July 2002
posts
Quick
thought (question?) regarding Angel and Spike ( slight
spoilers for end of s.6) -- Purple Tulip, 06:21:44
07/03/02 Wed
I watched "Surprise" for like the millionth time yesterday,
but I missed the part when Jenny tells Angel how far away
he'll have to go to get rid of the box. I'm pretty sure
that she told him that he would have to go as far away as
Africa.
Ok, so here's my thought- Angel almost leaves for Africa,
leaving Buffy behind, but then stays and ends up losing his
soul. Spike goes to Africa, leaves Buffy behind, and gains
a soul. The two cases almost seem to be in reverse of one
another, as Angel's intentions are nothing but good, and he
still loses out. We are made to think that Spike's
intentions are bad, that he goes to Africa in order to come
back and hurt Buffy- and he ends up getting the soul, thus
ending up better than Angel, and less capable of hurting
Buffy. I just have to wonder if this will foreshadow
exactly what Spike will come back as.
Any ideas???
[>
Re: Good pt. - My respect for Joss & Co. continues to
grow -- Brian, 07:02:38 07/03/02 Wed
[>
The way I remember it...... -- Caroline,
07:06:27 07/03/02 Wed
Jenny doesn't tell Angel to go to a specific location. Angel
is the one who suggests taking it to Asia and trekking to
Nepal. I think looking for foreshadowing here would really
be reaching.
[> [>
You're right -- Sophist, 08:16:15 07/03/02
Wed
Also, remember that at this point Spike had appeared in just
5 episodes prior to Surprise. The original plan was to dust
him; they kept him because they liked JM and his interaction
with JL. They certainly had not planned out S6 at that
stage, so could hardly have "foreshadowed" the soul
restoration at that point.
In fact, I think it's important to distinguish true cases of
"foreshadowing" (e.g., Buffy's dream in GD -- "counting down
from 7-3-0") from instances in which the writers, after
the fact, drew on previous episodes for plot lines,
characterization, etc.
[> [> [>
Re: You're right -- Purple Tulip, 08:29:20
07/03/02 Wed
Ok, well that is why I said that I wasn't sure if he had
talked about going to Africa. I just thought that if he had
in fact mentioned Africa as a destination, then that would
have been an interesting coincidence. And I didn't mean
that they would have foreshadowed Spike's soul resteration
back in season two when they didn't even know they were
keeping him around yet. Rather, I think that they would
have gone back to season two when Angel lost his soul to try
and parallel or contrast the new "vampire with a soul"
storyline of season seven. I didn't mean that they were
forshadowing souled-up Spike with Angel's situation, but
like you said, "drawing on previous episodes for plot lines,
characterization, etc." But if no Africa was mentioned in
"Surprise", then perhaps I really am "reaching" as someone
stated. Just trying to stretch my brain muscles!
[>
Re: Quick thought (question?) regarding Angel and Spike
( slight spoilers for end of s.6) -- Darby, 08:49:29
07/03/02 Wed
I did kind of go "Ooooo" when, after turning, Angelus told
Spike, when discussing Buffy, "You have to love her to kill
her."
[> [>
Re: Quick thought (question?) regarding Angel and Spike
( slight spoilers for end of s.6) -- shadowkat,
09:23:55 07/03/02 Wed
Except in this case, apparently loving Buffy hurt Spike
more than the other way around. Actually come to think
of
it loving Buffy drove Angelus insane to the extent he
wanted to suck the world into hell. Drove Spike crazy to the
extent that he ended up in Africa hunting a soul.
Apparently loving this "girl" has a greater effect on the
vampires who love her than on Buffy. Hmmm - there's
something, instead of staking vamps, Buffy should just get
them to fall in love with her? Gives whole new meaning to
the words : "Make love not war?" ;-)
PS: Agree with Sophist - need to be careful with
foreshadowing from Season 1-3. I think the writers draw on
the material there, but I also think that they changed their
mind regarding story direction, etc midway through
season 3. It explains some of the inconsistencies btw 1-
2
and 3-6 on Btvs. And 1-2 Btvs and 1-3 Ats. That and fans
have better memories for certain plotpoints and images than
the poor writers do.
[> [>
That's a very interesting point... -- Caroline,
11:30:18 07/03/02 Wed
I always thought that the fascination that Spike had for
slayers would lead to him to love Buffy after she got so
difficult to kill (okay, I didn't start thinking it until
the end of season 2 when he helped her save the world and my
views were seriously questioned when Spike only appeared in
one episode of S3). He tried to kill her for a lot of season
2 and it didn't work. That obsession and depth of feeling
had to turn into something else. We saw in Fool for Love
just how Spike feels about slayers, the depth of
understanding he has about their actions and motivations. I
think Spike fell for Buffy after he realized that she was so
hard to kill. If he couldn't kill her, he had to love
her.
[> [> [>
Re: That's a very interesting point... -- Dochawk,
11:37:46 07/03/02 Wed
I agree with your thesis about Spike's obsession with
slayers turning from killing her to loving her. But, I will
disagree with you on two points:
1. That he helped her save the world at the end of season
2. He did nothing of the sort, he used Buffy to help get
Dru. When Dru was unconsious and Angel had Buffy by
swordpoint, he walked by and didn't give a damn "He's gonna
kill her, oh well". Spike cared only for Dru, nothing for
the little hamburgers walking around.
2. I think we are all bamboozeled by Spike's charm and
forget that he really knows little about slayers. He killed
two (quite by accident I would guess). And made alot of
stuff up. Especially the stuff about slayers and "death
wish". He uses his supposed information to manipulate.
Little of what he spouts as truth should be considered as
such.
[> [> [> [>
Re: That's a very interesting point... -- Caroline,
12:37:27 07/03/02 Wed
To answer your points in turn:
1. In B2, Spike gives Buffy his 'happy meals with legs'
speech. In that speech, he states that he wants to save the
world. Of course, he wants to save the world for an evil
purpose - he wants to eat people and watch soccer games -
but that may be a little less evil than destrying the whole
world. He also takes Angel out - that scene where he rises
from his wheelchair - and he also takes Dru out too when she
wants to help Angel let Acathla do his thing. As for Spike's
departure with Dru, yes, he was all about saving Dru. So
what? He still kept his deal with Buffy, kept Giles alive
long enough for the scoobs to save him and got Drusilla out
of the way. As for Spike leaving Buffy and Angel fighting,
here's what the shooting script says:
As Angel approaches Buffy, sword in hand.
SPIKE
God, he's going to kill her. . .
After a moment of intense worry, he shrugs, takes off.
He leaves with Dru. Not exactly a night in shining armor but
no-one is making a case for Spike being a hero in S2. He was
being pragmatic. For him, it was all about Dru and happy
meals and if that meant helping the good guys save the
world, so be it.
2. I am not bamboozled by Spike's charm. I like the
character but not any more than any of the other characters.
And I think that he knows an incredible amount about slayers
and that he has a great deal of psychological insight. That
stuff about the death wish is spot on, as was much of his
other insights in Fool for Love. We see the fruition of that
insight in the Gift. And it is also part of the message of
the primal slayer. He also had enough insight to know that
Willow was hanging by a thread after Oz left, that she would
seek vengeance for Glory doing the mind-suck on Tara after
Willow's best friend Buffy thought she'd convinced Willow it
was too dangerous. Neither of these was information used for
manipulative purposes but rather for helpful ones. He also
had enough insight into the weaknesses of the various scoobs
that he nearly succeeded in breaking them up in the Yoko
Factor. So I agree with you that in some cases he uses
information for manipulative purposes - but the fact that
this gambit nearly worked and had the scoobs at loggerheads
with each other showed that he did know a few things.
As for 'accidently' killing 2 slayers - it didn't appear to
be that way for me in Fool for Love. Spike likes to put
himself in situations where the outcomes is not a foregone
conclusion (didn't he say something like that to Angel?) so
that he can feel the thrill of being in a dangerous
situation. The Boxer Rebellion slayer was distracted by
something outside and Spike got her but the New York slayer
seemed like a fair kill - one moment she is over Spike then
the lights go out and the next thing you know, Spike is
above her and snapping her neck. Doesn't seem accidental to
me.
[> [> [> [> [>
Those are very interesting points... -- aliera,
15:08:17 07/03/02 Wed
True fence sitter that I am, I just wanted to say that I
liked both your post's. Dochawk's made me laugh for the
first time today and Caroline's made me say "right." There
were some funny looks because I'm at the office and no one
was apparently talking to me at the time...oh well.
Although, Caroline's response is much closer to my own
views, I can't tell you how much I appreciate Dohawks and
other's views on Spike.
Spike himself has said that he can only take the slayer on a
"good day", of course it only takes one. I'm still foggy on
the Spike leaving bit. I don't know where he thought he was
going if the world was ending.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Those are very interesting points... -- Finn
Mac Cool, 18:28:45 07/03/02 Wed
Acathla was the end of the world because everyone with a
human soul would be plunged into eternal torment. Spike and
Drusilla didn't have souls, so the end of the world wasn't a
threat. If the world turned into a hell dimension, that
doesn't stop Spike from keeping Dru away from Angelus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Those are very interesting points...thanks --
aliera, 18:47:33 07/03/02 Wed
I haven't rewatched it in a while. Other than odd tapes
from seasons 1-3, season 6 is all I have on tape. Probably
should rewatch it. Good summertime fare. I have to admit to
a fondness for Spike as he was in those days too. And some
of his lines...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
No. -- Sophist, 18:55:30 07/03/02 Wed
Here's the quote from Giles:
Giles: Well, the, uh, (puts on his glasses) the Demon
Universe exists in a dimension separate from our own. (sits
on the table) With one breath, Acathla will create a vortex,
a-a kind of, um... whirlpool that will pull everything on
Earth into that dimension, where any non-demon life will
suffer horrible and... eternal torment.
And even if Acathla pulled in only souled creatures, would
the vampires really want to spend eternity eating rats and
pigeons? Wouldn't unlife get kind of boring without Man U
and Leicester Bloody Square?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: No...so? -- aliera, 21:31:25 07/03/02
Wed
so...back to the question then?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: No...so? -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:40:45 07/03/02
Wed
Oh, soulless creatures would be sucked in, too. They just
wouldn't be tormented. Only people with souls suffer in
hell dimensions. I was under the impression that if a
vampire entered hell, they would cast aside their human body
and become pure demon, so no need for blood. And, what's to
stop Spike from creating a demon soccer team. The fact that
he left with Dru instead of stopping Angel had to do with
a)the fact that he wants Drusilla back, b)he didn't care a
lot about whether the world ended or not, and c)by leaving
the two of them alone, he can be certain that either Buffy
or Angel, two of the people he hates most, will die.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
I'm kind of skeptical -- Sophist, 07:47:32
07/04/02 Thu
of changing explanations, every one of which somehow results
in Spike being evilly motivated.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: I'm kind of skeptical -- aliera, 08:02:32
07/04/02 Thu
So he simply didn't care about the end of the world compared
to getting Dru away. Happy fourth by the way and to those
reading this in other places may your day be happy also :-
)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Leicester Square and Man U -- Rahael, 05:05:48
07/04/02 Thu
I guess it's really not fair on Spike to blame him for such
uninspired and boring choices. It's the writer's fault (was
it Joss? incredible)
Leicester Square (which is 10 mins from where I work) is
noisy, crowded with tourists who don't know where they are
going and dirty. Man United is of course the football team
supported by people who don't live in Manchester, and who
prefer to follow the fortunes of a mega rich team to that of
their struggling local side (sorry, no offence - just
repeating the popular criticism - I couldn't care less
either way).
My point is that they are majory uncool choices. There are
cooler places in London; Man U is the most non-credible team
for a non Mancunian to support, simply because it's so
predictable.
Perhaps I'm missing something (was William from Manchester?
maybe he likes his London hotspots skanky?).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Leicester Square and Man U -- Cleanthes,
07:45:57 07/04/02 Thu
"Leicester Square (which is 10 mins from where I work) is
noisy, crowded with tourists who don't know where they are
going and dirty."
I'm pretty sure that Spike is referring to Leicester
square because of these words in the song, "It's a Long,
Long Way to Tipperary":
It's a long way to Tipperary
To the sweetest girl I know.
Goodbye Piccadilly,
Farewell Leicester Square,
...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Beat me to it! -- ponygirl, 07:51:42 07/04/02
Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
The Great War and Modern Memory -- Cleanthes,
08:15:34 07/04/02 Thu
Anyone read the book "The Great War and Modern Memory" by
Paul Fussell?
http://www.lib.byu.edu/~english/WWI/critical/great.html
Long Way to Tipperary is remembered as a WWI song. ME has
made Spike's human history, inter alia, as a trope of that
old Victorian way of looking at things. For Spike, then,
WWI must have really destroyed the world.
They used to kick footballs at the enemy during that war, as
I recall from the book. I dunno if that has anything to do
with Manchester United, but, maybe --- at least it signifies
the connection between football and Leicester Square and the
real world as opposed to the hell-dimension of Acathla or of
the Great War.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: The Great War and Modern Memory -- ponygirl,
09:19:56 07/04/02 Thu
I haven't read the book, Cleanthes, but I remember reading
about the time when British and German troops held an Xmas
day truce and played football against each other. Sort of
an affirmation about the simple things in life cutting
through all the politics and ideals. I can also see how the
lyrics about an Irishman longing for home might apply to
Angel. I also find it pretty funny that the song was
written by a Jack Judge, and of course the whole sitaution
in Becoming was started by Spike and Dru assembling the
Judge.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Re: William the Bloody Awful Poet -- leslie,
09:39:42 07/04/02 Thu
"I also find it pretty funny that the song was written by a
Jack Judge, and of course the whole sitaution in Becoming
was started by Spike and Dru assembling the Judge."
I really sometimes wonder whether there is someone at ME
with a really abstruse and esoteric sense of humorous
connections when it comes to Spike. Someone recently sent me
a newspaper article about a Victorian poet (Scottish, as it
happens, not English, and working class, not genteel, but
still, wait for it....) named William McGonigle, renowned as
the worst poet in the English language ... yes, a real
William, the Bloody Awful Poet. And who was his greatest
promoter in the modern era? Why .... SPIKE MILLIGAN!
Then again, this may simply belong in the "you know you have
Buffyitis when..." thread.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: William the Bloody Awful Poet -- ponygirl,
09:57:43 07/04/02 Thu
That is too funny! Just when I want to say, as Sophist does
a couple threads down, "you've thought way too much about
this", I start thinking I haven't thought enough. It may
all be completely random, but it does warm the cockles of my
obsessed little heart to imagine that these obscure
references are thrown in as a reward for our tireless over-
analysis!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Bad poetry -- Rahael, 10:06:12 07/04/02 Thu
The worst lines of poetry ever written (professionally) is
supposed to be from Alfred Austin, Poet Laureate's poem on
the illness of the future Edward VII
"Along the electric wire the message came:
He is not better; he is much the same"
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Bad poetry -- leslie,
17:21:52 07/04/02 Thu
That may be the worst single couplet, but I believe
McGonagall (I misspelled it first time round) holds the
record for worst total body of work. Samples:
"The Bull is a Mighty Beast,
But the Cow is much Forlorner,
standing there in a field,
with a Leg at every Corner."
"The Tay, the Tay, the Silvery Tay,
flows from Perth to Dundee every day."
"Beautiful railway bridge of the Silvery Tay!
With your numerous arches and pillars in so grand array
And your central girders, which seem to the eye
To be almost towering to the sky."
And finally:
"He was paid for his work just once, for a Sunlight Soap
commercial that read,
You can use it with great pleasure and ease
Without wasting any elbow grease
And when washing the most dirty clothes
The sweat will not be running from your nose."
Critical commentary: "His appalling use of meter and rhyme
and his unshakable self-belief have endeared him to the
hearts of thousands of fans all over the world," Rolfe
said.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
not only bad but confusing -- anom, 21:10:30
07/04/02 Thu
"The Bull is a Mighty Beast,
But the Cow is much Forlorner,
standing there in a field,
with a Leg at every Corner."
Every Corner of the Cow...or of the field (& shouldn't that
be Field?)? @>)
OK...gotta finish packing now!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL -- Rahael, 03:01:33 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Still sticking with my Spike is William Ernest Henley
theory -- d'Herblay, 13:16:47 07/04/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
you probably already know this d'H but gave me a
chuckle -- ponygirl, 09:40:43 07/05/02 Fri
Did a quick Google on your boy Henley and found:
Cicely Herbert & W.E. Henley
In Hospital
Two Poem Sequences 100 Years Apart
1992. 70 pages. ISBN 0 904872 19 X. œ5.95.
This pair of poem sequences, both called In Hospital, were
written a hundred years apart and show the continuity of a
tradition which flourished in the creation of the National
Health Service.
Part 1 of the book contains the twentieth century sequence,
a new work by Cicely Herbert. Part II is the nineteenth
century poet W. E. Henley's In Hospital.
Cicely Herbert a Barrow Poet and founder member of Poems on
the Underground, spent three months in University College
Hospital, London. after a serious road accident in Camden
Town in 1987. While in hospital, she was 'visited' by the
Victorian poet W. E. Henley.
William Ernest Henley (1849-1903) wrote his In Hospital
after spending twenty months in the Old Edinburgh Infirmary
under the care of Joseph Lister.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
ROFLMAO -- Thanks, ponygirl!! -- redcat, d'H's
buddy in Henley fandom, 09:54:54 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
LMAO! Oh I love that -- shadowkat, 15:25:11
07/04/02 Thu
"Someone recently sent me a newspaper article about a
Victorian poet (Scottish, as it happens, not English, and
working class, not genteel, but still, wait for it....)
named William McGonigle, renowned as the worst poet in the
English language ... yes, a real William, the Bloody Awful
Poet. And who was his greatest promoter in the modern era?
Why .... SPIKE MILLIGAN!"
Oh that's wonderful - I do wonder if we have someone at Me,
possibly Petrie? Or Joss? Who is having fun. We know
Joss
went to England for schooling...would be like him to get
back at those horrible teachers over there by this little
dig.
If it does belong in the Buffyitis thread, I join you
there.
No wait there already. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And as for Man U -- Sophist, 07:52:06 07/04/02
Thu
it's kind of like rooting for Brazil or the Yankees or the
Lakers. There's this fascination with teams that always win.
Kind of like with snakes.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually it's a song... Argh, the attack of the 50 foot
pedant! -- ponygirl, 07:48:31 07/04/02 Thu
Can't offer an opinion on Manchester United (is that the
team with the cute players?), but the Leicester Sq line is
actually a quote from It's A Long Way to Tipperary.
Why I know this I have no idea, but I did have an Irish
grandfather. I've cut and pasted the chorus:
It's a long way to Tipperary,
It's a long way to go,
It's a long way to Tipperary,
To the sweetest girl I know!
Goodbye Piccadilly! Farewell Leicester Square!
It's a long, long way to Tipperary,
But my heart's right there!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
aahhhhhhh!! -- Rahael, 09:06:07 07/04/02 Thu
Ok, now I get it. Still don't get Man U though!
Thanks everyone, for correcting me!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: aahhhhhhh!! -- leslie,
09:43:52 07/04/02 Thu
I think the Man U reference is Man U because that's the one
English football team that Americans might actually have
heard of. Otherwise, there would have to be a lot of
expository writing stuck in there in which Spike stops his
spiel to explain to the dumb American chick that the British
play a different *kind* of football, you see, the *proper*
kind, and then spins off into explaining the history of
*his* particular team and why *they* are superior to all the
others..... and by that time, Giles would be dead, Acathla
awakened, and, well, good-bye Leicester bloody Square.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Buffy probably still doesn't. I thought they were a
rock band -- shadowkat, 15:30:36 07/04/02 Thu
Something tells me that she had no idea who Manchester
United was. I didn't. Up until joining this board, ie. very
recently - I thought it was the rock band Manchester United,
yes there is one. Found it on Amazon.
Feeling very silly, now that I know it's a football
team.
Yep not up on sports. Can't imagine Buffy being up on
them.
Where would she find the time?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Um . . .'kat. Hate to mention this, but . . . --
Off-kilter, 02:08:41 07/05/02 Fri
Buffy was, like, a cheerleader-type, ya know?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Um . . .'kat. Hate to mention this, but . . .
-- shadowkat, 07:26:21 07/05/02 Fri
Doesn't mean she'd know anything about an English
football
(rugby team). American yes. English? Unlikely. I knew
cheerleaders in high school and college. They didn't follow
much outside of American sports. Other people did
though.
Could be wrong...but from her discussions with Giles, I
always got the feeling that Buffy didn't pay much attention
to stuff outside US.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
ACK! Not rugby, soccer (known to the rest of the world
as football). -- Sophist, 08:03:39 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Um . . .'kat. Hate to mention this, but . . .
-- Purple Tulip, 08:40:18 07/05/02 Fri
I don't think that it's really fair to generalize about
people just because they may be into a certian sport or a
certain music group or something. Buffy really hasn't
spoken too much about any other worldly affairs because she
really haven't had that many dealings with them. She hasn't
had to travel to any foreign lands to stop any evil so
that's probably why there hasn't been much mention. Doesn't
mean she's just another blonde bimbo cheerleader (and
sidenote: she hasn't been a cheerleader in years, nor does
she even act remotely like she would be at all interested in
being one again. Now if we were talking about Cordelia not
knowing anything outside of America, I think that would be a
little more fitting.) As for Buffy, she's more knowledgable
about what is going on in other dimensions- so if the demons
and vampires ever had a soccer team in hell dimension x, you
better believe that she'd be all over it.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ack...sports and cheerleading pc... -- shadowkat,
17:09:19 07/05/02 Fri
"She hasn't had to travel to any foreign lands to stop any
evil so that's probably why there hasn't been much mention.
Doesn't mean she's just another blonde bimbo cheerleader
(and sidenote: she hasn't been a cheerleader in years, nor
does she even act remotely like she would be at all
interested in being one again. Now if we were talking about
Cordelia not knowing anything outside of America, I think
that would be a little more fitting.) As for Buffy, she's
more knowledgable about what is going on in other dimensions-
so if the demons and vampires ever had a soccer team in hell
dimension x, you better believe that she'd be all over
it."
Ack...knew I shouldn't have said anything. PC about sports
has never been my thing. Okay, have no clue what Buffy would
be into. But from her discussions with Xander who mentions
sports and Buff's lack of interest and her lack of interest
in the Swim Team and the Basketball team, I naturally
assumed she was like me, and not a sports fan.
She liked cheerleading - but more from the physical point of
view.
Never saw her as blond bimbo. Very street smart. Just not
great with the academics, neither was I at that age.
But boy does she test well, super envious of that!
Cordy? Is a different story. Won't go there, because not
crazy about the character and I know others love her, and my
personal dislike of her really brings zip to the discussion.
(See trying not to Bash Characters here!!)
Oh sorry about messing up on the soccer/rugby reference.
I know it's football. Leaving the sports to the experts.
Manchester United is a band you know. I found it. A bad
very unknown band...so the football reference is no doubt
accurate. ;-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Defence of Man U -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:14:45 07/04/02 Thu
Manchester United have only become a rich, extremely
successful team in the last 7-8 years or so. Chances are
Spike supported them long before that (like myself), where
it would be much like supporting Chelsea or any other team.
That's what makes it a cool choice.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Matt Busby and George Best may disagree with
you........ -- Rahael, 08:06:45 07/05/02 Fri
It's always been a very glamourous team.
Manchester United were already world famous at the time of
the tragic Munich Plane crash of 1958.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Re: As for Eric Rush, Gary Lineker, John Barnes ...
-- Caesar
Augustus, 14:06:54 07/05/02 Fri
True that before 1990 Manchester United had spells of
success, they were certainly not the MOST successful team.
That would have to be Liverpool. Sadly. Anyway, Man U are
the "Red Devils". This a brilliant ironic foreshadowing of
Seeing Red where Spike is led to lose his
devilhood/demonhood. Bah, I'm trying ...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
Re: Man U -- wina, 15:35:12 07/05/02 Fri
bad choice! Man City much more in character
[> [> [> [>
Re: That's a very interesting point... -- Purple
Tulip, 13:09:32 07/03/02 Wed
2. I think we are all bamboozeled by Spike's charm and
forget that he really knows little about slayers. He killed
two (quite by accident I would guess). And made alot of
stuff up. Especially the stuff about slayers and "death
wish". He uses his supposed information to manipulate.
Little of what he spouts as truth should be considered as
such.
I really don't think that is quite fair. Ok, I do agree
with you that a lot of people (myself included) are
seriously swayed by Spike and his persona. But for me, it's
not his "charm", it's his lovesick puppy-dog act and his
attempt at being a bad-ass---I find it quite cute, though
not ignoring the fact that he is still a killer and vampire.
However, let me get to the point that I disagreed with you
on--- I really don't think that Spike killed either of the
slayers by "accident". If you watched "Fool for Love", it
showed the murder of the two other slayers and they were
hard-fought battles. Like many vampires, he saught out the
slayer, looking for that one good fight, relishing the
vicotry over his greatest rival. This is one of the things
that brought him to Sunnydale- he came to seek out the new
slayer and challenge her to a battle like he had with the
other two (and perhaps their were other slayers that he had
fought, though just failed to kill). In a way, this makes
him more of a wicked demon that Angelus ever was, and I
think that it goes to show that he really does understand
slayers-on a mental level, as well as a physical one, as he
must have been able to anticipate their moves so that he
could always be one-up and eventually be the victorious
party. Where Buffy is concerned, I think that it would be
unwise to say that Spike doesn't understand her. On the
contrary, when she came back, one of the reasons that she
turned to him over anyone else, was because he knew what she
needed, he just let her be and didn't expect anything from
her- this is something that a vampire without a soul could
see but that her closest friends and family couldn't.
Coincidence? I really don't think so. He knew just how to
be what she needed, whether it was a quiet confidant or a
shagging partner- though the latter makes him appear to be
Buffy's own personal wipping-boy.
On the idea of killing and loving a slayer: "To kill this
girl you have to love her," Angelus once advised Spike, and
how true that is. Angel's love led to the biggest
heartbreak of her life, and Spike's love led to near-
insanity. Though neither physically killing her, both did
the job mentally, emotionally, etc., as Buffy even told
Spike in the end of "As You Were", 'it's killing me', in
reference to their "relationship". Spike's all consuming
love for her was not unlike his previous all-consuming
hatred. Both were damaging, dangerous, and frustrating.
Spike's hatred for her evolved into what he believed to be
love because he only knows how to do things on two extremes:
love and hate, pleasure and pain, loyalty and vengeance, and
he often blurs the line between the two polar emotions. He
couldn't kill her the old-fashioned way, thought he did give
it a valiant effort, so subconsciously he decided to try the
only other things he knew- the exact opposite of hate which
happened to be love. "To kill this girl you have to love
her." Spike's a lot smarter than people give him credit
for, and I hope that more of that will come out next
season.
[> [>
"You have to love her to kill her" How would
he know?!! -- Off-kilter, 01:54:30 07/05/02 Fri
Angelus has never killed a slayer. Spike killed two. Why
take advice from Angelus after seeing that he never tried to
kill a Slayer before Buffy (avoided them as a matter of
fact) and wasn't successful in his attempts with her death
either?
I'd take advice like that with a HUGE amount of salt.
[> [> [>
Because Angelus is talking about Buffy, not Slayers in
general -- Masq, 11:25:50 07/05/02 Fri
He knows Buffy inside and out, having loved her for longer
than three years at the point he says this. It's all about
Buffy.
[> [> [> [>
Ooh, and -- Masq, 11:27:52 07/05/02 Fri
The thing he knows about buffy is her weakness is her
friends and her love. She can fight monsters who hate her,
she doesn't fight those she loves or who love her worth a
beans. The secret to defeating Buffy is not to be her enemy
as Spike was at that point, but to become her friend and her
lover. "You have to work from the inside." Buffy lowers her
guard, and zzzap.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Ooh, and -- Rufus, 19:16:05 07/05/02 Fri
Remember Angelus wasn't just talking about killing in a dead
body sense but in the murder of one's spirit and corruption
of their ability to love. Angelus wanted to kill the love he
felt for Buffy more than the woman herself. He sees love as
the one thing he needs to control to keep strong, in loving
Buffy he may have felt castrated.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
And we see how well it worked too. -- Off-kilter,
not convinced, 08:00:03 07/06/02 Sat
Still not impressed with Angelus. According to most of you
guys (can't name names, not a AtS watcher, don't keep up)
Angel is NOT Angelus. Angelus might have been trying
to come up with a plan to kill/break Buffy and thought he
had a the perfect one. But seeing how the whole thing
worked out, he was either wrong in his hypothesis or flawed
in his execution.
What characters say is not cannon. Just because the Mayor
told Angel and Buffy their love was doomed didn't make it
so. Just because Spike says that passionate love can't ever
be transformed into friendship doesn't mean it can't happen.
And just because ANGELUS says the way to destroy Buffy is to
love her doesn't make it true either.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And we see how well it worked too. -- Purple
Tulip, 23:37:04 07/06/02 Sat
It might not make it true, necessarily, but her past
relationships have made it out to be a plausible
explination. Every man who has ever loved her has left her,
broken her heart, lied to her, hurt her (physically,
mentally, emotionally, etc.), and these things have slowly
killed her. Maybe not in the conventional way, as I stated
before, but each man has succeeded in breaking her down
piece by piece. This doesn't mean that because Angelus
stated it then it's true, it's just the way that it worked
out. As Angelus, he could look back on the feelings that
Angel had for her and know that as his former demon self,
his actions were breaking her heart, making her feel as if
she were dying. He could tell that his most powerful weapon
against her was the memory of Angel's love and the sight of
what he now was- a demon wearing her boyfriend's face. So
he went with that and figured that that was the best way to
get her- to make the hurt last longer and fuel her fire and
rage longer. And so this is the advice that he gave to
Spike- to kill this girl you have to love her. It doesn't
mean he was all wise and true, just that he found the best
way to hurt her. It's very similar to the Mayor's speech in
"Choices" and Spike's "Love isn't brains children..." speech
in "Loverswalk"- it's just a demon's way of trying to find
their opponent's weak spot; to make them flustered and
perform worse. While it is insightful and seemingly smart
and knowledgable, it's really nothing more than defense
strategy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And we see how well it worked too. -- Finn Mac
Cool, 16:12:22 07/07/02 Sun
Angelus was an idiot.
He had two great occasions to kill Buffy (in Innocence when
she didn't know he was evil, and in Passions when he snuck
into her room while she slept) but did neither. He was too
wrapt up in his little mind games to realize that letting
Buffy live meant letting the only person in Sunnydale who
posed a serious threat to him live.
Actually, a combination of Angel's and Spike's methods would
have been best. She must love you, leaving her vulnerable,
but you must be willing to attack her when the opportunity
arises.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And we see how well it worked too. -- Rufus,
22:47:27 07/07/02 Sun
Angelus was an idiot.
I don't think Angelus is an idiot as much as someone with
"issues" who has the power to manipulate situations for his
entertainment.....it wasn't about killing Buffy but getting
total control over her...of course then becoming bored then
killing her....only to repeat the sequence of events with
the next victim that sets him off. Angelus hates love and
purity, all the things that go with human happiness..he will
destroy them to make himself feel in control of everything
around him. This trait has followed the vampire to his
soulled state where he tends to think power will mould
things to fit what he wants....Angels trials all about
giving up the pride that causes him to sabotage his life. He
isn't as much an idiot as he is passionate about what he
wants, doing what it takes to get it...even redemption.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: And we see how well it worked too. -- Finn Mac
Cool, 07:49:07 07/08/02 Mon
Fine, I'll accept that. As Spike said in Passions: "This
new Angel isn't playing with a full sack."
However, toying playfully with the only person who can kill
you ain't so smart.
Robert vs Joey,
part 7 -- VampRiley, 08:17:22 07/03/02 Wed
Previously...
Mister Christoph held Joey against the right side of the
door in the classroom. The red headed girl runs up to them.
Mister Christoph grabs her and holds her to his face. "He's
nothing like us. Nothing!" He threw her backwards to his
left and she hit the blackboard. Joey looked up to Christoph
and ran away. The red head screamed for him not to leave her
alone again. Joey left the school. He turned back and turned
around again and kept running.
Now...
Joey was running on the streets of a major city. It was a
busy night, especially for the middle of the night. He ran
up and down the roads trying not to run into people or get
run over by cars. He turned right at the corner and ran into
something. He looked up from the ground and saw a woman with
shoulder length brown hair. "Hi. You okay?" It was the same
woman from the house with Robert.
"Yeah. I'm fine." He brushed his hands against his jeans and
stood up.
She bent down and picked up his bat. "Here. Think you
dropped this." She handed it to him.
"Thanks." He grabbed the handle with his left hand and let
it fall to his side.
"You should be more careful with that."
Joey looked at the bat and absorbed it into his hand with a
metallic ringing.
"You okay?" she said looking at the child.
"Me?"
"Yeah." She nodded her head slightly.
"I'm ah...I'm okay."
"You don't look it. Ya' sure?"
"I'm sure."
"All right. But you do look hungry."
Joey's stomach grumbled loudly. He furrowed his brow and
looked down. "I guess I am."
"Care to join me?" He eyed her waringly. "I promise I won't
bite. You're the one who does that, remember?"
He paused for half a moment. "All right."
She smiled. "Good. We can go to my place. It's just around
the corner." Joey looked at her. Then, he slowly started
walking with her.
**********************************************************
The woman and Joey turned the corner and went down some
steps that led to a door beneath the road. The woman grabbed
the knob on the right and the door swung to the left.
Joey followed her in and was taken aback as he looked around
him. Season 1 Giles would've been very happy here. It looked
like something taken from and english mansion. He stepped
into the foyer and closed the door behind him. On the right
of the door was a small table. Above it was an oval shaped
mirror. The entire floor was made of wood paneling. There
was a rectangular shaped, dark grey colored, rug with weird
looking designs made with gold, black, red and blue string.
He walked further in and the room opened up. On the opposite
wall was a bookcase filled with books. In the left and right
walls were large openings that led to other rooms. On the
right was a dark brown table with no chairs. There were red
flowers stting in a basket in the center of the table. On
the left side of that room was another opening. He could see
part of a dark red cabinet. The brown haired woman entered
through those rooms and disappeared.
On the left of him was a dark brown, grandfather clock
facing the bookcase. Coming out of the left was, ending
right before the opening, was another bookcase. On the other
side of the opening was another bookcase that met up with
the one in front of him. On the left was an open hallway
with another rug like the one in the foyer, only larger.
There was a staircase that led up that was perpendicular to
the front of the house. As he looked further, he could see a
stone fireplace. There was no fire lit. There were frames on
the mantel, but he couldn't see who was in them. There were
red bricks in front of the fireplace in the floor. A poker,
a brush and a dust bin sat in the holder on the left. They
were all black and had long "stems" with gold colored
handles.
Just before the far right corner of the room he was in was a
small table with a mirror above it. Before that was the back
of a three-seater couch that was facing Joey. On the other
side of the couch were two chairs. The back of the one on
the left faced the far left corner and the right one's back
faced the far right corner. Underneath those three pieces
was a different rug. This one had the left and right edges
deliberetily left frayed. And there was no TV in sight.
Joey came around the right side of the couch and looked down
and to his left. He saw a dark brown coffe table between the
chairs and the couch. As he continued walking to the
bookcase, he looked to his right and saw from the top of his
head down to just above his nose reflected in the mirror. He
walked up to the bookcase and looked at the side of one of
the books. There was writing. He furrowed his brow and
looked at the others.
The brown haired woman came back in with two clear glasses
with a red liquid in them. She walked towards him. Joey
turned around and saw her. "Something on your mind?" He
turned around.
She handed him the glass in her left hand. He took it in his
right. "Yeah." He pointed to the books behind him with his
thumb. "The writing on the books. It doesn't look like
anything human I'm familiar with."
"The host is asleep. You can't read anything if the host is
asleep, remember?"
He looked off to his right and down. Realization hit him. "I
forgot."
She motioned with her left hand to the seats. "Dinner will
be ready in a bit." Joey sat in the one closest to them
while the brown haired woman sat in the other one.
"Who are you?"
"I'm Rachel." Joey shook his head and took a sip. "So,
you're irresponsibility, huh? I've heard about you."
"I prefer the term 'fun'."
Rachel chuckled and took a sip from her drink. "But you're
one of the two main concepts. 'Fun' and 'Responsibility'.
The powerful ones."
"Not if I have to say anything about it."
"Meaning?"
"I want him dead."
"Dead?"
"Yes." He took another sip. "Dead."
"Why?"
"He's such a tight ass about things. We've been fighting for
a really long time. If he was more like me than we probably
would have gotten along great."
"I'm sure he feels the same way about you."
"He does."
"And you believe you can win?"
"I do."
"You're the two most powerful concepts. You two creep into
every facet of the host's life. You've got the same powers.
You both know everything the host knows. You're too evenly
matched. How can you hope to beat him?"
"First off, I don't plan to beat him. I plan to kill him.
Secondly, we express our powers differently. And that's how
I'll do it."
"But you haven't done it yet." she stated rather than
asked.
With a pissed off expression, "No." He took a sip and looked
at nothing with his head turned down to the coffe table. He
was about to say something when the door opened.
A man about 6 feet tall came in and shut the door behind
him. He had dark brown hair and dark brown eyes. He was
dressed in black shoes, baggy black leather pants, an
untucked, black silk shirt and a light blue trentch coat. As
he walked up to them, Joey and Rachel stood up. "What are
you doing here?!" she said rounding the coffee table and
meeting him on the other side of the couch.
"What? I'm not allowed?"
"No. Not yet."
"Excuse me." They looked at Joey. "What are you talking
about?"
Realizing he was there, "Joey? This is Derrick."
"Hey"
"Hey."
"Now, what are you talking about he isn't supposed to be
here yet?"
"Oh, it's nothing." said Rachel.
"Nothing? It's very important why I'm here."
She looked at him like she wanted him to not say anything
else. She mouthed "Not yet.".
He smiled at her. "She didn't tell you, ..." He turned his
head from her to Joey. "...did she?"
"Tell me what?"
She turned to him. "Nothing." She looked at Derrick. "It's
not important."
"I'd say it's very important."
"Well, if I should know, then I want to know."
Derrick looked at Rachel. "Come on. It'll be fun."
"No, it won't. It'll be painfull."
"Painfull?!"
Rachel looked at Joey and realized she forgot again he was
there. "No, I didn't mean painfull, I just meant..."
"You said painful. I wanna know what you mean right
now."
"She doesn't want to tell you. Not just yet. She's afrad how
you or the host would react."
"And just how would we react?" Derrick snapped his fingers.
Joey blinked several times and looked to his right and down.
He looked at Derrick, raised his left hand and a blast of
lime-green energy shot at him. He flew back into the foyer.
Joey walked over to where Rachel was standing and looked at
her. "Who are you? What are you?"
"Us?"
"Yes, you. I'm surprised I didn't notice it before. You're
not a part of the host nor are you memories. You don't
belong here. Now, what are you doing here?" Joey noticed
something and turned. Derrick was standing right behind him.
Joey had to really look up to see his face. Joey began to
rise in the air. He was surprised.
"You're right we aren't part of the host. You could call us
aliens, but that wouldn't be appropriate."
"And just would be appropriate?" he said angrily.
"Us? Why we're family."
"Family?" he said disbelievingly.
"It's true, Joey" said Rachel gently
"Too bad the host won't know. Doesn't work the other way
around, does it son?"
Joey glasses faded away and lime green anergy shot from his
eyes and hit Derrick. Joey dropped to the ground.
"You just gonna stand there?"
"You deserved that."
"I deserved it?!"
"After way you've treated the host during his whole
existence. You and your girlfriend."
"Us?! If memory serves me correctly, and it always does, you
and your ex also had a hand in this as well. So, don't make
us out to be the bad guys. You're just as responsible as we
are, as is the rest of our species."
"Hey."
"Us? We're not the ones who treated the host like crap."
"HEY!!!!!!" Derrick and Rachel looked at the kid. "Now, I
want some answers now or I'm gonna just start blasting in
any direction."
"We don't have any for you." said Derrick.
"No?" Joey hands started glowing lime green. Derrick snapped
his fingers and the energy disappeared.
Derrick stood up and walked towards him. "You're just a
concept. We are gods." He smiled. "Your threats are just
pathetic." Joey looked at Derrick with hatred in his
eyes.
Rachel stood between them. "Leave him alone." Derrick looked
at Rachel, then to Joey and back to Rachel. He smiled and
took a step back.
"Joey? It might be best if you left." Joey, his glasses
back, looked at her, then Derrick. He walked between them
while watching Derrick. He turned his head to keep looking
at Derrick as he passed. He backed towards the door and
left.
"You really are a bastard." Derrick just smiled.
************************************************************
Joey walked down a very wide flight of stairs with a metal
railing down the center. He stopped at the yellow line and
this futuristic subway train pulled up. The doors opened and
he stepped inside. He sat on a seat on his right.
************************************************************
He walked up a flight of stairs back onto the streets. He
looked and saw vehicles of various shapes and sizes flying
up above. He put his thumb and index finger in his mouth and
whistled. A yellow and black taxi floated down and stopped
in the air in front of him close to the ground. He pulled
the handle up with his right and opened it. He stepped
inside and the taxi flew away.
************************************************************
Inside the cab, Joey looked out at the city as the cab flew
high in the air. The cab stopped at the top of the one tall
buildings. The only thing on the roof was a rectangular
shape structure with a door.
"You sure you want to get out here?"
He opened the door and stepped out onto the ledge. He closed
the door and the cab flew away. He turned around and sat on
the ledge. His legs hung over the edge. "Why are you
here?"
Rachel walked up behind him. "You alright?"
"Leave me alone."
"Look, I didn't mean to..."
He turned to look at her. "You think I have hurt feelings or
something?" Rachel just looked at him. He turned back
around. "My feelings aren't hurt. That's not what I'm
worried about."
"Then what?"
"The host."
"The host?"
"Yeah. You guys arn't gonna tell the host what you're doing,
are you?"
"We will. Just not yet."
"Those aren't even you real names, are they?"
She waked up to him. "No, they aren't."
"You plan on telling me anything else about what you're
doing?"
"No."
"Then leave me alone."
Rachel disappeared with a flash. Joey looked out over the
city.
To be continued...
VR
Spike's Chip
(mild S6 spoilers; S7 speculation in last paragraph) --
J, 13:06:28 07/03/02 Wed
Reading some of the other threads, I had a thought about
Spike's chip. The ATPoBtVS page on the chip states that it
"works by producing a painful debilitating shock that
thwarts the initiation and completion of aggressive
voluntary actions aimed at non-demon life." My question is
this -- are we ever *told* that's how Spike's chip works in
the series? Or have we just assumed that's how it works
based upon Spike's reactions when he attacks living
humans?
The reason I ask is this -- what if the chip, instead of
producing an actual physical jolt, merely causes Spike to
*believe* that he's receiving a physical jolt? Under this
theory, Spike is aware on on an unconscious level that when
he attacks Buffy that he's attacking something that isn't
*quite* a 'living human' anymore (since Buffy's been dead),
thus rendering the chip's message nonfunctional. If this is
the case, then the whole 'Buffy came back wrong' plotline
(even with the silly 'cellular level' resolution), makes a
hell of a lot more sense to me-since Buffy didn't really
'come back wrong', and Spike's chip didn't suddenly start
malfunctioning. However, what it may do is throw the whole
thrust of Spike's changes into chaos, making it even more
likely that the Spike we see in S7 will be a completely
different character than the one we've seen since S2.
Thoughts?
[>
It's my understanding that there are no pain nerves in
the brain, so -- Sophist, 13:41:06 07/03/02 Wed
the chip would have to create the sensation of pain by
triggering those areas of the brain responsive to pain
signals from the body. That, in essence, is what I
understand your alternative to be.
It's not clear that this would lead to the consequences you
describe, though. Spike's beliefs about a person don't
appear to be relevant. He did not realize he could hit
demons for some time, and when he hit Tara he didn't know if
she was human or demon. In both cases, his subconscious
expectations could not be the controlling factor.
Darby or mole, please correct me if I'm wrong on the
physiology.
[> [>
Re: It's my understanding that there are no pain nerves
in the brain, so -- J, 14:05:45 07/03/02 Wed
That's not exactly what I meant (although I wasn't as clear
as possible, I'm sure). What I meant is the pain Spike
feels would be purely psychological rather than physical--
the chip doesn't trigger anything neurological at all,
instead it just creates the ongoing impression in Spike's
mind that if he hits a human, he will feel pain.
I agree that Spike's beliefs about a being aren't relevant,
and you raise an excellent point about 'Family'. However,
when Spike hit Tara, he did so with the understanding that
whether or not he felt pain would determine what Tara was.
I'm not sure that's ever happened again on the series (with
the possible exception of Buffy). Spike had encountered
Tara before, and as pointed out in another thread, he's
extremely perceptive. Moreover, he's still got vampire
senses. I'm confident he knew Tara wasn't a demon before he
hit her--he only hit her to prove that fact to everyone
else.
[> [> [>
Isn't that giving him a lot of credit? -- Off-
kilter, 01:00:32 07/05/02 Fri
After all, if he knew that Tara was in fact human
without needing to hit her, why did he do it? He said, "I
don't care." And probably meant it. Kind of got the idea
that he did it out of curiosity.
[> [> [> [>
Re: Isn't that giving him a lot of credit? --
shadowkat, 07:16:02 07/05/02 Fri
I agree. But i think there were two reasons.
1. Curiousity
2. Annoyance with the debate when there was a simple
answer.
"Why don't we make this simple?" I think he says, too lazy
to lift the actual dialogue from Psyche.
I also think, he was conflicted as far back as Family.
In the episode, he initially goes to the magic box, to get a
good seat, to see Buffy die. But he can't, when he sees
she's in danger, with a growl of annoyance, possibly at
himself, he helps her. Then when she doesn't thank him or
even acknowledge his help, he wonders why am I bothering? He
comes into the magic box, tells them who the monsters are,
they barely acknowledge him. He's curious about Tara's
family and why they are doing what they are, he also seems a
tad annoyed, as is Anya, with the whole: Demons are
evil,
disgusting things debate. Don't blame them. And both Anya
and Spike are probably looking at Tara thinking, Witch,
yes.
Demon? HArdly.
So I think his reasons for hitting her were a tad more
complex.
Also - I think the writers found his presence there to be a
nice way of proving Tara isn't a demon to all concerned and
had to look for some sort of motivation to get him to do it,
or the audience would go, huh? Did a pretty good job,
we went huh? But also seem to have found all sorts of
interesting motivations. And it made him more interesting to
me. Actually my interest in Spike perked up after that
episode. I thought...okay where is Joss heading with
this?
Joss wrote and directed Family.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Isn't that giving him a lot of credit? -- J,
09:21:52 07/05/02 Fri
FROM PSYCHE:
Mr. Maclay looks angry.
DONNY: Daaad. You -- you gonna let 'em just... (stomps
forward) Tara, if you don't get in that car, I swear by god
I will beat you down.
XANDER: And I swear by your full and manly beard, you're
gonna break something trying. (Donny looks cowed)
BETH: Well. I hope you'll all be happy hanging out with a
disgusting demon.
The same shot of the whole Scooby gang spread out in a row.
Anya, farthest back, raises her hand.
ANYA: E-excuse me. What kind?
BETH: What?
ANYA: What kind of demon is she? There's a lot of different
kinds. Some are very, very evil. And some have been
considered to be useful members of society. (Smiles proudly.
Xander turns to smile back at her.)
BETH: Well, I-I ... what does it matter?
MR. MACLAY: Evil is evil.
ANYA: Well, let's just narrow it down. (Xander nods)
SPIKE: Ohhh. (looks around) Why don't I make this simple.
Spike walks forward and taps Tara on the shoulder. When she
turns, he punches her in the face.
Both Tara and Spike reel backwards in pain. Tara grabs her
nose, Spike his head.
SPIKE: Oww!!
WILLOW: (angry) Hey! (suddenly realizing) Hey...
TARA: (both hands over her face) He hit my nose!
WILLOW: And it hurt! Uh, him, I mean.
Tara looks at her in surprise.
BUFFY: (to Mr. Maclay) And that only works on humans.
(Willow smiles)
SPIKE: There's no demon in there. That's just a family
legend, am I right? (Mr. Maclay looks angry) Just a bit of
spin to keep the ladies in line. (smirks) Oh, you're a piece
of work. I like you.
TARA: (softly, to Willow) I'm not a demon.
WILLOW: (smiling) You're not a demon.
TARA: He hurt my nose.
WILLOW: Aw.
SPIKE: (still rubbing his forehead) Yeah, you're welcome.
(Stalks off)
Based on the above, I don't think that my explanation is
necessarily inconsistent with yours, SK. Spike's always
impatient with any sort of wishy-washy behavior (cf. Pangs),
and based on his statements after the fact, Spike at least
had a very strong suspicion (if not a belief) that Tara
wasn't a demon. I can see why you identified this as a bit
of a turning point for Spike, actually -- this might be the
first time he 'takes a bullet' for the SG and doesn't get
something out of it himself! Admittedly, getting a headache
and getting tortured by a hellgod aren't quite the same
thing, but at this point he's still working out the import
of the dream he had two eps earlier in 'Out of My Mind.'
So anyway, I don't think I'm giving him too much credit
here, although I could be persuaded otherwise.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Actually agree -- shadowkat, 16:59:44 07/05/02
Fri
"Based on the above, I don't think that my explanation is
necessarily inconsistent with yours, SK. Spike's always
impatient with any sort of wishy-washy behavior (cf. Pangs),
and based on his statements after the fact, Spike at least
had a very strong suspicion (if not a belief) that Tara
wasn't a demon. I can see why you identified this as a bit
of a turning point for Spike, actually -- this might be the
first time he 'takes a bullet' for the SG and doesn't get
something out of it himself! Admittedly, getting a headache
and getting tortured by a hellgod aren't quite the same
thing, but at this point he's still working out the import
of the dream he had two eps earlier in 'Out of My Mind.'
So anyway, I don't think I'm giving him too much credit
here, although I could be persuaded otherwise."
Actually I don't think you are either. Sorry offkilter,
have
to go with J on this one. The trouble with Spike is he is an
amazingly complex character. Not evil incarnate, not
good, not grey...so we debate him endlessly.
What he reminds me of is those street toughs and bullies I
knew in school, who eventually grew up and realized
destruction wasn't all it was cracked up to be.
In Family, he seems to realize she's not a demon, just as
Anya does on a subconscious level. Both deal with the
situation from a selfish angle. McLay's have just insulted
them and their kind horribly. Anya's like - "hey not all
demons are like that!" (she's with xander remember, and
feeling a tad insecure) Spike's like - this is an annoying
little debate and I'm tired of self-righteous humans
insulting us, let's put an end to it (he has a thing for
Buffy and McLay just asked how can you consider being with a
horrible demon, had to bug him). Going back to Family - I
see Whedon's trademark touch, every character developed, the
whole story arc advanced, and foreshadowing for future
seasons, along with myth metaphor and realistic
metaphor.
One of my favorite episodes. Also the Tara development is
really quite amazing - I was shocked they decided to give us
that much information on her. Never did for OZ or for that
matter Cordy.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Devil's Advocate strikes again. -- Off-kilter,
07:49:09 07/06/02 Sat
I think he did for a variety of reasons myself. The only
thing I doubt is that he was 100% sure Tara was human and
took it "on the chin"--or in the head--just to get Tara off
the hook. Wanted to point out what the "but he's
evil!" people were going to say and beat them to the
punch.
Just stirring up trouble.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Devil's Advocate strikes again. -- shadowkat,
08:55:52 07/06/02 Sat
" The only thing I doubt is that he was 100% sure Tara was
human and took it "on the chin"--or in the head--just to get
Tara off the hook. "
Oh, I'd agree with that. Seriously doubt he was 100%
sure.
Actually I think he was partly curious.
Re Spike - the only thing I'm on the fence with is the
whole evil bit. Mostly b/c the writers have successfully
managed to confuse me on this. No soul = pure evil
argument...just seems sort of lame and it's not real
consistent in their writing across both shows - hence all
the debates regarding it on the boards. I'm pretty sure they
only did that in Season 2 to push that great, "you sleep
with a guy and becomes evil incarnate" metaphor. Then of
course they got stuck with it and have had to work around
the whole thing ever since.
Am curious to see where they take Spike now he has a
soul.
No one on the boards seems to really know. (None of
spec's
I've read ring true to me and all future fanfics have
him
human or chipless.) Makes me all that more eager.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Vampirism -- Rahael, 09:21:40 07/06/02 Sat
This is what I'd always thought Vampires were (and thus
different from demons). Vampires, technically are dead. And
this extends from a physical deadness to a emotional and
moral deadness.
There is no essential quality 'evilness' that inhabits a
human/inhuman/demon/vampire being that suffuses his blood
and bone and tissue. There are only the choices that we all
make, and the responsibilities that we all bear.
The idea and theme of deadness as a quality inherent in
being a Vampire is brought to the fore again in Spike's
song. It's a theme I prefer because it is so much more
poetic and moving and understandable than the good/evil
debate.
To be alive is the hardest thing in the world for Spike and
other Vampires. They are condemned to stalk the shadows.
That's why demons are a whole different kettle of fish -
that's why Lorne's range of choices are that much broader.
BtVS shows that the quality of otherness is not singular in
nature, but multi-faceted and can be experienced in many
ways.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampirism,well spoken -- wina, 16:01:27
07/06/02 Sat
with you on that one
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Vampirism -- Rufus, 05:38:20 07/07/02
Sun
To be alive is the hardest thing in the world for Spike
and other Vampires. They are condemned to stalk the shadows.
That's why demons are a whole different kettle of fish -
that's why Lorne's range of choices are that much
broader.
I just had to throw in a quote from Joss......
Quote from Season One DVD interview with Joss
Joss: I've always been interested in vampires, I think
because of the isolation they feel. They're in the world but
not of it. As a child I always felt that way, and Buffy
deals with that kind of alienation.
I remember that quote from quite awhile ago and it sticks
with me. Consider that the vampire is a creature with
emotional limitations that you just don't see in demons such
at Lorne. I think that does stem from the fact that vampires
are the result of a curse that isolates them from
participating in the world they were once a part of. The
killing the vampires indulge in are a result of this
alienation from the humanity/soul that made them a part of
the world, now cursed they are forced to prey upon what they
once were....you can equate their violent acting out with
what happens with youth that have become isolated from the
world, striking out in rebellion. That last demon to leave
this reality that created the vampire must have been some
pissed off.
[>
Re: Spike's Chip (mild S6 spoilers; S7 speculation in
last paragraph) -- Maxwell, 15:46:34 07/03/02 Wed
I have always thought that the functioning of the chip has
been inconsistent. In "The Yoko Factor", Spike pointed a
gun a Zander and reacted as if in pain even though the gun
was in fact a fake. Spike believed the gun was real as so
believed that he was going to harm or kill a human. In this
instance the Chip reacted according to Spikes perceptions
and beliefs.
In "Smashed" Spike saw buffy engaged in battle with two
human looking creatures and jumped in. These two turned out
to be actual humans. Spike believe that he was attacking
demons of some kind but the chip reacted to the reality of
the situation despite what Spike believed.
Latter in that same episode Spike attacks Buffy believing
that she is human and believing that he is going to hurt her
and yet nothing. This seems to contradict what we learned
in "The Yoko Factor"
[>
My opinion -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:52:46 07/03/02 Wed
My personal opinion has always been based on Spike's
beliefs. This is because the chip is neurological.
Clearly, it's the thought of hurting a human that
causes him the pain. So the question is whether the chip
then uses its own methods for deciding on whether something
is a human or not, or whether it uses Spike's thought for
that as well.
For me, the fact that the chip is non-mystical but
Initiative-made would indicate that it knows nothing about
souls or anything on a spiritual level. If it used its own
methods for choosing, they would all be practical tests
(such as heartbeat, or pulse, or some combination of factors
like that) that Buffy would pass when she's returned. On the
other hand, if it were based on Spike's thoughts, he knows
she's died and is acting like a "dead thing" on her return,
so to him she's not human. The key to some apparent
contradictions would be to think of it as based on Spike's
subconscious beliefs, but even this is not
foolproof.
[> [>
Re: My opinion -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:14:06
07/03/02 Wed
Actually, it's a little of both. It obviously has some sort
of sensor to detect if something's human (witness Buffy and
the muggers in Smashed). However, it combines that by
reading Spike's intention to cause harm (Yoko Factor). I
don't know why everyone is so confused on this.
[> [> [>
Re: My opinion -- Cydney, 05:18:42 07/04/02
Thu
Except remember - Spike didn't know about the chip when he
first went to kill Buffy in the dorm (right after escaping
from the Initiative) and tried to bite Willow instead - and
couldn't "perform." His perceptions couldn't have been
involved because he didn't know yet about the chip and what
it would do to him.
More inconsistent writing? Joss or someone admitted that
Spike shouldn't have been able to fight his way out of the
Initiative because of the chip - that the writers
goofed...
[> [> [> [>
Re: My opinion -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:17:40
07/04/02 Thu
What does it matter about perceptions? Chip detected a
human, read Spike's intention to harm it, and sent out an
electrical shock to deter him. Why should it matter if
Spike thinks the chip is there?
Also, Spike primarily fought the loose demons and not
soldiers.
[> [> [>
Re: My opinion -- Caesar
Augustus, 16:28:53 07/04/02 Thu
Don't quite see how that would resolve the Buffy issue. She
would clearly pass any Intiative-designed test, like pulse,
breathing, human brain/heart, or whatever - but on the other
hand, Spike who's talked about magic having consequences and
how if they brought her back wrong, he'd have forced them to
keep her, and has also witnessed Buffy's deadness, clearly
has it in the back of his mind (unconscious) that she is
different.
[> [> [> [>
Re: My opinion -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:47:22
07/04/02 Thu
It was mentioned several times in Season 4 that the
Initiative used protein trackers to identify/locate certain
types of demons (I'm thinking this protein tracking relies
on detecting pheromones, but I'm not sure). Quite probably,
the chip came with one of these, and it was designed to pick
up whatever sort of "protein marker" humans have. Tara said
the change was purely on a molecular level. Well,
proteins/pheromones are on a molecular level, so that's why
it threw the chip off track.
[> [> [> [> [>
I can only answer with another skeptical hmmmm
..... -- Caesar
Augustus, 02:13:10 07/05/02 Fri
I'd love to see you stay alive if you weren't producing
human proteins. If Buffy isn't, she sure as well would be
dead, not 'normal' as Tara calls it. What it means is that
the molecules used to make her up are different to the
molecules that already made her up before she died. Why this
should matter is simply braindead, since a person is made up
of completely different molecules about every six months.
I'd like to add a rider to Joss's 'I suck at math' of 'I
suck at science in general'.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: I can on -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:36:03 07/07/02
Sun
Granted, scientifically, a human can't live without
producing human proteings. But:
HELLO! IT'S MAGIC! SCIENTIFICALLY MOST OF THE STUFF ON
"BUFFY" IS IMPOSSIBLE! THAT'S JUST HOW THE SPELL
WORKED!
[> [> [>
Re: My opinion -- Darby, 20:04:26 07/05/02
Fri
The problem has always been that what the chip is "supposed"
to do requires magic, but it originated with
government scientists who didn't believe in magic.
By ME's own constraints, the chip needs to be technological,
but its only possible way of analyzing potential victims
from inside a demon skull is to use the demon's perceptions.
We've seen several instances where demons fail to recognize
humans not because they can't, but because they weren't
paying attention - Willow as Vamp Willow, Buffy as the
Buffybot, etc. In every case they seem to be able to when
they bring their senses to bear, or at least have a better
idea. It only makes sense to prevent a demon from hurting
things that the demon perceives as humans (and only requires
a certain pattern of response in the brain to activate),
even if the perception hasn't percolated up to the conscious
levels of the brain (the muggers, Tara) yet.
And you're right, Sophist, no pain receptors in the brain
itself, but lots of pain processors to be activated.
[> [>
Intent and the chip..... -- Rufus, 20:32:02
07/04/02 Thu
Spike spoke about the chip in the alleyway in FFL, he had
been "testing" it and came to a few conclusions....From Fool
for Love season five......
SPIKE
Lesson the second: ask the right questions. You want to know
how I beat 'em?
Buffy releases him and steps back.
SPIKE
The question isn't "How'd I win?". The question is "Why'd
they lose?".
BUFFY
What's the difference?
Spike lunges at her, the pool cue aimed at her throat.
Spike stops it inches from her skin. Buffy never even
flinches.
SPIKE
There's a big difference, love.
Buffy kicks the cue from his hands.
BUFFY
How'd you kill the second one?
SPIKE
Hmm? A bit like this.
He sends a series of punches at her but Buffy easily ducks
them all.
BUFFY
That didn't hurt?
SPIKE
I knew I couldn't touch you. If there's no intent to hurt
you, then that chip they shoved up my brain never activates.
If, on the other hand...
Spike's face changes and he lunges at her but he's brought
up short by a crippling brain seizure.
SPIKE
See, now that hurt.
BUFFY
Yeah? This hurt too?
Then there was Dru in "Crush" she had her own take on the
chip.....
From Crush..
DRUSILLA: No little tinker-toy could ever stop you from
flowing.
SPIKE: (whispers) Yeah.
DRUSILLA: Ohh.
SPIKE: (shakes his head, removes his hand from her) But the
pain ... love, you don't understand, it's ... it's searing.
It's, um, blinding.
She puts her hand on the top of his head and pulls it down
toward her.
DRUSILLA: All in your head. I can see it. Little bit of
... plastic, spiderwebbing out nasty blue shocks. (moves her
fingers across his head imitating a spider) And every one is
a lie. (Spike keeps his head bent) Electricity lies, Spike.
It tells you you're not a bad dog, but you are.
Is Spike pain based upon the reality of the tiny tinker-toy
in his brain, or is it something more?
The Initiative season four....
Walsh: I'm not interested in guess work, gentlemen. Call
me old-fashioned. I like results. This report reads like a
child's riddle book. Agent Finn, tell me something good.
My implant?
Riley : The implant works. Hostile 17 can't harm any
living creature, In any way, without intense neurological
pain. We'll bag it.
Walsh : Yes, you will. Dismissed.
Professor Walsh is dead and her research may be in a file
box somewhere...but how she made the chip and exactly what
it does we don't know....Warren did get a little peek at it
in Smashed.....
SPIKE: Help me out here, Spock, I don't speak loser.
(gives papers back)
WARREN: Okay, right, um ... your chip works fine, yeah.
SPIKE: (frowns) There's gotta be something wrong-
WARREN: No, no, listen. I don't know what that thing does
... I'd like to... (leans closer)
SPIKE: (leans back) Hey.
WARREN: But whatever it is, it works fine. There's no
deterioration of the signal, it still is coming through on a
steady pulse. Which it's supposed to.
Spike stands up, gets in Warren's face, towers over him on
the platform, very menacing.
SPIKE: If you're lying to me-
WARREN: No! It's all right here. I, I mean, it is. It's
really not that hard to figure out, if you just... (sees
Spike frowning) What?
So, the people that had the smarts to figure the chip out
are dead...and all we can do is guess at exactly what the
chip does, why, and for how long.
[> [> [>
Re: Intent and the chip..... -- J, 07:00:20
07/05/02 Fri
Rufus - Thanks for putting that all together! You and
Maxwell are right, there's a lot of inconsistency there. Do
you think that the fact that Spike's been souled-up will
allow ME to duck this problem, or will they be forced to
deal with it in S7?
[> [> [> [>
No..... -- Rufus, 21:15:17 07/05/02 Fri
My opinion is that they left the chip the way it is for a
reason...what they will do I don't know.
[> [> [> [> [>
Question... can the chip be re-programmed? Like by the
watchers? -- shygirl, 08:01:58 07/09/02 Tue
[> [> [>
Re: Intent and the chip..... -- aliera, 09:19:07
07/05/02 Fri
Exactly, and he seems to feel late this season that it was
actually doing even more.
[> [> [>
It's rather simple from a plot point.... --
Lijdrec, 22:56:29 07/05/02 Fri
They left the chip in to bring back either Andrew and/or
Jonathan. Most likely, it will be revealed that Warren
figured out the chip and told his 'lover', Andrew. He will
reveal the workings of the chip to someone. Perhaps Spike,
but my guess is that it will be the Big Bad, someone who
will seek to control Spike.
[> [> [> [>
Interesting spec here -- Yarrow, 06:48:23
07/06/02 Sat
[> [> [> [>
Verrry interesting! -- ponygirl, 08:23:18
07/08/02 Mon
When Spike went to Warren I kept thinking that it was a
monumentally bad idea to let a computer genius with a bent
towards evil examine the inner workings of his head. Of
course no one knew Warren was eveeel then. I kept expecting
this to come back up again. So yes I think it would be
interesting to see exactly what the chip could make Spike
do.
Thin & Crispy vs.
Thick & Chewy or ME vs. the Posters -- Copper,
15:57:17 07/03/02 Wed
I've been watching Buffy since the movie came out. I liked
the movie because the hero was a girl who kicked ass. I am
a big fan of action/adventure movies and TV shows. When I
was little, I wanted to be Zorro. Anyway, that is why I
initially watched Buffy the series: for the action. But I
also liked the well-written dialog and the humor that was
generally present in each episode. I think Shakespeare has
had such a long literary life because he knew that the
audience wanted good dialog, action, and a little (or a lot
of) humor, in even the most tragic of dramas. And that is
why I got hooked on Buffy.
I thought I was alone as a middle-aged adult who liked the
show, but discovered at a conference that a colleague my age
also loved the show. Then last fall, I decided to see if
there was an interesting on-line discussion board and
discovered this site. I have to say I am amazed and
impressed at the essays produced by some of the posters.
In most cases, I would never have drawn the conclusions they
drew, but I can see, after reading the essays, how they
could have arrived at those ideas.
I would not have drawn those conclusions because I tend not
to look for multiple meanings in TV shows, novels, poetry,
etc. As Robert Frost said when asked about someone's
analysis of one of his poems (and I am quoting very loosely
here), "It is just a poem about the woods. There is no
deeper meaning there."
As a scientist (and I had a scientific way of looking at
life from at least age 3), I have never been much interested
in spirituality, philosophy, or metaphysics; and post-
modernism makes me gag. To paraphrase Douglas Adams, the
earth wasn't created for us (we are just a puddle of water)
and we have no grander purpose for being here than does any
other animal species. Our main "purpose" is to reproduce
and/or make sure that our or our kin's offspring survive to
reproduce. This is not as simple or simplistic as it might
seem.
Anyway, the major point of this post is this: Over and over
this past year, posters have made intriguing analyses of the
episodes and fascinating speculation on where the show was
going; on how the characters would develop. In virtually
every case, this turned out to be incorrect in major or
minor ways. Looking back at previous episodes seems to
indicate a pattern, but we posters seem unable to correctly
suss out where the ME writers plan to take the story.
I think the reason for this is that ME is writing what I
call "thin & crispy" shows: tasty and crackling, but lacking
in depth. However, the Posters want ME to be writing "thick
& chewy" shows: shows full of substance and depth. When
they don't get those shows, they create them with their
essays. So, in a way, this website allows Buffy fans to get
2 shows for their time investment. The show that ME writes,
and the show many of the Posters wish they would write.
[>
LOL. You may well be right. -- Sophist, 16:12:03
07/03/02 Wed
A number of ways to describe this mutual activity spring to
mind. I forbear.
[> [>
"I forbear." Please don't. Treat us to your
musings on us posters & our mutual crusty goodness.... -
- redcat, 16:26:39 07/03/02 Wed
[> [>
Yeah go Soph go! -- julia, 22:06:51 07/03/02
Wed
[> [> [>
Yes, yes. do do do. -- yuri, 09:48:54 07/04/02
Thu
[>
Re: Thin & Crispy vs. Thick & Chewy or ME vs. the
Posters -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:58:02 07/04/02 Thu
Actually, there's a big difference between finding depth in
the show in hindsight rather than predicting it.
Predictions about where the show is going usually don't work
because there are an almost unlimited number of
possibilities. For instance, if someone read half of War
and Peace, do you think they'd be able to predict what would
happen later in the course of the book. As other people
have said, hindsight is 20/20, so it's easiest to find depth
when looking at what has happened before than trying to
guess what is to come. After all, wasn't a message given to
the audience in season 5 "You think you know who you are,
why you're here. You haven't even begun."
[>
DVD commentaries -- Rahael, 10:20:54 07/04/02
Thu
With the unfair benefit of DVDs and commentaries for Seasons
1-4, I have to say that the writers do deliberately add
depth.
Secondly, depth is always added unconciously to narratives.
As Joss said in his excellent Onion AV interview, he, like
the viewers is a slave to the narrative of BtVS. And he
wasn't joking. He takes his Buffy seriously. Did the Body
not have depth? How could a show which tackles sadness and
pain, and otherness not have depth? It taps into the writers
own experiences. It taps into ours. It makes us laugh and
cry. That, to me, instantly adds a depth which is hard to
quantify.
Shakespeare wrote his plays for entertainment too. He didn't
see himself, as Milton, did as a great artistic seer for
England. He didn't have a conception of the artist as
genius. He didn't even keep a master copy of his plays.
Everything we have now is taken from people who did
transcripts while watching the play (hence the many numerous
versions, and the great trouble scholars have trying to
decide if something had just been misheard by the person
doing a transcript.) Sir Philip Sidney saw himself as pretty
important. He wrote learned treatises, and referenced Plato
- is he more significant, and does he have more depth than
Shakespeare? No. He is interesting purely because he
participated in Elizabethan court intrigue and died on the
battlefield
Just listen to Joss in his commentary on 'Innocence'. He
says he sees what he does as an artistic endeavour. He cares
deeply about every little detail.
It's an entirely false dichotomy to assign depth/meaning to
artistic products on the basis of whether the writer meant
them to live on as great works. You only have to look at all
the pompous bad literature which was meant to be
significant, and has now fallen by the wayside. And if you
look at the history of popular culture, you'll see that the
entertainment of the masses had as important a meaning as
the reading material of high culture.
So I guess what I'm saying is, if it's popular and
meaningful and it resonates it's important and it has depth.
If Buffy looks intelligent, sounds intelligent and provokes
this much thought, it has depth. If something waddles and
quacks, I'm prepared to call it a duck.
The most important distinction is, is what we see as
meaningful about an episode what the writers intended? Now,
that's a whole different ball game.
[> [>
Great Comments! -- DickBD, 14:47:56 07/04/02
Thu
I think we need someone like Copper to occasionally take us
by the collar and shake us. A reality check is always
occasionally needed. When I hear talk of symbolism, I
wonder whether the red, for example, was really intended to
represent something from ancient mythology or just looked
good on Anya. But it was worth thinking about. In any
case, I come down on the side that the show definitely has
a depth to it. It is not an illusion. But thanks for the
reality check!
[> [>
Thank you Rah. My thoughts exactly! -- shadowkat,
15:20:18 07/04/02 Thu
Rah's right. All you have to do is study the myths and
literature of our culture. Charles Dickens released his
stories as serials - at the time they were considered little
more than pop soap operas, yet they have resonated through
the years gaining meaning as each viewer or reader interacts
with them.
My brother, a conceptual artist, once told me that it's
not
the creation itself that is important but how we interact
with it. As a writer, I am less interested in what I
intended to convey then in what others see and discover from
my words - sometimes giving them far greater meaning than I
consciously intended. Words are one of many ways that we can
communicate with each other - share thoughts - ideas -
dreams - nightmares and hopes. If you have been lurking or
posting on this board for very long you will have noticed
that our discussions have gone from the truly mundane to the
truly insightful, which is which is up to you to decide.
But to say that any art, whether it be a book by a popular
novelist, or a painting by a street artist, is mundane and
has no deep meaning or value beyond just pure enjoyment is
like saying that the earth is flat and the universe
definite, that a leaf does not give life to millions of
organisms and just because we can't see bacteria it does not
exist. This could be a bad analogy. It is a hot day in NYC
on July 4...and I must be off. Just my thoughts and as Earl
often says: Take it and run.
Again thanks Rah - beautiful as always and spot on!
[> [> [>
Here lies one whose name was writ in water --
Rahael, 05:34:08 07/05/02 Fri
Thanks Shadowkat!
The most interesting thing about Charles Dickens is that he
was a star in his own lifetime. Not for him the harsh
reception shown to poor old Keats ("Get back to the
apothecary, Mr Keats" said one nasty critic). He was a
celebrity, and his works acclaimed while he was alive.
By this time, the idea that the Writer/Artist was a person
of cultural significance was firmly rooted. Keats himself
thought that despite lacklustre reviews of his work, he
belonged in the list of great English poets. (and he was
right!).
I always found the Shakespeare quote on Keats' gravestone
'Here lies one whose name was writ in water' very moving.
There's a great Yeats/Keats linkup in 'Sailing to Byzantium'
- Yeats takes Keats' nightingale, the bird's song which
transported Keats on the 'viewless wings of poesy' away from
the forest of human cares and woes - and fashions the
artificial golden bird. The poet, singing for the emperor,
his patron.
In fact in 'Sailing to Byzantium' you can find a link also
to Philip Sidneys' 'Defence of Poesy', where he uses Plato
to defend the significance of the poet/artist. The
artificial, golden world created by art shows the true,
Platonic, world. And is far better than the natural bird,
which will die. The Poet's name may be 'writ in water',
fading away into ripples of time. But his work, being
artificial will live on as long as this 'black ink' still
shines, and men can read.
So there you are: Shakespeare to Keats to Yeats to Hans
Christian Anderson to Philip Sidney to Shakespeare
again.
Unfortunately I recognise my limits (perhaps even BtVS') and
cannot find a single Buffy link!
[> [> [> [>
And now I understand 'Sailing to Sarantium', thanks Rah
:) -- Ete, fan of GG Kay, 13:28:57 07/05/02 Fri
[> [>
Re: DVD commentaries -- Copper, 15:29:54
07/04/02 Thu
Actually, I think you and I agree on this if what you are
saying is that Shakespeare is superior to more pretentious
literature. Joss evidently is a great fan of Shakespeare
and I think most of the shows demonstrate that, as I
mentioned in my initial post. But as you also pointed out,
Shakespeare wrote for the masses. He wasn't trying to bury
deeper meaning in his plays.
This does not mean that the plays/shows do not resonate with
us. But that is quite different from burying multiple
layers of meaning behind symbolism. I do not think ME
writers, for the most part, consciously do that. At least,
not any more than do advertisers for a particular product.
Perhaps there is a board somewhere where posters find deeper
meaning in the use of blue and white in skin cleanser
ads.
[> [> [>
Re: DVD commentaries -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:11:02
07/04/02 Thu
Actually, I've read interviews with the creators of various
forms of art and literature. Most of them (at least, the
good ones) don't frequently use symbolism and mythic
archetypes intentionally. Tolkien claimed there was no
symbolism in The Lord of the Rings, even though that is
definately not true from the perspective of almost all
readers who bother to think of the question. Mark Twain
wrote at the beginning of Huckleberry Finn: "Anyone trying
to find a theme in this story will be fined. Anyone trying
to find a moral in it will be jailed. Anyone trying to find
a plot in it will be shot." However, all three are
definitely present.
Joss Whedon and the other Mutant Enemy writers work in the
same way. They probably don't INTEND a lot of symbolism and
links to psychology and sociology, but it works itself in
despite that. The only difference between them and the
writers I mentioned above is that they've got the whole
modern, self-awareness thing, so they can recognize when
deeper meanings crept in unintentionally. Example: the
episode Anne (the opener to Season 3) featured some Marxist
symbols in Buffy leading the humans (the proverbial peasant
class) against the demon factory operators (proverbial
ruling class). Joss Whedon said that the Marxist symbols
were unintentional, but that he was very pleased with their
presence afterwards.
[> [> [> [>
Agree...as a writer myself -- shadowkat,
20:03:49 07/04/02 Thu
Yes - I've written things outside of Buffy. Short
stories.
Poems. A novel. One short story was even published in
college many years ago.
I remember in all of those fiction classes I took, sitting
in a circle, having people read my work. In those critique
sessions, the author is not allowed to talk, you just
listen. And I'll tell you this - did they find meaning in my
work? Yes. Was it what I intended sometimes yes, sometimes
no. Was it fascinating? Did it add to the work?
Always.
James Joyce said after writing Dubliners and Ulysess that he
didn't like explaining what he meant, he was more interested
in what others derived from it. The collective unconscious
fascinated him.
I have to agree. I just heard back from one of the readers
of the novel I finished writing - she asked me a whole slew
of questions. What did you intend by this? What was meant
here? Was this what you meant? And you want to know
something? Her interpretation of what I wrote was far more
interesting than what I consciously intended. I write
instinctively, from my gut, more than head...it's how I
connect to the world and derive meaning from it. If it
entertains, so much the better, but that is not my sole
purpose.
Mark Twain, was a humorist who made fun of his audience and
himself, refusing to take either too seriously - I love him,
because I often take myself way too seriously ;-)
So I think what he meant by "Anyone trying to find a theme
in this story will be fined. Anyone trying to find a moral
in it will be jailed. Anyone trying to find a plot in it
will be shot" is pretty much what Finn says:"They probably
don't INTEND a lot of symbolism and links to psychology and
sociology, but it works itself in despite that."
The power of language, of images, of others thoughts on our
minds can be astounding.
[> [> [> [> [>
Joyce -- Rahael, 06:13:50 07/05/02 Fri
Love Joyce.
Love this story even more: Joyce toward the end of Ulysses
found his eyesight failing to the point where he had to
dictate to someone who wrote it all down. At one point, in
reply to someone knocking on the door, Joyce paused to say
"come in". When he had the person read back what had been
written in, he realised that 'Come in' had also been
transcribed. But he stopped it being taken out - and it's
there in Ulysses. Don't ask me where. I read the novel
before I read the biography, and the mind baulks at
rereading the tome just to find the legendery "come in"
[> [> [> [> [> [>
LOL! Completely understand -- shadowkat,
07:03:02 07/05/02 Fri
Having read Ulysesses twice, taken two classes on it,
and
writing my undergraduate thesis on it - I well
understand.
Not sure I can ever read it again. The book requires the
patience of a saint. It's wonderful. But it is also written
in stream of consciousness prose that would give writers
like Burroughs, Garcia-Marquez, Faulkner...all a run for
their money. But if you love poetry - it is beautiful. It's
also the best way to read it - like a very long poem.
I vaguely remember that story. Loved it. I think we tracked
down where in class, but it escapes me. Another favorite is
the story that he had nuns who didn't know English type it
up for him. Joyce was a dirt poor writer who made little to
no money when he was alive and like Keats didn't get much
recognition until much later.
As an old creative writing prof once told me: Don't write
for fame and fortune, you won't get it. But if you have
something to say - something to share and a drive to share
it - go right ahead, it's why the rest of us do.
Words that keep me going. ;-)
[> [> [> [>
Re: DVD commentaries -- Copper, 00:04:53
07/05/02 Fri
Actually, I believe I stated in an earlier post a few weeks
ago that I thought the writers were affected by the
unconscious/subconscious. In particular, that
unconscious/subconscious drives concerning sexuality,
reproduction, and fertility affected the way in which they
wrote the relationship of Buffy and Spike.
Certainly, if other posters can see the effects of mythology
and sociopolitics on the story line, there is no reason that
the more powerful biological urges should not be present
also.
Still, there is nothing wrong with thin and crispy. If you
want to hunt for deeper meaning, that is fine. I enjoy
reading many of those posts, particularly those of
Shadowkat. But thin and crispy can also be perfectly
satisfying. It is not always necessary, or even
appropriate, to search for deeper meaning.
[> [> [> [> [>
Hmmmm thin and crispy....you're making me
hungry...dammit!! -- Rufus, 01:24:40 07/05/02 Fri
Sometimes it is in the search for the deeper meaning that we
end up where we were meant to be, back to the beginning and
can appreciate where we started in a new way.
I tend to pick things apart then I get to the point of what
I think about something and why.....and I can be wrong lots
of the time....sometimes I'm right..sometimes...;)
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: DVD commentaries -- Arethusa, 06:37:16
07/05/02 Fri
People search for deeper meaning because they want and need
to, not because it's "necessary " or "appropriate." Whether
the meaning actually exists is almost besides the point.
BtVS is the common language we use to discuss whatever is
important to us-justice, morality, sex, friendship, fate,
God, whatever. This board lets us conduct conversations
with like-minded people that range from the ridiculous to
the sublime, and that is a wonderful thing-rare, and worth
having. Where Buffy is shallow we spackle in the depth, and
where it is deep, we plung our minds into the heady
intellectual malestrom of discussion, argument and debate.
Hamlet used a silly play to work on the conscience of his
king-we use a tv show about a pretty vampire killer to
examine ours.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Nicely put, Arethusa! -- ponygirl, 08:07:20
07/05/02 Fri
I hate to say it but I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable
joining a board whose sole purpose was discussing
philosophy, religion, morality and politics without a pop
culture shield. I fear I'm a bit too much a product of the
ironic, distancing mindset to argue too passionately about
the things dear to my heart. Buffy provides a handy lens to
allow me to both focus and magnify my own ideas. And as you
say it gives all of us, from so many different backgrounds,
a common point of reference, a base from which to build all
of these wonderful analytical constructions. I'd say that
whatever the writers' stated intentions none could fail to
be happy with that result!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Very well said!! I celebrate the maelstrom and giggle
at the many joys of magick spackle! -- redcat,
09:09:29 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Quote of the Week material in here, Masq --
d'Herblay, 14:55:38 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [>
I see no contradiction -- Rahael, 16:55:23
07/04/02 Thu
In writing for the masses and writing meaningfully!
I never mean to say that Shakespeare did not use symbolism
or meaning - just look at all his wonderful metaphors and
similes. Look at how inventive he was with language, how
playful, what power he gave it. Here is someone who took
entertaining the masses seriously.
As a matter of fact, I love Milton too. One needs a good
healthy dose of grandiose thinking now and then.
I'm not here to say that the cheeseman meant something. But
when David Petrie talks about the Alice in Wonderland,
Buffy's baptism by water/resonance with PG, and lesbian
imagery/subtexts in one single ep of BtVS, I'm not about to
tell him that he doesn't mean to use symbols and
meanings.
Finally, in Shakespeare's plays, we can see the complex and
sophisticated thought that ordinary people had recourse to -
showing a liveliness of political/constitutional thought
that historians often play down.
All 16/17th century literature uses lots of symbols and
metaphors - just look at metaphysical poetry. It's some of
the most metaphor driven, abtruse symbol laden literary work
around.
[> [> [> [>
Well said, Rah! -- redcat, 09:51:14 07/05/02
Fri
"Finally, in Shakespeare's plays, we can see the
complex and sophisticated thought that
ordinary people had recourse to - showing a liveliness of
political/constitutional thought that
historians often play down."
Rah, thank you for making this point!! The argument that
the complexity of "popular" works
somehow just slips by the popular audience for which it is
intended is fundamentally an elitist
position, which assumes that "average" audience members
cannot possibly be sophisticated
enough to "read" the texts in multiply-layered ways. This
has been particularly true of
historians of Elizabethan England, especially those working
prior to the post-modernist
revolutions in historiography. New interpretations of the
period indicate a much more textured
flow of information, ideas and intellectual rigor across a
wide band of social classes.
I'm reminded by this conversation with Copper of listening
to a young Maori scholar, a first year
grad student, giving her first paper at an academic
conference. She was analyzing a body of
literature written by Maori, Samoan, Tahitian and Hawaiian
women, using Foucault's notions of
power as her primary analytical lens. She was clearly
unhappy with the analysis, but also
stuck in her frame. When we spoke afterwards, she expressed
her extreme distress with her
work, and particularly with her use of "the master." I
asked her who had taught her the most in
her own life about the complex ways in which power moved
through, in and across peoples'
lives. She immediately said it had been her Maori great-
grandmother, grandmother, aunts,
mother and sisters, women who had survived all the multiple
oppressions and gifts of lives
lived under a racist colonialist system and a Native
patriarchal one. I asked her if she could
put Foucault's concepts into her grandmother's voice and she
immediately made that
necessary leap between theory and praxis, because she had
witnessed the wisdom that the
elite philosopher could only describe worked out in the
lives of her family and told through the
stories that women tell other women everyday.
I want to be very clear here. I'm not arguing that all
audience members of popular literature,
film, television and other "mass" culture productions are
inherently wise, perceptive, analytical
and intelligent. I *am* arguing that 1) being a member of a
mass audience doesn't make you
inherently ignorant, unperceptive, non-analytical and
stupid; 2) being a writer or creator of
mass cultural productions doesn't make you inherently un-
meaning-full, and 3) being an elite
and recognized writer of works of enduring cultural value
doesn't mean that what you write
has to be written for only a limited and elite audience, nor
does it mean that what you write is
necessarily more "meaningful" or "true" than what other
folks who are not elite and recognized
cultural producers know and say everyday in their lives and
in their stories. We celebrate the
fact that great writers are able to say what they know so
well and I, for one, am grateful for the
relative permanence and accessibility of the medium through
which they said it, writing. But I
sometimes mourn for all the wise, complex, muliply-layered
stories told over kitchen fires and
wash tubs that I will never hear.
[> [> [> [> [>
Tea soaked cake and constitutional matters --
Rahael, 06:19:23 07/06/02 Sat
and I'm reminded of Proust's grandmother, and his childhood,
and how he goes back to those memories and narratives to
give shape to his life. Sometimes the greatest literature in
the world is the little things. That tea-soaked cake. No
wonder Proust was accused of being facile and shallow! How
could meaning lie in ordinary mundane life?
And going back to Ulysses - the epic story of Western
civilisation is all about one ordinary day. The most
memorable scene for me will always be Bloom preparing his
breakfast.
This is why I liked the Buffy-taking-out the trash scenes!
It's not the big moments that often define our lives. Its
all that time we sit around waiting for them to happen.
And agree with you about popular culture. For me
Shakespeare's history plays hold the key to the puzzle of
the 1630s/40s.
Exactly why did ordinary Englishmen care so much for the
constitution? how did middle class men in London like the
Levellers become so au fait with current thought? How did
men like Ireton and Rainsborough feel entitled to discuss
the constitution? I'm not saying SHakepeare taught them
this! But he demonstrated, in his plays, that the audience
would understand the matters of state. And Elizabeth found
this threatening. Somewhere around the 1590s or so, the
Monarchy banned the discussion of Constitutional Matters by
the public. You can probably explain why Shakespeare stopped
with the English history plays and moved on to the
Roman/Ancient history ones. Much safer for your political
skin!!!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Tea soaked cake and constitutional matters --
LittleBit, 07:13:35 07/06/02 Sat
"No wonder Proust was accused of being facile and shallow!
How could meaning lie in ordinary mundane life?"
I love this Rah!! How indeed? One hopes there is meaning in
ordinary mundane life for far more of us live such lives
than live the lives of the heroes. I, for one, enjoy
catching reflections of my life in literarure as much as
being shown glimpses of a life I'll never lead.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Tea soaked cake and constitutional matters --
Rahael, 09:36:32 07/06/02 Sat
It is this very quality, LB, that determines which
writers/poets make it on my very favourite lists:
Afterwards
WHEN the Present has latched its postern behind my tremulous
stay,
And the May month flaps its glad green leaves like wings,
Delicate-filmed as new-spun silk, will the neighbours say,
"He was a man who used to notice such things"?
If it be in the dusk when, like an eyelid's soundless blink,
The dewfall-hawk comes crossing the shades to alight
Upon the wind-warped upland thorn, a gazer may think,
"To him this must have been a familiar sight."
If I pass during some nocturnal blackness, mothy and warm,
When the hedgehog travels furtively over the lawn,
One may say, "He strove that such innocent creatures should
come to no harm,
But he could do little for them; and now he is gone."
If, when hearing that I have been stilled at last, they
stand at the door,
Watching the full-starred heavens that winter sees,
Will this thought rise on those who will meet my face no
more,
"He was one who had an eye for such mysteries"?
And will any say when my bell of quittance is heard in the
gloom,
And a crossing breeze cuts a pause in its outrollings,
Till they rise again, as they were a new bell's boom,
"He hears it not now, but used to notice such things"?
Thomas Hardy
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Wonderful, Rah, just wonderful! -- LittleBit,
23:16:52 07/06/02 Sat
[> [> [>
From Pepsi to donuts, a brief meandering -- fresne,
10:08:08 07/05/02 Fri
Hmmm.and my immediate thought here was to ponder the
significance of the use of blue and white in skin cleanser
ads.
And I'm reminded of a totally OT incident back when I was a
college student/grocery clerk. We were stacking Pepsi cans
for a floor display. The cans, per the latest "whatever"
push, were decorated with abstract little squiggles. Funny
thing was, when you stacked the 6-packs so that the logos
all faced the same direction (as one does in a floor
display) the little squiggles meshed perfectly to spell out
sex. Nothing in your face mind you. Really only consciously
noticeable when you spend an hour or so stacking the things.
But once you see it, well, it provoked a lot of jocular
commentary.
I'm also reminded of an amusing afternoon that I spent in an
Advertising class looking for genitalia (male and female, we
didn't discriminate) in liquor adds. It's amazing what they
can do with a little ice and, um, fluid.
Do I think that Pepsi and 50 or so liquor companies intended
to imply certain things about drinking their beverages.
Well, yes, actually I do. Just as I'm fairly certain that
blue and white are chosen to imply clarity and coolness
(blue recedes, while red pimples jump out) in skin cleanser
ads.
None of which has much to do with Buffy's light and flakey
butter croissant like nature - I skipped breakfast which I
now see was a mistake - except that advertising may not be
the best example of people not considering the metaphor,
symbol, the big shiny meaning of it all.
Or is Buffy more like a bagel. Dense, chewy, lightly toasted
(personal preference), perhaps with some Asagio cheese or
garlic baked on, packed with not at all fattening cream
cheese, yet always including a hole at the center.
Which causes me to segue to something about fearing crullers
and taming donuts or some such stuff and I don't feeling
going to that metaphor today. At least not before
breakfast.
[> [> [> [>
Re: From Pepsi to donuts, a brief meandering -- kfury, 11:36:23
07/06/02 Sat
In short: "Respect the krewler, and tame the donut."
I know, it's still funny.
[> [> [> [>
'Sex' sells, a further meandering -- Isabel,
14:33:43 07/07/02 Sun
Of course it's on purpose. I took a Mass Media class in
college and we spent 2 weeks on advertising. It's been 10
years and I still can't look at ads without analysing what
the intended audience was supposed to perceive. (And usually
on a subconscious level.) Chanel No. 5, anyone? We had lots
of fun with those black and white Calvin Klein ads. Plus, it
takes a truly warped mind to be able to take a subtly
altered photograph of a plate of fried clams and get
consumers to think of sex.
And I know Xander was talking about respecting krullers and
taming donuts in OMwF, but where does that come from outside
of Buffy?
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: 'Sex' sells, a further meandering -- Tymen,
15:54:37 07/07/02 Sun
It's a reference to the movie Magnolia, something Tom
Cruise's character said. And is totally appropriate to the
sex sells theme.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you! -- Isabel, 16:02:11 07/07/02 Sun
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Thank you! -- Tymen,
16:17:16 07/07/02 Sun
It was my pleasure.
It's just another moment that proves Xander still thinks
constantly about sex.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: 'Sex' sells, a further meandering -- anom,
22:19:03 07/07/02 Sun
There was a book that came out in the '70s called
Subliminal Seduction that covered exactly that--how
subtle sexual images & verbal implications were used to sell
products.
Speaking of Calvin Klein ads, whenever I heard the tag line
"Escape...from Calvin Klein," I wanted to say, "I'd like to,
but he's saturated the airways with these ads!"
[>
Re: Thin & Crispy vs. Thick & Chewy or ME vs. the
Posters -- Copper, 12:27:49 07/05/02 Fri
Whether or not we think that ME intentionally writes thin
and crispy or thick and chewy shows, I think we all agree
that reading and discussing the shows and the analyses
posted on this board is an enjoyable way to spend a few
hours.
To modify my original statement in this thread:
We get at least 2 shows for our time investment. The one ME
airs on Tuesdays, and the one(s)we "air" on this board.
Excerpt from
"Dawn, Pandora and the Key" (Part II of III) -
- cjl, 23:20:59 07/03/02 Wed
II. Is Dawn Still the Key?
This might have been a point of contention at some point,
but since that UPN promo calling Dawn "the Key to the fate
of the universe," I think I can safely answer: Duh.
But that's not all...
I think Dawn's "Key-ness" has been working at full power
over the course of the last two seasons--NOT just during
"The Gift"--and nobody realizes it.
Let's go back to the beginning of Dawn's stay in Sunnydale.
It was obvious from the first moment she walked down the
street that her unique nature wasn't masked, dampened, or
nullified in any way during her everyday life as an American
Teenager. You just had to be in the right state of mind to
see it. That street crazy near the Magic Box took one look
at her and knew she didn't belong; and all during Season 5,
a variety of mentally altered townspeople, kitty cats and
snake demons took notice of the Key-ness that was hiding in
plain sight. The capper, of course, was at the end of
"Tough Love," when Crazy!Tara glanced over at Dawn and was
awestruck by the magnificent nimbus of green energy
surrounding her.
The inevitable question: if Dawn's Key-ness is and has
always been part of her, and not just during bloodletting
and ritual sacrifice, why hasn't it affected reality during
Season 5 and 6?
Well, who says it hasn't?
Think back to "Blood Ties." Dawnie has discovered her true
nature, run away from home, and eventually makes her way to
Sunnydale Hospital. She strikes up a conversation with
Cute!Intern Ben, who takes her into his confidence, and
gives her a much-needed shoulder to cry on. Then, she lets
it slip that she's the Key, and you witness a rare natural
phenomenon: Ben has a cow right on the spot. He yells at
her to get out of there as fast as possible, warns her that
Glory is coming--then TURNS INTO Glory before our eyes.
Fortunately, Buffy and the Gang bail Dawn out of trouble,
and the sisters hug and make up.
Right after that episode, I was mostly wondering about the
logistics of the transformation, how do Ben and Glory co-
exist in our dimension, what is the nature of their
relationship, etc., etc. I also wondered why Dawn couldn't
remember the moment of transformation itself. But after
awhile, I started to ponder another peculiar aspect of the
hospital scene--the fact that Ben turned into Glory just
when the object of her quest was sitting right in front of
her [him/them]. What a weird coincidence.
But is it a coincidence? It happens again in "Spiral." (In
fact, it happens TWICE in "Spiral," but I'll discount the
first instance as Truck Impact Disorientation.) Ben has
been invited through Willow's impromptu magic force field to
treat Giles in the abandoned gas station. He goes through a
momentary crisis of conscience regarding Dawn, then
remembers his Hippocratic Oath and tends to his patient.
Things seem to go swimmingly until, in Dawn's presence, he
freaks out again, and presto--Glorificus ascendant. Dawn
taken. Knights dead. Buffy has her coma.
Once is coincidence, twice is suspicious, three times is a
pattern. Look what happens to Ben and Glory in "Weight of
the World." Dawn is constantly in their presence, and they
COMPLETELY LOSE CONTROL of the transformation. Dragging
Dawn through the back streets of Sunnydale, Ben turns into
Glory and back and back again and back AGAIN, all within a
matter of seconds. When Glory asks the mystically inclined
amongst her minions what the hell is going on, they sort of
shrug and give a vague answer about how "this is price you
pay for these magicks." (Sounds like your local doctor when
he doesn't know what's causing that hacking cough, but
doesn't want to admit it.) Eventually, though, I think
Glory catches on. Note that Glory gives her minions the
task of preparing Dawn for the ritual. She never stays near
Dawn for anything more than a few seconds during "The Gift,"
and she pretty much maintains control of her body for the
entire episode--until Buffy beats the living crud out of
it.
If we accept the premise that Dawn is responsible for these
unscheduled transformations, we have to expand our previous
conception of the Key. In the standard definition, the
Key shatters dimensional barriers under specific conditions
at a prescribed moment in time; in our expanded definition,
the sustained presence of the Key also dissolves
artificially imposed mystical barriers--any time, anywhere.
All right, let's assume that Season 5 was a hotbed of
raging Key-ness. But what about this season? There's no
schizoid Bitch Goddesses, no Dr. Jekyll and Sister Hyde
transformations (mmm...Martine Beswicke); did Dawn
completely shoot her mystical wad during "The Gift" and
she's now Normal Teen until the next bloodletting? Again, I
don't think so. This season's Key activity is much tougher
to detect, and I'll admit I can't justify my theory with
examples as blindingly clear as Ben and Glory's identity
crisis. But I'm convinced Dawn's powers are still humming
along at full throttle--and this is where Shadowkat comes
in.
A few weeks ago, Shadowkat wrote a fantastic post about
Buffy and her Inner Child. Shadowkat postulated that
Dawn's erratic and increasingly immature behavior this
season reflects BUFFY'S raging internal conflicts just as
much as it does Dawn's considerable anxieties and
frustrations. I won't be able to summarize Shadowkat's
analysis well enough to do it justice, so I'll take the easy
way, and crib from her website. This is her description of
the "Inner Child" concept in action during "Older and Far
Away":
____________________________________________________________
"Older and Far Away" deals with Dawn's frustration at
constantly being left alone. She feels that no one cares for
her. Older and Far Away also refers to Buffy - who feels
older and far away from her loved ones; the episode is after
all dealing with Buffy's 21st birthday, the day that you
leave childhood behind. Older and Far Away is a line from
the last page of J.G. Ballard's novel EMPIRE OF THE SUN
about a boy who lost his family in pre-world war II Shanghai
and is not reunited with them until years after the war. By
the time he is, he is so changed by his experiences and they
by theirs, that they are all both older and far away. What
an apt description of how Buffy feels. Here is this child
screaming at her from a distance - pay attention to me! Stay
with me! But Buffy can't hear the child - she is distracted.
And it's not just Buffy that's ignoring Dawn - its her
friends - the impromptu family at the beginning of
Bargaining Part I: Spike, Xander, Willow and Tara - all of
whom follow Buffy up to her room after they discover she may
have had something to do with them being locked in the
house. This is what Dawn says in reply to Xander, Tara and
Willow's comments.
DAWN: God! I didn't do anything! I wish I had. (Buffy
frowning) I'm glad you're trapped. (very angrily) How else
can I get anybody to spend any time with me?
BUFFY: Dawn. If you want us to spend time with you--
DAWN: I don't. Get out. Get out. Get out!
They all leave her bedroom except Buffy. But they feel the
rage. Rage that can barely be contained any longer as is
represented by the demon lurking in the walls. The demon
oddly enough is brought into the house by Buffy and is
released by a spell that they are using to get out of the
house. Instead of getting out, they've released the demon
(Buffy's rage). And the rage attacks the people Buffy is the
most furious at with its sword. So it's not Dawn's rage that
was brought into the house, or Dawn's rage that is released,
it's the adult, BUFFY'S [my emphasis added]. Dawn's rage is
what keeps them inside. Dawn's rage is expressed through the
wish and the jewelry that she is constantly stealing from
Anya.
It is at the end of Older and Far Away that Buffy finally
acknowledges Dawn's needs. She agrees to stay behind with
her child self, letting everyone else exit. Oh--notice who
leaves last and holds open the door. What Spike does in the
last scene is very interesting, particularly if he is the
metaphor for Buffy's shadow self. He throws the door open
when Buffy asks if he thinks they can get out. He waits
until everyone is gone, exchanges a look with adult Buffy
and Dawn and then exits. Almost as if the shadow self has
given its blessing. Death has exited the building - leaving
the innocent child and adult together. Honoring Buffy's
decision to acknowledge her child. And Buffy closes the door
on him and with a smile goes back to Dawn.
If Dawn is indeed Buffy's inner child, the innocent, the
light - then perhaps Dawn may be the key to Buffy's
rediscovery of herself? The part she lost when she died?
Maybe if Buffy can reintegrate the shadow self and Dawn, she
can feel whole and strong again? Or is something else going
on here? If Dawn and Buffy are part of each other, more than
sisters, more than mother and child, than what happens if
Dawn is killed? Does the part the monks took from Buffy go
back into Buffy? What is Dawn's role? Or is Dawn becoming a
separate entity, a portion of Buffy but also separate from
her?
___________________________________________________________<
BR>
I think Shadowkat meant for the Inner Child metaphor to be
exactly that--a metaphor. Except for a hint in the last
paragraph, she doesn't seem to believe there is an actual
psychic connection between Buffy and Dawn, wherein Buffy's
"lost" self gains expression. But when it comes to the
world of BtVS, is that really such a huge leap in logic?
Since the monks cast the living energy of the Key into a
mold created from the blood of the Slayer, is it so hard to
believe that Dawn might be attuned to Buffy in a way that
goes beyond sisterhood, beyond the connection of mother and
child?
I know, I'm pushing it here, but bear with me. Suppose,
instead of Dawn slowly separating from Buffy as the series
progresses, the connection between the two women is
intensifying? Suppose Dawn's Key-ness is breaking down the
barrier between herself and Buffy, forging an emotional
symbiosis? Wouldn't that (at least partially) explain why
Dawn seemed to go off the edge this season, and why Buffy
had so much trouble regaining her emotional balance?
Let's take things one step further. The triad Shadowkat
described in reference to Buffy, Dawn and Spike--would-be
adult, inner child, and shadow self--was, in one way or
another, the working pattern with ALL of the Scoobies this
year. In fact, it seems as if their well-hidden Shadow
Selves and Inner Children erupted into their conscious minds
like explosions from a psychic volcano. Xander's suppressed
rage and trauma from years of parental abuse scuttled his
wedding; Willow's deep-seated resentm