July 2002 Archives

July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002
More July 2002

will Angel die of starvation? -- plainjane, 05:51:32 07/07/02 Sun

I know that vampires are killed either by the stake, beheading,fire, or direct sunlight but i do remember when Spike first got his chip and couldnt feed saying that when a vampire doesnt eat its not a pretty site all skin and bones. so, my question is what will Angel do for food? I didnt see any MREs (MEALS READY TO EAT) put in with him.

[> It seems doubtful. We have the fourth season. -- VR, 06:37:40 07/07/02 Sun

[> Re: will Angel die of starvation? (Spoilers AtsS3) -- KKC, 06:39:16 07/07/02 Sun

You're talking about the cliffhanger ending of Season 3, right? My take on it is that the act of creating a vampire is essentially a spell, which magically animates the corpse for pretty much all eternity. And because o this animation, only intervention by specific means can end a vampire's life, which we're all familiar with.

I've also gotten the impression that stronger vampires descended of specific lines last longer in times of crisis, as compared to shempy food victims that rise from the grave accidentally and don't get any training or support from an established vampire tribe. Angel won't die from being underwater, but whether he is rescued or finds his own way out he'll likely be hungry and angry. I doubt he'd attack the first source of blood he sees though; after his hell experience, I imagine he'd retain control of himself even after having nobody but Davy Jones for company. No, not the Monkee. :)

There's also a big fat metaphor about emerging from the water being a rebirth as if from the womb again, but I'm not qualified to explore that part of narrative philosophy.

-KKC, who wonders if whole episodes of Buffy will be chopped and recycled into two-parters to provide scripts for the animated series.

[> [> Pangs -- Rowan, 09:20:45 07/07/02 Sun

In Pangs, Spike told Giles that vampires who don't feed becoming living skeletons. Presumably that's what will happen to Angel -- not death or dusting, just a withering away. I assume if he can be fed when they find him, he can recover. I wouldn't want to be the one who opens the box, though. ;)

Rowan

[> [> [> Trying to visualize! -- LeeAnn, 19:09:45 07/07/02 Sun

DB, a living skeleton. Yeah. I can just see that. NOT!!

[> [> [> [> It all depends... (Plus my own speculation on next year's Angel) -- Isabel, 18:53:41 07/08/02 Mon

They may decide to spend the money on special effects to make him look skeletal or hire a body double. What I think is more likely is he'll escape from the box deep in the ocean and we won't get a clear shot of him until he's been 'gorging' for a few days. Then all they have to do is use make-up and fake blood.

[> [> [> [> [> Either that or... -- Masq, 10:52:48 07/09/02 Tue

David B. is spending his summer vacation on a crash diet. Which somehow, I doubt.

I just *hope* ME remembers he's supposed to be starving.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Either that or... -- Tillow, 14:11:19 07/09/02 Tue

It would be interesting to see him get out on his own. Maybe the locks rust? Rather not see the gorging though. What/who would he gorge on? He lived on rats for several decades. I can't wait to see how they get Angel out. I seriously hope it's not Cordelia. Too easy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was thinking... (More speculation...) -- Isabel, 17:16:36 07/09/02 Tue

I agree, Cordy's too easy. But what if Angel is still in the box in the premiere and Stephen has found out about Justine and lets him out because he feels guilty.

Nah. That's just being a hopeless optimist. Plus it ties up way too many plot points in the first episode.

I pity the fisherman or treasure hunter who thinks he's found buried treasure. sigh.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel would fall off the wagon for that one... -- Masq, 14:20:50 07/10/02 Wed

No matter how good a boy he is, after an entire summer with no blood, and suddenly he sees a fisherman open that casket?

Chomp.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> in that case... -- anom, 20:36:04 07/10/02 Wed

...good thing he's tied in there w/cable.

What would a fisher...-person make of a near-skeletal body pulled out of deep water who hadn't drowned? Would Angel have the presence of mind to play dead (as opposed to undead)? Would he have the absence of conscience--or the desperation--to drain whoever cut the cables? I'm picturing something like the transfusion scene at the end of--um, anyone remember which Naked Gun movie it was (maybe something else w/Leslie Nielsen)? Only without the tubing.

Speaking of which, maybe his friends will find him & bring numerous IV bags of blood. They should probably still leave him strapped down till he's back to some semblance of normal, physically & mentally.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Either that or... sea otters? -- auroramama, 23:50:40 07/10/02 Wed

The sea is full of things with blood of some sort. I'm willing to allow for the possibility that vampires need mammalian blood. And I admit it would be kind of depressing to have Angel preying on sea otters, seals, or the dolphins I remember seeing in the distance from the ferry to Catalina. How good a swimmer is he, anyway? He doesn't have to breathe, and he's super-strong, but moving through water isn't something (I imagine) he's used to. Perhaps he couldn't catch them.

This pointless speculation brought to you by I-should-go-to- sleep-now, Inc.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> If it's a whale, will we all be required to read the B. of Job &/or Moby Dick? -- redcat, 23:55:40 07/10/02 Wed

[> Re: will Angel die of starvation? -- wiscoboy, 07:06:20 07/07/02 Sun

If you remember, Spike once told Buffy & friends how vampires who don't eat become like walking skeletons.
The inference being they do not die through starvation.
Besides(not that I've heard), I believe the way Wesley redeems himself to Angel is by becoming his rescuer(via knowledge gained thru W&H association).

[> [> hey! watch those spoilers! gotta label 'em! -- anom, 11:01:15 07/09/02 Tue

& if it's just speculation/personal opinion, say so!

[> Re: will Angel die of starvation? -- Vegeta, 09:29:57 07/08/02 Mon

Vampires don't die of starvation, they just become incredibly weak and feeble. If you recall Becoming Pt. 1, Whistler makes a comment to Angel when they first meet in 1996. Something to the effect of "What are you eating, a rat a month. You're too weak to be any use for what the Powers have planned for you."

S7 spec and a question (spoilers) -- Juliette, 08:53:09 07/07/02 Sun

My spec for S7 re: B/S (sorry, but it's the only story I'm really interested in and has been since the beginning of S5!):
Spike will ome back, of course, but he won't tell them what happened and all the angst and sexual tension will be worked as hard as possible until eventually his having a soul comes out. Buffy has never stopped being attracted to him, and the soul becomes a loop hole so that none of his past deeds matter coz it wasn't him that did them, depite the fact that his much-loved character has barely changed.
Problem is, Spike's wrongdoings don't just include eating a bunch of people. He tried to rape Buffy, which is a different crime all together and much less determined by him being a vampire (a vamp's gotta eat to unlive, after all!)
So the question is, can Spike's actions in SR be swept under the carpet with the 'that wasn't me, I'm a different person now' excuse or should Buffy refuse to have any kind of romantic relationship with him because of what he tried to do to her?
I think B/S will get back together uing the old soul excuse. I think that's why he got hsi soul back. After all, ME have to sell their B/S t-shirts and keep people watching with the promse of more Naked!Spike. But I'm not sure that this is what SHOULD happen. What do you guys think?

[> Re: S7 spec and a question (spoilers) -- Reema, 09:57:31 07/07/02 Sun

If souled!Spike refers to the treatment of Angel as an entity distinct from his previous crimes (in his own defense), and acts still as his souless vampire self would, Buffy may have trouble reconciling her extreme piss-off-ed- ness re the attempted rape with her seperation of Angel and Angelus...

Much harder to be abstract about designating guilt when the vampire in question has tried to rape you personally, I'm guessing.

[> [> will Spike defend himself? -- Juliette, 11:46:26 07/07/02 Sun

Or will he still feel guilty enough not to bother trying?

[> Personally, bad message ... -- Earl Allison, 12:28:08 07/07/02 Sun

It shouldn't be a surprise to anyone that I'm against Buffy- Spike pairings, I have been from the beginning.

I've got nothing against the character of Spike per se, aside from my own personal opinion that the writers were seriously flirting with undermining their entire premise in regards to souls, vampires, and demons -- which is another rant entirely.

However, the attempted rape is drastically different even from what Angelus attempted. As odd as it sounds, Angelus "only" engaged in what we expect, murder and torment -- sure, he murdered Jenny Calendar and left her as a present for Giles, but what he did was pretty much in line with what we expected -- straightforward violence and aggression.

Heck, Joss and the writers seemed rather concerned that the viewers WOULDN'T forgive Angel for Angelus' crimes, thus the snowfall that saved Angel in "Amends," as if saying "See, even God says it's okay to like Angel again."

Will that be the case with Spike? Maybe, but soul or not, it smacks heavily of the Luke and Laura problem or rape and eventually getting the pair together -- it doesn' always work, and IMHO sends a TERRIBLE message (which has been brought up before with other posters like Dochawk) -- how can the writers reconcile Spike's actions pre-soul with Spike now with soul?

In a way, the writers have really screwed things up -- if we maintain that Spike can't actually be good without a soul, what were the actions we saw in Seasons 5 and 6? Not good ones, clearly, since Spike needed a soul to BE good. Doesn't that undermine the positive actions he made?

And frankly, if the writers think all they can offer is Naked Spike and B/S pairings, then the show is dead and buried. Spike might bring in some ratings, but to abandon so much of the clever writing and plots merely to force (again, IMHO) Buffy and Spike together strikes me like a slap in the face.

I think getting Spike and Buffy back together in anything other than a friendship capacity would be a bad, bad thing. Like I said before, I think it sends a terrible message to the viewers, not just of the characters, but of the overall seriousness of what happened.

That being said, would it surprise me if the writers did put them back together? Not one bit -- not after the issues of writing in Season 6 -- I put nothing past them.

I expect flames and venom anytime now.

Take it and run.

[> [> Re: Personally, bad message ... -- KKC, 14:20:51 07/07/02 Sun

Whether or not a Buffy/Spike pairing (pre- or post-soul) constitutes a Bad Thing (tm) it's not an interesting plot development because we've pretty much been there, done that. On the other hand, ME doesn't do stories because they're bad, good, interesting, or 'what we need.' They do what they want. :)

I would be more interested if, at the end of Season 7, Buffy forgave Spike and all his transgressions and attempted to initiate a relationship, but was then rebuffed by a Spike who can't get over the guilt and shame. That would send two positive messages about forgiveness and sacrifice. Uh, probably. :)

Of course, this is all moot because there's likely to be a new 'boyfriend' character which will baffle and confuse all the fans. He'll be the cute guy with a job that intersects with Buffy's daily life who turns out to have a dark secret that pits them against each other. Hey, it's like that every season.

-KKC, in the middle of an online driver education course. Ick.

[> [> Re: Personally, bad message ... -- Dochawk, 15:18:31 07/07/02 Sun

Not suprisingly Earl I agree with you, but I'll add two small points. 1. Angelus never did anythign evil on Buffy wearing his human face, it was always in vamp face. Spike's AR of Buffy was done in his human face, so souled or not its a different connection in the viewers mind (and lest us not forget that a great number of viewers are not 30 something philosogeeks, but teenagers who view the show as a metaphor for their life, and in that context repairing Buffy and Spike sends a dangerous message about men who attempt rape, yes Buffy can forgive Spike, but can she sleep with him?)

2. SMG has made mention of her displeasure at direction year 6 took. I think it was about the B/S storyline (not in so many words, you have to read between the lines of some of her interviews). ME/Fox are still trying to sign her for year 8. I do think that point #1 is somethign she cares about, the message that BtVS is sending. In addition, Joss has said that year 7 will be a return to female empowerment. Its not very empowering to show a woman return to a lover who attempted to rape her (and brought out only the worst in her). Interestingly on 2 consecutive days SMG said there would be no Spuffy in the future and JM said there would be. Of course that was the same day JM found out that he had wanted a soul all along, so how much do the writers really tell him about what is going to happen?

[> [> [> Re: Personally, bad message ... -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:30:51 07/07/02 Sun

She may forgive Spike but still be firm about the fact that she could never love or trust him.

I have three possibilities I hope for in Season 7 in regards to Spike:

1) He can't handle the guilt, just like Faith couldn't in Season 3, sending him over to the dark side.

2) He does join the side of good, and we last see him in the season finale, fighting off a gang of vampires. We don't see him die, but it's implied he does.

3) He leaves Sunnydale so he can get his own show.

[> [> that's not the question -- Ete, 15:46:06 07/07/02 Sun

I dislike the idea that the authors should move their storyline along the idea that anything they would do would send a "bad message".

you really want some afterschool specials ?
not I.

No, the real question is wether Buffy could still want Spike after that, and if she does, if she would want to be involved with him now.

One should think in term of characters, not in term of message. Because this is supposed to be a story.
I don't know what kind of story would be the better right now.
It sure would be very difficult to get them back together. I'm not sure i'm willing to go with that.
But what's the alternative ? Buffy alone ? A new boyfriend fallin' from nowhere ? Xander (ewwww) ? Willow (heh !:) ?
I dunno, I guess it will be Spike or alone, and I don't know what's the best solution in term of story. Of course, it's ME, so we should expect to be surprised.

[> [> [> Unfortunately it is -- Dochawk, 16:57:36 07/07/02 Sun

Ete,

It is all about the story, but buried withing the story is a message. And ME and Joss have been very proud of the message he has been sending about female empowerment and confidence. And they have taken alot of lumps over the Willow/Tara storyline for just this reason, they destroyed a positive message they had "crowed" about. Your right in that the writers take the story where they want, but they are very cognizant about the message they are sending as well. And no matter what you think about Afternoon Specialization, they have been doing it forever (not always successfully I agree).

[> [> [> [> There's a difference -- Ete, 17:37:27 07/07/02 Sun

between the way any work of art "says" something, the themes it explores and the lessons we can found in it and what people call a message in a story, that is, IMO, not of artistic value.

I'd say : the role of art is to make us ask questions, not to give us answers.

'Messages' stories are just that, answers, pre-made lessons of morality, some "Pr�t � Penser" that lets no place for thinking and reflection from the public.

BtVS is nowhere like this. It doesn't stop to make us wonder and ponder about the story. It only gives us the tools to forge our own 'message' to be found into the show.
That's how I see the thing as it should be. I guess others may see it some other way. I take as proof that Buffy is no Afterschool special the way so many of us disagree about the way one must interprete the story, especially in the most morally ambiguous case as Spike is.

[> [> [> [> [> Agree Ete. Well said -- shadowkat, 09:40:48 07/08/02 Mon

"I take as proof that Buffy is no Afterschool special the way so many of us disagree about the way one must interprete the story, especially in the most morally ambiguous case as Spike is."

Which is what I like about it. Everything else on TV
goes the Afterschool Special route - this is the message
we want to convey, yadda yadda yadda. Bored now.

Give me something that makes me think. Makes me uncertain.
I can't predict. That's Btvs and Ats for me. Nothing
else does it.

[> [> [> [> [> Adding my voice to the chorus of praise for Ete. -- Caroline, 11:58:18 07/08/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Agree Ete... VERY well said -- shygirl, 12:37:50 07/08/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Right on, Ete! -- OnM, 06:00:01 07/11/02 Thu

There will always be a chance that the 'message' could get on the 'heavy' side, but Ete is absolutely right, that 'message' appears out of the story in ways that we are predisposed to see it, and this is inevitable. But those perceptions can easily change over time.

I have been fascinated as I rewatch S6 and even more clearly see just how much of the entire season arc involves revealing Willow's inner darkness, or perhaps more accurately her denial of it's existence. Last night, for example, I found myself more closely studying the nuances of her behavior in Tabula Rasa, and there's nothing 'Afterschool Special-y' about it-- this is a young woman who has a lot of internal pain, and has always pressed the awareness of it deep into her subconscious. Early in the episode, she apologizes to Tara for the forgetting spell, but it's now very clear to me that she didn't mean it-- she's still papering over her insecurities. Before, I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, because I 'knew' Willow. Now, I understand just how perceptive Tara was-- and that she also was willing to give Willow the benefit of the doubt, despite knowing that there might have been little chance of success. But, Willow doesn't even make it a single day without her inner demons driving her astray, and Tara's worst fears are confirmed.

Understanding this-- that the kind, generous, thoughtful, loving Willow we have always admired simultaneously harbors some very nasty tendencies is shocking, but it's very real. No A.S. is going to present that kind of ambiguity for it's audience, it's too disconcerting (and I might add, inappropriate for very young viewers, who need some simple, straightforward 'answers' most of the time).

Smashed and Wrecked are coming up next. As I suspected at the time, the 'magic addiction' arc turned out to be a red herring, but at the time (and sometimes still to this day) it provoked tremendous output from a legion of Buffy fans to the effect that the show had 'jumped the shark' by smashing the audience in the face with a BIG OL' MAGIC = DRUGS MESSAGE!!! It simply wasn't so.

One of the hardest things about becoming an adult is the realization that the way you intrinsically think of yourself may not be accurate. Realizing that you have a substance abuse problem is one thing-- what the failure to handle that problem says about you is far more damaging, and harder to recover from.

Substance abuse only abuses the body-- the far greater problem occurs when you are abusing your soul.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Great comment OM! -- shadowkat, 06:46:05 07/11/02 Thu

"One of the hardest things about becoming an adult is the realization that the way you intrinsically think of yourself may not be accurate. ."

You've hit the metaphorical nail on the head, right there!
In Season 6, this is what all six characters are struggling with, their perception of themselves being turned on its head. Willow is actually the most obvious. Tara already had it happen back in Family, she perceived herself as evil and a demon and found out it wasn't so. Perhaps that's why she is so perceptive regarding Willow? For Willow is struggling in a way with a similar problem. Her inner demon.

A friend and I were discussing this last night. She said that she found it odd that her perception of herself at work as a hard nosed manager was actually not true, her staff perceives her as a marshmallow. What we think we
see, may in fact be the opposite.

Buffy thinks of herself as Joan, the matyr - this is clearly shown in Tabula Rasa. In Normal Again - we realize that she also views herself as a girl in an asylum and everything around her just feeds her own image of herself.
She can't see past her own matyrdom long enough to appreciate her friends, sister, or the neutered vampire
that's desperately in love with her. She can't imagine herself as being anything other than the matyr, the hero, saving them and responsible for everything they do. In truth, she isn't responsible for their acts and she isn't the matyr. Another slayer can take her place eventually.
The universe does not revolve around her. She is not the one who can save the world from Willow.

Spike in Tabula Rasa perceives himself as the noble vampire with a soul who helps fight the bad guys. His father
is Giles. And yes he's a bit on the randy side. The truth?
He's an evil soulless vampire. But wait what is the truth?
Is he the evil soulless vampire or the other?

Whoa...wait, maybe the personalities we saw in TR are the true ones, the ones intrinsically real and the false images are the ones that the characters clothe themselves with?

Maybe Buffy is really Joan, the quippy matyr who loves her
sister. Spike is really Randy, the well-meaning vampire who sees Giles as a father, maybe Anya is really the shop- girl,
and maybe Xander is really the scared boy who comes through
in the clinch. OR maybe they are these things as well as
the images we see on the screen before and after Willow's spell.

Who we are changes depending on the environment around us, the stimulous we are given, the people surrounding us.
We aren't stuck in one persona. It isn't static. You could be intimidating at work, yet the sweetest thing at home.
Or vice-versa. And who you were five years ago, is probably not the same person you are now. Makes life interesting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great comment OM! -- wtofts, 09:19:04 07/11/02 Thu

I have been lurking for months, feeding my obsession (and, at times,don't know whether to be comforted or just a tiny bit spooked at finding other folk who are just as possessed). Posts, like those above, are what will keep me coming back in the wee hours and spare moments, ready to be amazed and delighted with the insightful thoughts and comments of an incredible group. I remain in awe.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome to the land of the de-lurked! -- ponygirl, 11:23:51 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> Random thoughts about TR -- Sophist, 09:13:25 07/11/02 Thu

I really do love this episode. Ok, fanboy moment over.

I found certain points very interesting. One is that Willow both acknowledged and accepted the blame for bringing back Buffy. Both she and Xander wanted to "fix" it. Xander's proposal was typically silly and ineffective. Willow's was typical another way -- she would hack the system.

I also thought it was interesting that Tara's criticism of Willow focused entirely on abuse of power. Not only was there no reference to magic as a drug, there was no distinction between "dark" magic and any other magic.

I wish I could be as confident as you are about the magic/drugs nonsense. Smashed is consistent with Willow's abuse of magic as abuse of power. It's really Wrecked that crosses the line into A.S. territory. Doug Petrie's comments (I think he was the one) suggested that Willow could be forgiven for her rampage, in part, because she was "possessed" by magic. The "drug" nonsense may have been introduced for that purpose. We may have to await S7 to make a final judgment on this point.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: More random thoughts about TR (with speculation for Season 7 -- Brian, 09:25:56 07/11/02 Thu

Some of the things I noticed on seeing TR again:

1. The bond between Buffy and Dawn is so deep and so profound that even as strangers they know who they are to each other.

2. That Giles' return to England really was a response to his "mid-life" crisis beyond his need for a new, red sports car.

3. That Spike (perhaps a watcher in training or perhaps Dawn's watcher) is a hero whether he has a soul or not.

4. That Xander isn't right for Anya as his insecuriities run too deep. She needs more man in her boy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow's Possession -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:53:39 07/11/02 Thu

Even if they do go down the path that Willow was possessed by dark magicks, she's still not off the hook. While that may say the real her didn't do any of these horrible things, she went to the Magic Box and drained the books by her own will. She allowed the possession to happen, knowing the consequences that there could be.

[> [> I agree, which is odd as... -- Juliette, 15:47:54 07/07/02 Sun

I'm a B/S shipper! Or I was, before SR. (I was a redemptionist. Lost interest the more they tried to paint him as evil, evil, evil.) But ITA, them getting back together in any way other than as friends puts out a terrible, terrible message. Buffy's supposed to be an emancipated female but she might date a guy who tried to rape her?
However, I wouldn't put it past the writers. They screwed up by makng Spike so ambiguous in the first place - moral ambiguity is great and fascinating stuff and its why we love the show, but the writers kept trying to claim a clearly ambiguous character was pure evil, leading to huge disagreement and a situation where they couldn't make anyone happy. They went about the whole thing the wrong way, IMO.

[> [> More Tabula Rasa? -- darrenK, 19:10:40 07/07/02 Sun

I've decided to annoy the rest of you by tying every speculative thread back to TR.

But, it's my contention that the memoryless/experienceless characterizations in TR tell us a lot about what the writers are thinking about the futures of the characters outside the limited situation of early Season 6.

Spike/Randy in TR believes himself to be a vampire with a soul on a mission of redemption. He fights side-by-side with Joan/Buffy, but he doesn't seem to feel any attraction or romance for her?

Now other characters got things wrong, but not so wrong. Xander and Willow aren't dating but they have had an almost- dating-fooling-around-mutual-love-long-term-best-friendship. Anya and Giles aren't engaged, but there does seem to be something quite hot burning beneath their shopkeepers' twill. Joan and Umad figure out that they are sisters almost immediately. Tara and Willow's attraction doesn't need the memories; those two were seconds away from making new ones.

My point is that the characters lost their memories, but the things that were natural to their relationships were still there. Spike's love for Buffy was not one of those things. Heroism? Yes. A need for acceptance? Oh, yes. The need to be part of a family? Uh huh. Love for Buffy? Nowhere in sight.

dK

[> [> [> Re: More Tabula Rasa? -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:21:48 07/07/02 Sun

Granted, Spike never expressed love for Buffy, but who's to say he didn't feel it. A person can be in love for awhile without noticing it. Therefore, he subconsciously had the same motivations as before the forgetting spell.

Now, if you were to suggest that Spike's love for Buffy wasn't a factor when his memory was gone, than how do you explain the way that characters like Dawn and Buffy, or Xander and Willow slipped into the roles they had before? If Spike didn't love Buffy after the spell, that supports the theory that soulless vampires can't feel love, since everyone else carried habits and relationship interactions over from before.

[> [> [> Re: More Tabula Rasa? -- Rahael, 00:33:32 07/08/02 Mon

Interesting points - I like it!! Tabula Rasa is a great ep, and it's always true that the most comedic eps that deepen into tragedy a season later. And hey, not much comdey in Season 6!

"Anya and Giles aren't engaged, but there does seem to be something quite hot burning beneath their shopkeepers' twill."

I agree! I for one am a fervent Anya/Giles shipper!

[> [> [> Tabula Rasa foreshadowing -- tomfool, 09:04:56 07/08/02 Mon

I agree with Rahael that TR was a great episode and during a recent rewatch was struck by the foreshadowing. In addition to fulfilling several Restless references (Spike in the tweed suit from the swingset scene, Giles as mentor/father figure, a shark `who walks on land'), after the SG wakes up in amnesia state, the positioning of each individual exactly mirrors their positions at the end of Grave:

Giles/Anya are in each other's arms in a caring, supportive position.

Willow/Xander - Willow is supported in Xander's arms all `snuggly wuggly' wearing Xander's coat.

Buffy/Dawn are initially apart, but immediately become paired as sisters who will `take care of each other.' Notice that this is not Buffy saying, `I'll protect you,' as throughout most of Season 6, but closer to the Dawn at the end of Grave `I've got your back.'

Tara is by herself, off to the side. Obvious.

Spike is by himself, away from the group, prone on top of the counter - at a higher place?

I also loved the Michele Branch song montage sequence. Moved lots of plot points along effectively and eliminated the need for lots of goodbye dialogue. "I want what's yours and I want what's mine, but I'm not giving in this time." Buffy wanting the dark and the light. Of course Buffy does give in, but later Buffy finally does refuse Spike's `love'.

Just random observations from one of the best written and directed episodes of the year.

[> [> [> [> Great points -- Rahael, 09:31:14 07/08/02 Mon

btw, have to ask. 'Tomfool' from King Lear?

[> [> [> [> [> Nothing quite so literary -- tomfool, 09:37:22 07/08/02 Mon

Just a natural born fool - on April Fool's day (too many years ago!).

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Triple foole -- Rahael, 18:38:01 07/08/02 Mon

Well, fools literally abound in literature. An excuse to post one of my favourites (or is that three?).

The triple Foole
I am two fooles, I know,
For loving, and for saying so
In whining Po�try;
But where's that wiseman, that would not be I,
If she would not deny?
Then as th'earths inward narrow crooked lanes
Do purge sea waters fretfull salt away,
I thought, if I could draw my paines,
Through Rimes vexation, I should them allay,
Griefe brought to numbers cannot be so fierce,
For, he tames it, that fetters it in verse.

But when I have done so,
Some man, his art and voice to show,
Doth Set and sing my paine,
And, by delighting many, frees againe
Griefe, which verse did restraine.
To Love, and Griefe tribute of Verse belongs,
But not of such as pleases when'tis read,
Both are increased by such songs:
For both their triumphs so are published,
And I, which was two fooles, do so grow three;
Who are a little wise, the best fooles bee.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Suddenly denser -- tomfool, 08:03:43 07/09/02 Tue

Ah, suddenly you've provided nuance and layers. Triple foole indeed.

I remain, humbly, your fool.

[> [> Re: Personally, bad message ... -- Purple Tulip, 06:58:40 07/08/02 Mon

I'm really not sure how I feel about this whole thing, but I am extremely interested to see where it is going. The debate over how similar Angelus and Spike are will be continuous, I'm sure, but it really won't get us anywhere when talking about souled-up Spike. I have said it before and I will say it again---Spike will NOT be Angel when he comes back, nor will his situation be like that of Angel's. Unless Joss and ME want to lose a serious amount of their viewers, they will make it different. Yes Buffy did forgive Angel for what he did when he was Angelus, but those events ARE very different from the attempted rape. I still think that in Spike's case, because he actually went in search of a soul, and had to endure great trials to get it, and Angel was cursed with a soul, the outcomes are going to be very different. Spike with soul will not equal Angel with soul, just as they were unlike each other without souls.

Now, on the topic of Spuffy ever returning---I'm really not sure. I am a fan of the pairing and am hoping for some sort of realtionship next season, but I do agree that a romantic one will be difficult, and I'm not even sure if it's entirely appropriate. I think that Buffy will be the one to try and forgive and forget, but I think that Spike is going to have a real problem getting past what he did. Most likely he will be afflicted with extreme remorse for his past actions, with the majority of that remorse directed at the hurt that he caused to the woman he loved the most. I also think that Dawn is going to have a real problem dealing with this too- Spike was almost like her best friend and father figure roled into one, and what he did to Buffy will indirectly affect the way in which she now looks at him. This will be the crusher for Spike as Dawn and Buffy are the only two people in the world that he cares about and doesn't want to hurt. I think that next season will find Spike dealing with a lot of his inner demons and all of the things that he did in the past. I really think that some sort of relationship will be forged between him and Buffy, though I am really unsure if it will turn at all romantic before the show ends. Though, honestly as much as I would like to see it happen, I really don't think we'll see them together because of the previous "Buffy loves vampire with soul and it ends badly" storyline- I just don't think they can escape those same problems- not unless Spike becomes human.

This is a lot longer than I intended, and I'm really not sure if it makes any sense at all. I am so intrigued by this issue and interested to see what they can possibly do with it. I think I'm one of the only people who still has faith in ME and that they ease all of our doubts and concerns. Maybe this is just because this is the first season that that I have watched, so I really have no room to get angry with anything that they have done thus far. They'll turn it around- just wait and see:)

[> [> Good message -- Sophist, 09:08:11 07/08/02 Mon

What's missing from the discussion to this point is any mention of the only real parallel in the show -- Xander's attempted rape of Buffy in The Pack. There are no ambiguities in that scene: Xander was not drunk, there is no issue of his real intent. Buffy forgave him (and Willow did his lesser, but still very hurtful, behavior) because they understood that it wasn't really Xander, but the demon in him. Why should it be any different for Spike?

[> [> [> Re: Good Point! -- Purple Tulip, 10:19:26 07/08/02 Mon

I'd forgotten about that, but it makes perfect sense---and why should things be any different with Spike? It was the demon in him, and with the soul he is a different being altogther. Same goes for Angel, if we want to get into that- --and lets not forget that Buffy was very able to forgive Xander for temporarily wanting to rape and eat her, Angel for killing her and tormenting her friends and family, and now it looks like she's probably gonna be able to forgive Willow for almost ending the world. So why should Spike really be any different? It seems like Buffy is more that able and willing to forgive and forget when it comes to her friends, but when it comes to Spike, she is in extreme denial- denial about what he feels for her and what she feels for him, denial about their whole "relationship". She focuses only on the negative where he is concerned, only looking to remind him of all the evil things he's done in the past, when in reality, Angel was far worse, having done far worse things, and she's able to still love him and move on. My guess is that Buffy is just hiding behind her feelings: after hating Spike for so long, she's ashamed and maybe even a little astonished at her feelings for this vampire so she tries to continuously push him away, hoping to push the feelings away as well. When Spike comes back, she's going to have to face facts and admit some things to herself; afterall, she's no longer going to be able to spout her mantra from season six at anyone who'll listen: "Spike's just an evil, soul-less thing", because that's no longer going to be the case.

[> [> [> [> Re: Good Point! -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:29:35 07/08/02 Mon

Of course, she might not like souled Spike: partly because he will conjure up images of the attempted rape, and partly because, if he's changed enough that he can be forgiven, then he's changed enough that whatever attraction Buffy once felt for him is gone.

Plus, proving that you have a soul is kinda difficult.

[> [> [> Differences between the two (IMHO) -- Earl Allison, 13:31:13 07/08/02 Mon

You are right, Buffy forgave Xander.

But there are quite a few differences between them as well, things that make Spike's actions more damning and hurtful (again, IMHO).

Firstly, Hyena-Xander was in no way like normal Xander, not in his mannerisms, not in his behavior, and not in his actions. Xander never loathed and lashed out at Willow, and never (that we know of) got a hankering for a live pig to eat :) Of course, the resentment of Angel was still there, rather prominently displayed in his words to Buffy, so maybe the Hyena-spirit gave voice to some deep resentments Xander actually had. Still, I doubt Xander would have EVER tried to force himself on Buffy, even if he had the opportunity (IMHO).

Secondly, this was rather early on for Buffy, and Xander hadn't spent months or years with her, fighting alongside her, professing his love for her, etc. Spike's actions came after almost a year of actively professing his love for her, and months after she and he were intimate -- making his actions (again, IMHO) all the more hurtful than Xander's could have been AT THAT POINT. Had Xander-Hyena surfaced in S2 or S3, it would be a more legitimate comparison, since he would have been more established.

Thirdly, and most damning (mostly because of the writers), it should be different because, are you ready? The being coming back in S7 ISN'T Spike -- especially given what everyone has been saying about souls, the Angel-Angelus issue, and the like. That means the good actions get washed away with the bad, because this isn't the same person.

Buffy knew Xander before he was Hyena-possessed, and was friends with him. She was friends (and lovers) with Angel before he changed (back) into Angelus.

All Buffy has known is Spike, pre-soul. Sure, he was nastier before the chip, but if the argument is "Spike post- soul is different than Spike pre-soul," than it should cut both ways.

Buffy loved (or at least had sex with) PRE-soul Spike, an entirely different animal than POST-soul Spike (unless he acts the same, and then why SHOULD she forgive him?), will she even know this new being?

And even so, she loved things about Spike pre-soul -- will they still be there post-soul? Will Spike still love her?

Take it and run.

[> [> [> [> I think your last point is the key -- Sophist, 16:18:05 07/08/02 Mon

I agree with you that SouledSpike is different than Spike. In that sense, Buffy is not being asked to forgive "Spike". SouledSpike, being a different creature, needs no forgiveness. It wasn't "him" in the bathroom in SR.

I think this same reasoning applies to HyenaXander and Angel/Angelus.

You're also quite right about SouledSpike -- there is no way to know if Buffy will even like him, much less want to sleep with him.

[> [> [> Good point -- Juliette, 14:39:42 07/09/02 Tue

I'd completely forgotton about that scene. I think I erased it from my memory!

[> [> Couldn't agree more, Earl. Great post. (NT) -- Q, 17:05:34 07/11/02 Thu

[> Re: S7 spec and a question (spoilers) -- Rufus, 15:50:20 07/07/02 Sun

So the question is, can Spike's actions in SR be swept under the carpet with the 'that wasn't me, I'm a different person now' excuse or should Buffy refuse to have any kind of romantic relationship with him because of what he tried to do to her?

The attempted rape is what sent Spike on a journey to get his soul back...up til then he thought that "I may not be good, but I'm okay." The attempted rape proved to even Spike that he needed a soul to be consistant in his goodness, not just focused on Buffy, because if his goodness was dependant on only one person the situation we saw in the alley would eventually play out (if the chip wasn't working) with a dead person the result at the end. I notice that people are more forgiving of murder than rape...I don't get it because if you are dead (thinking the victim here)you are gone forever. With the attempted rape Spike lost control and proved that he "needed" a soul to be safe around people. Also a soul may help him lose that selfish need to own Buffy.

After Angel came back he was forgiven because he was now with a soul and they could "blame the demon" I don't see it being any different with Spike. The guy that will return from Africa won't be the vampire who tried to rape Buffy, he will be a vampire who can try to make up for what he did, just like Angel is now.

[> [> I agree -- lele, 16:09:01 07/07/02 Sun

Although this season seems to have blurred the whole soul issue, I think souledSpike is not soullessSpike. I'm quite sure he will be different and deserves at least a chance to prove himself. Whatever happens b/n him and buffy, it will be nice to see him moving on from being love's bitch.

[> [> I hate to disagree with ya, but -- Dochawk, 16:53:12 07/07/02 Sun

See my message above. Spike committed the AR, not in vampire visage. if he had changed face when he did it, I would agree with you. I think it was very important that he didn't change face. And his not will make it harder for both Buffy and the audience to forgive him (though as Maladanza pointed out about a month ago, Buffy has an amazing capacity to both forgive and forget).

[> [> [> Re: I hate to disagree with ya, but -- Rufus, 17:41:47 07/07/02 Sun

I don't care what face he did what in, the fact is that it was something that even caused Spike to pause and go make a change so he wouldn't do that again. Buffy was right not to trust him as a vampire because it would be like walking around with a loaded gun at your head all the time. Spike could have just as easily killed Buffy in that moment when her guard was down, but he didn't. I don't watch much soaps so I don't know the specifics of the Luke and Laura situation...would someone fill me in. I don't know if this Luke went after his victim with the intent to rape and if their situation was a rape or an attempted rape. And Mal is right Buffy has been known to forgive...Angel's murder of Jenny as Angelus an example. So, do we do what Fury suggested in his Succubus Club interview and "blame the demon"?

[> [> [> [> Luke and Laura (according to the folks in chat) -- Vickie, 18:12:45 07/07/02 Sun

I don't watch General Hospital either, but one night in chat the nice folks filled me in. Apologies to them if I get any of the details wrong.

The general outline of the Luke/Laura fiasco: Luke was some kind of a drifter who was kind of seeing Laura's sister. He raped Laura. Later, she went after him with a gun, but instead of killing him she forgave him (apparently because audience approval of the couple was through the roof). They became a couple, eventually marrying (I think, fuzzy here).

The differences between L/L and B/S, IMHO, are that there was an actual rape and that the two people involved had not already had a complicated relationship where the lines of "no" had gotten fuzzy. Oh, and the guy was human. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Luke and Laura (from someone who watched it) -- Kitt, 19:24:07 07/07/02 Sun

and I can't believe I'm making that confession. But, Luke was a crook who ran a club in Port Charles. He raped Laura one night at his club - violent, but not 'beat to a pulp then rape' (just enough to get her to do what he wanted). You're right, she forgave him [they actually had the nerve to charecterize the event later as 'seduction'], they had a stormy relationship and ended up with one of the biggest soap weddings in history.

There was a LOT of outcry about it at the time, and rape has been very controversial in soaps since... but with few exceptions, while rapist are often forgiven in soaps these days, they usually DON'T have intimate relationships with their victims afterwards.

Now, I'm a redemptionista, I believe that Spike is on the road to being a MUCH better being... but he was BEFORE he got the soul too. When the attempted rape happened, he had been drinking since AT LEAST when Anya brought out the bottle in Entropy. He was depressed, bordering on suicidal, and VERY vulnerable (having left his leather coat/ armor/ trophy behind). "You should have let him kill me.", remember? This is not the Big Bad - this is William, the fool for love, caught in a bubbling, boiling over pot of very powerful, painful, negative emotions. Doc has a point - he bears responsibility for his acts. But if Angel can be forgiven for killing Jenny Calendar in cold blood while he didn't have a soul, it would be awfully hypocritical of Buffy not to forgive Spike for what he did after he got a soul.

You know what I think Spike needs to do first on his journey to redemption? I think he (and Xander, but that's another post) needs to go to the Sunnydale AA meeting, find a sponsor, give up his flask and swear off the burbon. And I do believe that if he HADN'T been drinking, he never would have attacked Buffy. That doesn't make him less responsible for his acts... but it does make them more understandable.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike and Xander -- tomfool, 09:53:25 07/08/02 Mon

Maybe Spike and Xander can become each other's AA support buddies. It would give them some time for male bonding and a chance to work out their issues ;)

[> [> [> Spike rarely vamps out anymore. -- Forsaken, 05:26:48 07/08/02 Mon

Who knows why, but for the majority of Seasons 5 and 6 Spike has done most of his violence in human face. I was personally surprised to see him go game-face so much in the ep Dead Things. Even so far back as School Hard, he killed that teacher in human face. He's a human face kinda guy, therefore I don't think you can draw to many conclusions about his motivations from his choice of not- bumpy/fangy.

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike rarely vamps out anymore. -- Caesar Augustus, 14:48:31 07/08/02 Mon

This is true. I was surprised, almost to the point of shock, that he didn't vamp out when facing the trials in Grave!

[> Re: S7 spec and a question (spoilers) -- Caesar Augustus, 18:55:28 07/07/02 Sun

Spike actually chose (by all indications) to get a soul. Angelus was cursed by Gypsies - he never, ever would have chosen it. Choosing to have to live with all that guilt for what you've done, choosing to put yourself in pain, is a huge sacrifice that few people seem to give Spike due credit for. Getting a soul is not the easy way out. It is a true sacrifice for his love, Buffy. We've always got the impression that a lot of Spike's feelings for Buffy come from lust, but this decision shows undoubtedly that it is real love. The AR in SR was borne of pain - and we've seen pain can lead to drastic measures. Buffy did try to kill all her friends in NA - that's a helluvalot worse than AR (not that I'm saying it's acceptable of course). Anya's dirty dance with Spike in Entropy, not to mention becoming a frikkin' demon again ... The point is that there are serious mitigating circumstances. According to most people (but not me actually), Spike is evil, so why are people so shocked by the AR? He's been able to hurt Buffy physically but the one time he actually does it, he feels serious remorse, so serious that it leads him to do the absolutely unthinkable for a vamp.

Not only does Buffy deserve a man with a soul, but she deserves someone that devoted to her. As for the message it's sending out, I hardly think B/S getting back together would say to teenagers that AR is OK, since going to Africa to get a soul in the middle is kind of a key factor that can't be emulated in real life. (as far as I know - I did once meet this wacky witchdoctor though ...)

[> [> Re: S7 spec and a question (spoilers) -- Rufus, 20:06:49 07/07/02 Sun

Spike actually chose (by all indications) to get a soul. Angelus was cursed by Gypsies - he never, ever would have chosen it. Choosing to have to live with all that guilt for what you've done, choosing to put yourself in pain, is a huge sacrifice that few people seem to give Spike due credit for. Getting a soul is not the easy way out. It is a true sacrifice for his love, Buffy. We've always got the impression that a lot of Spike's feelings for Buffy come from lust, but this decision shows undoubtedly that it is real love. The AR in SR was borne of pain - and we've seen pain can lead to drastic measures.

I remember when Angel mentioned the pain of remembering every single person he killed, the difference being that now he cared about what he had done.....being soulless was easy, you could do anything without considering consequences. Spike chose to get a soul after a series of trials....at first his love for Buffy was expressed in lust, but in Intervention he discovered it was more when he was willing to die to save her pain. His trials had left the vampire with a chip more and more conflicted about what he was and where his loyalties were. An evil soulless vampire didn't attempt to rape Buffy, a vampire who loved a woman who can't love him lost his control and attempted to force her into loving him back...it didn't work...it was the wrong thing to do...and he did it in a human face. When Buffy threw him across the room he came to his senses, he didn't try to continue to attack her...because his original reason to see her wasn't to rape her, but things got out of hand and he did a very bad thing. He he did try to do something well within his nature, rape...take what he wanted...but unlike before doing a bad thing didn't feel good like it should have....it had the reverse effect and showed Spike the reason why he needed a soul. He may have felt he could change, but in extreme circumstances he lost control and his nature surfaced and it was ugly and he wanted to change that. Incredible when you consider that Angel felt bad about killing Jenny only when his soul was returned to him. The chip may have helped enlighten Spike enough to want to change his nature, become what he once was...and we got a taste of what that may be in Tabula Rasa....does he get the girl for it....I don't know.

[> [> [> Re: S7 spec and a question (spoilers) -- auroramama, 20:10:56 07/08/02 Mon

There -- what Rufus said.

What I say: show me a prior treatment of attempted rape in a relationship where not only are the characters equally strong and violent, with the edge to the female, but where the female has been physically abusive in the past and the male has forgiven *her*. I don't think this is Luke and Laura. What Spike did was wrong, but it wasn't Luke's kind of wrong, and Buffy will never be a Laura even if she marries Spike and feeds him fluffy birthday cake. Not ever.
And I think even kids can tell the difference.

auroramama

[> Skinny!Spike -- LeeAnn, 19:02:31 07/07/02 Sun

I think B/S will get back together uing the old soul excuse. I think that's why he got hsi soul back. After all, ME have to sell their B/S t-shirts and keep people watching with the promise of more Naked!Spike.

Yah! for the thought of Naked!Spike but I'm a bit worried that it isn't going to happen. I was looking at some hiatus pictures from a season or two ago and JM was pumped up, muscles etc. This summer, judging from some of the SFX pictures, he's not working out. He's gotten very thin, even for him, and even his biceps are small. I take that to mean either 1) He's doing body sculpting to look thin and tortured for the Suffering!Souled!Spike or 2) He knows there is no Naked!Spike scheduled for next season.

But there's got to be Buffy/Spike at some point next season, smudge doesn't run Buffy, and why make Spike get a soul to give Buffy what she deserves then NOT give her Spike with the soul. That would be pretty pointless, wouldn't it?

[> [> Re: Skinny!Spike -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:24:53 07/07/02 Sun

It wouldn't be pointless, it would be the perfect way to torture Spike: he goes to get a soul and the eternal suffering that goes with it, all so he could get back with Buffy, and she still rejects him? Perfect angst generator!

[> [> Because its Buffy's story not Spikes -- Dochawk, 20:51:08 07/07/02 Sun

You have to remember whose story this is. The writers will do anything they want with/to Spike but if it involves Buffy, its Buffy;s story. So the question is, will getting Spike and Buffy back together advance Buffy's story? I can't see a way that there is a yes answer to that, but I am sure the writers will find one.

[> [> [> I like to think Spike (and everyone else) have their own story. -- Forsaken, 05:53:16 07/08/02 Mon

Just because Buffy is the title character doesn't mean the other characters can't have their own stories to play out. We brag constantly about how well rounded the characters are, how they evolve and change like real people. Let them be seperate like real people, let them have their seperate existence from Buffy. It makes things so much more interesting. Buffy can further her own story with the whole "exploring my dark side at last" thing. As a being with memories from decades upon decades of being a dark side, Spike can help lots with that. How's that work for you Doc?

[> [> [> [> Begging to differ -- Rahael, 06:26:23 07/08/02 Mon

Narratives don't work when you pull different bits of it apart, and make them live on their own.

No episode would be understandable without seeing everyone interact. Each person's story is meaningless without the other. This is true not only at the most obvious macro level, but also in the micro, BtVS is a story with constituent parts, its dramatic message arises from the interaction of all the characters. There is no point taking partisan positions - it misses the point entirely. It would be like taking 'a side' in Midsummer Night's Dream, or 'Portrait of a Lady'. I watch for the entire show, for the full range of emotion, opinion, voice. The 'message' that BtVS delivers, as discussed above does not come from one authoritative voice, but from the situations that the characters find themselves in, their reactions and our reactions to them.

This is why the 'message' is complex, ambiguous and is so argued over. Because no one voice predominates. The power of drama is that there is a multiplicity of character, opinion and voice.

BtVS rarely lets an authoritative voice appear - to do so would be antithetical to so much of what the Buffyverse is, which is sceptical of grand narratives. When it does wish to point something out, it is often by themes, imagery and contrasts between characters.

Then, there is also a dialogue between the work of art and ourselves.

The characters can't exist independently of Buffy. She acts as our eyes in the Buffyverse - it's inescapable. Nowhere is this underlined more than in NA, where the characters get to grips with the idea that they might not have an independent existence without her. Now some of us may dislike Buffy very much, but that only underlines the complexity of the world that BtVS portrays and Buffy walks through.

On a side note, I must once again protest that 'the dark side' is not synonymous with evil. Dark emotions do not necessarily result in evil. Buffy does not have to go out draining people to explore her dark side. She explores it when she recognises all her own complexity, looks it straight in the eye, and acts in a morally responsible manner.

And I'm curious as to how other people think Spike should react to his long years enjoying violence and inflicting pain. A shrug, a 'I've got a soul' and 'hey, I'm no Angel' (pun intended).

And as for Angelus/Angel, was he ever forgiven by Giles? and wasn't Buffy's easy forgiveness of him speedily, and stingingly shown up for what it was by Giles? Giles only allowed him into the apartment at the point of a stake. And there was never a more just anger than Giles showed then. Angel's torment by the Fir�

[> [> [> [> [> oh, voy! -- Rahael, 06:30:57 07/08/02 Mon

didn't post my complete post! Here's the rest

And as for Angelus/Angel, was he ever forgiven by Giles? and wasn't Buffy's easy forgiveness of him speedily, and stingingly shown up for what it was by Giles? Giles only allowed him into the apartment at the point of a stake. And there was never a more just anger than Giles showed then. Angel's torment by the First Evil also accomplished something else - the humanisation of his victims. We saw some of the people - they were no statistic (one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic as Stalin is reputed as saying).

Buffy is an easy forgiver because she'd rather avoid the pain and take a shortcut.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy is an easy forgiver? -- Vickie, 07:56:26 07/08/02 Mon

I'm trying to think when and I'm coming up kind of blank.

In IOHEFY, she says that James doesn't deserve forgiveness. Even when she gets cast in his role in the repeat drama haunt, it's not clear that she gets it.

Buffy: James picked me. I guess... I guess I was the one he could relate to. He was so sad.

Giles: (sits by her) Well... they can both rest now.

Buffy: I still... (exhales) A part of me just doesn't understand why she would forgive him.

OK, that's only one example...

Faith? Buffy cannot forgive her even a little bit, not even when she has put Faith into a coma trying to remedy Faith's actions.

Parker? Even Cave Slayer knew to whack him upside the head.

Buffy forgives her friends, I think. But I cannot find an example of her forgiving easily except within her intimate circle. She forgives Giles for the Cruciamentum. She forgives Angel for turning into Angelus. She forgives Willow for making her love Spike temporarily.

Am I missing something?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting -- Rahael, 08:02:05 07/08/02 Mon

Perhaps she is quick to forgive where the wrongs feel directed at her? Perhaps less so when the person affected wrongs others. I'm struggling to think.

Personally, I thought Buffy kissing Faith's forehead was a classic sign of unspoken forgiveness.....

she does, so, and lets all the disturbing questions that Faith posed to her, to sleep too...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Forgiving -- Sophist, 08:42:19 07/08/02 Mon

I agree with Rah that Buffy does forgive her friends their (all too frequent) transgressions. There are way too many examples to cite, but a few would be Giles in Helpless, Xander in Revelations, Angel in S3, and Willow in SB (the only time, as far as I can recall, that Willow has needed Buffy's forgiveness until now).

The instances Vickie cites (Faith and Parker) are more complicated. Parker never wanted forgiveness, so Buffy needn't give it. Rah refers to the scene in GD, I think, but that leaves out WAY and the AtS scenes. My view is that GD shows Buffy was prepared to forgive, but the later episodes show that Faith wasn't ready to receive it or to forgive Buffy or herself. That didn't happen until her breakdown with Angel. Therefore, Faith is still an unresolved issue for Buffy.

On the other hand, I can't agree with Rah about Giles and Angel. IMHO, Buffy was entirely right to forgive Angel when she did. I say that in part because I see Angel and Angelus as different entities. I know others don't agree. But I also think that was, in part, the message of Revelations -- Xander's hatred was shown to be wrong. Also, remember that different people may have different causes for anger and different reasons to forgive or not. The fact that Giles did or didn't forgive isn't dispositive of what Buffy should do.

Whether Giles forgave Angel is harder to say, since there was no formal scene showing that. However, they did work together later in S3 so it seems fair to say that he did.

All this is a long way to say that Buffy has always seemed very forgiving to me. I think it's one of her strengths.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel/Angelus -- Rahael, 08:55:56 07/08/02 Mon

This is such a complex puzzle. For the show to work, logically, Angel and Angelus must be two separate entities. In which case, forgiveness doesn't even enter into it.

This means Giles' anger is entirely unwarrented, unreasoning and unfair - this is certainly how I read it, when I first watched those scenes. In fact, in narrative terms, the anger really falls on Buffy, because just by being near Angel, the love of her life, she constitutes an everpresent danger to his soul, and thus, the lives of everyone around her.

But, I think a far more complex view is that there is a considerable osmosis between the two entities - that the soul is only a metaphor. I think this reading grows in richness as the series progresses, and Angel gets his own show. Firstly, Buffy is no longer around to constitute that danger, so the soul can become a less simplistic plot device, and more a complex metaphor for all of us, struggling with our self identity.

This make revisiting the early years more fascinating. What is Angel really thinking in Season 3? He seems as unreachable and mysterious to us as he is to Buffy in 'Earshot'. And Giles' reaction to him is most fascinating, in my view.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think you hit the nail on the head -- Sophist, 09:17:45 07/08/02 Mon

Giles' anger in Revelations was with Buffy. It was she who posed a danger by her behavior with Angel. Once he realized that she would not renew her love affair (at least physically), Angel no longer was an issue for Giles.

I might agree with your metaphorical reading of the soul issue if it weren't for Spike's re-souling in Grave. That restored the literal aspects in a way that make the metaphor unworkable (at least to me). One of my disappointments with the ending of S6.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Metaphorical reading of soul and Lullaby (spoilers for Lullaby) -- shadowkat, 19:59:54 07/08/02 Mon

"I might agree with your metaphorical reading of the soul issue if it weren't for Spike's re-souling in Grave. That restored the literal aspects in a way that make the metaphor unworkable (at least to me). One of my disappointments with the ending of S6."

Not just Spike's re-souling. But also the whole DArla
feeling her unborn child's soul idea in Lullaby. Up until she feels the child's soul, she's evil. She's feels it, she's not. She feels remorse for what she and Angelus did to Holtz. Tells Angel that they did horrible terrible things, things they can never change or make better and the child is the best thing they ever did. She's afraid of living after giving birth to the child, because she'll forget loving it, forget the nourishment she receives from the soul, the remorse for killing Liam, for things she did.

Okay, so I'm confused again. Bear with me while I try to figure this out. I know I'm a little dense ;-)
Spike loves Buffy right?
But Darla says she couldn't love without the soul.
So Spike's soulless love of Buffy is nasty love. (Selfish, possessive, obsessive love - the type that consumes both parties and burns itself out, demon love.)According to past stories with souls: If Spike had a soul that would all change BUT his crimes would still matter as do Angelus's and Darla's in Lullaby. (They both admit to this more than once. Angel to Holtz and Darla and Angel to each other.)So being ensouled doesn't mean that
Spike's past crimes no longer matter, his slate isn't wiped clean - they still do obviously. That wasn't the change for Angel/Angelus. He still did those crimes. That was him. Just as it was Darla. Otherwise why does Angel have to be redeemed? If it was a clean slate - he would be fine. What changed - was Angel regretted doing them now and if the same opportunities present themselves again, he would choose to do the reverse, he would choose the path of good. I guess it's a lot like Sophist's point about Words and Deeds.

Your past deeds matter. But what matters more is what you choose to do next. Do you choose to pile on more horrible acts? Or do you choose to do something different the next round? Something good? That's what Angel discovers in Epiphany. And to some degree Amends. Did you learn from your guilt/remorse? If Angel was presented with the same situation - say an Acathla like statue, would he destroy the world or try to save it? If Spike is presented with the situation, now ensouled, of forcing himself on Buffy, would he do it? Of dealing demon eggs - would he? Or would he have destroyed them the moment he found them? Would he steal things now? Would he want to even drink blood?
Would he choose to have sex with Buffy when he knows she can't love him and it's destroying her - now that he's ensouled? Or would he choose another path? Would Angel kill a human, now ensouled?

These are the important questions I think, not what the characters did in the past - because there's no way they can change those acts, but they can make sure that others don't feel that same pain and anguish in the future. They can make sure that they don't repeat them. They can choose to heal and help and create life instead of destroy, torture and maime it. They can choose to share in it and give, instead of take and possess. That's the difference between Angel and Angelus - I think. That's the difference
the soul makes. With the soul - Angel realizes that creating
life, creating things of beauty, sharing his home, helping others, giving is far more rewarding. As Angelus, he wants to possess things. Destroy them. Put his mark on him.
It's all about "I" and "us" and "them" as the vampire.
As the souled vampire - it becomes more about the "we".

I think that's what happened to Darla when she got her soul. She stopped caring so much about "I" Darla and more about the life breathing inside her. She cared more about creation (the child) and less about her dead body built only for destruction (the vampire).
Which is why they had to ensoul Spike. He doesn't get that
without a soul, that whole "create" vs. "destroy", "give" vs. "take", "share" vs. "possess" concept is beyond him.

There's a great line in Lullaby by the way:

Sajhan says to Holtz having a soul makes no difference.
Attila the Hun had a soul. He still was Attila. Still as giving at Christmas. (can't decide if that was sarcasm, if not it works with my giving them.)
Holtz disagrees, says it does matter. Because it's something that can be released into enternal torment.

I think it's more than that. I think the soul makes it
possible for the characters to sense the choice between
creation/sharing/giving and taking/maiming/destruction. (prefer these terms to good/evil or order/chaos.) Without
a soul the vampire can't see past the selfish "I". He can love but it will always be possessively, obsessively and selfishly like Dru says "quite well but not very wisely".
With a soul - he can feel the others needs and feel the other's pain. Whether he chooses to ignore that pain or those needs is another issue entirely.

Does that make sense? Or am I still confused?

(assuming of course this posts....)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That was wonderful -- Dochawk, 23:58:14 07/08/02 Mon

Except Darla wasn't feeling her own soul in Lullaby, she was feeling Connor's. Not that it makes one iota of difference in your wonderful explanation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I doubt that a soul comes monogramed -- Rufus, 02:44:59 07/09/02 Tue

Remember that Joss has described the difference between the soulled and unsoulled......

JW: "Um, very little. (laugh) Essentially, souls are by their nature amorphous but to me it's really about what star you are guided by. Most people, we hope, are guided by, 'you should be good, you're good, you feel good.' And most demons are guided simply by the opposite star. They believe in evil, they believe in causing it, they like it. They believe it in the way that people believe in good. So they can love someone, they can attach to someone, they can actually want to do things that will make that person happy in the way they know they would. The way Spike has sort of become, an example is Spike obviously on Buffy, is getting more and more completely conflicted. But basically his natural bent is towards doing the wrong thing. His court's creating chaos where as in most humans, most humans, is the opposite, and that's really how I see it. I believe it's kind of like a spectrum, but they are setting their course by opposite directions. But they're all sort of somewhere in the middle."

The soul is not the identity of a person but a quality that makes up a moral compass that predisposes the soulled to feel good doing good. But remember the vampire is part human and all the memories and the personality are that of the person who once was.....just because they lost their soul doesn't mean they forget all they learned when fully human. The vampire is not only soulless but infected with the demons soul who first created vampires....a demon who has given the vampire that need to prepare the way for the old ones to return....but then there is this spectrum of behavior.

spec�trum Pronunciation Key (spktrm)
n. pl. spec�tra (-tr) or spec�trums

1. Physics. The distribution of a characteristic of a physical system or phenomenon, especially:

a. The distribution of energy emitted by a radiant source, as by an incandescent body, arranged in order of wavelengths.

b. The distribution of atomic or subatomic particles in a system, as in a magnetically resolved molecular beam, arranged in order of masses.

2. A graphic or photographic representation of such a distribution.

3.
a. A range of values of a quantity or set of related quantities.

b. A broad sequence or range of related qualities, ideas, or activities: the whole spectrum of 20th-century thought.

Remember when Dru picked William in Fool for Love, the qualities she valued when others didn't...

She points to his heart and head in succession.

DRUSILLA
Your wealth lies here... and here. In the spirit
and... imagination. You walk in worlds the others can't begin to imagine.

Something happened through seasons 4 through 6 that changed Spike enough to come to a conclusion...that what Buffy deserved was a "lover with a soul". It had been painful to watch him go from practicing with a mannequin, the rudimentary skill of apologizing to Buffy, getting angry because it was against his nature.....then brushing off the broken chocolate box and starting again.....all because of this love he felt for her. Doesn't mean that the love didn't have a selfish twist and that is where the lack of a soul comes in. Spike was able to go only so far with this love, he was fine when there was no stress, but when things got tense he reverted to what his vampire nature knew best, doing the wrong thing. This is what caused him to look at himself and make that journey to get a soul. And where does the imagination come in? Well, the first vampire would have been a primative man, his brain power limited, his imagination not very developed, but what made the human creature so different was when slowly evolved, humans used their imagination to create a new world, one that eventually we all know now. Joss mentioned a spectrum of behavior...I think that describes what we have seen well. Spike was able to exhibit a broad range of behaviors along a spectrum and he eventually found the limitations of being unsoulled.....when he said that "the bitch thinks she's better than me", he knew that to be true...so grumbling all the way to Africa, Spike went to change his ability to act along the spectrum of behavior, his imagination could remember love, remember what he once was, and that was enough for him to understand the need for that change....he would never truly feel good doing good without a soul, so why not do something about it. I don't think this would have happened without first the chip, that prevented Spike from readily killing, and the love he was able to feel for Buffy, both reactivating a traitor that lived in his chest....from Once More with Feeling....

Spike: I died So many years ago....But you can make me feel
Like it isn't so...That's great. But I don't wanna play. Cause being with you touches me More than I can say..... I know I should go
But I follow you like a man possessed... There's a traitor here beneath my breast... And it hurts me more than you've ever guessed If my heart could beat, it would break my chest

This doesn't answer the question of why can people with a soul choose evil....but vampires are a result of an infection a curse, so their acting out is based upon the human they once were, with a corrupting force that has kicked out the moral compass (soul) and decided to create a little chaos.....of course every action may have unpredictable results....and of course we are talking the Buffyverse...;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A brilliant explanation. -- Caroline, 05:57:20 07/09/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Relearning... -- Leeann, 09:05:26 07/09/02 Tue

It had been painful to watch him go from practicing with a mannequin, the rudimentary skill of apologizing to Buffy, getting angry because it was against his nature.....then brushing off the broken chocolate box and starting again.....all because of this love he felt for her.

Beautiful point, Rufus. That was what he was doing. Practicing the skills necessary to be human again. He's been slowly learning to reconnect with that part of his "soul." Maybe that was what he was doing with the bot as well. Practicing how to be with a human woman. Learning those skills using a bot that was programmed to act human. The Buffybot was not Dru. No torture. No branding iron. There was some fighting as foreplay because he was still a vampire and the Buffybot thought it was the Slayer but he didn't have the bot programmed to like torture. In fact he seemed more gentle with the bot than he was with Buffy, though that was Buffy's fault.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel on BtVS and AtS -- matching mole, 10:18:38 07/08/02 Mon

This is OT somewhat but your discussion Angel and his soul really point out what I found so unsatisfying about Angel as a character on BtVS. He was remote and unreachable and I think that the development of his character was really hindered by the vampire-with-a-soul device and by his relationship with the Slayer. These two things really defined who he was in a very strict way. As Angel he was burdened with guilt and in love with Buffy and that was it. As Angelus he was a predatory sadist who hated Buffy.

On AtS he is the lead character (despite the fact that I once called him the uncharacter) and the rather simplistic effect of Angel's soul on his behaviour had to break down. I must confess that I didn't have great hopes for the success of Angel when I first heard of the spin-off and mainly started watching it because of Cordelia. But being away from Buffy has allowed Angel to develop into a far more interesting character than I ever would have believed possible. IMHO Angel's upgrade from noble sufferer/evil bastard to obsessed dork didn't really take until AtS season 2. Why? The crossovers. Once they stopped (or at least became less frequent) Angel was free to become a more complicated and interesting figure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angel/Angelus -- yabyumpan, 11:36:39 07/10/02 Wed

"For the show to work, logically, Angel and Angelus must be two separate entities"
I can't see Angel/Angelus as seperate entities mainly because there would be no Angel without Angelus. I see the soul as an evolution of Angelus.
"What we once were informs all that we have become" is as true for Anglus-Angel as it was for Liam-Angelus.
I see Angelus still as a large part of Angel and I think this is where the 'recovering alcoholic' metaphor comes in. It's not that he doesn't want to drink/feed etc (as shown in the scene between Angel and Harmoney in Disharmoney with Harmoney talking about the pleasure of blood going down the throat etc) but he resists because he knows it's 'wrong' and hates himself for the desire.
I think also, to see the two as seperate takes away credit from Angel for choosing to be 'good'. A soul IMO doesn't produce goodness just choice. He could have carried on being 'stink guy', wallowing in self pity and depression but he chose to 'be somebody'. Initially for/because of Buffy but it was still an active choice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> From the last scene of Beer Bad -- Vickie, 09:29:49 07/08/02 Mon

PARKER: Buffy. I. I don't know how to say this. I'm sorry for how I treated you before. It was wrong of me, and. I'm sorry. (beat) And, you were great tonight. Really. (beat) I may not deserve this, but. Do you think, you could. forgive me?

Buffy regards him. More emotion than coherent thought on her face. He seems honest.

In a flash, she raises a club high over her head and brings it down HARD over his. He falls to the ground, unconscious.

(thank you, Psyche)

He may not have been completely sincere, and certainly didn't merit it (just yet anyway), but Parker appears to want and ask for forgiveness here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Buffy saw the insincerity in Parker -- Sophist, 09:50:50 07/08/02 Mon

After all, the scene in The Initiative (comparing freshman girls to toilet seats) came after Beer Bad. I can't say Parker ever really understood his faults, despite Willow's best efforts.

A better example for you would be Jenny Calendar. She both wanted and deserved forgiveness. Buffy almost gave it before the murder, but couldn't bring herself to. I think that was a major part of her problem in IOHEFY.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think Buffy saw the insincerity in Parker -- Vickie, 10:10:16 07/08/02 Mon

I think so, too. Funny thing, despite the despicable speech in The Initiative, I still think Stinky Parker was as sincere and honest at the end of Beer Bad as he was capable of being. Which is not very, but still a long way from not.

I read the Jenny Calendar thing differently too. From Act II of Passion:

*********************
BUFFY : (trying to start) Look, I know you're feeling bad about what happened and I want to say. good. Keep it up.

JENNY: Don't worry, I will.

She turns to go - Buffy stops her with:

BUFFY: Wait. I, uh - (one more try) He misses you.

This is not what Jenny expected. Buffy continues:

BUFFY: He doesn't say anything to me, but I know he does. I don't want him to be lonely. (avoiding her eye) I don't want anyone to.

JENNY: Buffy, if I have a chance to make it up to you-

BUFFY: We're good here. Let's leave it.

A moment, and she goes.
***************

I read this as Buffy starting to open back up to Jenny. It's not complete, just the beginnings of forgiveness. Makes the tragedy all that much more awful (if it could get worse). Are you reading this as "couldn't bring herself to"?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes. That was exactly the scene I had in mind. -- Sophist, 10:44:04 07/08/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What was cut from the Parker story -- Rufus, 14:44:13 07/08/02 Mon

From the transcript of Jane Espenson at The Succubus Club...

J: Okay, here's one. Here's one I can do. I can cite
his one. There was a thing that was cut from my episode
where Buffy sleeps with a guy in college -- she sleeps with
Parker.

Q: Parker-Sex!

J: Yeah.

Q: Harsh Light of Day.

J: Harsh Light of Day, thank you. Where, at the very end,
all the fans were very upset; they were like *this didn't
feel like Buffy*; *why would Buffy get so hung up on this guy?* *You're making her a slut.*

Q: I said, I don't see a problem with it.

J: And, particularly the lines at the end about "Maybe we can still get back together"; "Maybe if I try harder." And people thought that was very, very weak of her. What they didn't see was a bit that had gotten cut where she says "The whole time I was with Parker, I kept thinking, 'look at me! I'm doing something
that doesn't have to do with Angel!' 'Look at how this has nothing to do with Angel!' 'Oh my God -- how come I couldn't see it was all about Angel.' "

Q: Oh.

J: And that got cut, and I think that was a mistake.

Q: That's too bad.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Easy forgiveness/ Honesty -- Rahael, 10:05:42 07/08/02 Mon

I think the point about Cave Buffy is that she acted on pure instinct: Save Parker. Thump him on the head with stick.

If Buffy had been herself she'd have saved Parker, and then said 'of course I forgive you', because that's the polite thing to do. It just shows how 'I forgive you' has become lip service to an idea of virtuous action, just as the cursory 'please' and 'thank you' has become cursory indicators of 'politeness'.

In my native language, there is no word for 'please' and no word for 'thank you'. Without these words, the culture is forced to act in many different ways to be gracious and polite. It may not surprise you to know that the civility, and courteousness and consideration that I grew up with is hardly matched in the culture I live now.

My scepticism about the idea of forgiveness, is that I have rarely met anyone who has convinced me that they think seriously about this issue, so seriously that they extend it into their lives. The petty feuds with their co-worker. The long running resentment against a friend, which only has to be scratched to see the anger pouring out. Yet they don't acknowledge it, saying "but I forgave them!"

In fact, I haven't met anyone who has give so much thought to this topic as I have, and agonised at great length, to decide, that when I had decided, that at the age of 11, I could, as a good Christian forgive many many things, I was fundamentally mistaken. I then spent years berating myself as a 'bad' person, before realising that something had to give, and it was, in essence my faith, or at least parts of it. It seems to me that to take parts of religious teachings from the world, which teach forgiveness, out of context distorts what they really mean. Because most religions promise a further life, where all these forgiven injustices are sorted out. And in a secular context, the idea that the meek and the oppressed should forgive, turn the other cheek, and say "but at least I shall inherit the earth" started seeming fundamentally unjust. Notice that Christianity, a prime proponent of forgiveness still has a judgement day, still has a hell.

If I had wronged someone as Parker had done Buffy, and then had my life saved by them, only a monumental act of arrogance and egotism would have then asked "but you must say the words. You must forgive me, on top of everything else you have done". The honourable course of action is to simply walk away, having thanked them.

I wonder, without the recourse to the easy words 'I forgive' the definition of which has still not been explained to me satisfactorily (either in the real world, or the Buffyverse context), how we might really behave to each other. Maybe we'd really have to examine our consciences. So I ask again, what do the outward manifestations of forgiveness look like? what does it consist of meaningfully, and why is it so important?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Words and deeds -- Sophist, 11:06:58 07/08/02 Mon

As usual, you have me thinking a lot. I need to take some time to formulate a fuller answer to your post, and may not be able to even then. A couple of quick points are all I can offer now.

It is very true that we use the word "sorry" as a front for true apologies. It works very well in cases of slights; I bump you in the street, "sorry", "no problem". No one doubts either the sincerity of the apology or that the incident is both forgotten or forgiven.

Civility and courtesy seem like cultural constructs to me. I'd be hard put to judge one culture more or less polite than another. The word "sorry" as used for slights seems to serve in this culture.

The word "sorry" is used by the wrongdoer. It's hard to know if he/she really means it in more serious cases. In the larger sense, nothing can ever undo the past. No action ever can bring a person back to life, undo a crime. All we can ever ask is that the wrongdoer live, from that moment on, in a way that shows both an understanding of the wrong done (i.e., don't repeat it) and a commitment to conduct her/his life without harming others. Words are a poor substitute for deeds in that case.

Does your language have a word for "to forgive"? "Remorse"?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cultural Values -- Rahael, 14:47:31 07/09/02 Tue

about this; they are more knowledgable than I. In the written, 'high' version of the language, there are words that can be used to mean please and thank you. But they are never used informally, mainly cos they are very formal (e.g can you give me leave/have compassion on me, to do this) and in a way, quite flowery.

In ordinary life, one is meant to signify any of these in tone and inflection. The same phrase can be used to signify extreme affection, or extreme displeasure, depending on tonal inflection.

And then, a real understanding. Interesting that i had to go through culture, language to explain why the values that are so predominant on the board are not the way I would phrase/think of the world. I am more deeply enmeshed in my culture, for good or for ill than I have realised.

The values that are most central are these:

Honesty/objectivity; dignity; honour; courage; duty; mercy toward the helpless; social obligation; generosity;the importance of art/dance/music/poetry.

Because people do not traditionally take on the second names of their fathers (they just have their own name!) - well, they were forced to by the British, but the system is still peculiar, people identify with not so much their family, but their region, their local community.

Notice how many central Western values don't appear. It's the peculiar combination of all three that has resulted not only in what's wrong with my community, but also what is right about so much of it.

What is looked down upon:

Cowardice; weakness (except in the old and the infirm); moral timidity; arrogance; pride.

The whole cluster of ideas around those of 'strength' and 'weakness' is completely different.

These are set of values that I had gone for so long thinking that I had arrived at invidually. Am very struck by this realisation that it is nothing of the sort.

And yet one more thing: a famous couplet of an early poem (after Homer, but before the rise of the Roman Empire, sorry can't be precise without checking). The couplet declares:

"Every country is my home
Every man, my brother"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cultural Values -- redcat, 17:13:40 07/09/02 Tue

You've got me thinking, Rah, about cultural values and the languages that em-breath them,
and about how influential they are even when we aren't conscious of it. I know what's below is
waaaay OT, but Sophist's questions and your response intrigue me, and this sub-thread has
gotten so far away from the Buffster that I hope those who do mind will already be ignoring it...

Anyway, in Hawaiian (the only language besides English and a bit of Latin I'm at all familiar
with), the word for "thank you" -- "mahalo" - is so commonly used and understood even by
non-Natives that the local gov't prints it on trash cans ( a cheery, Hawaiian-style "Thank You!"
for throwing your trash in here instead of on the street..) and tourists regularly assume the
word means garbage. In everyday pidgin, the local language of Hawai'i's mixed-ethnic people,
"mahalo" gets expanded in multiple ways, by the common additions of intensifiers like "no, nui,
nui loa," all of which mean best/much/good/extra.

The two phrases for "sorry" or "remorse" are quite a bit more rare, and like those in your
language, oddly formal. "Kaumaha" can be literally translated as "I call back my breath," and
"kala mai ia'u" is "I take your burden back unto myself." And the formal phrase for forgiveness
means "I accept the burden you give/gave me." The only phrase at all commonly used,
however, is "minamina," which actually means "I'm sad along with you [on your behalf]" rather
than "I take responsibility for your pain." You sometimes hear mothers comforting their
skinned-kneed kids with this one, along with the requisite "kiss to take away the owwie."

I think the reason Hawaiians say thanks more easily than sorry is that they so rarely hurt
others. Rape, for example, was almost unknown in pre- western contact Hawai'i (which does
not mean that sexual pressure and power/control issues were absent, simply that physical
force is antithetical to Hawaiian notions of sex). And when one does want to truly express
remorse, one generally can't appeal to a quick catchphrase but must actually discuss the issue
with the person (or god or animal or force of nature, etc.) that one has harmed, sort of like
what Dochawk posted earlier about the true practice of Yom Kippur.

The basic values in Native Hawaiian culture are:
Generosity, sharing, giving - this is the main and most important value by far. *Everything* else
is based on this.

Nurturing and taking care of - this includes the land/ocean, kids/elders/the helpless, the family
and each other. My common letter postscript, malama pono, means "nurture the good."
The local Green's Party political slogan here is Malama `Aina, nurture the earth.

Respect for others and their ways, but based on a firm sense that each person must know
their own thoughts and history. Thus, sharing is not linked to the loss of power, as in
western societies, and to be humble is not to be weak.

Respect for protocol, traditions, the gods and the elders, but usually also linked to a willingness
to embrace innovation. In the narrowest sense, this is about duty and obligation, which
is how it often gets coded in the modern society (with the innovation part left out, since
As We All Know, Innovation Is A Western Invention..), but in the older and more
spiritual sense, it's about recognizing one's place in the long scope of history and being
both humble and creative about that.

Skill in one's art or craft, a sense that there is always a best or most professional or most tidy
way to go about doing things. Hawaiians tend to dislike anything sloppy or that's only
on the surface. Hence the culture is highly competitive, especially about dance, music,
poetry and ocean sports. Pride in one's success is always shared with one's ohana,
one's extended family, however, since one never masters anything alone.

And finally, that life should be fun and that worship of the gods includes enjoying the beautiful
world that is literally their bodies-made-planet.

What is not respected:
greediness, selfishness, self-centeredness
arrogance, acting "stuck-up" or as if you're better than everyone else, especially when you win
lack of self control in difficult situations, losing one's cool
the sloppy execution of a task
disrespect for others or for nature

Traditional Hawaiian notions of strength and courage were based on the need to constantly
nurture the balance between humans, the divine and the forces of nature. Chiefs' main job
was to enact the physical and metaphysical link between the gods of heaven, earth, ocean
and the weather, and the humans who lived on and in those god's bodies. Anything that threw
the balance out of whack, including out-of-phase aggression, was considered weak, not
strong. That's why warfare could only be conducted in certain seasons and, until the
introduction of European metal weapons at any rate, actual death rates in war were extremely
low. Killing your opponent was considered weaker than winning the contest and then
generously allowing him/her (women were often combatants along with their husbands) to live.

And the most important thing that can be said in Hawaiian culture about a person after they die
is that they were generous and kind. I should be so lucky when my time comes...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Questions on Hawaiian Cultural Values -- Vickie, 14:44:40 07/10/02 Wed

Redcat,

Are you talking primarily about "pre-western contact Hawai'i" or about the current native Hawaiian culture? Or are there not significant distinctions between the two as you are describing?

Reason I ask is that you leave out several more disturbing trends in the Hawaiian culture I was presented when a tourist there last year. Near as I can tell, all of the qualities you describe are there.

However, according to the tourist literature, the "pre- western contact Hawai'i" culture was also extremely caste- stratified. Each caste lived according to a set of taboos, and breaking one meant death unless one could get to sanctuary. I don't know what all the taboos were, though one mentioned was allowing one's shadow to fall upon the king.

Can you please enlighten me on this? Thanks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Some answers. Very long and OT -- redcat, 22:27:59 07/10/02 Wed

Vickie,
Your questions are certainly valid and I'm sure you're asking them from a true spirit of inquiry.
I'll answer them as best I can.

To all the readers who might open this post, what follows is long and extremely OT for this
board. Please only read this if you are interested in Vickie's question or Hawaiian culture in
general.

First, in my original post (Re: Cultural Values), I was primarily speaking of pre-western-contact
Hawaiian culture, but as you note, all the values I discuss remain visibly active among
contemporary Native Hawaiians as well as much of Hawai'i's non-Native population.

As for the issue of "caste": this used to be the favored descriptor of a wide range of social
structures, each of which showed some similarities to the historic Indian caste structure.
"Feudal" was also once used as a common descriptor of certain types of somewhat-similar
social structures. Both of these words have been applied to Native Hawaiian culture,
predominantly by American and European anthropologists and historians whose training
occurred prior to the 1970s, when postmodernist questions about the nature of language as a
symbolic system and its reliance on interpretive models allowed both Native and
American/European investigators to rethink their descriptive terminology. Pre-western-contact
Hawaiian culture was highly rank-stratified and, although to a far less extent, class-stratified.
Because "rank" is not as active an analytical term in Euro- American academics as is "class," it
is only in the last thirty or so years that anthropologists and historians have begun to
adequately describe the Hawaiian rank/class structure and to theorize about its actual
differentiation from and similarities to Indian caste systems and European feudal ones.

What we do now know, however, is that Hawaiian society was the most heavily stratified of all
Polynesian societies, and that such stratification had primarily begun in the period after the
second wave of (probably Tahitian) colonization in about 1100 AD, when a contingent of
newcomers conquered/absorbed the original islanders, who most scholars now believe had
come from the Marquesas Islands at least a thousand years before the second group arrived.
This second group became the basis for the ali'i (chiefly) class, and introduced a wide range of
technological innovations in agriculture, aquaculture, construction, art and religion. It was this
group who brought with them the notion of a State religion based on the worship of four male
gods. Much like people have world-wide, commoner Hawaiians incorporated this imposed
religion into their own, and the two levels of Hawaiian religion flourished simultaneously, quite
a bit like the practice of Shinto and Buddhism in Japan. The rank/class structure is intimately
linked to this system of religious fusion, and it did operate, as your information suggests, to
literally separate na maka'ainana (commoners) from na ali'i (the chiefs) in most circumstances
of daily life. This is pretty common among highly- stratified systems. To put it into perspective,
think of King George IV, who was the British monarch when Capt. Cook landed at Kealakekua
Bay in 1779, and who did not generally spend a lot of time in the presence of British peasants,
either. As in the British case, contact events between chiefs and commoners were tightly
controlled and generally quite ceremonial and ritualized. Relationships between persons at
ranks lower than na ali'i were also ritualized, but to a far less extent. The vast array of extant
indigenous literature demonstrates that the very fact such ritual relationships and protocols
existed and functioned as they did made them the favored playground for transgressions of
persons of all ranks. The literature is literally full of tales of rank/class transgression, some
witty, some tragic, some erotic, some ribald, some historically grounded, some legendary
and/or prescriptive. Transgression stories are among the most common for all Hawaiian
literary genres, in fact. Hawaiian literature was, of course, prior to western contact completely
oral rather than literate, but was extraordinarily complex none-the-less. The primary origination
myth., for example, is a poetic chant called the Kumulipo that runs to over 2,500 lines, took
four days to chant correctly and had at least a dozen competing extant versions by the late
19thC, when several versions were published in English translations as well as in the original
Hawaiian, each of which was used by different ali'i lineages as part of their complex of
strategies for power accumulation and rank solidification.

A clear intensification of the stratified rank/class structure seems to have occurred somewhere
in the late 17thC, linked to the movement toward cross- island consolidation of political power
that culminated in the reign of Mo'i Ali'i Kamehameha, who wove the islands into one formal
political unit between 1790 and 1810, using a combination of western military weapons and
techniques, traditional Hawaiian military weapons and techniques, and traditional Hawaiian
negotiating strategies. This intensification of the rank/class structure and the solidification of
the dividing lines between ranks and classes, and increasingly between the genders, was only
heightened by the introduction of western commodities, social structures and cultural ideas,
and especially by Hawai'i's forced integration into an emerging global capitalist system.

The particular cultural practice that you describe, the killing of someone whose shadow fell on
the "king" (BTW, the use of this word rather than the Hawaiian one, ali'i, or its English
equivalent, chief, leads me to believe that the tourist literature you were given was written by a
westerner, not a Native) was, in fact, a long-standing historical practice that was most likely
almost never enacted in pre-western-contact society, exactly because of all the firmly-
embedded social and cultural dividers between the physical bodies of the chiefs and those of
their "lesser relations," the maka'ainana. (The ali'i were understood to be literally the most
recent descendants of the gods, while maka'ainana were their merely distant cousins.) As the
19thC progressed, the Native Hawaiian economic, social, political and religious systems began
to break down quite rapidly under the onslaught of western peoples, technologies, power and
land grabs and, most deadly of all, western-introduced diseases, which led to a 95% - think
about this carefully, 95%!!! - population collapse in less than 80 years after the first western
contact. During that period, western observers document the increasing disruption of
traditional social structures that would have normally given kapu breakers (law breakers - our
word taboo in English comes from a mis-hearing of the Hawaiian word by Capt. Cook) the
chance to flee to a pu'uhonua (religious sanctuary) in order to cleanse themselves of the bad
mana (spiritual power) that such kapu breaking would inevitably bring down on their ohana
(family) and ali'i, because breaking sacred laws given by the gods would surely incur the gods'
ill-will. For a commoner to come close enough to a chief for her/his shadow to fall on that
chief, without the specific ritually-necessary protocols that would loosen the divisions between
them, was seen as a violation of the essential balance between gods and humans that could
result in life-threatening destruction. As the systems collapsed, as the gods and their
representatives on earth could no longer protect the people, the old rules of kapu were thrown
out. But the 50 year period prior to the collapse of the formal kapu system in 1819 certainly
included an increase in the ali'i's exploitation of the commoners and their manipulation of the
traditional rules of kapu to increase their own power bases. The few western-documented
cases of the immediate killing of a commoner by the guards of an ali'i all occur during the last
and worst phase of this cultural transformation, as the ali'i's power began to be usurped by the
American and British haoles, and they began to impose unreasonable demands on those who
their western advisors now told them were their "subjects," a concept quite foreign to traditional
Hawaiian culture and language. None of the indigenous literature, none of the contemporary
responsibly-researched anthropological accounts and none of the contemporary archeological
research suggests that the of killing kapu-breakers of any kind (other than during times of war)
was either immediate or common. In fact, the elaborate system of na pu'uhonua which are
found in every region of every island suggests that most kapu-breakers (again, with the
exception of war criminals and, possibly, political traitors - although this interpretation is
controversial) were formally assisted in reaching a pu'uhonua, where they could undergo
cleansing and ritual rehabilitation into their communities. This could take from weeks up to
years, depending on the severity of the crime.

I don't know if this answers your questions, Vickie. I hope so. Pre-western-contact
Hawaiians, like all peoples, came in many shapes, sizes and personality types. They were
neither always gentle nor always cruel; their culture was neither perfect nor a failure. They
were very human, and probably a whole lot like any one reading this. But their culture was
very different than most modern urban peoples', and their ways of understanding the world
and reacting to it came from a different set of values than most westerners are comfortable
with. The interpretations of Hawaiian culture that most westerners are most familiar with do
not derive from within Hawaiian culture itself, but have been translated through foreign eyes
and value systems. Again, to put this in perspective, it is easy to condemn Hawaiians for
killing someone merely because their "shadow fell on the king." I grew up and still live in a
colonialized Hawai'i where such interpretations and condemnation are common. But think
again about late 18thC or early 19thC Britain, where a man could be hanged for stealing a loaf
of bread, or have a hand cut off for picking a pocket, and a woman could have her faced
branded with a "W," for whore, because she couldn't feed her children without selling her body.
Each of these "crimes" would not only NOT have been crimes during the same period in
Hawai'i, Hawaiians could not have imagined living in a world in which a person would be
allowed to go hungry or in which sex could be bought and sold. It is a great tragedy that their
descendants now must live in a world where these things arfe still crimes, and only the punishments have changed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Class, Rank and Weber -- Rahael, 05:16:42 07/11/02 Thu

Fascinating stuff, Redcat!!

It is very interesting that you bring up the terminology of class, that Western Anthropologists applied to Hawaiian society. This is an issue which comes up for historians of early modern Europe. The word "class" was routinely applied to describe the social hierarchies of European society, but contemporaries did not use that word, and would not think of their society thus.

There was a whole range of language to describe an extremely complex and layered society, from peasants, the menu peuple in France, to middling sorts, to the gentry, to the aristocracy, to all the other groups and ranks. The judiciary in France, for example had a highly distinctive place and self image in early modern French society. The clergy. Even the gentry divided themselves (in a highly ideological rather than practical) way as 'country' and 'court' in England.

The idea of physical contact with Royalty being a potent one - that of course is also present in Western culture, where monarchs touched people on special days to cure them of illnesses.

Terminology and words are so important because they carry a whole cluster of meanings which are rooted in specific historical and cultural contexts (like forgiveness lol). By talking of the middle class, rather than middling sorts in early, early modern England is to be blind to all sorts of important nuances. It is to misunderstand, and refuse to see, society through the eyes of its inhabitants. And, it would be to misunderstand why they made the choices they did.

The European stratification of society was just as much infused by the vocabulary of religion, of God, and of harmony. Just as God had made the world, he had made society, and his divine approval was the foundation stone for the groupings in society (reflected, late into the Victorian period by the hymn 'the rich man in his castle, the poor man at his gate' - and all is well with the world!)

It was Weber of course, who posited a totally different way of looking at European 'class' structures, based on contemporary outlooks. He may be a little dated now, but historians have built on his observations. I for one, have never used the word 'class' in my essays. Or in seminars. We all laughed self consciously as we tried, at all times, to understand the European past in its own terms.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wow! Thank you -- Vickie, 07:37:47 07/11/02 Thu

It certainly does answer my questions--and raises a bunch more. I don't want to hijack the board any further. Can you recommend some decent literature?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wow! Thank you -- redcat, 11:57:01 07/11/02 Thu

Vickie,
Send me your email and I'll send you a list. Also got up this morning and wrote out a great story that addresses the other side of my responses to both you and Finn, but don't want to take up more OT board space. I'll send that as well if you'd like. And thanks for your questions, which obviously really got me going. You know what they say, scratch an historian and you don't get blood, only text.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> redcat please send it to me too! -- shadowkat, 13:14:46 07/11/02 Thu

Haven't participated as much in this thread, but have
loved it. One of the best on the board right now.

Thank you for sharing. It really is more on topic than you think. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'kat - thanks! and check your email -- redcat, 15:41:58 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Like Willow in "Two to Go"? -- d'Herblay, 16:14:48 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I know this will only encourage you, but LOL. -- Sophist, 16:42:54 07/11/02 Thu

And your Rashomon post was wonderful.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sex and Hawaii -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:09:06 07/10/02 Wed

Rape was probably so low in pre-colonized Hawaii because sex was a very open thing. Even if you were in a relationship with someone, you could still go sleeping around, and there were always plenty of people willing to sleep with you. Why take it by force when people are giving it away?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rape is a power crime -- Vickie, 17:40:41 07/10/02 Wed

and not one of honest lust--at least as it has been explained to me.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rape is a power crime -- Finn Mac Cool, 19:38:53 07/10/02 Wed

In our society, sex is often considered to bind someone to another. Therefore, raping someone gives the delusion of forcibly binding them, greating a power high.

However, pre-colonized Hawaii didn't see sex as binding, so rape wouldn't be linked to power.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And you know this how? -- redcat, 20:21:46 07/10/02 Wed

Finn,
I'm not sure why you posted this. I do hope it is not simply an attempt to provoke an argument
because of our recent disagreement on another thread. I am willing to give you the benefit of
the doubt and assume that you truly believe that you do know something about Native
Hawaiian culture and society, and will extend that benefit of the doubt to include an
assumption that you also believe that what you think you know is actually the truth.

However, what you have posted above demonstrates an enormous degree of ignorance about
the actual facts of both pre-western-contact and post- western-contact Hawaiian culture and
society. That ignorance is unfortunate, but not surprising, given the dearth of most non-
Hawaiians' actual exposure to the culture and their over- exposure to highly-mythologized
western reconstructions of it. Your assumptions and the conclusions you draw from them, in
fact, are based both on classical western assumptions about gender and sex, rather than on
Hawaiian ones, as well as on a set of well-regurgitated misinterpretations, misrepresentations
and outright lies propagated primarily by American and British colonialists, beginning with
politically-motivated "histories" of Hawai'i, written in English for non-Hawaiian readers, initially
constructed by a generation of American missionaries who spoke Hawaiian poorly, if at all.
Their tradition of providing "explanations" of Hawaiian culture and "descriptions" of Hawaiian
society were continued throughout the 19th and 20th centuries as succeeding generations of
their descendants, no longer missionaries, became sugar factors, bankers, plantation owners
and budding industrialists who joined their co-nationalists in eventually claiming the islands for
their own, in part, by manipulating such histories "to prove" that Hawaiians were amoral, child-
like creatures who could not control their animal appetites. No doubt you have also heard
tales that Hawaiians practiced infanticide, or that Native women threw themselves at Capt.
Cook's sailors because they thought the white men were gods. Competent contemporary
histories and anthropological studies, based on sources written in Hawaiian by early post-
contact Hawaiian scholars about their own culture, on careful contextualizations and
reexaminations of earlier haole (white foreigner)- written sources, and on actual cross cultural
research on Polynesia and Hawai'i (based, I'm sure you will be delighted to know, on western
academic research principles) has proven that many such assertions, including those similar to
your own, are simply erroneous.

I've no idea if you are interested in a more fact-based interpretation of Hawaiian sexual
practices, but if you are, perhaps you might like to continue reading.

The actual historical realities of Native Hawaiian, and more broadly Polynesian, pre-western-
contact cultural ideologies about gender, sex, power, exchange, age, rank and the sacred
demonstrate an extremely high degree of cultural complexity and social imbrication.
Understanding them fully -- or even somewhat adequately as an outsider -- is the work of a
lifetime. However, suffice it to say that Native Hawaiians did not generally engage in forcible
rape NOT because they were "sleeping around," NOR because people were "giving it [sic]
away," but because within Hawaiian cultural constructions, sex is not something that can be
taken by force. This is probably so foreign an idea to you that you might have a hard time
understanding it. I take it that you do not come from a culture in which the very essence of sex
is understood to be that sex is an act of reciprocity between humans and gods.

However, this was the case in pre-western-contact Hawaiian culture. It is absolutely true,
therefore, that traditional Hawaiian society encouraged maka'ainana (commoners) of both
sexes to experiment widely with multiple sexual partners prior to their settling down (usually in
their mid-to-late twenties), at which point they were expected to take up the responsibilities of
becoming na makua (parents) in ka ohana (a collective, extended and multi-generational
family grouping). This experimentation, as was all sex, including sex between long-term
partners, was a very conscious form of worship of the gods, an active, embodied, immanent
dedication of one's strength, and sexual prowess and joy - and at certain life-stages, of one's
youth and beauty - in service to and in worship of the gods from whose literal bodies all those
wonderful qualities came in the first place. Sex was simultaneously seen as a celebration of
the strength and beauty of one's ohana, one's family and its generative powers. Hawaiian
gods are VERY sexual, because life is very sexual in these islands, and a fair portion of
traditional Hawaiian chants celebrate the actual sexual organs, both male and female, of
individual ali'i (chiefs), na akua (the gods) and, less commonly, historically-important ka
maka'ainana.

But in Hawaiian culture, life and sex and power are also linked to responsibility. This is a major
value in the culture. Kuleana means that what one has a right to, one also has a responsibility
for. So young people have the kuleana (responsibility) to enjoy their youth and beauty and
sex, and it's also their right to do so. And if children are born from these unions, and the
young parents are not ready to settle down yet, the child was usually given to the parents or
grandparents and was ALWAYS considered the most special and sacred of gifts. Even today
in Hawai'i, children that are hana'i (adopted) are considered the most special and blessed of all
children, and that's saying something, because this is a culture that recognizes all children as
special gifts from the gods. I have seen people, perfect strangers, when they find out that a
child is hana'i, come up and gently rub their head for good luck - one gets used to it if one is
adopted here.

Further, it is also absolutely true that because of their very differing notions about sex and the
sacred and the links of both of these to power, maka'ainana persons of either gender who held
sufficient mana (spiritual power) within themselves to successfully create positive aka (cords of
energy that connect people, these grow from the center of one's chest/gut, where one's
na'auao [self-knowingness], mo'olelo [stories] and mana'o [thoughts, feelings] come from, and
then intertwine between people) with more than one person, or with persons of more than one
sex/gender, were celebrated for being able to contribute that much more spiritual power and
grace to their na ohana, and were often seen as powerful links to the gods, as well as between
the members of neighboring ka ohana. Such folks were especially useful (in a social sense)
during times of famine or resource shortage.

Do you begin to see, Finn, how complicated the issue you so blithely toss away with your
presumptive assertions is? And I haven't even begun to address the differences between
maka'ainana culture and the sexual and reproductive ideologies linked to the ali'i class,
which are far more complicated because the ali'i were understood to be the actual
descendants of the gods themselves, and were therefore much closer to them even than
commoner humans, especially during sex and childbirth.

I've no idea if you've read any of this, if any of it makes sense to you, or if you even care. I
cannot, of course, either stop you from posting anything you like about anyone or any group,
no matter how ignorant it is or how inappropriate it might be in others' views. Nor can I help
educate you about Native Hawaiian culture if you have no interest in it. I offer this post,
however, in the hope that it will allow you to challenge at least some of your own assumptions
about what you think you know.

Malama pono a hui hou,
redcat

PS - the prefix "na" in ka olelo makuahine Hawai'i nei (the Hawaiian language) indicates the plural case, while the prefix "ka" indicates the singular case.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And you know this how? -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:56:13 07/10/02 Wed

I ran across it on a website about Hawaii. Course, you can't trust everything on the Internet, and I was basing that all on one source. I plead misinformation.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And you know this how? -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:45:10 07/10/02 Wed

Would just like to add that I wasn't trying to offend any Hawaiian aboriginals. I guess it was pretty stupid to assume everything on this one website was true (it seemed legitimate). Just like to say I'm sorry.

P.S. Redcat, I am just not making a favorable impression on you, am I? I stand by what I said in the first thread, but I do retract this one. Please, try reading a different one of my posts. You've replied to the two worst case examples.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apology accepted. -- redcat, 23:05:46 07/10/02 Wed

But do me a favor, Fin