July 2002
posts
Possible
endings to the show? (No spoilers) -- Liam, 09:47:33
07/04/02 Thu
I was wondering what people think would be an interesting
ending to the show. Here are a few non-spoilery
speculations:
1. It was all in Buffy's mind: A friend suggested that Buffy
dreamt up the entire series, so what we saw in 'Normal
Again' was the 'real world', something that will be shown in
the last episode. This has the advantage of explaining _all_
the plot holes and lack of continuity, but I don't think ME
would have the courage. :)
2. Cliffhanger: The last episode is a cliffhanger, which
could happen if there are plans for a movie. Alternatively,
it could be done to drive us fans crazy and write our own
fanfiction endings. :)
3. Buffy gets replaced: This is either by Faith, or Faith's
successor if she dies; so we end up with Buffy, who's not
with anyone, wondering what to do with the rest of her life,
but going to do some travelling first.
While it's not a traditionally 'happy' ending, it's a partly
happy ending, which I think many would like
What do people think?
[>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Finn Mac Cool, 10:13:55 07/04/02 Thu
Well, I've thought of a great ending:
Over the centuries the Hellmouth has grown gradually wider.
In recent years, its growth has speeded up dramatically,
causing a massive pilgrimage of demons, vampires, and
mystical people to come to Sunnydale.
Then, over the course of the final season, we learn that the
Hellmouth isn't just a portal, it's an entity. When the
demons were forced into hell long ago, they were all sent
through a portal created in what would later become
Sunnydale. However, the last demon to leave earth (who is
also, according to Giles, the father of all vampires) got
stuck part way through. Since then, this demon has been
trying to work his way out and has been casting some mojo to
both a)draw demonic followers to it, and b)cloud the minds
of humans in the area so that they will ignore demonic
activity. It's now approaching the time when this demon has
almost worked his way out, which would bring about the
Apocalypse.
Naturally, Buffy and the Scooby Gang try to stop this.
After a hard fought season against the demons and especially
vampires serving the Hellmouth in Sunnydale (during which
some of them will die) Buffy travels down the Hellmouth in
order to fight this demon before it destroys the world,
while an army of Sunnydale citizens fight off the demons
trying to aid their master.
The end battle would involve Buffy killing the Hellmouth,
but sucking Sunnydale into Hell in the process. On one
hand, it's sad, cause everyone died. On the other, the
Hellmouth, which has plagued the Gang from day one, is
gone.
[>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Caesar
Augustus, 16:11:18 07/04/02 Thu
A different version of 3. is Buffy being replaced by Dawn in
some way.
Does Buffy have to die a third time? Most people seem to
think so. I would prefer not.
[> [>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Finn Mac Cool, 16:12:50 07/04/02 Thu
She's already died three times (she flatlined after being
shot by Warren in Seeing Red).
[> [>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Caesar
Augustus, 16:30:35 07/04/02 Thu
Oh. Unless she goes to heaven again, I guess. But I wouldn't
be happy if after all her struggles she lands up in a
hell!
[>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Magus777, 21:05:52 07/04/02 Thu
*Hears the guard dogs as they bark at the closed basement
door of Joss Whedon, which Magus snuked into.
He turns on the light and see the board with the pictures
that lead to the last episode of BTVS.
Magus777 gasps and stumbles at the last picture*
(In the last picture, there are dolls of all the Sunnydale
characters and theres a miniture doll version of the whole
town of Sunnydale, and hovering above them, controlling all
things of the Buffyveres is a man with a plate of cheese in
his left hand.)
[>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Purple Tulip, 06:52:24 07/05/02 Fri
I've heard that SMG refuses to do a Buffy movie once the
series is over- she actually said this in an interview, I
think on the Today show, but I could be mistaken. And since
she won't do the movie, Joss said that he would never think
of doing one without her- plus it would be confusing with
that other disastrous Buffy movie floating around out
there.
I hope they don't do a "it was all a dream" thing because
that is just rediculous and disapointing- and boy would
Buffy have to have a REALLY good imagination to come up with
that stuff.
If Faith replaces Buffy and gets her own spin-off I'll cry.
And I wouldn't watch it.
I guess what I'm thinking might happen, if the Dawn spin-off
rumors are at all true in any way, is that Dawn will sort of
take over for Buffy- maybe not become a slayer, but maybe
work alongside a new slayer. But I don't know if I really
like that idea either. And I'm not sure if I would watch a
Dawn show either because I'm really not crazy about the
character.
But in my world of perfect endings, I would have Buffy
finally get it all together, Xander and Anya would work
things out and get married, after she ditches the whole
vengeance demon thing. Giles would come back and decide to
stay in Sunnydale and go back to being a librarian in the
new high school that is built. Dawn would become a fighting
machine, less whiny and more likeable, and take some of the
weight off from Buffy, so that Buffy and the newly-human
Spike (cause in my world a vampire can turn human just like
that!) can get married and take a well-deserved vacation to
the Carribean. And Angel, Faith, Riley and the whole gang
can turn up and make cameo appearances because the WB and
UPN will FINALLY have gotten over their petty battle over
who has the better teenage shows.
OK, so maybe my world is a little out of focus- but, hey,
what's life without dreams??? Maybe I should write my own
fanfic about this...hmmmm....;)
[>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Majin Gojira, 07:40:30 07/05/02 Fri
I say a cliffhanger of sorts...as i've said before (this is
the THIRD TIME this has come up...)
After defeating the final seasons Big Bad, the scoobies are
weak and beaten, but there is something on the horizon.
a hord of monstrous creatures heading towards them!
The situation looks hopeless, but the scoobies make a
decision.
They are going to fight, even if it means to the end, even
if alone - but they aren't. The people of sunnydale finally
take their heads our of their asses and wake up! they come
to help in this, what seems to be the final stand.
as the hord approaches...a wall of flames rises up, blocking
our view. the title of the series is displayed in front of
the obstructing wall of flames.
Yes, this ending rips off a movie I adore, but barely anyone
in the US has seen it. (Shameless Plug: "Gamera 3:
Incomplete Struggle") but I just really like that ending
:D
[>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
ahira, 09:15:58 07/05/02 Fri
I have tossed the series ending around in my head as well
and came up with this. From back in the Yoko factor, Buffy
had a line about slayer prophecies and how there isn't one
about a slayer and her friends. So, someone turns up an
apocolyptic prophecy about a slayer, a witch and a general.
Basically tossed aside when first discovered, the slayer
works alone after all. Giles finds it in a lost archive at
the council. They go through the season, fight the good
fight and after defeating the big bad; Buffy is presented
with a gift from the assembled spirits of all slayers that
have come before. As a reward for being the mold breaking
slayer and accomplishing more than any other, she can be
removed of her destiny and live a normal life. The line
would then go on through Faith. If they wanted to be really
mean, they could end it right before she makes her
decision.
[> [>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
Caesar
Augustus, 14:01:21 07/05/02 Fri
I think unlikely. It would be a nice way for Buffy to
finish off, but sort of goes against the whole theme of
season 1. Once you've been a slayer, can you really go back
to just living a normal life? There's a quote somewhere -
not sure which episode, where she says something to the
effect of "I know what it means when it goes bump at
night.". I'm also reminded of Matrix "I can't go back, can
I? No, but if you could, would you really want to?". If she
was removed of her destiny, she'd probly have to be removed
of her memories of slaying as well, and that would be
way harsh. I suppose if we see her truly happy as a
result, it might be reconcilable, but would really give the
audience very mixed emotions. Happiness at last but she has
no idea she's saved the world dozens of times.
[> [> [>
Re: Possible endings to the show? (No spoilers) --
ahira, 16:33:42 07/05/02 Fri
I think that would all depend on how she comes through the
season. Would she get to a point where she feels she has
saved the world enough times. Or, with the role she has
played for so long, could she actually adjust to just being
another person. That is what makes it such a good dilemma.
Just imagine all the discussion that would occur if they
ended before she said yes or no. Me personally, I can't see
her doing it. There is too much of the hero in her to be
able to go back, memories or no of her life as a slayer.
Also, it ties in with the recurring theme that she dabbles
with of giving up being the slayer. I wouldn't want her to
have her memories of slaying taken away as it relates so
much to the person she has become.
My Question for
Joss (that he answered) -- Dedalus, 18:58:18 07/04/02
Thu
Due to massive demand - at least in the chat room - I have
decided to finally reveal my fantastic discussion with Joss
Whedon. He invited me over to his house, we had tea and
crumpets, discussed everything from Buffy to Shakespeare,
and then went through a few new Numfar dance numbers.
Actually, no.
BUT, in reality, I did get to ask him a question in Issue
Three of the Official Buffy Magazine, about the time season
three started. They had a little thing going for a while
called "Ask Joss," and I asked him. Because demand is so out
of control, and I don't enjoy being chased through the
streets by paparazzi, and seeing myself in the tabloids
under the caption "Talk to the Man Who Talked to Joss
Whedon," I'm reprinting the entire epic conversation for the
delight of my fellow Existential Scoobies right here, right
now.
"Dear Joss,
A few quarters ago in college, I took an English class
centering on mythology. I couldn't help but notice you emply
many classic mythic motifs on the show. Then I read an
article about you where you talked about metaphors
(unbelievable - a producer of a tv show who knows what a
metaphor is), and the "hero quest." I've been a student of
Joseph Campbell's work for a couple of years now, and I
immediately recognized this as his kind of terminology. Then
I watched Prophecy Girl on an old video of mine, only to
find out that the events depicted in it perfectly followed
the various hero stages outlined in Campbell's The Hero With
a Thousand Faces, such as the call to adventure, and the
refusal of the call. My question for you is: Is this at all
deliberate, or have I been in school too long?
Paul F. McDonald
Snellville, Georgia
Dear Paul: The events in Buffy are very specifically
structured to reflect a hero's mythic quest and to shape
that to the normal growing experience of a teenage girl. I
haven't actually ever read any Joseph Campbell, but I have
seen Star Wars one too many times, and I think that may
count. I've mostly read Richard Slotkin's Regeneration
Through Violence which deals particularly with American
myths. You're not reading too much into it; Buffy is
definitely supposed to be mythic.
- Joss"
[>
Re: My Question for Joss (that he answered) --
Drizzt, 20:12:49 07/04/02 Thu
Hi Dedalus
I liked your imaginary interview with Joss;)
The letter Q&A was cool too.
PS. Your essays in the fictionary corner are VERY impressive
to me;)
OT. Age is another poster here with awsome posts; I wish he
would submit them to the fictionary corner. Anything here
gets lost in the archives...and the archives are HUGE. Also
I have only read three of Solitude's "Minnie Lecture on
Existentialism" essays. And when is OnM going to have his
movie reviews collated in ONE location?(Or did that allready
happen, and I am out of the loop?)
Hey, this is not a Troll post; reply...please?
[>
Thank you Ded! I think you answered Cooper's
question.. -- shadowkat, 20:30:02 07/04/02 Thu
about whether the writers truly intended deeper meaning
through myth, right here!
As you state so clearly in your essay and as Campbell
states, the cool thing about myth - is it is so unconscious.
I'm more impressed by the fact Joss didn't read Campbell but
picked up on what Campbell was talking about in both Star
Wars and Violent Myths of the American
West.
Like a lot of us Star Wars fanatics (myself among them, yes,
I have seen every episode in the movie theater and eagerly
await new installments. I also loved the first episode) - we
love westerns. Star Wars is a lot like a Western - it echoes
the same myths of the hero we see in classics such as Shane,
The Searchers, Red River, The Gunfighter, My Darling
Clementine, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Once Upon A
Time in The West....and my personal
favorite My NAme is Nobody. In Star Wars, we enter a desert
world of guns and swords. The first few scenes are a
gunfight in a bar, a fight with the Terran Raiders, and an
escape. The hero is a young wet behind the ears boy, the
mentor - a mysterious stranger, and then there' the roguish
scoundrel who helps them against his will or so it seems.
Joss Whedon flipped these on their head, by making the
sheriff - the gunfighter - a woman, a small tiny woman, and
the outlaws vampires, the rougish scoundral a vampire either
with a soul or in later seasons a chip.
Yep - I studied these myself, but like Whedon I didn't read
or study Campbell until now. Was Campbell available in the
mid-80s? I think Whedon and I may have been in college
around the same time or one after the other. I studied myths
through writers like Jung, Neumann, and of course the tales
themselves. I also took a Cinema the Western Class, A Sci-Fi
Class, and wandered around collecting stories.
To me it's obvious that Buffy is operating on a mythic
level, just like those old western morality dramas did.
I remember talking to my Dad recently about Buffy -he
doesn't get my Buffyists - until I mentioned Westerns and he
pointed out how Gunsmoke, his favorite show - was an adult
western, with adult themes that arced over many episodes.
And the reason he took us Star Wars way back in 1978 (I
think we were the first kids in my neighborhood to actually
see it) was because it made him think of a war movie mixed
with the Western. It hit my dad on that unconscious mythic
level, although I doubt he'll ever admit that. I know my
brother and I became obsessed with it for eight years.
That's what mythic stories do, grab you, pull at you on a
deep subsconscious level. And if you can grab someone on
that level as a writer? You've hit gold.
C.S. Lewis did it with his Narnia Chronicles.
J.K. rowling did it with HArry Potter
Frank L. Baum did it with Wizard of OZ.
And George Lucas did it with Star Wars
and I believe Joss Whedon has done it with Buffy The
Vampire
Slayer.
GREAT news! SMG
stamps out those ugly "Britney Spears" guest star
rumors! -- Rob, 21:28:20 07/04/02 Thu
"Look out, Britney Spears, Sarah Michelle Gellar's got it in
for you.
"Gellar tells the U.K. Sun that she personally put the old
kibosh on talks between Spears and the producers of 'Buffy,
the Vampire Slayer' about Spears appearing on the show.
'She was floating a lot of ideas,' Gellar tells the British
tab. 'Our producers were saying she was gonna do it and I
was saying, 'I don't think so.'' Easy there,
killer."
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
And with that said, the entire Buffy fan community breathed
a well-deserved sigh of relief!
Rob
P.S. My info came from
http://www.salon.com/people/col/reit/2002/07/03/npwed/index.
html?x
[>
And another bit of good news...it appears Joss is going
to be writing the season 7 premiere! -- Rob, 21:32:08
07/04/02 Thu
That info came from http://www.aintitcool.com but beware of
clicking on the link about that article...there are some
spoilers.
Rob
[> [>
That's good. Season premieres have a tendency to be
disappointing. -- Caesar
Augustus, 01:34:23 07/05/02 Fri
With the obvious exception of WttH/Harvest.
They're usually a bit negative because they deal with
negative after-effects of the previous season's finale.
[>
That's strange in light of... -- darrenK,
22:14:35 07/04/02 Thu
Last summer, Marti Noxon was asked about the perpetual
Britney rumor and her saying that they had tried to get
Britney for an episode because..."She's friends with
Sarah."
We are so lucky that friendship hit the rocks. I find it
ironic though that it was SMG that saved us from this
potential travesty and not Joss or the other writers.
On the other hand, Marti quashed a similar rumor also last
summer about Shannon Doherty and claimed that rumor was also
started because "Shannon and Sarah are friends."
SMG really needs some non-15-minutes-of-fame friends in a
very big way.
[>
Don't believe anything printed in the UK Sun is real .
. . -- d'Herblay, 22:18:48 07/04/02 Thu
. . . especially what's on page 3.
[>
Rob...you'd save yourself some time by looking at the
Trollop Board -- Rufus, 23:44:33 07/04/02 Thu
All that and more is there.
Things Fall
Apart.......but Forever? -- Rufus, 00:26:08 07/05/02
Fri
In Entropy Tara gave a line similar to one used by WB Yeats
in his poem "The Second Coming". I don't know if he intended
the line to be taken at the poem but some things in Yeats
work seem to go with the movement in the Buffyverse.
Tara's line.....
TARA: (OS) Things fall apart. They fall apart so
hard.
Cut to the Summers house. Willow is lying on the bed with
some homework, but looking in surprise at the doorway. She
sits up on the edge of the bed.
WILLOW: Tara?
Reveal Tara in the doorway, leaning against the door frame.
TARA: You can't ever ... (sighs) put them back the way they
were.
WILLOW: Are you okay?
TARA: I'm sorry, it's just ... (deep sigh) You know, it
takes time. (walking into the room) You can't just ... have
coffee and expect-
WILLOW: (guilty) I know.
Long shot of the two of them -- Willow sitting, Tara
standing -- with a considerable distance separating them.
TARA: There's just so much to work through. Trust has to be
built again, on both sides ... (Willow looking upset) You
have to learn if ... if we're even the same people we were,
if you can fit in each other's lives.
Willow continues looking at Tara, sadly.
TARA: It's a long... important process, and ... can we just
skip it? Can-can you just be kissing me now?
Willow looks hopeful, then delighted as the words sink in.
She smiles widely, jumps up. Tara meets her halfway and they
kiss passionately.
It makes sense that out of all the Scoobies, that Tara would
figure things out first, be willing to work to and end...a
happy one that just wasn't to be, for her and Willow. Tara
was the one that was the most mature in dealing with the
entropy around her, she understood that to go forward, one
couldn't get stuck in resentment and vengeance. This made
her able to make things right with Willow, start again. I
looked to what this Yeats guy was about and some of it
matched what seems to be happening in the Buffyverse.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Some titles in BTVS link together, giving an idea of where
things are going....such as Spiral...Weight of the
World...The Gift....to season
six..Bargaining....Afterlife.....Tabula
Rasa....Entropy...Grave. In season five the end was sad but
the title so hopeful....The Gift....Buffy's death, her gift
to the world. In season six, we got Buffy, a Buffy who no
longer felt she had a place in this world, but was only
going through the motions, acting in a way to keep others
happy. Screwing a vampire so she could feel. But in Grave,
Buffy had rediscovered that life was her "Gift"..and wanted
to show the world of the living to her sister. I read an
essay about Yeats poem "The Second Coming" by Josef Sila , it had a few things in it that reminded
me of the Buffyverse, the cyclical nature of the world that
Buffy is a part of.
Numerous visions were connected with Yeats' leading idea
of "gyres", the cones that spiral together and symbolise
objectivity and subjectivity of the world.
Together with the idea of cyclic history comes to Yeats the
idea of cyclic repeating of life and death, the
reincarnation of souls. He also speaks about what happens
after death, describing the process of return of the soul to
the cosmic trance (Yeats also calls it Anima Mundi or
"artifice of eternity"), from which it sprang. The body is
looked on as an animal part of a man full of desires which
should be purified (this purification is symbolised by a
"sages standing in God's holy fire" who "consume" desires
"away").
People, demons, monsters are always dying in Buffy's world.
Buffy herself has died twice, only to be brought back, first
by Xander, then Willow. Death has been a cycle of leaving
and returning that has left Buffy stronger in the
end....though in season six it took the twenty two episode
for that to become apparent. Where was Buffy, what did she
experience when she was parted from her physical body? What
is it about love that Buffy fears but keeps ending up back
to facing and rejecting or accepting? We don't know what
Buffy did in "heaven", what she learned, but we do know that
she had to relearn how and why to love life. There were
mentors in this journey, one Tara, who was accepting of
Buffy's sexual relationship with Spike, even when Buffy
couldn't accept it herself. Tara had a grace, wisdom, and
ability to love that made her the only person Buffy could
speak to. Then Tara was murdered, and things really did fall
apart. But did they? Or did the Scoobies only complete a
cycle that ended in Grave, for Buffy clawing out of a grave,
and Willow, weeping for her loss with her childhood friend.
Another passage in the Sila essay made me think of the death
of Tara, the fall of Willow, and the return of the Buffy we
love.
Although Yeats saw and felt around himself the
unchangeable order of dying and fading of temporary things,
he was looking for something what wouldn't be affected by
this change, the immortality and eternity. That was the
world where the imagination comes from. He said that the
world of imagination is just the eternal world, in opposite
to the world of reason, which is the world of lies and
cheat, phantasm falling apart.
If we believe in the idea of infinity, then how can we ever
think that Tara or Buffy's mother for that matter, are gone?
They may have left this mortal coil but exist in the
Afterlife where we all end up someday. We may be temporary,
but our imagination is where anything is possible. It is in
the imagination that we can think of either good or bad and
make it so in reality.
The cycle of life and death has landed the Scoobies back to
the beginning...a new start to do things right. In starting
again they honour the memory of the ones they loved the most
and have died. It also reminds me of what the guide in
Intervention had said about Buffy fearing love and pulling
away from it....in the Gift, Buffy understood something
about living that made it precious enough to die for, in
Grave, Buffy now loves life enough to continue on and live
it. One thing about repetition, if you do something enough
times, you may just get it right.
[>
The falcon cannot hear the falconer -- Off-kilter,
00:51:30 07/05/02 Fri
If Buffy is caught in the spirals of life and death, is she
the falcon deaf to the falconer? The Slayer pulling away
from her "calling", her vocation, her Destiny? A falcon
caught up in the glory of the sky might not return meekly to
the glove to hunt for others again, but break away and be
free of the jesses and hoods that shackle her.
Back to the beginning?
[> [>
Re: The falcon cannot hear the falconer --
Wizardman, 01:55:29 07/05/02 Fri
Yeats' poem also dealt with millenial anxiety and the
possible coming of the Antichrist. The new millenium has
come and came before S5. The 'Antichrist' then would
obviously be a being of great evil power. It could have been
Glory, or maybe Willow, or just maybe has yet to come. The
last is the most frightening of all- after all, hasn't every
successive Big Bad gotten even worse?
[> [> [>
Everyone's worst nightmare? -- Off-kilter,
02:02:08 07/05/02 Fri
[>
Re: Things Fall Apart -- Caesar
Augustus, 02:55:37 07/05/02 Fri
It's a nice idea, and certainly Yeats' poem about the coming
apocalypse ("Second Coming" taken in this light would
surely hint at the Hellmouth playing a big part in
season 7) can be related to the Buffyverse where there's
always an apocalypse looming. But the phrase "things fall
apart" is far too common to trust this was Joss's
intentions, e.g. many scholars would immediately think of
Chinua Achebe's "Things Fall Apart" (late 1950's) which has
been compared to some of the great Greek tragedies.
Nonetheless, nice ideas. They don't need Yeats to back them
up :-)
[> [>
Re: Things Fall Apart -- Rufus, 04:13:50
07/05/02 Fri
Never heard of Chinua Achebe, not being a scholar and all,
but I did search him out. According to what I read he used
the phrase "things fall apart" for the title of his book. If
Achebe used this phrase to make his book from, why would it
not be the case with ME? It's a phrase from a poem that has
meaning for many people. When I look at phrases I usually
find the source that the most people think of when the
phrase is used....Yeats came first and was the person I saw
named over an over again after the show aired.
[> [> [>
Re: Things Fall Apart -- Caesar
Augustus, 04:33:02 07/05/02 Fri
Fair enough.
The point I was making (which in hindsight I didn't make
very well) is that "things fall apart" was not coined by
William Butler - it's a well-known phrase. What's important
is the theme that phrase represents, which you got spot on.
If Joss was thinking of any work in particular, it
was most probably W.B.
[> [> [> [>
Chinua Achebe was referencing the Yeats Poem --
Rahael, 05:12:12 07/05/02 Fri
and also Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness'. It was in many ways a
critique of western thinking about Africa - the beast
slouching its way to Bethlehem (aka Western Civilisation)
from the dusty deserts of a dark and foreign land.
The fact that Tara uses that line (it may have been a well
known phrase before, but it is now inextricably linked with
the second coming) and Spike goes to Africa is too much of a
link not to take in the complexities of all the ideas, both
literary and political that now envelope this phrase.
Yeats had some very odd ideas. This makes him the only poet
who I quote who I actually do not like.
I don't like the 'Second coming' but I will admit to liking
'Sailing to Byzantium' - that dolphin torn, gong tormented
sea! and 'Leda and the Swan' - because of its beautiful
structure.
The Lake Isle of Innisfree, so often quoted is an actual
example of a 'great' poet writing bad poetry. (to continue
the bad poetry discussion up here)
[> [> [> [> [>
OT: Yeats isn't that bad -- Caesar
Augustus, 05:40:22 07/05/02 Fri
I was forced to study a bit of him at high school. "Easter
1916" is his best poem, in my opinion. Impossible to
appreciate most of his poems without "studying" them in
class, since a lot of stuff is drawn from his own life.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
I did 'study' him!! -- Rahael, 06:04:49 07/05/02
Fri
FYI, not only did I study him, I wrote my major essay on
'Leda and the Swan' in connection with the work of Seamus
Heaney and Tom Paulin. Got a 100% grade mark, which is
pretty hard to do for English Lit.
Still doesn't mean I have to 'like' him.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Yeats, fascism and eugenics -- Rahael, 07:01:18
07/05/02 Fri
Yeats flirted with some pretty unsavoury ideas. His
defenders ask us precisely to view the poetry *separately*
from his life and his views, to see the poetry as
transcendent and free standing.
His politics are complex, and I don't want to be reductive.
I try to consider his poetry apart from his 'ideas' which
seem to find themselves in the apocalyptic and alarmist
poetry of 'Second Coming'. The Lake Isle is just bad poetry.
On its own terms.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Understand this problem. Mine's with T.S. Eliot --
shadowkat, 07:32:36 07/05/02 Fri
Great poet. Not a man I'd want to know. Anti-semantic,
somewhat fascist, and according to some biographers,
particularly cruel to his wife, whom he committed.
But I love The Love Song of J. alfred Prufrock and the
poem with We Are The Hollow Men - which works nicely with
Heart of Darkness and the Things Fall Apart metaphor.
RE Yeates - I like him because he collected Irish folk
stories - ensuring their preservation. And his poems.
But I've ignored his ideas and politics for the same reasons
I've ignored Eliots. Same thing goes for movie actors,
artists, and fiction novelists. Although sometimes they get
on soap boxes and make this difficult. An example is Tom
Cruise and Scientology.
So I understand you're difficulty. Have had to deal with it
myself. How can such a great poet but such a short-sighted
racist man? (shrug).
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Philip Larkin -- Rahael, 07:46:13 07/05/02
Fri
I love, love, love his poetry.
They move me, they make me laugh, I admire his incredible,
subtle use of words, rhyme and rhythm. But his private
letters revealed him to be an anti semite and a racist.
However, you wouldn't know it from his poetry - though the
misanthropy kind of shows through!!!
As for Yeats, the seriousness of his fascist sympathies is
contested. But he did show interest in the Irish
Blueshirts:
In 1933, he wrote this to a friend:
"The great secret is out--a convention of blue-shirts--
"National Guards"--have received their new leader with the
Fascist salute and the new leader announces reform of
Parliament as his business. . . . Italy, Poland, Germany,
then perhaps Ireland. Doubtless I shall hate it (though not
so much as I hate Irish democracy) but it is September we
must not behave like the gay young sparks of May or June.
The organization is for an independent Ireland within the
commonwealth. Whether it succeeds or not in abolishing
parliamentary government as we know it today, it will
certainly bring into discussion all the things I care
for."
He also composed three marching songs for them.
Yeat's ideas about nationalism and politics are very
important to his work.
Larkin, on the other hand is poet of the private life, the
mundane, the little things. It's very easy to separate his
work from his prejudices, since he doesn't pretend in his
poetry to be a wonderful human being. He sees himself with
all his petty faults.
T.S Eliot? never cared that much for him or his work.
Sacrilege, I know!!! Though I do love the beginning of
Wasteland for it's references to a greater work - Chaucer's
prologue to Cantebury Tales.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
PC pitfalls everywhere -- Arethusa, 08:30:37
07/05/02 Fri
Rudyard Kipling was racist. P. G. Woodhouse did propaganda
for the Nazis (IIRC). Louisa May Alcott was anti-Irish.
Many pre-20th century writers were rabidly anti-women. Even
women writers in those days denegrated women at times. Love
Elizabeth Gaskell, but get tired of her views on the proper
sphere of women. I take what I want and leave the rest.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
It's a matter of taste -- Rahael, 09:08:11
07/05/02 Fri
I usually try to say, how great is the work? how petty are
the irksome things?
I think I've said before that I never read Somerset Maugham
again after I encountered a sentence where he compared women
of my community to Apes. Not in character, but as a casual
description. He wasn't worth reading again, not for that
slap in the face.
Kipling - very complex man, body of work is interesting and
good enough to be worth it.
Wodehouse was a prisoner of the Germans, and he was forced
to make those broadcasts. Gaskell despite her sharing some
current views on women, was still an unusual thinker and one
of the first recorders of the effects of the industrial
revolution. I love North and South.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Me too. -- Arethusa, 09:41:10 07/05/02 Fri
And I agree with your point-look at the works as a whole
(that is your point, right?).
Found this at an interesting site: http://www.k-
1.com/Orwell/anderson2.htm
"P G WOODHOUSE
Orwell produced an essay entitled "In defence of Woodhouse",
protesting against his treatment for being a pawn to
Hitler's propaganda machine. Orwell defended him as a na‹ve
man who had blundered into disaster as opposed to a
collaborationist with previous Fascist sympathies.
Woodhouse, who made several pro Nazi radio broadcasts whilst
captive in Germany, had been guilty of "nothing other than
stupidity". Orwell was less forgiving when analyzing the
writer's work noting the snobbery, the anachronisms before
finally concluding that he is a "good bad writer" in that he
evoked all the good and bad aspects of conservatism. "
And then this, from BBC news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_449000/449785.stm
"Author PG Wodehouse would probably have been put on trial
for treason if he had returned to Britain after the World
War II.
The M15 documents released by the Public Records Office call
into question the widely-held image of Wodehouse as a vain
but harmless fool.
The BBC's Christine Stewart: "Despite the misgivings
Woodhouse was awarded a knighthood"
The author had been interned in Berlin in 1941 after the
Germans overran France, where he had been living in a villa
in Le Touquet.
During his internment he infamously made broadcasts to
England and the US, containing whimsical descriptions of the
internment camp.
The broadcasts caused outrage back home, where some compared
him with the notorious propagandist Lord Haw-Haw and thought
he had damaged the war effort.
When interviewed by MI5 in September 1944, the author
admitted he had made a "hideous mistake", but argued that
his broadcasts were not pro-German.
"It never occurred to me that there could be anything
harmful in such statements as; when in camp I read
Shakespeare, that men who had no tobacco smoked tea and that
there was an unpleasant smell at Loos prison," he said after
the war.
'Reward for propaganda'
The BBC's Sanchia Berg reports: "MI5 did gather more
evidence"
MI5 agreed that the broadcasts were not pro-German and had
been unlikely to assist the enemy, and decided against
prosecution.
The author moved to the US in 1945 and lived there until his
death in 1975, aged 93.
But a memo of a 1946 meeting between an M15 officer and the
then Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Theobald Mathew,
reveals that his case was re-evaluated after the war.
"The Director said that he now takes the view that, if
Wodehouse ever comes to this country, he should be
prosecuted," the officer recorded.
"In view of the observations by Lord Justice Tucker that the
motive which prompted the broadcast was immaterial, he
thought that the authorities should now bring Wodehouse to
trial and leave the jury to decide the question of his guilt
or innocence."
Payments from Germany
Later, MI5 learned of documents found in the former German
Embassy in Paris, which detailed suspicious payments made to
Wodehouse and his wife Edith.
The BBC's Jon Silverman: "PG Wodehouse never fully regained
his reputation after the war"
One letter from the embassy requested that Wodehouse's
French villa be well kept "in view of the propaganda value
of his work".
The transactions were seen to "strongly suggest" that
Wodehouse was working for the embassy.
But MI5 noted that the Germans may simply have been
transferring the author's funds left behind in Berlin when
he moved to France in 1943.
Outrage from fans
Suggestions of treachery have outraged fans of Wodehouse,
who insist he had simply been naive.
Norman Murphy, chairman of the PG Wodehouse Society (UK),
said there was nothing suspicious about a series of payments
from the embassy to the Wodehouses.
"The so-called payments were probably either payments of his
royalties or maintenance because the Germans didn't want
their world famous prisoner to die in their hands," he said.
"His financial affairs during the war were such that his
wife had to sell her jewellery, and they had to borrow money
to eat.
"Royalties were all that kept them going and were funnelled
through the German Foreign Office, which would account for
the mysterious payment," he said."
I read a similiar article a while back, which is why I made
the Woodhouse reference. Was he a victim or collaborator?
I can't tell from the evidence I've seen so far. But the
German didn't seem to worry much about whether they
transfered other appropriated funds to their proper
owners.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [>
yes that's what I meant! -- Rahael, 09:59:00
07/05/02 Fri
I think Wodehouse's reputation has recovered, and that the
consensus appears to be swinging to the notion that he was
not a collaborator.
The evidence exists in the work - the satirical portrait of
the Brownshirts - Roderick Spode is v. funny.
Here speaks someone who has just purchased the DVDs of the
ITV series 'Jeeves and Wooster'. Fry and Laurie are
excellent! I heartily recommend them to American fans who
might never have seen Steven Fry do a great portrayal of
Jeeves.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
However, avoid Peter O'Toole's Earl of Emsworth --
d'Herblay, 12:50:54 07/05/02 Fri
He should have played Galahad Threepwood instead. He was
born for the role. Ok, he drank himself into the role.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [>
Ahhh Wodehouse...I missed the Tv series --
shadowkat, 16:19:44 07/05/02 Fri
Didn't catch the BBC series, dang it! Love the books
though.
Very humorous. Read five of the Jeeves and Wooster
series.
And saw Cold Comfort Farm (which isn't Jeeves and Wooster
but is Wodehouse), also saw musical By Jeeves on broadway
this year (for free luckily, since it wasn't that
great.)
Glad Wodehouse isn't seen totally as a collaborator.
Although Areustha's statements made me think of Kurt
Vonnegurt's book Mother Night.
I'm unfamilar with Larkin, (my english lit days are 14 years
behind me...so maybe I read him and don't remember?)
Didn't know much about Yeats background and very glad, would
have tainted his works.
Never was fond of W. Somersaut Maugam (sp?) - not my cup of
tea, tried, couldn't get through it. Same problem with D. H
Lawrence's longer works. Did like his short stories
though.
Hemingway was also annoying in his personal views. But an
amazing writer.
Problem with people? They aren't perfect. All have nasty
flaws. Some worse than others. Unless their flaws strongly
influences their art I try to dismiss it.
Something interesting to note regarding PC - I've known
people (and this makes me shudder) who have stopped watching
certain actors after they learned they were gay.
Rock Hudson stayed in the closet for years because of
this.
And Richard Chamberlin had the same problem. I've actually
heard female colleagues state that they can't watch these
actors in love scene because of this knowledge. How sad is
that? (Actually it made me think ill of my female
colleagues.) The actor's beliefs and personal life should
not factor into what you are watching. Their personal lives
and sexual preferences are irrelevant. Yes, they may draw on
this, but the whole point of acting is playing someone else.
Rock Hudson was a marvelous actor. Amazing in Giant.
Sad to think we could have lost those images due to
homophobia or prejudice. My point is that our prejudices,
whatever they may be, righteous or unrighteous, as the case
may be, can often blind us to great work. That's horribly
sad.
I think the same thing can be said for the poetry or fiction
of someone who has political or personal views we can't
abide. Of course Rah is right - this is DIFFERENT, a
writer's personal views often play into what they
create.
But there are times that the creation jumps a few steps
above the views and becomes something else something
greater. Eliot's The Waste Land is an example. As are some
of Yeats poems and Wodehouse's Jeeves & Wooster. Or
Maugham's Of Human Bondage.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> [>
Re: Ahhh Wodehouse...I missed the Tv series --
Rahael, 16:28:34 07/05/02 Fri
I liked Of Human Bondage too......
Larkin is a very good English poet that American's don't
seem to have heard of. I quote him often though!
I agree with you about creation jumping a few steps.
Just a minor correction: Cold Comfort Farm is by Stella
Gibbon, not Wodehouse.
(and the J&W series is by Granada for ITV, not BBC)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Understand this problem. Mine's with T.S. Eliot
-- leslie,
09:09:02 07/06/02 Sat
"Anti-semantic"?
Okay my dear--you officially win the "best Freudian slip of
the month" award.
As for Yeats, I echo WH Auden's thoughts in his elegy on
Yeats's death:
Time, that is intolerant
Of the brave an innocent
And indifferent in a week
To a beautiful physique,
Worhips language and forgives
Everyone by whom it lives.
Time, that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views
And will pardon Paul Claudel
Pardons him [Yeats] for writing well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
An interesting 'sideways' (and completely OT!!) look at
Yeats is -- redcat, 11:01:30 07/05/02 Fri
Mary K. Greer's "Women of the Golden Dawn," (1995, about $25
US in paperback, 490 pp).
This text is not about Yeats per se, but rather is a history
of the lives of four culturally-significant women of the
Victorian era, one of whom was a long-time lover of the
poet, and all four of whom were intimately involved with
Yeats, Shaw and the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, as
well as the theater scene in Dublin, London and Paris. It's
an interesting text because Greer is a well-trained
historian, but her subject is these folks' particular set of
historically and culturally-constructed ideas about "magick"
and the nature of reality and the supernatural, and about
how those ideas and the interactions among this social set
affected their work in literature, theatre, poetry and
performance. Greer tells her story about this period and
the members of this group through the lives of these four
women, who are often neglected or casually dismissed in
histories that center on the more important male writers and
their works.
Greer's claim is not that these women were or are more
"important" than Yeats or Shaw, etc., only that we can see
something else about all the members of the group as people
and as writers by looking at a broader picture of their
world that includes and is seen from the POV of the women
the "recognized" writers lived with. Her take on the
politics of fascism and eugnics enbraced by several members
of the group, not just Yests, is particularly insightful.
She follows the 4 women from their mid-19thC births to their
deaths, most in the early-to-mid 20thC. Few historians have
enough understanding of the world of magical practice to
write a text like this, but Greer is a practicing Wiccan and
renowned pagan author, as well as an academically-trained
historian.
It's long and detailed, but very well-written and worth
folks' time, especially if one is interested in the period,
the lives of these very immportant male writers, magickal
practice in Britain in the late 19thC/early20thC, the link
between theater and magick during that period, or simply in
the lives of four unusual and quite fascinating women who
lived in a time of immense social, political and cultural
change.
The women, BTW, are Maud Gonne, Moina Bergson Mathers, Annie
Horniman and Florence Farr. Anyone heard of them? (Don't
feel bad - I only knew of Gonne and Farr before reading this
book, and this is what I [used to, at any rate] do for a
living.)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Thank you -- aliera, 12:54:05 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
Re: Things Fall Apart -- Rufus, 05:41:23
07/05/02 Fri
Not to worry....I only was telling you how I personally got
from point a to point b in my thinking. But in regards to
Angel, I think that I would think more of Achebe, now that
I've had a quick peek at his work. The tragic story that
centers around the family and the inevitable conflicts
between father and son certainly make me think of Angel his
father, and now the conflict with Connor. All the
misunderstandings and strife caused by pride and the fear of
hearing or feeling something he can't handle (Angel) remind
me of the little passages (of Things fall apart) I've had a
chance to read. As I said before I never heard of the guy
and I'm glad you pointed him out to me.
[>
Re: -- aliera, 05:21:20 07/05/02 Fri
Thank you, Rufus. It was very pleasant to wake up this
morning and find this thoughtful essay waiting to be
enjoyed.
The rest of the interchange between Willow and Tara was of
interest also both as applied to season six and season
seven. Things do take time in realife as we were shown in
season six (to the dismay of many audience members) and
trust will have to be built again.
And can we just skip it? I hope not.
[>
Re: Things Fall Apart.......but Forever? -- Rowan,
06:42:23 07/05/02 Fri
"If we believe in the idea of infinity, then how can we ever
think that Tara or Buffy's mother for that matter, are gone?
They may have left this mortal coil but exist in the
Afterlife where we all end up someday. We may be temporary,
but our imagination is where anything is possible. It is in
the imagination that we can think of either good or bad and
make it so in reality.
The cycle of life and death has landed the Scoobies back to
the beginning...a new start to do things right. In starting
again they honour the memory of the ones they loved the most
and have died. It also reminds me of what the guide in
Intervention had said about Buffy fearing love and pulling
away from it....in the Gift, Buffy understood something
about living that made it precious enough to die for, in
Grave, Buffy now loves life enough to continue on and live
it. One thing about repetition, if you do something enough
times, you may just get it right."
I think what I found interesting about comparing The Gift
and Grave is that they basically reaffirm the same message:
service to others through love. When Buffy is able to
reconcile her love for Dawn and her duty as the Slayer in
The Gift, she finally becomes the figure who is 'full of
love' and able to sacrifice herself for the greater good and
be happy about it. In return, she is rewarded with an
afterlife where she feels safe, warm, and loved. In Grave,
her sudden flowerpiphany that she loves her friends, Dawn,
and the world and that she wants them to be happy is
similar. She has found her heart again. That is the thing
that she came back without in Bargaining. Maybe it was the
interupted spell. Maybe it was post-traumatic stress
disorder. Whatever it was, symbolically Dawn has been
Buffy's heart since she appeared in S5 and when Buffy
climbed out of that grave with her in that paradisial Eden
(sprung up surprisingly in a cemetary), she was whole again.
"Only where love and need are one/And the work is play for
mortal stakes/Is the deed every really done/For Heaven and
for future's sake. [Robert Frost, "Two Tramps in
Mudtime"]
The season was dark IMO because the Scoobies treated each
other unlovingly. That was their lesson this season. When
they withdraw, when they do things to hurt each other, when
they don't respect each other, the center cannot hold. As
Hallie said, 'all you have is time and each other'. That
was their overriding lesson. I expect to see S7 focus on
the Scoobies loving each other again (and that includes
Spike, because like it or not, he's part of the family now)
to establish that the center can indeed hold and hold hard
beyond death.
Rowan
[> [>
The Imagination -- Rufus, 16:01:48 07/05/02
Fri
I did throw in a bit of a hint with Spike and the
imagination. When a vampire is created the soul is gone but
the personality, memories...the imagination is left. Dru
picked Spike for a reason.....
DRUSILLA
And I wonder... what possible catastrophe came crashing down
from heaven and brought this dashing stranger to tears?
SPIKE
Nothing. I wish to be alone.
DRUSILLA
Oh, I see you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see his
strength, his vision, his glory. (beat) That and burning
baby fish swimming all around your head.
Spike backs away from her, nervous.
SPIKE
That's quite close enough. I've heard tales of London
pickpockets. You'll not be getting my purse, I tell you.
DRUSILLA
(smiles)
Don't need a purse.
She points to his heart and head in succession.
DRUSILLA
Your wealth lies here... and here. In the spirit
and... imagination. You walk in worlds the others can't
begin to imagine.
Spike is riveted by her insight into his character.
SPIKE
Oh, yes! I mean, no. I mean... mother's expecting
me.
William was transformed into a vampire in a point in his
life where he was clearly still "very" attached to his
mother. As Spike he was stuck in a "childlike" state where
he did things for himself only (yeah I know for Dru too, but
keeping her happy kept him happy). When he got the chip a
slow process started, the imagination which had been blunted
by killing and blood...the repetition of killing making
Spike only think of killing as the reason for being. When he
gave up trying to kill Buffy and in fact woo her, his
imagination, full of thoughts "of things of beauty"
emerged...part of the proof his eating, and decorating, and
basic need to make a human like home. Maybe Dru saw that
this man was meant to walk in many worlds, worlds others
could never imagine impossible...worlds with monsters and
men. He saw Dru as his salvation when in fact she made him a
monster...I can't wait to see his take on what he has been
will change with the return of his soul. It was not just the
love for Buffy that saved Spike, but the imagination that
still housed thoughts of things beautiful.
[>
Consume my heart away -- Rahael, 11:34:45
07/07/02 Sun
"Although Yeats saw and felt around himself the unchangeable
order of dying and fading of temporary things, he was
looking for something what wouldn't be affected by this
change, the immortality and eternity. That was the world
where the imagination comes from. He said that the world of
imagination is just the eternal world, in opposite to the
world of reason, which is the world of lies and cheat,
phantasm falling apart."
I really commented on this on another thread - he connects
to Sidney's idea that the Poet can show a better, artificial
world than the real world. Sidney commented in his 'Defence
of Poesy' that only the poet could lead men to see the real,
'Platonic' world. That the artificial work, the 'golden
bird' of Yeats' Sailing to Byzantium is better than the real
bird. This is a counter point to Hans Christian Anderson's
story, where the emperor orders the creation of an
artificial bird, which in the end proves unsatisfactory. The
artificial bird may sing sweetly, on command, but it cannot
surpass the bird song which first opened the imagination of
the emperor in those woods......
Those woods, characterised thus by Keats:
"The weariness, the fever, the fret
Here, where men sit and hear each other groan
Where palsy shakes a few, last, grey hairs,
Where youth grows pale and spectre thin and dies;
Where but to think is to be full of sorrow
And leaden eyed despairs;
Where beauty cannot keep her lustrous eyes
Or new love pine at them beyond tomorrow"
How startling this verse is, when placed next to
'Bargaining'. That hell, where Buffy is dragged back into,
where they all get lost in the woods of death, decay,
mortality, life.
Keats sees intoxication (magic, wine, poetry) as an escape.
But a dangerous escape, because it is almost suicidal.
"Darkling I listen and for many a time
I have been half in love with easeful Death
Called him soft names with many a mused rhyme
To take into the air my quiet breath
Now more than ever it seems rich to die
To cease upon the midnight with no pain"
Buffy more than most has been 'half in love with easeful
death', whereas it has been Willow who has been drunk on
magic, flying off to new worlds on viewless wings.
So imagination, magic can be dangerous, and beautiful. The
world of Sunnydale, the land of imagination can be
dangerous, can burn up its inhabitants.
In Sailing to Byzantium, Yeats talks of the fire that
consumes:
Come from the holy fire, perne in a gyre,
And be the singing-masters of my soul.
Consume my heart away; sick with desire
And fastened to a dying animal
It knows not what it is; and gather me
Into the artifice of eternity.
Ringing any bells for anyone? The fire that acts as the
'singing masters of my soul'.
Again, that warning that art, the artifice of eternity, the
guaranteer of a poet's immortality is a double edged
sword.
The irony is, the thing that undercuts the misery of Season
6 is that it is artificial misery, the misery of art. This
is the promise of Sweet as he mocks us. Cry for Buffy, but
she isn't real. Experience your pain and joy watching a tv
programme, but remember that you're singing someone else's
song. He's the king, and we just dance his dance and sing
his songs.
So the narrative will win, Buffy will recover, she will
conquer her pain, Spike will find his redemption, Dawn will
discover her true powers, Xander will gain his heart, Anya
her forgiveness, but remember:
"Was it a vision, or a waking dream?
Fled is that music: do I wake or sleep?"
(Guess I found that Buffy link after all!)
[> [>
Oh, and, Spike as a Grecian Urn -- Rahael,
12:00:47 07/07/02 Sun
I'm still awaiting Caroline's promised essay on Keats and
the Buffyverse!
But I'll throw this idea out there. We have this premise
that Spike is a higly Romantic, or wannabe Romantic
character (and I'm not talking of the hearts and flowers
variety).
The highest pitch of this Romantic ideal can be found in
Keats who wrote wonderful, ecstatic poetry and died when he
was 25. Having nursed his younger brother throughout his
terminal illness, he was obsessed with the ideas of death
and mortality, ideas which seem very relevant in viewing
Vampires, as walking graves. They have eternal life, but as
Adam points out in Season 4, this just makes their fear of
death even more potent.
Keat's, and his brother died of consumption, which, famously
involves the coughing up of blood, and consumption is a very
Romantic illness, and is 'all about the blood'. The heroine
of La Traviata dies of consumption. The imagery of blood
which signifies both life, and death and mortality in the
round is highly potent - this why Vampires are such a
powerful metaphor, and why these creatures of death in the
Buffyverse seem so potent, and so alive - they drink of the
very stuff of life and death.
The Vampire, as has been noted by many posters here, notably
Age and Rufus, are arrested teenagers, adolescents, always
on the brink of high emotion.
In Ode to a Grecian Urn, Keat's celebration of the
immortality of art, he says, talking of the scenes depicted
on the vase:
"Heard melodies are sweet, but those unheard
Are sweeter; therefore ye soft pipes, play on;
Not to the sensual ear, but, more endeared,
Pipe to the spirit ditties of no tone,
Fair youth beneath the trees, thou cans't not leave
Thy song, nor ever can those trees be bare;
Bold lover, never, never can'st thou kiss
Though winning near the goal - yet do not grieve
She cannot fade, though thou hast not thy bliss,
For ever wilt thou love and she be fair!"
The two lovers of the Grecian urn are stuck, in their
passionate, frozen love, reminding me of James and Elizabeth
in Hearthrob. Where an unchanging, frozen love is prized
above a changing, human, mortal one.
But Vampires exist in a world, Sunnydale, where things are
in constant flux, whether it be Gods or Keys, or just plain
mortal death, love, marriage, life. Nothing around them
stands still, but themselves. So they become casualties of
Buffy who seems to represent the force of life itself. Both
her relationships with Vampires was shown to be highly
passionate, but doomed. Her affair with Angel could never be
consummated without danger - they are forced to stand apart.
Her affair with Spike disturbed dangerous emotions in
both.
Significantly this season, Angel has 'grown up' become an
adult in the fullest sense by having a son. Though
ironically, he's stuck motionless at the bottom of the ocean
this summer. Spike entered the Crucible of change and has
come out, who knows what?
So there appears to be three options for a vampires, in the
world of Sunnydale - forever frozen, to turn back into the
ashes and dust of death (I will show you fear in a handful
of dust) or to truly change and grow up.
[> [> [>
Whoops, spoilers for all aired seasons in US, for BtVS
and AtS -- Rahael, 12:05:22 07/07/02 Sun
[> [> [>
Buffy as "the force of life itself." I love
that image. Thanks Rah. -- Sophist, 12:52:33 07/07/02
Sun
[> [> [>
Re: -- aliera, 13:16:33 07/07/02 Sun
The post as an art form.
Evocative, lyrical, sublime.
[> [> [>
wow, wonderful posts, Rahael -- Ete, 15:11:25
07/07/02 Sun
[> [> [> [>
Thanks guys, for indulging my poetry addled brain!
-- Rahael, 01:58:08 07/08/02 Mon
Question
concerning Buffy S3 concerning Angel -- wiscoboy,
06:47:03 07/05/02 Fri
It always was assumed when Angel was sent back by the PTB
that the same rules(no moment of true happiness) were still
in play. Where was that ever stated as fact? I do not
remember it and believe this was used only as a means for
the ATS spinoff. This has been a nagging question for me,
and believe if I am right, would open the door to finalizing
both series(once UPN purchases ATS) with Buffy & Angel(and I
am NOT a B/A shipper) getting back together(happily
everafter as they say).
[>
Re: Question concerning Buffy S3 concerning Angel -
- Finn Mac Cool, 06:55:39 07/05/02 Fri
It is suspected that the Powers That Be brought Angel back
from hell. However, that wasn't the act that gave him his
soul. Willow used magic to restore it just before Buffy
plunged the sword into Angel and forced him into hell. The
spell Willow used was an exact repeat of the original spell
that the gypsies cursed him with; therefore, all the old
rules still apply.
[> [>
Re: Question concerning Buffy S3 concerning Angel -
- wiscoboy, 07:11:29 07/05/02 Fri
But she performed that act BEFORE he was killed. So how does
that relate to him coming back with his soul intact?
To me that is a question never answered or implied.
[> [> [>
But he wasn't killed, was he? -- Rahael,
07:27:31 07/05/02 Fri
He was sent to the hell dimension as he was - not killed. He
was neither dusted, nor beheaded, just newly cursed.
[> [> [> [>
Exactly right -- Sophist, 07:58:47 07/05/02
Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Wounded, not killed -- Liam, 08:09:29
07/05/02 Fri
Remember that metal can't kill vampires; so the sword Buffy
thrust into Angel before he was sucked into hell only
wounded him, although I'm sure that it 'hurt like hell'.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Wounded, not killed -- maddog, 08:49:51
07/05/02 Fri
Besides, it stuck him in the wrong spot. She thrusted it
into his gut...not his heart.
[> [>
Re: Question concerning Buffy S3 concerning Angel -
- maddog, 08:48:42 07/05/02 Fri
If that's the case then cool...it makes sense. But what I
don't remember hearing is that the spell Jenny was working
on was the exact same one that her ancestors used. I
thought when she originally confesed to Buffy she said those
magics were too old for her to get or understand.
[>
Re: Question concerning Buffy S3 concerning Angel-S4*
Spoiler*/Speculation -- Arethusa, 08:18:44 07/05/02
Fri
Are you asking if the happiness clause is still in effect?
As far as we know, it is. Other questions:
1. Does the happiness clause still work the same now that
Angel knows about it? How could Angel now experience
perfect happiness when he knows what will happen afterwards?
Perhaps the very fact of knowing about it makes the clause
invalid-he could never be perfectly happy now that he knows
what would happen after-perfect disaster.
2. Would Buffy and Angel even want to be together now?
Both actors and, I believe, Drew Greenburg, said that too
much has happened to the characters to return to their old
loves. They're no longer the same, and no longer want the
same thing. Remember the part of the attempted rape scene
when Buffy says passionate, white-hot affairs burn
themselves out, and she wants a relationship based on trust?
3. Would the clause work if Angel had sex with anyone else
but Buffy? Darla is proof that just having sex isn't the
trigger. Buffy, we generally concede, is Angel's soul mate.
Could sex with anyone else be perfect? Greenburg said (I
paraphrase) that he's dying to have Angel say, "Just because
I can't have perfect happiness, doesn't mean you can't," to
a woman.
And yes, I've thought waaaay too much about this.
[> [>
Re: perfect happiness -- tam, 08:31:04 07/05/02
Fri
didn't angel experience "perfect happiness" with his son?
before he was stolen by holtz. the way he held him, the way
he talked to him.
[> [> [>
Re: perfect happiness -- Arethusa, 08:49:18
07/05/02 Fri
We talked about this before, I think. One possible
explination is that having a child, even a much-wanted one,
never leads to perfect happiness. From the time my first
child was born, I never stopped worrying about her, and even
though having her was the greatest happiness of my life, it
was never a perfect one. And I didn't even have vampire
cults, vampire hunters, and an evil law firm to worry
about.
[>
Re: Question concerning Buffy S3 concerning Angel -
- maddog, 08:44:22 07/05/02 Fri
I personally can't remember that they did and it's always
confused me that the curse still existed when it really
shouldn't have.
[> [>
Good Enough for Now?: -- Liam, 10:18:01 07/05/02
Fri
What we saw in season 2 of 'Angel' showed that Angel can
have sex with a woman, as long as he's not in love with her.
As long as he can get involved with someone he's not in love
with and can never be in love with, the happiness clause
won't operate. It put me in mind of the following song:
Good Enough for Now
by 'Weird Al' Yankovic
Oh, I couldn't live a single day without you
Actually, on second thought, well, I suppose I could
Anyway, what I'm trying to say is, honey, you're the
greatest
Well, at any rate, I guess you're...pretty good
Now, it seems to me I'm relatively lucky
I know I probably couldn't ask for too much more
I honestly can say you're an above-average lady
You're almost just what I've been looking for
You're sort of everything I've ever wanted
You're not perfect, but I love you anyhow
You're the woman that I've always dreamed of
Well, not really...but you're good enough for now
You're pretty close to what I've always hoped for
That's why my love for you is fairly strong
And I swear I'm never gonna leave you, darlin'
At least 'til something better comes along
'Cause you're sort of everything I've ever wanted
You're not perfect, but I love you anyhow
You're the woman that I've always dreamed of
Well, not really...but you're good enough for now
No, not really...but you're good enough for now
[> [> [>
Gotta love Al... d'ya think we can get ME to use some
of his music? ;) -- Yankovic fan, 22:42:38 07/05/02
Fri
What's up with
Parachat... (is it a Macintosh thing?) -- neaux,
10:38:29 07/05/02 Fri
Hey.. if you read yesterday.. some people had trouble
getting into chat. I was one of them. I tried to get on
here at work on my PC using IE6. I Didnt have a problem and
logged-in fine.
In fact I never had a problem getting in chat until
yesterday? Did they decide to make it NOT Macintosh
compatible? I used IE5 browser and it used to work. Now
when you try to LOG-In.. the Ok, Connect button has
vanished completely. What gives?
Does any one else use a Mac and have this problem? Does
parachat work in Netscrap? Do I have to download Netscrap
just to chat? Am I just delirous? Am I asking too many
questions?
eh... If i cant get into chat I'm going to have major buffy
withdrawals.. (sniffles)
[>
Re: What's up with Parachat... (is it a Macintosh
thing?) -- Ronia-has a mac, 10:41:06 07/05/02 Fri
and never had trouble before yesterday either.....
[> [>
Ditto -- Masq, 10:54:31 07/05/02 Fri
Emailed Liq about it. Not sure what's up or who to report
the problem to yet.
[> [> [>
Re: Mac problem -- Brian, 11:01:01 07/05/02
Fri
While in New England, I tried several times logging on to
the chat room using a Mac. It was a no go each time
[> [>
Doesn't work on Netscape 6.2.2, either, but got it to
work fine on my unix machine -- Masq, 11:00:31
07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [>
So I have no other choice but insanity! @-@ --
neaux, 11:10:41 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [>
I emailed Liq... -- Masq, 11:20:50 07/05/02
Fri
She still has admin powers over the chat room. No response
yet. I went to parachat's website, but didn't see any
options for sending in an email to report the problem.
My suspicion is that they upgraded their software and over
looked that pesky cross-platform compatibility issue. They
will be getting complaints from more people than us....
[> [> [> [> [>
From the Parachat Help sit for Mac users --
LittleBit, 11:44:37 07/05/02 Fri
Hope this helps!!!! Missing you all.
Why can't I connect to ParaChat using a Mac?
There are known problems with the implementation of Java in
Netscape and Internet Explorer. Because of this, some Mac
users find that ParaChat functions with limitations or not
at all. If you would like to heighten your compatibility
with your Mac and Java, visit Apple's Java web page for
their latest Java update download.
For best performance, we recommend using Mac OS X or 9.1,
running IE 5.0, JIT compiler option disabled and Microsoft
Java VM. (Netscape 4.0 is also reported to work reliably for
a large number of Mac users.)
If you have any additional information regarding using
ParaChat with a Mac, please e-mail support@parachat.com
[> [> [> [> [> [>
This is old news -- Masq, 11:51:40 07/05/02
Fri
This has nothing to do with the current troubles, which
popped up in the last few days. Most of us who have Macs
have been using the chat room just fine.
The "recommended" software they mention no longer can load
parachat correctly. In other words, THIS IS A PARACHAT
problem...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Sorry, thought the support e-mail might be a place to
start. -- LittleBit, 11:54:59 07/05/02 Fri
My apologies for the mistake.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Did use the email address, thanks! -- Masq,
11:58:35 07/05/02 Fri
And sent them a very (*gulp*) passive-aggressive letter of
complaint.
Two things you don't cross the Masq-inator on: Angel and
Macintoshes!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Mac'ers of the World Unite! =D -- neaux,
13:33:08 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
We shall overcome!! =) -- Ronia, 15:39:21
07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
Neaux and Ronia: I'm bringing the umbrella drinks to
insanity. You got the cheez doodles? -- julia,
17:02:05 07/05/02 Fri
[>
the solution is Opera 5.0!!!! Dowload it right now Mac
users -- neaux, 16:48:36 07/05/02 Fri
download Opera 5.0 for the macintosh at cnet.com
[> [>
Re: Dont forget to download the OS9 version!! --
neaux, 17:06:47 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [>
http://download.com.com/3001-2143-8431301.html --
Masq_opera, 17:08:56 07/05/02 Fri
http://download.com.com/3001-2143-8431301.html
[> [> [> [>
Re: http://download.com.com/3001-2143-8431301.html
-- Ronia, 17:26:29 07/05/02 Fri
I went, I saw, I think I downloaded...but still, no connect
button?
[> [> [> [> [>
Me too: veni, vedi, downloadi, installi et niente.
-- julia, 17:32:10 07/05/02 Fri
In fact, now I don't even have the misshapen entrance box.
Curiouser and curiouser. Oh the humanity!
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Ronia, wants to come and play... -- Ronia,
18:33:49 07/05/02 Fri
Ronia wants to come and play today. She can't though, so
she's gonna go watch some more Buffy, night all, hope this
is resolved soon. :-)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Takes a minute to load, but neaux and I got it to
work... -- Masq who also sent a nasty email to parachat
on our behalves, 19:27:28 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Takes a minute to load, but neaux and I got it to
work... -- Ronia..HOW?! what did you do?, 19:38:40
07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Takes a minute to load, but neaux and I got it to
work... -- Ronia, 19:50:58 07/05/02 Fri
you are talking about the free one right? 'cause I've
downloaded it 4 times, and still I can't get in...what am I
doing wrong?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Takes a minute to load, but neaux and I got it to
work... -- Masq, 20:13:30 07/05/02 Fri
I got it to work at work, but I can't get it to work at
home. I think it may have to do with the version of java
supported by your browser AND on your operating system. We
have all the latest updates at work, but my home computer is
three years old.
[> [> [> [>
They appear to be down for maintenance -- Vickie,
21:04:14 07/05/02 Fri
phooey!
NOT a Classic
Movie of the Week -- MaeveRigan, 10:45:28 07/05/02
Fri
BLOOD OF DRACULA (1957) was on AMC this morning. I was
transfixed by the incredible campy awfulness of this teenage
vampire flick, which brought on an attack of Buffyitis--I
kept thinking that all the movie needed was a few tweaks and
some irony (all right, a SHIPLOAD of irony) and it could
have been BtVS. Also, Joss Whedon at the helm would have
helped, instead of the deservedly unknown Herbert Strock and
Aben Kandel (yes, I looked it up on IMDB:
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0050201)
Starring an equally unknown cast (no wonder), BLOOD OF
DRACULA is set in a high school (girls' boarding), has
clueless police, dancing and singing (bad, by a kid called
"Tab"--so you know he must die very, very soon), and yes, a
classic example of the "lesbian cliche" in the mad science
teacher "Miss Branding" (symbolic name much?) who
sympathizes with "Nancy," then turns her into a vampire
through hypnotism and an ancient Carpathian amulet. (Miss
Branding's theory is that this will somehow save the world
from nuclear disaster--don't ask how.) After Nancy kills
several teens (including Tab), and barely resists killing
her own boyfriend, she vamps out & kills Miss B instead.
Then she falls on a broken chair-leg and is staked. Miss B
also has a creepy pet student, "Myra," who reminded me of
Willow, if Willow had no sense of humor or sympathy. If you
think, "Oh, like Evil!Willow," no--this actress appeared to
have no feelings at all. The only resemblance to Willow was
the role.
All in all, deliciously dreadful. Vampire kitsch for the off-
season!
[>
Some thread hijacking (OT) Lord Peter -- fresne,
08:40:36 07/06/02 Sat
Yippeee. The Lord Peter/Harriet Vane Mystery series is
finally on DVD (or VHS for that matter). I taped it when it
was on the air back in the 80s, but the tapes are getting a
mite worn.
Yeha.
[> [>
It is? Is this an American series? -- Rahael,
09:07:36 07/06/02 Sat
Any good? Point the way folks, I have a multi region DVD
player!
Of course it could be British - I wasn't here then, and am
not aware of it.
[> [> [>
Both - BBC and Mystery -- fresne, 11:20:02
07/06/02 Sat
I believe that it was a BBC (later on Mystery in the US)
series. It played a few times decades ago and then
disappeared beneath the waves. (My taped off the tv copy has
Vincent Price as the host.)
Petherbridge was perfect as Wimsey. He piffled, he pattered,
he fell in love with a photo. Harriet Walter as Harriet
Vane, sigh. Prickly, hurt, smart, perfect.
And since I never got to see the first part of Gaudy Night,
I'm very, very happy.
Ah yes, today is the day that I go into BtVS and Wimsical
debt.
[> [>
Re: Some thread hijacking (OT) Lord Peter --
MaeveRigan, 09:34:59 07/06/02 Sat
I forgive you because I *loved* this series. Will now put it
on my "must-buy" DVD list, along with BtVS!
Spike's Soul
(spoilers of course) -- Purple Tulip, 10:47:58
07/05/02 Fri
I re-watched the season finale the other night, and was a
little confused on something: Spike asked the demon to make
him what he was. So how could the demon give him his soul
back? Spike was never a vampire with a soul- that was
always Angel's gig. If Spike were truly going to be "what
he was", then that would either be an evil killer or a sappy
man. Perhaps the new soul will make him into a nice
combination of the two. Or is it just Joss's way of
alluding us up until the very end by thinking that Spike was
just gonna get his chip out? Was the demon a mind-reader so
no matter how much Spike stated that he wanted his chip out,
the demon knew what he really wanted all along- his soul?
And if a vampire with a soul is "what Buffy deserves", then
what does that say about their relationship in the future?
If Spike comes back with a soul, and this is indeed what
Buffy deserves, then there will be no excuse for them not to
be together.
Also, Angel started out as Liam, who then became Angelus
when he was turned, who became Angel when he was given his
soul back. William became Spike when he was turned, so who
will he be now that he has his soul back? Will they change
his name again to go along with the theme? And is Spike
going to do the whole remorseful, brooding thing that Angel
did once he remembers everything that he's done? Will more
of William come out and less of Spike? dum Dum DUM!!!
Hmmm...not too many deep thoughts, just a lot of unanswered
questions.
[>
Re: Spike's Soul (spoilers of course) -- Rochefort,
11:12:10 07/05/02 Fri
Well I don't think ANYthing combined with an awful killer
makes a nice combination. Not even an awful killer combined
with a bananna cream pie.
Joss has said that Spike was trying to get his soul back
from the beginning. Marsters said that was NEWS to HIM.
But if Spike IS going to get a new name, what do you think
it should be?
[>
Re: Spike's Soul (spoilers of course) -- plainjane,
11:44:25 07/05/02 Fri
is it possible that spike wont be a vampire with a soul but
a man just like xander or giles? i remember from the dream
episode that he was out in the daylight when he and giles
were on the swings.
[> [>
Re: Spike's Bod (spoilers of course) -- Darby,
12:32:04 07/05/02 Fri
Definitely a vampire, according to JM (and, I think, Joss),
but not an Angel-type, although JM expects the whole filled-
with-remorse thing.
And don't get me started on the exposition failures in the
season-ender...misdirection my azure eyes...
[> [>
Re: Spike's Soul (spoilers of course) -- Purple
Tulip, 12:34:05 07/05/02 Fri
is it possible that spike wont be a vampire with a soul but
a man just like xander or giles? i remember from the dream
episode that he was out in the daylight when he and giles
were on the swings.
Actually, I had always wondered about that since I saw
"Restless". When they were on the swings, Spike was dressed
like Giles and said "Giles is training me to be a watcher".
I had always thought that this statement would foreshadow
something, since nearly everything else in that episode has
foreshadowed events in season 5 and 6. I would actually
like it if Spike did become human and sort of took over the
watcher role. It is feasable that he could take on a Giles-
esque role, but I don't think it is for the becoming human.
I've read in numerous interviews that he will deffinately
become a "vampire with a soul" and not anything else.
Although we don't know what is implied along with that
statement; that is we don't know how exactly the soul is
going to change him. For him to become more like Giles is
believeable. He is extremely protective over Buffy and
Dawn, much as Giles was and is, and he already has a
majority of the knowledge that Giles has about all things
demon as he has been around for over a century. With that
knowledge and ability, he could easily become the watcher
that Buffy has been missing for so long, but on an
unconventional level which fits her better anyway, and
without the binds of the Council.
[> [> [>
I've agreed with that potential theory all
along.... -- shygirl, 08:21:03 07/07/02 Sun
[>
My interpretation -- Caesar
Augustus, 02:32:30 07/06/02 Sat
Now that i've finally seen the season ending, my
interpretation would be as follows:
Spike was still having the internal conflict - kill slayer,
or love her - am i a demon? or should i become good?
He may originally SAY that he wants to go back to what he
was, indicating a pure vampire, but either as he knows the
guy is about to grant it, reverts to his love for Buffy *OR*
the guy grants what Spike truly wants deep-down, even though
Spike might be tryin' to deny his feelings.
But the real reason is that Joss did want us to think
that Spike was gonna get the chip out.
Spike with a soul? Absolutely no idea what combination that
would produce. William was very lame. Spike was very cool.
Spike was never "that" evil to start with, compared
to say Angelus. He's just motivated by personal desires. He
did have a lot of humanity in him (v. the Judge). I
personally thought Spike with chip was the right
combination. Hopefully the soul won't change him too much -
it'll just be enough to get him in Buffy's good books.
Whether that'll ever happen after the whole Buffy/Spike
history is just too complex to even think about.
[>
My thoughts -- OneTwoMany, 05:53:39 07/06/02
Sat
The best way I can make sense of Spike's request in the
context of what he actually got is to assume that he wanted
to be what he was when he was human ie. "a good man". A
man who considered himself worthy of being loved.
Under the circumstances, I'm not sure that Spike wouldn't
have wanted (consciously or not) to be human. But the
shanshu thing appears to be a unique, one-off deal - a
reward for overcoming a great battle and therefore not
something which can be picked up in a cave in Africa. So
Spike (or the demon) chose the next best thing - a soul.
This gives Spike the chance to be 'good' and makes him as
close to 'a man' as a vamp can be.
I have no idea what Spike will come back as. But it's
important to remember that 'Spike' was an artifical persona
designed to compensate for all William's weaknesses - an
anti-William, so to speak. So one question may whether
'Spilliam' will be able to maintain the 'Spike' persona, or
whether he will even want to.
Finally, even assuming that what Buffy deserves is a
'vampire with a soul', I'm far from convinced that removes
the barriers to Spuffy. Afterall, there are two vampires
with souls, one of which has already has a strong claim on
Buffy's heart. And in any case, what Buffy deserves may be
less a vamp-lover than someone she can trust to watch her
back and someone who helps her regain her love of slaying.
'Randy' would fill that category quite nicely.
[> [>
Re: My thoughts (with an additonal speculation) --
shygirl, 08:26:30 07/07/02 Sun
Perhaps the road back to "human" is more complicated than we
realize... perhaps he can't be human again. Or, perhaps he
will first be a vampire with a chip... and then something
happens to cause him to lose the chip and turn him into a
neutral demon who can go outside in the daylight and serve
as Buffy's watcher... still a monster, but with a greater
potential for good and balance. And then, who knows...
[> [> [>
Re: My thoughts (with an additonal speculation) --
shygirl, 08:28:07 07/07/02 Sun
oops... left out the soul part... vampire with a chip and a
soul and then a demon with a soul and no chip....
[>
How about.... -- LittleBit, 07:06:48 07/06/02
Sat
In the face of two contradictory statements:
1 --- make me what I was
2 --- give Buffy what she deserves
The one granted is the last one requested: give Buffy what
she deserves.
[> [>
Taking the pedantic approach... (slightly spoilery)
-- leslie,
08:54:21 07/06/02 Sat
Well, he says "make me what I was" and what he was was a
being with a soul, so to that extent, he is what he was.
Interesting question though--can vampirism be reversed in
the Buffyverse? It would seem not. The most that can happen
is that a vampire gets a human soul. The physical changes
seem irreversible. This also raises the question of what we
could call the heirarchy of beings in the Buffyverse--humans
really seem to be the low beings on the totem pole. There
are humans, vampires, and demons, but although vampirism is
described as a human becoming "infected" with a demon,
becoming a vampire is described as "trading *up* on the food
chain," placing vamps above humans; demons, for their part,
look down on vampires as lesser beings, ungodly hybrids.
Becoming part demon is literally an elevation in Cordy's
case--look at the first thing that happens when she returns
after Skip partially demonizes her: she begins to float in
the air. Certainly one gains physical strength and prowess
and an extended lifespan (assuming you aren't offed by a
Slayer) by becoming a vampire; likewise, demons seem to have
much longer lifespans than humans, and according to Anya,
when they're in their true form, they're even bigger and
stronger than they appear in the mortal realm. This leads me
to believe that "trading up on the food chain" in indeed
irreversible, just like once you've reached adulthood, you
can't reverse the changes in your sex organs.
[> [> [>
Re: Taking the pedantic approach... (slightly
spoilery) -- plainjane, 11:45:16 07/06/02 Sat
there's an episode where Angel was human again but decided
that being a vampire was better because he could protect
Buffy so, i think it is possible for a vampire to revert
back to a human status.
[> [> [> [>
IWRY -- or I Will Remember You (aka Earl's gripe with
Morah demon blood) -- Earl Allison,
12:49:07 07/06/02 Sat
That's right, the blood of a Morah demon (massive
regenerative qualities) would reverse the physical effects
of vampirism -- as it did with Angel.
The question is, was the Morah demon a unique entity?
Apparently not, since it was mentioned that they (plural)
are assassins and specialized soliders of Darkness.
While it was nice to play with, it's a genie's bottle the
writers have opened and never closed (and possibly can't) --
why NOT use the regenerative blood of a Morah demon for some
of their problems, just to name a few:
Cure Joyce's brain tumor -- pre-operation
Cure Darla's syphilitic heart condition (don't know why
Angel never thought of it, either)
Restore any or all of the following vamps, possibly after
restoring their souls (if the curse can be used on vampires
other than Angel -- and it's obvious the curse had no effect
once Angel was made human, by the way); Spike, Drusilla,
Darla, Harmony, etc.
Sure, no one but Angel remembers, but he DOES remember. And
given the massive amounts of magic in LA -- there's no way I
could be convinced that someone, somewhere wouldn't or
couldn't summon one to be bled (it took only a small amount
for Angel to become human) for these items.
Sure, it's a cop-out, and makes it easy for people to fix
any problem -- but the thing is, ME opened that can of
worms, I didn't. It was a nice episode, but it's a gaping
hole that was never addressed, and given Angel's grief over
Darla, it SHOULD have been.
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: IWRY -- or I Will Remember You (aka Earl's gripe
with Morah demon blood) -- LittleBit, 15:21:37
07/06/02 Sat
I could accept this approach if one could find a Morah demon
willing to be a blood donor (which seems highly unlikely).
But to summon one in order to bleed it because the blood
would have beneficial propertries as perceived by humans is
not an acceptable solution. To say that it is all right
because they're demons is to accept the morality of the
Initiative, that demons and vampires are nothing but
animals. And yet we have enacted laws to protect animals
from those who would kill them because some property of the
animal is seen as beneficial or desirable.
Of course, we could ask a Morah demon about it if one could
be found who would be willing to sit down to a little chat
about blood donorship.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: IWRY -- or I Will Remember You (aka Earl's gripe
with Morah demon blood) -- KKC, 14:48:59
07/07/02 Sun
I got the impression that Morah demons are really, really
rare. Like Action Comics #1 rare. So everybody knows about
them, but nobody's seen one. It's not as if there are Morah
demons knocking on everyone's front door asking people to
buy a subscription to 'The Watchtower' or something. :)
It's not really a gaping hole to me, if this happens to be
true. It could be a lifelong journey to find another such
demon, if previous shows are any indicator... Researchers in
the Buffyverse had to spend their entire lives hunting down
one specific demon, like Giles' old friend who was obsessed
with the She-Mantis, or the Lester Worth's discovery of the
Olvikan.
-KKC, who now has visions of a Pok‚dex-like device that
Buffy could carry around in the animated series. It'll tell
you the name of a demon, its rarity, favorite food, pet
peeves, and how to ask 'Where's the bathroom' in its
language. :)
[> [> [>
By that logic ... -- Caesar
Augustus, 05:17:35 07/07/02 Sun
If I asked to be turned back to what I once was, and was
transformed into a one-year-old elephant, it would be
acceptable - since I was at one point a one-year-old
creature. Call me crazy, but this explanation doesn't quite
satisfy me. But I've come up with a crazy new theory further
down. Check that out ...
The second part is well answered by plainjane.
[> [> [>
Irreversible... unless you have Mohra demon blood in
hand... -- Forsaken, 06:20:20 07/08/02 Mon
[>
My latest *crazy* theory (more spoilers) -- Caesar
Augustus, 05:40:28 07/07/02 Sun
I've argued before that Spike is not immoral, like most
vamps, but amoral. Most people seem to agree.
I've also argued before that Spike acts as if he has a soul
on an extensional level (i.e. judging by his actions
alone). That is a strong claim though, so let's use the
watered-down version: certain things, like Spike's reaction
in "Seeing Red", the very subtly portrayed moment between
Spike and Anya in "Entropy" (afterwards), can lead us to say
that Spike often ACTS as if he has a soul - to some
extent, at least.
Now consider a well-developed theme, of season 6 especially,
that good comes with the potential for darkness (the slayer
history, Buffy, Willow). Also think of VampWillow. Thanks to
"Villains", we get a good idea that the vampiric
soul/personality is the formulation of the potential evil
within a person. What am I getting at? If Spike is amoral
(as opposed to immoral), means William wasn't evil. But more
importantly, it means he didn't have the moral capacity for
evil. This would indicate that William himself was amoral,
and if we analyse his behaviour in FFL, we're led to the
same conclusion.
So if Spike is amoral and William's soul is essentially
amoral, what will the addition of William's soul do? It will
basically change nothing (except hopefully Buffy's
reaction). So from the extensional pov, Spike will be the
same creature (which is what we all want anyway). Another
way of phrasing this is: a man is not defined by what he
thinks but how he acts. If having a soul doesn't change how
Spike acts, he's still what he was. The difference is that
now the second part of the equation can be fulfilled: Buffy
getting what she deserves.
Afraid to Live:
Does Xander have a death wish? -- K-Dizzy, 12:54:51
07/05/02 Fri
After reading a post at another board, a thought occurs:
maybe it's the `horror' aspect of the show or the lingering
soap opera/WB teen angst influence, but isn't it kind of
strange that in the high drama that is "Buffy," at least
half of the main characters have expressed and acted upon a
SERIOUS death wish.?
Anyway, in his fondness for fights that he's "not sure he
can win," dancing with slayers, an actual attempt in S4's
Doomed, his passive acceptance of Xander's attempt to be
judge, jury and executioner in Entropy, and his success in
finally ending his soulless existence, Spike definitely
ranks. In truly living up to William's Dead Poets Romantic
heritage, in trying to suck out the very marrow of life,
Spike really takes the 'death wish' prize. But after the S6
finale, Willow comes in a close second. She crossed some
Rubicon in her mind and decided that she wasn't coming back,
and as an afterthought, decided to take the entire world
with her. And speaking of being tired of the weight of the
world, let's not forget that Buffy stared into the abyss and
jumped- her sacred duty and spiraling depression perfectly
dovetailing into an act of completion that appeared to
confirm Spike's theory about slayer death wishes. And then
in S6, she tried an encore swan song/dance in OMWF until
saved by Spike.
With Giles and Tara immune to such feelings, there's Anya
and Dawn- two characters who have also made conscious
decisions in this grim respect. In S3 Anya took off rather
than face the Mayor's Ascension (definitely no death wish
here), but by S5 offered her life for Xander's (Triangle)
and was again willing to die for him in The Gift. Dawn's
kind of the reverse. She didn't want to die in the Gift (or
revert to an energy ball in Grave), but did have her moment
of steel resolve and willingness to jump...
Finally, that leaves Xander. The posting I saw said
something to the effect: "Because of his horrible childhood
and resulting fears, Xander constantly courts danger because
he's afraid to live...." Just think: over six years time,
the writers have OBVIOUSLY made it a point to keep Xander
without significantly improved combat skills (even Wes and
Cordelia have gotten much more proficient), and let's face
it: Xander is devoted to, but still not very good at
slaying. It's going to break his back- or worse- someday
soon. So the question is: why?? Again, while the mechanism
might have been Anya-demon inspired, it was made crystal
clear that Xander had a Xander-centric epiphany in Hells
Bells: he was desperately afraid to embrace happiness and a
positive future. Then, recalling his Zeppo moment of quasi-
suicidal indifference (kind of a Winona Ryder `Heathers'
ending shout-out), and then flashing forward to his moment
with DarkWillow at the cliff top- with literally nothing
left to lose and possibly everything to gain, Xander steps
in front of Willow's `magic blast' having no idea or real
care about the consequences. all leads to the realization:
Have the writers been telling us for six years that,
implicitly, Xander has a death wish?
[>
Does Xander still have feelings for Buffy? -- Caesar
Augustus, 14:10:36 07/05/02 Fri
Sorry if this has been discussed before, but the presence of
Buffy in all of the *imagined* fights with Anya in that orb
Stewart Burns used gets one thinking. Anya clearly seems
jealous of Buffy and thinks that Xander is too attached to
her. Maybe his feelings are still more than friendship, even
though that's an old season 1 idea.
[> [>
Ooh yeah she's jealous... -- ZachsMind, 14:38:43
07/05/02 Fri
BUFFY: "I'm way ahead of you, big brother."
XANDER: "Big brother?"
- Restless
Xander's never gotten over Buffy, but accepts the fact that
she doesn't see him "in that way." That could change.
Depends on the writers. If one observes Buffy's other
choices in men, it can make one wonder why she doesn't go
after Xander. Riley was basically a more confident Xander,
with the more definite military training but still a bit
uncertain where he fits in Buffy's life. Her other major
relationships, Angel & Spike, are both vampires and involve
her desire to "dance with the devil in the pale moonlight"
and in both cases Buffy realized a little late that there's
no future with a man who's already dead. It's plausible that
this next season as Buffy becomes more domestic minded
wanting to care for her younger sister, she may start to see
Xander in a new light. I think this is partly why the
writers chose NOT to marry Xander to Anya. I'm not saying
this should give B/X Shippers hope. I'm saying the writers
are keeping their options open.
Anya started in Sunnydale looking like Cordelia, with the
dark hair and the fashionable clothes. This was apparently
to get into Cordelia's good graces and win her confidence so
that she could get Cordelia to make that wish. As Anya began
to accept her plight and realized she wasn't going back to
her life as a demon, she latched onto Xander and began
trying to find her footing in this new role of humanity she
had to play. Despite the fact she has been at the scorned
woman thing for a millenium, Anya still unconsciously set
herself up for a fall. Of all the men at her disposal in
Sunnydale (and let's face it with a body like that she
coulda had anyone she set her mind to) Anya chose Xander.
Over time her appearance has changed. She's even changed the
color of her hair to the same color that Buffy wears.
This has been amazingly subtle, but Anya saw what was
turning the head of the guy who turns her head, so she's
acclimating. She's whined about it, but there wasn't
anything more to do but comply to her lover's unconscious
desires. If he can't have Buffy, he gets Anya. Deep down
Anya knows she's second choice.
What I don't understand is how a woman who's observed
scorned women for so many centuries would inadvertently put
herself in a position to inevitably get scorned herself.
[> [> [>
Maybe it's karma... -- Wizardman, 17:24:27
07/05/02 Fri
True, Anya started out by being a scorned woman herself.
What did she do? She turned Olaf into a troll, and I'm
betting that she did something nasty to the woman that we
never found out about. For over a thousand years she
'righted the wrongs' of innocent victims. The problem is,
and this is why she was a *Vengeance Demon* instead
*Avenging Angel,* is that her punishments went far beyond
the crime, at least 90% of the time. Maybe more. In this
light, maybe her hooking up with Xander is a karmic way of
reacquainting her with the pain that she had dealt out for
so long without feeling herself. It might even be for the
best- look at her actions in 'Grave.' Risking her life in
'The Gift' was a great sign of her humanity, but she did it
for Xander, someone she loved. In 'Two to Go' and 'Grave,'
she risked herself for Jonathan, Andrew, and Willow, people
to whom she was never all that close with at *best.* It's
been said before, and I'll reiterate it- as a Demon, she's a
damn impressive human. We've seen it before, and in much the
same way- look at Cordelia. Would she, could she, be the
person she is now if she hadn't fallen for Xander and later
been hurt by him? At the end of S3, her parents had lost
everything, and while she was on somewhat friendly footing
with the rest of the Scoobies, she wasn't as close with them
as she had been. If she was tight with the rest of the gang,
I believe she would have stuck around in Sunnydale, and
where would Angel be without her?
[> [> [> [>
Well Angel wouldn't be swimming with the fishes, if it
wasn't for Cordy -- Hoping, 17:44:09 07/05/02 Fri
[> [> [> [> [>
Actually, he brought a lot of that on himself ...
(spoilers for Angel S3) -- Earl Allison,
18:00:38 07/05/02 Fri
Dunno if I'd lay the entire blame at St. Cordelia's feet for
this one -- Angel's been astoundingly blind to Connor's
problems. Sure, Connor is his son, but given the wild mood-
swings, the tendencies to violence (like his father), and
asking Cordelia to come out to the middle of nowhere, and
Angel has himself to blame for his undersea trek a LOT more
than anyone else (except Connor, of course).
Take it and run.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: Actually, he brought a lot of that on himself ...
(spoilers for Angel S3) -- Ronia, 18:12:01 07/05/02
Fri
Lets not forget refusing her counsel...something to the
effect of, this is a wobbly-legged trust he has in you at
best, be above board at all times. Had he taken this
advice, there would be little reason for Connor/Stephen to
suspect him....and the really interesting (to me) part is,
Holtz knew him well enough to set the whole thing up. Holz
picked the time, the place, and set the precedent, with the
letter. I'm hoping that Angel will emerge with a tad more
clarity. After all the time he spends brooding about
things, you would think he'd have a clearer picture on the
situation. He himself has said that he is at war, time for
a little strategy, no?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
And another thing.......! -- Ronia, 18:17:29
07/05/02 Fri
Angelus was all about strategy...what happenned? What
happenned to setting up parameters? What happenned to
guards? What happenned to mind games? Time to learn from
the master grasshopper, methinks.....And just what is WITH
the hotel anyway?! can we say point of vulnerability a bit
louder from the diaphram? sigh, I miss S2
Angel/Angelus.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Angelus was no fool... -- Scroll, 09:05:45
07/09/02 Tue
You're right, Angel/Angelus is cunning and understands
tactics and strategy. Which begs the question why this new
goofy Angel has completely forgotten some of the basics --
like, oh say, getting a security system for the hotel so a
short dude from the 18th century can't just waltz into his
home/office with a small militia? Angel was the one harping
on Spike to have guards on the perimeter, and to plan ahead
instead of rushing in head-long. I really don't think
Angel's soul should affect his judgement in things like
this... But I guess if Angel actually planned ahead, it
would decrease the show's dramatic edge!
[>
DeathWish is one way of looking at it... --
ZachsMind, 15:31:35 07/05/02 Fri
Spike has had a deathwish since Celia spurned him. That's
why it was so easy for Drusilla to convince William the
Bloody to let her turn him. The life he had lived was one
which didn't offer him influence or adoration. He thought
becoming a vampire would. For awhile the emptiness in his
existence was filled, but being a vampire has proven itself
to be a hollow existence which he filled for a century by
'partying.' We see when Drusilla returned briefly after he
had the chip put in his head just what Dru filled Spike's
life with. Companionship and blood thirsty partying. Again,
hollow. Without the chip Spike didn't see it, but when she
had to kill his prey for him, it was ultimately why he
turned her offer down and threatened to kill Dru to prove
his love for Buffy.
When Spike tried to kill himself by falling on a stake in
Xander's room, it was a testament to this emptiness in
Spike's existence. He was wearing what he found to be
fashionless clothes, trapped in the basement of a man's home
who he wouldn't have bothered to eat before.. Spike's unlife
was by Spike's definition, pathetic. He saw no way out. THEN
he realized that though he can no longer kill humans because
of the chip, he CAN kill other things like vampires and
demons. So he has found a new reason to live. In "Tabula
Rasa" the amnesiac Spike saw himself as potentially "a noble
vampire. A vampire with a soul." When he got his memory back
and realized he didn't have a soul... well that led to what
he eventually did by season's end.
So Spike HAD a deathwish but doesn't any longer.
Xander's 'deathwish' is a little different. He actually just
doesn't think ahead. We learned in "The Replacement" that
the worst side of him thinks he's hopeless. That he always
gets in trouble and Buffy always saves him. In fact,
Xander's gotten kinda used to that. He suspects that despite
the impossible, at the last minute either Xander will find
he's not in trouble after all, or Buffy will show up and he
won't die. Like in "The Zeppo" when he was asked by the
bombing zombie why he wasn't afraid. Xander was able to
bluff the guy by saying, "oh, I like the quiet" because deep
down Xander knew that either Buffy would save him, or the
bomb wouldn't go off. It's the way his life had worked up
until then.
So whenever he jumps into the fray, it's like a trapeze
artist operating with a net beneath him. Back in the episode
"Graduation Day" Xander thought his number was up. Buffy
believed in him, made him the key figure in organizing the
student body into an army against the big snake, and
Xander's confidence was built up. Then he had his own summer
adventure which he explained in some detail during "The
Freshman" in the fourth season. Basically it was the first
time he operated without his Buffy net, and he came out
okay. I don't think Xander's got a deathwish. I think, like
many young people, Xander is operating under the
misimpression that he's immortal.
Willow used to think very sensibly, but over the past
several years she's learned that doesn't get her very far.
Only when she takes risks and grabs challenges by the horns
does she persevere beyond what an "Old Reliable" type of
person might get. However when she stops being sensible, she
starts being foolish and impulsive and that's when things
turn sour for her.
This past season she almost learned her lesson with the
whole dark magic addiction thing. She was using magic as a
crutch instead of living life properly. She swore off magic.
She got her Tara back. She thought she had been rewarded for
doing the right thing.
Then Tara died a senseless, pointless death and Willow was
powerless to do anything about it. Her vengeance and anger
wasn't just at Warren, but at the very gods themselves. At
the whole universe. She did the right thing. She vowed to
live the rest of her life right. And fate rewards her by
giving her one night with the woman she loves then taking
her away forever.
Come to think of it, had Willow reacted any way less than
she did I would have been surprised. She wanted to make the
universe pay for being so unfair to her. Willow's become
incredibly self-centered, narcisistic and stubborn, but
Willow doesn't have a deathwish and never has.
[> [>
Spike's Turning -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:25:16
07/07/02 Sun
I get so sick and tired of this point! People keep
confusing BtVS with Anne Rice! But, once again:
Spike did not ask to be made into a vampire. He did say
that he wanted "it", but do you really think he knew what
"it" was? Assuming Drusilla hadn't hypnotized him, he
probably thought she was offering sex. Even when her face
became demonic, he still didn't have much of a clue what she
was doing, and it was too late to back out.
The same argument holds for Angel and almost any other
vampire we've seen. Aside from Billy Fordham, becoming a
vampire is instigated by the sire. The person being turned
is either turned by force, or is unaware what they are
doing.
Summing up: Spike, Angel, and almost all vampires (there are
probably others like Ford, but they seem to be a rarity) did
not choose to become undead.
[> [> [>
What about Darla? -- Vickie, 18:23:54 07/07/02
Sun
From the second season AtS episode Darla, one could argue
that she had a fair idea what she was getting into. She had
lived an "evil" life by the standards of the time and
society. She was dying. The Master came to her in the guise
of a priest (to hear her last confession, it's implied).
When Darla refuses the rites, he offers to prevent her death
by offering her his blood. He is apparently in vamp face
(cannot remember from seeing the ep, the script says "bares
his fangs).
She may not have known exactly what would happen, but she
surely knew it was a "deal with the devil."
Granted, she was very near death. The shooting script says
that, from Darla's pov, everthing is dreamlike. She may have
been delerious. NTL, I think she had a decent idea what was
happening.
[> [> [> [>
Re: What about Darla? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:10:46
07/07/02 Sun
Never seen that episode. I didn't say voluntary vampires
didn't happen, I'm saying that it isn't the case for Spike,
or for most vampires we've seen.
I just get so irritated when some people imply most vampires
became ones by choice. They don't seem to have any more
control in the matter than whether or not they're fed
on.
[> [> [> [> [>
I think that Ford is the only one -- Vickie,
21:35:28 07/07/02 Sun
by your definition. With Darla a maybe. Liam and William,
definitely not.
The others we've seen have been double tragedies. The sorrow
for their human deaths, and the sorrow for the demon
rampage.
[> [> [> [>
Slightly OT -- Forsaken, 06:04:44 07/08/02
Mon
I don't think the Master is capable of being in Human face.
Just take a look at him, his game-face hardly even resembles
a normal vamp's, and we've never seen him without it on. I
was under the impression that it's permaneant.
[> [> [>
Your saying it doesn't make it so. -- redcat,
11:25:36 07/08/02 Mon
The issue of choice has been widely debated on this board
many times. Clearly, some posters hold a different opinion
than yours. This is no reason to be uncivil in your
language or disrespectful of those whose interpretations of
the text are different than your own. I respect your
opinion and, even more so, your right to express it. It
would be nice if you would, while expressing it, also
respect the opinions of others.
[> [> [> [>
Listen . . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:46:38 07/08/02
Mon
Granted, my saying it doesn't make it so. My PROVING it
does make it so. I've noticed no one has come forward with
evidence that either Spike or Angel had any clue they were
going to become vampires before it happened.
You said some people have a different opinion. This isn't a
matter of opinion. It doesn't count as differing opinions
when one person can prove their case.
If I was talking about this out loud I wouldn't use such
hostile words. But here they have to take the place of an
annoyed tone.
[> [> [> [> [>
Your stating that your interpretation is the only
correct one -- redcat, 16:04:07 07/08/02 Mon
does not constitute proof that your interpretation *is* the
only correct one. You believe that you have proven and can
continue to prove beyond the reasonable shadow of a doubt
that what you believe happened was, in fact, the only thing
that happened. The very fact that other posters -- most of
them quite reasonable folks, as it turns out -- have
interpreted what they saw in different ways than you did
indicates that what you believe to be The Truth is, in fact,
merely an interpretation of the text. You may well be
annoyed that others disagree with you and do not readily
accept your interpretation of canon as the only possible,
interesting or insightful one, but I don't see what positive
value that emotion adds to the discussion. Personally, I
find your tone more annoying than your position. And I
reiterate my original point that debates about
interpretation of the text -- or anything else on this
board, including "facts" -- are best conducted with respect
for others' opinions.
[> [> [> [> [> [>
What if -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:20:55 07/08/02
Mon
What if someone said that Buffyverse vampires aren't burned
by holy water? You'd probably gape a little at this, then
try to correct them. But suppose that you began to notice
that a number of people believe that holy water doesn't burn
vampires, but never bothered to respond to you when you told
them otherwise. You'd be annoyed, most likely. And annoyed
people sound annoying to people who are not annoyed by the
same things.
If someone can offer one iota of evidence that either Spike
or Angel chose to be turned into vampires, I will change my
tone, since they then have a legitimate argument. However,
no one has done so yet. And, until they do, my position and
my heavily annoyed tone stand.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What if -- redcat, 20:30:40 07/08/02 Mon
You know, Finn, it's pretty clear to me by this,
your fourth post on the subject just in this sub-
thread, as well as from the continued snarky tone in your
new-thread post above, that you are
not actually particularly interested in others'
interpretations of the text, nor in civil debate, nor in
differences of opinion about what constitutes canon. You
*do* seem to be very interested in
being RIGHT, at least about the question of vampirism and
choice. Since you provide me with
little evidence that anything I might offer in the way of
alternative explanations or differing
interpretations of the text would even be considered by you
as "evidence" of the tiny fact that
reasonable people may have different opinions than yours -
much less as "proof" that the
humans from whom *some* vampires were made do perhaps bear
*some* culpability for their
turning -- I see no reason to continue this conversation,
either here or in the thread above.
Which is curious, because I find the topic fascinating and
see good points on both sides of the
debate, and have enjoyed previous (and **always** quite
civil) debates about the topic with
some others here, notably Sophist.
What is curious to me, however, is why you have been so
insistent that my comments in
response to you are primarily about the issue of vampiric
choice and not about the issue of
polite and civil conversations on the board, which is
clearly the main issue that I was
discussing. A few months ago, I acted hastily and without
careful forethought in responding to
someone else's post. That person had the gumption to point
out my bad behavior and the
grace to continue the conversation with me anyway. It took
a few tries, but my apology to that
poster was, I believe, accepted and we went on to discuss
the original issue at hand. I
continue to read her posts with great interest and hope she
does the same with mine.
Whether or not I agree or disagree with you about the issue
of pre-vampiric humans and their
innocence or culpability, I have no interest in arguing with
folks whose main concerns are
"proving" they're right and then forcing their opinions down
everyone else's throat. OTOH, I
would gladly join a reasonable debate on just about any
issue in the Jossverse. Too bad you
would not.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What if -- Finn Mac Cool, 00:03:48 07/09/02
Tue
My uncivil manner can be explained:
I don't wanna and don't hafta. Extra emphasis on the
incorrect spelling. What have you got against
snarkiness?
Also, I said I would change my tone if someone presented at
least one piece of valid evidence supporting the fact that
Liam or William willingly became a vampire. So far, no one
has. Being right is important to me on this, because I've
never gotten a legitimate argument from the other side.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What if -- Arethusa, 12:15:05 07/09/02
Tue
When Spike was vamped, Drucilla gave her buning baby fishes
speach, vamped, then attacked Spike. The script says:
(quotes by psyche)
DRUSILLA
I see what you want. Something glowing and glistening.
Something... effulgent.
Spike is beside himself. Finally someone who understands
him.
SPIKE
(sotto)
Effulgent.
DRUSILLA
Do you want it?
Spike has never wanted anything more.
SPIKE
Oh, yes! (touches her chest) God, yes.
Drusilla looks down for a moment as her face changes and her
fangs descend. Spike reacts, more confused than afraid. She
pulls back his shirt collar and buries her fangs in his
neck. Spike cries out in pain but his cries quickly turn to
moans of pleasure as Drusilla ends his human existence.
One could argue that Spike didn't resist when he saw Dru's
vamp face, so he was willing. One could argue that Spike
didn't understand what he was asking for and participating
in, and was vamped without his consent. Most of all, one
can be scrupulously polite in conversing with others, so
misunderstandings don't needlessly arise. Do you want to
debate, or do you want to be snarky? It's very difficult to
do both well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
Re: What if -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:59:21 07/09/02
Tue
Thank you for giving the other side of this issue some
credibility. I still don't think he was willing, since he
didn't know what was going to happen, but I can now see your
POV.
Really, the first post was more of a rant. I wasn't really
trying to get into a debate because I've mentioned this on
the Internet several times, and nobody ever bothered to
reply. By this time, I had figured nobody was bothering to
read this opinion, so I felt free to cut loose.
Perhaps being snarky and uncivil helps me get responses.
Hmmmm.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [>
[>
LOL No, no! Wrong message! -- Arethusa,
15:39:23 07/09/02 Tue
[>
Willow crossing the Rubicon - I like that! --
Rahael, 17:04:42 07/05/02 Fri
UPN is
purchasing Angel? -- MayaPapaya9, 18:29:18 07/05/02
Fri
I think I saw this in some post below, is it true?
-Maya
[>
Re: UPN is purchasing Angel? -- pocky, 22:30:52
07/05/02 Fri
I read in an article somewhere (I forget exactly where) that
UPN would be willing to pick up Angel
if WB drops it.
Other than that, I've no idea.
[> [>
Re: UPN is purchasing Angel? -- Darby, 07:46:42
07/06/02 Sat
UPN is obligated to pick up Angel if
the WB cancels it for the upcoming season - it was part of
the Buffy deal. But they're not cancelling it - it
did better this year than last year, even with the
incompatible 7th Heaven as a lead-in. They want to
see how it will do next season in the time slot that people
used to watch The X-Files during, with Charmed
as a lead-in.
[> [> [>
Re: UPN is purchasing Angel? -- wiscoboy,
08:32:26 07/06/02 Sat
I think it's inevitable that ATS will eventually be on UPN,
especially if BTVS continues longer than expected. Anyone
know when ATS's contract is up at WB?
[> [> [>
Well that'll kill it! -- change, 16:24:01
07/06/02 Sat
With Charmed as the lead in, ATS won't last half a season.
I hope UPN really is contractually obligated to pick it
up.
Is Buffy and
Xander's treatment of Spike and Anya justifiable? --
CMC, 20:19:22 07/06/02 Sat
Both Spike and Anya (after Hells Bells) are demons. Both
were mass murderers and were unrepentant, even when Anya was
human. If Xander hit Anya, beat her face in, or killed her
would that be acceptable because Anya is just another
demonic killer. Is Buffy's beating of Spike in Dead Thing
and her sexual use and physical abuse of him justifible
because of his demonic nature?
Both Xander and Buffy are the heros of the show and Spike
and Anya are unrepentant demons, thus do you think it is
acceptable to treat them any way they please?
[>
Short answer: no. Long answer inside. (s6 spoilers of
course) -- Caesar
Augustus, 20:40:40 07/06/02 Sat
In retrospect, Anya helped the SG a lot. She also tried to
help save the world, even if she was not exactly
instrumental. She's as good a demon as we've probably seen.
From her behavior, it seems (i.e. it may not be
technically true, but, judging her actions, it's as if) she
was given the POWERS without the demonic soul. Xander
killing Anya would have been irreconcilable. What I mean by
that is that he would have lost credibility with us, the
viewers.
What about him trying to kill Spike? Understandable, yes.
Right? Probably not, since the reason he's trying to kill
him is not the fact that he's a mass murderer but the fact
that he slept with Anya, who'd been pushed away by Xander in
the first place.
The most important thing, in my view, is that Spike and Anya
simply aren't the same demons they were when they did the
killing. Anya at first wants vengeance, but soon her own
solace is more important than revenge. Spike actually seems
to feel guilt after trying to rape Buffy! Something s2/s3
Spike did not have the capacity for (remember his solution
to getting Dru back was to torture her!)
Buffy's abuse of Spike in "Dead Things" can hardly be called
right. She's basically beating him out of anger for her lot.
But she's going thru such a hard time we forgive her. Buffy
herself knows that using him is wrong, and eventually that
moral conviction is strong enough to lead her to break up
with him in AYW.
Did Spike act immorally in having the fling with Anya? Buffy
had just told him unequivocally to "move on". He was
listening to her. How could he do it if he loved Buffy, Dawn
asks. He needed solace in the exact same way Anya did. As
far as I'm concerned, simply blurting out "good enough for
Buffy" to Xander at a very emotionally difficult time for
Xander and Buffy is the worse crime.
Anyway, there's some fairly incoherent and random thoughts.
Take them and run ... far, far away.
[>
Yes and No -- Zaphod, 22:20:45 07/06/02 Sat
To star