July 2002 Archives

July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002
More July 2002

vampires and Telepathy -- Kate, 22:45:39 07/08/02 Mon

In the prom Angel mentions that a vampires mind casts no reflection(and thats why buffy can't read his mind,However from what I've heard reflection doesn't matter with most psychics a thought just has to exist.(Also Buffy goes into his dreams which is a form of telepathy)

[> ME contradicts itself... -- Scroll, 06:26:47 07/09/02 Tue

In the episode "Earshot", Angel tells Buffy that her new- found demon telepathy doesn't work on him because vampires don't cast reflections, and even their thoughts can't cast reflections in other people's minds. Which begs the question if the Master, Drusilla, and Dracula could read other vampires' minds since they were all, to some degree, telepaths (or at least had some kind of mind control).

Also, the Angel episode "I've Got You Under My Skin" shows an Ethros demon reading Angel's mind as well as Wesley's. Wesley called it "skimming the surface of my mind". And Lorne reads Angel's aura, which admittedly isn't the same as reading one's mind. I wonder if Angel, having lived with Drusilla for 40 years and having probably studied with the Master at some point, ever learned to build mental shields to protect his thoughts? We never hear this aspect of vampire metaphysics, it would be interesting to explore...

[> [> Re: ME contradicts itself... -- Leaf, 07:30:36 07/09/02 Tue

Although all those examples you used from what I can remember the "mind reader" has some control over their telepathy where in Earshot Buffy had no control at all.

The same could be said I guess about the dreams in Amends but that also could be attributed to the slayer prophetic type dreams that she gets.

Did the Master have some telepathic power?

I also don't remember Drusilla or Dracula reading other Vampire's mind human's yes vampire's no.

JMHO
Leaf

[> Re: vampires and Telepathy -- neaux, 06:29:16 07/09/02 Tue

Willow also does some sort of Mojo to mindspeak to Spike in the finale of season 5 when fighting Glory. i dont know if that classifies as telepathy or not??

[> [> What Willow did was thought projection... (Spoilers) -- VR, 08:26:16 07/09/02 Tue

...just like in the season 6 opener. She projects thoughts into his mind, but when they were fighting Glory and her minions, Spike had to speak out loud to talk back to Willow. Thought projection isn't the transfer and recpetion of mental information. Just transfer of mental stuff from the psychic to the recipient.

Drusilla has psychic powers. Psychic powers are rather vague in what they do. They can gather information that one couldn't necessarily get from the five senses. An example is when she and Darla were looking for minions and Angel is hiding amongst them. This was last year. All of a sudden, Dru picks up that Angel is near. She knows how he feels about them and has an idea of what he wants to do. Later, after she and Darla are burned, she says the "He's (Angel) all gone. She could have figured this out by using her psychic powers or just from the way he acted.

The Master seemd to possess at least mind control, like when Buffy was in his lair in Prophecy Girl. His hand was used as a focus for his power. He "drew" her to him and he feed from her. Now, whether or not him was able to use this power without any hand gestures is unknown. He has used just the fear of who and what he is to control others and probably not mind control. But, there has been nothing in either show to suggest that mind control wouldn't work on a vamp. He isn't reading anyone's mind when he does it. He's just able to control someone's mind so that they perform certain actions. One could that there is a thought projection component in this as well.

I've never heard of Buffyverse Dracula reading another vamp's mind, though I have heard of non-buffyverse Darc doing that.

As for Buffy getting into Angel's mind when they slept, I don't have answer.

The Ethros may not have ben reading Angel's mind. He may have gotten information about Angel and what happened from Wes' perspective and figured out what to say to him. Wes wasn't there when Doyle was around or when he was killed, but he did learn about it after the fact. We know this cause when Angel mistakenly called Wes Doyle in season 1, Wes' reaction was that of someone who knows what was going on with Angel. So, he must have known about Doyle, probably through Cordelia.

VR

[> [> Yes, it is telepathy! -- Robert, 16:42:04 07/09/02 Tue

According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the definition
of telepathy is simply "communication from one mind to
another by extrasensory means". Since Willow did not use
any of the five normal senses to direct the gang, I believe
this fits the definition of telepathy.

Cast Rumors for Season 7 (Mild Spoiler, no details) -- Laurie, 13:21:25 07/09/02 Tue

A friend passed this info to me, so I'm passing it to the board. It's from http://www.darkhorizons.com/news.htm

* Buffy (TV): CNN reports that Luke Perry will guest star next season, reprising the role of Pyke from the movie.

Interesting. I don't get how they would do that with all of the liberties that they've taken with the series as a departure from the movie. But definitely interesting.

Back to lurking now....

[> Re: Cast Rumors for Season 7 (Mild Spoiler, no details) -- Finn Mac Cool, 13:35:48 07/09/02 Tue

Actually, the departures from the movie are because the show is based on Joss Whedon's script for it, not the finished product where the director, editor, and producer changed a lot of stuff. Maybe that Lothos guy will be back? Who knows.

[> Re: Cast Rumors for Season 7 (Mild Spoiler, no details) -- Rob, 13:47:36 07/09/02 Tue

Ditto. Could be interesting, but not sure how it would work...or why, storywise, his character coming back would be important.

Rob

[> Someone refresh my memory... -- Dichotomy, 15:27:20 07/09/02 Tue

...because it's been a really, reeeally long time since I've seen the movie. By the end of it, isn't Buffy, not really in love, but in like with Pyke? If I remember correctly, he was alive and well at the end, after the whole burning down the gym thing, so he could show up in Sunnydale to rekindle the flame, so to speak, with Buffy. Or could he have a more sinister plan to execute? Hmmmm.

Pyke's appearance in Sunnydale would sure fit in with the whole "going back to the beginning" theme. Waaay back!

[> [> Re: Someone refresh my memory... -- Vickie, 15:30:36 07/09/02 Tue

Since Luke Perry is starring in JM Straczynski's Jeremiah (SciFi next March), shooting schedules would be problematic at best.

[> [> Oh, oh! And... -- Dichotomy, 15:33:16 07/09/02 Tue

...they could do some nifty flashback scenes--sort of reimagine parts of the movie, only with SMG and more of Joss' original vision. Whaddya think?

[> [> Re: Someone refresh my memory... -- Dochawk, 17:19:13 07/09/02 Tue

Actually the graphic novel, Origins, which is more definitive to Joss than the movie (it was written based on Joss original script) has Pike and Buffy going to Vegas. The very last panel has Xander and Willow asking Buffy what happened to Pike (Willow says: "he sounds perfect for you") and Xander mentions the "all hot and smoochies". Buffy answers that its for another time, leaving a Pike return quite possible.

[> [> [> Re: Someone refresh my memory... -- Alvin, 02:09:39 07/10/02 Wed

The Buffy book "Sins of the Father" deals with a Pike visit to Sunnydale. In it they mention that Pike and Buffy cleaned out some vamps in Vegas, and that Pike left because he was freaked out by what Buffy was capable of. It implied that the reason Buffy was so negative about being the slayer in WTTH was because of Pike's rejection of her.

[> [> Re: Something I've been wondering about Season II - - KdS, 05:28:30 07/10/02 Wed

(Been lurking for a while - hope I'm not butting in)

Was it just me, or did anyone else wonder if Ford in "Lie to Me" was originally meant to be Pike? IMO, the only thing missing from the episode was a real sense of Ford's importance to Buffy - he'd never even been mentioned in passing so his betrayal wasn't such a shock.

[> Re: Cast Rumors for Season 7 (Mild Spoiler, no details) -- Purple Tulip, 06:40:09 07/10/02 Wed

For the sake of my sanity, I really hope that that's not true. I really didn't like the movie and I like to keep the two (the movie and the show) VERY seperate. I think I would have to scream obsenities at the TV if "Pike" made an appearance as Buffy's old friend from L.A., or an ex- boyfriend or something. Plus, wouldn't that be awfully confusing with "Spike"? If they do this, my faith and belief in ME will drastically decrease.

[> Re: Cast Rumors for Season 7 (Mild Spoiler, no details) -- LeeAnn, 11:48:57 07/10/02 Wed

Pike was supposed to be about the same age as Buffy. I can't see today's Luke Perry being able to pass for someone less than 35.

Where do we go from Here? Where have I heard this before? -- neaux, 18:23:21 07/09/02 Tue

Ok.. I just flipped through the channels and smack on MTV2 it turns out the band FILTER has a new song out called...

get this..

"Where do we go from here?"

I would have rather seen a BTVS Video from OMWF.. but I was curious... Here is a trivia question that I dont know the answer to but maybe with a little help from the board.. we can answer it together..

What other songs include this phrase "Where do we go from here?"

1. Filter- "Where do we go from here?"

2. Megadeth- "Ashes in your Mouth"

3. Backstreet Boys- "Where can we go from here?"

4. Vanessa Williams- "Where do we go from here?"

5. Master P- "Where do we go from here?"

6. Haircut 100 - "Love Plus One"

7. 2Pac "Where do we go from here? (interlude)"

8. Ray J- "Were do we go from here?"

These are what I gathered so far.. Pretty scary stuff eh?

[> Re: Where do we go from Here? Where have I heard this before? -- Alvin, 19:04:18 07/09/02 Tue

Alan Parsons: Games People Play (I think)

[> Google 101 -- Maroon Lagoon, 23:56:52 07/09/02 Tue

"where do we go from here" + lyrics returns 5760 hits, a quick glance at which reveals Deborah Cox, Jamiroquai, Sarah Connor, J-Lo, Echo 21, etc. etc.

Why is this scary?

[> [> so many people who dont know where to go.. -- neaux, 05:33:29 07/10/02 Wed

[> Re: Where do we go from Here? Where have I heard this before? -- Dead Soul, 02:38:31 07/10/02 Wed

Haircut 100 - that's the band I was trying to think of the name of in chat. Now I can finally get some sleep.

Dead Soul

[> Re: Where do we go from Here? Where have I heard this before? -- aliera, 05:31:23 07/10/02 Wed

I had a similar experience back in the spring when someone mentioned that there had actually been a song released about that time called Entropy. I've deleted the search since; but, I remember thinking about the lyrics that whoa! this is scarily like the episode.

I love searching for thing because this often leads me to wonderful, unexpected things to learn about.

In this case there were a couple of songs titled Entropy. In looking at the other episode titles, in almost every instance you could find relevant themes in the some lyrics, no one album or even group though. The difficulty with this and linking Buffy to other things such as mythology or what having is in knowing, or rather not knowing, how much the writer's are intentionally attempting and how much is perculating up from underneath the conscious mind and then how much is simply coincidence.

So I said ok back to the beginning, that's Joss. I went to searching through interviews and bios of Joss and I found surprisingly very little that was of any use in terms what he studied or what he's interested in now beyond Buffy and his other projects. We all know where he went to school etc and Dedalus kindly posted one of the few concrete influences that Joss will mention.

At first I was disappointed; but, just as with Joss's ambiguous soul comments which continue to fuel lovely, glittering debate, I have come to enjoy the ambiguity. A little mystery is part of why it's so attractive to think about.

Hope I didn't entirely miss your point. If so hopefully someone will pick this up. ; )

Selfless Spike -- Finn Mac Cool, 18:55:08 07/09/02 Tue

I just realized that Spike, contrary to what many have said, is the most selfless member of the Scooby Gang.

Buffy and the others like helping people. Saving someone's life gives them "a happy". Therefore, they're not fighting monsters to help people, they're doing it for the rewarding feeling it gives them. SELFISH!

Meanwhile, Spike also helps kill demons, but he doesn't care whether innocent humans live or die. He does not like helping people, he doesn't care about saving him, and betraying his vampire values to help save the world most certainly doesn't make him happy. SELFLESS!

(Please take all this with a grain of salt)

[> I thought the idea of selfish love had been rejected by the board? -- shygirl, 07:08:58 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> Re: I thought the idea of selfish love had been rejected by the board? -- Masq, 08:47:28 07/10/02 Wed

Just because one faction on the board talks louder doesn't mean there is a board consensus on these matters.

[> [> [> For example... -- Rob, 09:44:08 07/10/02 Wed

...around the middle of this year, the major consensus on the board was that season six was not up-to-par. I, however, led a small faction of people who were season-six supporters. And now that the season has ended, that group has grown a great deal. But, even if it hadn't, it just goes to show that it's impossible to get a true consensus here...We all have our own opinions about everything. What I find fascinating is that sometimes the posters I usually disagree with are my favorites to read...Gets my brain thinkin' up responses! And I seem to have gotten off on a tangent...

Rob

[> [> [> [> Wow. "Rashomon" moment here -- d'Herblay, 11:07:26 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> oooohhhh, now I understand you both, and I liked S6 very very much! why? -- shygirl, 13:20:46 07/10/02 Wed

Because it explored the hell journey we all take to become who we are, and I can hardly wait to see what all that mulch and cow manure produces! Ya gotta have fertilizer for the garden to grow... please excuse me I'm having a bad day!

[> [> that's right, the resolution was adopted unanimously... -- anom, 20:16:44 07/10/02 Wed

...oh, wait, we're not that kind of board. @>)

Tara article -- Simon, 08:43:35 07/10/02 Wed

Apologies if this has been posted before but this an article by a guy who used to post on B C & S Spoiler board and its about Tara , homophobia and creative responsibility. You might not necessary agree with his view point but its very interesting if not sligltly bitter reading.

http://www.xtreme- gaming.com/theotherside/homophobia.html

[> sorry spoilers for season 6 too -- Simon, 08:46:13 07/10/02 Wed

[> Here's where the "author" went wrong... - - GreatRewards, 10:16:50 07/10/02 Wed

Quote

An interesting footnote to this issue came on June 18, when Mutant Enemy gave a presentation for the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences. Joss Whedon informed the crowd that in the upcoming season, Buffy would no longer be working at the "Doublemeat Palace," a fast food restaurant where she had been working during the previous season. The reason for the change? The fast food industry didn't like the way it was being portrayed at the Doublemeat Palace and threatened to pull its advertising money. Apparently Mutant Enemy feels their story is too important for them to listen to the gay community, but not too important for them to listen to Ronald McDonald.

end Quote

Despite all the ranting and raving about "moral responsibility" and all that garbage, everyone keeps missing the one, the ONLY, key point here. BvTS is not a documentary, it is not a public service announcement. It is a television show for the sole purpose of making money. The day the show stops making money, I guarantee you they stop production. If the gay community wants to put their money where their collective mouth is, they might be able to put themselves in a position to exact some influence on BtVS, very much like the fast food industry has done.

Money talks. And in the entertainment industry, it's the only thing people will listen to. Period.

[> [> I also guarantee -- Vickie, 10:54:13 07/10/02 Wed

that if the Doublemeat Palace had some great mythic significance in the BuffyVerse according to Joss, Mutant Enemy would have fought harder to keep it in the show. I suspect it had played out its importance (largely for laughs) and they were finished with it anyway.

[> [> Re: Here's where the "author" went wrong... -- Dochawk, 11:59:56 07/10/02 Wed

Your wrong and your right. of course its about making money. But UPN is not making money on it, They are losing about 1 million dollars an episode. If the gay community really followed through and didn't watch, it would hurt, the #1 sales demographic on tv is women 18-35, where most of the kittens fall. 100,000 viewers would hurt them. (Remember it doesn't take many Nielsen viewers to represent that #, maybe 5?). But would Joss change his story for it? I doubt it, DMP really was a joke and after AYW really lost its signigicance (the depths to which buffy had fallen).

The reason alot of the kittens feel somewhat betrayed is that Joss took public credit for creating this fabulous role model couple. (this was before my time as a BtVS fan I really wish someone would post some of his comments about this) He was given awards for it. then he destroys the couple. I do think that there would be a much more legitimate complaint if Willow suddenly goes straight again, but the writers to this point have said that won't happen.

[> [> [> Re: Here's where the "author" went wrong... -- Rosie, 12:26:02 07/10/02 Wed

Joss lapped up the praise of being socially progressive enough to portray a lesbian couple. That is undoubtly true. At conventions he was very vocal about how the WB tried to stop the kiss in The Body and he said "the kiss stays or I walk". I would interpret that as self-congratulatary personally.
He is now saying he only ever saw W/T as individuals and their sexuality wasn't even an issue. He has shown no compassion when people wanted answers. He has joked about the whole gay thing being "so passe" and denied knowledge of the cliche that gay people are doomed to misery. He suggested he might have handled the story differently if he had known about it prior to planning Tara's death and Willow's turn to evil directly after their first graphic sex scenes. Well I don't buy that for a second. He studied feminist film theory in college. His writers have said in interviews for the past two years that they have knowledge of the cliche. Doug Petrie in an interview stated the writers were "hyper aware" of the movies and tv shows touching on "being a lesbian is bad" and they plan to "avoid what we feel is this old and tired cliche". Joss has said the impact of Tara's death and the ramifications on viewers seeing Tara as a gay role model was discussed in many staff meetings. Then why is he insulting my intelligence by posting in the Bronze that he had no knowledge of the cliche? He has not taken responsibility for his actions. If he had the courage of his convicions perhaps I would have a little more respect for him.
At the moment the Kittens (W/T shippers site) are campaigning for any of ME or Joss's shows to lose ratings. They are working with Dark Angel fans who have vowed not to watch any of MEs products after the cancelation of their show for Firefly. Spike fans (of which I am one) are also upset at the contrived rape in Seeing Red which was specifically designed to affect Spike's popularity and end Spuffy. Marti Noxen wanted to portray Spike as the bad boyfriend and has said in interviews that is how she is writing Spike's character this year (based on a college boyfriend she perceived as bad for her). In many interviews she has stated she identifies with Buffy and feels Spike is exploiting her. And the charatcer assassination which resulted in Spike being souled and therefore becoming a significantly altered character is the final straw for many.
In interviews writers have said the B/S relationship was not conveying the correct message and they needed people to sympahise with Buffy, not Spike. Hence Marti thinking up a rape scene at the last minute and asking Steven DeKnight to add it in his script. It was never a part of a carefully constructed charatcer arc. It was a last minute decision designed to manipulate the audience and cause James Marsters character to lose support.
And I can't saw I have any sympathy or respect for Joss remaining. The only time the impact of the events on the kitten board was even mentioned was when Steven DeKnight whinied in the Bronze the kittens are being mean to me. It is a site not devoted to the show but to a specific couple they ship. What did he expect?

[> [> [> [> Re: Here's where the "author" went wrong... -- Rosie, 12:44:11 07/10/02 Wed

Just wanted to add Steven DeKnight did not have the guts to post at the Kitten board, he simply lurked there and when he discovered the kittens were not thrilled at MEs behaviour he then decided to complain in the bronze. The kittens were understanding of the position he had been placed in and understood he was simply writing the episode, it was not his choice to kill Tara. Quite a few posters symphaised with him and understood he had no choice put to write the episode and was in an arkward situation.
The kittens only criticised him when in interviews he showed a lack of human compassion. He never once said he understood the kittens were sad and he was sorry they were hurting. He sniggered about being pursued by butch angry lesbians and how Tara wasn't really dead it was just hee hee a flesh wound. Very respectful. He also laughed about using Aly and Amber's unaired love scenes at home for porn use and was generally so insensitive that he was harshly criticised on the kitten board. They were never throwing unreasnable accusations of homophobia. That is a myth. They were upset at the way the story was coming across as homophobic whether it was intended or not that is the message many have received. Knowing Joss had Tara marked for death for tweo years (Amber Bensen confirmed this at a recent convention) angers people who praised Joss who lapped up such praise and now denies any social responsibility when he finds it inconvienient.
And the kitten board is not full of ranting irrational lesbians who call Joss prejudiced. That is a myth spreading on other boards. For the record I am a straight female with a crush on Spike. All walks of society are registed kittens including hetrosexual/homosexual/men/women.

[> [> [> [> [> tara and Spike -- Dochawk, 13:23:14 07/10/02 Wed

I know I have heard many people not just the kittens talk about Joss' raving about the relationship, but I am asking for direct quotes. it make a difference.

As for AB knowing Joss had marked her for death, she said it was the middle of Season 5, which isn't 2 years ago. What is of more import (and in Joss favor) is that the evil willow story line was concieved after Season 3, when in an interview he said he had evil plans for Willow. At that time Oz was her boyfriend. I don't blame him for telling the story he wanted to tell, I have difficulty with dishonesty and an unsympathetic tone (and I am tired of people saying that it was alright for him to lie about killing Tara before hand, the proper response to all future story lines is "NO COMMENT", you answer that way to all questions and then no hint is given. Whatever you do, you don't lie and lose people's respect because of it.

As for Spike, I disagree with you there. I think the AR was a perfectly predictable result of what was happening to Spike. But I have made my feelings regarding Spike perfectly clear and many disagree with me, but Buffy is the point of the story, not Spike.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: tara and Spike -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:13:33 07/10/02 Wed

Actually, saying no comment would be the wrong move.

"No comment" shows that they're hiding something, and people automatically assume the worst, namely Tara's death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: tara and Spike -- Rosie, 14:18:17 07/10/02 Wed

Well the creaters of Farscape hate spoilers just as much as the Buffy writers. But they have never lied to fans. They simply say you know we can't tell you that when questioned. Watch the show and wait and see. I think it would have been wiser for ME to do that rather than promise they would not kill off Tara the "heart of the show".

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> the NO Comment Comment -- Dochawk, 16:19:03 07/10/02 Wed

Actually you are wrong, as long as they are consistent and answer the same way to false spoilers. There are plenty of them. ME could even leak some if they wanted. Here are the two rumors that existed on the net in mid Jan:

The Big Scooby Death will be Anya

The Big Scooby Death will be Tara

Now, answering both with a no comment, with exactly the same response, noone has any "official" idea of which to believe. And the writers aren't lying. Instead they made a much bigger thing about denying Tara's death, which led many to assume thats what was going to happen. Greet everything the same is the best they can do (I mean essentially the entire script to Two to Go and grave, certainly teh entire story was out a month before hand, and came from well connected sources, the writers denying things then just made them look bad.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the NO Comment Comment -- Finn Mac Cool, 16:59:02 07/10/02 Wed

Well, I can forgive Joss and the other writers this because I don't really consider lying to be wrong, at least as long as the deception doesn't hurt anyone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: the NO Comment Comment -- Rosie, 12:48:25 07/12/02 Fri

You may be able to forgive them but a lot of fans are severely pissed off. Ethical and moral issues aside the conduct in interviews and the disregard for loyal viewers is not great PR. Comments made before Tara's slaughter were just plain hurtful and misleading so the kick in the guts would be harder. I give you:
"Tara is leaving over my dead body"
"We have no intention of sending Amber anywhere"
"Amber is the heart of the show".
"The core of the show is still a very safe place"
There is a difference between a no comment and just plain pissing off fans. Unfortunately for many people ME crossed that line. Whether it bothered you or not it is certainly not been helpful in keeping the fans watching Buffy. And being told that lesbians still have a role model in Willow. Huh? Did she not skin someone alive and plan to end the world? Did she not try to kill her best friends, not to mention mock a vunerable little girls pain and terrorise her. Gee there's some role model. And offensive sterotype is all I can think off for all the not so subtle suggestions that evil, whiny Andrew is gay.

[> [> [> [> Re: Here's where the "author" went wrong... -- skpe, 07:18:22 07/11/02 Thu

I think that Joss was trying for a Shakspearing tragidy arc
And in those arcs you allwas have an inocent die, Ophelia (sp?) in Hamlet comes to mind.
I can see where the kittens
Are comming from, but by having Tara as the only unalloyed good person on the show it should have been clear what her fate was going to be and I think her sexuality was errelivent

[> [> [> Can you document that? -- GreatRewards, 13:23:46 07/10/02 Wed

What proof can you offer to support your claim that UPN is "losing about 1 million dollars an episode"? I'm certainly not one to scoff at cold hard facts, but until I see them, I can hardly believe a network would carry a show - any show - at such a loss.

[> [> [> [> Re: Can you document that? -- Rattletrap, 13:47:06 07/10/02 Wed

Rufus's post below has an article that expresses this same point. I don't remember if the $1 million figure is strictly accurate, but UPN loses some money on each episode. The article explains it better than I can.

'trap

[> [> [> [> [> Well I'll be darned. -- GreatRewards, 15:10:37 07/10/02 Wed

I sure put my foot my mouth on that one, didn't I?

I guess that's why I'm not a network exec. hehe.

Thanks for the enlightenment, folks!

[> [> [> [> Partly - try the Variety article posted by Rufus, below. -- Darby, 13:48:43 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> Re: Here's where the "author" went wrong... -- wiscoboy, 06:06:59 07/14/02 Sun

Plus the fact...who cares what job Buffy has anyway? I always thought the Doublemeat Palace thing was pretty lame.

[> Tara's Death -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:41:22 07/10/02 Wed

Well, this is an old subject, but here goes:

I disagree with most of what the author said, but I will only address one point here.

They had to kill off Tara.

Joss couldn't have simply let Willow grow more power hungry and eventually evil with time for a very simple reason: such a transformation would render her irredeemable, and they wouldn't be able to include her in Season 7.

So, they needed a way for Willow to do a lot of evil things, but still leave open the possibility of rejoining the Scooby Gang with time. Tara's death was the only way to accomplish that.

Remember, less than 24 hours passed from Tara's death to Willow's collapse after Xander's yellow crayon speech. She was so consumed with pain, grief, and rage that the audience and the Scooby Gang can sympathise with her, even after all the horrible things she tried to do to them.

Tara's death even allowed Willow to commit the worst crime possible (murder) but still leaving a small window of redemption open. After all, Warren had murdered Willow's girlfriend just a few hours ago. Even the Scoobies were torn about whether they should let Willow kill him or not.

Killing Tara was the only way that ME could have Willow go evil but still garner enough sympathy and moral ambiguity that forgiveness is not totally impossible upon her return.

[> [> Re: Tara's Death -- Rosie, 11:45:05 07/10/02 Wed

It's true that having Willow become corrupted by power would be a more complex and tricky story to write than simply having her get "so juiced" on drugs. But I have to say I was disapointed when I read David fury's interview in which he stressed that Evil Willow is not actually Willow at the point when she was killing and torturing etc. She had been possessed by the magic. Spike's redemption and Faith's fall from grace were also controversial stories but I personally found them far more rewarding than Willow's 3 episode arc. I was far more gripped when Willow was mindwarping Tara and warning Giles not to piss her off. I did feel the way the story ended up was a huge cop-out. Seeing the Buffy/Willow smackdown was just cliched to me "get off me superbitch". I counted Tara as a favourite charatcer so I would have prefered her death to be meaningful. The real criticisms are that she died as a plot device. Joyce's death examined the impact on loved ones and was incrediably moving. Jenny's death was a long drawn out chase sequence which had me on the edge of my seat. And we saw Giles and Buffy grieving by the graveside at the end. And in Ats Doyle's death in Hero was very respectful of Doyle as a charatcer in his own right rather than a plot device/foil. The end with the video playing encouraged us to grieve and reflect on the charatcers heroism.
Tara's death was robbed of impact to me and I don't think it was the best choice to leave the audience with the final image of her in a body bag. And Dawn and Willow were the only ones truly grieving. Tara was mentioned so rarely in the final 3 episodes it was just salt in the wounds. Tara and Spike are my favourite characters and I wonder what the reaction would be if Spike had died in Into The Woods when Riley staked him in such a casual manner? In reality deaths often are casual and few people do leave us with a heroic memery etc. But this is tv and people do expect meaning do be attached when they lose a favourite character.
I don't think losing Tara was made worthwhile with the 3 episode arc that was ultimately delievered. I have enough trouble convincing adults that Buffy is a serious show dealing with adult issues. Episodes such as Wrecked and Seeing Red with unsubtle rapes and drug/magic abuse really don't help. I still cringe when I remember Willow groveling in the dirt after getting in a *yawn* car accident. I just found this whole season full of cliches and beneath the show. Perhaps it would have been best if the writers had stuck to metaphours rather than the heavy handeness of what was ultimately delivered. JMHO.

[> [> There's never ONLY one way... -- Darby, 12:13:40 07/10/02 Wed

How many characters on the show have gone evil but been redeemed, or at least accepted into the fold? Giles? Jenny? Angel? Anya? Spike? To say that the arc with Tara's cliched death was the ONLY way to go is to excuse an utter lack of imagination.

[> [> [> Re: There's never ONLY one way... -- Rosie, 12:28:40 07/10/02 Wed

It was the obvious and most unoriginal way to go. Killing off Tara (who everyone was speculating was marked for death anyway) so that Willow would go crazy at the loss of a lvoed one. Not particularly original.

[> [> [> It also assumes -- Sophist, 12:41:19 07/10/02 Wed

(a) that Willow (b) had to kill Warren (c) in the way she did, (d) that grief over Tara's death does, in fact, provide a means of "redemption", and (e) that no other means was available for such "redemption".

[> [> [> Re: There's never ONLY one way... -- Finn Mac Cool, 14:05:02 07/10/02 Wed

Spike has never been completely forgiven, expecially not by Xander. He is accepted but still distrusted.

Giles and Jenny didn't do anything near as bad as what Willow did.

Angel and Anya had the excuse that they were demons before, so they had a loophole of forgiveness.

If Willow did all the things she did in Villains, Two To Go, and Grave, and had no severe emotional trauma, can anyone see her being forgiven?

I personally liked Tara's death. It was shocking, gave the end of the season a brand new twist, and Warren scared me like he has rarely been able to do before.

Please suggest an alternate means of having Willow become Dark Willow but leaving her potential to be forgiven in Season 7.

[> [> [> [> Alternate S6 arcs. -- Darby, 20:31:02 07/10/02 Wed

As was mentioned in the article, if ME had stuck with the established "rules" of dark magic, instead of substituting a truly lame drug analogy, there are any number of excuses that would make Willow much more forgiveable than she is now and a huge number of fresh approaches to getting Willow to "evil" acts.

As an aside, I'm not sure how Willow gets forgiven from what they've made her do. Someone is high, gets mad at a friend and runs them down with their car. Is that something their other friends should forgive? Willow several times put her friends in similar jeopardy, from which they survived partly by blind luck. Forget trying to end the world, Willow took on her friends as personally as an ass-kicking with no regard for their safety.

The natural progression of the established arc: Willow slowly gets taken over by the emotional negativity inherent in dark magicks (remember, that seemed to be the way they were headed initially), but can't be dissuaded from the power it affords, until she hurts someone - Tara? - and decides to fix it with a spell that immerses her in the demonic side of magic and threatens to unravel reality. That seems more forgiveable in the Buffyverse. For a change, I'd channel Willow's substitute power-trip, computers, for a Terminator-style impending doom (just as a change of pace from their other apocalypses, and hell, spend some of that new UPN budget!) that could have fit the nerds as well, either as villains or reluctant heroes. It's not difficult to take the first third of S6 and run it to Dark Willow any number of ways while avoiding all sorts of potential cliches, especially ones that you're aware of ahead of time, as ME was about dead/evil lesbians and the horror standard, "have sex and be killed by the villain."

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Alternate S6 arcs. -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:37:53 07/10/02 Wed

Interesting. They could have done that, though that would have lacked part of the point BtVS has been trying to make for awhile (namely that humans don't need demonic influence to be horrendous villains).

I'm not sure which storyline I prefer, since yours gets rid of the awful addiction part, but lacks character death.

Yes, I like it when a major character dies. It's just kind of like getting a dose of cold water to the face to wake you up. All right, if you're a Tara fan or a W/T fan, it's not so good. However, her personality has never seemed quite as well developed as I'd like. Totally IMHO, of course.

I wasn't saying it was because magic was equated with drugs that Willow has hope for forgiveness.

First, by having Warren kill a loved member of the Gang, Willow's murder of him has some justification (all depending on your point of view; some say it's unforgiveable, others think it should have been done a while ago).

Second, when something tragic happens, like the death of a loved one, people often lose their senses for a short while afterwards. This is what happened with Willow. I've gotten upset when something bad has happened, and have torn up whatever is handy and have honestly felt like hurting someone, and I've never experienced anything like what Willow felt when Tara died. If I were in Willow's place, going through the same pain she was in, and I had phenomanal magic powers, I would probably cause just as much destruction. Sympathy, and thus possible forgiveness, can happen because many of us, including the Scoobies, suspect we might do exactly the same thing in Willow's shoes.

I've read a quote by Douglas Petrie saying that Willow was really just possessed by dark magic. It wasn't really her. That sounds like a cop out, until you remember that Willow went to the Magic Box and drained the books. So, while Petrie's opinion means the real Willow didn't do this, she allowed something she knew to be dangerous take control of her. Plus, ME writers have lied to us before (note that I don't hold that against them).

[> Bitterness over Tara's Death... -- ZachsMind, 18:48:20 07/10/02 Wed

Bitterness over Tara's death has gotten enough attention and I for one believe it to be ultimately unfounded. It is true that there are not enough fictional characters in television today who happen to be homosexual, but it is also true that there are MORE than there used to be. If one observes television and movie history regarding African Americans, one can see acceptance and toleration is a long and winding road. Tara's death is not one step forward and two steps back. Tara didn't die because she was gay. She died because Joss Whedon has a story to tell.

I'm not gonna bother clicking a link that's retreading an old argument which has been argued down many times before.

[> [> I agree fully, It's about the story not viewer preferences -- Majin Gojira, 05:56:15 07/11/02 Thu

If a story teller tried to make everyone happy by bending to the viewers wills, the show would suck. By intentionally hurting the audience like this, Joss has reminded us that this is a "HORROR/Comedy". What's more horrible than the seneless killing of a beloved and interesting character? I liked it! I might seem masochistic, but from a story perspective, it's a stroke of genious!

[> [> [> What makes "The Story" privileged? -- Sophist, 08:31:56 07/11/02 Thu

On one level, yes, the story can't run by taking an opinion poll over what should happen next. OTOH, this is an industry run by ratings, i.e., by viewer preference. This means that, story or not, ME should not be in the business of turning off loyal viewers in the story arcs. There is a line here; whether they crossed it in this particular case seems to be a matter of judgment.

I'm curious too: why is it that so many people say "the story"? What does that mean? The story, after all, encompasses many different, interrelated aspects, including both plotline and character development. If a relationship between 2 characters is an integral part of the "story", if ME brags publicly about creating that relationship, if that relationship then contributes in some way to the ratings success, then what do people mean when they say that "the story" takes precedence?

[> [> [> [> The narrative -- Rahael, 08:51:15 07/11/02 Thu

Without entering into the ins and outs of the killing off of Tara, I guess how I see this is that a narrative, a story has an implacable life of its own, separate from its creator - once a writer starts writing his story, he might find that the characters leap to life, refuse to do exactly what they are told, and the story has an organic quality where it must go along a certain line. An inevitable logic, as it were.

A writer may work very carefully to make the structure of his story as symmetrical and plotted as 'The Mayor of Casterbridge', but I'm betting a lot of it comes out fully formed, since our need to tell stories constructs ordered narratives for us. Themes, images, motifs all tumble out.

Now, I'm not a fan of Campbell or a believer in the collective unconscious, but I do believe that as we grow, we internalise ideas about structure and narrative that are inherently satisfying: emotionally, structurally, thematically.

This is how I understood Joss' comments that he was a 'slave to the narrative' - the story of Buffy is larger than he is, and larger than ME. It is greater than the sum of its parts.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: The narrative -- Sophist, 09:35:24 07/11/02 Thu

I don't want to get into the Tara issue either. I'm trying to understand a more general point. I'm having a hard time articulating it, so bear with me.

My question was posed in response to a post that said, in essence, that we should accept Tara's death because it was necessary for "the story". What I understood from this was that "the story" is more important than, for example, any particular relationship between two characters.

I don't write much fiction, which is what generated my question. I can understand how "a story" might come pouring out of a writer. What I don't see is how one separates one aspect of "the story" from another.

Many people here have frequently argued that BtVS is not "just" about Buffy, that every character has a story to tell. I agree, and I think you do too. But if so, isn't the character (and his/her relationship with other characters) just as integral to "the story" as anything else?

A "story" can, obviously, take an infinite variety of paths. The writer chose one, and presumably chose it for reasons important to him/her. What I don't get is what makes that particular path "privileged" above all the other paths, such that we should defer to it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> A bit confused -- Rahael, 09:48:13 07/11/02 Thu

Are we seeing each character or each couple as a 'separate aspect'?

I would tend instead to think of broad themes as separate aspects. Buffy's ennui, Willow's desire to escape, Spike's self immolation in the fire of passion, Dawn's deep boiling anger, all those are separate aspects of the story.

The whole 'each character has a separate story to tell', I think I have argued against very specifically. All the characters are as imprisoned in the story/narrative as we are in our lives, mired in flesh and blood.

If the story moves forward, the logic which drives it will make all the characters move. The impulse is general, not specifically driven. One little push will send all the characters moving - and that general consequence, viewed in the altogether - that is the narrative. What arises from the interaction of the characters is the story, not the characters themselves. They have no independent lives from each other.

It's not so much that Tara had to be sacrificed on the altar of the God of Narratives - it's just that she got pitilessly mown down. It's clear that once Joss thought of this, it just felt so right, that he had to do it, despite the unhappiness he felt (and so he says) about having to do it. I can't think of any other reason for simply killing off a good character....

I mean, what was the point of making Anna Karenina jump under a train?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit confused -- Sophist, 10:47:06 07/11/02 Thu

LOL. Not surprised; I'm confused.

Each character is a separate aspect. However, no character (indeed, no person) is an island. It is the relationships between characters that make them fully human. I wouldn't know how to consider Buffy as an isolated abstract.

Sorry if I got your position wrong. I thought you argued that Buffy's story was not the only one being told, that all the characters were. Maybe that's just another way of saying that "The Narrative" covers all?

What I don't understand is the statement that Anna Karenina (just to stay away from Tara) had to die because that was part of the story. What story? It was one story, but one among many alternatives. Stories really do raise the issue of alternate universes. What makes this story/universe special such that it has a privileged position and we should just accede to it?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit confused -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:56:11 07/11/02 Thu

A quote from Joss:

"Dude, it's my show, I can do whatever I want."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit confused -- ponygirl, 11:54:29 07/11/02 Thu

"What I don't understand is the statement that Anna Karenina (just to stay away from Tara) had to die because that was part of the story. What story? It was one story, but one among many alternatives. Stories really do raise the issue of alternate universes. What makes this story/universe special such that it has a privileged position and we should just accede to it?"

Reminds me of a quote from a Hal Hartley movie: "The trouble with Americans is they always want a tragedy with a happy ending." There are rules to story-telling, rules which can certainly be broken, but only after they are fully understood. One of the rules is that a tragedy requires a death. Another is that characters require motivations for their actions, the greater the action (say suicide, or world destruction) the greater the necessary motivator.

Have to go with Finn's Joss quote below. This is not our story to tell. As critical viewers we can offer alternate possibilities, but ultimately we must cede the privilege to the author of the universe we have willingly chosen to enter.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A bit confused -- Sophist, 12:31:42 07/11/02 Thu

Part of my problem is that I have a hard time separating the work of art from the observer. Neither exists without the other. One way to ask my question is to ask, why is the work of art more privileged than the observer?

That, however, is going a little farther than I really meant. In the course of the discussions about Tara, a number of posters have said that "the story" must take precedence over viewer preferences. I'm not sure what this means.

If it means only that JW can tell his story and I can tell mine, fine. I understand that.

However, it seems to mean more than this, to mean that the discussion ends there. It's this aspect that I don't get. There is no such thing as "THE" story, there is only "A" story. Saying that Tara had to die, or Willow had to kill Warren, or Xander had to walk out on Anya "because that's the story" is to substitute a non-explanation for critical thinking. It manifestly did NOT "have" to be that way in any of those 3 cases.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree, there are no absolutes -- ponygirl, 13:17:45 07/11/02 Thu

Of course! The story could have gone a million different ways. One of the first things all those creaky writers' manuals say is to know the story you're trying to tell. If you're telling the story of how Heidi, that plucky Swiss miss, finds a lost goat, you shouldn't go off and follow her grandfather around as he drinks with pals. I have no idea where that example came from. Anyhoo, I'm assuming that with Willow, Joss wanted to tell the story of how a lovable nerd could descend into earth-destroying darkness. For him the death of Tara was the best path to take. Was it the only path? No of course not, but we can easily get into a whole debate on subjective/objective truths and I'd probably get a bit lost.

I agree that art only becomes art in the response of the viewer, however the viewer is changeable, the response is changeable-- because of that, for me, the piece itself should be static. The observor cannot be allowed to permanently impose his/herself on the artwork (of course there are many types of art where doing just that is precisely the point, this isn't one of them) because their response is not fixed, it may change upon every viewing. So, yes, I do feel that the work of art has privilege over the observor, but the response generated by their synthesis is the most privileged of all.

Does that make any sense?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Agree, there are no absolutes -- redcat, 13:50:37 07/11/02 Thu

Like Sophist, I often question the assertion that "the work of art has privilege over the observor," but I completely agree with you that "the response generated by their synthesis is the most privileged of all." I also think this suggests an answer to Sophist's concerns about fixed narratives, his sense that somehow "we" are being asked to "just accede to [them]" because we are the observers and not the artists. I think this board, and our vigorous habits of contestation, imagination and revision are evidence that even finished narratives are rarely completely static.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The Perilous Plunge off of Rickenbacker Falls -- cjl, 14:44:54 07/12/02 Fri

No artist working in a commercial medium is completely invulnerable to audience pressure. At one point, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was thoroughly sick of Sherlock Holmes, and created the character of Moriarty for one reason: he wanted a foe worthy enough to kill Holmes dead, dead, DEAD.

Unfortunately, Conan Doyle didn't count on the endless stream of letters imploring, demanding, begging him to revive Holmes, and eventually he caved into the pressure and brought Holmes back for a whole new series of adventures. There are probably millions of examples like this in literature.

Joss certainly isn't immune to this kind of pressure either. The immense popularity of Spike (remember, Spike was supposed to die midway through S2!) might have convinced Joss to go for B/S and see how things went from there...

So, yes, when it comes to commercial entertainment, the line between the artist and the audience can get awfully thin at times. Joss might say he's only listening to this abstract entity called the Narrative--but I guarantee he hasn't turned a deaf ear toward his viewers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nice point about art and the viewer. Thanks. -- Sophist, 16:27:26 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks 'cat and Sophist for giving me something to ponder for most of last night! -- ponygirl, 06:14:54 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Anna and Levin, death and rebirth -- Rahael, 13:30:15 07/11/02 Thu

You'll have to forgive me, I'm sketchy on the details, I last read AK about 5 years ago, and its waiting on that monumental pile of books-to-be-reread.

When I first read it, I stayed up all night - and as morning broke, I neared the end, and Anna killed herself. Surely the end of the book? but no. My lasting image, the one that made me gasp was not her death, but the image of Levin, happy in his marriage, looking at his land, his newly ploughed fields.

Anna's unhappiness and death could have appeared lessened by the fact that Levin managed to marry the girl he loved, but it struck home - after death, life goes on. Anna might be dead, but others continue to live, and love and keep ploughing their fields......it really did have a profound effect on me.

So the narrative cannot work if either event is isolated - they lessen in meaning. The complexity of the work that it is simultaneously tragic, but hopeful works because all the elements hang together. That's why, when I should have been exhausted, having read all through the night, I closed the book feeling refreshed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To put it in classical terms -- Sophist, 16:37:20 07/11/02 Thu

I understand you to say that tragedy is (or at least can be) cathartic. I agree. The response you describe to AK fits well with my response to Becoming and The Gift. S6 seemed intended to evoke a similar response, but it didn't (in me; not speaking for others). Hence, in part, my disappointment.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree -- Rahael, 08:16:58 07/12/02 Fri

I was just trying to illustrate my point about narratives working as a whole. One event without the other lessens in meaning.

I've quoted this before, because our activity on the board sometimes makes me laugh and think of it -

The Reader Over My Shoulder

You, reading over my shoulder, peering beneath
My writing arm - I suddenly feel your breath
Hot on my hand or on my nape.
So interrupt my theme, scratching these few
Words on the margin for you, namely you,
Too-human shape fixed in that shape: -

All the sayings of things against myself
And for myself I have well done myself.
What now, old enemy, shall you do
But quote and underline, thrusting yourself
Against me, as ambassador of myself,
In damned confusion of myself and you?

For you in strutting, you in sycophancy,
Have played too long this other self of me,
Doubling the part of judge and patron
With that of creaking grind-stone to my wit.
Know me, have done: I am a proud spirit
And you forever clay. Have done!

Robert Graves

But, to be serious, I also want to say that narratives are not closed. They are open, and they have huge gaping wholes that are only completed by the viewer/reader. That creates a unique experience, perhaps different with each consumption.

How many of us have found something different in each reading of a book/poem/episode? With each reading, a new connection is made, a new experience, a new narrative. My experience of Anna Karenina, of the Gift, of Bargaining, of the Divine Comedy will always have something different from your experience, and each is special to us. The board exists for us to share/compare/critique this, and the whole experience is even more enriched!

So I guess I want to say that the narrative structure is completed when we read it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Very nice. -- Sophist, 08:49:34 07/12/02 Fri

I've learned from this Board (and from you not least) that the narrative structure is not complete when I read it, but only when I read it and begin to understand how others read it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree -- aliera, 14:18:23 07/12/02 Fri

Yes, I agree. And although I enjoy all the posts above and below, the discussion feels incomplete without hearing from someone who is involved with the art field professionally. Perhaps I have missed it and one of our posters is a fiction writer and speaking from that perspective; but, I am only hearing the audience speaking.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Artists on the Board -- Darby, 07:55:25 07/14/02 Sun

A lot of us have artistic backgrounds, visual and writing.

It's been years since I was an art major and attempting to be a fiction writer (I don't miss the rejection notices!), but I remember some of it "from the inside." I'm writing nonfiction now (playing hooky from my current assignment to write this), where understanding the needs and desires of an audience is, for me, the most important consideration.

That's a lot of where this thread derives - fictional characters are not real people and to some extent, because they are being shown to a kind-of-omniscient audience, I don't believe that it is fair to create a major personality trait out of nowhere (that's why comparisons to real-world humans aren't compelling to me here) just to serve a momentary need of the plot. After reading responses in this thread, I'm no longer as convinced that Dark Willow's cruelty had absolutely no foreshadows, but I still don't feel that we were shown a character whose descent into Darkness (without outside possession by some other entity, which I'm convinced was not the intent here) was done quite competently - the writers revealed some nastiness which was perfectly foreseeable based on past shows, but some was not.

I should say that this is a minor criticism, and I liked the snarky Willow, probably for the same reason that the writers couldn't resist making her, but it just bothers me in retrospect - one of those "Wait a minute...!" moments you have on the way home from the movie theatre.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ATPo artistry -- aliera, 13:37:49 07/14/02 Sun

Yes, I know and thank you for responding so pleasantly. It wasn't a very well thought out post.

I don't think it's the lack of artistic background... but, rather that the perspective when posting is clearly that of an audience member. I've have been trying to review the archives for this year and I know a few posters are involved in painting or other visual arts...but the balance is definitely on the writing and analytic side (not saying that's necessarily bad, mind you except that most writing wouldn't necessarily be considered art or at least I don't think so.

As a side note, I mentioned your posts to my father the other day at dinner (he's a retired turbine aerodynamicist from GE) in discussing the wide range of backgrounds of Buffy lovers. Pretty amazing group, really. The conversation went something like,

"How come your phone lines always busy now?"

"Well, there's these message boards I read about the philosophy, etc. of this TV show."

"What TV show?"

"Well....ummm... Buffy the Vampire Slayer."

Looking at me now like I've announced an intention to donate all my worldly goods to the Landis Arboretum and go on sabatical to Africa to study rock art.

"Aren't you a little old for that?" Let's see, she's obviously going through a midlife crisis...

"No, no...it's very interesting...there's philosophers, and students, and editors and writers and lawyers and even a physics teacher."

"Oh well if science is involved...."

There may be a preponderance of writers; but, the group certainly runs the spectrum... to the advantage of all.

You wrote, "I should say that this is a minor criticism, and I liked the snarky Willow, probably for the same reason that the writers couldn't resist making her, but it just bothers me in retrospect - one of those "Wait a minute...!" moments you have on the way home from the movie theatre."

I think I took your post at the level you intended, at least I hope so. To be honest sometimes people post because the issue is of importance and at others because it's fun to debate. My posts tend to fall in the realm of stray thoughts while I'm taking a break from my the database maintenance project which is dragging on into month two grrrrgh....and so probably shouldn't be read too seriously. (where's the humor font?) Not the best method of posting for this type of a board, I know.

After swallowing the Key (backstory came how much later?)concept and the Gypsy Curse idea (again, backstory to follow), this just isn't an aspect of the show I ponder too much anymore. I know our group and your post is primarily focusing on character development; but, if we look back at the previous discussions on Willow in October, etc. archives people were foreshadowing just this type of situation, so I'd don't think most people are retconning.

And now we know Willow OD'd on *bad* magic, ooooh Well! so there's that blank check already written that wants to make character development irrelevant because she was possessed by the magic.

In fact, if anything I could have used quite a bit less build up this year. As stated in previous ramblings, the addiction story line didn't click for me, not subtle enough for metaphor not realistic enough for real TV, not in keeping with my erroneous ideas of magic in the Buffyverse.

For myself, I draw, but it's for personal pleasure not with any intent of selling pieces, or sending a message or creating a statement of our times. I draw because there is something in a face that compells and I must draw. The pictures become accurate portraits but also more. So I can quote Joss interviews but not really understand what he was trying to do since I don't sketch with others in mind. I was interested in hearing if anyone else could discuss it from this perspective.

Thanks for the response...and if you made it this far, thanks for reading.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Open narratives -- MaeveRigan, 12:52:47 07/13/02 Sat

Maybe this has been said already (I admit I haven't read the entire thread)--but a continuing TV series is open in one way that a novel or movie isn't--there's always next week, or next season.

Thus, even IF W/T at the end of B6 exemplified the "lesbian cliche," as long as the show continues, and people keep watching, it doesn't have to stop there and the cliche can be overturned. Even if Tara returns in some way/shape/form, that's not going to satisfy the die-hard (sorry!) W/T shippers, but if Willow doesn't stay crazed/evil, that should help. If she remains gay, gets a new girlfriend, wouldn't that make a difference?

Of course, like life, it doesn't happen if you don't stick with it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree entirely -- Rahael, 04:54:57 07/15/02 Mon

I was confining myself to the relatively more closed 'artifacts'. Buffy of course, is always open, and even the writers cannot know where they are going to end up. Even Joss doesn't plan that far ahead, though I'm sure he has a feeling, a place where he wants to get to at certain points. The destination lies ahead. The path's unclear, uncertain. That's why I'm a Spoiler trollop, and why the thrill of the chase is so exciting.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The narrative -- cjc36, 09:32:55 07/15/02 Mon

What is privileged is up to each individual writer to decide, I guess. In my one attempt to write a novel, I was forced to deconstruct 2/3 through, because my secondary protagonist started screaming for more pages, while my supposedly main character ran out of runway, story wise. In subsequent redrafts, I corrected the problem and finished the next version. The "story" took over.

But what does this mean? It meant for me that I could tell the story of the former secondary lead better than the first. Her story resonated with an arc that would do all I had set out to do in the story, and give support and MORE meaning to the character that was bumped from the staring role. Once I'd figured out she was the lead, it was as if I'd found a 'path to ground', and the story was, essentially, done, an equation that equaled something definite rather than vague.

Willow's decent resonated with me. I was angry but felt sorry for her. To me, ME did good. If they didn't do good, they still have the right to do badly.

I guess I take freedom of artistic expression - even bad artistic expression, which is basically freedom of speech over making people mad.

Now should Joss/ME have taken all the 'credit' for creating a lesbian couple to begin with? Perhaps not, but compliments are hard to ignore.

My 2 cents.

[> [> [> [> Re: What makes "The Story" privileged? -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:53:43 07/11/02 Thu

Joss has given the audience many shocks (Angel's turn to evil, Jenny Calender dying, Angel being sent to hell, Joyce's death and the tragedy of The Body, Buffy's death and post-ressurection angst). But, despite all of it, the show maintains a loyal fanbase. Joss Whedon has done things like this before. How many people were shocked and outraged when Buffy killed Angel? A lot, but the show's popularity didn't sink into a slime pit. Joss has given worse emotional shocks than this, and still people keep coming back.

[> [> [> [> Characters and Plot -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:09:49 07/11/02 Thu

Yes, character developement is a great part of the story. And few could say that Willow's rampage of grief was not deep characterization.

While the W/T relationship did help ratings success, don't you think all the questions about what's going to happen to Willow and how will the Gang react to Tara's death boosted ratings?

And where do you get the idea that their relationship was integral? It may or may not be your favorite, but that doesn't mean the show can't easily get by without it.

[> [> [> [> Huh ? -- Ete, 12:03:21 07/11/02 Thu

"On one level, yes, the story can't run by taking an opinion poll over what should happen next. OTOH, this is an industry run by ratings, i.e., by viewer preference. This means that, story or not, ME should not be in the business of turning off loyal viewers in the story arcs. There is a line here; whether they crossed it in this particular case seems to be a matter of judgment."

I'm so surprised to read this. Really, they have a duty to satisfy us ? Why ? Are ME our employees ?

I'm not sure if this particular arc was well done, but wether it is a stroke of genious or a very bad aesthetic decision doesn't matter. It's their work of art, they tell the story they want.

We (as the public) can like it or not, it comes after the story. You don't create art so as to satisfy the public, so as to sell, it doesn't make sense.

Now, I know that this could be just a difference of culture, because French and Americans do not envision creative products the same way, or do other people feel the same way than I ?

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh ? -- Sophist, 12:17:07 07/11/02 Thu

ME may very well be trying to create works of art as one of its motivations. I'm sure another motivation is making money. In any case, UPN is in the business of selling commercials in order to finance its use of airtime. UPN uses this money for, among other things, paying ME to create art. My only point was that if the viewers don't want to watch BtVS, UPN won't pay ME to create it. I was commenting on the business aspect, not the artistic one.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh ? -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:02:02 07/11/02 Thu

As I've pointed out in a different post:

Joss has done far more tragic things than the death of Tara. Angel/Angelus, anybody? However, the show's fanbase only seems to grow. I doubt this event will harm the popularity of BtVS. Besides, Buffy is contracted for one more season; even if it does bomb, UPN is stuck.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh ? -- Dochawk, 23:32:09 07/11/02 Thu

Ete, we started this discussion in chat yesterday. American Television (and French tv for that matter) is simply a place for advertisers to get your eyeballs. There is nothing at all about art involved. The job of the producer of a tv show is to get you to watch their show and therefore watch the commercials that surround it. The story is secondary. It is the means by which a good tv show grabs you, but remember Baywatch was once the worlds most watched tv show. Great story eh? Alhtough Joss may think his # priority is his story and to himself as an artist, his most important job is to deliver that desired demographic to UPN. Thats why they were willing to shell out 2.3 million dollars an episode. if Joss creates a story that drives viewers away, he will hear about it from the network (you wont, Joss has a 20 million dollar contract with Fox, neither is going to soil that relationship in public). As long as he delivers the viewers he can tell any story he wants, but his first responsibility is to the people who pay the bills. Which are in essence the viewers. So yes, in a way we are his employers, because its by our response that he gets paid.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh ? -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:35:09 07/12/02 Fri

Given how popular Buffy is, and that Joss has been with it for six years, plus his work on Angel and some movie scripts, do you really think he NEEDS to be paid any more? He could probably retire right now and live very well for the rest of his life. And, UPN can't stop him from telling his story, because he's got that contract for the seventh season, which looks like it might be the last. So, really, Joss doesn't have to give a hoot about advertisers.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh ? -- auroramama, 12:03:56 07/13/02 Sat

Re: Joss: his most important *job objective*, as defined by his direct employers, may be to attract advertiser dollars (although there's also a PR/marketing aspect: BtVS has brought prestige to UPN, which is thought to have an indirect effect on viewers and advertisers.) But he's the one who defines his artistic and personal objectives. His most important artistic objective seems to be to create the story he wants to create. If his job objectives compromise his artistic and personal objectives past a certain point, he'll quit his job. Just like the rest of us.

[> [> [> [> "The Story" -- Arya_Stark, 18:17:58 07/11/02 Thu

Well... I may not be a writer, but my mother is and after hearing her talk about her writing for years I can tell you that "The Story" can take on a life of its own above and beyond even what the writer intended. I have on a couple of occasions heard her stating (or complaining) that the story had taken an entirely different route than she had intended or imagined. It was just what the characters needed to do. The characters become so real to her and have their own personalities and sometimes do things she never intended.

So it seems to me that for my mother, as a writer, there may by an infinite number of "Story" possibilities at the beginning of a piece of work, but each choice and word narrows that "Story" down. So by the end there is only one story to tell.

Maybe I'm just putting words into my mother's mouth, after all I have never talked to her about this specific portion of writing. It certainly does seem to be that for my mother there is only one possible story -- and it often dictates itself, not the writer dictating the story.

[> [> [> Re: I agree fully, It's about the story not viewer preferences -- Rosie, 15:57:32 07/11/02 Thu

I'm not pissed that Tara's dead as much as I am sad at how poorly it was done. How could you not laugh at the way Willow's subtle descent into evil was handled. "Candles are like bongs to witches". Yeah okay. A strung out Amy stealing sage and forcing a hit on poor little victim Willow who has the shakes and needs to gulp down some water.
But the season was worth it. We got the sensational 3 episodes of evil Willow who lost most of the audience anyway when she tried to kill a defenceless Dawn and wanted to kill her best friend (not to mention having a genocidal plan to end the world). Great way of handling Willow's change from a desire for vengeance to a wish to end the world. She just wants to save the poor bastades didn't you know.
And it all ends with Willow at a satanic temple thrilling all wicans as she is drained of power by Xander. That was so worth Tara's death.
Watch Farscape they know how to gradually build up a plot arc over the season and make it interesting. When John Crichton was being driven insance in season 2 I was griped by his visions and his maniac behaviour etc. Willow drying out was entertainment how? It was just filler while we waited for the big climax in the final. That's fine but did the middle section of the season have to drag so badly? Seems like the writers have to work on their pacing. And perhaps someone should remind Marti that no she isn't Sylvia Plath. Enough of angst for angsts sake.

[> [> [> [> Re: I agree fully, It's about the story not viewer preferences -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:41:16 07/11/02 Thu

Hence Season 6 often being called Buffy's worst season ever.

[> [> [> [> [> I quite liked season six.....angst and all.....:) - - Rufus, 04:13:00 07/12/02 Fri

Life isn't just "hugs and puppies" and season six gave us enough pain and suffering to make the most jovial of us consider just how sharp razor blades are...but everyone has had a point in their lives when they must have felt like the world and their lives had spun out of control never to return to any order or happiness...but depending on what we do with our choices and the extras circumstances thrown in, we can all crawl out of our most grave times and enjoy the world and see it in a new way. I liked most of this year, only finding a few eps that I don't fancy. ME took a chance with reality, mixing reality with the metaphor until the Buffyverse became a little too real for comfort. I have to wonder what we and the writers learned from the experience.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Once more climbing on the S6 supporter bandwagon -- ponygirl, 07:16:24 07/12/02 Fri

I have been a fan of the show since the second season, sometimes obsessively so, but I can honestly say I have never felt as connected emotionally to any show as I have with this season. I feel like I went through a journey this season, as hard as anything in this life, but ultimately rewarding. I have to go with Stephanie Zacharek's quote about the show being something that "rubs, hard, at the core of who you think you really are". It's a pretty unsettling feeling, the kind you get when your perceptions are being slowly and permanently shifted into a new way of seeing.

Season 6 baby!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Adding my voice again to pro-Season 6 -- shadowkat, 07:39:49 07/12/02 Fri

Before Season 6, I only thought of Btvs as a nice fantasy
show, it held my interest, I watched it every tuesday, taped when I wasn't home. But did not keep the tapes and certainly did not write essays.

Season 6 changed all that. This season there were episodes
that made my jaw drop by the risks the show was taking.
Smashed - never had I seen anyone do such an erotically
charged sex scene. Or a violent one. OMWF? They flipped
the musical form on its head and made us feel as if we had entered the show. Normal Again? They asked what is reality
and did an ironic play on the concept. Outside of maybe two or three episodes - I thought this was the most ambitious,
though-provoking season, it certainly put everything else
I saw on tv to shame.

From my own email correspondence - I know this season grabbed numerous new fans, people who thought of Btvs as just a show about high school kids before now. Now they've faithfully watched all those re-runs on FX and realized
it was never meant for teens. If it weren't for this season, I seriously doubt we'd have some of the posters on this board that we do. (I wouldn't be...)

just my ten cents worth...;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Angst -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:42:54 07/12/02 Fri

This season certainly was a great, angsty drama.

The only problem, in my POV, is that there was little in it besides angsty drama.

After "Tabula Rasa", comedy was virtually gone from all episodes. Warren, while he got to be suitable disturbing, was never much of a threat to Buffy. Also, the supernatural came to be tacked in simply to fulfill viewer expectations.

For many seasons Buffy has been great at mixing comedy, drama, angst, fantasy, horror and action into a collective whole. I don't have a problem with giving drama/angst the focus, but it ignored all the other genres it has utilized so well in the past.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Angst -- Rosie, 10:15:07 07/12/02 Fri

I think it's unfair when people say others didn't like this season because of the angst (not saying anyone on this board has specifically, talking in general). I loved the angst in season 2 and 5.
I disliked season 6 because I felt I was being talked down to. The dialoge was mediocre and the writers seemed to have forgotten subtly and metaphour. How often did Willow mention breasts or tell us she was gay again? Trying to drum in the point to a thick audience much.
And as for Willow's drugged up rants. Willow's addiction was just embarrassing melodrama and it wasn't character exploration in my mind. Willow came across as a total cartoon just to remind us this isn't really Willow and we should let her of the hock. Seeing her snuffling "I need help" after a car accident belongs on soaps not Bts. I mean first she has a legitimate need for vengeance, then she has a green psychedelic orgasm leaving her pining for planetry destruction. And the dumb movie cliches she spouted were an emarassment. Why not just have her say "Gee I've got the munchies. Got any chips Giles". Seriously when did the writers last hear drug talk? "I'm so juiced". Whatever. It just seemed like ME were taking the oppurtunity to show off their special effects budget and getting Willow to scream like a banshee at the police station, have catfights with Buffy etc for viewers amusement. I was hoping for a subtle exploration of the darkness within her as a seasonal arc.
And what happened to irony? Was I the only one cringing when Buffy tells Dawn "I want to show you the world...God there's so much I want to show you". And then taking her on a tour of Sunnydale.
Spike's character development was nonexistent aside from having degrading sex with Buffy in dumpsters or up the ass in the Bronze. I was thrilled to watch his redemption in season 5. In Spiral he teamed up with the scoobies offering the possibility of frienships with Xander, developing friendsip with Dawn etc. Then this season each episode he is treated diffently by the scoobies. One episode Xander is playing cards with Spike or telling him to find a girlfriends. Then they are sworn enemies again. Spike becoming an international arms dealer was just weird. He lives in a crypt with no phone. How does that plot development make sense? There was no continuity in Spike's character. Marti admitted the scene where he raped Buffy was not part of a well thought out character arc. It was a last minute development to generate sympathy for Buffy as people were siding with Spike and Buffy needed to come across as the victim. It was purely to manipulate the audience as the plan this season was after building up Spike in season 5 they were going to knock him down, convince us her was evil and then trick us by giving him a soul (hence misleading us with Spike calling Buffy a bitch etc). If you have to explain your intentions in an interview odds are you weren't too successful.
Buffy was using Spike as a sex bunny and to gratify her ego ("tell me you love me"). And the episode DMP just depressed the hell out of me.
Dawn is constantly whining and has been voted the worst/most irritating character on tv. She is a whiny steroytypical cliche. And as for the anvils dropped about her slaying in a spin-off in the final. I actually like Dawn in season 5 too.
Giles absence sucked and his reason for leaving a severely depressed Buffy was not plausible. He left a gap and you can see that when he returns how badly he is needed.
Xander became annoying and difficult to sympathise with.
That is why I personally loathed season 6.
I enjoyed the first half with Buffy struggling to get over being in heaven. I do like darkness if it is done right. This season wasn't even close to fine art. JMO of course.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Balancing Angst and Humor and Metaphor -- aliera, 11:06:30 07/12/02 Fri

I'm certainly not going to disagree with any of the points made above. My own continued curiosity about what happened and where we go from here would belie my protestations. Yet Joss's comments themselves seem to recognize that although S6 was exactly what they planned and as happy as he was with the results, next year needs to be different.

[> [> Xander and Neil Gaiman might show us a way out of this mess... -- KdF, 05:07:29 07/12/02 Fri

"You ever think maybe the reason you haven't found a great relationship on the Hellmouth is... because it's a Hellmouth? Seems to me it's a pretty terrible place to try to build anything"

Xander - "I Was Made To Love You"

Generally, BtVS is a series that has always recoiled from happy endings. The sheer extent of emotional pain and disaster that we've seen might be rationally explained as a natural consequence of life haunted by violence. However, Xander's musings raise another possibility that might make those who object to Tara's death a little less outraged, if it were explicitly stated. What if the presence of the Hellmouth in Sunnydale means that BtVS's characters are menaced not just by vampires and demons, but by an inherently malevolent influence on fate and the universe? To put it bluntly, that if you live on a Hellmouth, then the consequences of all events will tend to be as hideous and entropic as possible. What some of the people who are attacking ME seem to miss is that there has been a tendency throughout the last six years for what shouldn't happen to happen. Yes, Tara and Willow should have lived happily ever after, but the Hellmouth didn't want it that way.

The row over Season Six's climax recalls a similar controversy some years ago over the death of Wanda in Neil Gaiman's Sandman. (For those of you who didn't read the books, Wanda was a female-to-male transexual who was killed in a hurricane created by a somewhat amoral witch literally "drawing down the moon".) Because the Moon Goddess had made it clear that She didn't consider Wanda to be a woman, some fans argued that Wanda's death was an example of a minority character being killed off because the author subconsciously didn't want them in his story. Gaiman defended himself on similar "needs of the story" grounds to ME, but also argued that in his universe being a god didn't necessarily imply that you weren't a dumb bigot.

If we assume that the Hellmouth creates the conditions where the worst possible events happen, then Tara's death and Willow's frenzy become yet further examples of what should not happen in a just universe. I hope that this approach might be more comfortable in reading the "message" of Season 6.

[> [> [> Oh ****! Massive apologies to everyone -- KdS, 05:31:33 07/12/02 Fri

Sorry, bit new at this posting thing. My handle above should be KdS, which has a purely personal meaning, not KdF, which I notice has very nasty connotations (which I completely disassociate myself from).

[> Addiction, Temptation and the two triads -- darrenK, 11:09:05 07/11/02 Thu

Yesterday, I sent the following to the author:

I completely agree that the "temptations of power" storyline was more interesting than the "addiction to magic" storyline. Mutant Enemy obviously decided to switch them so as not to completely lose Willow. Addiction can be an excuse for her actions, i.e. she was not herself, but a character who gives into the lust for power has always been shown to be virtually unredeemable, e.g. Darth Vader, Sauron, um, Nixon.

The problem is that I believe that the "temptation" storyline was the natural one, the one that flowed most organically from Season 2 to Season 6 and I believe it to be the storyline we "needed." Addiction has been done better elsewhere and it felt shoehorned into the plot. It felt false and falseness is something that the Buffy storyline has been great at avoiding despite, or maybe because of, all the absurd devices in their plots.

I can only say that this choice was disappointing and that I hope that in all of the brouhaha over Tara's death someone has managed to make this point to Mutant Enemy.

In the temptation storyline, Tara wouldn't necessarily have had to die. She might have even been the one to oppose Dark Willow. This would have been interesting considering what an armpiece her character spent two years being. And if Mutant Enemy had still wanted to kill her they could have had Willow do it. But, once more, that goes two shades darker than a redeemable Willow could get.

On the flip side of things, while the addiction/temptation storyline is done and there is no redeeming it, the Willow story isn't over and until it is, I don't believe the Tara storyline to truly be over. While I don't believe that Mutant Enemy would or should resurrect her, I think that there has been plenty of foreshadowing to suggest that she might act as some sort of guiding spirit for Buffy and the Scoobies. Her offscreen narration of the last third of Restless is the most extreme example of this.

The following is a more religious/mythic interpretation of what happened and has been lost among the din ignited by the social implications of the storyline. The writers took great care this season set up two opposing triads. On one side was the Trio��Warren, Andrew and Jonathan. They were evil, male, greedy, socially inept, irresponsible and destructive. Warren was the LEADER, the most purely evil of the three. The other two were DOMINATED by him, but while aspiring to be evil, they were conflicted, having to wrestle with the good parts of their nature. In the end, Jonathan to a certain extent chose good and tried to redeem himself.

Set against them was another trio��Tara, Buffy and Willow. They were good, female, altruistic, impoverished, and loyal. Tara was not their leader. She was their PARAGON, the responsible witch Willow wasn't and the good mother to Dawn that Buffy hadn't learned to be. She was an EXAMPLE to the other two, what they aspired to be while they wrestled with their addictions and irresponsibility; the evil parts of their characters. In the end, Willow gave in to her temptations and become evil.

Buffy has always been the leader of the Scoobies, but no image showed Tara's new position and moral authority like the end of Doublemeat Palace: Buffy on her knees in front of Tara (in the position of the Madonna) begging Tara NOT to forgive her, but Tara is compassion and can't help but forgive her.

While it's an obtuse point in the face of the social implications, the Evil Leader of the male Trio martyred the Paragon of the Female Trio, damning him, certainly, but also setting Tara up to be a patron saint of the Scoobies, the example they will never reach.

Until we see what they do with this we won't know the true reason that Mutant Enemy killed Tara.

Thanks for reading.

dK

[> [> Re: Addiction, Temptation and the two triads -- Finn Mac Cool, 11:17:19 07/11/02 Thu

This reflects many of my views on the matter, though expressed much more eleoquently, and I missed the Tara as Paragon thing.

In my view, Tara had to be killed because 1)it demonized Warren to the extent that killing him isn't instant damnation, and 2)we're shown that Willow wasn't corrupted by power, but driven mad by loss and rage.

[> [> Re: I agree on some point, but -- Sang, 12:46:42 07/11/02 Thu

I agree that ME choose addiction and Tara's death over temptation of power because if it was the other way, Willow could not be redeemed. If they choose Willow to be corrupt by power and go against Buffy, it is another Faith story. If that happens, like Faith, Darth Vadar, Sauron or Nixon, Willow should be killed or neutralized. But we (or ME) cannot loose Willow. So the temptation story was out of question from the beginning.

But I don't agree with many people that temptation storyline is more natural than addiction story. In real life, they are not that so distinguishable. And it is not that natural that the corruption can turn a nice and caring person like Willow or Buffy into real muderous villan who will fight her best friend and destory the world.

Anyway, the magick is the most unnatural thing, this is basically messing with natural order which should be respected. If you are using some unnatural substance for your own pleasure, it can end up with horrible addiction.

I think ME had tackled really difficult storyline here, they planed Willow going against her best friend and becoming evil. On the other hand, they want bring her back in the end. One other thing, in my guess, they might want was that the evil Willow should still be Willow, not Angel/Angelus business again.

Only way they could pull it off was make Willow refrained her desire of power reluctantly (addiction storyline), thus in unstable status, and throw her the worst disaster (Tara's sudden brutal death) so she explode and cannot control herself anymore and completely give in to the power.

I read many articles about alternatvie stories which Willow end up as evil but no addiction or death. None of them seems to work unless you want loose Willow for good or destory our belief in goodness of Willow.

Though I think people who shiped Tara/Willow can still argue that ME could choose other storyline which Willow is not going totally evil.

I understand that there are some angry people and some of them did nasty and harmful remarks. I think that's the reaction of people who felt lonely in this world and someday found something very beautiful and fell in love, then suddenly taken away loved one brutally. Just like Willow.

By the way, have you noticed that? Regular recurring guest who stay more than one season and cannot make on regular cast eventually killed. Principle Snyder, Ms. Calender, Joyce Summers, Tara. On the other hand, anyone who made regular hasn't been killed, they just left. Eventhough Faith, Jonathan, Harmony, Drusilla each appeared more than one season, they were not regular guests except for other seasons.

[> [> [> Re: I agree on some point, but -- Finn Mac Cool, 15:07:17 07/11/02 Thu

Except for Warren. He appeared a little in Season 5 and was a regular in Season Six, but he got killed (maybe the rules change if you're big with the evil).

[> [> [> [> Re: Warren was not credited -- Sang, 20:19:56 07/11/02 Thu

I meant regular cast as a credited, and regular guest as a regular but not on the credit. Warren was killed just for one season of regular guest not regular cast. He was in just two episodes in season 5.

[> [> [> [> [> Good to see ya again, Sang :-) -- Caesar Augustus, 20:53:29 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> A different view -- Caesar Augustus, 20:59:24 07/11/02 Thu

To me, the temptation storyline was thematically inconsisent with the rest of the season.

Temptation of power, abuse of power, that was addressed very thoroughly in season 3 (Faith, Mayor, Watcher's council, ...)

Season 6 was more about addiction (and withdrawal) - Buffy's addiction to Spike, Spike's to Buffy, Willow's to magic, Dawn's to escapism, etc. For me this should have been continued rather than reverting to an old theme - granted, they're intertwined in the case of magic, but at the climax of Willow's threat, the addiction theme was abandoned for the temptation theme. This probably does make it easier to forgive her, but in my opinion is stylistically weaker.

[> [> I agree -- Wizardman, 22:16:55 07/11/02 Thu

I agree with you about Tara and Warren. Tara was given a special mystical significance as far back as 'Restless.' Also, isn't it interesting that of all the Scoobies, it was Tara that was 'sacrificed' to Glory in 'Tough Love?' Granted, she chose her fate herself, but she sacrificed herself to save Dawn, and by extension, the world. Hers was the example which Buffy followed in 'The Gift.' That makes an even stronger case for Tara as the Scoobies' patron saint and guiding light. For my part... I loved Tara. I still do. I hope that we see her again as a spirit guide- except for Cordelia and Wes, every character that has left Buffy, in one way or another, came back for at least one last hurrah, even Principal Snyder. I'm upset that she died, but I'm also still upset that Jenny and Joyce died. You've more than earned it, so rest in peace, ladies- you are greatly loved and sorely missed.

The friendship ring -- plainjane, 08:59:04 07/10/02 Wed

I dont know if this as been talked about before but i have a
? about the ring that Angel wears. I was watching the episode where the ghost of a teen and his teacher lover are in a timeloop and i noticed that at the end when Buffy and Angel are acting out the death scene Angel is still wearing his friendship ring I thought his first impulse once he was Angelus was to get rid of anything or anyone that made him feel human so, why he is still wearing the friendship ring? Is this a mistake by the producers?

[> Re: The friendship ring -- Lyonors, 09:27:48 07/10/02 Wed

If you think about the original concept of the claddagh ring, as stated by Angel in Surprise...

Angel: My people -- before I was changed -- they exchanged this as a sign of devotion. It's a claddagh ring. The hands represent friendship, the crown represents loyalty... and the heart... Well, you know... Wear it with the heart pointing towards you. It means you belong to somebody. Like this. (Quote thanks to Psyche!) *At this point you see he is wearing his with the heart pointing towards his knuckle*

Then you would notice he was wearing it with the heart pointed outwards, IE he doesnt belong to someone...

Ly

[> [> Good eye! -- Masq, 10:37:47 07/10/02 Wed

Surely someone could get an essay out of the symbolism of this one!

[> [> [> Re: Good eye! -- Lyonors, 13:55:50 07/10/02 Wed

I feel an essay coming on! But it will have to wait until my newly minted Angel tapes arrive from Masq so I can check on his wearing of it in AtS! And, just for the record, I'm not usually that much of a detail hound, I just happen to wear a claddagh myself....so I always notice how a hot guy is wearing his....even if he is on TV and evil...what was it that Cordy said about the only good difference between Angel and Angelus..."hello! leather pants!" *laughs to herself*

Ly

[> [> Re: Claddagh ring -- Alex, 15:49:28 07/10/02 Wed

Love (the heart), faith in friendship (the hands), and loyalty (the crown), are all symbolized by the Claddagh ring. Traditionally, the Claddagh ring can be worn three different ways. When placed on the right hand with the heart facing out, the wearers' heart is still searching. When placed on the right hand with the heart facing in, there are possibilities. And when worn on the LEFT hand with the heart facing in, the wearers' heart is promised forever

1--On the right hand, crown in heart out, the wearer is free as the birds in the sky. If you want her, go a courtin'.
2--On the right hand, crown out heart in, the lass is spoken for, so lay off.
3--On the left hand, place of choice, heart in crown out, she is happily married for evermore.

[> [> [> Buffy & Angel were "engaged" - Angelus didn't wear jewellery -- Scroll, 19:44:29 07/10/02 Wed

There's a lot of fanfic out there that says Buffy and Angel were actually married when they exchanged rings in "Surprise", but according to my sources, since they were wearing the rings on their right hands, they were only 'engaged'.

"Worn on the right hand, heart facing out, the ring tells that the wearer's heart has yet to be won; while worn on right hand with the heart facing inwards declares that the wearer's heart is already taken. Finally, when true love is requited, the Claddagh ring is traditionally worn on the left hand as a wedding or commitment ring with the heart facing inwards."

- my heart turned out 'til your love turned it 'round; 'til from my right to my left, with this ring I thee wed.

I didn't notice that Angelus wore the ring with the heart pointing outward (hangs head in unobservant shame) but I know that Angel still wore the ring in "City Of", the first episode of Angel. At the end of that episode, he makes a phone call to Buffy (she picks up phone in "The Freshman" but other line doesn't speak, she hangs up). By the next episode, Angel has taken off the ring.

Angelus never wears jewellery in any of the flashbacks we've seen so far. Angel on Buffy wore the claddagh ring and another silver ring, and sometimes a chain. Angel on Angel never wears any jewellery (other than the claddagh ring in "City Of", the Ring of Amarra in "In the Dark", and the Band of Blacknil in "Reprise"). Hmm, maybe I am observant after all. If I'm wrong, please let me know!

[> [> [> Heart, Hands, Crown (Head ?)... now what does it make you think of ? -- Ete, 07:06:00 07/11/02 Thu

Nah, that's too far fetched, though, really it looks like the same symboles from Primeval/Restless of Animus,Manus, Sophus... it just lacks Spiritus... the soul ?

[> [> [> [> Re: Heart, Hands, Crown (Head ?)... now what does it make you think of ? -- Lyonors, 08:46:27 07/11/02 Thu

Well, there's a thought! I bet we could use the origin of the ring finger of the left hand as a placement for the wedding ring to round out that spirit bit! Somebody...help me...Egyptian in origin isnt it? Something about there being a vein that runs .. .... dangit...comeon some kind of reference to the spirit being held in the heart! Its a stretch, but i know we can twist it! ;o)

Ly.

[> [> [> [> [> vein of love -- purplegrrl, 09:35:00 07/11/02 Thu

The tradition of wearing a wedding ring on the ring finger of the left hand is Egyptian in origin. They believed that the vein of love/desire ran from the body into that finger. By wearing a wedding ring on that finger, the vein of love was fettered and the wearer would remain true to their mate.

[> Noticed that too... -- Darby, 09:36:16 07/10/02 Wed

It's hard to imagine that it was accidental - I doubt that DB wore it except as Angel, so wouldn't it have come up with the Angelus storyline? "Hey, Joss, should I still be wearing the ring?" - And, along the motivational lines you cite, can you imagine what a fit the WB would have pitched if ME decided that Angel needed to grow his hair out as Angelus? Get back to his roots (sorry)?

Perhaps there's a backstory - is Angelus shown wearing it in any of the historical scenes? Could it date back to Liam, or Drusilla? If there isn't a backstory, there should be!

Does Angel still wear the ring on his own show?

And while we're at it, I wouldn't mind reviving discussion on the lack of wedding rings in As You Were... I did notice a total lack of jewelry on the commandos, which would fit the simplest non-conspiracy explanation...

[> [> Re: Noticed that too... -- Purple Tulip, 10:13:00 07/10/02 Wed

Hmmm...perhaps I need to go back and re-watch Fool for Love and Becoming to see the Angelus flashbacks---the whole ring thing makes me curious now.

[> [> [> Re: Noticed that too... -- Ronia, 10:26:53 07/10/02 Wed

I read a while ago in an article that the ring was a gift from his wife...and they just wrote it into the show...can't back it up though, just what I heard...

[> [> [> Oh, God, I just imagined a flurry of emails . . . - - d'Herblay, 13:28:30 07/10/02 Wed

. . . between the members of the Fanged Four fanfic crew, debating whether Angelus wore the ring, how he wore the ring, on what appendage he might have worn the ring . . .

[> [> [> [> ...appendage? any appendage? hmmm ;-) -- redcat's evil twin, 13:41:05 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> Not if we imagine... -- Masq, 13:48:54 07/10/02 Wed

That souled Angel bought the rings from the local Sunnydale jewelry store or pawn shop shortly before Buffy's birthday. That would explain Angelus' still wearing it later in IOHEFY- -his obsession with Buffy, plus as Lyonors points out, he's not wearing it with the heart pointing towards him anymore (he no longer belongs to her).

Ergo, old Angelus didn't have any claddaugh rings.

[> [> [> [> Thanks, dH -- LadyStarlight, 14:43:08 07/10/02 Wed

Now I have a picture in my head I'm never getting rid of. And I'm not even writing with that crew!

[> [> [> [> [> I could have my Clone do a forgetting spell... ;-) -- The Third Evil, 05:19:42 07/11/02 Thu

Unfortunately, his 'spells' usually involves large quantities of hard liquor, so your results may vary.

(Hey, he's a clone, whad'ya expect, magic?)

;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes please. -- LadyStarlight, 09:07:45 07/11/02 Thu

And thank the Evil Clone for me. ;)

[> [> Re: Noticed that too... -- SableHart, 20:56:32 07/10/02 Wed

I actually read on some random website (a while ago) that in an interview on late night TV, DB was wearing the ring. So maybe it really does have some personal significance to him?

[> [> AYW lack of rings... -- shadowkat, 06:25:07 07/11/02 Thu

"And while we're at it, I wouldn't mind reviving discussion on the lack of wedding rings in As You Were... I did notice a total lack of jewelry on the commandos, which would fit the simplest non-conspiracy explanation..."

I have an explanation for that one. In some situations, people go without wedding rings. Particularly if you're secret agents or demon hunters. In the military - they want you to put the military or commando squad firs, wife/husband second. You are married first to the service.
This is why many spouses aren't stationed together in the real military - according to a friend of mine. (Not completely sure of the accuracy of this.)

So - say you are secret agent Riley and secret agent Sam
and you get in an enemy situation. The enemy sees these matching rings and thinks oh-hoh! I can get Riley, by torturing his wife. If he doesn't see the rings, then he has no clue the two are connected.

In short - when we see them in Sunnydale, they are just passing through, on a top secret mission, in battle gear, not in the roles of husband and wife. They only let down their guard b/c they amongst friends. But notice that Riley
didn't reveal all this up front with Buffy - which makes sense, Riley was trained from early days of the Initiative to keep things to himself. What you reveal can be used against you. He's undercover here. Tracking a dangerous monster over a large territory. He's not going to reveal that his partner is his wife unless absolutely necessary - could put her in all sorts of danger.

[> [> Real-verse vs. Buffy-verse -- purplegrrl, 09:39:27 07/11/02 Thu

I believe DB used to wear a claddagh ring in real life -- when he was married to his first wife, who is Irish. Perhaps Joss chose to incorporate the DB's ring into Angel/Angelus' past or maybe it was just happy coincidence.

Hope for Season 7 -- Drizzt, 12:37:48 07/10/02 Wed

WARNING!
I am a troll; do not talk to me.

I am in love with Buffy...

Okay about season 7; I hope Buffy gets a good boyfreind who does not abandon or betray her in season 7. There is a stereotype in action movies; the hero(macho male usually)saves the day, then gets the damsel in distress. Buffy has "Saved the World a LOT". I think she has earned some happiness; she is plenty heroic.

I have hope that Buffy will be happy at the end of season 7.

I do wonder what twist on stereotypes the writers have planned for season 7?

[> Re: Hope for Season 7 -- Brian, 13:21:04 07/10/02 Wed

Perhaps that is the bottom line for BtVS. There is always hope: Hope that couples will find a way to be together; hope that those characters who have strayed, or are lost, will be redeemed; and hope that each character will find some kind of happiness. Just as in our own hearts we always hope for new beginnings, for another chance to get it right.

[> [> Re: Hope for Season 7 -- GreatRewards, 13:27:02 07/10/02 Wed

Perhaps they'll introduce an older character named Hope. And she'll have a cute high school son named... Raymond. Raymond gets romatically involved with Dawnie and they have their first "sexual" experience together.

Then someone could come up with some really corny line about the "Dawn"ing of a Ray of Hope.

Or not. ;-)

[> [> [> "Dawn"ing a Ray of Hope? LOL -- Drizzt, 13:33:24 07/10/02 Wed

That reminds me of an old comment during season 5...

"Dawn is the Cosmic Blood Clot of the Buffyverse"

I paraphrased the original comment since I do not remember the original.

[> [> Re: Hope for Season 7 -- MayaPapaya9, 22:53:34 07/10/02 Wed

"Hope that couples will find a way to be together; hope that those characters who have strayed, or are lost, will be redeemed"

I just had to say, nice use of Becoming Pt. 2 there...lol.

[> Some regulars here talked to me...cool:) -- Drizzt, 13:58:28 07/10/02 Wed

[> [> Re: Some regulars here talked to me...cool:) -- GreatRewards, 15:12:54 07/10/02 Wed

I guess I'm not "regular" enough, because I have no idea why you wouldn't expect people here to talk to you. Did you do something wrong?

All I know is I like your name. I've read a number of books starring the infamous Dark Elf and think he's pretty darn cool.

:-)

[> [> [> Re: Some regulars here talked to me...cool:) -- Drizzt, 19:36:14 07/10/02 Wed

Yes I did make some mistakes...

My first post here(wich incidentally was my first post EVER on any discussion board) was trollish in nature; got no response, so I stayed On Topic for three or four months. Became an accepted regular myself...then acted trollish again.

Ummm...that was mostly last year though.

Who is Spike Now? (Spoilers from last season) -- Alex, 15:43:24 07/10/02 Wed

We usually like to think of Angel and Angelus as two different people. And we don't like to blame Angel for the sins of Angelus.

So, my question is who is Spike now? Just like Angel has a different personality than Angelus, shouldn't souled Spike be significantly different than souless or even chipped Spike.

And can we hold this "souled Spike" in anyway accountable for anything that Spike has done up to this point (including the attempted rape of Buffy)?

Liam-Angulus-Angel.

How do we consider this? One person? Three?

Now we have William-Spike-Chipped Spike-Souled Spike.

Again who is Spike now? And should this new Spike be forgiven of all the past deeds of the Spike we have seen up to this point?

[> Re: Who is Spike Now? (Spoilers from last season) - - Dichotomy, 18:51:42 07/10/02 Wed

This question has always haunted me, and I asked it a long time ago on a different board and was told in no uncertain terms by many posters: Spike Bad (because he had no soul), Angel Good (because he does).

Now right off the bat, I'll admit I'm very intrigued by Spike and like his character. But even so, I've never understood the whole concept of Angel being good and worthy and excused for past horrors and all that by virtue of his good deeds AND his soul, and Spike being eeevil, even given his acts of kindness and bravery, because he is chipped and has no soul. If Angel is a different being than Angelus, then why should he feel the guilt at all? Very confusing to me, but no doubt someone can explain it.

Of course I realize it's not so simple: there's the whole issue of motivation (Spike does good because he loves Buffy; Angel does good to atone for his past) and ability (Spike doesn't hurt humans because the chip prevents it; Angel could eat humans, but doesn't because his morals now prevent it). So I do understand that the question of Spike's goodness is open to debate (and debated it has been, quite often!)

In the end, I don't know who Spike is now, but it seems to me that if Angelus isn't considered quite the same being as Angel, then Spike shouldn't be considered the same being as resouled Spike--who should be held accountable for his actions from the resouling onward. If not, then wouldn't that mean that Angel was forgiven too quickly for all that he did as Angelus (after the moment of perfect happiness, anyway)?

Now I've gone and confused myself! Someone throw me a, a ..... floaty water ring thingy, for when you can't swim. (Apparently I've short circuited the area of my brain responsible for vocabulary.)

[> [> Re: Who is Spike Now? (Spoilers from last season) - - Finn Mac Cool, 19:27:15 07/10/02 Wed

Actually, the popular opinion is that Angel is a hybrid of the human Liam and the demon Angelus. He feels guilt because Angelus is still inside of him.

Joss has promised Spike will not be like Angel. He may be like Faith (can't handle the guilt so tries very hard to be evil). However, I'm betting it's something else that I don't have a clue about.

[> [> [> Whatever ME want him to be -- Caesar Augustus, 20:18:23 07/10/02 Wed

Possibilities:

1. Spike will be good now, human soul 'n all
question: will he brood (nah, it's been done)
then what WILL he do? he did a lot of GOOD as chipped Spike too, so he won't be keen to just think 'I was a different person'.
2. Spike will be much the same, since Spike's demonic soul is amoral, and so is William's. This is my theory, but far from universally accepted.
3. Spike could even be more EVIL (according to some very wacky theories I've heard - they say that Spike had gained a human soul because of his good deeds, and was restored his DEMONIC soul)

3 is too wacky for me, but would, granted, be a classic ME twist. 1 is likeliest, but will it leave Spike personalitiless? 2 is what I would do if I was a writer - think of Spike's demonic soul and human soul actually CO- EXISTING, unlike Angel having to fight off Angelus. Maybe William's human soul will simply add to Spike's soul rather than negating it.

But, bottom line, no way to know until season 7 hits our screens. (unless you're an evil spoiler trollop)

[> [> [> [> Re: Whatever ME want him to be -- Alex, 21:07:34 07/10/02 Wed

"2. Spike will be much the same, since Spike's demonic soul is amoral, and so is William's"

I never saw William as being amoral. Liam was amoral, but we really don't know about William. We do know he was a very, very, very bad poet though.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Whatever ME want him to be -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:44:16 07/10/02 Wed

Most vampires have expressed what some might call a reverse conscience. They are compelled to do evil the same way humans are compelled to do good. Spike, however, appears simply to have no scruples or morals whatsoever, mixed in with a lust for blood. One theory goes that William was amoral, and it carried over into Spike.

Also, I'm not sure you could call Liam amoral. I mean, have we ever seen him when he wasn't drunk? And, if a flashback of Angel has shown that, what exactly did he do that would hint at amorality? I'd say Liam was corrupt, but amoral is going too far.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Amoral vs. Immoral -- Lyonors, 08:41:25 07/11/02 Thu

I once had an English teacher that explained to me the difference between Immoral and Amoral...Thank you Mrs. Nonnenburg!
By her definitions, and trust me, she's probably right...

Immoral means going against the widely held moral standards of a given society.
Amoral means not understanding or caring about the widely held moral standards of a given society and doing whatever pleases the individual.

So my question would be to everyone who has made a statement about Spike's morality...which do _you_ think he is?

Ly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Amoral -- Finn Mac Cool, 08:48:24 07/11/02 Thu

I think Spike is amoral. He likes to kill humans, but will just as easily kill demons. He may often seem more immoral than amoral, but that's only because he's an amoral creature who also has the vampiric blood lust, therefore immoral actions tend to benefit him best. Meanwhile, guys like Angel or the Master pursue evil almost religiously and would never consider helping the good guys, no matter how it might benefit them. Spike has no such qualms.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Amoral -- Rahael, 09:00:28 07/11/02 Thu

Doesn't Spike take pleasure in violence/bad things precisely because it contravenes the moral codes of society?

Doesn't he have the capability of seeing right and wrong, and understanding what each is?

"Because it's wrong!"

(And on a complete aside. While writing this out, I just got a phone call - I've been selected for that interview, that a couple of you know I've been waiting on tenterhooks for: Wooo Hoooo!!!!.)

Now I have to think up a presentation. Nerves!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's Actions -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:14:36 07/11/02 Thu

Spike knows what HUMANS consider to be good and evil. He is inherently amoral, but he enjoys violence and drinking blood, causing him to do evil things. A truly immoral creature, if stopped from killing humans, would not fight demons, since that would be right. Spike doesn't have a problem with that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lost honour among thieves....... -- Rahael, 09:34:18 07/11/02 Thu

Vampires still love. They have likes, dislikes, tender moments. They believe in rituals, loyalty, courage....

Spike does understand the pleasure of breaking rules simply because it's cool. He cares about proper behaviour. He cares that he made a promise 'to a lady'. He cares about what really constitutes 'rebellious' behaviour, and what's simply moronic (All the Way).

So it's not that he's above all rules, he just takes pleasure in breaking some and irritating people like Xander.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT: Congrats! And good luck! -- shadowkat, 10:02:41 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can I get a whoo! and maybe even a hooo! -- d'Herblay, 11:35:06 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Congrats, Rah! And good luck! -- Masq, 06:48:15 07/12/02 Fri

We'll miss your contribution to the fff this round, but contrary to troll-guy up there in the Margarita thread, we do have lives and they are important!

Keeping you in my thoughts!

Masq

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> sure! although it'd help... -- anom, 09:15:56 07/12/02 Fri

...if I had some slight idea of what the hell you're talking about! Interview? What interview? For what?

In any case, good luck w/whatever it is!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A whoo hoo -- aliera, 12:48:17 07/11/02 Thu

The very best of wishes to you Rahael.

As someone who simply visits here but feels gifted by the opportunity to read your posts, I have been wanting for some time to thank you. They are elegantly done, often thought provoking and lately have touched the heart.

May all good things come to you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Congratulations, Rah!!!! Best of luck!! (and a third on those whooos and hooos, too -- redcat, 13:24:45 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yay you ! -- Ete, 13:34:55 07/11/02 Thu

and on topic, I think Spike does more things because he enjoys them than because they're contraire to the moeurs.
An interresting exception is the way he talks and overall appearance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you all! Need all the luck I can get -- Rahael, 13:40:01 07/11/02 Thu

It's really rather cheeky of me to try for it - but I've been emboldened. Nothing ventured........

and Aliera, a very touched thank you to you...I have enjoyed your posts these last few weeks.

On topic - Ete you may be quite right. Perhaps he isn't quite either? He probably likes to see himself as amoral - I think Angelus would love to see himself as immoral.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good luck, Rah! -- LadyStarlight, 14:41:46 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Congratulations! -- Arethusa, 15:23:01 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Amoral vs. Immoral -- Lyonors, 10:02:53 07/11/02 Thu

To go along with this question I put forth this example of what I consider Spikes Amorality:

From Becoming Part II (Thanks to Psyche's Transcripts)

**Note: Shortly after Spike's little Happy Meals with Legs Speech that we all love so much! ;o)**

Spike: I can't fight them both alone, and neither can you!

Buffy punches him hard in the jaw, making him flinch. He straightens back up and feels his jaw, checking for blood.

Buffy: I hate you.

Spike: And I'm all you've got.

The police officer begins to stir on the hood of the car.

Buffy: (looks down briefly) All right. Talk.

Spike: (turns to the officer) I'm just gonna kill this guy.

Buffy clears her throat loudly. Spike faces her.

Spike: Oh, right.

*****
Just a bit o' fuel for the fire...I'm interested in hearing some more examples either way.

Ly

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> After watching Becoming 2 ... -- Caesar Augustus, 19:21:59 07/11/02 Thu

It's very hard to choose immorality over amorality.

Spike has a few passions which are on the immoral side, such as his desire for killing Slayers, but he doesn't seem to have a passion for immorality itself.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hmmmmm I pick...........Both........:):):) -- Rufus, 04:17:59 07/12/02 Fri

After all Spike's motivated by both the human and demon in him...so to me some of his actions are immoral, some amoral...depending on how you look at them.

[> [> [> "Actually, the popular opinion is..." Aha!! Now I understand your surety. You work for Gallup... -- redcat, taking your advice & reading your other posts :-), 15:16:27 07/11/02 Thu

[> We won't find out until sweeps next season. -- LeeAnn, 23:20:45 07/10/02 Wed

Souled Spike (spoilers for season 6, well only a little bit) -- Seasmucker, 20:13:10 07/10/02 Wed

I�ve been lurking here for a long time and I�ve really come to like this board, so I was wondering what you guys would have to say about a few thoughts I�ve been having.

One of my favorite themes in BTVS has always been the evolution of the perception o