July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002  

More July 2002

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

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

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!


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.


[> [> 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.
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

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


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.


[> [> 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.....

And I wonder... what possible catastrophe came crashing down from heaven and brought this dashing stranger to tears?

Nothing. I wish to be alone.

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.

That's quite close enough. I've heard tales of London
pickpockets. You'll not be getting my purse, I tell you.

Don't need a purse.

She points to his heart and head in succession.

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.

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


[> [> [> [> 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


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.


[> [> 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)

I see what you want. Something glowing and glistening. Something... effulgent.

Spike is beside himself. Finally someone who understands him.


Do you want it?

Spike has never wanted anything more.

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?

[> 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 start with, your question is a loaded one and predisposes the answer that you seek. Instead I will look at some of the rules that Buffy and her friends should operate under.

The world in which Buffy, Xander, Spike, Anya, and the rest of the gang live in is a complex and extraordinary one. They are the interface between the world of humans and the world of the supernatural. An added complexity is the fact that Buffy and the gang are fighting a war against (literally) the forces of evil.

Values in this environment are relative, dependant on ones point of view/side/background/etc. To prevent one from going mad at facing all the possible combinations, I think Buffy and the gang should operate under human values (appropriately modified where necessary to fit their circumstances).

Buffy (and by extension the Scooby Gang) are the law (under the guidance of the PTB) in the supernatural world in the same way that the police/justice system are the law (under the guidance of the Constitution and the concept of Natural Law) in the human world.

Buffy and the gang have the mission to fight evil, defeat evil (where and if possible), and advance the cause of the forces of good.

When dealing with evil creatures such as vamps and other evil demons, 99% of the time Buffy and the gang should dust/kill them. The exception is when they need information from vamps/evil demons to advance the cause of good or defeat a greater evil. Any method of information extraction can be used (unlike in the human world). Once that is done, dusting/slaying of the creature should be the final outcome.

An example of this should have been Spike in Becoming. Buffy entered into a truce with Spike in order to stop Angelus and save the world. Once that was done, Spike and Dru should have been dusted.

In the case of Spike post chip, it should be remembered that he is still a vamp, but the chip give him possible utility as a tool to be used by Buffy and the gang in the fight against evil. If Spike turned on them or became more a liability than an asset (ie "Yoko Factor", "Out of My Mind", "Seeing Red") then he should be dusted.

In the case of a vampire with a soul (ie Angel and Souled!Spike) then, dependent on their actions, they should be treated similar to humans but always cognisant of the fact that they are still vampires.

For other demons, unless they are known to be evil, they should be treated as neutral until prove otherwise (Clem, Doyle, Lorne are proven to be good).

In the case of Warren, Buffy and the gang should only deal with him as a last resort where human laws/systems fail or it is unavoidable.

In the case of Anya, as Anyanka, she should be slain if she committed an evil act (ie "The Wish"). As Anya, she is human and as such should be treated that way.

So, I would be acceptable for Buffy to slay Spike (although the new Souled!Spike should be given a chance to prove himself). It would be acceptable for Xander to slay Anyanka if she committed an act of evil.

Slay? Yes. Abuse? No (unless they need information).

Buffy and Xander should never have, nor should they in the future, form an intimate relationship with Spike and Anya.


[> [> Re: Yes and No (s6 sp) -- Caesar Augustus, 05:11:37 07/07/02 Sun

Interface? What? I'm sorry but the Scooby Gang is not the 'meeting ground' between humans and the supernatural. That would be magic itself (the link that allows humans to manipulate the supernatural).

The problem with this set of guidelines is that demons/vampires commit more than one act, and they can be morally ambiguous. What if Spike does a hundred helpful things but then one bad thing? Should you slay him straight away after that bad thing? As Buffy indicates herself, Spike's attempt to rape her doesn't mean he can't protect Dawn satisfactorily. The problem with Spike and Anyanka is that they simply aren't your normal everyday run-of-the-mill vampire and demon. Helping save the world is an act completely out of character for a pure demon. Both have done that, and deserve credit for it, not an extended lifeline only until they do a bad act. It may be acceptable from a utilitarian standpoint: if we kill all demons, even a few that are good, it will ultimately be for the benefit of the forces of good. But it is certainly not an attitude Buffy herself would accept (v. her speech to Faith in "Bad Girls").

[> [> [> Re: Yes and No (s6 sp) -- Rowan, 05:49:00 07/07/02 Sun

IMO, Buffy and Xander's treatment of Spike (and possibly by extension Anya) as 'evil soulless things' is only justified if they do not ALSO treat them as colleagues, friends, and lovers. Slay them and fight them, but don't demean them while asking them to serve as physical, magical, or emotional muscle. Once the SG crossed the line and began to treat them as people, their abusiveness became heinous, IMO.

[> [> [> [> I agree -- lele, 06:30:13 07/07/02 Sun

CMC's post is obviously loaded and was deleted from another board, and I'll reiterate that I hope next season is about forgiveness.

'Once the SG crossed the line and began to treat them as people, their abusiveness became heinous, IMO.'

Couldn't put it better myself. Once the SG (or members thereof) decided anya and spike were good enough to be treated as companions/mates then they should be treated as humans or more importantly according to the Golden Rule.

[> How many times will this question be asked ? -- Ete, 06:57:03 07/07/02 Sun

And how many times is it by the same person ? And why am I answering such a troll question anyway ?

hummm... okay, repeat after me : morality is a duty to yourself, not dependant on the persons you act morally or not onto. This means that, noone cares if the people you abuse and hurt are Mother Theresa or Hitler, if you hurt them, abuse them, without any kind of provocation or self- defense case, it's wrong.

That's why Buffy said "and it's killing me" to Spike in AYW. Not because the sex with him was killing her (well, except in that metaphorical sense where orgasm is called the little death :) but because she was using him, and even if he's a vampire, a demon or whatever name you want to call him, the fact that she was acting this way with him, told that she wasn't acting good. "I'm using you [...] and it's killing me". Happily for my respect for Buffy, she mostly corrected her way after this scene and can't be blamed in the least for the SR AR.
That's also why criminals still have human rights and most of their civil rights.
You can't do anything to someone just because they did bad things.

[> No -- Juliette, 08:35:44 07/07/02 Sun

Hurting someone else, no matter what they've done, is only justifiable if it is in defence of yourself or someone else. You don't pick and choose whose rights you respect. And even if you assume Spike and Anya have no more rights than animals, hurting an animal is only justifiable if you're going to eat it (or some other good reason - I don't want to get into a debate on vivisection here, it's way OT!). And then you kill it quickly, not beat it up.

[> [> Re: No -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:46:26 07/07/02 Sun

It has been established on the show that, while demons can be good, vampires cannot. We have seen examples of good demons, but never good vampire (except for those with souls). Because of this, Anya should be judged just as they would any other demon: is she a threat to humanity? We haven't seen her grant any vengeful wishes yet, so she should not be slain or beaten if this behavior continues.

Meanwhile, vampires have been shown to have no ability to be good. The most they can do is serve good out of self- interest.

You say "assume Spike and Anya have no more rights than animals". Actually, vampires have less rights than animals. Because they have no souls (as souls are defined in the Buffyverse) they effectively have no rights.

[> [> [> Re: No -- Juliette, 15:55:36 07/07/02 Sun

That doesn't give Buffy the right to beat up a vampire just because she feels like it. If they a e a threat to society, she should stake them. Logically, she shoud have staked Spike way back in 'Doomed' or at least in 'Primeval,' where he was clearly stil a threat even with the chip. But she has decided to let him live (OT - the main reason I was a B/S shipper was that them having the hots for each other is the only plausible reaon they are both still alive!). It is wrong for her to inflict pain on a sentient being just because she feels like it. Violence for the sake of violence is wrong. Spike's evilness and the soullessness of vampires is entirely irrelevent.

[> Justifiable? Maybe....Understandable? Yes. -- Kerri, 20:36:36 07/07/02 Sun

When we ask if Buffy's treatment of Spike was wrong we tend to forget the other half of the relationship. Spike was equally abusive. I see the Bronze scene and the alley scene in DT as very similar-in both the the abuser takes her/his insecurities out on the other party, Spike accepts the beating and Buffy accepts sex however neither really wanted it or enjoyed it (or I suppose on some level both wanted and enjoyed it).

The point is Buffy entered into a mutally abusive and harmful relationship, and therefore is only as at fault as Spike. Additionally I find it very difficult to blame her or dislike her because of her treatment of Spike. Her morality has been completely shaped around the fact the souless vampires are evil (the writers just decided Spike was the exception). Additionally the fact that she was so depressed and tramatized by her whole experience makes it hard to blame her for getting into this relationship and makes it easier to blame Spike for what could even sometimes be perceived as taking advantage (and I'm not saying that this means Buffy didn't also take advantage of Spike).

Xander to the best of my recolection never really treated Anya poorly b/c she was a demon. It seemed to be more b/c of his issues about relationships and commitment.

Classic Movie of the Week - July 6th 2002 -- OnM, 21:54:43 07/06/02 Sat


I stood in this unsheltered place
'Til I could see the face behind the face
All that had gone before had left no trace

In this house of make believe
Divided in two, like Adam and Eve
You put out and I receive

Down by the railway siding
In our secret world, we were colliding
In all the places we were hiding love
What was it we were thinking of?

Oh the wheel is turning spinning round and round
And the house is crumbling but the stairways stand
With no guilt and no shame, no sorrow or blame
Whatever it is, we are all the same

............ Peter Gabriel ( excerpts from Secret World )


Got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.

............ Bruck Cockburn


Oh no, you're thinking, he's going to be recommending one of those dreary, depressing, Ingmar
Bergman-esque flicks that'll get me all broody and depressed, and then I'll have to climb out of my funk by
forcing myself to remember that it's a warm, lovely summer night, and that I should go out and party for
several hours just to get over it, and ... hey! that's a good idea!

Well, party on, Wayne and Garth, but, no I'm not going to be recommending a broody, depressing
flick, so either way things will work out. Read on if you dare!

What I am going to be talking about isn't in regard to how depressing life is (or can be), it's about
how normal life is (and will be). In fact, in the opening quotes'n'lyrics department just above, I was
going to have a different Bruce Cockburn quote than the one you see there, namely the quip that is one of
my all-time favorites from the extensive oeuvre of this brilliant man, The trouble with `normal' is that it
always gets worse

The reasons that I didn't are several-fold, but the primary one is that I consciously try not to repeat myself
too often in my scribblings here at ATPo, and I have used this quote at least about 4 or 5 times over the
last two years, I would guess.

The secondary reason is that here, as I often do, I use quotes or song lyrics from people that may be taken
out of their original context, and used to support an alternate one. I don't apologize for doing so,
understand, because the nature of art is that it can be interpreted differently by different partakers-thereof,
and so I see nothing wrong with taking a fine turn of phrase and bending it to serve my interpretive will, as
long as that `bend' doesn't do harm to the original general intent of the artist. For example, it would be
wrong to take a lyric from a song about peace and brotherhood, and interpret it to support, say the KKK
or neo-Nazi fascists, etc.

Now by way of specific illustration, the set of lyrics shown from Peter Gabriel's song Secret World
is not the complete set, some lines have selectively been removed. This makes the song work to
describe some of the emotional/philosophical aspects of this week's movie, but it doesn't really change
what the song is about. Many of the extra lines exist to make the poetry better fit a musical structure-- if
the same work were to be written for straightforward oral recitation, and not singing, Gabriel would very
likely have written it somewhat differently. Anyway, you get the idea, I think, and so we return to the
Cockburn line `the trouble with normal...'.

I'm going to reprint the entire lyrics of this song here, so you can see the original context Cockburn

The Trouble With Normal / June 30th1981 / Toronto, Canada. (c) Bruce Cockburn

Strikes across the frontier and strikes for higher wage
Planet lurches to the right as ideologies engage
Suddenly it's repression, moratorium on rights
What did they think the politics of panic would invite?
Person in the street shrugs -- "Security comes first"
But the trouble with normal is it always gets worse

Callous men in business costume speak computerese
Play pinball with the Third World trying to keep it on its knees
Their single crop starvation plans put sugar in your tea
And the local Third World's kept on reservations you don't see
"It'll all go back to normal if we put our nation first"
But the trouble with normal is it always gets worse

Fashionable fascism dominates the scene
When ends don't meet it's easier to justify the means
Tenants get the dregs and landlords get the cream
As the grinding devolution of the democratic dream
Brings us men in gas masks dancing while the shells burst
The trouble with normal is it always gets worse

Jeez, now that's kinda extremely scary, isn't it? He wrote this in 1981-- over 20 years ago!!-- and it
still seems as relevant as ever, maybe even more so. Obviously, this is what some factions would refer to as
a `political' song. Bruce is quite prolific, and writes tunes coving a range from the highly spiritual to the
ironically comic, and on occasion does an `angry' song like this one, or If I Had a Rocket

Now, I happen to know that each and every time that I have used this quote here at ATPo, I have
really used it in this sense. What meaning I have intended extends to a more general interpretation
of the same line, namely something similar to the thoughts expressed in the old Grateful Dead tune,
Uncle John's Band, where Garcia sings "When life is on Easy Street / There is danger at your

To me, nothing is ever truer than this concept, and actually it's rather logical when you stop and think
about it. After all, if you are at some peak point in your life, where everything is honey, gold and kittens,
top o' the world, Ma-like and all, where else is there to go but down? Right? Right.

What is sneaky is that `normality' is like that too, if you consider that for a very large segment of
humanity, the `peak point' never occurs. Most folks don't get a high point, they just get a middle
point. Call it a glass ceiling, call is class warfare, call it discrimination, call it plain damn fate, it doesn't
matter-- `Normal' is as good as it gets for millions of people all over the globe. And so there is (usually)
nowhere but down from that point, either.

But as with all rules and most generalities, there are exceptions, and those exceptions are critical, because
they provide hope. One person who somehow manages to succeed, either by learning to become at peace
with one's lot in life, or by managing to rise above it, inspires others to do the same.

Which brings us to this week's Classic Movie, Gas Food Lodging, directed by the not
overly prolific, but very talented Allison Anders. This film's screenplay is supposedly based on a novel
written by one Richard Peck, but if you do a bit of research into the real life story of the director, you will
find what seems to be a lot of semi-autobiographical material present.

This isn't the standard rags-to-riches tale that Hollywood loves to hustle. Instead, Anders tells about the
lives of three women; a mother and two teenage daughters, who live in the contemporary western desert
lands of the United States, and who are quite possibly `going nowhere' for the simple reason that
circumstances leave them with very few options to go anywhere.

The mother's name is Nora (Brooke Adams), and while she makes a modest living as a waitress in the tiny
town where she and her daughters live, it's never enough to get ahead. Her husband left her some years
back, and she has raised the younger daughter, Shade (Fairuza Balk ) and the older one, Trudi (Ione Skye)
by herself.

The two daughters have very different personalities. Shade is quiet, introspective and often involved in
`looking out for' her mother, such as by trying to fix her up with new boyfriends that could possibly
become husband material. Shade spends a great deal of her free time at the local `Spanish' movie house,
and has an obsessive fascination with a charismatic Mexican actress. Trudi also lives at home, but resents
her mother, or more accurately resents that her mother has passed along to her her tendencies toward
`failure with men'.

This latter belief of Trudi's isn't very accurate, but it becomes easy to see how her life has led her to
believe that it is so. Trudi, like Shade, sees attachment to a male figure as intrinsic to gaining `a better life'.
The differences lie in what the attachment would obtain. In Shade's case, she sees marraige for her mother
as a way to elevate both her mother's financial status and basic sense of well-being. She understands her
mother's pain in knowing that she doesn't have the skills necessary to better the household, and almost no
chance of obtaining them on her own. The family lives from one paycheck to the next-- there is nothing left
over for college or trade schools. Moving wouldn't help, this would only encur more debt that could never
be supported.

In Trudi's case, Trudi sees a relationship as a way to escape the small town life she hates; hates so much in
fact, that she behaves in a sexually promiscuous manner in desperate hopes of finding anyone who can help
her get away.

These themes could easily become cliches before the first ten minutes of the film roll by, but in Gas
Food Lodging
they never do thanks to the excellent writing work Anders provides in her screenplay.
No one in this film is `typical'-- each character has his or her own circumstances that essentially force them
into the particular directions taken in their lives, and this is what is important to realize as you become
increasingly involved in the story. It is all too easy to say `Well, why don't they do such-and-such...' until
you realize that the answer to this is `how?'

Take Trudi's situation, for example. We start out by presuming that she behaves the way she does because
she is some kind of `golddigger', looking for a free ride. The reality turns out to be both shocking and sad,
as Trudi finally admits the truth to a British geologist who comes to the area looking for some special
rocks, and who quietly and persistently befriends her. We get the distinct impression that Trudi has never
revealed this truth to anyone, not even her mother or sister. She does so to the geologist because unlike
any of the men she has slept with in the past, he seems to show genuine affection and caring for her.

Knowing this information (which I won't reveal here) changes one's whole perspective on Trudi, and
makes what happens later in the film especially sad because we in the audience can clearly sense what
Trudi cannot, because of the psychological predisposition that life has directed her into-- that there is some
logical reason why the kindly and caring geologist has `abandoned' her. You or I might make some phone
calls, or do a little reasonable checking up when a loved one `vanishes' for no particualrly good reason.
This never occurs to Trudi, and why should it? No one else has ever stayed with her. Past becomes

Shade is equally fascinating. Unlike Trudi, Shade is content with her current surroundings, she just isn't
fully aware of this fact yet, although she will be by the film's end. She isn't looking to escape from her
`small town life', she just wants to make her mother and sister happy again, because she has a tendency to
live through others, not herself. What starts her on a direction to change this attitude is her steadily
growing relationship with a local Mexican boy, who increases her sense of self-worth by accepting her for
herself, and believing in her. This is the key to Shade eventually `escaping' her destiny of `normalcy', just
as Trudi's key is to understand that she cannot stay in her birthplace, no matter what the cost of escape.
(The price is high, but it wasn't a fully `chosen' option anyway, it was a matter of making the best of a
lousy situation, something Trudi has experience in dealing with). If a side-effect of bad fortune is the good
fortune of getting away from an ugly past and starting all over again elsewhere, then you have to go for it,
and she does.

This film is photgraphed in a simple, but beautiful fashion that has the feeling of a documentary, and the
`ring of truth' aspect that comes from that variety of storytelling motif. It isn't a documentary in the
traditional sense, of course, but it could have been, and that's a high compliment for a story about `the
trouble with `normal''.

Please check out this film at your earliest opportunity. It will raise your own `normality' up a notch or two,
and that's not sad at all-- it's a great way to kick the darkness

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



Technically we all live in a small town of the mind:

Gas Food Lodging is not yet available on DVD, according to the Internet Movie Database, but it is
available on VHS. The review copy was on laserdisc. The film was released in 1992, and running time is 1
hour and 41 minutes. The original cinematic aspect ratio was 1.85:1, which was preserved on the laserdisc
edition, and probably will be on the DVD if it's ever released. Oh well.

Writing credits go to Richard Peck for the novel the film was supposedly based upon, and to director
Allison Anders for the screenplay. Cinematography was by Dean Lent, with film editing by Tracy Granger.
Production design was by Jane Ann Stewart, with art direction by Lisa Denker and Carla Weber. Costume
Design was by Susan L. Bertram. Original music was by J. Mascis. The original theatrical sound mix was
standard Dolby Surround.

Cast overview:

Brooke Adams .... Nora
Ione Skye .... Trudi
Fairuza Balk .... Shade
James Brolin .... John
Robert Knepper .... Dank
David Lansbury .... Hamlet Humphrey
Jacob Vargas .... Javier
Donovan Leitch .... Darius
Chris Mulkey .... Raymond
Laurie O'Brien .... Thelma
Julie Condra .... Tanya
Adam Biesk .... Brett
Leigh Hamilton .... Kim
Diane Behrens .... Hostess
J. Mascis .... Cecil



The artist bios on the IMDb aren't always that complete or useful, even for a `capsule' type of review, but
just from what is here as regards Allison Anders, I think you will be as startled as I was to be made aware
of how incredibly difficult her life was for most of her youth and young adulthood. To me, this makes the
sense of balance and perspective she presents in her films all the more remarkable, since certainly the vast
majority of people would be permanently embittered by `life lessons' as unkind as many of these.

Anders weathered a rough childhood and young adult life which not only encouraged an escapist
penchant for making up characters but also an insider's sympathy for the strong but put-upon women who
people her films. Growing up in rural Kentucky, Anders would always remember hanging onto her father's
leg at age five as he abandoned her family. Traveling frequently with her mother and sisters, Anders would
later be raped at age 12, endure abuse from a stepfather who once threatened her with a gun, and suffer a
mental breakdown at age 15. Venturing back to Kentucky from Los Angeles at 17, she would soon move
to London to live with the man who would father her first child. Upon her return to the US, Anders finally
began to pick up the pieces of her life. She enrolled in junior college and later the UCLA film school and
managed when a second daughter came along. Enchanted with Wim Wenders' films, she so deluged the
filmmaker with correspondence that he gave her a job as a production assistant on his Paris, Texas
(1984). After graduating from UCLA, Anders made her feature writing and directing debut, Border
(1987), a study of the LA punk scene, in collaboration with two former classmates. Her first
solo effort, Gas Food Lodging (1992), telling of a single mother and her two teenage daughters,
and her followup, Mi Vida Loca (1994), looking at girl gangs in the Echo Park neighborhood of
LA where Anders settled, have shown her to be a deeply personal filmmaker who has used her own
experience to make grittily realistic, well-observed, gently ambling studies of women coming of age amid
tough, sterile social conditions.

So, if you want to see more, here's a filmography, again courtesy the IMDb. As I said earlier, she's not
prolific, but based on the three films I've seen, and critical commentary by others on the remainder, there's
not a single loser so far.

Allison Anders - Date of birth: 16 November 1954, in Ashland, Kentucky, USA

Director - filmography

Things Behind the Sun (2001)
Sugar Town (1999)
"Sex and the City" (1998) TV Series
Grace of My Heart (1996)
Four Rooms (1995) (segment "The Missing Ingredient")
Mi vida loca (1993)
Gas Food Lodging (1992)
Border Radio (1987)


Now, for some BC tidbits, from the website: http://cockburnproject.net/

15 January 2002 - from Canoe Online Chat with Bruce Cockburn, 15 January 2002. Submitted by Suzanne
D. Myers.

Question: What is the meaning behind "Got to kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight"? {lyrics
from Lovers In A Dangerous Time}

BC: "What I meant was that we can't settle for things as they are... just throw up our hands. There's
another song called The Trouble With Normal that says things in a different way... if you don't
tackle the problems they're gonna get worse."

29 June 2002 - Intro to Trouble With Normal at the Kate Wolf Folk Festival -- Submitted by Doug

BC: "Wavy mentioned to you that we were just up in Calgary where the G8, the 8 greatest
hypocrites on earth, were meeting. Or at least, they would like to claim that title if they knew enough,
making plans for everybody. It was interesting because there was, I mean the point of being there was to
protest and there was a considerable amount of protesting going on but for once the cops actually got
smart and they decided not to stop anybody from protesting. Instead of having riot cops out with shields
and guns and all that they had bicycle cops. They still had guns you know but they looked less threatening
they were in short pants and bicycle helmets right so you can kind of deal with that and what happened was
no riot cops, no riot. Which was a great thing in one way and I was really proud to be part of a thing like
that but the problem with it was vocalized by one media person that was heard to say 'if you guys have
another one that is this dull we are not going to cover it any more'. So you are screwed if you do and
screwed if you don't in the media world so Wavy's advice is right. I wouldn't say ignore them because it's
good to know what someone is saying about something but don't be swayed by it. This is an old song that
seemed timely when I wrote it and unfortunately it still does."


The Question of the Week: Did she jump, or was she pushed?

Please do ponder, then post `em if you've got `em-- and I'll see you next week. Bye now!


[> Neither. She just threatened to throw herself off a cliff... -- The Second Evil, 00:07:19 07/07/02 Sun

...but it turned out to be a bluff.


[> [> Owwwwww!!! -- LittleBit, 02:21:19 07/07/02 Sun

My side hurts ... can't stop laughing!

[> Thanks for a great review of a fine movie by an amazing director! -- redcat, 10:44:52 07/07/02 Sun

I've seen several of Allison Anders' works and, thanks to your IMDb list, will now try to find some of the others as well. Her bio is extraordinary, the first part unfortunately all too common and the last all too rare. I've shown Mi Vida Loca in classes a few times and know others who've used Border Radio. She has quite a cult following on some campuses.

Anders' films and your review remind me of something Rahael wrote awhile back on some thread. She noted that, in that awkward way that life gives us its rarest gifts, sometimes those who are the most wounded by life and experience become the most compassionate and sensitive among us. Anders' films are "awkward," always exactly in this way. Thanks for bringing them to our attention in such a finely-written review.

[> [> Aw, shucks-- (~blush~) you're welcome! Question re: *Mi Vida Loca*... -- OnM, 15:40:25 07/07/02 Sun

You mention that you've 'shown this film in classes'. Were these film students at a college level, or 'regular' kids in high school? If the latter, what age were the students, and how did they react?

Just curious.

[> [> [> Re: Aw, shucks-- (~blush~) you're welcome! Question re: *Mi Vida Loca*... -- redcat, 09:17:54 07/08/02 Mon

I've taught college for most of the last dozen years, although I'm now looking for a new job
(grimace...sigh). I've never taught high school, although I think (possibly with some judicious
editing) Mi Vida Loca could be shown to HS juniors & seniors - there's a lot of swearing, but
nothing the kids don't already say themselves, and the violence and sex are not much more
graphic than most TV. I didn't teach it in college film classes, however, but in American
Culture and Women's Studies classes, mostly 1st and 2nd year students. The best experience
I had teaching it was in an American Cultures class I designed called "RED hot, WHITE bread,
BLUE collar: Gender, Race and Class in America." (This was at our mutually-favorite
Lancaster, PA, rich-white-kids college, OnM - can you guess which one?) Some of the men in
the class were really affected by the film, although I have to admit that at least a fair portion of
their conversations concerned the cars & trucks. The film did raise some interesting questions
about responsibility and the true nature of strength, however, which were quite important as
the class progressed in its discussions about social realities in America. For me, the richness
and emotional depth of the film's depiction of lives very different from the ones my students
lived was among its most important features.

I've always wanted to show Gas, Food, Lodging in a class. If I ever teach again, and get to
design a class on the idea of the American west, I'd definitely put it on the syllabus. BTW, I
heard the conservative columnist Peggy Noonan say on a (repeated from March) C-Span
show yesterday that she would suggest all American high school students be made to watch
John Fords' entire oeuvre of westerns in order to learn "American Values and Love for This
Great Country" (one could hear the capital letters in her voice...). I wanted to shout at the
screen, "How about some Allison Anders, lady? Now THERE'S some American values for

Thanks again for your great reviews each week, OnM - reading them has become one of my
favorite weekend treats.

Current board | More July 2002