy & Angel have swapped places since the beginnings of AI. She wanted the money, but he had to be persuaded to charge anyone for anything. Angel was Cordy's guide teaching her to care more for others.
Cordy's visions changed the order of things. She became a guide to Angel. This gave her life meaning. She saw this as a guarantee that Angel would need her. Remember she said he couldn't fire her because she was vision girl, and remember how hard she took it when he did fire her. Now Angel feels he needs her guidance - not just for the visions. Remember he told the conduit he was more afraid of her dying than she was. Cordy needs to be Angel's guide just as much as he needs her to guide him. There is a symbiosis here. They need each other. So far there is no evidence of a romantic or sexual interest, but in every other way they seemed to be well matched.
I am not at all surpised that on the last episode Angel was again the (de facto) leader, but Cordy was his close personal adviser.
[> true, but... -- anom, 22:23:38 01/28/02 Mon
...I don't think she'd have the depth she does today without having gone through the uncontrolled visions Angel stole the scroll to cure her of. (sorry, can't remember the ep title or the name of the demon who did it to her, & i'm not gonna look it up now.) When she came out of it, she said something like, "So many people in pain...we have to help them!" It was a real turning point for her.
Hey, OnM - Got a movie trivia challenge for you! -- Brian, 11:16:16 01/28/02 Mon
What was the name of the movie about the kid who was going to Europe with his girlfriend, but he got a vision that the plane would be destroyed, so they didn't go, and Death tries to balance the scales the rest of the movie?
Thanks in advance. This question is driving our office crazy
[> I know, I know! *waving hand in the air* -- Deeva, 11:25:43 01/28/02 Mon
I know that you asked OnM specifically but I'm a bad, rude girl. Well, not really. But the answer is:
What is the movie "Final Destination" ?
Kinda creepy. Death kept hunting them down one by one, cycling through each person. And the scenarios to all their deaths. Makes you think.
[> [> ...Written & Directed by a couple of X Files vets... -- Darby, 11:34:21 01/28/02 Mon
Glen Morgan wrote it, and he's done lots of X Files. James Wong directed it, and I think wrote on it too, and he had lots of X Files experience.
[> [> [> Re - Thanks, we can rest our tired Monday brain cells -- Brian, 12:21:15 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> [> Seeing as how I didn't know the answer to that one... -- OnM, 20:16:14 01/28/02 Mon
My sincere thanks to Darby and Deeva for stepping up to the challenge!
You guys want a job at CMotW?
[> [> [> [> Uh, no. You do a much better job than I ever could. -- Deeva, 21:42:42 01/28/02 Mon
[> Soon to have a sequel per Tony Todd (morgue guy & Candyman) -- Liq, 12:37:17 01/28/02 Mon
Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- Darby, 11:53:27 01/28/02 Mon
It just occurred to me that every time someone from the show is interviewed and asked about the anticipated death, they make a point to say that everyone is under contract for next year (except Amber, but the interviewer always brings that up).
Last year, when similar rumors swirled, several times staff responded with, "Yeah! We're killing Buffy!" There, nothing was as deceptive as the truth.
But we may be following the snipe here. Angel died and continued as a regular. Willow died (or so everyone thought). We've seen the Master, Jenny Calendar, and Darla since they died. We mostly figured Riley was going to return as some sort of dead guy (with his personality, who could tell anyway?). So why are we assuming that none of the regulars can stay around after dying?
Keep in mind, all of the male writers and a large segment of the fans like Willow in leather...
[> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- dream of the consortium, 12:17:22 01/28/02 Mon
VampWillow as the season seven villian would be very good. Buffy would be trying to keep her from killing off everyone she loves while simultaneously trying to find someone to put a chip in her head, or a curse on her, or anything that can be done short of actually having to kill Willow. That would allow the writers to develop further the themes of redemption that have been worked with Spike and Angel, while at the same time providing a easy plot structure - when in doubt, put Willow in danger, right? Looking for a cure for vampirism could also send Buffy into research of her own nature, which seems to be the area of the mythology that will need to be explored more thoroughly before the series can reach some sort of conclusion.
But I have a question. I've missed large parts of the series (can't wait for those DVDs) and I never watch Angel, so no doubt I missed it - but when have we seen Jenny Calendar since her death?
[> [> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- Vickie, 12:51:22 01/28/02 Mon
We saw Jenny during Becoming (part 2?), when Dru was conning Giles into explaining the Acathla ritual to her.
[> [> [> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- dream of the consortium, 13:01:54 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> [> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- Laurie, 13:18:56 01/28/02 Mon
Also in Amends (S3) when Angel is being tormented by some of his victims, Jenny embodies the evil spirit responsible ("Alright, I get it, you're evil"-Buffy), and is one of the victims that approached Angel.
[> [> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- Anne, 14:54:58 01/28/02 Mon
I agree with one caveat: not Vamp Willow, just Bad Willow -- probably Witch Willow with Rack twisting the whole thing towards the evil. My first problem with Vamp Willow is that the show's creators just never seem to have gotten very clear on whether a vampire is a completely different individual than the soul that used to inhabit the body, or an extension of it. And I want something that's unequivocally Willow, because we've seen plenty of evidence that, good or bad, this can be a very powerful woman -- not to mention sensual, despite the little-girl act she's been putting on most of her life. And of course, what I'd like to see coming out the other end would be Good Willow, now taking full responsibility for her power as something internal to her, not a crutch.
The other reason I'm not crazy about the Vamp Willow idea is that I hate that vampire makeup. Fine, if you've got a bunch of hapless extras who can't act their way out of a paper bag, it's a good way to make people look scary. But for people like Hannigan and Marsters, it's a waste of talent and face (and even voice -- they're all forced to lisp with those stupid fang prostheses in).
[> [> [> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- Anneth, 16:14:35 01/28/02 Mon
"The other reason I'm not crazy about the Vamp Willow idea is that I hate that vampire makeup. Fine, if you've got a bunch of hapless extras who can't act their way out of a paper bag, it's a good way to make people look scary. But for people like Hannigan and Marsters, it's a waste of talent and face (and even voice -- they're all forced to lisp with those stupid fang prostheses in)."
Yeah, but at the same time, thin back to the very first episode Spike appeared in - we saw him with his vamp makeup, being all badass, til Dru appeared, at which point he turned around with his "human" face, and we were all appropriately startled by his incredible beauty. True, that was a cheap, one-time deal, but *very* effective.
[> [> [> [> Re: I'll give you that one -- Anne, 16:21:25 01/28/02 Mon
[> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- Edith-Ann, 04:24:12 01/29/02 Tue
Whenever I see speculation about the so-called Big Scooby Death, the one person they always eliminate as a possible is Xander, simply because there are now only two male regulars in the cast and no one imagines they're about to dust Spike while he's in the middle of an important Buffy story line.
However, the latest spoilers for the wedding episode have Xander checking into a seedy motel at the end of the show. I wouldn't be surprised if ME killed off the character we're least expecting to see die, i.e. Xander, and since he's always been the most vamp-phobic of the gang, it could be a blast to have him vamped. In The Wish, vamp-Xander was every bit as cool as vamp-Willow. I don't know where they might take us from there, but I'm sure they could come up with something interesting. In any case, if someone is going to die, my money is on Xander as the long shot bet.
[> [> Re: Speculation on spoilers (so there are spoilers, duh) -- dream of the consortium, 05:44:32 01/29/02 Tue
OOOOHHHH - yes, yes. Much, much better than VampWillow, for all the reasons more insightful folks than I mentioned above. But VampXander would allow all the same types of explorations that VampWillow would, while still leaving Willow to grapple with the "how much magic to use to save Xander question." I would be thrilled.
Real Horror Movie Trivia Question... (want the answer to) -- Neaux, 12:25:28 01/28/02 Mon
Well I just saw Brotherhood of the Wolf this weekend which was the most Brilliant movie I have seen in at least the past 6 months..
maybe even the whole past year.. DEFINATELY SEE IT!! anyway here is my question
anyway.. my friend was with me and He said the Bald Headed Guy in the movie.. I believe his name is Machemort..
was the same actor who played Nagi in Cemetary Man.
my question is.. Is this True?? and what is the actor's name?
[> yep, same guy: Francois Hadji-Lazaro -- Liq, 12:35:32 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> Cool ^_^ thanks! -- neaux, 12:51:40 01/28/02 Mon
Something a bit different from Lady Starlight -- Liq, 13:54:46 01/28/02 Mon
The More Things Change...
This story has a scene toward the end which is a tad NC-17.
[> Re: Lady Starlight - My, aren't you a wicked one! Great Story -- Brian, 14:40:10 01/28/02 Mon
Another nice touch at the ending.
Always deepening the stakes.
[> [> Wicked? Me? (innocent look) -- LadyStarlight, 17:07:13 01/28/02 Mon
Thank you Brian. Glad you liked.
[> [> [> I tend to worry with the ones with the "innocent look"... -- VampRiley, 17:50:03 01/28/02 Mon
They tend to be the ones who cause the most trouble...or the most fun. But there is that hazy grey area between trouble and fun. Good times. Loved the story.
[> [> [> [> Thank you .... -- LadyStarlight, 19:09:09 01/28/02 Mon
... but I'll let someone else decide if I'm trouble, or fun.
Glad you liked.
[> Good Story! -- Dariel, 20:32:25 01/28/02 Mon
I just love your solution to the evil versus non-evil vamp: no human blood. Seems plausible. And I love the Spike/Tara paring. You write them very well.
[> Liq... (re. Feedback form on this) -- Marie, 03:59:31 01/29/02 Tue
Got this message when I tried to send LS feedback:
"The requested URL /btvs/feedback/cgi-bin/mailto_LS.cgi was not found on this server."
So I went into FC from the board and tried from there. Same thing. I've sent her an e-mail, but you might want to check this.
[> [> Thanks Marie... scary what a misplaced / will do to a web address -- Liq, 09:32:01 01/29/02 Tue
[> Re: Something a bit different from Lady Starlight -- juliaabra, 11:23:21 01/29/02 Tue
whew! nice work. this is the first s/t story i've read that makes sense for me. now i shall have to read the story you mentioned--soft? i look forward to more goodies from you!
Is there a New Angel tonite? -- Duo, 14:18:00 01/28/02 Mon
[> Re: Is there a New Angel tonite? -- zilla, 14:22:21 01/28/02 Mon
no. Once Again it's a repeat.
Random Shul Thoughts (Shoughts) -- Shul, 17:31:36 01/28/02 Mon
Love = Pain only if Pain = Love
Pay no attention to the man benhind the curtain!
WHAT THE BLOODY SHEOL?!?! -- Apophis, 18:03:32 01/28/02 Mon
Did the WB preempt Angel with Smallville for everyone or was it just in Indy?
[> Re: WHAT THE BLOODY SHEOL?!?! -- curlyq, 19:24:47 01/28/02 Mon
they preempted it in Massachussetts too.
[> [> Angel-less in Ontario too -- Little One, 23:11:55 01/28/02 Mon
[> [> Good -- only insofar as it wasn't just MA -- Earl Allison, 02:06:56 01/29/02 Tue
What's weird was, the TV Guide channel had the change, but the actual, printed TV Guide did say Angel was going to be on.
I hope this isn't going to become a trend ...
Take it and run.
[> [> [> Re: Good -- only insofar as it wasn't just MA -- maddog, 07:28:12 01/29/02 Tue
I doubt it would be considered pre empted. I just think instead of an Angel repeat they decided to show one of their newer shows' repeats so it gets more exposure(where Angel's a more established show). As long as it wasn't supposed to be a new show to begin with it's all good.
[> [> [> [> Besides.... -- GreatRewards, 12:35:31 01/29/02 Tue
You all should have been watching Part 2 of Stephen King's "Rose Red", instead!
[> Re: WHAT THE BLOODY SHEOL?!?! -- CW, 05:50:08 01/29/02 Tue
Looks like the WB is having time slot worries. They must be getting beat up in slots they were doing OK in last year. They keep testing with having their more popular shows (including Angel and Smallville) at different times. This week about half the people distributing TV schedules got the message and half didn't.
Having Angel after Seventh Heaven isn't exactly a happy situation. The audiences are too different. Angel might do better in a different slot. But, it could be worse. The WB could run it up against Buffy and make everybody who likes both shows angry. Angel would certainly do best in it's old slot on Tuesday, but putting it back there would be as much as admitting that they screwed up by not paying the price for Buffy.
[> [> Re: WHAT THE BLOODY SHEOL?!?! -- maddog, 07:34:20 01/29/02 Tue
I'm hoping they aren't stupid enough to put it in the Buffy tme slot...that would be suicide...of course if it is then UPN could pick up Angel too and we could be crossover happy again. :)
[> Re: WHAT THE BLOODY SHEOL?!?! -- luminesce, 08:03:46 01/29/02 Tue
I'm also in Indy.
Was also dismayed.
And has your reception of FX been other than good lately? It keeps pixellating on me.
[> Re: WHAT THE BLOODY SHEOL?!?! -- juliaabra, 11:36:28 01/29/02 Tue
as a relative newcomer to angel, i was glad to see that the wb is broadcasting older eps here (and elsewhere?) on thursdays at 8. but, and here's the screw, they keep pre-empting for college basketball. grrrr. unless the ducks have vampires on their team i don't want to see it! although the beavers have the teeth i guess. end rant. thank you.
[> Re: Here too, plus... -- Philistine, 13:13:59 01/30/02 Wed
... they did the same thing last Thursday, and I'm getting pretty irritated. To misquote Giles, "If I wanted to watch Superman, I'd - well, I'll never want to watch Superman." I hope ME *does* jump Angel over to UPN. Or *anywhere* but the WB.
Band Candy and Symmetry -- Darby, 19:48:05 01/28/02 Mon
Watched Band Candy on FX tonight and was amazed to realize that, when regressed to "teenager in mind," Joyce went for bad boy Giles. And what do we know about Buffy's Dad? Irresponsible as a father, brought a girl to the dance where he ended up with Joyce. And afterward, there was no indication that Joyce was attracted to stuffy Watcher Giles (now in a limited edition action figure!).
On the one hand, this all may have been in service of plot - who else were Joyce and Giles going to hook up with, and how to make Hank Summers essentially a nonentity? But it does have a certain resonance with Buffy's choices, dontcha think?
[> Re: Band Candy and Symmetry -- grace, 19:57:04 01/28/02 Mon
Don't know about you but several times as Giles was speaking I thought of Spike and how similar they sounded. Pretty interesting!
[> [> Re: Band Candy and Symmetry-Spoilery -- Valkyrie, 20:06:58 01/28/02 Mon
I hooted when Joyce pulled out handcuffs...if spoilers are correct, Buffy is following in Mom's foosteps in that respect as well.
[> [> Re: Giles' and Spike's accents -- Anne, 05:03:35 01/29/02 Tue
Actually, from what I've read I believe the accent that Anthony Head uses in "Band Candy" is his real-life speaking accent -- that Oxbridge thing he uses as Giles is a put-on. I also gather that Marsters has gotten a lot of help with his accent from being around Head, with whom he apparently spends some time hanging out even apart from the set (or did before Head returned to England). So the similarity is not in any way an accident. Whether, in addition, the writers were trying to make a particular point with the similarity, I'm not sure.
[> [> [> Similarities between Giles and Spike -- Raccoon, 06:02:06 01/29/02 Tue
I remember reading an interview where JW makes a statement akin to "Spike is what Giles was, and Giles is what Spike refused to become". (I can't remember the exact quote; sorry about that.)
The parallels are indeed striking and intended to be so. After all, Spike's original accent was posh and quite Oxbridgey, which Giles' accent was not. They both redefined themselves, choosing opposite directions. They have both made Buffy the center of their lives (or un-life in Spike's case:)) However, Giles chooses to leave when things become too emotionally tangled, whereas Spike refuses to do so no matter how "wrong" the situation gets.
[> [> [> [> I read an interview with Head about that episode. -- bookworm, 07:08:56 01/29/02 Tue
He said he adopted a rougher accent as a teen as a rebellion against his father, who insisted on the more upper-class English accent. Giles was probably raised by an upper class family and started speaking the lingo of the streets when he went slumming as Ripper.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I read an interview with Head about that episode. -- Sebastian, 09:14:01 01/29/02 Tue
i believe that interview is in _the watcher's guide vol. 2_, in the cast interview section.
[> [> [> [> [> Well, so much for my theory of perfect S/G synchronicity! -- Raccoon, 09:19:14 01/29/02 Tue
Thanks for the info, bookworm:)
[> [> [> Re: Giles' and Spike's accents -- Nevermore, 07:17:36 01/30/02 Wed
i suppose it makes sense that the punk vampire should have something in common with Giles - with fashioning himself from his era more or less - both the characters have a seventies rebellion going on :-)
ASH's accent as Giles is deliberately put on - He said himself somewhere that he took the Hugh Grant sort of accent and mixed it up with another persons (uhhh - memory fails me there)to make it seem affected with 'jolly posh' Oxbridge.
[> [> Re: Band Candy and Symmetry -- lolagem, 15:19:22 01/29/02 Tue
i don't know about Grace but i thought Giles was a long legged hunka honey, but i think Spike is hot, too. i find him much more attractive than Angel. maybe it's the whole bad boy thing. Grace would probably know.
Questions about Season Five. Spoilers for Five and Six. -- Age, 22:05:39 01/28/02 Mon
In season five of 'Buffy' and two of 'Angel' both arcs seem to be Joss Whedon's way of showing us what we have to do to stand a chance of growing up to be human adults: face our own mortality; deconstruct oppositional thinking and accept that we are in part animal, but not to let animal instinct take us over.
At the end of the 'Buffy' arc, Glory offers Ben immortality in exchange for Dawn who symbolizes humanity and the newly forming feminized society.
My question is, if the human soul is more than just a metaphor in these series, then why does Glory have to offer Ben immortality as with a soul he should have it already?
By vanquishing the notion of a God, Glory, in the heavens(where the portal is) and by making Buffy's stay in heaven to be like a childhood illusion that as an adult you wake up from to a physical 'After Life', not an immaterial one, are we to conclude that the underlying metaphysics of this series is simple atheistic materialism where there is no after life?
Are we to conclude that the criticism of patriarchal religion is based on the contradiction between true selflessness, the giving up of the self in the material and only sense by returning to nothing, and the type of selfless goodness practised to get into a paradisal after life based on a self called the soul which has tended to vilify the material and the natural aspects of human beings, especially as symbolized by women, the links that must be severed(as the Knights say of Dawn, who represents as the key, Buffy's fertility) to the natural world of reproduction/mortality, in the attempt to divide the world into evil and good, using the black and white, oppositional thinking that Whedon is suggesting is a relic from childhood, as a way of detaching a separate heaven from a hell, ie in order to create a heaven to go to after death?
Also is this creation of a heaven, as symbolized by Glory being a predatory animal and Ben being a herd animal simply the product of the human capacity for symbolic representation of the world in mythology and words and the animal instinct for self preservation based on the fear of death? In other words, is it just a myth?(Glory represents the predatory reaction to the fear of death, the fight response in which you gain as much power in the hopes that you can conquer death itself; and Ben represents the flight response, the herd intellect, which attempts to hide itself in the herd of humanity, giving up those on the edges, ie the mad people he gets the Queller demon to kill.)
Is this notion of giving into animal instinct then reinforced by Ben's giving up of Dawn, the human being and symbol of the feminine and yet another example of the weaker member of the herd in being a child?
In other words, in season five is Whedon saying that religion is simply human beings giving into their animal instinct for survival or fear of death?
Has Whedon used the figure of the Buddha in the Magic Box to symbolize the idea that there is no enduring soul as buddhism posits because all is change, but that the image is taken out of its religious context(not in a temple, but on the counter) to render it metaphorical and not religious, taking even from it the notion of a life after death?
Or, are we to conclude that it's just Ben who doesn't believe that human beings are immortal?
[> Re: When good metaphors go bad. -- Darby, 06:54:59 01/29/02 Tue
Age, I think you're reading way too much into this.
For one thing, the imagery tends to be fairly classic stuff - I'm sure that Dawn the character is somewhat archetypal, but the details don't seem to support any feminine ideal, societal or otherwise. And immortality in the fiction world like Buffy is a continuation of physical existence (maybe Ben felt that, by giving in to things as much as he already had, his spiritual immortality wouldn't be a fun one), a term used repeatedly in that sense. What I've never figured out is why Ben accepted that he could have a continued physical existence once Glory was back full time in her own dimension - not a great thinker, he.
The whole notion of gods and souls can't be too overanalyzed - that path leads to cries of satanism and banning. The Buffyverse soul is somewhat metaphorical, but equally a plot device shorthand - things without souls or with demon souls are assumed to be on the "other" side. It's just part of the series language - however, sometimes even the writers seem to be a bit uncomfortable using it that way, as evidenced on Angel.
I agree that Joss' worldview, from the standpoint of religion, does work its way into the show - Buffy's Heaven was a model of noncommittal, barely a continuation at all, described more as a drug haze than a "place." Note that she had to specify that she was "still her" while there, because it didn't play that way from the rest of the description.
I don't find the implication that there can be power in various religions to be disturbing, but I acknowledge that it can be a disturbing concept. The more current and real the religion (e.g., Buddhism), the more it seems to bother people, although I've seen people upset that Willow invoked Osiris in Bargaining. It is, however your own beliefs react, part of the package.
And you're right, the two shows during those seasons are addressing the same themes, but I see them as the broader theme of finding yourself, figuring out your role in the world, and finding the maturity to accept it. Which just may be another way of saying what you've said, but it seems different to me.
[> [> Re: When good metaphors go bad. Spoilers for S 5. -- Age, 11:15:21 01/29/02 Tue
Thanks for your reply. Glory's being a god can also be interpreted to suggest that we as human beings have to face the fact that we just aren't gods. In this way, there isn't an implied criticism of mythologically based religions. Perhaps by Ben giving up Dawn as a sacrifice to a god, the writers were simply making the point that as a herd animal he was reacting to the same fear of death that Glory as predatory animal was.
It's a matter of interpretation.
Thanks for your reply. Another point of view always helps to clarify things.
[> [> [> Re: Connections between 'Buffy' and 'Angel' Major Spoilers for both series to the Present. -- Age, 15:33:13 01/29/02 Tue
One more comment: I don't think that the two series are merely connected at the arc level or weekly, but are virtually the same story changed only to fit the characters and the machinations of plot.
In the opener to season five we have both Buffy and Angel acting like their prey, vampires and Wolfram and Hart in order to hunt their prey, both having externalized aspects of themselves as that which they have to get rid of, one to escape death, the other to shanshu into being human person. In their respective episodes Buffy tastes the blood of her supposed opposite/nemesis, Dracula, but it's actually women's blood symbolizing sexual reproduction and menstruation, the demonized aspect of women; and Angel assumes the role of his supposed opposite, the demon protector.
At the end of the eps Darla returns, made human by men; and Dawn shows up made by men. Both play the same function of showing the draw of childhood, then the movement towards adolescence as Dawn becomes the key, Buffy's fertility, part of the animal aspect of Buffy that she's been trying to repress, and Darla becomes the animal aspect of Angel he's trying to get rid of in her being re-vamped.
The two arcs both have a death of a mother figure: Darla is revamped and loses her status as Angel's sire; and Joyce dies. This symbolizes the movement from childhood to adolescence. These two women are operated on in the episodes aired the same week: Darla to save her from death and clear her head of the cancer of humanity; and Joyce to save her from death and just clear her head of cancer.
In Dawn and her diaries(ie writing down what she believes is her life when in fact she was made, as Darla was) there is the statement of naive self worth that has not been tested in the realization that we are only tools, cogs, links, keys, in a reproductive assembly line to be thrown away like the Aprilbot(with her death we symbolically watch Joyce die.); with Darla there is also the naive idea of self worth in Angel's belief that he can have the old patriarchal life of being looked after, ie like the child Dawn, he thinks his life is only his own and not part of the reproductive cycle of death and birth(women are simply slaves as Darla pretends to be and not the natural links(the links that have to be severed according to the Knights) to the natural world which includes reproduction and death. In trying to have shanshu he is mistakenly thinking he can get rid of the demon to become just a human person; Buffy is doing the same thing through the symbolism of Dawn who believes she can stay a human person only, writing what she naively believes is her life and not be concerned with her slayer aspect, the natural, animal aspect which includes reproduction and death.
At the beginning of both arcs both title characters are trying to do away with their slayer and champion aspects: this is brought out by Angel's dreaming in his series and by the two Xanders ep and Riley's desire to have the slayer gone. In episodes airing the same week both Buffy and Angel lose their illusions of a home life: Buffy as Dawn becomes slayer work; Angel as he literally sees his dream of home life get ripped from him. Both Darla and Dawn as suddenly appearing highlight how our lives are like fictions for us to play out in order to get the species to reproduce.
Both Buffy and Angel go through a period of giving in, with Angel's being much more pronounced, but both have epiphanies: in the end it's not about them because both will die to make way for the next generation anyway. In their realization Whedon is suggesting that the worthlessness(as Glory says humans are) created by our being just tools in the reproductive chain should be worked through, and that instead of giving into our animal natures like Wolfram and Hart or Ben and Glory, we live up to our potential as human beings.
The season arc of Buffy shows how women and power don't have to be demonized; women will choose to have children. The 'Angel' arc shows the same thing through Darla getting pregnant; it's just that her sacrifice came this season. In fact in both arcs the title characters accept their own mortality, something necessary if both arcs are to be the same story.
If we look at the development of the arcs we see that both Buffy and Angel fall into a period of adolescence in the eps airing the same week: Riley, Buffy's hero prince leaves, becoming what he was in the past; and Darla rises as a vamp, becoming what she was in the past. Both title characters learn that there aren't happy endings. This leads to Angel going into a period of rebellious anger, with the result that he comes back to the team not as the father figure, but as a colleague. The same thing happens in the 'Buffy' arc: Buffy realizes she has power, but instead of wielding it like a parental figure, she brings the Scoobies up to the level of colleagues to the Watcher's Council. The Fang gang on 'Angel' are allowed to grow; and we see this same growth on 'Buffy.'
What both title characters have to realize is the very thing they have been fighting against, their slayer/demon aspects, are the very things they need to be complete. Buffy becomes the mother figure at the end of the arc; and, though we didn't realize it, Angel became a father.
This type of cross analysis and comparison can be done for season one of 'Angel' and four of 'Buffy': personal initiative and making a connection; season two/five, what you need to grow up; season three/six of 'Angel', growing up.
The two series are connected this intimately as a metaphor for the idea that this is a human story, not one of opposites. The two have to be the same story because men and women are connected. Whedon, because he makes everything symbolic, could not have detached the two series because this would have implied that men and women can be separated. But that's not the case we are all human beings, male and female.
One last thing, I'm not sure if Buffy did fully work through her feelings of worthlessness caused by her realization of being just part of a reproductive chain. Perhaps that's what the first half of season six was doing. She has been going through the motions. Perhaps this lack of spirit has been in part due to her deciding what's the point, life, death, it's all the same, it's just a matter of time before she dies again. Buffy's coming back to life psychologically in 'Gone', matched of course by Cordelia's choosing to live in 'Birthday'(because the two series are the same story made to fit the different characters) is her way of finally accepting that there is a lot more of life to live before you die: there's adulthood. There's miles to go before you sleep.
Oh, I wonder if Connor, for Angel's baby, is meant to suggest the word: 'connection.' Just as Buffy's daughter's name, Dawn, is meant to suggest the dawn of the next generation, or even the dawn of a new feminized society?
One last thought about the original subject of this thread: isn't the tower built to the heavens by crazy empty people whose self will has been taken away from them by a god(the myth of a god as the supernatural metaphor implies) akin to the mythological construction of the idea of heaven because as Buffy discovers when she returns a lot of people really find that living in this world is a kind of hell, and possessing a myth of heaven and an after life (whether there is one or not, I don't know) is the only way that they can stop themselves from going absolutely crazy as Glory does. Or, it may simply be a representation of how Buffy wants to escape the grey life. Or, both. A little illusion may help now and then, hey we watch a fictional series, but when it takes you over...
[> [> [> [> Darla is busy! (AtS season 2&3 spoilers) -- matching mole, 06:08:36 01/30/02 Wed
Not only does she die twice in a year but in one season she gets to symbolize Joyce, Dawn, and Buffy!
Your analysis of the AtS, BtVS parallels is really interesting. I'll have to think about them awhile.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: Darla is busy! Spoilers season five, six and Angel to Present. -- Age, 10:28:35 01/30/02 Wed
It's the same story redone. I can go from episode one of season one of 'Angel' and show how each ep is similar, but not the same in many instances to the 'Buffy' episode that aired the same week. And, as I did above, show that the arcs are meant to duplicate one another to get the characters to a similar point.
There are differences because are different characters. But Darla is Angel's wife/slave/mother at the beginning, but then when she's re-vamped she loses her status as Angel's sire/mother.
If we take last week's Angel we see a focus on having to make money...work, work, work. This week in 'Buffy' we have a plot which focuses on, well, if the two series are connected, it has to be making money and getting a job, and it is. It's just that given the different situations of the characters of both series, the use of the focus is altered for meaning. In fact, if 'Buffy' and 'Angel' are on two different networks, then why are they co-ordinating the airings to give us something to new to watch each week. This shows at least a basic connection where supposedly there isn't one?
In regards to Dawn and criticism of established mythological religions...
Dawn is created by man, not by God(with the idea that we are the creators, not some supreme being) at the beginning of a season that follows right on the heels of having destroyed the oppositionally based Adam(yes, an allusion obviously to the Adam of the Bible.) The power source of Adam is nuclear representing the splitting apart, the oppositional thinking that is the basis of mythological religions: the oppositional thinking that allows men to separate themselves from the world and women and vilify both. It is this which the Scooby Gang defeats along with the myth of Adam. The Scoobies themselves come back together after separating and Buffy tells Adam that he could never know their the source of their power which is letting go of oppositional thinking; this is symbolized by their being joined and separate at the same time in the spell to defeat him, as opposed to being like Adam and his body parts which simply represent analyzed pieces of life sown together into one thing which everybody becomes. What Whedon is saying is that we are one and separate at the same time. The use of oppositional thinking simply creates an abstraction from reality, an illusion of black and white thinking. This is why the central icons have been buddhist. Buddhism says the same thing: deconstruct opposition, it's only an abstract using the tool thinking. The world operates not by analysis, the world just operates. Everything is just like this.
In philosophical terms oppositional thinking creates contrary ideas about the world and ourselves that may be replaced with an alternative, or at least, we should recognize that the opposition is simply an idea, a tool we use, and not reality itself.
Getting back to Dawn... Adam, the Biblical patriarch of mankind has been defeated, and then Dawn appears. This cannot be just a coincidence. What Whedon does here by making Dawn into a human being is circumvent the idea of sin. Dawn doesn't need to be baptized because she wasn't born. It's the same with Darla. Both have been remade.What does the monk say of Dawn: she's an innocent; what does Darla do: she accepts her humanity. There is a sense here of completely deconstructing the myths based on patriarchal religion. We are natural creatures. Now that may include a soul, but I highly doubt it given the prominence of the buddhist icons.
Add to this the season arc of discovering that we are not just people unto ourselves but tools in a reproductive assembly line(generational links in a natural world, no more important than keys, with Dawn's menstruation being associated with discoverying she's the key and Glory's locale, a factory, being the symbol of the assembly line as she's the beast, the animal nature that everyone is trying to repress to get the illusion of immortality as Ben does) and it does seem to point to a deconstruction(as the tower of heaven crumbling at the beginning of season six) of the myths of an after life, god, and heavenly bliss.
Of course it can be interpreted another way, and other points of view are very welcome.
In another way the two series show they are the same story: in the 'Angel' arc of season two he makes the trip down the elevator to what he thinks is home office, hell central, and lands smack right back in this world. Our world is hell. Well, then if that's the case, then this qualifies Glory's title as hell bitch. She's really not from some foreign place, but just another part of the world; in fact how, as Rufus suggested, could they truly be separate, for if that were so, Glory never could been placed in Ben. Then at the beginning of this season, the world is presented to us on 'Buffy' as hell. The two series are making the same statements.
In buddhism the deconstruction of opposites points out to them that death and life are illusions. In this sense we can never die because we are not alive now. Life and death are just the illusory product of thinking. In this way, buddhism becomes a religion as it posits an after life in reincarnation. Given the focus on our natural life and seeing that the buddha figure is not in a temple, I don't think that Whedon is getting at this.
Oh my, I just realized something. In ep one of season two Angel essentially becomes buddhist-like. He takes the place of the demon protector who actually has a small buddhist shrine. In this way, yet again, the buddhism iconry of 'Buffy' in season five is matched by the central image of the buddha shrine in ep one of 'Angel'. The two series are telling the same story; the two series, ourelves, we are all, as buddhism suggests, all connected.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Why 'Buffy' and 'Angel' are the Same Part One Spoilers All Seasons to Present. -- Age, 21:53:42 01/30/02 Wed
If I say same, I have to hit myself thirty times.(figuratively)
If I say different, I have to hit myself thirty times.
Then what can I say?
Everything is just like this.
The reason why the two series are the same story told in a different way is to express how the world is and to deconstruct oppositional thinking.
We have cut the world up into two pieces and called them opposites. This operation allows us to separate from the world, and separate men and women from each other. But there are no lines separating us. We are all one. Yet we are not all the same. We are thus both all one and different at the same time. And, to express this condition, Whedon has made his two series the same story but told in a different way.
Based on the concepts resulting from oppositional thinking we have devised a way of thinking about what is good as opposed to what is bad. But good and bad are only value judgements based on thinking. We have become attached to simple tools; we have allowed ourselves to be taken over by thought as identity, rather than managing our capacity for abstraction. We've mistaken the abstraction for reality. We've mistaken the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. The word is just that, word.
The basic metaphor of Sunnydale is contained in its name as I've mentioned before: it is based on oppositional thinking. If only we could repress those 'bad' things into the dale, the subconscious, then we'd have a 'good' Sunny life as Buffy attempts to do in coming to the suburbs to regain her Valley girl dim-witted blond life, but she's not dim, she's no longer a girl, and having blond hair is irrelevant. Buffy's attempt to repress makes her problem worse: by trying to get an illusory good, Whedon is saying, in our psychological lives, by repressing what we think is bad, we just make the problem grow stronger as the Master becomes.
It's the same with the end of season five/beginning of season six: by becoming attached to the need for peace and comfort, as symbolized by heaven, Buffy creates a hell in her life and in that of her friends', the hell imagery that she returns to. It's the same for Maggie Walsh: she creates Adam, who immediately stakes her in the back. She is as a scientist playing God, hence the name Adam, trying to create an army that will rid the world of evil in the Armageddon. She has foregone her natural female based womb for the patriarchal structure of the Initiative womb, and in doing so she unleashes the very thing that she's supposedly trying to stop. It's the same for Angel in his season two: by trying to get Shanshu for himself, ie make things good for himself, getting rid of his demon completely, this leads to a hell being unleashed as the flame imagery of his burning Darla and Drusilla symbolizes. It's the same for Holtz, by giving into the obsession of stamping out all evil in the form of vampires, he makes things worse by leaving his wife and child exposed(ie symbolizing the destruction of the feminine within himself) and then being taken over by the need for revenge, ie he makes a hell out of his attempt to make Europe heavenly as symbolized by the flames of Caritas. And, we get the same ideas expressed in the recent allusions to Maquis de Sade and to the Spanish Inquisition. By trying to force ones abstract and imprecise dualistic concepts attached to a fear of death and the feeling of righteousness, one simply creates the opposite of the intent. This type of repressive strategy based on oppositional thinking simply forces the world into a structure which slices it into those who are vampires and those who are victims of vampires; Buffy is the deconstructor of this opposition. Everything is one.
In fact if we examine the basic metaphors of the series we see an intention to deconstruct oppositional thinking: the slayer and the vampires are the same: they are the bringers of death to human beings. Yes, the slayer finishes off human beings. I have been concerned about this, but the meaning of the series requires this. Buffy's slayer has to finish off human beings because it represents, attached to Buffy, a woman, the natural world(as symbolized by the wood of the stake) re-asserting itself through death over those who believe they can escape it by giving into the power of their animal nature. The slayer is then the representation of the natural world which is a killer. We are born to die, and Buffy's slayer is simply nature finishing off those who tried to escape. It works this way: either human beings get killed by the vampires who are really simply a form of animal; or the humans who have given into their animal nature, the vampires, get killed by the slayer. The slayer and the vampire are one and the same: no opposition.
However there is a difference between them: Buffy doesn't kill human beings; she only finishes off those who are already dead, but won't lie down and decay so to speak. She doesn't murder human beings, she simply puts down those who should already be in their graves. Human beings still have a role to play in the reproductive cycle of life, and nature, as symbolized by Buffy the slayer, wouldn't kill them because the cycle of life is not yet complete, ie the slayer doesn't kill human beings because they haven't yet created the next generation. Once that happens nature kills us off; and the slayer, the demonized aspect of women, a demon therefore obviously, kills off those who try to escape nature's death. The slayer and demons are therefore both same and different: deconstruction of opposites.
This is why the slayer has to be female: she is the link to the natural world. In Buffy the slayer we have several things: one, the deconstructor of patriarchal childhood myth based on oppositional thinking and power in which men believe they can repress women and the feminine and get immortality. Joss Whedon reinforces this idea by having the results of such myth, the vampires, taken over by demon 'souls'(ie telling us the human is dead anyway and the myth of immortality is an illusion) and rise bodily(telling us that life can only happen physically, not in some immaterial heaven.) Not only this, but the phallic symbol of the stake, while part of the emasculator/sexual predator female/male relationship structure of a male dominated society is also simply a symbol for male semen, in that once the female has been impregnated the male is as good as redundant, and gets dusted, so to speak.
Of course there's a more abstract meaning: the penetration of the dead heart (female symbol, love etc) of the vamp by Buffy, symbolizing the feminine, reduces the vampire to ash because the vamp is no longer able to repress the feminine in himself, and can no longer be the vampire, and moves on to another state. Of course as deconstructor of patriarchal myth, Buffy as smart, intelligent, strong and caring(hardly the dimwitted weaker demonized sex of patriarchal mythology) is the very argument that she rams her point home with as she stakes the mythological creature(the myth) and it turns to nothing. Exposing it to light(of truth) does much the same for the same reason.
Women have been demonized because they have represented to men the natural order of the world which IS a killer. This is why Buffy's killing vampires has occurred over and over again to make this point. Buffy isn't a murderer, but symbolically she represents what we fear in ourselves, the fact that we were born to die. Men have been sexual predators, sexual conquerors of women in an attempt to conquer death itself. In the end I think that Buffy's slayer will be seen as a demon, but demons won't have the same connotation given Cordy's and Darla's decisions of late. It's just a part of life and death which is unfortunate. In some sense Buffy as vampire slayer is simply Whedon's version of the 'Tueur Sans Gages.'
In a way we shouldn't really be routing for either the slayer or the vamps because they are two sides of the same coin, both are bringers of death. One in trying to escape death kills others; the other killing off those trying to escape from death. I think the creation of these series is Whedon's way of giving the finger to the natural world. Within the series Whedon is acknowledging the natural order of life: we are human animals and will die. But, like Buffy in season five, he's refusing to give into a fear of death and become an animal like the predator Glory(myth that power and mythology will conquer death) or herd animal Ben(myth that hiding ones animal nature and intellectual endeavour, doctoring, will conquer death.) Instead he's living up to the potential of his human self through creating art, and he's asking us to do the same thing either through creating art or through analysing his. He's made these series so well in order to give us the opportunity to live up to our potential as human beings despite the fact that we're just destined to die. His art will be the human way of gaining immortality because it will take into account the fact that down the road human eyes will have to see it for it to be immortal: instead of pretending there's a heaven, he's acknowedging his role in the reproductive chain, and leaving a legacy for generations to come. That's what he thinks we should do. In spite of being mortal we should live up to our potential and not repress or lop off aspects of ourselves in order to get into some version of the childhood Eden garden called heaven which is simply a mythological way of giving into animal instinct for self preservation. Life's too short for that.
End of Part One.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why 'Buffy' and 'Angel' are the Same Part Two Spoilers All Seasons to Present. -- Age, 21:57:55 01/30/02 Wed
In season five Buffy discovered that she is full of love; she's not just a killer, but a lover also. This is understandable as life comes from death. It is a cycle not only of death but of rebirth, as the buddhist iconry symbolizes, but not through personal reincarnation, through instead the new re-generation of human beings. Throughout the series we have been presented with parents who refuse to conduct their roles with compassion because they simply don't want to acknowledge that this means they are mortal. The Mayor is a prime example of this: he'd rather eat the next generation than see it grow up.
And speaking of the next generation:
In Dawn(and Connor) there is the deconstruction of opposites. Is she a human child or the key? (Is Connor a human or vampire?)Well, both(speculation only in Connor's case). It just depends on your point of view: those outside the normal spectrum of vision see Dawn as a green light; those within see her as a human being. How can she be both at the same time if the world operates on opposition? We are human persons and generational links in a reproductive chain. Light operates like a particle and a wave, depending on the conditions of the experiment. Structure and chance seem both to operate in the world.
In Dawn we do see a buddhist-like conception of reality: on the one hand she is empty of form, pure energy; on the other hand she is name and form. Which is she? If you say she is one or the other or both, then this is incorrect. What can we say? We just say to Dawn herself when we see her: hallo Dawn! In other words, there's nothing esoteric about what Whedon is suggesting through this series at all. There's nothing deep or tremendously enlightening. We do what we need to everyday. When we want to switch on the light, we throw the switch. We already understand that the world operates just like this but we then overlay thinking on it because we are complex creatures who have the capacity to abstract, the desire not to die and enough intelligence to decide we are worthy of a better lot in life than the one that immediate life seems to have made for us. For buddhists it doesn't matter, deconstruction leads to the idea that we are not alive now, because that's just a concept, and so we can't die. But who knows?
Anyway, that's about it. Whedon seems to understand that if you make your series metaphorical, then you have to be rigorous and disciplined in doing so. A sloppy symbolism will create an unintended meaning. If he intended to express the idea of deconstruction of opposites then he HAD to make the two series the same story, yet different. In his mind, I imagine, to do otherwise would have violated his basic premise and theme.
I have a few more miscellaneous comments to make:
I think that the creation of Dawn in season five and the statement that she's an innocent is meant to subvert the idea of responsibility. We have this oppositionally based notion that we are responsible for who we are, but quite clearly we didn't ask to be born, we didn't pick our bodies or our characters, or our upbringing or culture. The 'I' that we are, the one that supposedly has the free will(another notion based on opposition) to make decisions, has nothing to do with us at all. Who we are in large part is nothing to do with us at all. This idea of course gets expressed in Dawn's being created as a kind of fiction by others. And, we see Dawn's naive belief that she and her life are her own in the writings of her diaries which get torn up once she realizes that the truth is otherwise.
Are we then simply determined? Are we responsible for our actions? If we remain attached to oppositional thinking then we can't answer this question. On the one hand if we and our choices are detemined, then there's no responsibility. On the other hand if we have free will, then we can't make any decisions because the will would have to be free of the determined which includes us and free will itself. I would suggest that even if we are determined there's enough of a will that we have to take responsibility for ourselves and our choices when we become adults. It is the recognition of the influence of character, parenting and culture in our decision making that IS the very thing that Joss Whedon is highlighting in his series. If we are to take responsibility for ourselves, we have to know what myths and ideas and patterns of thinking we've internalized and take the time to consider if we want them or not. It's not then free will, but determined will based on the ability to self reflect.
One last thing, and it's not really relevant. But something that's been bugging me for a while. If there is an immortal soul, then how is killing murder when there's no death? And, if there is no immortal soul, how can killing be murder when we're not really doing anything worse to each other than what the world is doing anyway? Yes, I know. Those questions are irresponsible and I'm not suggesting that killing is okay at all. I'm saying that we as human beings value each other and value our lives, and that's why killing is murder. If life has dealt us a rotten hand, then we don't have to act accordingly; instead of giving in and being just animals destined to die, we live up to our natural potential as human beings. But this is exactly what Joss Whedon is saying, and through his works he is setting the example: not only are 'Buffy' and 'Angel' connected to express the deconstruction of opposites, but they also show Joss Whedon living up to his potential as a human being, as an example to us, and leaving a legacy for future generations long after he's handed over the baton/stake in this human race.
The message of these series seems very simple: we're all going to die and no matter how much thinking we do or how many myths we believe in we're not going to stop this from happening, so grow up and deconstruct childhood patriarchal myth based on oppositional thinking because in trying to make the world conform to it all we do is create more suffering, an animal hierarchy of power, death in life, and a hell for ourselves(especially women) in the only life we have through repression, rather than management, of our human animal nature, leading to ironically our destroying the opportunity to live up to our potential as human beings, a potential symbolized by the series itself, a legacy from Joss Whedon for the generations who will come because we have died.
Okay that's my 100,00 words for this week.
[> [> [> [> [> [> really not following you on some of this, age -- anom, 22:53:08 01/30/02 Wed
"But Darla is Angel's wife/slave/mother at the beginning, but then when she's re-vamped she loses her status as Angel's sire/mother."
First, "slave"?? But mainly, wouldn't the point where she loses that sire/mother status have been when Angel dusted her the 1st time around? Didn't that symbolize his overthrow of her as a mother figure? Besides, if anything, he's the one acting as a father/mentor to Darla after she's brought back (at least once he realizes she was brought back human): teaching her what it means to be a human being, setting boundaries (e.g., refusing to turn her), comforting her, eventually even offering his life for hers. And she's like a rebellious adolescent: testing those boundaries; running away from "home"; yelling at her "parent" to leave her alone; feeling powerless; acting out in an attempt to figure out who she is, incl. sexually (I'm thinking of her scenes w/Lindsey); but in the end (all too literally), accepting her humanity & mortality.
A few other things here & there:
The difference btwn. the Adam of the show & the Biblical one is that, as you pointed out about Dawn, Adam was created "by man." But unlike the case w/Dawn, a woman was in charge of Adam's creation. This puts Maggie in the position of a god (& she certainly has the complex), but we soon see she's all too human, & mortal.
When you speak of "the oppositional thinking that is the basis of mythological religions: the oppositional thinking that allows men to separate themselves from the world and women and vilify both," which mythological religions are you thinking of? Both mono- & polytheist? Patriarchy is usually identified more w/the former; are you generalizing it to pagan religions too? Just to some of them?
"What Whedon does here by making Dawn into a human being is circumvent the idea of sin. Dawn doesn't need to be baptized because she wasn't born. It's the same with Darla. Both have been remade.What does the monk say of Dawn: she's an innocent; what does Darla do: she accepts her humanity. There is a sense here of completely deconstructing the myths based on patriarchal religion."
Do you mean sin in general or original sin? After all, Dawn steals--that's a sin, one of the biggies according to the 10 commandments. She may have been created innocent, but she hasn't stayed that way. This time you may be generalizing from Xtianity to other monotheistic/patriarchal religions. So whose myths are being deconstructed here, & how completely?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for Most Seasons to Season 5/2 B/A. -- Age, 21:39:21 01/31/02 Thu
That's an intriguing interpretation of Darla's actions. Yes, when Angel first dusts Darla, one could intepret that to mean she's no longer his sire, but I think my interpretation can still be made. When he dusts Darla he is choosing a human being over a vampire. It shows growth on his part, and indeed as you say overcoming the mother's influence.
But, Darla is remade; and,at this point in the history of the series she is still his sire. That fact still stands: the vampire Darla was Angel's sire as of the start of the season. What she was in the past, the thing that he's not sure of until he does discover she's human again, is his sire/mother.
In their scenes together she acts as the doting wife, the patriarchal wife who services her hubby after a long day's work. She is, even though now human, a symbol of his past. It's a dream for the past, for the past in our society. There's a movement to rid Angel of the champion, a movement thus towards his past. Angel is weary and wants to be looked after. Darla plays that role as part of a plan to unsettle him(as Dawn unsettles Buffy's balance), but I think it's a symbolic representation of childhood that then becomes adolescent rebellion and finally a more adult point of view paired with Angel's becoming a father.
Just as Buffy finds out that there's no place called childhood home you can hide in anymore as Angel does in his dreams, looked after by his mum/patriarchal wife(as the allusions to the 'Wizard of OZ' and Glory's not getting back home and Angel's even saying so right at the end of the season arc: it's good to be...', but he never finishes it, Angel too discovers that you can't go back as symbolized by the mother figure from his past, Darla.
It's only when Darla is newly re-vamped does she symbolically now become this vamp who is not the sire of Angelus, but the daughter of Drusilla. In this way, Angel has to decide between both of the families he is father to, Fang gang or D and D: yes, this fits in with your idea of Angel being the mentor. He IS moving away in this arc from being the son to being the grandfather so to speak. (As you said, at least once he realizes she was brought back human: there is that period before this, the dream childhood home being looked after by the wife/mother/slave period.) But, in his period of adolescent revenge he deconstructs the father structure in himself, returns as the colleague to the Fang Gang and Darla's lover, albeit briefly, though long enough.
So, yes I see your point, but I do think that Whedon was using Darla first as the mother/sire, symbol of the past; and indeed once the illusion of that childhood home is done away with, Angel does start teaching her. But, it's not only for her, but for himself also. He thinks through her he can symbolically get shanshu. If she can be redeemed as a full human being, so can he.
That's a good question about mythological religions. Perhaps a quick answer to your question is that I wasn't being precise enough. But I'll have to think about this one. What Whedon is saying through both Joyce and Darla's fatal condition in the arcs is that death is unavoidable. Buffy has externalized her mortality, made it the enemy and sets out first to destroy those creatures who symbolize it, the vamps(as they are dead.) Angel does much the same with his demon nature of which he's ashamed: he sets out to destroy it, get his shanshu, by destroying the demons who symbolize it. Patriarchal religion is doing much the same: externalizing what they think is attached to death, the natural world, and vilifying it, the devil in the earth etc.
The difference between patriarchal and pagan religions is that the former is based on transcendence which is power over life and death itself through denial while the latter seeks power over the elements through sacrifice and offering. Well, the two are really the same except the movement from polytheism to monotheism was simply the recognition of either two things: the oneness of all things; or the inherent weakness of having many gods: my god's better than your god, kind of thing. The monotheistic religions still make offerings and supplications to the One God and self denial is a form of sacrifice to a God: I will not do this in order that you will do something for me. It's just with the One God, the most powerful one that has to be the One that rules the One World. I think this is part of Ben's offering Dawn up as a sacrifice to Glory the God. The simple truth is that someone who feels helpless to achieve his goal, element control or escape from death, anthropomorphizes the universe in order to barter with it.
In oppositional thinking there is the belief that the structure creates two real separate opposites. Life is separate from death; good from evil etc. The function of mythological religions is to get something: it is based on opposition: I am weak, you are strong; the god is the projection of the thing the person doesn't have, but wants. It is based on the belief that somehow this mythological abstraction from reality will contain the opposite of what I have or don't have. If there were not opposition then you'd already have what you want.
I don't think I've answered your question satisfactorily. In the patriarchal religion the recognition of the immaterial nature of God as being the desired object because as natural physical beings we die leads to the opposition between the desired state of immaterial life which is good and the vilified state of material life which is bad. It is the detachment of the good, the desired,the immaterial, from the bad, the immaterial that is needed for the myth to work. The vilified material is then externalized as something we must keep ourselves from, the devil, and women who are the links to the physical reproduction of life but it's exactly what we need because we are physically based creatures. We vilify our very nature in order to get a mythological chance at another: we are bad, sinners; everlasting life is good.
I think I'll move on because I think I'm talking in circles here.
Yes, original sin. The idea is Adam is dead. The myth of Adam is therefore dead and along with it original sin. You bring up an excellent point about Dawn's stealing. I think that Whedon is using that too in order to subvert the idea of sin. Is Dawn really setting out to steal? What is the message contained in her action? Rules are all very well, and we as a society couldn't do without them, but there's more to life than meets the eye. What is her real intention: communication of a problem through passive aggressive behaviour.
It's easy to say sin or loss of innocence, but what does that mean? Does it mean that she doesn't care about other people? Does it mean she's too immature to figure out her behaviour may be hurtful to others? Has she lost faith in her care providers and showing it through this action? Is she trying to hold onto her desire for family intimacy through taking other people's intimate objects? Is she creating a secret world of excitement in order to mask her feelings of loneliness and depression? Is she testing the limits of her world in a very small way? Is she trying to get caught as a means of communicating a problem to her mother figure? Is she trying to be the big bad in a small way like the three nerds? Why is this human being doing this?
What of the blasphemy of the monks creating life? In order to stop the female from reasserting her power these men played God. In fact in their desire to hide from the power of the female, which is death to men, they had to create a female life. Everything just seems to lead to its opposite; it's like in Sunnydale when Joyce and Moo wanted to keep their children safe from the monsters by cleansing the town of all supernatural: they ended up going on a witch hunt and nearly burning the very children they were supposed to be protecting(because subconsciously Joyce wanted to kill this new child, the one who is a slayer and get the old one back.) The Mayor set out to deny all the humanity in himself by becoming a full demon and got killed through human feeling.
I think it comes down to how much reality we place in thinking. Does it reflect reality? Or is it simply a tool we use like any other. Most religions use words as vehicles for truth. The question is does the world itself use words to operate?
One last thing, Maggie Walsh, Ben in season five as the intern and the scientists in Whedon's film 'Alien Resurrection' were all meant to deconstruct the myth that science will conquer death. Maggie Walsh is playing god and the first thing she gets for her trouble is killed(the staking has symbolic meaning pertaining to Riley's baton being symbolically transferred as a phallic symbol to the Polagara demon's stake arm, then to Adam and then through Walsh's back, with one of the meanings being Riley's sexual relationship with Buffy is the death of Walsh's influence on him, the death of her as previous generation and a betrayal in her eyes as symbolized by the stake going through her back. Playing scientific god, letting go of her own female natural womb for the patriarchal womb of the Initiative is like turning her back on her own nature.) Science creates its own myths too in oppositional thinking: death will be eliminated; there will only be everlasting life. It sounds very much like patriarchal religion.
Thanks for your questions. I hope I've answered them sufficiently.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oppositional Hellmouth. Spoilers Season One/Three -- Age, 23:33:36 01/31/02 Thu
If we really look at the series we see this very structure of oppositional thinking leading to its opposite. It was written right into the metaphors of the show:
Buffy Summers, the vampire slayer of LA, burns down the gymnasium with a whole bunch of vamps in it. The flame imagery is suggestive of hell. Buffy's life has been hell as a slayer in LA and so she comes with her mum to the sleepy suburbs in order to put that life as far behind her as she can; she comes to Sunnydale to reclaim her normal shallow life. She comes to the sleepy happy suburbs to get into her own version of heaven. Once she's there she begins to realize that Sunnydale isn't really different from other places. But, because it's based on her need to have heaven and deny the other aspects of life, and because most of the inhabitants deny also in an attempt to live the American dream, then Sunnydale, sweet heavenly Sunnydale, is the site for the hell mouth. Heaven creates hell. And life that's hell creates the desire for heaven. It's a self perpetuating system.
This applies also to the slayer. If the slayer does represent the aggressive and sexual aspects of the female demonized(Faith in season three as the bad girl, but was she really bad?) and repressed such that it requires enormous force to get out(Buffy's great strength,) then the act of repression created it. What I'm getting at is the slayer is a creation of the attempt to repress the natural aggression and sexuality of women. It is in some ways the emasculator. By men trying to repress women, they created a reactionary anger, a force that tends to emasculate. In order to see themselves as men in the first place men put down women as their opposites, but the attempt led women to react in a combative opposition. In other words the oppositional thinking that led to the repression of women, created the emasculator role of women. The men created in their attempt to define themselves as men by not being women the very thing that would attempt to emasculate them, as symbolized by Buffy holding the phallic symbol, stake.
Not only am I getting at the anger of women used to undermine the power of men as a reaction to repression and to get what little power they could, but by defining themselves as men by not being women, men set up the very structure that would make every woman into a potential emasculator if she exhibited any masculine behaviour at all. The male dominated society created what the slayer represents by the simple adoption of men as opposite to women. The problem is inherent in the oppositional thinking itself. This is why Joss Whedon is pointing to the deconstruction of opposites: opposition inherently leads to the potential for its opposite. In other words, the very adoption of the oppositional structure created the opposite of what men wanted: they wanted to use women as a means of defining their manhood, men are the opposite of women, but in doing so they created a structure whereby every woman would be a potential emasculator, undoing the very definition that men set out to create for themselves in the first place.(In some sense this is what the vampire represents: he is living off the destruction of women; he defines himself, gives life to himself through the sexual conquering of women, the penetration imagery of the fangs and the drawing of female blood. The slayer is automatically created because of this.)
If we define the immaterial everlasting life as good then we must define its opposite, the material life as bad; in this way the world and our physical nature become potential deconstructors of the idea that everlasting life is good, and must be shown to be bad at all costs. If God as male is good and powerful and wise and all knowing, women as opposite of men have to be bad, weak, stupid and clueless. Yes, they have to be the very thing that Buffy is deconstructing. Does that mean that God can't be a male? Well, no, but what it does mean is that women are not the opposite of men. But, if women are not the opposite of men, then what they represent, the physical natural world, is not the opposite of the immaterial world. What does that mean?
I don't know.
Anyway, just some more thoughts from one who has really no idea about anything.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Hand up here.............question.........:):):) -- Rufus, 23:40:46 01/31/02 Thu
The episode of Angel you are talking about is Judgement. The demon that Angel kills it the Prio Motu demon....bred to maim and massacre....but he is actually protecting the pregnant woman Angel is also out to protect. Angel kills this demon without much of a question...just the assumption that the nasty, aggressive demon could only be a threat. How could this demon go against breeding, his traditional role to protect this woman? Angel needed a soul to even begin the path that this demon was on. What does that say about demons and people in regards to changing their behavior and beliefs? I found it interesting that Angel found a shrine to Buddha in this demons home. It seems that the Prio Motu and Angel were on a similar journey that just started with different circumstances....Angel's the return of his soul, the Prio Motu...I don't know.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But, Rufus... -- Marie, 07:23:12 02/01/02 Fri
Angel kills this demon without much of a question...just the assumption that the nasty, aggressive demon could only be a threat.
...Angel does this most of the time, doesn't he? He can only go from Cordy's visions, which, to be fair, aren't always the clearest of messages. She saw a pregnant woman, obviously frightened, and a demon. Naturally, the Moody One is going to do exactly what he did. If he had hesitated, that moment's hesitation could have cost both him and the girl dearly. Hindsight is all well and good, but TPTB should make the visions more understandable if they don't want Angel to kill the 'wrong' demons. Also, the Prio Motu demon had been paid to protect the woman and her unborn child (as far as I remember, anyway - sorry if I'm wrong), and how could Angel and his Gang possibly know that?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: But, Rufus... -- Rufus, 07:49:53 02/01/02 Fri
I'm not too worried about Angel killing the Prio Motu as much as I was bringing up the point that they were both on the same mission. I know with a soul, Angel was able to change but how does this other demon, bred specifically to "maim and massacre" make that same leap to become the guardian of the mother in Judgement? It was a tragedy that the demon was killed and I could see that going through his room, Angel was surprised to find a shrine to Buddha, and maybe asking the same question I am now. Is the soul the only thing needed to make such a drastic change in ones life?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah, but... -- Marie, 08:47:41 02/01/02 Fri
...(and I'm only going from memory here, so mea culpa if I'm way off base) where was it established that the Buddha was the PM's? And not the woman's, I mean. My point was that the PM demon could still have been nasty and bad, and soulless, if you like, but still have taken money to be her 'champion'.
As to souls, per se, I sometimes think that we make too much of the issue here. Angel-with-a-soul did some questionable things (Blood Money comes to mind, as well as the notorious lawyer-kill episode, with Darla and Dru), while Spike-without-a-soul has done some wonderful things, not always with a view to getting Buffy under the sheets. And who knows whether any of the demons we see on both shows have souls, anyway? Has Lorne, for instance? If he has, then presumably his not so nice relatives on Pylea do too. And in Real Life, I know some pretty nasty people who presumably have souls, but don't act like it!
You specifically ask whether the soul is the only thing needed to make such changes. I personally don't think so, going by the plainest - perhaps only - example we are given - of course, I mean Spike, because what other soulless creature have we seen making changes?. Another point is that Spike has been learning to live among humans for a long time now, which has to have changed his point of view somewhat. I doubt whether he'd view Dawn as a 'Happy Meal on Legs' these days. There must be other creatures who view humans in much the same way, surely?
I'm awaiting with interest the day his chip is finally de-activated, 'cos I'm sure it's coming, and also the day Buffy finally rejects him. Much as I hate to say it, I don't see them together forever, and I hope they manage to stay friends and 'colleagues', at least.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, but... -- Rufus, 12:43:38 02/01/02 Fri
...(and I'm only going from memory here, so mea culpa if I'm way off base) where was it established that the Buddha was the PM's? And not the woman's, I mean. My point was that the PM demon could still have been nasty and bad, and soulless, if you like, but still have taken money to be her 'champion'.
Jo, the pregnant mother was too tender with the demon when he was killed for it to be a money for services gig. He may still have been nasty and bad, but it only would have been to someone threatening the woman he was protecting.
As for souls, we make such a big deal of them because the show does. Some of the stuff they do makes no sense given the absolute rule that the "soul is the thing"....if it's that easy then nothing should be able to make and choices that go against the Soul = evil absolute bit. I personally don't think it's that easy because of what Joss said about the soul and things that have happened on the show.
From Judgement Shooting Script (PT):
JO: Listen, I don't know who you are or what your deal is and I don't care. (re: Prio on ground)
He was my protector, I had one friend in this world and you killed him. Now stay the hell away from me.
Angel moves to the board, looks at the "Prio Motu" entry.
ANGEL: He was a demon . . . I just assumed . . .
WESLEY: Why wouldn't you? Cordelia said he was a nasty demon.
CORDELIA: Well he looked nasty! I didn't say he was a killer, you did!
WESLEY: That's what Prio Motu's are. They hunt, they kill, you best believe they're torturing -- what, we're supposed to think a creature like that can just change its modus operandi overnight . . .(begins to see parallel to Angel). . . and turn into some noble protector and defender of . . . oh god, what have we done?
CORDELIA: I didn't feel any fear when I saw him. Angel was probably supposed to help him, not . . .
(to the heavens) Thanks for the obscure visions, we're doin' great with that!
ANGEL: I killed an innocent being. He was a soldier -- like me - whatever his mission was, it's mine now.
INT. PRIO'S CHAMBERS - NIGHT
Angel and Gunn enter through the open circular vent-door. They look around, there's a sleeping mat, a few cooking utensils, a small altar with candles and religious paraphernalia, a tapestry or two hung on the rough-hewn rock walls -- modest, neat, clean.
GUNN: Guy kept a neat house . . .
Angel moves to altar, DOESN'T KNEEL, picks up an ORNATE GOLD BOX. Turns it over.
ANGEL: Kamal . .
GUNN: What's what?
ANGEL: (looks to the living chamber) His name was Kamal.
Gunn allows Angel this moment. Now Angel runs his fingers over the raised filigree.
She starts looking through the Prio's belongings . . . searching for something.
ANGEL: I know . . . but I don't have a choice, either. (beat) Kamal's mission is mine, now.
A beat. She pauses in her search, glances at him.
JO: You sound just like him. You guys with your missions and ancient laws and medieval codes of honor. Well, I'm not interested. I'm just trying to protect my baby.
ANGEL: What can you tell me?
HOST: I can tell you're all business . . .
ANGEL: She's in danger.
HOST: And you're feeling pretty guilty about that. You made an honest mistake. You killed her protector. Lotta guys woulda' done the same. Of course, now she's gonna face the judgement with no champion, and that's looking grim for her and the baby . . .
ANGEL: Tell me where they are.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, but...Spoilers for B and A to Present. -- Age, 17:48:58 02/01/02 Fri
The opening ep of each season intimates what's going to happen in the whole season(the unborn child in hindsight represents Angel's son; at the time I thought it represented his chance at shanshu, but just like Buffy, Angel had to do some deconstruction before he grew up enough to have a kid.) Angel did take the demon protector's buddhist place by deconstructing an oppositional structure in himself that made him first son to sire Darla, and then father to her and the Fang Gang. His epiphany changed him to colleague and lover. Human beings, Angel is told, are not angels, ie they are not one extreme of an opposition. We help one another not because some external authority is going to grant us shanshu and eliminate the demon(the demon gives Angel the strength to help people; he's been trying to get rid of the very thing he needs) but simply because we are all one. There is no opposition. The person who is suffering is only separate from me and not my business because of oppositional thinking.
It is too much of a coincidence that the demon Angel symbolically becomes is a buddhist and the central icon of the season five/six in the magic box has been a Buddha statue on the counter. Not only this, but it's not a coincidence that in 'Gone' Buffy makes a choice to live again and the 'Buddha' statue on the counter has been moved to symbolize her movement and her no longer being attached to the bliss of nirvana which the stationery Buddha figure also symbolized. Yes, as an allusion to buddhism it represents change, no soul, compassion, truth and deconstruction of opposites. In its stationary form it represents also non-movement and attachment to bliss. This is why Angel had to rid the buddhist monastery of the demon monks in this season's opener: they represented those people who mistakenly believed that monastery life is a refuge from the world, a way of drawing within oneself as a way of dealing with loss. It is the antithesis of buddhism: one of the main aspects of buddhism is the recognition of loss as a part of life.
I don't think that Joss Whedon is a buddhist; I think he's just using the imagery for its symbolic meaning.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ah, but...Spoilers for B and A to 5/2 finales. -- Age, 18:07:17 02/01/02 Fri
Carrying on the idea of the two series' arcs as same story and that the season opener suggests the arc, the demon protector was sacrificed to give Angel a lesson. This is the same sacrifice that Angel later makes for Darla(teaching her about humanity and accepting loss) and which Buffy makes for Dawn. It's intriguing but it all fits, except it just comes in different parts of the arc: Angel's sacrifice is associated with his new fatherly relationship to Darla the human as the re-vamping symbolizes, just as Buffy's sacrifice is associated with her being Dawn's mother. Whedon is so good at this that he's made the two arcs virtually identical using two different characters. Both Buffy and Angel accept mortality(as does Darla, the reason she got vamped in the first place: immortality) and sacrifice themselves for their next generation as is the natural order of life and death.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Liam's father; Xander's Beast; Buffy's Date; Spoilers Season One -- Age, 19:26:07 02/01/02 Fri
If we want to do endless analysis of these series we can look at the results of the attempts by Liam's father to eliminate in his son all the folly of his own youth as a means of helping his son do better in his life. Liam must eliminate all those aspects of his character that might lead to such folly. But this is repressing aspects of himself that well managed would serve to help him in his life: aggression, sexuality, good humour etc. In trying to get Liam to repress these aspects, Liam's father helps to create Angelus, the demonized aspects of Liam coming out as he gives into the oppositional thinking of his father: either be Liam, the good son; or Angelus, the bad son. Because of oppositional thinking, Liam is not taught to manage his whole nature but oscillates between the two as the human/demon soul metaphor is meant to symbolize. Liam's father has tried to create for his son a heaven in his character by eliminating all the bad, but ends up with a son from hell.
It's the same with Xander and the Praying Mantis. Xander as adolescent male believes he's found heaven in being the new teacher's pet, but it turns out to be a date from animal hell. In this first season ep, there is a pairing here of the idea of sex and death.
Or, in season one, there's Buffy's dream date: a guy who not only knows her identity but wants to go out patrolling. But, her heaven turns out to be a hell when she realizes that her date will get himself killed, the very thing Buffy is patrolling to stop.
What I find intriguing is that Joss Whedon isn't really talking about what's good or evil at all. He uses the words, but what he's really doing is highlighting our attitude towards our animal nature and how we deal with it: we mostly demonize it because of fear.
Anyway, I think that wraps up this posting.
I really wonder how some viewers who have been there from the beginning of the series when it presented a more adolescent point of view are going to react when the deconstruction of opposites becomes more apparent as the Scoobies become more adult?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Season Five/Two B/A Openers. A S2 to Finale. -- Age, 20:56:38 02/01/02 Fri
If we really look at the openers we see they are saying the same thing. It's not about good or evil at all. Angel is trying to eliminate the demon in himself because he's ashamed of it, but it really represents his animal nature(this is why when the demon comes out in Pylea it is portrayed not as a malevolent force, but a savage animal.) In doing so he is becoming the very thing he wants to get rid of. Buffy in season five is afraid of death which has been associated with female fertility and is hunting down her prey like vampires, becoming the very demon that she's trying to eliminate in herself.
In both season openers, the title characters have let go of their oppositional activities(as a foreshadowing of the whole arc) by staying as human beings yet opening to their demon selves, their animal selves: Angel takes the place of the demon protector; and Buffy tastes the blood of female fertility in Dracula. It is only then that the two title characters can make the journey to early adulthood, as symbolized by Angel saving the unborn child(his potential to have a child which relies on his demonized nature, his sexual/aggressive nature) and Buffy's eliminating Dracula, the demon, as juxtaposed to the appearance of her future daughter, Dawn. The arc then continues with both title characters reacting to their new knowledge through regression. The arcs then take them through the fall from childhood to adolescence to adulthood and death and human life continuing.
More than anything else, Whedon is highlighting our demonization of the animal aspect of our nature, and how in demonizing it we repress it because in oppositional thinking we believe we can fully do away with it, that it is good to do away with it. But, as the heaven/hell imagery suggests we simply go from one extreme to the other: either good little victims, divorced from our animal nature or demons that have given into our animal instincts. It is the opposition between the human and the animal which Whedon is focusing on, and how that creates the basic structure of the series itself: the vampire, the human given into animal instinct, and the fodder for the vampire, the human who has attempted to repress all animal instinct. If we are given only two ways of seeing things that are in opposition, we can only pick one or the other: we must pick either to be the vampire,the animal or be the human, the fodder for the animal. The two series are aimed at deconstructing this opposition.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> P.T.B.s -- Cecilia, 09:04:36 02/01/02 Fri
In the episode of Judgement, I've always felt that the vision was shown to Cordy because Angel was supposed to assume the demon was the danger to the woman. I think the Prio Motou (sp?), if he had fought, would have failed and the woman would have died. By giving Cordy the vision the P.T.B.s essentially set Angel on path that would culminate with him acting as protector during the duel/battle. I think everyone,including the characters,assumes the PTBs to be good and I think they are but I also think they are not above sacrificing one of their own for a larger purpose.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: P.T.B.s Spoilers to the Present both Series. Mostly S5/2 -- Age, 18:57:06 02/01/02 Fri
Perhaps the PTB are neither good nor bad, but simply understand what is needed to keep the human race going. In my cynical estimation, the PTB are simply a thinly veiled allusion to Joss and the writers. Wolfram and Hart on the other hand don't care about the human race; as the name of the firm spells out these people have given into their animal instincts, building an animal hierarchy to serve their own interests: other people, the weak, are to be preyed upon; they are the opposite of the strong animals who work at the law firm; as weak they are not worthy to be anything but prey: Wolfram and Hart lawyers use oppositional thinking to make themselves the valued predator and anyone weaker than them the devalued prey who in their eyes aren't worth anything but being used any way they feel like it. It is the animal opposition of power and weakness. It ignores the emotion of empathy and love which come from our being one.
The PTB set up one of their own as a sacrifice to teach Angel the error in his oppositional thinking. Part of the lesson, and one which Angel would give to Darla later in the arc, is that we all get sacrificed for a greater purpose: keeping the human race both human and going. It is the same message contained in the fifth season 'Buffy' arc when mother Buffy won't sacrifice her humanity(Dawn) to save the world, but sacrifices herself, as is the natural order of things, the parent dying to make way for the next generation: we are not just animals like Glory or Ben. We do however make the sacrifice that the Prio Motou demon makes, diving back into the nothing from which we came as Buffy does as she launches herself off the tower. Or, going on to other places. It depends on what you believe.
It is indeed possible that the PTB eliminated the demon because he just wasn't strong enough, but the sense that I got from it was that Angel was his match. Angel symbolically becomes the demon and therefore there is this sense of identification. The unborn child is symbolic of Angel's opportunity to have a son later in the arc. If Angel doesn't stop killing demons in an attempt to kill the demon in himself, of which he's ashamed, he'll get stuck in the shame and not mature enough as a person to accept his demonized nature, as Buffy in her season arc has to accept her fertility, her repressed nature, demonized because it's part of the natural world. Angel needs the strength that comes from the demon because it's a natural strength of aggression and sexuality. He's needs not to be ashamed of it in order to be a human being and a father.
The PTB are a natural force which includes both life and death, love and aggression.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fantasy vs. Reality -- Rufus, 21:06:49 02/01/02 Fri
I just couldn't resist this one.....Joss has said that the Geek Troika is based upon the arguements the writers have so you could say that the PTB's are the fans concept of the writers(cause we love the show so much), and the Geek Troika reflects the reality of what they think of themselves.....they did say Joss never did get a date in highschool....;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fantasy vs. Reality Deconstruction for Dummies Like Me. Spoilers for Both Series to Present. -- Age, 20:00:03 02/03/02 Sun
In fact I should read Deconstruction for Dummies as Joss Whedon picked the vampire to show the deconstruction inherent in an oppositional relationship: the vampires have to drink the blood of humans, showing the inherent connection between the oppositions: the oppositions aren't real, but dependent on one another. Not only this but the blood is a feminine symbol(menstruation) and represents the devalued woman or feminine man(any man who is weak enough to be caught and fed on) in the automatic animal hierarchy based on the opposition of us versus them(Wolfram and Hart) created by a male dominated society. In other words because men are supposed to be powerful and the devalued women weaker any other human being who is weak enough to be caught and fed on is seen as feminine and therefore devalued as not worthy of anything but getting eaten or used etc.
What I realized over the last couple of days in a way I hadn't ever before is that thinking is simply an abstraction from the universe, and not the universe itself, and therefore can never be the truth. Not only this but when we name things we automatically give them a form that they don't really possess; everything is in flux, and all forms are dependent on the state of other forms to exist, but that existence isn't stable, but ever changing. Therefore the name we give to ourselves, 'I', is simply illusory because there is no abiding thing; the 'I' is an abstract from the evidence of our five senses, but it isn't real. It's just an idea. We have been taught to take the abstraction, the idea as real, but it's not, it's just a concept, ie we have taken the evidence of our senses, concluded that we are an 'I' separate from others and the world, and taken the 'I' to be real, rather than the evidence from which we made the conclusion. I am not this body, but the separate 'I' when in fact the separate 'I' is simply an idea based on evidence of the body. It is an abstraction from the basis of the reality of the evidence. The body is the reality, the 'I' is the representation of it. It's like trying to eat the word 'orange' instead of the actual fruit.
And so the idea of the abiding self is also illusory, as are the two poles of an opposition. It is the structure of thinking that creates the poles. And with the oppositional relationship, if one thing is valued, then the other is automatically devalued. If I try to make men as the valued half of a binary opposition, then women are then the devalued. If men are to be good, strong, intelligent, knowledgable, and the only ones valued, then women have to be bad, weak, stupid, ignorant and possess no value at all. But, because they are none of these, women automatically become the deconstruction of the opposition. Men need women to reproduce; therefore they have as much value as men, deconstructing from the get go the opposition. In order to keep the illusion of the opposition going, women and feminized men have to be repressed and vilified. Because of the inherent deconstruction of the opposition, repression is necessary. Repression is the automatic consequence of trying to keep a binary opposition going: the repression of Sunny/dale is not just arbitrary, but inherent in the oppositional thinking. It is a means of keeping the illusion of the opposition going because if the oppostion were valid then no repression would be needed.
We have abstracted from reality and taken the abstraction to be reality, projecting from the abstract 'I' an immaterial soul based on the myth(this is why the mythological characters have been given metaphorical meaning, as a way of showing they are not real, but representing abstraction.) There are no lines around us. We have to constantly make the 'out there' become the 'in here' by breathing, eating and drinking, and vice versa. And to show this, Whedon uses the vampire metaphor of consumption and physical resurrection. He is showing that the 'they' opposed to 'me' is an illusion because the 'they' in this series, the human victims, are constantly being consumed and made to become the 'me' through the drinking of blood. He's showing that one half of the opposition, the vampire cannot exist without the other, and that contained within the vampire is its own deconstruction: the human blood. The illusion of disconnection in itself is illustrated in the demon metaphor because if the demon realm were truly separate from the human, then where would the demons or demon souls come from?
The physical resurrection of the vampire highlights the flawed opposition between the 'I' opposed to the body(from which the idea of an I came from in the first place) which is transformed into the abiding immaterial self/soul opposed to the material body. The 'I' is simply an abstraction based on induction from the body; it isn't real, but the body is and thus it is that which resurrects because that's all we are. The demon 'soul' is simply a metaphor to show the demonized half of an abstraction from reality. The world isn't cut up; we cut it up and divide it up when we think about it: rising as a vampire(ie demon soul) is simply the human being giving into those aspects of his character which have been demonized, the animal. When I say that you throw the ball to me, you understand perfectly what I'm saying and you throw the ball, but if we actually believe there are several real independent things with a definite form, then we have taken our tool for abstracting from reality and created an abstract world of thought. If we believe that that cut up oppositional world of thought is real, then we are mistaken. It isn't real; it's just an abstraction. The demon/human soul is simply a representation of the division of certain tendencies in us between that which is valued and that which is not.
Let me go back to Liam's father. Liam's father wanted to save his son from the youth of folly he had had himself; and in doing so he wanted to get his son to be good. Liam as a young man had to establish for himself an identity separate from his father. If the father taught Liam only oppositional thinking, then Liam could only become Angelus; he had no choice. Either Liam gave in and became what his father wanted, becoming his father, or he could choose the opposite of what his father wanted: Angelus. Because of oppositional thinking Liam could only establish himself as independent of his dad(I am my fathre or I am myself) by picking the opposite of what his father wanted, Angelus, all the aggression, sexuality and cruelty that his father wanted him not to have in the first place. In trying to create a heaven for his child, Liam's father created a hell.
And it's the same for all oppositions: if thin is good, then fat is bad. You create a hell for yourself on a diet, then you gain more weight than you had initially before you went on the diet: you end up with the opposite: you create the very hell that you wanted to escape from.
If you value whites over blacks, then you have to repress Black people in order to keep the illusion of the opposition going, and you end up creating a hell in two ways: suffering for Black people as you painstakingly try to keep the automatic deconstructors of the opposition from disproving that the opposition is false, and the awful behaviour of white people who, in trying to repress blacks, act out the very behaviour that they have projected onto African Americans. In order to create a heaven, a hell is created because the opposition demands that something or someone get repressed because they are the automatic deconstruction of the opposition.
It's the same with an immortal immaterial soul: if the desire is to get into heaven, then hell is created on earth because that's what is devalued: this is why Angel's ride down the elevator took him to earth/hell: it's an idea created by valuing the immaterial. And why Buffy comes back to hell in season six from her version of heaven. (And if God is male, then women have to be the devalued and vilified aspect of the opposition. If women are have value etc then God cannot be male.)
If you cut up the world with thinking and try to make something out to be a heaven, then you automatically make its opposite your version of hell. You cannot have one without the other because oppositional thinking creates the idea and structure of opposites.
At the beginning of season five Whedon illustrates this by having both Angel and Buffy be put off balance. They are put off balance because both naively think in opposition: Angel can get shanshu, ie only human again as opposed to human and animal(his demon); while Buffy thinks she can beat death because she too thinks she's just a human being. In the season openers they discover that they are both, or should I say that they've simply divided themselves in two through thinking.
Darla shows up to represent the folly of thinking that Angel can just be human again: this is why she is human again, and why she then becomes the other half of the opposition, the vampire, and then dies as both; Dawn shows up and through the fiction of her diaries presents us with the same idea of being just a person, and becomes the Key, ie person and fertile animal, both. In fact as Angel is made more and more off balance, Buffy in ep two is literally put right off balance by Dawn when as she's training she stands on one arm(ie one half of binary opposition.) The two title characters have to learn that they cannot just be persons unto themselves or else their function in keeping the human race going will not be fulfilled. They are not just persons unto themselves but part of the human race. Nor are they just animals, the demonized aspects of them, agression, sexuality, etc either. When Buffy finds out that Dawn is the Key, home life(the life of the person) becomes slayer work; this happens because the slayer represents what women have had to repress in a male dominated society in order for the illusion of the opposition to be maintained. The slayer is her demonized side(we don't know if the slayer is a demon or not and so this is just speculation.)
So, that's a quick look at deconstruction. It is inherent in the opposition between vamp and human victim. I might suggest also the deconstruction inherent in the phallic symbol stake and the heart(a female symbol, love etc) which is round like a womb. Once Buffy stakes the vampire with the phallic symbol into the womb-like heart this is a way of showing the value of women, with the female symbol being inside the vampire itself, showing that the vampire as symbol of male domination is inherently dependent on the woman not only for his value as a man(men good, women bad) but that he's also dependent on her for keeping the species going through sexual reproduction. The vampire heart is a symbol of the inherent deconstruction of oppositional thinking through showing the shared value of women and men as reproductive partners, not opposites.
It is when the concepts of opposites is taken to be real that this becomes an illusion. It creates a false opposition between men and women when in fact men and women, instead of being opposed to one another, are meant to come together. They can't be allowed to do what they naturally would do in order to maintain the opposition between men(the male immaterial God) and women(of the evil material world) but this opposition is an illusion from the beginning because if there weren't any value to women or the world then it wouldn't be here.
We have taken the abstract and made it real in our minds. By naming things we create a false form around things as when a child draws a person he puts a thick black line where no line exists. We have abstracted an abiding 'I' from evidence of the world when in reality everything is change and co-dependent. Nothing is a thing unto itself. We can use thinking as a tool, but when we make it into a god, a purveyor of truth, then this is illusion. We can think in terms of an I if we wish; we can think in terms of opposition if it helps better order our world, but that's just thinking, not reality.
Or perhaps not. Well, who knows what reality is. Perhaps there is a God or a soul or we are all dreaming? I don't know. Remember everything I just said above is just thinking. That's all it was.
I don't know.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Deconstruction of Good and Evil and Yin and Yang. S3 Spoiler -- Age, 07:54:38 02/04/02 Mon
If good and evil are supposed to be opposed to one another, then we shouldn't be able to see any good coming from the evil. However what we usually define as evil, destruction, is something we carry out in the world in order to have life: we harvest the world; we eat food etc. Therefore this opposition is merely an illusion created by thinking. Of course it all depends on what you define as good and evil. The mayor defined good as getting rid of his human self by becoming full demon, but he couldn't get rid of the 'evil' humanity completely.
One last thing which I thought I'd posted, but it isn't here:
the phallic symbol stake in Buffy's hand and the importance of the vampire heart goes together to create a yin yang symbol based on male and female: Buffy as a woman is not entirely without male characteristics as symbolized by the stake; and the vampire as male isn't entirely without female qualities as symbolized by the heart/womb. The basic structure of the metaphors in this series is a yin yang symbol deconstructing opposition.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you on this one.. -- Marie, 01:16:07 02/04/02 Mon
..At least that theory makes some sense out of what seems a senseless vision - though a little harsh on the Prio Motu!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for Angel season1, Buffy season 3,4 -- Age, 09:20:56 02/01/02 Fri
The criticism of oppositional thinking has been there from the start of the series as my other posting suggests. In trying to create a heaven, one makes a hell. From hell, one desires to make a heaven and the cycle continues. In order for you not to have the truth you are going to die, you must deny the value of the new life in the next generation, hence the repeated motif of the bad parent. Buffy the slayer is the automatic creation of the structural opposition of repression. She is the deconstructor that is inherent in the oppositional structure when men define themselves as women's opposite.
In season four, Whedon gave us a different conception of the demons: they are animals. In doing so, he gave Walsh the opportunity to play God and gain complete control over that animal nature. But, of course, it didn't work. She created her own deconstructor, Adam, this is why he has a stake arm, like Buffy's stake. It's just that Adam took that deconstruction to absurd levels: he deconstructed even life out of things by analyzing them to death.
In season four we were supposed to feel sorry for the sub T's; we were bid to do this through the gladiator episode of 'Angel.' Who are the demons and who are the humans? We have never seen a full demon, as Anya points out, even the Mayor never got to be one, killed off by the hell he was trying to escape to the heaven, the demon, from the hell, his mortal weakness, as the imagery of the volcano which killed the other person who tried to ascend symbolizes. The blowing up of the school symbolically represents the Mayor's hell, his humanity, as symbolized by Giles and the Scoobies, reasserting itself over his oppositionally based attempt to get into his version of heaven by becoming a full demon.
To think of it, Glory's madness may be symbolic of what becoming a full demon means: psychologically one is so removed from reality that the heaven of being a full demon is something that happens in insanity. It isn't real at all. This is why Glory had to use human power to stay sane. As a hell goddess she would have been a full demon, but this really is just a way of saying that the person has ridden the ride of oppositional thinking to madness.
So, we've never seen a full demon; there's always been some human mixed in. This is why the demons can change. If they open to the humanity they will change. Buddhism provides not only the philosophy based on deconstruction of opposites, it provides the means(as symbolized by Buffy's meditation before she discovers Dawn is the key and that there's no safe sanctuary, an allusion to the Buddha before he found out that life is change) of daily practice in order to make that vision a part of ones life. Thinking then is reduced from the God that we think it is, to the tool that it really is.
The basic problem is the one created by oppositional thinking: demons have to be one thing or another. Well, as I said above we've never seen one that is one thing, but two things in different proportions. The buddhist demon simply found another way to find the middle path that recognizes that we cannot be one thing or another, because the opposites in themselves are illusions.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spoilers for Season 5 and 6. -- Age, 10:42:46 02/01/02 Fri
If we continue that idea we see that as a god we have put faith in oppositional thinking as a means of delivering to us life everlasting. If there's no faith in the thought process itself, then the conclusion isn't valid. We have made a god of oppositional thinking. We have put our faith in its structure.
A couple more things: I think the slayer is alone to express the condition of women in a patriarchal society: on their own.
Also, a friend recently asked about heaven and hell in the beginning of season six, leading to the following reply on my part about the beginning of the current season. Here it is for what it's worth Spoilers obviously for season six:
The three nerds are supposed to represent the pull of adolescence in an arc about growing up. They are supposed to be annoying. They are the dwindling symbol of patriarchal males/children in an arc where the Scoobies have to grow up.
Buffy's thinking she was in heaven is symbolic also of a change of perspective from adolescent to adult, ie now that she has to become more of an adult, adolescence is like the good old days that the three nerds are clinging to. A heaven to cling to(they are trying to be bad in order to create their version of heaven: what then is good or bad?), the garden of Eden from which she's just been expelled as the snake coming out of Willow symbolizes. (The snake coming out and the pot breaking are a subversion of the original Eden myth, with the snake leaving, not being internalized as in the original,and the pot, the womb, being broken, so that it can't be offered to Adam: so that, in an arc where the Scoobies reach adulthood, they no longer are bound by the patriarchal structure. Perhaps.)
The three nerds will test her, her own desire to remain a child, haunting her perspective in the new role she'll have to play, making it all the harder to make the adjustment.
The stint in heaven, and no we're not sure if she really was in THE heaven, has created this hell because part of last year's dive off the tower into heaven, so to speak, was a suicide. It was an attempt by oppositionally attached Buffy to make it all peaceful for herself, while believing in the lie that Dawn and the Scoobies would be fine without her. She's the slayer, and Dawn's mum, how could it be fine? And we see this confirmed in the resurrection of the Buffybot. Whedon is highlighting the connection we have to other people: if we just go after heaven, then we're going to create a hell for others. This idea should have been taught to Buffy by how she felt when her mum died, but she was still in mourning for her and not thinking clearly.
One might ask what choice Buffy had, and I do think that Whedon has tried to have his cake and eat it too: from last season's perspective she died to save the world, to prove that, unlike Glory, she will be a mother and die to make way for the next generation. But, from this season's perspective Whedon is asking us to consider her action as just one last big sweeping gesture of adolescence to make everything okay again. Buffy's leap off the tower was her way of clinging to the adolescent world where things can still make sense. Well, Whedon is saying to Buffy and us by bringing her back that we have to live on in a world that makes little sense because it's a hard ass life from which in the end we just die. You can't make everything wonderful with great sweeping gestures off towers; it's naive to think one can. The world doesn't operate that way. You can't make everything rosy; it'll just lead to suffering in the future.
Of course, Whedon gave her no option, and it was quite a conceptual dissonance that occurred at the beginning of the season for people posting. On the one hand it was great that she wouldn't sacrifice Dawn; but now the heaven trip is being portrayed as a clinging to adolescence, to the feeling of being safe. But that's exactly how Whedon wants it: the dissonance is part of that change from adolescent to adult perspective. In season five, from the adolescent point of view, this great gesture was heroic and good; from this season's perspective it was the flight of a child from her responsibilities, accepting death as a means of solving all her problems, leaving behind her friends and family in growing turmoil and chaos which erupts as the demon bikers when they finally think they've lost her.
It doesn't make sense, does it? But that's exactly what Whedon is saying: one moment you are living high as an adolescent, the hero saving the world, thinking, that's it, I've done everything, and the next minute, bam! a different role is expected of you as a young adult in which the very same heroic action is seen as that of a child. Life doesn't make sense, Whedon is saying and you'd better get used to it quickly.
You'd better figure out that the gestures of adolescence will no longer work: all they do is influence others negatively. If you want to stay attached to comfort and things making sense then expect hell and chaos because the world is not there to look after you sleeping beauty, it's just there. Wake up! If you want life to be comfortable and nice, then you'll just create the opposite for yourself because, sleeping Buffy, you won't see to what's needed.
Whedon pulls Buffy out of heaven showing that it's really illusory. She gets pulled out of a mythological metaphor back to life: heaven is a form of spiritual death for those who no longer want to struggle to find the truth. It's a place for the dead. It's a place for the children who don't want to grow up: Eden. We'll probably find out( not a spoiler; just speculation) that she really was in a hell realm, and that her friends pulled her out of her dream world and into where she's supposed to be: adulthood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This would be so much easier for me if they published "Deconstruction for Dummies"...;) -- Rufus, 13:17:41 02/01/02 Fri
I think what drives me nuts is the fact that no one gets the idea that demons are a metaphor in the Buffyverse, they see them in only one way. I think they have gone a long way specially in ATS to show us that demons came from the same source as us. We all started in the same place. Only the ablsolute demon couldn't survive in this reality only the ones that were animals, like us..;)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speculation about Slayer; Spoilers to Present both Series. -- Age, 15:20:41 02/01/02 Fri
I was spurred on to start posting last year by reading others criticizing the big bads without understanding that everything in this series, including the two series themselves, is metaphor. Before that I had posted little. I just felt that people would appreciate more why the characters had to be the way they were in order to create meaning. The problem is that sometimes the entertainment value may suffer; and this is a TV show after all. Some people simply want to watch this to be entertained. I don't blame them; when 'Buffy' works well, as it does often, it's a great series to watch without the analysis. Although from my point of view reading other people's postings and doing my own have become half the enjoyment.
My concern in writing the postings of this thread is how far to go with the religious aspect because religion is very personal and tied up with deep emotions both to a community, ones family and to ones lot in life. For many people it is a very precious and enriching practice and source of comfort and truth about the universe. Recently a new viewer of 'Buffy' got me thinking about season five again as it just finished reruns here. I did another essay, but posted only the questions that it raised. This is what has led me to this series of postings looking at what Whedon is really trying to say about life. Even though I think I'm reflecting what the series is saying, I may just be projecting my own ideas. Either way, I thought that the ideas should be posted.
Ah, you have struck on yet another example of tending towards deconstruction of opposites: the human characters and the demons are both real in the sense of being physical and used for metaphor at the same time. Joss Whedon had such a clear vision of what he wanted to say from the outset, and fortunately for us, he has the talent, the discipline and the stamina to see it through.
Nothing is just one way in this series.
I really think that Whedon is saving the revelation of the slayer as demon(speculation only, not a spoiler) until the end of the series. By then he will have deconstructed the negative value of it, as he has been doing since season four and recently with Cordy. It makes some sense because this would coincide with the Scoobies having truly grown up, and he'll be able to leave the series not with a happily ever after ending, but with a clear statement that you really can't do without the demonized aspect of life because it's not really a demon at all, but just another necessary element. Anyway, even though oppositional thinking is associated with philosophical endeavour, it is not logical to try and get an everlasting life by repressing aspects of ourselves because if we didn't need those elements then we wouldn't have been born with them. And if in fact 'opposites' cannot be separated, then life can never really be separated from death.
But, that's just more thinking. What is the reality of the world.
If all is change, then no thing exists.
But if no thing exists, then there can't be change.
What can we say?
I don't know.
I think in the end Whedon may be asking us to be as rigorous and as disciplined in our thinking as he is in the creation and development of his series, including examining the very thought structures we use to come to our conclusions about life. After that, it's up to the individual to decide what's reality and what's not. But then it's all reality, isn't it; it can't be anything but reality because illusion is still real, or else it would be illusory illusion. Now I'm just being silly.
Thanks for your reply.
(In passing, one note about the meticulous nature of Whedon's metaphor. Buffy is a super hero who has to keep her identity a secret. How does she do that? Does she wear a mask? No. And, in not doing so, this implies that it's the community that puts the mask on her by their constant denial. Buffy's not wearing a mask when slaying is a constant metaphor for the role of denial in Sunnydale life. How did this guy come up with this stuff? I'm only just getting it now and it's half way through season six already!)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Speculation about Slayer; Spoilers to Present both Series. -- Rufus, 15:32:01 02/01/02 Fri
I don't know if you got season one on DVD but Joss does go on about the Blonde girl that gets killed in the horror flicks we are normally fed. Buffy's mask is her appearance...petite, blonde, cute...she is small enough that most people think she is just a "girl", even when she has done the impossible right in front of their eyes. Peoples need to see things in one way makes this show that much more fun. Buffy doesn't need a mask to hide what no one wants to see.
And I'm serious I'd be happy if there was a Deconstruction for Dummies....make it easier for me.....:):):)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you -- Age, 18:14:36 02/01/02 Fri
I see: using other people's expectations as a mask. That's even better. And then not even needing one because people don't want to see what Buffy's secret identity implies. Better still.
[> I think you may be on to something (miscellaneous mild spoilers) -- matching mole, 14:22:33 01/29/02 Tue
I'm going to have to try and untangle this in my head because the notions of soul and identity on BtVS seem to be related yet partially separated. It's interesting that in 'Heaven' Buffy retains her identity but comes back somehow (remaining to be seen) different. Yet when she travels to a 'Hell' in Anne an attempt is made to strip her of her identity (Who are you? No one.).
Vampires retain the identity of their human hosts to a greater of lesser degree (Harmony is almost unchanged, Spike very different from their human identities) yet they lack the human soul. The presence/absence of a soul (is it the same soul or three different ones?) affects Liam/Angelus/Angel's personality but not his identity.
So is the soul immortal? Given that the soul seems divorced from identity the presence of an immortal soul should not affect fear of death. Is the identity immortal - clearly it can survive death in numerous circumstances. But does it always? Does Joyce's personality persist without the benefit of vampirism, witchcraft, or a heroic supernatural death?
One interpretation is that identity is not a fixed property but a fluid one. Organized religion often offers a defined vision of the cosmos in which individuals take specific metaphysical routes from one destination to the next (born, live well, go to heaven or born, live badly, go to hell). I don't know if the presentation of religion leans towards atheism or simply to uncertainty and a multitude of possibilities.
I have no idea if that made any sense whatsoever
[> [> Re: I think you may be on to something (miscellaneous mild spoilers) -- Rufus, 15:18:48 01/29/02 Tue
How is William different from Spike.....Spike is William posing as a tough guy. Of course having lots more physical strength he can be a tough guy, but it's still William under all that....the same things that upset him in life(Cecily dumping him)get to him as a vampire(Dru dumping him, and Buffy telling him he was beneath her). The only reason that Spike is so changed from William is that he has had time to perfect his game, Harmony is a young vampire and could still change a great deal(though I doubt she will get any smarter).
[> [> [> Re: I think you may be on to something (miscellaneous mild spoilers) -- matching mole, 05:56:13 01/30/02 Wed
I think I was basically agreeing with what you said although I didn't spell it out in as much detail as it wasn't really my main point. I wasn't really saying that Spike was fundamentally different from William just that he acts differently.
[> [> [> [> Re: I think you may be on to something (miscellaneous mild spoilers) -- Rufus, 21:14:19 01/31/02 Thu
That could be where the comparison of vampirism and addiction or alcoholism works for me. How many times do people say that a drunk is acting in a way that they "never" would had they been sober. Becoming a vampire liberates the person that once was from the self induced repression of desire to be different from what they see themselves to be. William wants to be a hero type, becoming a vampire turns him into a hero....of vampires. It's a tragic twist of the inner desire to be accepted and admired.
[> [> Re: I think you may be on Spoilers for Season Five -- Age, 21:54:47 01/29/02 Tue
I know what you mean. But it just seemed like the metaphors of season five pointed to a criticism of mythological religion as a combination of the human capacity for symbolism combined with a fear of death. Of course, I may have gone too far in this because, as I suggested in an earlier posting, the criticism may be only of those who exploit religious thought for their own ends, and not criticism of religion itself. Still Ben's giving Glory a sacrifice to achieve immortality, essentially sacrificing his feminine link(the link that must be severed to the natural world) troubled me. The criticism may not be aimed at religion per se but merely at the influence of certain myths, pointing out that if the human race is to continue then we'd better acknowledge that the animal part of us is just as important as the divine, assuming there is a soul.
Of course one could interpret Ben's act to mean that he has lost faith in his soul and commits a kind of idolatry in order to gain an immortal existence.
Whatever Whedon's intention, using the concept of the soul focuses on the spiritual life of human beings, with vampires being the obvious metaphors for the walking dead, masking their emptiness or feelings of inadequacy with the quick fix. Whether we survive after physical death or not, whether there is a God or not, Whedon seems to be asking us to consider the strategies we use to conduct our psychological lives. Is the price we pay for our decisions death in life?
Pretty darn OT: Songs about unrequited love -- MayaPapaya9, 22:28:27 01/28/02 Mon
I'm making a CD and I need ideas for songs about unrequited love. They don't have to be depressing, in fact I'd love some that are hopeful or comforting in some way, cause this is a present for a friend. But depressing is okay too, cause you can't hide from reality and all. Any help would be greatly appreciated! Thanks!
[> Re: Pretty darn OT: Songs about unrequited love -- Malandanza, 23:02:22 01/28/02 Mon
For unrequited love, no one compares with The Smiths (Morrissey) although the songs tend to be rather depressing. "There is a Light", off of the Queen is Dead, is the best -- upbeat, but poignant.
Here are my favorites: Group -- Song (Album)
The Smiths -- There is a Light (The Queen is Dead)
10,000 Maniacs -- Cotton Alley (The Wishing Chair) (a cute song)
The Cure -- Catch (Kiss Me, Kiss Me, Kiss Me)
Kate Bush -- Wuthering Heights (The Kick Inside)
The Spin Doctors -- Jimmy Olsen's Blues (Pocket Full of Kryptonite) (funny)
The Lemonheads -- Bit Part (It's a Shame About Ray) (also funny)
Of course, you've probably never heard of any of these groups :)
[> [> Are you kidding? -- verdantheart, 06:21:00 01/29/02 Tue
These groups aren't exactly obscure ... I've certainly heard of them (I especially like The Smiths, by the way). For especially passionate songs about unrequited love (and no longer-requited love), you might try something from Melissa Ethridge's self-titled album -- though I wouldn't describe these as particularly hopeful. I like Missing by Everything But the Girl which expresses a wistful yearning for someone long gone. Another wistful one is "Comin' Back To Me" by Jefferson Airplane (but that would probably be another formerly-requited love).
[> [> [> Maya is very young :) -- Malandaza, 07:15:01 01/29/02 Tue
[> Re: Pretty darn OT: Songs about unrequited love -- dochawk, 00:09:24 01/29/02 Tue
here's a few (they date me of course)
Alison Krauss and union Station - It Doesn't Matter (this was featured in an episode of Buffy)
Ed Bear - Last Song
Human League - Don't You Want Me
Dan Hill - Sometimes When We Touch (I don't know how unrequited this is, probably the same as B/S)
Bread - Aubrey (the quintessential unrequited love song)
[> Re: Pretty darn OT: Songs about unrequited love -- luminesce, 08:00:33 01/29/02 Tue
Untouchable Face by Ani Di Franco off the album Living in Clip is, I think, one of the best unrequited love songs ever. (It's got a bit of "language" in it, though...)
The Other Me by Joe Jackson
[> Re: Pretty darn OT: Songs about unrequited love -- Shaglio, 08:03:45 01/29/02 Tue
If your looking for some Classic lovesongs, try Billy Joel. Just loking at his Greatest Hits Vols. I, II, and III, I can see several good songs:
Just The Way You Are
She's Always A Woman
She's Got Way
The Night Is Still Young
An Innocent Man
A Matter Of Trust
This Is The Time
All About Soul
and his AWESOME remake of Bob Dylan's To Make You Feel My Love.
REO Speedwagon - I Don't Want To Lose You, Here With Me, Keep On Loving You, Can't Fight This Feeling
Queen - White Queen (As It Began), You're My Best Friend, You Take My Breath Away, Long Away, You And I, Teo Torriatte, Sail Away Sweet Sister
Boston - Amanada
Jethro Tull - Reasons For Waiting, Wond'ring Aloud, Fire At Midnight, The Waking Edge
Pearl Jam - Light Years
Rush - Madrigal
Savatage - Believe
Just to name a few ;)
[> [> Re: OT: Songs about unrequited love - As my mother would say, "Try some Meatloaf!" -- Brian, 09:43:26 01/29/02 Tue
[> [> [> Meatloaf had a song about unrequited love? -- Masq, 13:20:39 01/29/02 Tue
[> [> [> [> Two Out of Three Ain't Bad -- Kimberly, 13:23:55 01/29/02 Tue
Off the Bat Out of Hell album. It's either the song right before Paradise by the Dashboard Light. (No, I've never listened to Meatloaf in my life. :-))
[> [> [> [> [> Re: More Meatloaf -- Brian, 14:42:52 01/29/02 Tue
Actually, he has several songs that would qualify scattered about his many albums. He may be a big, sweaty guy, but he's got a killer voice.
[> [> [> [> [> Well, duh *dusts off ancient parts of her brain* -- Masq, 16:05:48 01/29/02 Tue
And the worst part is, it's my favorite song by him.
Had "Paradise by the dashboard light" and "Hot Patootey" on the brain, instead.
[> [> I'm such a dope! -- Shaglio, 12:20:47 01/30/02 Wed
Maybe I should have looked up unrequited in the dictionary before I posted. I always thought it meant "unconditional," but it means "not reciprocated."
So with that in mind, here's what I can think of:
Black Sabbath - Solitude, Symptom Of The Universe
Garbage - Cup Of Coffee, Drive You Home
Jethro Tull - One White Duck/0^10 = Nothing At All, Hunting Girl, Flying Colours, Said She Was A Dancer, Budapest, The Waking Edge, This Is Not Love, Rosa On The Factory Floor, This Free Will
Led Zeppelin - Your Time Is Gonna Come, What Is And What Should Never Be, Going To California
Ozzy - Goodbye To Romance, I Just Want You
PEARL JAM - BLACK, Nothingman
The Police - Can't Stand Losing You, Every Breathe You Take
Queen - Love Of My Life, My Melancholy Blues, Jealousy, Dreamer's Ball, One Year Of Love
REO Speedwagon - I Don't Want To Lose You, In My Dreams
Rush - Cold Fire
Savatage - A Little Too Far, Can You Hear Me Now?, Alone You Breathe, Not What You See
Van Halen - Why Can't This Be Love?
Victor - Sending Out A Warning
[> I got a grab bag for ya. -- A8, 17:58:48 01/29/02 Tue
I was going to say the "Story of my Life" by me, but I haven't written that one yet. Anyhow, here are a few suggestions. Some are right on point, some are about love(s) gone bad and some are about love(s) lost. Take your pick. Hope they are helpful.
"Until I Fall Away," "Hey Jealousy" and "Found Out About You" by the Gin Blossoms
"It's All I can do" (to keep waiting for you) by the Cars
"Waiting" and "Dyslexic Heart" by Paul Westerberg
"Love and Affection" by Joan Armatrading
"I Can't Tell You Why" by the Eagles
"Surrender Your Heart" by Missing Persons
"Surrender" and "I Can't Stay Away From You" by the Miami Sound Machine ('And I don't want to be your second choice. / Don't wanna be just your friend. / You keep telling me that you're not in love. / You want to throw it all away.../ But I can't stay away from you, I don't wanna let you go/ And though it's killing me it's true / there's just some things I can't control. / Your love is slipping through my hands / though I've heard it all before. / I know you're telling me the truth. / I know it's just no use, / but I can't stay away from you.')
"Change the World" by Eric Clapton
"Don't Let Me Be Lonely Tonight" by James Taylor
"Oh Yeah" by Roxy Music ('Some expression in your eyes / overtook me by surprise. / Where was I? How was I to know?')
"Helplessly Hoping" by Crosby, Stills and Nash
"Love the One You're With" by Stephen Stills
"Dirty Work" by Steely Dan ('Times are hard, you're afraid to pay the fee/ So you find yourself somebody who can do the job for free./ When you need a little loving because your man is out of town, / that's the time you get me runnin' and you know I'll be around... / I'm a fool to do your dirty work, oh yeah')
"Let Me Roll It" by Paul McCartney & Wings ('I can't tell you how I feel, my heart is like a wheel, let me roll it, let me roll it to you')
"Help Me" by Joni Mitchell ('Help me I think I'm falling in love with you / are you gonna let me go there by myself? / That's such a lonely thing to do./ Both of us flirting around, flirting and flirting...hurting too. / We love our loving, but not like we love our freedom.')
"I Don't Wanna Know" and "Second Hand News" by Fleetwood Mac
"Only the Lonely" by the Motels
How about a few by the Beatles:
"I Need You" ('You don't realize how much I need you / Love you all the time and never leave you. / So come on back and see / just what you mean to me. / I need you.')
"You Really Got a Hold On Me" [actually, a Smokey Robinson tune] ('I don't like you, but I love you. / Seems that I'm always thinking of you / Oh, oh, oh you treat me badly. / I love you madly / You really got a hold on me.')
"I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" ('I don't want to spoil the party so I'll go. / I would hate my disappointment to show. / There's nothing for me here, / so I will disappear. / If she turns up while I'm gone please let me know.')
"You Won't See Me" ('When I call you up, your line's engaged. / I have had enough. / So act your age. / We have lost the time / that was so hard to find. / And I will lose my mind / if you won't see me...you won't see me')
For a bit of humor, how about some J. Geils Band--"Love Stinks" ('You love her / and she loves him / and he loves somebody else / you just can't win. / You hear it call. / You're heart will fall. / Then love will fly. / It's gone that's all. / I've had the blues, the reds and the pinks. / One thing's for sure--Love Stinks!')
[> Thanks so much, I love you guys! -- MayaPapaya9, 19:09:14 01/29/02 Tue
| More January 2002