January 2001

January 2001 posts

December 2000
February 2001

Just got back about an hour ago from seeing this flick and I'd be very interested in hearing from anyone else out there who has seen it and found so much of its mythology strongly paralleling that of our beloved Jossian universe.

(Please clearly post in your response header if you have spoiler material for the movie for those who haven't seen it yet.)

To those who haven't ***GO SEE THIS MOVIE as soon as you can get a chance***. It's visually stunning even if you have a first rate home theater system you need to see this on the big screen so don't wait for the video release. The martial arts sequences are amazing and best of all there is a great timeless human story involved.

"Saw it last week OnM....isn't it GREAT? I love Chinese (or Hong Kong) "chopsocky" movies anyway and Chow Yun Fat and Michelle Yeoh in particular....but was stunned by the complexity and pure visual impact of the film. Beautifully done."

OnM. Now that you have given the movie such a glowing recommendation I'm going to have to trudge downtown to see it (it's only playing in one theatre in the entire city).

I noticed in The Replacement how Buffy was studying up on the Crusades (Knights of Byzantium foreshadowing:) until she started to dissect the action flick (was it a Bruce Lee film - forgive my ignorance here). She really made a point of saying that one-on-one combat (its pageantry and structure for lack of better words) is her 'thing'.

So are you going to tell us how CTHD and the Buffyverse intersect in the abstract?

In all likelihood but not just yet. There's a lot to absorb-- this isn't just your normal martial arts flick. In fact I will certainly go see it again I'm sure I missed things the visuals just knock you out so much it's hard to absorb everything at once. I can't imagine that any Buffy fan wouldn't find this film thrilling on all of its many different levels.

So hie thee then downtownward-- 'tis worth the trudge... ;)

I agree CTHD is an amazing movie. Though the Wudan fighters in it have powers that the Slayers (so far) can only dream about. When was the last time Buffy floated over rooftops in pursuit of a vampire or demon? The closest Buffy came to that kind of power was when she became the Uber-Slayer when she fought Adam.

And that magic sword Green Destiny! Boy that would sure help wouldn't it. Come to think of it we know there are magical items and artifacts floating around the Buffyverse. I think it would be interesting if she and the Scooby Gang tried to recover one to fight demons with.

Ryuei I'd love some Eastern philosphical related commentary from you on this if you would be willing. Just post accordingly if you have any spoilers for the movie of course.

One of the many things I loved about this film was that it wasn't just one series of fight scenes after another there was a great deal of verbal discourse on matters of honor and the quest for enlightenment and how those two sometimes get to be at odds with one another when they should be in harmony.

"ATPoBtVS posters--just got this in an email. I can't give name credit to the person who sent it since I only got an email address but I wanted to see what you made of it:

"A friend of mine who is HIGHLY obsessed with this episode has figured something out about Willows dream that not only is astounding that she even thought of it but more astounding that it makes so much sense. Willow's dream is not about Willow. Willow's dream is about Dawn. "They'll find out you know - about you." Willow's whole dream is about identity ending with her unmasking to show Season 1 Willow. But if it's about Dawn rather than Willow it makes much more sense. When she first comes backstage she has arrived "late" much as Dawn only came on the scene after everyone else had already established their characters and roles in relation to each other. Buffy meanwhile believes Willow's in costume much as Buffy is the one who knows that Dawn is not a real girl "Your costume is perfect! Nobody's gonna know the truth. You know about you." Just as Willow in the dream was confused by the idea that she was in character Dawn has no idea that she isn't really Dawn Summers. Meanwhile the audience everyone who's ever "met" Dawn "wants to find you strip you naked and eat you alive so hide." Anyway I could go on and on and on but you see my point. If the Council is on to Dawn being the key or has some way of discovering it they would surely want either to destroy her or to take her into their own custody to keep Glory from finding her. Most likely destroy I think. As Tara said "Everyone's starting to wonder about you. The real you. If they find out they'll punish you I can't help you with that." "

"

Astounding! If correct it means Willow has had a prophetic dream. The first I think. It's also devious of Joss to have us examine the wrong character.

"The whole Tara mystery was certainly a red herring. And I always thought the Willow bi thing was a mis-interpretation of the dream as well. Willow had stopped keeping it a secret by "Restless". There was no sense in interpreting it that way. All I could think of myself (and others) was Willow's nerd/no-longer-a-nerd conflict.

Which--has she even worried about that in Season 5?"

"Fery fery intevesting theory...

Willow's dream has always made the least amount of sense to me. I always explained it away in my mind by saying "Well she's the Spirit-part of the "Super Buffy" to paraphrase Xander:) so I guess her dream could/should be vague".

Also her dream comes up first and it difficult to know whether her segment is going to be about her at all especially with everyone milling around her and her own bewilderment. Her dream is very abstract *but* also contains some weird concrete references. At first those references seemed to me to have no bearing on her at all. They seemed detached from her (thus her confusion and passivity). I still think there is a big component (spell performance anxiety and being found out as a lesbian) that relates to Willow but long-haired-Willow-in-the-classroom does share many of Dawn's attributes. Also Dawn seems quite studious had/has a crush on Xander sometimes speaks before she thinks...

In short the theory makes sense to me.

Of course it could end up to be about Buffy too. I guess that's a bit of a stretch. BTW. Is anyone else out there starting to get uneasy about the possibility of Willow successfully conjuring that ball of light? Now *that* might be a performance to feel queasy about! "

I agree - it could most definitely be Dawn that Willow's dream was about. Joss is so great at deceiving us like that.

I love any Restless theory and seek them out ravenously. However with that spoiler around a few weeks back about there being a Watcher spy around and the possibilty of it being a Scoob a few of us realised that Willow's dream could quite easily be about her being a spy. We came up with a fairly convincing theory on it and all (not something that happens often when I'm involved). I know it's unlikely because now the Council has come to town and it doesn't *seem* like Willow was involved... but who knows.

Anyway I love the theory and I think it's very possible. I also agree that Willow's going some interesting places with her magic - she has a lot of power and I don't think she's realised the responsibilty that goes with that. Nobody's really told her off in the past when she's meddled with magic in particular in Something Blue and I have the feeling that one of these days she's gonna get burnt. Badly. I'm worried that it's going to take something terrible happening in order to make her realise what she's capable of.

Anyway end ramble. And I love your ball of sunshine/Dawn theory Isabel!

Of course Willow could be working on that ball of sunlight because she got memories of Dawn implanted and that's how her subconscious mind sees Dawn?

"Well the Tara-secret we found out thus far was sort of a red-herring but I hope there's more to her secret. That idea about Willow's dream being about Dawn is really cool and it might have something to do with Tara's involvement with Dawn as well because in the real me they seem to have a sort of connection so maybe Willow's involvement with Tara magickally/sexually caused her dream to be about Dawn.

Tara also makes a reference to Dawn in Buffy's dream when she looks at the clock and it says "7:30" and Buffy says she has to leave and Tara says "be back before Dawn". I guess we'll find out more next week I'm dying to know what these Restless dreams mean I've nearly worn out my tape re-watching it over and over."

"I seem to recall sometime last year probably after "New Moon Rising" Joss mentioning at the Bronze that there would angst in the Tara/Willow relationship because well there's angst in all the relationships on his shows.

So that's one reason to think there might be more to Tara.

And some angsty stuff for Xander/Anya as well. *sigh*"

I have to agree that things have been going rather smoothly so far for Willow and Tara. My guess is that the Willow's continuing careless use of magic will be the element that causes friction especially if something eventually goes very wrong with a spell and Willow still refuses to deal wit the responsibility.

Tara has always kind of gently chastised Willow for trying things beyond what she can do with complete knowledge. This in fact could be a lot of the problem Tara is *too* nice about it and so Willow doesn't take her seriously.

I could see that in the very early stages of their relationship she might be afraid to challenge Willow but by now she should be secure enough to take a firmer stand.

Wow! That makes sense much more so than if the dream is about Willow. It never made sense to me that Willow worries about being revealed as a nerd - her friends know that about her and love her anyway. Very interesting.

The 'Restless' dream that Willow had does indeed seem to make a lot more sense if it was about Dawn than Willow.

So how about this little extemporization-- The monks (and Joss) are even more crafty than we thought. They knew that while the Slayer would try her best to protect the key it is still possible that she would fail.

Suppose Dawn isn't the key at all she is just a diversionary tactic and *Willow* is actually the key? After all if Dawn doesn't know what she is why should Willow know? We don't even know for certain just what the Key is other than that it 'was/is energy'. The energy may not even physically reside in the human body the body and/or its soul may just be metaphysically linked to the Key/energy.

The monks of course wouldn't tell Buffy this. That way no matter what happens she couldn't pass on knowledge she doesn't have.

It seems that Glory's time to make use of the key is dwindling. The monks may be counting on this making her waste time until it is too late.

So whaddya think? Devious enough to be truly Jossian?

Whoa! I would have never though of that! But it does make sense (in a weird twisted way that is). What would work better than a diversion?

Wow crafty could that be why Tara was the 1st slayers voice? and if the key is pure energy then it could explain willows super magic!

I would love Joss forever and ever if he did something as sneaky as that. It seems very unlikely that this will be the case but it's such a great idea and it makes sense in a weird way. Oh well i still love Joss forver and ever whatever he has up his sleeve.

Another item to factor in is that this would also explain (possibly) why Glory didn't recognize the Key even though she knew Buffy knew where or what the Key was and Dawn was standing right in front of her.

Doed anybody recall if Glory has ever had an close encounters with Willow anytime this season? The only one I can think of might have been when she visited the Magic Shop to get the ingredients to make the snake but I don't recall-- might have to dig the tape out. Even if she was she wasn't expecting to find the Key there and she might have to be physically close enough to Willow.

The only flaw I see in this is that the snake *appeared* to recognize Dawn as the Key. Since Buffy killed it before it got back to Glory there wasn't *absolute* confirmation. Definitely gonna have to play the tape again...

Ah it's still a cool theory even if it's wrong! (picky picky picky... ;)

"
This analysis of Willow's dream - ie that it is about Dawn - was originally posted
by me Edith Fowler aka georgevna on the Mighty Big TV Buffy Boards in the
Speculation topic. Here is the full text of my original post:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

posted January 21 2001 8:06:35 PM EST profile email edit

Alright bear with me this may get convoluted. Most of you have probably caught on that I'm
obsessed with Restless. So I've been pondering & pondering it in this lull between new
episodes. I will admit that I did in fact go over the transcript with three different colors of
markers (orange for references to identity/naming green for references to motion purple for
references to time) - which my husband assured me is definitely insane not merely quirky.
Anyway I was working up a big ol' dissertation on these themes to post here - which I will
spare you because I had an epiphany.

Willow's dream is not about Willow. Willow's dream is about Dawn. "They'll find out you
know - about you." Willow's whole dream is about identity ending with her unmasking to
show Season 1 Willow. But if itís about Dawn rather than Willow it makes much more sense.
When she first comes backstage she has arrived "late" ! ñ much as Dawn only came on the
scene after everyone else had already established their characters and roles in relation to each
other. Buffy meanwhile believes Willowís in costume much as Buffy is the one who knows
that Dawn is not a real girl ñ "Your costume is perfect! Nobodyís gonna know the truth. You
know about you." Just as Willow in the dream was confused by the idea that she was in
character Dawn has no idea that she isnít really Dawn Summers. Meanwhile the audience ñ
everyone whoís ever "met" Dawn ñ "wants to find you strip you naked and eat you alive so
hide." Anyway I could go on and on and on but you see my point. If the Council is on to
Dawn being the key or has some way of discovering it they would surely want either to
destroy her or to take her into their own custody to keep Glory from finding her. Most likely
destroy I think. As Tara said "Everyoneís starting to wonder about you. The real you. If they
find out theyíll punish you I Ö I canít ! help you with that."

For further support of this admittedly weird theory I would point out that Dawnís first full
episode was entitled "Real Me" ñ the counterpart of "the real you " referenced in the dream. As
far as the Willow standing in for Dawn ñ well how many dreams on the "I Dream of Buffy"
thread establish that we arenít always ourselves in dreams? 'I had a dream last night that I was
Buffy only I was me but I was Buffy and Faith was thereÖ' etc. Itís actually quite common.
Willow just didnít realize that she was Dawn in the dream because Dawn didnít exist yet.
Aside from which (stretching now) Will feels a kinship with Dawn as she noted in NPLH: "I
just have all this involuntary empathy for Dawn. 'Cause she's you know a big spaz."

Anyway what do yíall think?
_________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am flattered that someone liked the theory well enough to send it to your
boards. However I am distraught that they disguised the text as their own and
credited the idea to "a friend of mine who is HIGHLY obsessed with this
episode." I suppose I am the "friend" in question - but as you can see the person
e-mailing it to you not only used my idea but passed of my post as her own. No!
Plaguerism on the Internet? Heaven forfend! Anyway all I'm asking is that you
note that this post actually was written by georgevna. I'd appreciate it as well if
you explained that it was stolen wholesale from the MightyBigTV boards but
giving me credit for the text is what's important to me.

You can check the validity of my claim at this site:
http://mightybigtv.com/index.html?/home.asp&0

Thanks so much for clearing this up. If you need to contact me please use either
of the e-mail addresses below. Thanks!

Edith Fowler / "georgevna"
"

"Willow's dream was about Anya and the Watcher's Council: Watch what's happens when you take some of georgevna's quotes (inside the ***'s) and replace Dawn with Anya (replaced words in [])

***"They'll find out you know -- about you." Willow's whole dream is about identity ending with her unmasking to show Season 1 Willow. But if itís about [Anya] rather than Willow it makes much more sense. When she first comes backstage she has arrived "late" ! ñ much as [Anya] only came on the scene after everyone else had already established their characters and roles in relation to each other. Buffy meanwhile believes Willowís in costume much as Buffy is the one who knows that [Anya] is not a real girl ñ "Your costume is perfect! Nobodyís gonna know the truth. You know about you."***

Anya has been worried about people discovering who she really was -- not only the WC in the most recent episodes but the Initiative as well last season.

***Meanwhile the audience ñ everyone whoís ever "met" [Anya] ñ "wants to find you strip you naked and eat you alive so hide." Anyway I could go on and on and on but you see my point. If the Council is on to [Anya] being [ex-demon Anyanka] or has some way of discovering it they would surely want either to destroy her or to take her into their own custody... Most likely destroy I think. As Tara said "Everyoneís starting to wonder about you. The real you. If they find out theyíll punish you I Ö I canít ! help you with that."***

Giles made a crucial error when the Council first came into his shop -- he called Anya by her name. She created a fictional background (Midwestern -- maybe she used Riley as inspiration) but the big problem remained her first name. The Council could easily discover Anyanka in their research and make the connection. She has tried to ***hide*** pretending to be that which she is not -- but it is impossible for her not to reveal her awkward lack of social skills (much as Willow was revealed in front of the dream high school class as season 1 Willow).

Actually I don't believe Willow's dream was about Anya -- I believe it was about Willow. The First Slayer was playing on her insecurities (the same insecurities Willow showed in Doomed when she overhears Percy calling her a nerd). Not every dream needs to be a prophecy.

Regarding the plagiarism: at first I was going to dismiss it since it is hard to come up with a unique theory on anything Buffy related -- but when I compared the quotes it did seem to be a verbatim theft. Still I think Masquerade's documentation was sufficient (it's about Buffy not a doctoral dissertaion)-- and it very well could have been submitted by one of georgevna's friends or one of the fans at MightyBigTV.
"

"Malandnaza I do like your argument about how this could have been "about" Anya as easily as it could have been "about" Willow. Your point is well taken.

georgevna sent me an email claiming to be the originator of the "Willow" theory and I decided to put her email up verbatim much as I did the previous one (who never claimed it was her own only "a friends") and let ATPOBtVS posters decide for themselves who should get credit if anyone.
"

It is quite clear the WC DID know about Anya. When she first appeared Giles was still a watcher. When she first had any part in the SG (although it was only to give them a little information) Wesley was still a watcher. Barring gross incompetance on both their parts they would have informed the WC. Obviously Buffy knew that when she refered to 'a thousand year old demon'. It also was obvious that this was not news to the WC by the way they failed to react.

Thanks Masquerade for posting my e-mail. Yes it's just speculation about Buffy not a doctoral dissertation. And I certainly didn't fault Masquerade for posting it as it came to her. It was my text though and I just wanted my name attached to it.

By which I mean that they aren't just randomly thrown in or played back in season order.

I've noticed more and more that the selection of a given rerun seems to be placed to furthur the story line as a whole since we see new things and pick out new relevancies and perhaps pick up on more events that seemded innocuous at first (hah!) but are now fairly clear as foreshadowing.

What do you think the Xander-oriented rerun this week is foretelling for the next few eps or the rest of the season? I keep thinking of the apocalypse talked about on Angel Xander's movie choice of 'Apocalypse Now' in the ep 'Restless' Giles comment in same about 'I get it now-- it's all about the journey' and of course Glory and the Key.

Or is it all another red herring just to trip us up?

I really agree with you. Looking at the rerun of Angel last night I realized that in his dealings with the fake swami Angel discovered the roots that made him into Noir Angel. The fake swami kept talking about the two personalities in Angel and how conflicted he was.
Lots of irony in getting good advice from a murderer. And I loved the fishing scene. A Vampire with a pole. Ouch!

Actually they all do. Network and syndicated t.v.'s typicaly season runs somewhere from 20-22 weeks a year. Typically its divided into 3 main filming sessions with 2 big hiatus in between for the actors to get involved in other projects regroup or simply have a life. Since filming starts somewhere around July with the xmas hiatus and spring hiatus the new episodes are not always completed since post production is way longer than the actual shooting. Hence they have to use fillers.

They could get around that by simply waiting until January to unleash the whole series without interuptions but I'd be going nuts knowing that new eps are there.

P.S. as for rerun fillers 'The X files' are the absolute worse for rerun interuptions. It use to drive me nuts.

Welcome nutball. Thanks for your response. You're right X-Files is the worst for these multiple interruptions and to add insult to injury they typically start the new season very late compared to other shows. Bummer!

Do you have any thoughts on how effectively these shows use the reruns to forward understanding of the story arc or do they just kind of throw in almost anything?

I've seen ER do some story-arc-related reruns and the X-files and more recently Roswell. Buffy/Angel seems to have used this technique the most effectively though. Perhaps this is only possible due to the substantial layering and foreshadowing Joss & Co. tend to utilize?

The choice of reruns is definitely not random and no I have never seen other shows use them quite so effectively to reiterate or bring home specific aspects of long arcs. The re-airings of Restless and To Shanshu were particularly effective I found. As far as the coming apocalypse... It seems clear that Xander will have a role to play in relation to it and there is a spoiler (a pretty old one) that states that Xander does some time travelling to warn Angel of something in the future. Combine this with the fact that Dawnís fate is reported to be linked with Xanderís in another spoiler and youíve got a concatenation of elements that point to crossover synergy :)

I was reading the script for To Shanshu yesterday and it occurred to me that Cordeliaís questioning whether there was mention of *her* in the Prophecies of Aberjian might actually be a clue... If Cordy does have a role to play than it is even more important that she and Angel get back to working in tandem. Another spoiler mentions that a demoness comes on the scene and she has the missing part of the prophecies in her possession. So many things that make you go hmmmmm...

Hey Aquitaine I don't know if Masquerade will give out any points for coining 'Deja Re-views' but I will! (Not that they're worth anything like Green Stamps or somesuch but I really liked it anyway. You even went to the trouble to do the little accent special characters!)

Thought you said you were a better public speaker than a writer. You seem to be getting pretty good at the latter lately!

Perhaps Masq should start a section for 'Philosophical Phanfic'. Reckon I could be angsty if I had a mind to.

;)

OnM: Got quite a laugh out of your post. Actually I am a *terrible* public speaker and I make my living as a writer/translator:) I think you confused Rufus and me on this one. She's the voluble one if I remember correctly.

As for the little accents... I'm French so it wouldn't even occur to me to spell 'dÈj¦' any other way. LOL.

Masquerade: Do you really give out 'points' for word coinage?

All: Do you think Cordy and her visions might be mentioned in the missing part of the prophecies?

'tis possible was quite awhile ago that I read that post!

As for Cordy it's about time for her to get metaphysical but we'll have to see.

Be back later on I'm heading out very shortly to see 'Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon' (if the lines aren't too long should be OK for a mid-week night).

Xena and La Femme Nikita usually rerun the pertinent episodes as needed. So this season the season premier of Xena continued the story of Ares. It was NOT rerun first though. Instead they saved it until a new Ares episode was scheduled for the following week.

None do as well as BtVS though I agree.

Does everyone in the fictional Buffyverse USA have memories of Dawn put in their heads by the monks? I mean do Cordelia and Angel over in LA have their own memories of Dawn and if they were to visit Sunnydale would not be surprised to see her? Does it only kick in within Sunnydale's city limits? 'Cause that's one hell of a spell that you can give such a wide variety of people memories of someone who never existed. For example what memories could they plant in Spike's head? I'd love to see him say something that indicated a memory of her. But how could the monks do that?

My rant: there is a person at another message board where I post I can't tell if it's a man or a woman but this person is so incredibly annoying it's driving me absolutely nuts. He/she will try and argue you all the way down the board and just will not give up until you give him the last word or just stop posting. He/she/it has no sense of humor whatsoever and doesn't want to hear or acknowledge any argument but his/her own. I don't even respond anymore but this person always replies to my posts and it drives me crazy! Okay thanks for letting me get that off my chest. I may have to start lurking at that message board because he/she is a regular and is not going to go away.

Back some months ago I was proposing an 'alternate universe' explanation as a way to cover the bredth of the 'Dawn Effect'. Masquerade was leaning towards the spell theory and as things turned out a spell it was.

I still have some of the same questions you do as to just how many people are 'in on' this but perhaps a compromise solution is that the spell is designed like a computer virus/worm-- Until you link up with it you don't get the revised memories. So it's the metaphysical equivalent of a self-replicating virus.

Is that any help? As to the argument thing I find it helpful to dig up my Monty Python tapes and play back the 'Argument Clinic' sketch. Puts everything nicely in perspective!

(No it doesn't!)

(Yes it does!!)

(Does not!)

(Does too!!)

(This isn't an argument!)

(Yes it is!)

(Excuse me is this the full half-hour or just the ten minute?)

Or the Dead Parrot sketch of course... ;)

Someone below I forget who posited the mileage theory that when you get within a certain radius of Sunnydale poof you get the Dawn memories. This is great but what if Dad calls from Spain or the grandparents call from wherever they are?

So what about the 'degrees of seperation' theory. The more degrees of seperation (people you know who know her even though you don't know her personally) you have from this person Dawn the less likely you are to have the memories.) Once you meet her or see her you get memories. Like all of a sudden you knew her in the sixth grade but never talked to her.

That's the idea-- dad calls from Spain the 'virus' activates Dad gets the memories of Dawn. He 'links' with his girlfriend she gets memories of him talking about Dawn. And on and on...

The mystery of how far reaching the knowledge of Dawn is deepens all the time. I am particularly interested in seeing whether the LA gang knows about her and seeing as there seems to have been no contact between the Sunnydale and LA gangs this season I think this little conundrum is going to become very interesting. Parallel universes is my solution - but that could get messy for the writers... and many viewers may feel cheated. I'm glad the story is finally coming to a head and I'm glad Spike is now involved with something outside his obsession.

As for your rant... I empathise and I believe I know to whom you refer. I've just tried to stay away from any ping-ponging argumentation. It's better for my blood pressure:)

Thanks for the support and what you said about blood pressure is right on because I swear mine rises about 20 degrees when I see this person online. And speaking of the LA gang do we know for sure anyone is coming other than Dru? Because I also would like to see that theory tested about who knows what.

"The previews I saw for next week's BtVS and Angel have Dawn finding out she is the Key and running away and Angel fighting to stop the end of time.

Considering how big a deal the Key is supposed be could these events be related?? Angel wouldn't necessarily have to have direct knowledge of Dawn/Key to be able to prevent it from causing "trouble" in the world.

Or maybe these events are not *directly* related. The time stoppage in L.A. may be a symptom that all is not well with the Key - that she is no longer safe and protected and she that is in danger from Glory the Knights of Byzantium and other monsters who prey on young girls.

Personally I like OnM's theory of the spell/virus. While the Key may have over-arching affects that go well beyond Sunnydale direct knowledge of Dawn only occurs when one enters Sunnydale or contacts a resident of Sunnydale. Cordelia *might* have knowledge of Dawn if she and Willow have exchanged e-mails or phone calls recently. And once Cordelia was affected by the spell/virus then Angel Wesley and Gunn would also be affected. A very subtle and incidious spell/virus this is!!"

Now if one of the monks who cast/programmed the spell was named M. Lissa that might be a clue! ;)

Just had to comment. I think I know who your annoying poster is as well. Pavlov would have loved this guy. Any discussion about Spike in particular seems to make him froth at the mouth especially if it's positive. Talk about Spike and Buffy together and he becomes a raving lunatic. Say anything negative about Angel and Buffy and resign yourself to a night of as you say arguing right down the board. Best to steer clear or post somewhere else about those particular topics because it just pushes a button for some reason with that guy(girl?)

Anyway as for Dawn I wonder if she could have stumbled upon a book left by the WC for Buffy to look at. They were going to tell her all they knew about Glory so maybe it was a book lying around the house and Dawn saw Buffy acting suspicious about it or overheard buffy and her mother talking about her again. I wish I could figure out from the promo where she and Spike are; that would give us a lot of answers. It may be a library but they appear to be there after hours and I think those were candles they had burning so I don't know very confusing. Maybe they broke into the Magic Box to have a look at Giles' books?

"I'm not sure the spell has to be that powerful -- only people who would have had actual contact with Dawn would need their memories altered. I can remember when I was a teen-ager being surprised to discover that a friend of mine had a sister and as an adult I would be hard-pressed to think of which of my friends have siblings. Dawn's classmates would need to have their memories altered -- but not too much -- the Summers family is relatively new to Sunnydale. Also there is no compelling reason that students outside her own grade level need know who she is.

A bigger problem I think is how people who have had intimate contact with Buffy and her family reconcile their new memories with their past behavior. Consider Spike -- shouldn't he wonder why he never thought to kidnap Dawn (even Harmony thought of that one)? And what about Faith? Is it possible that Buffy would have been less hostile if she had not been an only child? I would think that Dawn would have want to be Faith's best friend particularly if it irritated Buffy. Angelus also should have targeted Dawn first.

The Diary talk on a previous posting has also gotten me thinking about the spell. We know Buffy kept a diary (Sunday was reading it) but we haven't seen it lately -- maybe Riley wasn't diary material :(. Dawn does keep a diary. Perhaps some of the Dawn memories/personality are merely Buffy's memories/character traits which have been transferred to Dawn by the spell. For example Buffy remembers that Dawn cried when her father left -- maybe it was Buffy that cried and the spell just switched Dawn for Buffy in that memory (rather than manufacturing a completely new memory.) Maybe Buffy was "lil punkin belly" and that memory was adulterated by the spell. It seems that it would be easier to merely alter an existing memory than to create new ones. "

"Vampires or blooddrinkers are an amazingly pervasive folklore figures. Like dragons or shapeshifters they're evrywhere. Yes it almost makes me wonder Here's a partial list because otherwise this would be soooo loooong....

Adlet
Adlet are an Labrador and Hudson Bay Native myth of blood drinking monsters five of the ten offspring of a woman inter-coupling with a red dog (Dog Husband).

Apotamkin
A hairy "bogey-man" figure with long fangs. This myth is used to instill fear into children from venturing into areas alone and without parental guidance. [Northeast Woodlands Passamaquoddy Malisseet]

Baobhan Sith (Sidhe)
The White Women of the Scottish highlands. These women are ghost-like vampires who assume the shape of beautiful women and invite men to dance with them and drink their blood.

Chupacabra
A South American/Puerto Rican myth allegedly about 3 feet tall with spikes running down its spine and sharp fangs. Said to steal farm animals and the occasional small child who has wandered too far from home and drain them of their blood.

Mahr
The ancient Slavish and Teutonic people believed that the Mahr were the spirits of their deceased family members (but also of other living persons) whose soul had left the body at night. These spirits would disturb the night's rest of humans and even drink their blood. The Mahr appear as moths hairs or blades of straw.
In other sources the Mahr are a race of giant vampire moths that dwell in the Carpathian Mountains. When a person was bitten by one of the Mahr the creature would host the body of that person. A Mahr can be killed and thus returning the soul to the original owner by driving a wooden stake through its heart or by finding its lair and exposing it to daylight. In Poland they are called Mora and in Bulgaria Morava.

Kappa
In Japanese Shinto-religion they are water spirits who pull little children into the water and drown them and attack and fight travelers. They also attack animals including horses. They cannot live for long on the land for they must always keep their heads wet. They have long hair the body of a tortoise scaly limbs and an ape face. The Kappas feed themselves with cucumbers and blood and use cucumbers to travel on them; these cucumbers fly like dragonflies. Kappas are very intelligent and can be propitiated by humans. They can be befriended by wise men to whom they will teach the art of setting bones. They may once have been wise monkeys.

Glaistig ( Scots Sidhe)
A water-spirit who is half a lovely woman and half a goat. The goat part she tries to hide underneath a long green robe. She invites a man to dance with her before she feeds on his blood. Contrarily she can also be very friendly towards children and the elderly. Sometimes she also herds the cattle for farmers.

Pey
In Tamil folklore the Pey is a demonic being that drinks the blood of fallen or wounded warriors. The female counterpart of this vampiric creature is the Peymakilir who devours corpses while dancing frenziedly.

Pontianak
A Pontianak is a female Malay vampire. In order to chase its victims its head detaches from its body with its entrails trailing below. When the head reaches its victim it sucks his / her blood.

Sousson-Pannan
Sousson-Pannan is an evil and very ugly loa whose body is all covered with sores. He is known to drink liquor and blood.

Striges
Winged female demons from Macedonia who preyed on little children drank their blood and ate their entrails. They were supposed to be the descendants of the Harpies.

Zagam
The demon of the forgers of money. This demon could change copper into gold and lead into silver blood into oil and water into wine. He had huge bat's wings and a bull's head. Zagam fed upon human blood.

Chicomecoatl
"Seven snakes". The Aztec goddess of maize during the Middle Culture period. She is sometimes called "goddess of nourishment". Every September a young girl representing Chicomecoatl was sacrificed. The priests decapitated the girl collected her blood and poured it over a figurine of the goddess. The corpse was then flayed and the skin was worn by a priest. She is regarded as the female counterpart of the maize god Cinteotl their symbol being an ear of corn. She is occasionally called Xilonen.

Sa-bdag
A classification of local spirits or "earth movers" in Bon religion who inhabit springs fields lakes and houses. The image of the local Sa-bdag is placed within the outer gateway of the local temple or monastery and is worshipped with offerings of wine and blood.

Eeeeeuw! : )

JoRus
"

"Yes just about every culture has their own version of the vampire. Probably something to do with the whole "blood is life" thing which was probably realized back in the cave people days (you know if too much blood leaked out you died). It's possible that they had a fear that something would come and take/steal their blood - and thus were vampires created.

An *excellent* source of all things vampiric is "The Vampire Book: An Encyclopedia of the Undead" by J. Gordon Melton. The latest edition (with Keifer Southerland from "The Lost Boys" on the cover) has an entry on our favorite vampire Angel. At about $20 for a 2-inch-thick paperback it's a treasure."

Thanks purplegrrl...I'll pick one of those up on my latest Barnes and Noble spree. It's always good to get new books.

This has kind of been bugging me - nobody seems to mind too much that Angel tortured Merl for information and then killed the honorable Boone. Or how about the mass slaughter of the garage-o-demons from a couple weeks ago? When it comes to demons (even if they are cowardly and harmless (?) like Merl or honorable like Boone) one can act like the typical Dungeon and Dragons character and hack & slash away and torture people for information. However when it comes to demon summoning assassin hiring apacolypse planning lawyers one should defend them at the risk of one's life!?! I don't buy it. To me a sentient being is a sentient being. If one is honrable but funky looking like Boone does one have the right to kill him? If they are human but are working to destroy the world should one even consider trying to protect them?

"Unfortunately I think this falls into the "demons bad humans good" type of arguement that is based on appearances alone. Even Angel has fallen into this trap assuming a demon is "bad" based on its description from Wesley's book and killing the one who was protecting the pregnant woman.

It's possible that where the show is going is to show that we should judge each other based on our actions how we treat each other. Not based on how we look (human/demon beautiful/average athletic/overweight etc. etc.).

Boone was honorable but he was also looking to duel with Angel. Granted we don't know for sure if Angel killed Boone - but we assume he did based on the evidence (Angel's messed up face blood on the money). If Boone was looking to kill Angel or at least beat the crap out of him then Angel was defending himself. I'm not saying it was necessarily "right" for Angel to (presumably) kill Boone. But I don't think he was killed just because he was a demon.

As for Merl the snivelling demon: he was playing both sides for his own gain. Maybe Angel figured that since Merl was already taking money from the other side he needed to impress Merl with his own seriousness. Of course that scene could have just been part of the whole noir thing - the good guy beats up the snitch to get information. (And Buffy has beaten up or threatened violence to Willy the bartender/snitch on a number of occasions.)

And we've seen that Angel has few compunctions about feeding a bunch of devious lawyers to a couple of hungry vampires.

You're right: a sentient being is a sentient being. But unfortunately humankind tends to judge more on appearances and pre-conceived notions than on actions."

I have been saddened by how many posters (and unfortunately they are probably representative of the audience at large) have taken the humans = good other species = bad stance. There are some of us who believe good and bad should be recognized regardless of their species. A sentient being has the ability to change how they think and act both for good and bad. I was not upset that Angel refused to help Holland etc. The phrase ìhoisted on their own petardî comes to mind. Had he just walked away I would have simply thought ìgood riddanceî. What disturbed me is he locked them in the room thus becoming a participant in this act. Since these ìofficers of the courtî spent most of their time breaking and abusing the law and seem to be untouchable by the law. Angel may have been justified but it was a troubling decision. So much for saving all humans. As for killing the demons: we have seen a few that seem to be good and we have been give strong hints that there are many others. Unless something unforeseen develops I would take a very dim view of anyone killing the karaoke demon. Regardless of species we need to take the ìinnocent until proven guiltyî approach as much as possible. Since the normal legal institutions are incapable of dealing with these issues at this time Buffy Angel etc. find themselves in the position of being forced to be judge jury and executioner. It is unfortunate but unavoidable in this situation that they will make mistakes and some will be bad ones. The best they can do is to be the best they can be and to never stop trying to be better. Thatís true for all of us but fortunately Iíve never had the responsibility for deciding if someone must live or die. They deal with that daily.

I'm new to the board so I'll try to make this short. In BtVS the criteria seemed to be having a soul hence human. On AtS it's not so clear. There are very evil humans and not so evil Evil Things. I'm thinking it's part of Angel's journey to realize that evil and good come in all kinds of packages and it's not always easy to tell the difference.

Welcome Marya! Once you're here a while you'll notice we aren't always 'short' when it come to posts! So don't hesistate just elucidate... ;)

The increasing 'grayness' on the human/demon good/evil portrayals is becoming commoner on both BtVS and Angel though you quite correctly point out it is far more prominent on Angel. Personally I would ascribe this to two things.

One Angel is much older and has more 'worldly' experience than Buffy does. You will have noticed that as Buffy gets older she is being exposed to more moral ambiguity by the writers.

Two LA is a much larger city than Sunnydale so it is going to reflect that in its diversity including varieties of both humans and demons.

BTW do you pronounce your handle Mary-a Mar-ya or Ma-ry-a? Any one of those is just fine but I'm old and need to conserve neurons so I thought I'd ask. Thanks! ;)

Thanks for the welcome OnM. I'm sure my posts will get longer once I get the hang of this board. And I pronounce it Mar-ya. I think the greyness has been on BtVS for a long time. At least since Lie To Me and one could argue since Angel the episode not the character.

Ryuei one comment on the 'garage-o-demons'-- they were specifically summoned/propositioned by Darla in order to try out for her 'gang'. Angel was present to hear about this so it would be reasonable that any demon who showed up at the garage was out for extreme no-good.

It's fascinating just how fine a line NoirAngel has been walking here. In each and every case there has been some kind of an 'out' even if it isn't necessarily a very comfortable one.

Angel 'kills' (by inaction) the W&H lawyers at Holland's wine cellar but it was mainly by chance he was there at all so it could be 'fate'. Locking the doors is troubling but I don't think Darla and Dru would have had much greater difficulties if he didn't. (Side thought-- Let's not forget that Buffy sought out fought with and *attempted to kill* Faith-- which even though she regretted it immediately afterward was still a proactive choice at the time).

Angel fires the SG2's. To protect them or force upon them a greater independence for their own growth?

Angel kills the garage-o-demons-- see above.

Angel kills (or attempts to kill) D&D. We enjoy watching these characters from a story-telling aspect but he has every good reason to dust them.

Angel kills Boone (maybe?). Boone wanted the fight understood the terms.

As I've said before (and I'm *sure* will say again!) hummmmm....

When vamps bite each other I always thought it was a sex thing. In the books it's part of a vampire sexual relationship. But I don't think it has ever been shown or stated on the TV show.

"Except for that flashback of Angelus and Darla nibbling each other's shoulders in "Untouched""

I think that it is more of a dominace thing than a sexual thing. Eg If a Sire bites his Childe he is asserting his dominace over him. If two vampires are fighting and one (after thrashing the other) bites the loser he is stateing his dominace. Darla and Angelus biting each other proved that they though of themselves more like equals rather then Childe and Sire. Angel and Drusilla behave more like Childe and Sire. I wouldn't be surpized if it was almost a death sentece for Dru or Spike to bite Angelus or Darla becuase of the power structer.

Well Drusilla got away with biting her grand-sire when Darla was human but it is clear who of the two is dominant as vampires--Darla.

I don't think Darla Angelus Dru and Spike originally had a very traditionally based relationship as far as sire/childer go. Most sire's treat their childers as slaves until they are able to prove themselves as equals. But Darla always let Angelus do pretty much what he wanted and it's apparant that Spike and Dru could come and go as they pleased. They seemed a little passive towards eatchother though. Vampres can bite eatchother in fact if an older vamp give a younger vamp his blood he gains power.

Let's not forget the infamously suggestive scene when Angle drank Buffy in GD2. Not to mention the goings on in BvD.

"I think we may have been attributing more "darkness" to Angel than we have actually seen evidence for. We have seen evidence (and by 'evidence' I am refering strictly to actions not words) that Angel is willing to be more ruthless in how he treats his enemies (W&H at the wine-tasting D&D flambe). We have also seen that he is more likely to ignore things not directly related to his mission to bring down W&H (Cordy's vision). We have not however seen any evidence that he is willing to actually harm innocents. Use them certainly as he used Anne but not actually harm them. Even with Anne he went to some lengths to make sure she knew what she was getting into.

At this point he's talking a dark game but his actions aren't actually tending towrd darkness.

Now that I think about it this is pretty much in keeping with the "noir" type. The hardboiled exterior of a noir hero typically covers a pretty big heart.

Thoughts? Am I missing anything? If not what explains our tendency to see Angel as darker than he is?"

"When he confessed his stalk-age to Anne and had a good reason for it (as opposed to an Angelus reason for it) and when he gave her the money from the charity ball I thought "Oh God am I going to have to rewrite all that 'Angel flirting with darkness stuff on my site'?

He wasn't just not ruthless he was actually on the good side. Except for the verbal threats to Lilah which were actually kind of scary but which were after all just threats."

Masquerade
Wouldn't it depend on whether Angel was serious about torturing Lilah? He said something to the effect that the pain and pleading would come later. Will he do this to get information? Of course maybe he did not mean torture. Who knows? I suppose humans in past wars have tortured others to get information. Would Angel be evil if he did it? Were they? You really have a gray area when it comes to war. I can see why we all get fuzzy defining Angel's nature. Van

"I only qualified it because Humanitas asked for actions not words. I believed Angel's threat. I think it was because I was looking for signs of darkness from him and he's capable of it under certain circumstances (usually not to human women who aren't slayers and usually only while "going Angelus" but...)"

My emphasis on actions comes from the fact that there are several people in my circle of friends who talk about being evil or mean or whatever but who have proven to be teddy bears under that facade. Plus as we all know Angel is the master of the facade. Remeber the guru earlier this season? He turned out to be a phony but he did have some good insights that really hit a nerve with His Broodiness. One of which was that Angel is all about the image with his black clothes and his car. It must be true because it really seemed to bother Angel. Since we know that Angel projects himself as darker than he actually is I thought we should look at the 'hard' evidence of his actions.

So what about his action in threatening Lilah? It certainly falls under the heading of being more ruthless toward his enemies. Remember Lilah is no innocent. She has been a willing participant in W&H's schemes.

My earlier question still stands: Why are we so ready to believe that Angel is so dark? Do we just buy the facade or is it something deeper?

"Well under that facade is a Barry Manilow fan after all. Or maybe it's just "Mandy". either way Angel's a big softie on some things. That's the part of him that yearns to be human and free of the overwhelming temptations of vampirism."

"(fill in your fav expletive mine rhymes with witch) is that admitting to it doesn't preclude being a nice person. You can choose to be nice as an admitted jerk...no loss of face or self image. However people who construe themselves as Good sometimes act in the most horrendous ways...they just don't allow themselves to notice. ("Denial is the mechanism that allows us to have a self image and violate it at the same time.")"

Because it's a change of pace from hero-Angel (if it was losing his soul it'd be old zzzz). It adds excitement to viewing. As long as it's done in a plausible way and doesn't last forever it makes for spicier viewing.

"Masquerade I don't think you'll have to re-write!! Angel *is* darker. And right now he may only *be* flirting with his darkness.

I think Angel will continue to go to almost any length to oppose those who use others to their own advantage - demons Wolfram & Hart etc. That doesn't mean he's above or beyond helping those in need. It's just that helping those in need is no longer his main focus. He's sort of tapped into the Angelus aspect of his personality - meaning not only darker but also the game playing (witness what he pulled on Lindsey and Lilah with Boone the money and the tape). Angelus may have enjoyed the physical aspect of torture but NoirAngel remembers how psychological torture is done.

And he may go darker yet. Angel is a vampire after all albeit one with a soul. As he once told Buffy "I may look like a man but I'm not a man." "

I don't think we need to rewrite or recall all our suspicions that Angel had more than a touch of Angelus in him...we thought it for a reason. Watching Angel threaten manipulate and lock the doors...well we'd seen this type of stuff before usually to someone's detriment. (I don't even like to THINK about what Angel(us) did to Giles). This season has been like watching a beloved alcoholic flirt with drinking while they maintain they can handle it...and we think they probably can't. So we're afraid for him and for the people around him. There's been plenty of foreshadowing of the possibility of Angel going dark...didn't he ask his scoobies to just kill him if it happened? But...could they? They're out of the way now for a reason.

"I LOVE that "alcoholic flirting with drinking" thing. It is a dangerous line Angel is walking for a reason. He (and many of us) thinks he needs to get darker to do what he needs to do but dark is what W&H want.

It's hard follow the analogy out i.e. I can't think of any good reasons alcoholics would NEED to get back into drinking but then this could all be Angel's rationalizing and not what he needs to do at all."

"I have talked a few times about Joss's "alcoholic" analogy for Angel's situation but HECK if I remember where I read it. I'm thinking I read it on the Bronze posting board (in which case I could find it in the archives) or in the official BtVS fan magazine (in which case I don't know which one or when and I don't have any of them anymore anyway).

Anyone know what I'm talking about and where I could find it??"

Masqerade I seem to remember a lot of discussion about abusive relationships and alchaholism in the Bronze during the early part of season three mostly around the time of All Men Are Beasts. I think the writer of the episode weighed in on her/his opinion (I'm really weak on who wrote what) but I don't remember Joss actually posting on it. BTW are there acutally archives of the Bronze as a whole or were you referring to the VIP archives. Just curious.

PS This is my first time albeit I hope not the last time posting here. Love the site.

Thanks

Other than the VIP archives at Little Willow's I got these URLs from a visitor to my site

http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~hsiao/media/tv/buffy/bronze/archives/

which is also a VIP archive

Archiving it all would be cool but *alas* no one does as far as I know...

I didnít know which post to answer so Iím just answering the first one. Angel is a vampire. He has always been inherently dark. When he was Angelus he was particularly dark perverted manipulative and playful. Once he was souled and became Angel he was still dark albeit conscience stricken. When Angel met Whistler he was a miserable soul leading a sad unproductive unlife. He was a non-leaching bloodsucker and still he was dark. When he met Buffy he was ambivalent and dark. When he first kissed Buffy he vamped out. He could hardly resist drinking from Joyce. His consciousness of the beast within was alive and well. The threat he posed to Buffy and the world was clear to him. He was still dark.

Then he ëfell in loveí and out of the darkness into perfect happiness and the evil curse was upon him. Angelus was back in full force. He was *really* dark for a period. Angelís soul was restored but he went to hell nevertheless. He came back into the world justifiable baffled guilty and torn. But still he was dark. His fear of his darkness what it might do to Buffy but even more what he might do to the world at large and to himself drives him to LA. And *thatís* where things started to change. Angel saw the light of day (via the Ring) but considered he wasnít worthy of possessing it. This was where the abnegation began. Angel gave up mortality to follow the ëvisionsí of TPTB. Angel suddenly didnít feel as dark. He wore his darkness on the outside as a fashion not as a part of himself. Ever time Angel lightened up or brushed up against humanity either he put the kibosh on his budding redemption or forces outside him ëconspiredí to keep him ëdarkí. IMO Angel was at his least dark in To Shanshu and Judgement just before he was pulled into the dark realm of Darlaís dream world.

Maybe Angel needs to fully integrate the fact that he will never be ëlightí. He cannot repress the beast within. It will simply come back stronger than ever. Angel is a hybrid entity; he needs hybrid tactics. He is not completely of this world nor is he out of this world. Maybe this is one reason he is ëdestinedí to play a role in ëthe coming apocalypseí. He is a bridge between two worlds.

So whether Angel acts in a ënoirí manner or not the darkness or a part of it still resides within him. Right now Angel is disillusioned because he has realised that all his efforts have been in vain (well not all but he certainly perceives it that way). Angel does not accept defeat or his fate very easily. The turning point really seemed to be when Angel couldnít save Darla in The Trial. Angel got ëlostí in his own darkness when he beat the system but lost the ëwarí on a technicality. Watching Darla get revamped was the final straw. What we are witnessing now is a bit of a human-like tantrum as lived by a vampire. ìIíll show them whoís the big badî.

Also when Angel confesses his stalking to Anne he is doing it to ingratiate himself with her. He is *using* her shamefully... It really makes me think that Angel is acting out getting all the frustrations of the past year and a half worked out. Of course his depression may carry him completely over the edge into complete darkness.

"I guess I don't see the post-curse pre-Buffy as being nearly as dark and teetering on the edge as you do. I think he was fighting his vampire side and basically a "good person" the sort who would rather save a baby than bite them despite any temptation to do otherwise.

Once he met Buffy he began his journey from "basically good person"/vampire to hero. "

I guess I don't see the post-curse pre-Buffy as being nearly as dark and teetering on the edge as you do

Yes. I suppose it is a bit of a grey (LOL) area. We only get a bit of a hint about his life and attitude in AYNOHYEB. He seems to have been a pretty dark shade of neutral grey during this time.

"Noir Angel. That's the best description I've seen so far of Angel at this point in Season 2.

He's still biologically a vampire and metaphysically a vampire with a soul. Yet he's loosed himself from the "good guy" role he's been playing. The need for bringing the "war" to his opponents now outweighs the need to fight by "good guy" rules. Effective? Probably as guerrilla wars are notoriously difficult to defend against no matter how crafty you are.

Another question for the board: anybody else disappointed that Lindsey and Lilah once so promising seem to have been reduced by the producers to mere buffoons? What's the point in having villains if you're going to turn them into team Rocket from "Pokemon"? There's no dramatic tension in that and God knows we all dig the tension. I'm really hoping for them to recapture some of the evil promise they held in earlier episodes; oh they had their wins and their misses but I don't recall them being so pathetic before "Blood Money." "

Actually I think the current state of affairs with Lindsey in particular knowing that his life is worth nothing beside Angel's will generate some interesting stories. L&L won't be W&Hs patsies but will be working from their own sense of wounded pride and anger. I'm thinking L&L are more dangerous as pissed off individuals than they are as lackeys.

Tend to agree-- at the moment they're floundering a bit but once they regroup I have confidence we'll see some more of the deviousness we've come to expect. At least I expect it from Lindsey. Lilah seems just a bit out of her league but who knows. Fear for your life can do wonders! ;)

"Actually I think the current state of affairs with Lindsey in particular knowing that his life is worth nothing beside Angel's will generate some interesting stories.

Prior to the wine-tasting both Lilah and Lindsey were afflicted by hubris. They worked for a powerful law firm and their fortunes were rising -- the W&H plan to crush their enemy was proceeding nicely. I think what we say in the last two episodes was the readjustment period -- as they discover their true value to the corporation. Their situation is made more interesting by their isolation: the only person Lindsey could reasonably confide his problem in is Lilah (and vice versa) -- yet they are competing with each other for their very lives so such a move foolish. Each will be alone with his (or her) thoughts -- a perfect breeding ground for Angel's psychological warfare.

I think Lindsey is too obsessed with beating Angel to behave rationally but Lilah has some interesting choices ahead of her: she could do nothing and wait for Lindsey to self destruct. On the other hand if Lindsey's reckless pursuit of Angel ends up serving the firm's interests Lilah's fate would be sealed by her inactivity. If she assists Lindsey the glory will still be his if the plan succeeds but she will risk sharing the blame (as she did with the "hiring" of Boone.) I also believe that Angel will focus more on her than Lindsey -- Lindsey has already been pushed beyond his breaking point (when Angel cut off his hand he might have just as well have castrated Lindsey -- he hasn't been the same) but Lilah is still fertile ground for the head games. It also seems that Angel does prefer to play games with the girls (Dru and Darla as the best examples) -- I'd say that Lilah is in for a rough time.

This is not to say that Lindsey will escape unscathed -- personally I'd like to see Angel remove a piece of Lindsey (or leave a scar behind) every time they meet :)

Plus there's the Darla factor. "

"Usually I have no desire to change places with Buffy. She has a nasty job and lives in a fairly creepy world. However after reading the hat/hair posts and nearly breaking my neck as I tripped over cat dog kid and figure skater Barbie while trying to get into the bathroom I have decided there would be benefits to living in the Buffyverse.

1) Bathrooms - while Dawn might bang on the outside of the door or you might be stuck in one with Anya it still beats having everyone in the house treat it as a walk through. When Buffy yells from in the bathroom "could I have some privacy!!!!" no one looks at her like she has lost her mind.

2) Cleaning- Buffy's house is always clean. No fighting with the dog while trying to make the bed and never more than a few dishes in the sink. No alien colonies living in the refrigerator. Maybe Spike tidies up during the day.

3) Clothes - Buffy has great clothes. We never see her shop but still great clothes. Even her pajama's are cool. No scary olive green print polyester blouses from her mother-in-law.

4) Animals - cats and rats (amy at least) are well behaved in the Buffyverse. No digging in the trash can. No mad dashes around the room in an attempt to break anything remotely expensive. No furry little heads slipping past the shower curtain (or jumping in with you).
No fur on anyone's clothes or floors or bedding etc etc.

5) Spike. He may make fun of Buffy but he never says "hey that shirt looks pretty" to be followed with the infamous "you are wearing THAT skirt with it?" He never tortures Buffy with tales of the restaurants he eats lunch at while she is at home staring at a can of tuna or contemplating cold spagetti. He never says "so are you going to wear makeup to the party?" after you spend 20 minutes applying it on. My guess is Spike doesn't snore either. And he seems to do his own laundry.

Think Buffy would trade a day with me? :)

"

"Ahh yes to live in TV-land. ;-)

Or as Elizabeth Taylor said in one of her movies (to Robert Wagner; I think the movie was "To Ride a Painted Horse"):
"Life is a movie. It just needs a better script and some music.""

The reason Buffy's house is always clean is because there are not any men living in the house. I am a man and do admit the truth that women are cleaner as a rule than men.
The reason you never see her shop is because this is a fantasy show. In real life she would never be home and would never buy anything. Ask my wife about that. Van

Spike doesn't snore....You have to breathe to be able to snore.

There you have it. He doesn't snore and I would never have to cook dinner for him. (grin)

"One of the books on Buddhism that I have read is _The Cult of Tara: Magic and Ritual in Tibet_ by Stephan Beyer (Berkeley Los Angeles and London U. of California Press 1973). It might or might not have something to do with the name of the character on _Buffy_. It is EXACTLY the kind of book that Tara would have studied being somewhat obscure though not hard to find. It is about magic.

It seems highly unlikely that the name is a coincidence. "Tara" is a somewhat unusual name in America expecially considering that Tara's family are shown as a bunch of stereotypical hillbillies somehow misplaced to the West Coast. The only other two "Tara"s I know of are a place in Ireland central to the legends and the name of the plantation in _Gone With The Wind_.

Any comments? Ryuei? You're the Buddhist scholar on this forum. Are you familiar with the book? It's both thick and dense--heavy reading!"

"But I already have the answer on my site. "Tara" is "a rat" spelled backwards..."

"TOUCHE!!! That's a good one though it opens another question. Just what is the link between witches and rats in the Buffyverse? There's Amy the Rat and now "Tara--a rat?" to make a palindrome."

I was being facetious of course. I would not put obscure cultural references as origins of characters names plots etc. past Joss and co. I am amazed sometimes at the amount of work they put into developing this complex mythology and the number of cultural references we viewers can find in it. Or read into it maybe. Impressive for a network television show.

Actually I was glad for the opportunity to commit a palindrome even if it was only a short one. Longer palindromes tend to be extremely strange English.

"I have seen that book but I haven't read it. In Tibetan Buddhism Tara is an emanation of Avalokitesvara Bodhisatva - the bodhisattva of compassion whose name means "Regarder of the Cries of the World." The Dalai Lama is supposed to be an appearance of Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva. Tara is usually depicted as a young maiden who is actually more outgoing and mischevious than Tara on the show. In China Avalokitesvara became Kuan Yin and has taken on the female characteristics reserved for Tara in Tibet. John Blofeld discusses this in his book The Bodhisattva of Compassion.

Now that we know the real story behind Tara (as anticlimactic as it was) I think the only real connection between the two is that they are both very compassionate and magickal beings.

"

This is all so interesting! I have always thought Tara reminded me of a nun. Soft spoken always trying to see the (christ) good in everyone not willing to raise a hand in anger even to save herself. Would Tara fight if Willow was in danger? Will we see Tara gain confidence and strength of character in the episodes to come or will she always be timid?

I too have read John Blofeld's book on Kuan-Yin as well as several of his other books. They tend to be anecdotal but are good reading. Blofeld was very good at telling stories.

Beyer's _The Cult of Tara_ isn't easy reading. I've noticed that most later writers on Buddhism seem to ignore it. Do you have any ideas as to why it is largely ignored?

BobR
Good question. I haven't read it because I am primarily involved in East-Asian Buddhism as opposed to Indo-Tibetan. So Tara is a little out of my purview. Maybe you just haven't run into a lot of Tibetan Buddhist practitioners or maybe even they are a little intimidated by that book. Most of the popular books on Tibetan Buddhism (including most of the ones by the Dalai Lama) are not for scholars but for practitioners (you might call some of them Buddhacized self-help books) so that could be why the book on Tara isn't mentioned.

I've been hearing some stuff about someone close to the scoobies possibly being a spy for the Watcher's council could it be Tara? A Rat? she would be ratting them out to the Watchers although someone being a spy for the Watchers at this point seems unlikely although she could be a spy for someone...but who? Maybe those knights of Byzantium.

In another one of those strange little synchronicities that keeps cropping up tonightís ep of La
Femme Nikita was titled ìDeja Vu All Over Againî.

(SPOILER NOTE: Please be warned that if you are not a regular viewer of LFN this essay will
contain spoilers both for tonights ep and for events on past shows that you may not have seen).

There has been a great deal of discussion on this and other boards as to the tactics taken in the fight
against evil by our heroines/heros in the Buffyverse. While there has been talk of whether or not
Buffy will ëgo darkí to date this hasnít happened and after events on ëCheckpointí it seems
increasingly less likely.

Speculation still runs rampant regarding Angel however and philosphically this speculation appears
to divide up between those who feel that Angel isnít amoral enough to effectively fight the
evils-that-be and those who think he has already gone too far and is in danger of sacrificing his hope
for eventual full humanity and by metaphor ours as well.

I offer for comparisons sake the program that IMHO has dealt very effectively with this question
for several years now namely La Femme Nikita.

When you boil it all done to the essence the situation is exactly the same except that LFN takes
place in what is essentially our normal realverse and BtVS/Angel take place in a mystical other
universe. The themes are the same-- there is the presence of unquestionable evil and the need to deal
with that evil. But as Faith found out firsthand in the Buffyverse this is no simple matter. Even
coming close to evil has consequences for oneself for evil carries with it a contagious vector a
contamination of the soul (as conscience) which can start slowly and be hard to detect. One day you
find yourself with nowhere else to go but down and when you look back you can see the path but
not see the place where you turned off on it-- things just seemed to happen and now... here you are
not really much different than those who were your ëenemiesí.

Long term viewers of LFN may recall that shortly after she was brought into Section One Nikita
refused to kill even members of the enemy. This only lasted a short while until necessity forced her
to break with her vow not to go this far. Afterwards gradual ëacceptanceí that this was a war she
was a solder in it death happens. She becomes more and more amoral in her actions not surprisingly
due in part to her love/hate relationship with her mentor Michael a man she is attracted to but whose
amorality baffles her.

As the seasons go by and the relationship develops the overall theme of the series emerges. Despite
her complicity in the actions of Section One Nikita retains some core portion of herself that rejects
the absolutes (see the ë48 Laws of Powerí post for a perfect description of the Section One Modus
Operandi) of amorality they try to impose on her. Michael seeing this core that remains untouched
comes to believe what he could not believe before-- that it *was* possible for someone to retain their
ësoulí in the midst of these seemingly intractable circumstances. Already attracted to her courage
vitality intelligence and (obviously) beauty he falls increasingly in love with her thus abandoning a
purely amoral existance. This eventually leads to his downfall in the original series finale where
Nikita apparently betrays him (and others in Section One) and is revealed as a spy for the oversight
organization known as ëCenterí.

This of course is the ëendingí that offended so many Nikita fans. While she surreptitiously arranges
for Michael to remain alive after sentencing him to death (officially in her role as Center operative)
the final scene has her state that ëI never loved youí implying that it was all part of the ëactí she put
on to do her job for Center. Michael is devastated and the ëtear of bloodí he sheds sums up the
whole depressing scenario all too eloquently.

Did the writers of the show betray the fans? On the one hand I could cite them for their courage in
demonstrating that indeed everyone is corruptable even the showís heroine. (Recall George
Orwellís 1984 not a happy ending there either). The story then becomes a morality lesson in
absolute terms-- donít start down the path there is only ever one result.

On the other hand no human alive is of such moral perfection that they never stray never make an
evil choice. One of the things traditional religions both Western and Eastern offer is the concept of
redemption. While the means differ hope is held out. In order to illustrate that not all is lost
messiahs and other spiritual leaders show that as long as you are aware of your weaknesses and seek
to better yourself there is hope for you and by metaphor all of humanity.

Now in the new Nikita programs (supposedly the last eight for sure this time they say) it seems that
Nikita is not as amoral as it appeared in the ëfinal epí. We shall see what happens but obviously the
fans of the show did not take lightly the thought that Nikita was ëlostí to humanity.

I suppose there are those fans who are now unhappy that amorality didnít win out that the ëTotal
Warí of Section One and its operatives might be infected by the curse of morality in the face of doing
ëwhat needs to be doneí but such is life. We have several eps to go who knows what will happen?

Meanwhile in the Buffyverse Faith is in jail and seeking redemption. Wesley Cordelia Gunn and
Buffy are discovering that they have power in and of themselves they donít necessarily have to be
enabled by others. Xander is a growing center of moral stability for the group. Giles is a Watcher
again (with retroactive pay no less-- consider the irony that his fatherly kindnesses towards Buffy--
denigrated as ëunprofessionalí by Quentin Travers result in Buffy getting him reinstated). Spike--
well Spike... the plot coagulates...

It may not be realistically possible in either the Buffyverse or our own to always eschew violence as a
solution to problems but it can never be an excuse for indifference to the results of said violence.
The fault of the ë48 Lawsí or of ëTotal Warí lies not in that they arenít an accurate description of
ëthe way things areí for they are just that. The question is ** is that good enough? **

"It may not be realistically possible in either the Buffyverse or our own to always eschew violence as a solution to problems but it can never be an excuse for indifference to the results of said violence... not in that they arenít an accurate description of
ëthe way things areí for they are just that. The question is ** is that good enough? **

Eternal vigilance. There can be no escaping the need for it. And if the status quo were truly 'good enough' neither hope nor freedom would or could exist. We as humans would be in the same situation as vampires are. Immortals feeding of others to sustain/maintain themselves.

The last episode of LFN I saw was the blood tear so-called finale. I saw it as an interesting exercise in kamikase plotting - an exercise I hope Joss avoids at all costs. The most interesting part of the 'Nikita was in on it' twist is that it places Michael rather than Nikita at the center of the story. Suddenly the focus of the entire series is called into question. Actually after several years of plotline mayhem I found this conclusion quite fitting (for LFN).

ITA. After Checkpoint it seems unlikely that Buffy will go dark unless something 'big' (like someone's death) happens.

"Spike-- well Spike... the plot coagulates..."

OnM I just had to tell you how much I loved this line!

Sorry this response is so erratic... it's a bit late for my brain cells.
"

"OnM...what a wonderful post.

Being a long time LFN fan I was devastated heart-broken and confused by the season(series) finale. I can not wait to see how they end all of this. I do not believe her at the end where she told him she never loved him...that "had" to be part of saving him and being a part of Center...anyone who has watched it over the last few years knows that is not true. I just really hope they don't end up making them brother/sister.

I always think of the intro to LFN where she says "Their ends are just but their means are ruthless"!!! That saying reminds me of not only Section One and Center but the Buffyverse right now. Angel Glory..the end they are trying to get to is good. I just wonder what else is going to happen before they get there!!!"

"It may not be realistically possible in either the Buffyverse or our own to always eschew violence as a solution to problems but it can never be an excuse for indifference to the results of said violence

When I see these themes discussed on this board I always think of a quote from the movie MILLENIUM "It is not neccesary to destroy your soul in this job Louise but a certain amount of violence will be done to it.""

It is not neccesary to destroy your soul in this job Louise but a certain amount of violence will be done to it.

Love this quote gds.

Btw. Whenever I read your handle I always read it as god. LOL. I could say I hold you in high esteem:)

Thanks for the esteem but I make no claims on godhood.

I've watched Checkpoint several times now (maybe there should be a 12 step plan for Buffyholics). The last couple of times I noticed something small but clearly intentional. When Buffy's is talking about Glory's visit one Watcher gives another Watcher a look that meant something. So far we don't have an explanation of what the Watcher was thinking but it was in response to Buffy saying Glory didn't squash her like a bug.

"Could the WC be wondering if Buffy's house is where the Key is? Or do they even know there is a Key? I know Buffy insisted they share all info. with her but I'm not sure she returned the favor. If the WC does know about it they may want to obtain it for their own purposes. I think I'm reaching though because the WC seemed pretty benign all bluster not the villains I was hoping they would be. I haven't gone back and looked at the videotape--could it have just been a look of "wow our slayer could have been killed"?"

It could simply be that since they knew Glory was a god and Buffy didn't yet they knew the significance of the fact that Glory didn't squash her because they knew she very well could.

Leading us to jade's point that--why wouldn't Glory squash her she must have reason to think Buffy is in possession of the key.

Well. Since there is very little action on the board I thought I'd add a lighter topic in hopes of avoiding pricklier subjects (I miss all the fun!). At any rate I have a couple of questions regarding... clothes fashion and accessories on BtVS and Angel.

I found it very strange that Buffy was wearing a silver cross in Checkpoint (I was quite prominent against the black turtleneck - which was itself quite a departure from her usual halters). I am not very knowledgeable about early Buffy (my French reruns are only up to episode 8) but it looked very much like the cross Angel gave her. Why was she wearing it or one like it on that night in particular? And why was she dressed in Spike-attire? Btw - these aren't rhetorical questions... I hope you guys have some deep philosophical thoughts on the implication of these choices. LOL.

Also I was wondering today about the reason why Spike stopped wearing his red shirt. As far as I can determine the last time he wore it was in Something Blue. Hmmmmm. I wonder... red shirt = blood or love? Since then he has worn black a great deal... Any ideas?

Finally Angel giving away Cordelia's fashion faux pas blouse and his adamant disclaimer about her not being his girlfriend. *What* was *that* all about? I thought it was peculiar in the extreme.

So. Who among you has some fashion sense to spare me?

Perhaps the show has taken some sense and realized that is has been cold in Califonia where they tape? Perhaps she is finally toning down the outfits so she doesn't stand out as much? The cross I'm guessing she's just being cautious since she almost lost her edge a few episodes back. By the way the cross she was wearing this episode is larger than the one Angel gave her which was on a smaller more delicate chain.

By the way the cross she was wearing this episode is larger than the one Angel gave her which was on a smaller more delicate chain.

I thought so. Angel's cross was smaller and didn't hang as low. The one she was wearing this week was almost as large as the one the WC guy was holding up to keep Spike at bay. ROTFL.

At another message board someone had a post about couples wearing similar colors/outfits. The example used was Buffy vs. Dracula where everyone known to be a couple wore similar colors--Buffy and Riley dressed in red and black etc etc. A hopeful B/S shipper brought that point up again after watching Checkpoint taking the all black outfits with matching leather dusters as a good sign for Buffy and Spike. Personally I'd like to see Spike get some new clothes. black t-shirt and jeans can get a little tiresome. He should never lose the leather coat however. As far as the red shirt maybe we don't see it anymore because it's symbolic of blood and they seem to be distancing Spike from the bloodier aspects of vampirism. When is the last time you saw him in vamp face? Or kill or fight anything that wasn't connected with helping Buffy?

Angel giving away Cordy's shirt was symbolic of him getting her and his other associates out of his life.

I think you are way off base regarding Angel's motivation in disposing of Cordy's shirt. Remember how your mother always told you to wear clean underwear in case you were in an accident? What if there was a fire at the hotel the shirt survived and was spotted by the emergency personnel. Could Angel live down the humiliation?:)

LOL I've seen some posts from people who said that Angel giving that godawful looking shirt away was merely an act of kindness. :)

I just realized that NoirAngel is darker than I realized. He was willing to traumatize (an already fragile) runaway teen by donating that shirt to the shelter.Up to now I still thought he had a measure of compassion.

Can Angelus be far behind? :)

I'm going to bed but I hope all you nighthawks have luscious and logical thoughts to share on this matter:)

"The only Red Shirt reference I can think of is the Star Trek death sentence. You know the joke: "Kirk Spock Bones and a security guy in a red shirt beam down to an unexplored planet. Which one's not coming back?"

Maybe it's a symbol of his solid alliance with evil. If it was last seen in Something Blue that's when he got untied and the Scoobies started getting used to him being around. And he then helped them on occasion but then he'd also betray them when he could. He's moral ambiguity boy now rather than just one flavor evil.

Maybe Spike could change his wardrobe but why? He looks SO yummy in that skintight black t-shirt and jeans combo.

I have another fashion observation. Someone mentioned they've realized that it can be cold in So. California in the Winter. The leather coat she wore with the black turtleneck was for patrolling. It gets a wee bit nippy if all you're wearing is a little halter top when the temp drops into the 40's (fahrenheit.) When Buffy faced the Knights she was in a White Winter Coat and knit hat. Average street wear for a girl not expecting to be fighting for her life. But when Buffy gets to the Magic Box she doesn't have the hat anymore. But her hair was picture perfect. I laughed. (I think they decided perfect hair was more important than continuity.)

One more thing just occurred to me. When Buffy is arguing with Spike she's wearing the Black leather coat. When she's asking him for help she's wearing the White Winter coat. Any possible symbolism with that choice? Black=violence hostility
White=vulnerability good(?)"

I'm with you on Spike's ensemble. Why trifle with perfection?

Buffy's white outfit did have more of a fluffy bunny feeling. (It reminded me of the matched sets little girls wore in the fifties.) It was nice to see her in something different.
Interesting that she wore something soft when asking Spike for a favor (although her words were still aggressive.)

What will Joyce and Dawn's reaction to Spike's Buffy mannequin be? Will they figure it out ask him about it or be quietly baffled?

I would love to see Spike confronted about the mannequin! Actually I'd like to see him throw the blasted thing away but nobody asked me...There should definitely be a scene where either Joyce or Dawn notice either pictures of Buffy lying around the crypt or the fact that the mannequin has Buffy's shirt on. Let Spike try to squirm his way out of that! Maybe that's why she was wearing her winter clothes in Checkpoint. Spike has stolen all her skimpy summer outfits!

"*** "(I think they decided perfect hair was more important than continuity.)" ***

Actually Isabel one of the commonly overlooked aspects of Slayer metaphysiology is that along with super strength high pain threshhold and ultra-fast healing abilities is that the current Slayer hairstyle automatically restores itself after every fight!

"

Mystery solved OnM. I'm so glad you're here to explain those tricky concepts to me. ;)

It could be a regional attitude. I had a Californian roommate in college. (In Upstate NY so winters were Winter.) She considered 'hat hair' and knit lines on the face to be fashion faux-pas and she wouldn't wear a hat unless she had to. Me I didn't want frost bitten ears and I didn't care if she laughed.

Buffy could have stuffed that stupid hat in her pocket but it would have ruined the flat line of the coat. There were no bulging pockets either. I hate it when they do stupid things like this....

Hey she lost the hat while fighting and one of the Knights of B took it as a trophy?

Just thought I'd throw this out there because when W and H mentioned that Angel plays an important role in the Apocalypse it struck me that Glory could play a role in it too. Is Joss going to play out the Apocalypse at some point? It seems like those men with swords that fought Buffy knew how important Glory is. Perhaps she is the Devil trying to get back into hell. Dawn is the key. If Glory gets back to hell she can begin the end of the world. The order of soldiers that fought Buffy wants to see the key destroyed so Glory can never go back. That would save the earth. Or perhaps she is the Antichrist. As for Angel it is interesting that Wolfram and Hart think they can sway him from good to evil. I suppose if Glory was the devil she would be referred to as an angel instead of a god but perhaps it's the same type of thing...thoughts?

Hmmm. Could be. But I hope A:tS and BtVS don't overlap to that extent. And wouldn't the devil be the big bad to end all big bads... Maybe Glory's the devil's scorned acolyte though:)

Also I'm thinking that the one we need to watch out for is Ben not Glory. Remember Ben 'makes Glory crazy' as she herself noted in Checkpoint. Seems to me that Drusilla (because she's insane) Spike (because he ostensibly(LOL) has a chip in his brain) or Joyce (because of her brain tumour) could either be Glory's victim *or* could drive Glory into a divinely fatal fit of insanity if she tried to suck the juice out of their head. JMHO.

Welcome jdolanie...: ) Aquitaine your commen t on Ben got me itching my brain for....twin gods? Ben/Glory M/F? Hmmm

the myth of Castor and Pollux comes to mind...

To ATPoBtVS visitors and posters:

All internet boards I've ever been to suffer problems of (apparently) rude posters mud-slinging and occassionally extremist views. It's the nature of the beast. You can be as anonymous as you want and people tend to speak more freely (which is good) and more cavalierly. And we don't have body language and intonations to help us interpret their meaning here (beyond emoticons anyway--> : ) ).

I have the option of turning on ISP numbers but I decided not to because it can turn verbal virtual exchanges into real-life confrontations.

I want this to be a board where people can freely exchange ideas about the shows and relate them to real life if they choose. Let's just remember the limitations of the medium though folks. When in doubt about someone's meaning ask. Feel free to challenge others but remember personal attacks are not arguments.

And have fun!

Thanks Masquerade. I've noticed the same thing and like your attitude. I think that escalation in such things is ....well escalation. I'm only willing to get so excited myself...: )

At what point did you get lost?

I don't show up for two days (cause finals) and I find that everyone has gotten so wound up the we've had to pass out the milk-chocolate to calm people down.

On the other hand though we get chocolate.

I think I'll sit here quietly and munch on my white choclate.

Well call me Sherlock but I'm guessing that it's the Land of Cotton post that everyone was mad about. I just can't tell if they're mad at the poster of the original thread or the invisible poster that was arguing with her.

It has been stated that I am a dark chocolate fan and this is tru but actually I appeciate the entire spectrum of chocolateness.

Sanguinary do you like those cookies and cream chocolate bars I think they're by either Nestle or Hershey? (Hersheys pops into my mind but I think that's wrong). You know with the white chocolate and little bits of chocolate cookie?

I love 'em but like with all sweets I have to take them in extreme moderation or I get a roaring sugar headache.

(Oh dear-- it just occurs to me-- maybe there's a chip in my head I don't know about! Bummer!)

Although I am a confirmed dark chocolate lover I too will eat chocolate of any color.
I do like white chocolate but is that really chocolate (same chemical effect on the brain or is it just advertising hype? Whatever!
I just never say no to chocolate.

"Too bad this is all just "virtual chocolate!" :-(

But since we're indulging in "fantasy" chocolate may I have one chocolate-covered Angel to go please? ;-)"

Chocolate is good for more than desserts and warming up a cold day. In central Mexico there is a regional specialty called Pollo Mole. A chocolate sauce using spice & peppers instead of sugar. Then you pour it over chicken. YUM. If you've only had chocolate as a sweet you probably can't imagine it as good but it is.

My favorite comic book store in Louisville has opened the Superhero Cafe as part of its operation. They serve a chocolate cake that is flavored with Mexican chocolate (I believe it has a hint of cinnimon). A little slice of Heaven.

"Chocolate isn't a controversial subject. Fans of dark chocolate and fans of white chocolate can coexist peacefully despite their different tastes. Actually most chocoholics like both though they might prefer one to the other.

Too bad you can't distribute chocolate over the Net....

More on-subject there are those Reese's commercials "How Count Dracula Eats a Reese's...."

More seriously flaming and nastiness have been a part of Cyberspace since before there was an Internet as we know it now. Back around 1985 I was on FIDOnet and saw the same things. The only difference was that response was much slower back then which is something of an advantate."

"Sorry about the empty post -- my computer is possessed.

There seems to be a common theme running through many of the BtVS and AtS storylines of creatures who are relics of the past floundering in a world they to which they cannot adapt.

Boone is just the most recent example with his archaic sense of honor. Darla also seems out of place -- yearning for the bad old days when she and Angelus ruled Europe. We have seen cults of demons and vampires like the Eliminati whose numbers have dwindled to almost nothing and we have seen that "vengeance crusades" (Kakistos -- sp?) are no longer in vogue. We have seen two old sorcerors (Ethan and Giles) reminiscing about the good old days.

The Mayor's farewell speech to Faith spoke eloquently about time passing them by -- the speech could have as easily been made to Darla to Boone or to the demons huddled in Caritas searching for meaning in a Kareoke bar.

Technology is banishing the monsters from the world. It once "took an army" to stop the Judge now it takes a single anti-tank weapon. If the Mayor had achieved his ascension how long would it have been before the initiative called in an airstrike? A sorceror used to have spend his entire life in the pursuit of magical arts to attain any real power; now amateur witches can download the spell from the internet and begin chanting (do the spells come with a phonetic guide to correct pronunciation?)

And what do we have to replace the wonder and horror of the past ages? Demon brothels Vampire-hookers assembly line spells for mass consumption demons like Merle and sad remnants of ancient cults (like the Knights of Byzantium -- they may talk about 1000 soldiers but I doubt they could collect a dozen together at one time.)

And how long will it be before the Slayer becomes obselete? What can she do that a group of ex-initiative commandos armed with laser guided crossbows or incendiary grenades couldn't do better? "

Once again Mr. Wheedon gives us another topic that has many anologies in the real world. Why do we continue to do things that are clearly inefficient in light of new technology?
Many reasons persist from tradition (that's the way we've always done it) to love of the form (the way classical guitar is played) issues of empowerment (the individual doing it and not some piece of machinery) possiibly issues of reliability (magnetos in light civilian airplanes versus computer controlled iginitions in modern cars) and finally buerucratic hurdles (everyone else in the world had recordable CD players and digital tape years before the US) among onthers.
Many times I get this in my chosen line of work in energetic practise and meditation. Why spend 1 1/2 hrs. a day for five years learning how to use fah jing (explosive discahrge force) in the martial arts when any punk with $50 can go to a pawn shop and buy a .25 automatic. Why bother spending years in meditation to develop clairaudience or clairvoyance when you can get on a telephone for 35 cents or use satelite recon? The reasons vary and the degree of practise definately seems to change but the old forms continue to exist for the simple reason that human nature changes very slowly if at all. Forms change/go underground/adapt but they are still there. Often it is about empowerment of the individual. Other times it is because while learning fah jing for example may pale in comparison to using an AR-15 on someone but then again I don't need a license and no one can prove I actually used the ability when I did. Also as is demonstrated in Buffy many of these things are overlooked by modern society out of a complete disbelief in the power of the individual and thereby become stronger through the fact that no one is looking for them.

The following is q quote from the DOOMED episode on this web site that stuck in my memory.

The Scooby Gang is not married to the methods of old. Whatever it takes to get the job done is what the Scooby Gang utilizes. If a rocket launcher is necessary to kill a demon bent on taking over the world then a rocket launcher will be utilized. However if a vampire has to be taken down with a special sword the sword will be located and used. ...In all cases the nature goal and ability of the particular opponent will be researched thoroughly. This doesn't mean that the research has to be archaic ('stina Jan 21 19:30 2000).

gds pretty much summed things up but as an additional comment I would like to mention that the Initiative didn't fail because it chose to use technology they failed because they were too pig-headed to listen to anyone from outside the group. This has more to do with the insularity of bureaucracies not with technology vs. magic or Slayer traditions.

Most inventors who have tried to sell their ideas to various and sundry companies quickly find said ideas summarily rejected because of an 'NIH' policy that the company holds to-- 'Not Invented Here'. The merit of the idea is irrelevant-- it didn't originate on the premises.

Note that in the Buffyverse Maggie Walsh was happy to have the Slayer working for the Initiative-- until she started asking questions. Then ego takes over-- 'How dare *she* question *us*?

It is so interesting to see the antediluvian race dynamics on Angel. Massa (Angel) adds to his huge Plantation a field hand to do those less attractive jobs South Central LA demon/vamp extermination for instance. Chaterlaine Cordelia Chas(t)e defends her Male authority figure from upstarts who may supplant her role as possible mate. Petty picky Wesley the effete brit overseer (who is the black sheep of posh English family) takes it upon himself to object to Gunn receiving payment for hard work done and ensures that Cordelia is never alone with Mandingo (Gunn). However Cordelia seems to have taken a shine to Gunn.

Thoughts please as we are only on the third episode in the UK so far.

Leave your hatred out of our country.

Didn't know that there is so much Hate in the UK.

"This isn't hate but an outsider's reading of the (sub) text of the show. This isn't the first time the few Black characters have been treated so poorly- re The "Black Slayer"- her appalling "Jamaican accent" the patronisng air of the scoobie gang... My comment is based on many years of observation of US television. Why so touchy... have I hit a nerve? Think back to Mr. Trick's thoughts on Sunnydale. Think back to Cordelia's discomfort as attending a Black Party with Gunn and her inane babbling. The stereotypical image of the cod-assertive "noble savage" is the one distraction in an otherwise excellent franchise.
"

Why so touchy... have I hit a nerve?

Nope. You just gave me a whole new perspective of the UK.

I know it is fashionable for you foreigners to hate America but guess what. We don't care.

Is it hate or is it envy?

Before this idiocy escalates- just tell me what is it that you find objectionable about what i said. This is neither hate nor envy- this is an attempt at dialogue. What did I say that got this unwarranted attack?

"Probably the language you used.

It was intended to provoke an hostile reaction.

Read that first post that you wrote again to discover what I mean.

There are some interesting things to discuss about Gunn. Fundamentally I think the issue revolves around more of class than race.

Wesley didn't want Gunn to be paid because he was concerned that Gunn would have considered it an insult. Up to that point Angel and Gunn had a relationship of more a colleague than a subordinate . They were more on an equal footing. Wesley thought that Gunn would feel offended if he thought that Angel considered him just another employee like Wesley and Cordy.

Cordy felt unconfortable at the party because she was out of her environment. I guess you could call that a race thing but I saw it more in cultural terms. She was definitely the outsider in the situation. There are other places that she would feel just as uncomforable. Like in a country musical bar.

I do find it interesting that since he has gotten "on the payroll" it doesn't seem that he has spent as much time back in his neighborhood. He used to consider himself the unofficial leader of that area their guardian. What happened to that?"

"Yes class is also a factor- however there just seems to be a rather poor updating of the Huggy Bear character..."the word on the streets is..." and all that old malarky. My layer of reading still stands however this poor attempt at diversity still uses the trite and obvious and still in the West (or North depending on where you are) Race still denotes Class to a certain extent- more like caste in fact. "

You know nothing of America.

There are some very rich African Americans here. There are as some very poor Whtie Americans. The issue is one of power not so much of race.

Actually poor and middle class African Americans have a better chance than poor and middle class white Americans with all the programs offered to them.

Being born rich regardless of ethnicity is still the best bet. It is all about connections. If you are from a rich family then you have them and you can get a good job. If you don't have the connections then it is difficult even to get your foot in the door.

I know better than to think that things are much better in the UK. This is all anti-USA diatribe and as I said before we couldn't care less what the rest of world has to say. We are to busy even to give them notice one way or another.

So keep your hate in the UK.

All these nasty attacks after we bailed your butts out from Hilter.

It is too bad that OnM that you drove Casper off this board.

I think a line has been crossed here. And I for one don't like it one bit.

I will go to the Newsgroups to discuss Buffy and Angel now.

Good bye. It had been fun and interesting. Too bad Thalia had to turn it all ugly.

Oh Thank you for that laugh...oops your manifest destiny is showing. I lived in US for ten years travel there often and happen to be a African- Caribbean woman. Try reading some bell hooks or Patricia Hill Collins for a start it might braoden your horizons. Question why you feel so strongly about my point of view. Take another look at the text you might be surprised.

Yeah we bailed the slimey limeys out of the sticky wicket they found themselves in when old Hitler came knocking on their door. And they have crappy food and mad cows too!

"By the way I wasn't the "casper" who posed that.

Not that I disagree with the person who did.

I am so gone from this board. I thought we were discussing Buffy and Angel here not engaging in verbal attacks."

This is an attempt at dialogue. This is an attempt at dialogue.

Perhaps it's a cultural difference between people in the UK and in the USA. But in the USA when we want to engage in dialogue we don't first launch nasty verbal attacks. That is usually the quickest way to shut down dialogue.

In the UK there are cultural conflict just as bad if not worst than there is here. If you are from the Eastend if you have a certain kind of accent people look down on you.

After re-reading your original post it is doubtful that it was dialogue that you came here for.

Kids I'm bi-racial and have been watching Buffy since it's start and I haven't noticed anything offensive as of yet.

Thalia you must understand that America's often unfortunate history of slavery and bigotry is not unique to us but it is still a very touchy subject here.

Your wording could have been much less inflammatory. Using words such as 'Massa' 'Chatelaine' 'plantation' etc. tends to be inflammatory.

We would be glad to have a discussion regarding race relations and the subtext thereof on BtVS and A:tS but remember you are not here in person the net does not convey things like tone of voice etc.

Therefore it is impossible to know whether you are being facetious satirical or provocative.

Casper you make some valid points but you may be overreacting. It would also be nice if you ID yourself. We likely have several caspers on this board do you want them to share your words?

"This isn't the first time the few Black characters have been treated so poorly- re The Black Slayer"- her appalling "Jamaican accent" the patronisng air of the scoobie gang..."

I do not believe that the members of the Scooby Gang traeted Kendra differently because she was black -- they treated her as they did because she was not Buffy. Nor do I see any of them (other than Buffy -- but that was the whole "you-almost-killed-my-boyfriend issue) as having patronized her. In fact Xander flirted with her. In many respects Faith was more ostracized than Kendra. Socioeconomic class is more of a factor than race(at least out west -- I have been to the south and it is like going back in time.)

"Think back to Mr. Trick's thoughts on Sunnydale. Think back to Cordelia's discomfort as attending a Black Party with Gunn and her inane babbling."

I do not believe BtVS has been stereotyping blacks. Rather the show has portrayed Cordelia Angel and Wesley as having stereotypical images of "who" Gunn is and how he "ought to" act. They are also shown as foolish for acting on their prejudices. As for Mr. Trick I thought he was one of the better villians -- and with his passion for high tech he was certainly not the stereotypical black street thug.

"

I can see what you are saying esp Trick however see Immflamtory language posting.

I can see what you are saying Thalia...or think that I can. I myself am American/Brit and female. Yes it can be stated that there are vestigal race stereotypes in entertainment programming especially if you are sensitive to the issue and/or are looking for the subtext. However in general the US is very mixed racially and much more aware than formerly. Also I would like to note that the refighting of the Civil War (plantation massa) is inflammatory dialogue here. Class is certainly a to this day issue in the UK...why not look at that? It's not like there aren't racial tensions in the UK...and I'm sure you know that. Also the English actually backed the South in the Civil War....

"I just have to mention that even in the deep south calling someone 'Massa' is insulting. I don't see Angel as a master of a slave household. The LA scoobies are free to come and go. He does not own them. He is not a potential mate for Cordy (just ask Cordy-grin).
And has anyone actually said "mandingo" since the 70's? :)

As for Gunn he is smart and resourceful. People depend on him and he protects them. When he finds a problem he works to fix it. He and Angel are on a much more equal footing in terms of how they relate to each other than Angel and Wesley. Explain how any of this is demeaning to him? How does this stereotype him? Huggy Bear? No if anything he is a Starsky or a Hutch. "

I usually don't read unheralded posts...if people are consistently unsigned it says sniping to me....so I just don't click on them. However wrongheaded I can be at least I'll stand by my opinions. : )

"Your post was way off to the spirit of the show. I have heard a lot about being "racially sensitive" on these posts. We can try to read into tv shows all we want. But we have to look at the show from the show's perspective. Skin color is a dead issue. The reason being the existence of demons and vampires. Because they exist humanity now feels closer. To be honest I am not sure Angel Wesley and Cordelia have even mentioned Gunn being black. The only one to mention it was Gunn himself. He went to W & H and said it when he brought the vampire.
I feel your post was an attempt at race bating. Just as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do. Please do not read into this show something that is not there. They are color blind. "

HERE HERE!!!!!

"Well I'm shocked. That quick polarization was very scary. I do believe that if you have something to say you should put your name to it.
I am saddened that some people were so distubed that they left the board. Although the "dialogue" was difficult to read I'm here for the long run and will take the bitter with the sweet. Kudos to all of you who kept your responses rational."

Having just reread the various posts for this subject I am struck by the initial postings and reactions. They seem planned and calculated to offend and upset. It's almost as if someone(s) were trying to sabotage the good qualities of this board. Thank Heavens they didn't succeed
as the mature postings of this board's regulars surmounted the malciousness.

"Brian

My friend I read through all the postings on this subject looking forward to hearing waht you would have to say. As expected you are looking at the big picture and I think recognizing that this is not the place to solve all of the race relation issues that America has.

To everyone:

I was most ammused by most of the postings. Amused in the way you get when you know something is going to happen like the cat attacking a piece of fluff it's been stalking on the kitchen floor. I am happy to see that the same thing that happens at school and at my office happens in cyberspace too. Glad in that way that says "oh it's not just me."

The bottom line is that black and white people see the world in different ways. This isn't so unusual. I think that there are lots of differences between us and lots of ways for people to look at the world. Gay and Straight peopel probably look at the world in different ways; men and women look at it in different ways; rich and poor people look at it in different ways. I think we can agree on that to some degree. I am not saying that gay people see a pink sky and straight people see a green one but there are little things. Like most straight people has no qualms about introducing family to the people they are dating but many gays see this as out of the question. Just a rough example. Don't kill me.

I think it's understandable and understood that people with different back-grounds have differnt ways of looking at the world.

It just seems to me that there is something extra to the dialogue between black and white that makes things spin immediately and totally out of control. I think the most simple answer is that black people think about white privilage their whole lives and white people don't think about it at all so when a black person tries to point something out a dynamic or a subtext that is very real to them a white person responds with dismissal which makes the black person more anxious to make their point and the white peorson more defensive until there is not discussion but entrenchment.

Does that mean that every time a black person says something to a white person the white should sit quietly nodding until they have finished? Of course not. But there is not need to shout the black person down to ridicule the point of view they may have. I thought we were here to share what we see in the these two shows we all love so much. Or is this a place for people who are only of one mind? Can I have an opinion too. I love the people who just say "There is no subtext there!" And I feel sorry for them. I mean the fun is in the subtext. Life is subtle. Hey I'm a guy and if I were to write a screenplay that had women in them you could bet your last buck that I would probably despite being pretty self aware end up with a stereotype of "chick" behavior in there somewhere and I would need a woman to maybe point it out to me. It would get by me most likely.

I know many of you would feel weird if you had to admit that your fav. show had even the slightest wiff of racial insensitivity and I am not asking you to admit that accept that or even making an arguement that this is the case with Gunn or Kendra. But if Josh makes this mistake I don't think he should be burned at the stake. It just needs to be pointed out to him. He may say "oh that is nonsense" or he may say "oops."

Why are you all freaking out?

"

"I know many of you would feel weird if you had to admit that your fav. show had even the slightest wiff of racial insensitivity and I am not asking you to admit that accept that or even making an argument that this is the case with Gunn or Kendra. But if Josh makes this mistake I don't think he should be burned at the stake. It just needs to be pointed out to him. He may say 'oh that is nonsense' or he may say 'oops.'

I agree with everything you've said. I also believe that Thalia's post contained points worthy of discussion -- although I think that comparing Angel Investigations to slavery was hyperbole. Consider though that she mentioned that only the frist three episodes of the season had aired in England -- while the rest of us have seen quite a bit more of Gunn. I also think recent episodes have invited us to consider race relations -- when they show Cordelia at the party in Gunn's neighborhood when Kate immediately assumes Gunn in a criminal and treats him accordingly and in the discussions between Wesley/Cordelia/Angel as to whether Gunn might be offended if they offered to pay him. I think it is to the credit of the show that they examine these issues.

More of a concern for me was the attitude toward the anonymous posters. When moved from lurking to posting on this board my firsts posts were anonymous. I had noticed that there were certain cliques (the cliques have changed since I began posting but they are stronger now than then) and was unsure of my reception. In fact the only reason I stopped posting anonymously was because Masquerade had used one of my posts in the website and I wanted "credit" for my opinions in the future (vanity...). Had I been hounded off the board merely for posting anonymously I would not have returned (well maybe just to lurk:)

When Thalia returned with a new post there seemed to be an almost concerted effort to shun her. It surprises me that on a board that regularly finds reasons to forgive the most sadistic of vampires (Spike) we cannot give a second chance to a fellow human. Maybe she'll be back under a different alias but I doubt it.

Finally I wonder how much of a backlash there would have been if she had stated her ethnicity in her original post (African-Carribean ancestry.)

"

Malandanza and hauptman your points are very well taken.

Malandanza I would like to make a comment as I was one of those who could have been accused of 'hounding' the anon. poster from the board. This was not my intention if you check the time signatures you will see that my first post on this thread was the one titled 'Re: Dialog- Caspar let's give Thalia the benefit of the doubt for now (etc)'. I think what I wrote in that post clearly lays out my thoughts at that time. I wasn't particularly disturbed by Thalia's original post although it seemed extremely provocative to me and did verge on race-baiting but I was far more disturbed by the anon. poster's response. A few more posts later he/she was becoming very abusive towards Thalia.

I use the term 'Casper' in a semi-humorous context hoping to defuse the situation. Perhaps it had the opposite effect. If you or other posters find this term offensive I will cease using it.

Since you have stated that you used to post anonymously in the past I would be very interested in knowing why. Your posts are always intelligent and interesting I can't imagine why you would hesitate to sign them. After all it's just a made-up name anyway and it's no more traceable than your post itself.

Thank you for your thoughts.

Sincerely

"Read some interesting quotes from Joss Whedon in the Winter 2000 issue of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer Official Magazine" and thought I would share.

BtM: How far in advance do you plan the plots? there's a moment in season four's "This Year's Girl" where Faith mentions to Buffy in a dream to get ready for "little sis." Did you have season five already in mind?
Joss: Actually she mentions her in "Graduation Day" in that dream as well. First it was "Little Miss Muffet." I've had season five ready since before season four. I knew exactly what I wanted to do with the two of them; I knew how different they were going to be which is really fun because I'm finally getting to pay it off. I'm not J.K. Rowling; I haven't got everything perfectly mapped out. But to throw in one or two things that register is really fun.

BtM: Do you have an ending for the show?
Joss: That's interesting. The answer's pretty much "no " but I like to tell everybody it's "yes " so I sound cooler. I have an end for this season and in a way I make the end for the season the end for the show in my mind every time because you never know what could happen and I hate shows that end without resolving everything. I think of it as the end and yet I'm already thinking of season six ideas. In terms of a final ending no I really don't because I don't see one. I see "Star Trek;" I see doing a show and then doing movies for ten years. I think every single one of my actors could be a movie star which cannot be said for the entire cast of all the "Star Trek" series.

BtM: So is there going to be a season six or is it year-by-year now?
Joss: Contracts run beyond season five and plus I don't think anybody's going anywhere. But I'm always ready to be thrown a curve. If it got cancelled I'd be so relieved. I'm exhausted. But at the same time there's so many more stories. If there wasn't a burnout quotient the show could run for fifteen years.

BtM: So are the Britney [Spears] rumors true this time?
Joss: We are open to the idea. I have no idea if it will take place or not but I do have an episode in mind that I would love her for. Some people think it's cool and some people are like "No that's totally wrong for the show." You gotta trust me. There's a place for Britney in our world in a big way.

BtM: Which character did you most identify with when the show was in high school and has it changed at all since they went to college?
Joss: In hig