July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002  

More July 2002

And now, something completely different, on topic though -- JBone, 19:41:17 07/07/02 Sun

I feel like I'm about to walk naked into church here, but here it goes. I just started a little site for the enjoyment of Buffy fans. I've never undertaken an endeavor like this before, so please, treat me like a horny virgin.

Road To Sunnydale

Please let me know if you like the site or would like it to continue, before I waste even more time or effort on something I'm not sure even Buffy fans want to see. And if you're particularly inclined to take part, I seem to need help with the pre-game matchup summaries. That and the poll site I'm using. I'm not convinced it can keep someone voting only once a day.

[> I can't read it cause you have black text on a dark navy background.... -- Rufus, 20:10:31 07/07/02 Sun

Change the text or background to make it easier to see.

[> [> Ditto. -- Deeva, 20:23:48 07/07/02 Sun

What little I sould see looked interesting but it was too hard to read the text.

[> [> [> Try it again -- JBone, 20:35:11 07/07/02 Sun

[> [> [> Still doesn't work for me -- Vickie, 20:38:54 07/07/02 Sun

Still too dark blue (the background) with black text. Try for some contrast.

[> [> [> [> Re: Still doesn't work for me -- JBone, 21:01:36 07/07/02 Sun

Hmmmm, it should be showing yellow background now. I'll check on it.

[> [> [> [> [> I'm still seeing dark colours -- Rufus, 22:38:46 07/07/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> Nope. Still dark blue. -- Deeva, 23:25:22 07/07/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> [> [> sorry, I had to sleep, but I think I fixed it now; please try again -- JBone, 06:56:58 07/08/02 Mon

[> Monty Python much? -- Caesar Augustus, 20:49:54 07/07/02 Sun

In case you dunno what I'm referring to, he always says "And now for something completely different ..."

[> [> Actually... -- GreatRewards, 13:19:59 07/08/02 Mon

Monty Python was not an individual. It was a comedy group. There is no one person named Monty Python. :-)

[> Gracious! You know your obscure characters, don't you? -- tim, 19:08:26 07/08/02 Mon

Truly hilarious! The highlight of my evening...


[> [> Is that good or bad? -- JBone, 19:42:13 07/08/02 Mon

I'm glad you enjoyed it, even as a joke, but my biggest worry (other than this is a wildy misguided notion in the first place,) was missing some character who obviously deserved to make any list more than some that I had at the end of it.

There is a long list of one time appearances that I ended up not including, and even a few multiple appearances that didn't make the cut. Of the mistakes that I caught myself making, Katrina was the most obvious that I almost overlooked.

[> [> [> Around here? Always good... -- tim, 11:23:28 07/09/02 Tue

If you missed anyone really important, you couldn't prove it by me. Sandy, for instance, was an inspired pick for 16th seed. Never realized she was the same Sandy in S3 and S5.

Hope I didn't offend by saying the idea was funny--didn't mean to imply that all your work was nothing but a joke. I just got amused at the visual--two minions battling to the death for a place in a "Hall of Fame" kind of tournament. And it always makes me smile to see this stuff used in crative, new ways.

I certainly don't think this is a "misguided notion" at all; a little mindless violence provides us all with an excellent counerpoint for the overthinking we like to do around here. :)

Best of luck with it.


[> Will there be betting? Perhaps a pool? -- d'Herblay, 23:22:01 07/08/02 Mon

And, as if this were the NIT and Anya CCNY, point shaving?

By the way, I found it quite Freudianly interesting that the most babe-alicious regional, with Anya, Cordy and Jenny seeds 2, 3 and 4 respectively, is called "The Hand." Not exactly Greensboro . . .

[> [> Wagering is encouraged, but not sanctioned -- JBone, 07:38:54 07/09/02 Tue

I've looked at this thing a hundred different ways, and the Babe Bracket never occurred to me. I should have had Faith number one here instead of Angel.

If Anya is truly good ... (spoilers thru Grave) -- Caesar Augustus, 21:49:01 07/07/02 Sun

If Anya does stay on the side of good, which it looked like she might, wouldn't this give the SG a pretty damn easy way out of everything? Like all they need to do is Xander says "Gee, I wish [insert name of season 7 Big Bad] drops dead right now, never to return." Anya goes "wish granted". Hmmm ... Of course, this could have also happened end of season 6, too. "I wish Willow stopped trying to destroy the world." Would have come in handy! Have I missed something?

[> Well what it seems you missed... -- AngelVSAngelus, 22:15:21 07/07/02 Sun

Is that Anya's powers work only in the name of vengeance. That's why they couldn't just wish the Willow-problems away, nor their future nemesis out of existence. Anya can't simply call up those wish granting powers of hers for anything she wants to.

[> [> Re: Well what it seems you missed... -- Dochawk, 22:33:33 07/07/02 Sun

Well why couldn't Willow just have wished Warren dead the day before? That would be vengeance (Willow was all about vangeanc at that point wasn't she?). Tara would still be alive and Buffy wouldn't have been shot. Would have made a broing story though.

[> [> [> Re: Well what it seems you missed... -- Rob, 07:44:41 07/08/02 Mon

She could have asked Anya to help her with veangance, but the point is she didn't want to...She wanted to do it herself. Like when she told Glory, "I owe you pain." She owes Warren the pain herself, in her mind. Having Anya do it would not be as powerful.


[> [> [> [> But it would bring Tara back to life, which is more important? -- Dochawk, 08:21:25 07/08/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> I understand your reasoning, but...(SR, Villians spoilers) -- Rob, 08:40:35 07/08/02 Mon

...that is not necessarily something that Willow would ever think of. Willow was so consumed by rage, she was not thinking clearly. Frankly, reaching that sort of conclusion would require a level head, and thinking logically to reach a course of action that would not only avenge Tara, but bring her back to life. It is easy for us now to say "Why didn't she..." but all you have to do is rewatch that first scene of "Villians" to see why, in that state of mind, Willow would have never done this. And this again points to Willow's selfishness this year. Just as she becomes so full of rage that she actually leaves Tara's body lying on the floor (Dawn, on the other hand, stays with the body), she does not think about other ways besides taking out all her anger on Warren.


[> [> [> Re: Well what it seems you missed... -- Robert, 11:23:31 07/08/02 Mon

>> "Well why couldn't Willow just have wished Warren dead the day before?"

I don't believe that Willow knew that Anya was a vengeance demon at this point. Thus, Willow would not have known that this was an option. I suspect that ulimately Anya would have told Willow, but Willow was preoccupied with sucking the books dry.

[> [> Re: Well what it seems you missed... -- Caesar Augustus, 22:47:20 07/07/02 Sun

Left out some details. I'm assuming that this is after the Big Bad has killed some people, caused some havoc. Wishing them dead out of anger would certainly be vengeance. (Hence I said Xander does the wishing, not Buffy)

[> [> [> Re: Well what it seems you missed... -- Vegeta, 09:22:47 07/08/02 Mon

I believe that Anya is like the demon saint of scorned women or something like that. I don't think she could grant a man's (ie Xander) wish even if she wanted to. Not only that she only can grant wishes to those who have been wronged or somehow scorned and are seeking out vengenace. I see where you're going with this line of thinking, but I think it would create way too many easy ways out for the SG in the future. Thus, not as fun to view.

[> [> [> [> Re: Well... *slightly end of season spoilery* *slightly insane spec s.7* ;o) -- Lyonors, 09:27:34 07/08/02 Mon

Well, didnt Halfrek suggest Anya "branch out"? Hence the whole approaching of spike for the wish...To me that means that she can change her billing in the big book o' demons. Wouldnt it be fun if she could become the patron saint of the scoobs or something entertaining like that?

just some random spec from moi,


Biological Warfare and The "Buffy Paradigm" link to pdf file -- Rufus, 00:06:42 07/08/02 Mon


Who needs a stinking Emmy when you can get royalties from The Department of Defence...;)

The paper is 43 pages long and uses the show to help educate others on biological warfare and military tactics in this new chaotic world.

[> What a gem! Thanks Rufus -- Rahael, 00:30:47 07/08/02 Mon

[> Worrisome -- Darby, 07:05:41 07/08/02 Mon

If strategic experts can't even reliably analyze the strategies of a hero-vs-villains television show without talking in absolutes and oversimplifications, how useful are they to national defense?

They also don't seem to understand that there's a distinction between biological and chemical warfare, which is troubling.

Who are these people?

Admittedly, that's a quick impression from just reading the first few pages (I'll print it out and look more in depth tomorrow), but I wanted to get my initial take down while the thread was still here.

[> That was.....odd. Notice how he uses "Buffy" to smack down the DOD?? -- AurraSing, 07:05:51 07/08/02 Mon

Plus the fact he supposes that no one who is a workaholic or does not have kids would have heard of the show.....there is a distinct "butt-monkey" flavour to this somehow.

[> Surely this document is a joke? -- Vickie, 07:42:58 07/08/02 Mon

Constructs such as "organisation" and "until we have a much clear picture" make me wonder.

Haven't read it all yet. Must go to work.

[> [> The organization seems legitimate... -- Darby, 08:48:56 07/08/02 Mon

I looked at


and they seem fairly high-powered. Unfortunately, expertise does not always translate to critical-thinking ability. And, although it is claimed to be bi-partisan (and the roster seems to support this), it wouldn't be surprising if its agenda is to criticize the DOD and whoever else they "compete" with.

[> [> [> Yes, it does -- Vickie, 09:22:50 07/08/02 Mon

[> [> [> CSIS is a DC-based right-wing think tank -- redcat, 11:05:32 07/08/02 Mon

...started by Sam Nunn, used to be run by Brent Scowcroft. I've used papers produced by
them for some classes on Pacific politics/militarism. They have a huge regional (Asia-Pacific)
center here in Honolulu, very DOD-connected; they occassionaly hire academics as analysts;
most of their work is reasonably well researched; their perspective is usually VERY
conservative, but that doesn't stop them from being major critics of the DOD and/or State.
(Their experts are sometimes involved in the writing of position or white papers for State also.)

This particular article seems to be rather poorly written, not up to CSIS specs (the author/s
could have used a good editor!), but I recognize many of the quoted sources from my work in
the [anti-] military-policy-studies field. The use of Buffy is so poor, and so unfinished, that it's
clearly IMPO just an attention-getting ploy. Pop culture references have been used to much
better effect in some other policy studies -- it's something of an "in" trick these days in the field
among younger analysts-- but this is a poor use from someone whose entire paper is a
relatively surface analysis of the issues. I was surprised CSIS published it, but when I went to
their archive site (it's bookmarked in my "Pacific Politics" folder - us radicals have to keep up
with the honorable opposition in all its forms..), I couldn't find it - granted, I only did a quick
search. Rufus, how did you come across it and where can I find it on the CSIS site? Thanks.

[> [> [> [> Re: CSIS is a DC-based right-wing think tank -- Rufus, 14:33:00 07/08/02 Mon

Actually it was brought to my attention by dudley at The Bronze Beta......it was originally linked from a Yahoo Group "Joss BTVS" (I belong to it)



[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, Rufus! -- rc, 15:28:03 07/08/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Brent Scowcroft & Sam Nunn "right wing"?? -- Cleanthes, 21:17:23 07/08/02 Mon

Geeze, I shudder to think where the center is, then! I suppose these two don't come from the Jacobin left of the Democrat party, but still.

Here I was, thinking of myself as liberal when in fact I must be as reactionary as Attila the Hun. Hmmph...

As far as I can see, the authors are basically saying that terrorists, like Buffy demons, will attack in unexpected ways, so it pays to be as flexible as Buffy.

I'd be interested in knowing how much money was spent on this. No doubt my tax dollars are at work here.

Thanks for the link, Rufus.

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, I guess it does depend on one's perspective. -- redcat, 22:31:11 07/08/02 Mon

And I certainly didn't intend to offend your political self-positioning, Cleanthes. Sorry `bout the
rushed nature of my early morning post. I should have made it clear that my descriptions of
Nunn/Scowcroft and CSIS are based on my own politics and my responses to theirs, and that
such descriptions of the two former US gov't officials, at least, are not the conventional wisdom
on the US mainland. CSIS is usually described as centrist- to-right, but again, it depends
where you start from, and many "centrist" analysts place them pretty far to the right of center.
Us radicals just give up and call a brick a brick. Nunn self-codes as a centrist Democrat and
I'm sure that's accurate. But because of his many years work on US national nuclear policy,
many folks in the anti-nuclear movement here in Hawai'i and throughout the Pacific see him as
very right-wing. To be fair, though, he is seen by many on the US mainland, especially in
Washington, as peace-positive and his work on disarmament even garnered him a Nobel
nomination once. He is not as reactionary as some in the US gov't, certainly, but still
committed to a pretty conservative stance toward US nuclear policy and global military
dominance, and very supportive of a strong continued US nuclear and military presence in the
Pacific. Then again, so are most officials and politicians in the Democratic Party. For folks like
me who live and politick way out on the periphery, and to whom the Democrats don't sound a
whole lot different than the Republicans (although the Democrats do generally put on a better
feast while the Republicans have nicer clothes), it's generally only in relation to what I would
call the reactionary right that I would consider someone like Nunn to be leftist. But it's all really
a matter of opinion and perspective. I didn't mean to offend and I hope that I did not and am not.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, I guess it does depend on one's perspective. -- DEN, 08:30:43 07/09/02 Tue

redcat, as a conservative may I say that if everyone politically active, across the spectrum, had your good will and courtesy along with your intelligence in addressing national issues, this country would be a damn sight further along. Thanks for helping to generate light rather than heat.

May I add that my experience working with think-tanks, left as well as right, confirms an earlier posting. Some report writers do use popular culture references to help their work stand out among position papers that are generally stupefyingly boring. it's a way of getting further contracts in a highly competitive, largely free lance market. Most contracting agencies are privately funded, so our tax dollars are not directly engaged--and reports directly commmissioned by the governmenthave, I can assure you, NO place for humor!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you, DEN! -- redcat, 10:20:51 07/09/02 Tue

One of the things that I love about his board is the way we can connect with each other across so many divides that normally distance people. My general good will towards those with views other than mine probably comes from decades of living with the fact that almost everyone I know, and most of the people I love, think I'm some kind of looney- tune fringe crazy, and they're just relieved I'm so deeply committed to non-violence. I once heard my dad say to a friend of his on the phone, with that type of exasperated voice that old men only get when they've belatedly realized that -- somehow and without their actual consent -- they're responsible for having thrust a crazy anomaly on the world, "Yes, that was her on the news waving that sign. No, she didn't get arrested..."

Poor guy. He TRIED to raise a good Republican.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, I guess it does depend on one's perspective. -- Cleanthes, 12:55:14 07/09/02 Tue

Hey, no problem. We're not trying to talk politics here anyways, I hope.

"Right-wing" suggests to me that the majority of the assembly of politicians is to the left of whomever. I don't think that would accurately describe Sam Nunn. If we all sat in our positions, he wouldn't be in the Jacobin seats, true, but he's Girondist at the least, certainly on economic matters. So, he'd be sitting well to the left.

Regardless of one's opinion on the military and nuclear matters (and I should say that my best friend works for Nuclear Reactors - the navy's safety outfit, whilst my only remaining high school buddy just finished his tour as Captain of and Aegis cruise, so I have some personal biases, I suppose), it seems to be worthwhile if, in response to trouble & terrorists, people adopt a more flexible approach. Buffy's ways are decentralized ways, but also very adabtable. This has never been the US military's strongest suit, for sure.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You've made me think through this more carefully, Cleanthes. -- redcat, 14:10:00 07/09/02 Tue

Nunn's relatively ;) "liberal" domestic economic platform and his more "conservative" foreign
policy stances have allowed him to draw from a wide range of supporters. You were right to
question my lumping of him (and Scowcroft as well) into a simplistic labeled category. Thanks!
And especially for the civility of your responses.

My take on CSIS as an organization, however, is influenced by the fact that their regional
Asia/Pacific division here is very tightly connected to the DOD; they've recently developed into
almost a contract station for joint forces analysis. This makes them significantly more right-
edge (perhaps that's a less inflammatory term?) than some of their colleagues in DC, where
the contract work is split more evenly between DOD and State, with a fair component of
"regular" (non-fed-contract) academic and corporate- sponsored research thrown in. Here, they
have become a major force even in local academia, especially at the smaller of the two
universities. I (unfortunately, from my POV) recently overheard a conversation about an
academic hire in which the dean and administrators expressed a strong desire to hire someone
who could "interface" (I kid you not!!) with CSIS and the DOD, justified on the grounds that,
realistically in a post-9/11 world, this is where most of the research funds would be generated
in the next five years. Because of the free-lance nature of much of the work they publish and
the always-dangling carrot of much-better-paid contract research, they've been able to exert a
fair amount of influence on the research community here, shifting its work, again IMHO, toward
a conservative and specifically pro-military-solution direction. My reading of some of CSIS'
DC-based stuff is that research contracted for State has often, especially under Powell, been
somewhat more "balanced" - again, a term that relies on one's perspective to make sense. I
still can't find the article Rufus brought to the board on their website, though.

My problem with the author/s' use of Buffy in the article is that I kept expecting some link
between the actual strategies Buffy does successfully use - such as linking her skills with
those of others, or creatively taking advantage of whatever's at hand to conduct her battles -
to be offered as models for appropriate response mechanisms re: the RL issues. I think the
author/s use the "Buffy Paradigm" to good advantage, linking their analysis of the complexity
of current threat levels to the unpredictability of Buffy's world. However, their notion of what
they call the "Buffy syndrome," in which they claim that "the characters in Buffy constantly try to
create unrealistic plans and models" (p. 5), simplistically discounts my own view of the
characters' reactions to the myriad evils they face weekly. I was especially irritated with their
conclusion, in which they use the "Syndrome" to make the rather silly suggestion that BtVS
somehow teaches us that "Anyone on the show [or in the gov't, presumably] can loudly call for
action. Developing an affordable and well-justified program proves to be an entirely different
matter" (p. 39) While the author/s assert that Buffy and her friends constantly fail because of
their inappropriate response mechanisms, I see a show in which Buffy and her friends
generally win because of their innovative approaches to their problems. I just wish the authors
had been more careful viewers of the show, I think they could have made better use of it for
their argument.

[> [> [> [> Where to find it on the CSIS site -- LittleBit, 08:51:10 07/10/02 Wed

www.csis.org/ --> programs --> Burke Chair in Strategy --> Homeland Defense, scroll down to recent publications

[> [> [> [> [> Thanks, LB! -- rc, 10:22:08 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> CSIS, Cordesman, & Buffy -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 12:47:34 07/10/02 Wed

Cordesman is a heavy-hitter in the Beltway-bandit "think- tank" crowd. I have had a personal dispute with him. He's bright but tends to see his own views as both absolute & correct -- I can confirm that he has been wrong about the latter.

He also has had a tendency to minimize the capability of non- European peoples -- I don't know if he has corrected this in the last fifteen-odd years.

[> Re: Biological Warfare and The "Buffy Paradigm" link to pdf file -- MaeveRigan, 10:30:32 07/08/02 Mon

I just skimmed it, but would say that it appears to be legitimate, and a very handy example of how BtVS is becoming pervasive in the general culture. The author still feels compelled to apologize for referring to Buffy, because he knows many of his readers will assume it's "immature," but I love the way he then goes on to brilliantly demonstrate (AGAIN, but of course, his primary audience won't realize that) that BtVS can explain just about everything, if you look at it right.

And it certainly makes reading government think-tank papers much more fun. Buffy saves the world from Biological Warfare!

Please note that I actually take biological warfare very seriously. BtVS IS serious.

And funny.

[> OT - Rufus -- Dedalus, 13:29:15 07/08/02 Mon

By the way Rufus, I typed up that question I asked Joss in the Buffy Magazine for you. It got zoomed over to the archives remarkably quickly. It's still there, though probably on page three by now. I didn't know whether you saw it or not, and so I just wanted to tell you since you asked.


[> [> Oh Thanks Ded......I just saw it... -- Rufus, 14:25:39 07/08/02 Mon

New take on "Lullaby" (spoilery) -- purplegrrl, 08:22:07 07/08/02 Mon

Watching "Lullaby" again last night gave me new insight into Holtz's motivations.

Holtz wanted revenge on Angelus and Darla for what they had done to his family. He wanted to destroy them, but when he has the perfect opportunity to kill Angel he doesn't.

The reason Holtz didn't kill Angel in the alley was because when he saw the baby the method, the focus of his revenge changed. In a moment of clarity he knew he had to do to Angel what Angelus had done to him -- Holtz knew he had to kill, take, or subvert Angel's child for his revenge to be truly sweet. And it was at that moment that he began to work toward his own ends, not the ends (Angel's death) that he and the demon had mutually agreed on. And this is why he is suddenly so calm at the end when the demon is practically jumping up and down in anticipation of Angel's demise. Holtz has had an epiphany and nothing will deter him from his new course of action.

[> That was exactly my impression! -- Dead Soul, 09:31:07 07/08/02 Mon

[> Mine, too! -- Dichotomy, 10:17:37 07/08/02 Mon

Especially because as Angel is driving away, Holtz says "I swore that I would show no mercy. And I won't." The way he said that in his scary, deep voice didn't sound like someone who had a change of heart, just a change of plan.

[> I totally agree too.. too bad it took me a second viewing to realize this. -- neaux, 10:26:48 07/08/02 Mon

Choice and Siring -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:02:16 07/08/02 Mon

There is an opinion among some fans of "Buffy" that Spike and/or Angel chose to become vampires. In fact, some even go so far as to say that all people sired by vampires are, to a certain extant, willing victims. I am here to refute that.

The reason that this whole theory has spread up is that, immediatly before they were turned, Spike and Angel were both drawn to their respective sires. Darla asked if Angel was up to her challenge, and Drusilla asked Spike if he wanted "something effulgent". In both cases, the soon-to-be- a-vamp says yes.

This is bad criteria for making it seem as though they wanted to be vampires. After all, Angel and Spike had no idea that Darla and Drusilla were vampires until they vamped out (and then they didn't have enough time to react before being bitten). Their sires were also incredibly vague about what they were offering. Most people in the same position would assume sex, which is what Angel and Spike seemed to have thought. However, no matter what they thought, Darla and Drusilla never mentioned vampires, demons, the undead, or anything to clue their children into the truth. Since Angel and Spike didn't know that they were going to be turned into vampires, they could not have decided to be turned as some people suggest. Now, given what we've seen of pre-vamp Spike and Angel, they might be the sort to want to become vampires, but they were never given the choice.

And, to those who think that all vampires are at least partially willing in the transformation, I have to go "huh?"

Yes, the human does drink blood from the vampire, and some people might say that the could have rejected it. But, as Dracula says, the human must be at the point of death before they can be turned. In such a weakened state from loss of blood, refusing the blood of the very strong/forceful vampire is not possible.

If any of the "willing victim" people read this, please speak up and try your best to prove me wrong.

[> I don't see this as a matter of "fact". It's a question of judgment about the evidence. -- Sophist, 19:22:15 07/08/02 Mon

The best you can say is this: both appeared to act voluntarily twice, once to consent to the prospect of something new and exciting, once to drink blood. Whether this consent was fully informed, what amount of information was necessary, and whether drinking should be construed as consent, are all matters of judgment, not fact.

[> [> Drinking as consent -- Scroll, 19:35:59 07/08/02 Mon

Buffy's friend Ford is the only human we've seen on screen choose to become a vampire, knowing full well what a vampire is (and even here we can debate whether Ford *really* knew what a vampire is). Liam, when turned by Darla, had his eyes closed and never even saw her demon face. So no, I don't think he knew what he was doing. William saw Drusilla's face, but did he understand what she was? Possibly, since Victorians had plenty of stories about vampires. Still, could he have resisted being turned if that wasn't what he wanted? Probably not. Dru is much stronger than William was.

I'm sure some humans do choose to become vampires. Dracula seems to indicate that on the brink of death, a dying and most likely delirious human crave the sire's blood. But can I hold the human morally responsible for the resulting vampire's actions? I wouldn't.

But the best example of why a human shouldn't be blamed for their vampire counterpart is Darla V.2.0. After Angel tries to save her in "The Trial", Darla clearly accepts being human and dying of syphilis. Then Lindsey bursts in with Drusilla who bites Darla and forces her to drink. Darla clearly resists but is too weak to stop Dru.

Angel: "I should have stopped them. They made her [Darla] drink."
Wesley: "Angel?"
Angel: "She didn't want to. You think - that you can resist, but then it's-it's-it's too late."

I wonder if Angel is talking just about Darla, or about himself? We never see Harmony vamped but if it was during Graduation Day 2 then obviously she was resisting (during the battle) and most likely was overcome by the vamp. We see her being bitten from behind, and she's fighting back futilely.

On the other hand, I think both Liam and William had the inkling that Darla and Dru were offering them "a new world" and a new way of thinking. Clearly the women were offering a change or paradigm shift. So they were quite pleased to become vampires once they rose from the grave, versus vampDarla V.3.0 who was initially angry at Drusilla for turning her. But can we say that Liam and William knew that they were about to be turned into soulless killing demons? Could they have fought off their much stronger sires? My opinion is no.

Take it and run.

[> [> [> Re: Drinking as consent -- Drzzt, 21:35:26 07/08/02 Mon

Two things...

1. Survival Instinct; even if you know that drinking the vamps blood will make you a vampire AND do not want to be a vampire, your body/primative brain/id has a "will to live" that would be hard to overcome. To NOT drink the blood at the point where you are near death would be choosing suicide; in most cases people who attempt suicide do choose to live at the last minute...

2. Supernatural; possibly merely being bitten by a vamp has a supernatural effect that makes it hard to NOT become a vamp. Mind control of a sort.

I think that option one is the most likely. No evidance of supernatural influence on any persons "choice" to become a vamp.

[> [> [> [> Re: Consent -- Robert, 16:48:24 07/09/02 Tue

>> "No evidence of supernatural influence on any persons choice to become a vamp."

Oh really! What about the thrall which the Master, Drisilla, and Dracula cast upon their victims? Is that wholy natural?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Consent -- Drizzt, 11:15:53 07/10/02 Wed

The Master?
He was a Big Bad; psychological intimidation.

William the Poet was a wimp; easy for a scary vamp to intimidate psychologically. Also he was in a state of despair; distracted, so he did not fully comprehend the situation with Dru. Plus it happened too fast for William to make a rational choice to become a vamp; that choice was ALL id.

He was created by the Monks to get a sample of Buffy's blood, so they could create Dawn. The Key's power to rework memories is a form of mind control, so Dracula's mind control was simply tapping into the power of the Key. Dracula, at least on the Buffy show, was NOT a real vamp.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dracula -- tim, 12:21:58 07/10/02 Wed

He was created by the Monks to get a sample of Buffy's blood, so they could create Dawn. The Key's power to
rework memories is a form of mind control, so Dracula's mind control was simply tapping into the power of the
Key. Dracula, at least on the Buffy show, was NOT a real vamp."

Fascinating claim! What evidence do you see?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dracula -- Drizzt, 12:57:07 07/10/02 Wed

Okay, this subject was discussed in more depth during season 5. It would be hard to find it since the archives are so big; I will repost what I remember.

Disclaimer; someone else came up with the theory that Dracula was created by The Monks.

1. Dracula in the show was exactly like popular legends of him. This could be that the legends are true, or it could be that the Monks knew the legends and created him by altering history so that Spike remembered meeting him and other details about him. Also it could simply be that the writers wanted to spoof the Dracula legend; this could be, however EVERYTHING on the show has internal consistancy and makes sense(at least the writers try to make it like this), so Dracula showing up in Sunnydayle HAD a purpose in the story of Buffy and the Scoobies.

2. If one of the Monks talked to Buffy about being a hunter and her power being similar to Dracula(IE supernatural and somehow "demonic") she would not take it as seriously as is Dracula himself said it. So my point here is that the Monks wanted to get Buffy thinking about some issues of her Slayerness...and Dracula was their mouthpeice.

3. In The Gift Buffy says "The Monks made her out of me" in reference to Dawn. So did they metaphorically make Dawns soul from a part of Buffy, or was it from a sample of her blood, or both. Any other speculation of what the phrase "The Monks made her out of me" really meant?

4. Here is a biggie; that Castle was not in Sunnydayle, then it was. After "Buffy vs Dracula" there is no more mention of the Castle. If Dracula was not created by the Monks, then the ability to make a Castle appear where he chooses is a rather freaky demonstration of demonic power on par with Anyas power in "The Wish" and of the power of the KEY itself. It is easier to beleive Dracula was created by the KEY than that he is THAT powerfull.

5. Any Ideas?

BTW I am a Troll on this board; you are supposed to give me the "silent treatment"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Troll? You? Never in my book. -- Brian, 13:03:14 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank You:) -- Drizzt, 13:20:21 07/10/02 Wed

I am curious; do you know why I am given the silent treatment here?

I am done with that rudeness; I kind of did a Dr Jeckal/Mr Hide transformation by posting TOO MUCH INFO about my psychology here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's not so much that you get the silent treatment, Drizzt . . . -- d'Herblay, 13:24:52 07/10/02 Wed

. . . as it is that sometimes you just leave us speechless!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmm... -- Drizzt, 13:40:00 07/10/02 Wed

That is a different perspective for me;)

If some of my comments render you speachless...I gave you something mindboggling to think about. Hey, that is turnabout; essays and statements here render me speachless with awe regularly.

One of my mottos; question ALL assumptions.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You can't be a Troll ! You're supposed to be a Drow ;) -- Ete, 13:44:53 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You can't be a Troll ! You're supposed to be a Drow ;) -- Drizzt, 13:52:51 07/10/02 Wed

Drizzt is my faveorite character in the Forgotten Realms Mythos.

BTW I REALLY would not want to be a Troll like the Forgotten Realms versian; a solitary Troll Under the Bridge would fit my personality better;)

PS. I would not want to be like ANY Drow elf besides Drizzt; generally they are evil.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well there's Pirotess :) -- Ete, 13:59:19 07/10/02 Wed

But Troll under the bridge are cool too. Have you read Gaiman's short story about those ? very cute tale. Of course, Gaiman's a god of writing :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I want to be a cute Troll Under a Bridge...LOL -- Drizzt, 20:39:11 07/10/02 Wed

If I am to be a Troll, I might as well be a cute Troll.

Oh boy, I had a thought.

Moi AKA Cute Troll on a date with the Trollbot;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consent -- Robert, 15:53:18 07/10/02 Wed

>> "The Master? He was a Big Bad; psychological intimidation."

I will give this one to you on the basis that it could be a valid interpretation, though I believe it to be wrong. I don't for a minute believe that Buffy was intimidated into paralysis, just at the moment she was running away. Her paralysis was coindental with the Master's gestures.

>>> "Drusilla? William the Poet was a wimp; easy for a scary vamp to intimidate psychologically. Also he was in a state of despair; distracted, so he did not fully comprehend the situation with Dru. Plus it happened too fast for William to make a rational choice to become a vamp; that choice was ALL id."

This is all very well, but it does nothing to explain how Drusilla was able to enthrall Kendra long enough to kill her. How do you cast this as a natural phenomenon? Or, would rather believe that Kendra also was a wimp, or maybe that she was intimidated into paralysis by Drusilla?

>> "Dracula? He was created by the Monks to get a sample of Buffy's blood, so they could create Dawn. The Key's power to rework memories is a form of mind control, so Dracula's mind control was simply tapping into the power of the Key. Dracula, at least on the Buffy show, was NOT a real vamp."

I read your response to tim about this argument and found it to be interesting and unconvincing. My main issue with your argument is that it contains no direct evidence;

a. that Dracula had any connection with the monks,

b. that Dracula had any connection with the Key, or

c. that Dracula was not a vampire with magic capabilities.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consent -- Drizzt, 20:34:28 07/10/02 Wed

Quibles aboout speculation...this board has lots of people including me with high Think Too Much Quotiants.

Okay Robert, I will answer your post:)

Disclaimer; I just speculate on the show, so I do not KNOW exactly what the writers intended for specific scenes/eps. The writers do leave some vaugeness on issues...wich gives them maneuvering room for future creativity without the negative aspects of contradicting themselves. So my speculation is valid insofar as I am speculating about things that ARE vauge.

The Master
I agree that Buffy did not seem to be intimidated by the Master, as in afraid of him. How about the prophesy of her death? Buffy did not want to die, and she was afraid to die; it was very heroic of her that she went to fight the Master anyway. The Master was not a normal vamp; even if he did have mind control of some type, that has nothing to do with the set of supernatural abilities that normal vamps have. How about Buffy bought into the mystique and history of the Master, and he could influence her psychologicaly because of her own belief in his power? Or another option is the Master was unusually powerfull because of more than just his age; his being stuck in the Hellmouth, and lets not forget the ritual & prophesy of The Harvest. Again, this is just quibles about speculation; your oppinion is equally valid.

Kendra was not intimidated. Drusilla is slightly telepathic because of her psychic ability. The thing is it seemed to me that she basically hypnotised Kendra, however this does not have to be supernatural. Her telepathy/empathy would make it easier to do. Regular hypnotist in our realverse do not use any supernatural ability; they use a lulling voice, hypnotic movement, psychology, knowladge of how the brain goes into different brain state(hypnotism results in a trance state), etc.

RE Dracula
I agree that there was no evidance. Speculation is about connecting the dots...even when the writers did not intend you to see the "dots" that you speculate upon. It is only a theory that is logical and internally self-consistant, however there is no evidence per se to validate this theory on the show.

C. Could be right on this one. Magic in the Buffyverse is freaky-powerfull for the effort and degree of knowladge of the spellcaster, so it is beleivable within the context of the Buffyverse that Dracula was a powerfull spellcaster.

On the other hand RE Dracula; if the Monks created him, they could have created him with the knowladge and power of a spellcaster. Could work either way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Consent -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:52:10 07/10/02 Wed

I have a serious problem with the idea that the monks created Dracula. That makes them directly responsible for the man the Count killed in the beginning, which would go against monkish laws of pacifism. Surely they could have found another way to get some of Buffy's blood if they needed it.

I have my own theory about Dracula: he was shown sleeping in a coffin filled with dirt, right? Well, maybe it's the dirt that gives him his special powers, such as transformation or undustability. The reason he fits the cultural view of Dracula is that the original book was presented as a series of diary entries and letters by the characters. Perhaps, in the Buffyverse, the events of "Dracula" really happened and the records were collected in a book (Dracula died at the end, though there is no reason why that couldn't be faked like at the end of B vs. D. As for the castle, Dracula is often supposed to have the power to cast illusions. Maybe he made the illusion of a castle.

[> Definitely debatable -- Caesar Augustus, 22:35:05 07/08/02 Mon

Just because Darla is the instigator, doesn't preclude William choosing it. Choosing to let something happen to you is just as much a choice as choosing to do something yourself. Did he fully know what he was getting into? Of course not. That doesn't mean he didn't choose it. If I let a friend inject me with drugs, not realising they're dangerous, and die from O/D, (sorry for the morbid example) it was still my choice to take drugs.

So the question becomes whether William/Liam knew about vampires? This is freely debatable.

Mainly just playing devil's advocate for fun.

[> [> Re: Definitely debatable -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:45:11 07/08/02 Mon

Interesting analogy, but not quite correct. A more correct one would be if your friend offered you something, but was very vague about it, and you had no clue that they were thinking of injecting you with drugs until they did.

William probably knew about vampires, since they were well known in the 19th century. However, he didn't exactly have a whole lot of time to react between when Drusilla vamped out and when she bit him.

[> [> [> choices -- aliera, 04:34:36 07/09/02 Tue

Interesting analogy,...one would be if your friend offered you something, but was very vague about it...

What do you think was offered to:


What do you think each of those above *thought* was being offered?

[> [> [> [> Re: choices -- shadowkat, 06:22:46 07/09/02 Tue

Well before I start work in ten minutes, I'll take a shot.

Darla - when she is first vamped by the Master, the Master unlike the other vampires, tells her what's in store
more or less (can't remember title of Ats episode
this is in, could be Darla.) She is also dying of syphilis
at the time, so welcomes the vamping. Darla's first vamping in some ways reminds me of Ford, who wanted to be vamped to escape death by brain tumors.

When Darla is brought back by Wolfram and Hart in human form and once again has syphilis. She eventually after much debate and struggle makes the choice not to be vamped and to die of syphilis as she should have years before. But Wolfram and Hart don't let her make this choice and convince Drusilla to vamp her. In this situation the vamping is a rape. Darla even tells this to a crying Dru, who believes it was what Darla wanted.

When Drusilla is vamped - she has been driven crazy first by Angelus. In the flashback, Darla makes the comment that vamping Dru would be cruel, since it would just prolong her torment. Angelus says all the better reason to do it. If they just let her die, that would end it. He wants her to be tormented forever. And he has ensured she is insane and incapable of making an informed choice at the time he does it. Dru is out of her mind. This also has an element of rape to it.

Liam's vamping was a nice ironic twist. When Darla was alive, men like Liam used her for sex then discarded her, one even gave her syphilis. Before she vamps him, a maid tells her what a cruel seductive womanizer he is. Tell you pretty things, bed you, then leave you damaged. Darla says when she's done the leaving won't be a problem. She lets Liam try to seduce her, he comes after her, sees her as prey and she turns the tables on him - instead of Liam seducing her and taking her virginity, she seduces him and takes his life in the alley. Brillant twist.

William is the most ambiguous of the four. He is upset.
He has just been rejected by his lady love, Cecily and has dashed out onto the street. We are given the least amount of information regarding his past or his family - just a few vague sentences here and there. What we do know - is
a)he wasn't accepted by his peers. b)he hated violence, tended to ignore it. c)was a dreamer, lived in romantic
dreams and poems (for some reason people think this makes
William weak - very odd, personally I think it's much stronger personality trait than a beer guzzling womanizer who is more interested in brawling and taking maids to bed, but to each his own, does say something about our society though),
d)mother was head of household or one he favored.
e.) seemed scholarly

Drusilla comes upon him in the alley, she seduces him with poetry. Again an ironic twist. Darla seduces Liam with the same words he'd have used on her. Just as Dru seduces William with his own poetic words - the words he wrote to obtain Cecily's love. He hesitates until Dru utters the word "effulgent" and he surrenders. But does he surrender
because of the poetry or because he feels he's finally
connected with someone who understands him? I tend to think the latter, having been in William's position myself and knowing what it's like to have someone appreciate my dreams and poetry (No not literally in his position - ie, the vamping, figuratively, but you get my point.).

So of the four? I think Darla and possibly Angel were the only ones who had an inkling. Which is important to remember - considering the weight it gives to Angel's story.

I'm on the fence regarding how much William/Spike truly understood. I don't think he knew about the violence, but
I think when he changed he liked it. The mamma's boy suddenly felt powerful. Again the ironic twist on what we consider weak and powerful. In many ways, the mamma's boy who chose beauty over violence was stronger than the demon who chose violence over beauty.

Just a few thoughts...

[> [> [> [> [> ; ) -- aliera, 15:37:02 07/09/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> Re: choices -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:45:40 07/09/02 Tue

Actually, for many vampires, violence is beauty.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: choices -- yabyumpan, 10:50:23 07/10/02 Wed

"Actually, for many vampires, violence is beauty."
Especially true of Angelus who turned violence and death into an art form and used art/beauty to torture.

[> [> [> Re: Definitely debatable -- Ete, 06:12:53 07/09/02 Tue

But he hardly seemed to be strugling. His "ow" lacked the conviction of someones trying to get away. He was totally passive to whatever that strange woman-creature was doing to him.

[> [> An uninformed choice is not a choice (NT) -- ACS, 12:27:58 07/09/02 Tue

[> Siring, Champions and Dog breeding -- neaux, 07:53:32 07/09/02 Tue

I do not claim to be an expert on this matter.. i just happened to watch a dog show this weekend.. and the term siring came up quite frequently. (of course I thought about Buffy and Angel)

Anyway, from what I understand in the AKC dog breeding world.. If you breed a Champion, an award winning top dog of its class, then that award winning dog breeds. The offspring or pups of the litter if they win awards as well.. that is considered "Siring"

so it takes a Champion to make a Champion... kinda interesting when you look at Angel.. and what might become of Spike?

Please someone elaborate on my Doggone topic!! or tell me i'm crazy

[> [> I just though siring was... -- Masq, 10:46:02 07/09/02 Tue

The male verb equivalent of the female "giving birth to".

Your mom gave birth to you, your dad sired you.

So male dogs "sire" their offspring, even if they're mutts.

[> [> [> Ah... very true indeed.. but for those who are interested.. -- neaux, 11:12:38 07/09/02 Tue

Ah.. yeah... that sounds right. Sire meaning "to father." Thanks Masq.
so I assumed it refered to champion breeding.. made an ass out of me. ^_^

(Another aside)
I do find that odd though, My Dad breeds German Shephards.. and has bred them my entire life.. and shown a few too. Never had i heard the term sire used in dog breeding until watching a televised dog show this weekend. Of course it made sense to me.. but I found it odd that my Dad never used this "lingo".

So.. I looked up requirements for the AKC.. and turns out there is a rule upon siring multiple litters. DNA Certification is required if a stud dog is classified as a frequently used sire (producing seven or more litters in his lifetime or more than 3 litters in a calendar year) Hmm... if only this could type of ruling could be implemented in the vampire world? =D

(And Yet Another Aside) It was when I was 8 years old and overheard my dad talking about "bitches" so freely in conversation that I was shocked.. but realized that was regular termonology. ^_^

[> [> Re: Siring, Champions and Dog breeding -- matching mole, 10:58:51 07/09/02 Tue

The term sire refers to a male parent in animal breeding and the term dam refers to a female parent. You often hear of males siring offspring but never of females 'damming' offspring (although that also might fit in with Buffy with a slight change of spelling). In pretty much all organisms that are subject to selective breeding individual males are capable of having a lot more offspring than individual females. Fairly extreme examples of this would be horses and cattle in which mares and cows are pretty limited to one calf/colt every year (? - I don't actually know much about the details) but bulls and stallions can inseminate enormous numbers of females. Therefore a key step in animal breeding is to identify a really 'good' male for whatever you are interested in and mating them as much as possible.

Vampires as demons (as opposed to the human host) appear to only have one sex and to reproduce (sire) asexually. Thus it would seem equally accurate (and more in line with biological convention) to consider Angelus as Drusilla's dam as well as her sire.

As far as dog shows go I'm certainly not an expert but my understanding is that each breed is defined by a set of descriptive parameters and by ancestry. An individual dog is considered a member of the breed if it falls within the parameters (i.e. the dog looks like a Collie or whatever) and it has a documented ancestry of members of the same breed for a certain number of generations. Champions in shows are those individuals who most closely match the description of an ideal member of the breed. Champions are probably more likely than average to produce offspring that will be future champions but I would guess that plenty of champions have more humble ancestry especially given problems of inbreeding. Also the ideals for breeds change with time so what might have been champion material 20 or 50 years ago may not be so today. This is just the casual observations of someone who knows very little about dog breeding so feel free to correct me.

[> [> [> Re: Siring, Champions and Dog breeding -- redcat, 12:09:20 07/09/02 Tue

"Vampires as demons (as opposed to the human host) appear to only have one sex and to
reproduce (sire) asexually. Thus it would seem equally accurate (and more in line with
biological convention) to consider Angelus as Drusilla's dam as well as her sire."

Hi, matching mole, nice to hear from you again. Hope you had a great vacation! Like you, I
know little about dog breeding but what you say certainly sounds good. I have another
perspective on vampire siring/daming though, but it's not in contravention to yours. I offer it
only as an addendum. But it is based on the fact that the asexual demon must work through a
sexed human body.

I've long suspected that the main reason we got the revised story that Angelus is actually
Spike's grand-sire rather than his sire is because ME and the network got itchy when they
realized they were so vividly suggesting there might be a homo-erotic relationship between the
two male vamps, especially given the post-filming reality of the sexual overtones of their first
meeting in School Hard over Xander's neck. The linking of vamp biting with sex is central to
the show's metaphoric structure. I'm not sure if they were aware of the sudden deluge of A/S
slash fan fiction at Spike's appearance, but I'm especially convinced that the switch was
cultural-political because of how carefully ME then constructed Willow and Tara as a couple.
Their story arc, IMO, was quite carefully planned, up to and including Tara's death. I don't
think the network, or for that matter much of the audience, would have been prepared to
accept the sexual implications of Angelus actually having been Spike's sire, especially since,
as is evident from just this week's board, many viewer- posters link the act of turning a human
into a vampire with the act of forcible rape or manipulative and lying seduction. Studies have
indicated that most Americans relate to visual representations of gay men somewhat more
negatively than they do to representations of lesbian women. Municipalities that have
attempted to ban pornography historically have rarely aggressively targeted films/mags made
explicitly for men in which women perform sex on each other to the extent that they have
attempted to prosecute producers of gay male sex representations (although, not surprisingly,
actual lesbian bookstores, which tend to be more political than erotic, often do become sites of
conservative protest). And luckily for its practitioners, within the POV that says being turned
into a vampire is always involuntary, casting Darla as the dam/sire of Angelus and Drusilla as
the dam/sire of Spike subtly allows the romantic notion that both Liam and William were
seduced rather than raped. And so we can sympathetically say, "poor, poor boys," rather than
a screeching "omigod, please don't take me to the visual..."

[> [> [> [> sexuality and reproduction -- matching mole, 14:07:56 07/09/02 Tue

Hi rc and thanks for the welcome back. I've actually been back home for about two and a half weeks now but have been busy preparing to host and then hosting a bunch of evolutionary biologists in our house and trying to get a lab manual written (playing hooky right now).

I had noticed the pattern in BtVS and AtS that vamping is usually heterosexual. Male vampire bites human female and female vampire bites human male. Not a strict rule but definitely a general trend. I think your explanation pretty much covers it. What I find interesting is the rather unusual way in which this pattern is related to the very human phenomenon of decoupling sexuality from its original reason for existence: reproduction.

Human sexual activity and eroticism has its roots in procreation but much if it has little to do with making babies however disappointing that may be to certain elements of society. In vampires sexuality is expressed by the human part of the being which is non-reproductive (other than Angel and Darla vampires can't have kids). The demon appears (detailed information is lacking) to be asexual. Apparently a vampire can sire another vampire in a human of either sex. But it doesn't seem to work that way, at least not very often. Therefore in humans you have a procreative activity (heterosexual copulation) that has lead to a whole range of other activities that are essentially non- reproductive. In vampires you have a procreative activity (siring through neck biting) that is limited in scope by the association of the action with human eroticism.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: sexuality and reproduction -- leslie, 11:34:11 07/10/02 Wed

To throw in an anthropological perspective here (which I have mentioned before): being vamped is being initiated into a supernatural world; in real-world initiation rites that have supernatural overtones (such as shamanic initiation), cultures tend to divide into ones in which initiation is passed along same-sex lines and ones in which it is passed along cross-sex lines. One of the effects of the rewriting of Spike's lineage is to make this vampiric family very firmly adhere to cross-sex initiation: Master-->Darla-- >Angel-->Dru-->Spike.

Incidentally, regarding the comments above on whether William knew what he was getting into, nineteenth century Britian was *not* particularly well-versed in vampire lore. That's a retrospective point of view created by twentieth century vampire literature placed in the nineteenth century. _Dracula_ was published in 1897; the genre was initiated by Polidori's _The Vampyre_ in 1819, but, to quote the _St. James Guide to Horror, Ghost, and Gothic Writers_ (1998):

"The Vampyre is of negligible literary value in itself, but its influence has proved enormous. It was even more popular in France than in England, and the popularization of its central motif by Charles Nodier launched a tradition of highly erotic vampire tales that reached its apogee in Th‚ophile Gautier's "La morte amoureuse," usually known in translation as "Clarimonde." The parallel English tradition was confined for some while to the stage and the lowest strata of the literary marketplace, but when the male vampire burst forth to new prominence in Bram Stoker's Dracula he retained many of the Byronic attributes grafted on to him by Polidori--attributes which eventually became key elements in the vampire's rehabilitation by the revisionist fantasies of the 1970s."

I.e., the vampire--*as a character of literary fiction*--was popular in France but not particularly so in Britain until the publication of _Dracula_ at the very end of the century. So frankly, it seems dubious to me that a young man in 1880 would have any reason to imagine that a walking, talking woman would suddenly turn out to be a creature of the penny- dreadfuls--a genre that William the Bloody Awful Poet would certainly disdain as crass, vulgar, ugly, and unworthy of his beautiful mind.

[> [> [> [> Re: male homo-eroticism on BtVs... -- Dead Soul, 14:26:36 07/09/02 Tue

or the lack thereof. On the Season 4 DVD set in the featurette called "Introducing Spike" JM says that biting is very definitely intended to be viewed as sexual and that's why you so seldom see male vamps biting male victims. (Although, apparently it was all right to have Harmony bite Willow, even before Tara was around - I'm just saying!)

Even as early as School Hard when Angel was still Spike's sire, Spike wouldn't eat the teacher. If the teacher had been played by a middle-aged woman, do you think they'd have hesitated to have him bite her?

For what its worth,

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [> [> Re: male homo-eroticism on BtVs... -- Masq, 14:53:32 07/09/02 Tue

That's why it was so interesting when they had Angelus bite a male victim in Becoming during his ritual to reawaken Acathla. A male victim who looked very much like Xander from behind....

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: male homo-eroticism on BtVs... -- auroramama, 13:13:51 07/10/02 Wed

So I'm not the only one who was in doubt for a minute! And yes, the resemblance to Xander did give the anonymous sacrifice a certain frisson.

Maybe the use of a dark-haired male, rather than (say) a blonde female, also implies that Angelus was on the right track in sacrifice-selection. But I don't know whether he would have figured it out without Giles. The idea of suffering a little pain himself, rather than inflicting it (artistically, if possible) on someone else seemed to be foreign to him. In some ways he's much less of a Romantic than Spike (as you would expect.) He's a rational pleasure- seeker, in no hurry to find a glorious death. Age of Enlightenment (inverted, morally, of course.)


[> [> [> [> [> but if the siring does happen mostly along hetero lines... -- Jon, 15:59:49 07/09/02 Tue

...why are there so many more male vampires? I think there must be some big vampire leather bar action going on behind the scenes.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: but if the siring does happen mostly along hetero lines... -- Yellowork, 04:12:36 07/10/02 Wed

It is pretty clear in the episode of Angel series one that Angel directly sired Penn. There is a load of stuff about the failings of the fathers of these two men, a once common 'explanation' for human homosexuality. The other thing is how, seeing as sire-ing creates a sort of family, the couplings between vampires of either sex within these groups could be seen as incestuous, non?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: but if the siring does happen mostly along hetero lines... -- yabyumpan, 08:35:11 07/10/02 Wed

Not sure where this fits in here, but I'll throw it in anyway: Re: Homoeroticism and Angel, there's a sort of running joke in AtS about Angel being gay: in Disharmony- Cordy - you have taste in clothes like a gay man (not direct quote)
Dad - Cordy - you don't have a womans touch, dispite what your taste in clothes say
And of course, Spikes speech in 'In the Dark', and I'm sure there's others. I think this isn't actually about Angel being gay but more how he can be seen as being less of a man/vamp with a soul. Also, the curse has effectivly de- sexualized him. As has been said before, Vampirism is synonymous with sexuality and hidden sexual desire and feeding from humans a metaphor for sex. Angel with a soul has only had sex twice (as far as we've been shown) with Buffy and Darla and the only times we've seen him feeding from humans was also with Buffy and Darla.
Not really sure where I'm going with this but I do find it interesting that having a soul effectivly robbed him of a form of vampire sexuality and of expressing human sexuality. No wonder he was so miserable for 90 odd years! and no wonder that he experienced the 'perfect happiness moment' when he had sex with Buffy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Homoeroticism & sewers - the games JW plays in the dark recesses of our psyches -- redcat, 10:57:14 07/10/02 Wed

I refer to the fabulous throw-away line that Spike says to Willy the Snitch about Angel in a dripping wet sewer
in WML2, in that sexy and subtly-menacing way that JM does so well:

[from Psyche, with much thanks!]

Willy: What are you gonna do with him [Angel] anyway?

Spike: I'm thinkin' maybe dinner and a movie. I don't want to rush into anything. I've been hurt,
you know.

I think Joss was much more willing to push the sexual and homoerotic envelope than the network or many of the viewers
were, especially in the early seasons. One of Early!Spike's most interesting qualities, to me, was the undercurrent of sexual
ambiguity, played out both with Angel and Drusilla. I miss that in the current version of the character. JM playing Spike
often reminds me of a young Peter O'Toole, who also had that ability to play the menacing, sexy, homoerotic, ambiguous
poet. DB as Angelus always seems IMO to be the most hetero when he is the most menacing. The two characters (and the
two actors) play across the webbed links that exist between sex and power in our culture in their own very different ways.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Homoeroticism & sewers - the games JW plays in the dark recesses of our psyches -- ponygirl, 12:25:22 07/10/02 Wed

Hehe, I always liked that line in WML too. What I really enjoyed were the undertones in the Giles/Ethan Rayne exchanges, hints that I doubt will ever be more fully explained but were there nonetheless. In The Dark Age I think that the Scooby gang was too freaked out by the thought of Giles and orgies to notice that there was only one woman in his crazy cult group.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angel & Homoeroticism, or BYO Subtext -- Scroll, 22:14:45 07/10/02 Wed

What I love about Angel is the incredible subtext, everywhere from Angel/Doyle, Angel/Spike, Angel/Lindsey, Wesley/Gunn, Angel/Lorne -- and my personal fave, Angel/Wesley. I mean, in one episode, Wesley actually goes into Angel's bedroom where he is dreaming of Darla, and poor Wes finds himself pinned to the ground with naked!horny!Angel on top of him! They only pairing ME didn't play up on is Angel/Gunn. At least, IMHO.

But I'll admit, not all vamp biting humans are sexual because Angelus and his protege Penn only seem to have a mentor/student, father/son relationship. Of course, we don't actually see Angelus bite and turn Penn, if we had it might have been construed differently.

However, I think ME has made a deliberate choice to portray Angel as sexually ambiguous. I really like your point about how Angel's soul makes him "less than a man". You said:

"I think this isn't actually about Angel being gay but more how he can be seen as being less of a man/vamp with a soul. Also, the curse has effectivly de-sexualized him. As has been said before, Vampirism is synonymous with sexuality and hidden sexual desire and feeding from humans a metaphor for sex. Angel with a soul has only had sex twice (as far as we've been shown) with Buffy and Darla and the only times we've seen him feeding from humans was also with Buffy and Darla. Actually, he also bit Kate. So we know he only bites blondes!

Not really sure where I'm going with this but I do find it interesting that having a soul effectivly robbed him of a form of vampire sexuality and of expressing human sexuality.

I think this last statement is wonderful because it shows how isolated Angel has been all these years. People have compared Angel and Spike, saying Spike has changed so much more in 3 years compared to Angel in 100 years. Which is true, but I think we don't take into account their very different circumstances. Getting a chip in your brain is quite a different thing from getting a soul, IMHO. Spike was unable to 'perform' on humans. He had an external force stopping him from killing. He still had the desire but lacked the inability. Spike has always blamed the chip for any conceived weakness, right up to "Seeing Red". Unlike Angel, he never had to blame himself because there was this convenient chip, stupid Initiative, damn Slayer, pesky emotions to hold responsible all his problems.

Angel, on the other hand, *knew* he was to blame. He knew he was responsible. He had (and still has) the same bloodlust as Spike, but restrained himself. For 100 years he recognised his guilt and so withdrew from the world. Redemption was an impossibility (he thought) and humans were too tempting food-wise or too fearful of him -- so he distanced himself from the world. Spike, lucky for him, has plenty of interaction (though maybe not the kind he'd like!) with other demons, with Buffy & Dawn, the Scoobies. He had, if not support in kicking his human-eating habits, then at least emotional ties.

Okay, just realised I'm way off topic but I'm not gonna erase what I wrote. Anyway, I don't think Angel was a total monk those 100 years before Buffy, but I doubt he made any real emotional connections with anyone he might have slept with. And he probably stayed *far* away from humans, so I'm betting only non-human lovers (like the Furies).

So this long and totally incoherent post is just to say I agree with everything you said!

It's time to annotate "Angel" (the episode, not the show)!!! Please respond! -- Rob, 21:05:50 07/08/02 Mon

You can expect the annotated "The Pack" to be coming to a computer screen near you by the end of the week, but I've already begun preparations for the next episode, "Angel."

So please respond to this message with any annotations you may have about this episode--literary, cinematic, historic, artistic, etc. allusions or references; continuity checks; pop culture notes, mythology notes etc etc

To see an example of the type of annotations I'm looking for, if you're not yet aware, click here, and, on that page, click on one of the colored episode titles.

If you would like to see a transcript of "Angel" to refresh your memory, click here.

If you would like to send me your annotations directly, you can also e-mail me at robwill@optonline.net.

Thank you so much, in advance, for your help.


[> One interesting question -- Caesar Augustus, 22:28:01 07/08/02 Mon

Why did Angel vamp out when kissing Buffy?

I've taken stuff from a previous discussion.

Possible theories:
1. It was an absolute high for him, after 90 years of self- wallowing pity, almost like a moment of happiness, which caused temporary demon ascension (this of course assumes that the "happiness clause" is just the fact that demon ascension is a metaphysical side effect of true happiness, as well put in Episode Index). One could then see this as a foreshadowing of his season two turning.
2. Kissing the slayer made his demonic soul so angry that it struggled viciously against his human soul.
3. Also, his human soul struggles to hold the demon in check. Perhaps he was so caught up in the moment that the demon manifested.
4. Buffy caused the change, perhaps inadvertently drawing a little blood.

Just some ideas to get discussion started :-)

[> [> All very good points... -- Scroll, 06:56:37 07/09/02 Tue

I think all your points are very plausible, though I think # 4 is the least likely. While quite passionate, they didn't seem to be kissing hard enough to draw blood! And I never considered that his game face at kissing Buffy could be foreshadowing of his return to Angelus, but it really does make sense (in hindsight, which is always 20/20!)

[> [> [> huh, good call about the foreshadowing. and I think... -- yuri, 07:28:39 07/09/02 Tue

that generally sexual things and feeding are very connected for vampires, and to a vampire who has experienced neither for an extremely long time, and who has just had the first intense physical contact with what will be (what is?) his star-crossed lover, a kiss might trigger that reaction. Kind of like an inexperienced guy getting prematurely aroused.

(is this most like number 3, CA?)

And Rob - you know I'd help if I could but I'm just not perceptive enough (in the right way) for the job. As always, good luck and I can't wait to see the next installment!

[> [> Re: One interesting question -- ponygirl, 08:04:02 07/09/02 Tue

All interesting points. Personally I think ME wanted to set up a link between a vampire's sexuality and their demon, but then didn't want to have to worry about Angel vamping out every time he and Buffy kissed so downplayed it in subsequent episodes. To explain Angel's vamping within the context of this particular show though, I wonder if he did it deliberately. He seemed quite conflicted about the possibility of a relationship with Buffy, and in their conversation before the kiss was saying that he should stay away. The kiss certainly seemed to stem from mutual attraction but maybe the switch to gameface was an attempt to scare Buffy away. To end their flirtation before it got too serious.

Sorry Rob, not really an annotation, just random thoughts!

[> [> [> Disrobing/revelation -- Rahael, 09:37:22 07/09/02 Tue

I think the Vamp face also happens as a part of the 'stripping away' from disguise into truth that occurs in this ep. From the minute that Buffy invites Angel into her home, both protagonists start to 'disrobe' emotionally. Angel takes of his shirt, Buffy notices (along with some of the viewers !) that Angel's rather fit. She notices the tattoo, which will identify who he used to be in the library/exposition scene.

Buffy undresses while he is there (but he turns his back, like a gentleman). They are also undressing emotionally. Angel tells Buffy that his family were killed by a Vamp. He tells her that she looks pretty even when she goes to sleep (she retorts that it's a different story when she wakes up, a piercing reminder that next season, the Sleeping Beauty myth will be invoked - but an Angelic face will go to bed with her, and an ugly beast will wake up).

After she returns, that evening, more revelation. She thinks he has read her diary, and inadvertantly reveals some of her feelings. They kiss. Even more disguises fall away. And his true face is revealed. But the question we are left with is, what is truth? What is his true face? This question becomes even more important when it later 'appears' that Angel has tried to drink from Joyce. In reality, appearances lied. He had saved her. So the notion of 'true' is introduced, only to be undercut.

In their final climactic scene together, Angel says to Buffy
"I'm just an animal, right?" and later he promises her, "I can walk as a man, but I'm not one". Which immediately leaves us with the question, which lasts as long as Angel keeps appearing in BtVS, and even afterward: "What constitutes a man?" His presence is profoundly destabilising.

[> [> [> [> In the bedroom -- ponygirl, 11:15:20 07/09/02 Tue

I wonder, is this the first appearance of Buffy's diary? It will be mentioned again, most notably in Ted. Buffy's bedroom is where she hides her secrets-- diary, her drawer of slaying implements, and in this episode Angel. She never seems to do a really good job of it though, the diary's always left out, the drawer is easily accessible, and Angel mentions that he had to hide in the closet to avoid Joyce. Perhaps Buffy is hoping that her mother will take the time to snoop and find her out. The closet mention seems significant too, especially since Buffy's revelation of her Slayerness in Becoming and Dead Man's Party has many resonances of coming out. I know many of my gay friends said that they would consciously or unconsciously leave clues to their orientation, hoping their parents would pick up on it and spare them a dramatic revelation.

[> [> [> [> Incredible Insights, Rah! KaBooM-Y indeed! -- redcat, 11:16:56 07/09/02 Tue

I had seen some of what you are saying here about disrobing/revelations before, but
*completely* missed Buffy's comment about the morning and its link to S2 and its
reversed-Sleeping-Beauty theme. Wowzer! Thanks.

And I totally agree with your musings on the destabilizing nature of Angel as the embodiment
of the "What constitutes a man?" theme. The character becomes a particularly interesting
vehicle to embody this theme, one that allows it to be explored in complex and specific ways.
Because the revelations in this ep occur within the context of heterosexual desire, the thematic
question becomes both gender-specific, i.e., "what constitutes a man in relation to a woman?"
as well as its corollaries, "what constitutes a [modern?] woman, both in and out of relation to
men?" But it also has a non-gender-specific meaning: "what constitutes a human?" The
question, through Angel's presence, thus simultaneously resists any simplistic essentialism
while embracing a search for commonality within diversity.

[> [> [> [> [> Look at that, Rah, you've gotten another KABOOM! And here's another one... -- Rob, 12:32:33 07/09/02 Tue


Rob :o)

[> [> [> [> [> adding my Kabooms for both of you..... -- shygirl, 07:17:44 07/10/02 Wed

dare I say that these issues "what makes a man a man and all it's corollaries?" and "what makes a human?" are real life issues. 100 years ago, a black man was not considered a "man" in the USA...in fact, he was not even considered human. So where does that take us in conjuction with the vampires and demons we know and love?

Stirring things up here!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> And 300 years ago men debated if women had souls. - - Arethusa, 07:56:23 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I had forgotten that one... I do remember being a chattel... -- shygirl, 11:20:50 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> Self-Revelation and Self-Fashioning -- Rahael, 08:42:14 07/10/02 Wed

What constitutes a human being in the Buffyverse? How do they constitute themselves?

(those other history geeks/nerds will know that I've stolen the 'self-fashioning' idea from Stephen J Greeenblatt).

One thing that has always interested me about the Buffyverse is the consistent theme of Self Identity. The show indicates a very strong self identity in the title - Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. It's all about this girl who is chosen - very clear who she is, what she is, and what she should. But time and time again, the show subverts this idea, and plays around with the notion of identity.

We've often talked about the character splits - Giles/Ripper. Willow/VampWillow/Dark Willow. WishverseBuffy/Buffy/Buffybot/depressed Buffy. There's the two Xanders we see in Season 5. There's Vengeance demony Anya and Shopgirl Anya. There's Spike/William. Angel/Liam/Angelus.

These identities are complex, puzzling. They leech into each other.

It's really most striking when we come to Dawn. She is explicitly created. But there's no deep level of self constitution going on - Dawn just finds herself on earth, literally 'written in' (her diaries - here is another significant entrance for diaries. Dawn rips up her life, when she finds out the truth about herself, rips up the diaries, the only testament to the fact that she's a teenager rather than a new born). And Dawn, as the identity- problem personified, points to the idea of boundaries, or the lack thereof, that seems to make identity in the Buffyverse so volatile. She is the breaker down of boundaries.

Also, in Tabula Rasa, we find the disjuncture between the self fashioned self, and the essential self. Certain relationships to each other, certain draws are innately present, even when their memories are wiped.

Identity in the Buffyverse seems to exist behind the surface, under the skin, waiting to slowly seep out and reveal itself. Everyone has more in them than they, or us bargained for. Xander slowly reveals throughout the seasons both his strengths and his weaknesses, through his different personas. Willow has 'disguises' which conceal her true self. All the Vampires have masks - whether the mask is human or Vampire, one is never entirely certain.

Even at this late stage, we are explicitly warned that we have not yet learned all there is to be learned about our heros and heroines. They are still subject to transformation. But it's also highlighted, very explicitly, that these slowly revealed identities are often done so unwillingly, under metamorphosis (grief, anger, fear, numbness). Make me what I once was says Spike. Make me into what she deserves - and there, Spike points to the two crucial constituents of identity in the Buffyverse - the 'real' self, and the characters' relationships with each other.

These two things seem to be intertwined.

PS, thanks for the Kabooms!! Deeply appreciated!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self-Revelation and Self-Fashioning -- ponygirl, 11:24:48 07/10/02 Wed

Lots of hmm's after your post Rahael. Defining oneself is a pretty big part of growing up. A process that never really ends. Everyone in the Buffyverse seems very eager to take on labels and titles: Champion, Slayer, Big Bad, Watcher, Carpenter, Nerd. To define exactly what they and others are. It can be empowering, such as when Buffy relaims her identity in Anne, or limiting. Makes me think of Hush and its theme of the differences between communication and language. Also making me wonder about the names the characters dodge: Xander, husband; Giles, father. Much to ponder! Great posts Rah! Not sure if it's helping Rob's annotations, but I'm enjoying this sub-thread.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self-Revelation and Self-Fashioning and Transliteration -- redcat, 11:43:38 07/10/02 Wed

Wonderful post, Rah! Once again, you offer us insight and point us toward deeper

Joss seems to constantly play with the question of whether or not his characters do have
essential selves, and if so, what those are. Their "slowly revealed identities," which you note
are generally made visible through crisis, are also simultaneously transformed through those
very crises. Revelation occurs in the context of re- formation, transformation, as the revealed-
as-real characters self-morph into the adults the crises force them to become. Each is then
revealed as someone grown from the seed of that supposedly true inner self that had, we're
shown, lain hidden all along. But like much else in the JossVerse, what is revealed as true and
essential is instantly changed through that revelation into something else (sometimes this
leads to mourning among those of us who long for the old costume).

Willow is perhaps the clearest example of this. As her costumes are shed, we expect to be
shown the inner Willow, the real, essential person at her center. Instead, what we get is a
series of transformed Willows, each a possibility, each "true" in its own way, each grown from
the child-like Geek!Willow we first met in WTTH, and even earlier, as we discover in TG, from
CrayonBreakyWillow. But each is unable to actually sing her own verse in the song ("I think
this line's mostly filler"). Is there a true, essential Willow? Or is what we (and she) have yet
to learn is that there is not a single and fixed and true inner self, but that the metamorphosis of
the seed-self is, in fact, the reality?

Greenblatt notes, in his "Marvelous Possessions," that one of the conceits of pre-modern
western explorers was their belief that all languages are translatable into all other languages. In
fact, that is not true. Perhaps it is also not true that all essential selves are illuminable. The
discovery changes that which is discovered. The search for the essential self is the journey,
but time and astronomy teach us that the path is spiral, not circular nor linear, so that where
we come back to is not ever exactly where we were.

[> [> [> Re: One interesting question -- Rattletrap, 18:27:39 07/09/02 Tue

"Personally I think ME wanted to set up a link between a vampire's sexuality and their demon, but then didn't want to have to worry about Angel vamping out every time he and Buffy kissed so downplayed it in subsequent episodes."

Good point, but it is also interesting to note that the theme has not entirely vanished. S6's "All the Way" had Dawn's date (Justin?) vamping out while they were making out. Very nice continuity touch, IMO.

[> [> Re: One interesting question -- zargon, 12:45:11 07/09/02 Tue

Of the ideas already listed, I think they are all posible explanations, having thought them myself before. And I would like to add another to the list:

Kissing Buffy was probably the closest Angel had been physically to a human being in many years (since he had been lurking in alleys and avoiding humans except for that little trip to the Hyperion in the 1950s). I expect he was overwhelmed with blood lust. He could hear her heart racing and the blood coursing through her veins, and the demon rose to the surface. Luckily, his soul was able to keep the demon in check so he didn't feed off of her.

This theory can be supported by the scene later in the ep when Darla hands the still bleeding but unconcious Joyce to Angel and he tries to resist drinking (even turns his head away from Joyce while he struggles for control), but still vamps out. And the later scene at the Bronze when Buffy drops her weapons and taunts him with her exposed neck, where again, he physically fights for self-control.

Other eps along the same line: "Amends" where the First Evil taunts him to drink from Buffy by encouraging his demon impulses, "Graduation Part II" where Buffy pummels Angel to bring the demon to the surface so he will drink from her, "City of..." where Doyle tells him he has to get involved with the people he helps or eventually they're going to start to look like dinner (and later when Angel discovers and touches the dead Tina, he has to struggle to not put his bloodied fingers in his mouth). I'm sure there are lots of other eps, but these are all I can think of at the moment.

[> I've never done this before... -- Scroll, 07:37:04 07/09/02 Tue

...so I'm not sure how to provide references for your annotations. I'm just going to give my thoughts on some things that popped out at me as I was reading the "Angel" transcript.

The simple black and white wisdom of children?
Master: Zachary was strong, and he was careful. And still the Slayer takes him... as she has taken so many of my family. It wears thin. Collin, what would you do about it?
Collin: I'd annihilate her.
Master: (inhales) Out of the mouths of babes...

From Villains:
Dawn: He [Warren] killed Tara, and he nearly killed you. He needs to pay.
Xander: Out of the mouths of babes.

Angel on himself?
Angel: Good dogs don't... (punches the vampire) ...*bite*!

Foreshadowing "Pangs" and other episodes where Buffy and Angel seem to instinctively know when the other is near?
Buffy: So, you weren't following me? I just had this feeling you were.
Angel: (smiles) Why would I do that?

Why do the Scooby Gang/AI team fight? Unlike Holtz, Justine, and others, they don't fight out of a desire for vengeance. Angel fights because he wants to protect Buffy, to atone for his past, and to help the innocent.
Buffy: So, this is a vengeance gig for you.

Overall theme of Buffy? Reference to Spiderman? Somehow don't see the Master reading comic books... This is also Buffy's motto after Faith's turn to the dark side and what Willow needs to learn.
Master to Collin: With power comes responsibility.

Vampire societal rules:
Master: True, they [the Three] did fail, but also true, we who walk at night share a common bond. The taking of a life--I'm not talking about humans, of course--is a serious matter.
Angel's killing of Darla breaks a cardinal rule of vampire society. While we see Spike and Drusilla often threatening to kill Angel, they've never followed through. This is our only example of a vampire killing his sire. Angel has killed his sire and lover, and he can never hope to return to the vampire world.

What is a vampire?
Giles: A vampire isn't a person at all. It may have the movements, the, the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but i-it's still a demon at the core, there is no halfway.
Does this contradict what Spike later becomes in S5 and S6? No, because Spike is clearly not a person despite having a strong personality. He is still a demon despite his good deeds. Angel, having a soul, could be argued to at least be partly human and a person; he at least has a connection to humanity that Spike didn't have until that African demon restored his soul.

That's it for now, I really need to get some homework done instead of having annotative fun! Hope all this helps...


[> Back in the land of the living. -- Cactus Watcher, 08:41:47 07/09/02 Tue

This is my first post after a particularly nasty bout of the flu. Hope it makes sense. These are mostly continuity issues.

Community college. As a quick excuse for Angel being in the house, Buffy tells her mom that he is a community college student, helping her with her school work. For those outside the US, community college is a junior college, a two- year school, which is located in an urban or suburban setting that usually has generous entrance requirements and that frequently offers 'trade' courses as well as academic programs. There has been no further evidence that Sunnydale actually has a community college. In fact the events of season six, where Buffy clearly could have used a community college to get back into school part-time, indicate there is none.

Crossbow. Buffy instantly recognizes the fatal possibilities of the crossbow, and from this episode on she frequently is seen carrying it, especially when the situation calls for 'more firepower.' However, the fact is that Buffy turns out to be a terrible shot. She has frequent near misses, but few kills with the crossbow, at least on screen. Her first kill with the crossbow actually comes in the episode Superstar during the time when Jonathan is the superhero not Buffy. After Superstar she starts missing again. Although she eventually has more kills, generally her friends have more success with the crossbow than she does.

Budapest. The timeline suggested in the episode Angel is somewhat misleading when compared with Angelus' story as presented later in Becoming pt. 1, in Fool for Love, and in the Angel series. But, it isn't necessarily incorrect. If we take Darla's words about the 'turn of the century' in a general way, then Angel's rampage in Budapest occured in 1897 or early 1898 just before his misadventure with the gypsies in Rumania. We know that shortly after Angel's soul was returned, Darla abandoned him, but within a year or two they were back together. Darla soon noticed that during this period Angel was only killing evil doers. So it is doubtful that she would remember Budapest fondly if it happened after Rumania.

In the same conversation Angel says the last time he saw Darla she was 'into' kimonos. We learn in Fool for Love that they were in China for the Boxer Rebellion when Angel and Darla broke up for good. Although a kimono would have been out of place in China, there is no reason she couldn't have indulged herself while passing through Japan on the way there.

Shoddy. Buffy isn't a whiz at school, but she may have picked up something in passing during class. During the Reconstruction period of American history, getting rich on government contracts was a high art. So much money was made by unscrupulous construction contractors through scrimping on building materials, that the period is also know as the 'age of shoddy.'

[> [> angel the unreliable narrator? -- anom, 09:13:26 07/09/02 Tue

First, glad you're over the flu, CW (but sorry you had it)!

"In the same conversation Angel says the last time he saw Darla she was 'into' kimonos. We learn in Fool for Love that they were in China for the Boxer Rebellion when Angel and Darla broke up for good. Although a kimono would have been out of place in China, there is no reason she couldn't have indulged herself while passing through Japan on the way there."

Japan isn't exactly on the way to China through Europe (do we know which part of China they were in? if it was toward the east, it might be more likely). But maybe Angel just doesn't know the difference between a kimono & um, whatever they wore in China around the time of the Boxer Rebellion. After all, Spike tells the Slayer he doesn't speak Chinese; most likely Angel didn't either. Although after he returns from hell, we see him practicing what looks like t'ai chi. Did he seek out instruction after Darla rejected him the 2nd time, trying to learn something that would help him balance his 2 natures? (OK, getting a little O/T here....)

[> [> [> Good point -- CW, 11:50:05 07/09/02 Tue

Since the Trans-Siberian Railway wasn't finished until about the time the rebellion was over, with or without a stop in Japan it would have been a nasty, long sea voyage.

I believe the main violence of the Boxer Rebellion, as far as foreign civilians were concerned, was concentrated in north China near the cities then known as Peking, Tientsin and Tsingtao.

[> [> [> Another thing Angel was unreliable about... -- Isabel, 20:30:22 07/10/02 Wed

I'm not sure this is what you're looking for but...

When Angel is facing Buffy in the Bronze and she's there to kill him for biting Joyce he tells her how he got a soul.

(The quotes are from the transcript you linked to above.)

Angel: Fed on a girl about your age... beautiful... dumb as a post...
but a favorite among her clan.

Buffy: Her clan?

Angel: Romany. Gypsies. The elders conjured the perfect punishment for
me. They restored my soul.

Buffy: What, they were all out of boils and blinding torment?

Angel: When you become a vampire the demon takes your body, but it
doesn't get your soul. That's gone! No conscience, no remorse... It's an
easy way to live. You have no idea what it's like to have done the
things I've done... and to care. I haven't fed on a living human being
since that day.

According to dates in various flashbacks we learn that he got his soul in 1898. According to Fool For Love/Darla, in 1900 he's in China with Darla, Dru and Spike. He's trying to ignore his soul and be the vampire he used to be. Which included feeding on people. Darla got suspicious because he only ate evil people (and rats.) Perhaps he's counting from the moment he refused to eat the orphaned baby, but it is inaccurate of him to say he never ate a living person since he got his soul. (I don't think Darla would have offered him a freshly killed human like Dru did Spike. And it shouldn't count if he killed the person before he ate them either.)

Plus, in the flashback where he gets his soul, (Dear Boy, maybe?)doesn't he drink from the lady in the alley in Romania after he kills all the men with her and then flees, leaving her alive.

I think he said it because it sounds better to the girl you want to like you to say 'I haven't eaten anybody' rather than admit you 'got off to a rocky start, but I stopped after a couple of years.'

[> [> [> [> I think it is Ret-con by the writers... -- Scroll, 21:45:39 07/10/02 Wed

I'm thinking that Angel saying he hadn't eaten anyone since he got his soul, and the contradiction in "Darla" in Angel S2, is just ret-con by the writers. They probably hadn't planned Angel's past *that* far in advance, so decided it wouldn't hurt to sneak one little continuity error in there. They probably hadn't counted on obsessive fans like us, watching their every move... : )

[> [> [> [> [> But does that count as Ret-Con? -- Isabel, 06:42:50 07/11/02 Thu

Unlike the Angel/Spike siring issue where we see a conversation b/t 2 people who know the truth and Angel accepts Spike's terminology, there is no evidence before those flashbacks to support or deny Angel's claim that he didn't feed from anybody. All we have is Angel's word, and isn't that hearsay?

I'm not denying that the writer of the episode thought it sounded good. In one of the interviews I saw Marti Noxon do last year, promos for Season 6, I think, she said that she kept going to Joss asking him about various things and his answer was "We're making this up as we go along." Joss didn't want to decide on a solid backstory on anything because he felt it limited their thinking.

Angel's changing ages I'll accept as ret-con because in Halloween, he was supposed to be human in 1775. It turns out (Unless he had a short shanshu we don't know about...;-)) that he had been a vampire for about 18 years by then. (And why in the world would the Watcher's Council have details on his human life? He was just some guy and when he was a vampire, he and Darla immediately killed his entire village. Not a lot of evidence left behind.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> A bit of pedantry -- Sophist, 08:41:43 07/11/02 Thu

All we have is Angel's word, and isn't that hearsay?

No. Since Angel personally did the acts (or didn't do them), his statements about what he did (or did not do) are not hearsay.

Even statements by someone else about what Angel did would not be hearsay. Hearsay is when one person repeats what someone else said. If you simply describe what you saw (rather than what someone else said), you are a witness. Hearsay only involves reporting someone else's words. Even then, there are numerous exceptions that allow hearsay to be used in court.

[> [> [> [> [> [> not only that... -- anom, 11:30:09 07/11/02 Thu

"All we have is Angel's word, and isn't that hearsay?"

...we hearing Angel & Darla talking, & he tells her (not Buffy or the viewers) he's killed humans. She says he did, but they were all criminals, not innocents. Since they're talking about what he did & she saw, & they agree Angel killed humans, I think we can take it as fact within the Buffyverse--we don't need to apply standards for court testimony to it.

This raises another interesting question: did Angel immediately stop eating people in general after he refused to eat the baby? Was there a point, then or later, when he concluded killing even non-innocent humans was...what? wrong? bad for his soul? something beyond what he told Faith, which he could have learned during his pre-souled days?

"(And why in the world would the Watcher's Council have details on his human life? He was just some guy and when he was a vampire, he and Darla immediately killed his entire village. Not a lot of evidence left behind.)"

But the disappearance of the whole population of a village would probably show up on their radar screen, or the 18th-c. equivalent. They might not know much about his life before then (as you point out, who would they ask?), but they could have found which grave was freshly dug (out of), & they'd've figured he was human before that. That does leave the other discrepancies, of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: not only that... -- Arethusa, 16:08:18 07/11/02 Thu

"This raises another interesting question: did Angel immediately stop eating people in general after he refused to eat the baby? Was there a point, then or later, when he concluded killing even non-innocent humans was...what? wrong? bad for his soul? something beyond what he told Faith, which he could have learned during his pre-souled days?"

I don't know if this really applies, but I thought what Angel said in his delirium in "Birthday" was very interesting. He said something about "if it's dead, only if it's dead." (Can't get exact quote now.) I took it to mean that at some time he was feeding on people if they were already dead. Perhaps soon after his split with Darla, he couldn't even kill and feed on criminals. We've speculated on how vampires in groups tend to become more vicious, goading each other to new lows. Perhaps he only killed criminals to keep from alienating Darla. I think he stopped hunting very soon after he left her. Ninety years later, he was living on an occasional rat, and by the time he met up with Buffy, he didn't even like her to see his game face.

[> Re: It's time to annotate "Angel" (the episode, not the show)!!! Please respond! -- Rahael, 09:11:36 07/09/02 Tue


Just a few annotations for now - I may think of more later.

In the library scene where they discuss who Angel is, after Buffy has discovered he is a Vampire, Xander ironically quotes a well known Kern/Hammerstein love song `Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly'. Interestingly, he means it in a non romantic context - that Angel just does what is in his nature, he kills. But the song tells us that Buffy and Angel can't help loving each other. Their `unnatural' love is heightened by the fact that the song tells us that love is as natural as fish swimming and birds flying. And it's `one' man, echoing the idea that Buffy and Angel are each other's true loves. The song says that there is only one reason for such an illogical instinctive feeling: the angels must have planned it. Both ironic meanings are there: that Buffy and Angel's love is both natural, and unnatural, and there is that constant ambiguity once Buffy finds out that Angel isn't a natural man. Is he a natural Vampire, or an unnatural one?

Can't Help Lovin' Dat Man
Music by Jerome Kern
Lyrics by Oscar Hammerstein II

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly
I gotta love one man 'til I die
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine

Tell me he's lazy, tell me he's slow.
Tell me he's crazy, maybe I know.
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine.

Oh, listen sister, I love my mister man and I can't tell you why.
There ain't no reason why I should love that man.
It must be somethin' that the angels done plan.

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly
I gotta love one man 'til I die
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine

Tell me he's lazy, tell me he's slow.
Tell me he's crazy, maybe I know.
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine.

When he goes away, that's no rainy day.
But when he comes back
my day is fine, the sun will shine.

He can come home as late as can be.
Home without him ain't no home to me.
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine.

My man is shiftless, and good for nothin' too.
He's my man just the same.
He's never near me when there's workin' to do.
[He's never round you when there's workin' to do.]

The chimney's smokin, the roof is leakin' in.
But he don't seem to care.
He can be happy with just a sip of gin.
I even loves him when his kisses got gin.

Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly
I gotta love one man 'til I die
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine

Tell me he's lazy, tell me he's slow.
Tell me he's crazy, maybe I know.
Can't help lovin' dat man of mine.

We get a flashback to the themes of vermin, illness and plague we first see in the WTTH/H with the fumigation party. Even the Scoobies seem infected - Cordelia calls Xander a bug, he calls her a hooker and a breath of `vile' air. Infection, disease seems to be abroad.

There is a constant reference to ancientness, longevity. Angel is helping Buffy with her history. He says he is `older', he's been around for 240 years, as Giles discovers. Darla mentions that her family go back to the war of independence. Buffy taunts her that `you've been around since Columbus, you are bound to pile up a few ex's. They are as hardy, and as long living as cockroaches are. They'll survive no matter what - Slayers and humans can come and go, these parasites will go on living. They are as hard to kill as well - Buffy is vulnerable to bullets, but they aren't.

But they see things differently - they see human beings as the parasites. It's a very inverted way at looking at things, and connects to the idea that the Vampire world is the `World turned upside down'. Darla dressing up as a Catholic Schoolgirl is also another inversion - she's aping both religion and innocence and youth, something which Buffy pointedly shows up. She has none of these chracteristics. Another inversion - the Master talks with the same reverence for Vamp lives that we reserve for humans ` `The taking of a life - I'm not talking about humans of course - is a serious matter". Another inverted comment from the Master: "You see how we all together for the common good? That's how a family is supposed to function!". The Master morosely muses that Angel was to have sat at his right hand. I think in the Bible, Jesus promises Peter that he would sit at his right hand in heaven. To make the connection explicit, Colin replies "But soon you shall rise", making the antichrist- like overtones of the Master stronger. Human values, but distorted.

Darla laughs at Angel for `living above ground, like one of them'. For Vampires, humans are the Other. Angel is separate from both communities, always the Other.

Diaries are mentioned in two contexts, both with references to Angel, but with markedly different truths. Buffy's diary, her own heart, if Angel read it, would tell him that she is falling in love with him. The Watcher's Diaries tell another truth, that he is a murderer and a killer. Which is true? Are they incompatible? And here, for the first time, we get a subtle opposition between the duties of a Slayer, and Buffy's own emotional yearnings, an opposition which will climb to a crescendo in PG, where Buffy taunts Giles about his books and his Watching. Buffy and Willow get distracted, close their books while trying to study in the library, distracted by love/emotion/life. History versus `living in the now'

Vengance gigs versus duty

Buffy remarks to Angel, pre-discoverey:

"So, this is a vengeance gig for you"

It highlights how much her own `gig' is separate from vengeance and hatred. She tells the Warrior Vamps that she doesn't want to fight them `unless I have to'. She even continues to love Angel, to think about how wonderful his kiss was, after finding out he was a Vampire. Her mind is having it's own `civil war', as Willow tries to teach her about the historical Civil War.

In contrast, the Master comments that Darla's bloodlust for the Slayer is personal "You have a personal interest in this" - Darla replies, "I don't get to have any fun"

We end with the post fumigation party, which Xander informs us just means `much hardier cockroaches' - Darla may be dead, but the Master lives on.

[> [> Correction re Sitting at the Right Hand -- Rahael, 09:58:24 07/09/02 Tue

I was actually thinking of this when the Master talks of how Angel would have sat at his right hand, after the Master had risen: Jesus would ascend into heaven, and sit at the right hand of God.

It's rather fitting that Angel, is then, shown as being tempted by Darla, with blood, to revert to who he was, if he is given Christ like overtones.

Also, the theme of the 'world being turned upside down' is echoed inside Buffy herself - all the truths she's known so far "Vampire, bad" gets turned over, as well as her own heart and feelings.

[> [> [> Angel as a Christ figure... -- Scroll, 09:21:10 07/10/02 Wed

Actually, this is interesting how we have the Master referring to Angel as a Jesus figure considering Angel: the Series. The first episode, "City Of", really lays down this theme with Russel (vamp businessman) and Lindsey (lawyer from Wolfram & Hart) tempting Angel with material wealth, worldly power, fame, etc. And at the end of the ep when Angel confronts Russel in his glass tower/corporate building, he asks "Can you fly?" (echoing one of the three temptations Satan puts before Jesus in the desert) and he pushes Russel right out the 30th floor window to burn in the sun.

Angel the Series really provides a groundwork of how Angel is a Messianic figure who reaches out to the poor and downtrodden, using his powers to help those ignored by the 9 to 5 people living in the sun. It's a really cool parallel and it's amazing that even in Buffy S1 they had leanings towards this theme. Plus, Angel did do that whole "died so the world could be saved and was raised from Hell again" thing that works into the Christian mythos so well!

[> [> [> [> Re: Angel as a Christ figure... -- Rahael, 10:04:36 07/10/02 Wed

Angel also resists two other big temptations:

The Gem of Amara, which would allow him to walk around during the day

He turns back time so he doesn't get affected by Mohra blood, and thus loses Buffy.

When he undergoes the trials to give Darla another chance, there's the big Christ like pose - arms outstretched, bare chested, tormented.

[> [> [> [> [> Yes, everyone forgets... -- Masq, 12:41:25 07/10/02 Wed

in all this vampires-and-crosses hubbub that as far as Jesus was concerned, the cross was an instrument of torment and death...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Very interesting indeed -- Rahael, 05:24:49 07/11/02 Thu

Great point.

Not only is the cross a symbol of spiritual and physical torture, but in religious terms, it is also a symbol of eternal life achieved through death...........

and then there's all the drinking of blood imagery.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Very interesting indeed -- Masq, 06:30:49 07/11/02 Thu

Yes, early Christains were thought by their neighbors to be a blood-drinking cult.

"I mean, have you heard what they do during that 'communion' thing of theirs?"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Very interesting indeed -- redcat, 12:47:19 07/11/02 Thu

And of course, all the Christic Vampire imagery opens the door to multiple readings of the
image of the Vampire Slayer when, in that final, heralded moment in The Gift, SMG as Buffy
brings her legs together and points her toes as she jumps off the tower. The gesture is
graceful, almost balletic, and can no doubt suggest water sports in the mind of the
Olympics-saturated. But it is also reminiscent of common portrayals of Christ-on-the-Cross.
Think of the more common way to fall from a great height, spread-eagled, like Michelangelo's
five-pointed-star drawing of "a man." Buffy's body conforms to the messiah's expected shape
in the moment in which death achieves life - the metaphor enacted, indeed!

[> Re: It's time to annotate "Angel" (the episode, not the show)!!! Please respond! -- Sophist, 09:58:54 07/09/02 Tue

Angel looks out the window one last time and follows her. He takes off his jacket and his T-shirt. Buffy looks at him from behind and sees his tattoo of a griffin straddling a large "A" below his right shoulder.

Angel's tattoo appears to be a metaphor for his own nature. A griffin is a combination of two animals, lion and eagle. Angel himself is a complex mixture of vampire and human.

Giles: A vampire isn't a person at all. (clears his throat) It may have the movements, the, the memories, even the personality of the person that it took over, but i-it's still a demon at the core, there is no halfway.

One of the most contentious issues in the series is what it means to be a vampire, what it means to have a soul. That debate continues today, and is of special interest for Spike. Giles here gives the same basic explanation he gave in The Harvest, and that he and others would continue to give throughout Seasons 1 and 2. This statement, and several others, can be used to support the view that vampire and souled vampire are separate and distinct creatures. The alternative view is that the soul functions more as a conscience, so that the creature remains fundamentally the same whether souled or not.

Xander: Alright, uh... (sits also) ...you have a problem, and it's not a small one. Let's take a breath and look at this calmly and objectively. Angel's a vampire. You're a Slayer. I think it's obvious what you have to do. (grins)

Xander's attitude toward vampires and jealousy of Angel were established in The Harvest and made explicit in this episode (this is just one of the available quotes). Those attitudes have remained constant over the history of the show.

Willow: So that you can... (makes a stabbing gesture)

Buffy: Like Xander said, I'm the Slayer, and he's a... vampire. God, I can't! He's never done anything to hurt me...

Even this early on, Buffy is capable of making moral distinctions about who/what she will slay and why.

Buffy: No? I invited him into my home. Even after I knew who he was, what he was, and I didn't do anything about it... 'cause I had feelings for him, because I cared about him.

Willow: If you care about somebody you care about them. You can't change that by...

Willow expresses the opposite moral viewpoint to that of Xander. It's one she herself will later follow with Oz.

Darla: What did you think? Did you think she would understand? That she would look at your face... your true face... and give you a kiss?

Buffy eventually does exactly this in WML 1.

[> Great stuff! Thanks, guys! And if there's any more, please keep 'em comin'! ;o) -- Rob, 11:43:10 07/09/02 Tue

[> Angel's "I'm quite a bit older" theme -- shadowkat, 11:48:20 07/09/02 Tue

In Angel what pops out at me every time I see it and links solidly with later episodes in Season 2 and Season 3, is the I'm quite a bit older line, which follows the
mother's reaction to seeing her daughter with a "man" not a "boy".

Joyce's line to Angel:"What do you do?"
"Buffy: He's a student. (her mother gives her a disbelieving look) Uh,
first year community college. Angel's been helping me with my history,
you know I've been toiling there."

In Nabokov's Lolita, the teacher Humpert Humpert (yes I know it's misspelled, can never remember the correct spelling and don't have time to look it up) is a history
teacher who tutors Lolita, a 16 year old staying in his house. Whedon is a Stanely Kubrick fan and probably saw that version with James Mason. (HE may have also read the book.)

The next bit reinforces this image when Angel tells Buffy he should go because he's quite a bit older than she is.

Angel: When I am all I can ever think about is how badly I want to kiss

Buffy: ...over the dam... (looks up at him) Kiss me?

Angel: I'm older than you, and this can't ever... I better go.

Buffy: H-how much older?

Then they kiss and he turns into a vampire.

Later Darla comments:" And last time I saw you it wasn't high school girls. "

Then Buffy who states at one point - "he did say he was quite a bit older.

"Buffy: Huh! Two hundred and forty. Well, he said he was older."

Now let's skip ahead to Season 2, where we have Innocence
after she sleeps with Angel - he turns all evil. Not unlike Humpert Humpert with his odd obsession on Lolita, making it all her fault. Wanting to destroy her for his attraction.

IOHEFY - deals with Angel and Buffy taking on the roles
of an older teacher and a student. Teacher breaks up with the student and he shoots the teacher. Teacher broke up with him b/c it was wrong. After being possessed by the teacher, Angel feels soiled and wants to get rid of the love.

Season 3 - Joyce tells Angel in Prom that he's older than Buffy and knows more and as result more capable of making the rationale choice.

Earlier in Becoming PArt I - the flashback where Angel first glimspes Buffy and becomes infatuated, She is sucking a lollipop just as Lolita does in Kubrick's film.

And in What's My Line Part I? Angel takes her out ice- skating like her father did. In her dreams he is like a father, protecting, advising. And in Forever, it is Angel who appears at her mother's grave to comfort her not her father.

Angel is the taboo older man, the teen idol who if the teen girl got him would be convicted of statutory rape (sex
with someone underage). Plus he acts as a teacher or instructor but unlike Giles is shadowy and sexual.

This theme is first subtly introduced in ANGEL and is the reason he backs away from Buffy, his soul tells him this is wrong. Later in Prophecy Girl he is forced to come forward
to save her life. And by others: Giles and Xander.

Xander sees Angel as that older teacher or college kid who takes his girl friend away from him. Willow as the romantic
older man. Also images that are emphasized in this episode
both literally and metaphorically.

Okay...must go back to work... hope it helps.

[> [> great points! -- Rahael, 15:11:35 07/09/02 Tue

I noticed it was Greenwalt who did this ep - a long time ago, I became completely addicted to his series 'Profit', which dealt with very dark themes, including incest. The anti hero was far more disturbed than many on BtVS.

[> [> [> Re: great points! -- shadowkat, 06:15:40 07/10/02 Wed

I loved Profit as well with Adrian Pasdar (I think that's the spelling) but it got cancelled so quickly, I barely
saw the fourth episode.

One of the reasons I was so pleasantly surprised that Angel and Btvs have lasted as long as they have. Most dark
shows with anti-heros disappear within a year. Things have changed now of course - with the Sopranos, which has
one of the darkest anti-heros. But I liked Profit better.

Greenwalt's great. Shame he's decided to leave Angel and
start a new show called Mysteries (similar to Touched
by an Angel and Mysterious Ways..) hmmm, maybe he got tired of dark material?

[> Re: It's time to annotate "Angel" (the episode, not the show)!!! Please respond! -- Vickie, 16:37:47 07/09/02 Tue

So many great observations! Apologies for any duplicates.

More on continuity, or maybe this is about Buffy and repression:
The episode opens at night. Angel stays the night on Buffy's floor, and when she comes back into her room the next night (after dinner, and it's dark outside) he's still there. Why? We know, at least after our first viewing, that he cannot leave in the daylight. (The Summers home doesn't have one of those nifty sewer tunnel connections.) But Buffy doesn't know, or she shouldn't. So why doesn't she ask him why he didn't leave while Joyce was at the gallery?

Others have remarked that throughout this episode there is a motif of instinct/true nature/the vampire demon or beast. Angel senses Darla in his home. Darla senses his true nature "brewing inside" of him. But Buffy cannot sense that Angel is a vampire. Her Slayer instincts should warn her, but they don't. The power of adolescent hormonal repression?

More ep-chronological now

The episode opens with Colin and the Master skipping stones in a puddle. Very innocent, childlike fun, more of the inversion motif outlined by others.

"Get in! C'mon!"
All the invitation a vampire needs. Note how nicely Greenwalt points up this line, almost lost in the action, with the next exchange of lines.

"He's a student. (her mother gives her a disbelieving look) Uh, first year community college. Angel's been helping me with my history, you know I've been toiling there."
Why does Buffy make up a history for Angel? Shouldn't she sit back and enjoy Joyce grilling Angel for information Buffy would love to know? Instead, she covers, just as if she knows he has nothing acceptable to tell Joyce. More evidence of Buffy's repressed knowledge?

"Giles, 20th Century? I'm not gonna be fighting Friar Tuck."
Robin Hood's chaplain, of course. A real-life chaplain turned criminal, Robert Stafford, used the alias Friar Tuck in 1417. (http://www.geocities.com/puckrobin/rh/bal123.html)

"a one-of-a-kind Todd Oldham"
www.toddoldham.com sells jeans, but other references I found listed bath products, buttons, and some really colorful dresses and skirts similar to the one Cordy is wearing here. Amazon sells Todd Oldham, without boundaries where the designer is described as "one of today's most important young fashion designers."

"This is exactly what happens when you sign these free trade
The North American Free Trade Agreement went into effect in 1994, hardly new news for Cordy in the spring of 1997.

"Remember Budapest? Turn of the century? You were such a bad boy during that earthquake."
I can't seem to find this one, though the region does have quakes. The National Geophysical Data Center's earthquake database (what, you don't have it bookmarked? http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/seg/hazard/earthqk.shtml) shows nothing for Hungary 1890-1910. Interestingly, searching for "earthquake in Budapest" turns up nothing but fanfic (LOL).

"Darla peeks out from behind the stacks."
Why have they never closed off the vamp-superhiway behind the library stacks?

"...but then I was supposed to help her with the War of Independence. My family kinda goes back to those days."
Interesting, a grain of truth within the lie. Darla does go back to those days, having "changed" during the colonial period. This is probably a ret-con by the writers (her vamping by the Master is shown in the AtS season 2 episode Darla), but still nice.

"Come on, Angel. Just say 'Yes'!"
Lame little pop culture reference to the "Just Say No" campaign against drug use.

That's all I have.

[> [> Earthquake in Budapest -- Scroll, 19:23:56 07/10/02 Wed

When Darla says "Budapest, turn of the century," she might not have meant the turn of 1800s to 1900s. Maybe she meant 1799 => 1800. Afterall, this was the last time she spent a "Turn of the century" with Angelus. By the time she sees Angel in China 1900, he already has a soul and isn't snacking on the populace.

Here are some dates for earthquakes in Hungary. I have no idea where these places are in relation to Budapest, but anyway:

1783, April 22 - Kom rom
1810, January 14 - MĒr
1810, May 27 - MĒr

None of these dates are exactly "turn of the century" but if you're a 400 year old vampire, you probably end up rounding off dates.

[> Although most people would classify the second season as... -- Rob, 11:18:34 07/10/02 Wed

...the time when the show first reached true brilliance, it's very interesting to see how already, by the midway point of the first season, the show was gaining more and more depth. Just compare the threads for the episode annotations before "The Pack" to the ones now...The show was already reaching levels of brilliance and able to garner great critical deconstruction, as we are doing here. And, presumably, as we continue through each episode, each one will have more and more notes (besides some scattered weak episodes). Can't wait to see what more is to come!


[> [> Before we get too enthusiastic, just remember that "Angel" was followed by IRYJ. -- Sophist, 12:51:23 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> Mock not -- Rahael, 15:31:18 07/10/02 Wed

Ete and I had a fascinating brain storm in chat re knowledge, words, power, sex - all in IRYJ

[> [> [> [> Now you've got me on pins and needles -- Sophist, 17:03:47 07/10/02 Wed

And Ete, that's just an American expression. :)

[> [> [> [> [> oh ? disapointing :) -- Ete, 17:57:58 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> O/T: Ete...!!! Re: American Gods -- Rob, 19:29:24 07/10/02 Wed

I'm not shirking on my "assignment," just wanted to let you know. It's just taking me a little longer to reread "American Gods" than I thought it would, due to all my family problems at the moment...But I'm up to the last hundred pages and am planning my resurrection/American Gods/Buffy essay...thanks to your inspiration, of course. ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Take your time, Rob -- Ete, 07:03:42 07/11/02 Thu

and hope your family problem will get better.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Looking forward to it! -- ponygirl (another Gaiman fan), 07:18:54 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> Oooh! Can't wait!! -- Rob, 17:28:07 07/10/02 Wed

Also...don't forget, as weak as "IRYJ" was, it was followed by four excellent eps: "Puppet Show," "Nightmares," "Out of Mind, Out of Sight" and "Prophecy Girl." ;o)


[> More annotative stuff... -- Scroll, 22:52:27 07/10/02 Wed

Just more thoughts:

Home as a sanctuary.
Angel: It's alright. A vampire can't come in unless it's invited.
Then later, when Darla bites Joyce and throws her into Angel's arms as he goes game-face:
Darla: Welcome home!
She walks around them and leaves the house. Angel continues to struggle with himself. Buffy comes in from the dining room, and Angel looks up.
Buffy: Hey! I'm home.
[cut] The Summers house. Cut to the living room window. Angel flies through it and tumbles over the porch, through the bushes and onto the lawn. Buffy comes over to the broken window and looks out at him as he gets up.
Buffy: You're not welcome here. You come near us and I'll kill you.

- The home isn't just a place of safety, but a place of acceptence and welcome. When Darla says "Welcome home", she means that Angel has returned to her world, the vampire way of living/thinking. But he resists this world. When Buffy throws Angel out of her house, she's saying that he doesn't belong in her world, the human way of living/thinking. So Angel doesn't belong anywhere.

Simplicity of evil.
Buffy: Why? (gets up) Why didn't you just attack me when you had the chance? Was it a joke? To make me feel for you and then... I've killed a lot of vampires. I've never hated one before.
Angel: Feels good, doesn't it? Feels simple.

- In "Blind Date" (I think) Angel talks to Wesley about how much simpler it is to live a vampire life, one free of moral restrictions and ambiguity, where all that matters is one's own pleasure. But Angel can't get back to that simple life because he cares about people's suffering. If he didn't care, life would be so much easier. Of course, that way leads to beige arcs and firing of employees and much burning of sires and children (hehe).

Darla loves Angelus?
Darla: Do you know what the saddest thing in the world is?
Buffy: Bad hair on top of that outfit?
Darla: To love someone who used to love you.
Buffy: (looks at Angel) You guys were involved?
Darla: For several generations.

- Angel tells Darla in "Dear Boy" that he never loved her, that he couldn't love her without a soul. (Sidenote: Yeah, Spike luvs Dru & Buffy, but I'm thinking that souled love is little different than unsouled love, at least from Angel's POV.) By the end of "The Trial" however, Angel seems to love Darla and rages at her death.

Angel's soul is a curse, not a blessing.
Darla: You love someone who hates us. You're sick. And you'll always be sick.

- While Buffy et al see Angel's soul as a good thing, Angel (at first) and other vamps see the soul as a perversion, probably the way Xander sees vamps as perversions of humans.

Darla's guns. Symbolism? How Joss views guns in Buffyverse? I don't actually have anything to say about them. Warren, Jonathan and guns (Seeing Red, Earshot)?

Angel stabbing Darla in the heart.
Darla: Close, but no heart.

- Buffy shoots Darla with the crossbow but misses the heart. Angel doesn't. Angel can get to Darla's heart? He's the only person (other than the Master) that we ever see Darla care about up until now.

Master losing Darla.
Collin: Forget her.
Master: (looks up angrily) How dare you? She was my favorite. For four hundred years...
Collin: She was weak. You don't need her. I'll bring you the Slayer.
Master: (despondently) But to lose her to Angel!

- In "Dear Boy" (or is it "Darla"?) we see Darla bringing Angelus to meet the Master. Angelus, arrogant and irreverent, entices Darla away from the Master. So the Master 'loses Darla to Angel' when she leaves with him to wander the world.

Starcrossed lovers.
Angel: Look, this can't...
Buffy: ...ever be anything. I know. For one thing, you're, like, two hundred and twenty-four years older than I am.
Angel: I just gotta... I gotta walk away from this.
Buffy: (nods) I know. Me, too. (whispers) One of us has to go here.
Angel: (whispers) I know.
They look at each other a moment longer and then close in to kiss. Their kiss becomes passionate.

- So in all fairness, we knew their relationship was doomed to begin with. They would end up walking away from each other for each other's sake. (*sniff* I miss B/A!)

And I can't believe no one's put this one up yet!
Buffy: You okay?
Angel: It's just...
Buffy: ...painful. I know. See you around?
Buffy walks away. Angel watches her go. The camera pans down to his chest where her cross has left a deep burn.

- Yep, she's left her mark. Ow, that's gotta sting...

[> [> Re: More annotative stuff... -- Brian, 04:27:29 07/11/02 Thu

And the irony of that burn is that it is from the cross that Angel had given her.

Current board | More July 2002