July 2002 Archives

July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002
More July 2002

News on Anthony Head.....no specific spoilers -- Rufus, 14:53:57 07/11/02 Thu

nydailynews.com

Akita found this news for me.

'Buffy' Fans to See More of Giles

PASADENA, Calif.

nthony Stewart Head, whose character of Giles was missing from UPN's "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" most of last year, will be back next season — in almost half the episodes.

"We just worked out a deal," Head said this week. "A minimum of 10."

Anthony Stewart Head with 'Buffy' star Sarah Michelle Gellar
The British-born Head took a sabbatical from "Buffy," without knowing if he would return, and went back to England to seek other work. The first project he took, which was a hit in the United Kingdom, was a comedy-drama series called "Manchild." Head played one of four hedonistic characters in what Brit critics likened to a male, older "Sex and the City." BBC America will air the series beginning Aug. 2.

A second season of "Manchild" is in the works, and Head said he has also been approached to play the time-warping, cross- dressing Frank N. Furter in a British stage production of "The Rocky Horror Show," though nothing's set yet. Also on the horizon, eventually, is "Buffy" creator Joss Whedon's Giles spinoff, planned for British TV.

Meanwhile, Whedon is as comfortable as Head with the arrangement that has Giles appearing and disappearing as Head's real-life circumstances dictate.

"Thank God I work for somebody who has a very open mind, and isn't remotely Hollywood," Head said. "Usually, they say, 'You come back and do what we want you to do, or you're not coming back at all.' He's such a cool guy. And I know, ultimately, he wouldn't ask me back if there wasn't anything for me to do."

Asked whether the British success of "Manchild" eased his doubts about leaving "Buffy," Head said he had none.

"People have said, 'How on Earth can you turn your back on all that money?'" he said. "You have to move on, to create new things.

"Otherwise," he added, "you just stultify and sit there."

David Bianculli

Original Publication Date: 7/11/02

[> Re: What happened to "Ripper"? -- GreatRewards, 15:39:55 07/11/02 Thu

Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 17:55:41 07/11/02 Thu

Out of curiosity, I decided to go online and look up how many humans have died over the course of the show. I used the website

www.synapse.net/~dsample/BBC/Episodes

I found that in:

Season 1: 24 people died

Season 2: 28 people died

Season 3: 44 people died

Season 4: About 60 people died (most of that is from Primevil, where we only know that 40% of the Initiative was killed, so guessed thirty something died)

Season 5: About 60 people died (like in Season 4, most of the deaths occurred in one episode (Spiral), which is estimated at 35)

Season 6 About 18 (I guessed the demon bikers killed about 5 people)

This presents some unusual trends. Seasons 1 and 3 avergaed about two deaths per episode. Season 2 had only a few more deaths than the shorter first season. Seasons 4 and 5 had incredibly large death tolls, but each season actually just killed a lot of people in a single episode. Season 6, despite it's dark themes, had far less violence against humans than any past season.

Anyone draw any conclusions from this?

[> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- ZachsMind, 20:07:42 07/11/02 Thu

Deaths in fiction occur due to a need on the writer's part to illustrate the level of danger and risk involved in the given event. Season five was a firestorm for the series overall, with the loss of Joyce and invention of Dawn. It involved the death of a god. The season prior to that involved Buffy's first brush with a secret government. However, by increasing the level of death the series inadvertently created a sort of insignificance to it. When primary characters deal with immortals and the undead, death inevitably loses its grip.

The latest season, though it was under some critical dispute, shows that the writing team of Buffy has excelled beyond the use of mere death as a factor in risk and danger. Season six was Man vs. SELF in many ways. Buffy facing her life after death. Giles questioning his importance after the psychological firestorm of season five. Willow combatting her growing obsession and thirst for magical powers. Xander's battle over selfconfidence and a need for purpose in his life. Dawn's desire for gratification and reinforcement of her existence. Shall I go on?

Though some critics disliked season six, I hope history will remember it as the most significant and well written season to date. Any conclusions drawn? It means the writers have blossomed and expanded their horizons. They've pushed the enveloped and gone far beyond the original confines of the series' inate design. The sky's not the limit. Buffy left the mere sky a long time ago.

It always gets darkest before the dawn. With season seven, the dawn will break. Hopefully in the metaphorical and not literal.

[> [> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 20:16:13 07/11/02 Thu

You are right. The sparcity of death drew the focus from battles to internal struggles. And, when someone died, it became a much bigger deal. I don't know about best written season to date; it all depends on what kind of story you prefer. Season 2 remains my favorite, though Season 7 sounds promising.

But, still, over the past six years there have been 234 deaths in Sunnydale, THAT WE'VE SEEN. This doesn't include vamp and demon victims who don't make it into an episode, or people who die of natural causes. With those it may be almost 400 dead people in six years, and this is WITH Buffy batteling the forces of evil. I'm surprised there's a town left.

Still, I think you can tell quite a bit about a season based on how many people it kills.

[> [> [> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Drizzt, 21:19:50 07/11/02 Thu

It has been a while since I have read either of the Watchers Guides, however I think they have stats on how many vamps and demons are killed in each ep.

The death of vamps is a whole different issue, however each vamp killed on the show USED to be a normal human...wich indirectly brings the death total of humans WAY up.

So in most cases we do not see these people being turned into vamps? It is unknown how often vamps need to feed & how much blood they need per day, but if Buffy kills five vamps in an ep that is five vamps who used to be human and also in many cases have been hunting/drinking/killing humans before Buffy dusts them...

My point is each vamp on the show indirectly is a human that died and, also say 5 humans on average that that particular vamp has killed...

It is very hard to estimate how many humans an average vamp kills before being dusted; try it yourself.

[> [> [> [> Where I said..."my point is" -- Drizzt, 21:24:11 07/11/02 Thu

was very bad grammer;(

I meant each vamp used to be a human=1 human
I estimated that an average vamp kills 5 humans before being dusted=5 humans

Conclussion; each vamp killed on the show indirectly implies the death of...6 humans.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Where I said..."my point is" -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:52:16 07/11/02 Thu

Well, that depeneds on how many vampires come in from out of town. Still, you're right. Given how many vampires there are, and, except for the ones fresh out of the grave, that each signifies one dead human and has probably killed at least one human, Sunnydale is surviving by a miracle. Can you imagine what it would be without a Slayer present? Actually, without a Slayer the world would have come to an end. Oh.

Maybe they could do an episode where we see the maternity ward of the hospital, and it's enormous. Sort of counterbalancing all the death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Life, Violence, and Death -- Wizardman, 22:34:57 07/11/02 Thu

I believe that with violence, less is more. Buffy- the character, and to a lesser extent the show- is about violence. No matter how much you want to sugarcoat it, that is the truth. However, violence is far from being the central focus of the show, and I could not be happier about that. Both Buffy and Angel are about life- messy, horrible, infuriating, glorious, incredible, wonderful life. That is what the Scoobies and the Fang Gang are fighting for: for people- and by people I mean human, demon, and all things in between- to be able to live their lives without worrying about supernatural big bads coming along and killing them. Unfortunately, death is part of life, and is therefore shown. If violent death didn't exist, there wouldn't be a need for Champions or Slayers. I have no problem with death being shown, but I will when it becomes gratuitous. Fortunately, I haven't yet seen gratuitous death on either show (not that I've seen every episode of either show), and I haven't seen any signs that gratuitous death will ever happen. ME is too smart for that.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Life, Violence, and Death -- Finn Mac Cool, 22:59:13 07/11/02 Thu

Totally agree. If there gets to be too much death, it loses all meaning. However, the human body count indicates several things about each season:

Season 1: A high number of deaths for only twelve episodes. Obviously still in the stage of homages to horror films.

Season 2: Little more than first season, even though it's ten episodes longer. Shows a shift of focus to the dramatic and emotional.

Season 3: Human deaths up again. Buffy's battles are starting to gain a bigger scale, which means more people involved, and thus more innocents slaughtered.

Season 4: Death rate low for most of season, but explodes in Primevil. The failure of authoritative systems in the long run.

Season 5: Death rate pretty normal until the massive slaughter of the Knights of Byzantium. The knights are notably outsiders who are affected the worst by what happened, showing that the personal battles fought in Sunnydale reverbrate throughout the universe(s).

Season 6: Lowest death rate ever. The Buffyverse becomes more like the real world. Death is less common but ultimately more tragic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> P.S. -- Finn Mac Cool, 23:02:39 07/11/02 Thu

Slightly off-topic, but I've always thought it would be cool if a town only a few miles away from Sunnydale was wiped out. Entire population gone and monsters take their place. That would make an interesting visit for the Scooby Gang. Sort of a "this might be your future" sort of thing.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: P.S. -- Drizzt, 13:11:19 07/12/02 Fri

Riley did mention multiple instances of human villages that were wiped out.
They were not anywhere near Sunnydayle, but still...

[> [> [> [> [> [> I was under the impression... (S3 spoilage) -- tim, 07:44:49 07/12/02 Fri

...that part of the reason for bringing in the Mayor's story in S3 (or at least a nice side effect) was to explain why the town was still there. He builds Sunnydale "for demons to feed off of," and holds a sort of running agreement with them: Happy Meals on legs in exchange for not killing so many people that the town dies, either because everyone's dead or because people decide it's too risky to live there and move somewhere else.

I always found it significant that the Mayor is tied to a pool table in the first Bronze scene in "The Wish." Shows the subversion of the Sunnydale order since the Master rose. You can just imagine the Mayor's anger at the Master overrunning the city the way he did. Obviously, whatever argument they had, the Master won...

Or did I make all that up?

--th

[> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Rattletrap, 06:33:08 07/13/02 Sat

Hmmm, this is interesting. I knew the body count for season 6 was on the low side, but I thought S5 was also quite a bit lower than 3 or 4. Shows what I know, I guess.

'trap

[> [> Re: Dead Bodies on Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:28:21 07/13/02 Sat

Well, the majority of Season 5's deaths were in one episode, Spiral. There over thirty knights of Byzantium died. Without that ep's massive body count, seasons 3 and 4 did have more death.

[> [> [> That must've been what I was noticing. Thanx. -- trap, 11:34:07 07/13/02 Sat

Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- Instantkrma, 20:28:16 07/11/02 Thu

*Warning* extra long post, and proof that B/S is hear to stay, and last season was confusing and exagerating for buffy fans, and us newbees, and naked spike was the only thing that is good for your soul! Or at least I think so!

I think that next season Buffy is going to have a serious wake up call, she kind of needs one. She needs to fall shameful in love with Spike, or not at all! Make some moral decision about him and his new soul! Althougth, I really think that this is all boring, done before stuff, the "moral" part and she should just have sex with him! "Sure he's evil, but you should see him naked, I mean really"- Buffy bot

Real love is loving with out judgements. Unconditional.
I came to the conclusion, she was afraid to admit that she was starting to love Spike in S6, because she was angry of the fact that he might be a little superior, maybe a bit smarter. Maybe, evildead makes you have a keen sence of the truth in the living world. (Hint,Hint)I am not saying it nec a good thing. Study how some socialpaths act. Maybe you know some, yourselves?
He was dead and able to feel, she was at one point dead and can't feel alive. Miss I don't feel nothing, I need Spike to feel.! Damn, lucky her!
After all Spike is really capable of great humanity, he was not a complete loss as a Vampire." He was once human, and remembers what humanity felt like. Buffy knows that deep down...pay attention to them, it is not always what they say. (Fool for Love)and him(Becomming II)

**Where as Angelus could not!None. That's right B/A fans! Stop trying to hold on to the past. Get with the program. Spike is light years ahead of Angel. He is not a jeckle and Hyde, wannabe he is bad/rude man and he's sticking around! Hello Buffy's new soul mate!Ha,Ha.

Spike is superior, or at least a superior Vampire. That is never made clear because of his chip. However, he admited to showing humanity, before he even had the chip.( One of those episodes, I forget, when a demon says that Dru and him are full of humanity with their love for each other. He was not exactly disagreing with the demon ,he even defended him self.)

Another, reason I believe that Spike is a superior demon is because alot of his humanity comes from his love for his women. Dru and Buffy. Dru eventually knew that Spike loved Buffy, when he sided with Buffy in Becoming II. Love with out judgements! (The old Spike would never side with Buffy.) Even thought it took Spike two seasons to know this! Spike has no idea the affect love has on him!

Hence, the chip was not making Spike the way he was, he always was that way! An evolving Vampire! A Vampire that evolves through love. (hint) I don't think Spike is coming back as a human! Joss needs to explore and explain this phenomon.

Getting back to Buffy and Spike:
Spike who is very much in love with her,and no fool. Knew that the only way to keep from scaring Buffy off from the, phenmonon that is Spike/William, was to make the relationship physical friendly. Everyone gets off nobodies virtue is challenged.
The only problem is that Buffy refused to go to the second phase,in Spike world,(what is it, I really don't know?) Spike is hoping for( true love?).

(... Buffy's retreat from her world she semi/normal life she trys to master to his "Darkness" Vampire? No he loves her too much! My hero!
Or shall I say yum!)

Why does she hate Spike so? Because, Buffy feels challenged, and she knows that Spike could win out! She could fall in love with him, the Big Bad!?
And, It is only a matter of time. Before Spike, (spikes) the physical relationship, and she has admit sometime. Wheather she ready or not. Notice she breaks up with him. "I am using you, and it is killing me."
When she really meant 'I am using you, I do love you, and it could kill me'.

Which leads us to SR. Spike was going to prove something! However he was too crazy that night to know what he was going to prove for sure. (He lacks common sence when it comes to Buffy, someone said.) If Buffy really loves him or if he was still worthy of Buffy's love and respect.

However, underlining 'there's got to be something bigger'- Smashed. " This is not about you as much as you would like it to be" Spike SR
Just pretend he said this in his mind, "Does not having a soul, mean that Buffy is right in not loving me back! Isn't the real issue with Buffy? *****! Or am I the issue, I can't be as evil as I want to be and I can't be as good as she needs me to be. I can't let her win, I must still be evil! " (He knew about the rape!)
He was truely as lost as Buffy had been all season, but in an even worse way. Only it was a matter of soul. she had one he didn't. She had used him for sex,abused him like hell, denied that he loved her, and refused to love him back. However she was still redeemable, because a soul is literally redeamable, his wasn't at the point.
In other words Buffy was the superior person, because she has a soul and should be forgiving for her actions in all S6,this is what Joss wants, but he can't. Up until Grave, he is now equal with Buffy wheather or not he uses his soul for good or evil?! Having a soul doesn't mean that your automatically good...look how every one in S6 acted. They all sucked as humans.... maybe he will be the next Big Bad. The Ultimate!

I think Joss is god! Buffy should find Spike even more yummy next season! And, Spike should damn well stay naked! He doesn't need a soul for that! (he,he) and:
--------------------------------------------
"Angel's lame, his hair sticks straight up, and he's bloody stupid." -Buffybot

[> Re: Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- Drizzt, 21:44:52 07/11/02 Thu

Interesting

Personally I am for Buffy being in ANY relationship as long as it does not lead to another betrayal or abandonment for her So if Spike can become a better person/vamp, IE morally better and worthy of Buffy, then I will be happy with a B/S storyline.

Note; right now Spike is NOT worthy of Buffy because he is not trustworthy . He is pretty much trustworthy in regards to Buffy & the Scoobies though.

I will quote you; "Spike has no idea what effect love has on him" Spike himself said he is "loves bitch" He is insightfull in the area of psychology of himself and others...I disagree with your oppinion that I quoted.

Spike liked Joice way before he had the chip in his head. Spike loves Dawn in addition to Buffy.

[> Re: Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- PWAC, 22:20:04 07/11/02 Thu

Okay...jumping in here. I'm a newbie so go easy ...kay?

"proof that B/S is hear to stay, and last season was confusing and exagerating for buffy fans"

Now see, I didn't find last season confusing at all. It was the perfect example of what happens when you seek to 'fix' all that is wrong with yourself through a relationship with someone else.

It is unrealistic to expect to have a loving relationship with someone else when you are unable to love and accept yourself. Both characters this past season...and longer...have been filled with self-doubt and to some extent self-hate. Both characters have been stuck in a situation they were unable to fully accept because it was not a situation of their choosing. It wasn't that long ago that Buffy would have been happy to die again and Spike is declaring that he can be neither a monster nor a man...he is nothing. These are not (were not) mentally healthy people.

When you are unhappy with your life it is not a wise course of action to think that the solution is to bring another unhappy person into the picture to 'fix' things.

Buffy needs to not only accept being the Slayer...but to embrace it. Spike needs to not only accept his circumstances but to embrace them. Only when these two have completed that journey will they have completed the cycle of growing up and be in a position to obtain the reward of a loving relationship.

PWAC
really a Spuffy at heart and not minding Shirtless Spike

[> [> Hey, nicely put, PWAC. Welcome! -- Dyna, 15:45:22 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Hey, nicely put, PWAC. Welcome! -- Dariel, 21:49:02 07/12/02 Fri

What she said! That was the shortest and most concise description of what was wrong with Buffy and Spike's relationship I've read. And very hopeful for the future growth of both parties, whether together or not.

And here I was dreading season 7!

[> [> on the other hand -- auroramama, 11:38:14 07/13/02 Sat

...Spike's need for Buffy, however unhealthy, causes him to stop her from dancing herself into spontaneous combustion. The others may love her more healthily, but (in that situation) they loved her much less effectively. Their love and guilt, their conflicting feelings, kept them frozen. Spike, focused only on Buffy, was able to act.

And Buffy's need for Spike, twisted and dark as it was, relieved her anhedonia and gave her something to live for besides her obligations to others. Even if it was a "shouldn't", at least it wasn't another "should." In my opinion it's what kept her alive. She may not have been living well, but she kept on living until life began to yield its sweetness to her again.

auroramama

[> [> [> Re: on the other hand -- DEN, 15:11:28 07/13/02 Sat

Relationships of the type described can--and usually do-- have short-term positive effects. Recognizing and building on them shouldn't entirely obscure the long-run factors.

[> [> Re: Buffy/ Spike " I am going to prove something" Guess? -- redcat, 15:23:46 07/13/02 Sat

PWAC, I agree with much in your post, but question your final assertion that, "Only when these two have completed that journey will they have completed the cycle of growing up and be in a position to obtain the reward of a loving relationship."

Is a loving relationship really a "reward" for growing up? That seems to me to be unfairly deterministic. I'm pretty sure that most of the people I know who have loving relationships, as well as the ones in my own life, came to us pitiful, weak, childish and never fully-grown-up humans not because we had earned them or deserved them, but by some sort of undeserved grace, a gift of life and love given in that odd and sometimes irrational way that life and love both tend to work.

*Sustaining* a loving relationship over time, OTOH, takes hard, hard work, patience, humility and often sacrifice, and (in my own experience, at least) also enormous quantities of joyfulness and a child-like wonder about the nature of love and life and everything in between.

Just a thought...

[> No, no, it's all right. .............I have more scotch!! -- Rahael, suddenly feeling like Giles, 08:00:04 07/12/02 Fri

Nice post PWAC, I agree.

[> [> Can I have some of your scotch? <eeeeek> -- shygirl, 13:25:24 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> If you're sharing, pour me one, please? -- LadyStarlight, 13:34:17 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> Eh, the bottle passed too quickly while I was cleaning my glasses. Is it a single-malt, BTW? -- redcat, 14:23:14 07/12/02 Fri

[> Um. Wow. Not touching this. -- SugarT, 11:45:57 07/12/02 Fri

oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- anom, 20:55:38 07/11/02 Thu

Some of the dialogue in New Moon Rising, which aired last Sunday on UPN (at least where I live), made me think of a more recent situation on the show. When Oz takes Willow outside to see that he doesn't change under the new moon, he says (from Psyche's site):

OZ: I know what I put you through, and I'm not gonna push. But I am... a different person than when I left. And I can be what you need now.
(Willow looks sad.)
OZ: That's what I want. That's why I'm here.

Sound like anyone else who left Sunnydale for faroff places to become a different person for the one he loves (OK, assuming the writers didn't lie, which we can't)? Of course, the outcome may or may not be similar, but the parallel is remarkable.

[> Re: oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- Wizardman, 21:27:59 07/11/02 Thu

The parallel is definitely there, but there are a few key differences.
One- The W/O relationship was vastly different than the B/S relationship.
Two- The way in which Oz hurt Willow was also greatly different from the way that Spike hurt Buffy.

Also, Oz returned essentially unchanged- he wasn't a different person, he just had control of his inner wolf (sort of). We can't make comparisons between Oz and Spike just yet, because we don't know about how Spike will be upon return. If Angel is any indication, souledSpike will be an entirely different creature than normalSpike *and* William, just as Angel is different from Angelus and Liam.

Just my two cents... don't hate me...

[> [> Re: oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- shadowkat, 05:57:28 07/12/02 Fri

Agree Wizardman and anom. Actually I've been having fun
comparing Spike with people. I compared him with OZ
recently and also with Riley.

OZ - he leaves because he almost killed Willow. Terrified
he takes off to Tibet to control his inner wolf.
Spike leaves because he almost raped Buffy (actually
this is no where near as bad as what OZ almost did...but the filming of it was more traumatic and we are visual
folks) Terrified and Tormented by this act - he goes off to change himself.

Riley - he leaves because he can't stand his life anymore, he has no purpose, he is pathetic and Buffy doesn't love him. He goes to the jungel. Comes back stronger and married.

Angel - he leaves to do what's best for Buffy. He comes back off and on in Season 4 and briefly SEason 5, unchanged.

Giles leaves also to do what's best for Buffy and himself, he comes back sans glasses, a powerful warlock, confident.

Spike will come back as....no clue. But it should be
interesting. PErsonally I see Spike emulating Giles/Ripper
more than Angel/Angelus or OZ. But that's just my gut talking.

[> [> [> Re: oz ==> spike foreshadowing in "new moon rising"? (spoilers for that ep & end of s7) -- anom, 07:53:52 07/12/02 Fri

"Spike leaves because he almost raped Buffy (actually this is no where near as bad as what OZ almost did...but the filming of it was more traumatic and we are visual folks) Terrified and Tormented by this act - he goes off to change himself."

On the other hand, Spike had more conscious control over his actions at the time than Oz did. Raises interesting q's. about what part of us makes us responsible for our actions. I don't feel qualified to draw comparisons to real-life human psychopaths (is what's "missing" in their psyches more like a Buffyverse soul or more like...what would it be in a werewolf? a metaphorical superego?), but I'd love to see what anyone who knows more about psychology has to say on the subject.

[> [> [> [> Then again -- Sophist, 08:29:56 07/12/02 Fri

those of us who see the demon and the souled creature as separate and distinct will see no difference in the two events. In WAH, the werewolf controlled the human Oz. In SR, the vampire demon controlled the body of Spike. In both cases, the person who returns has found a way to control the demon, Oz by meditation and herbs, SouledSpike with a soul. Seems clear to me that the latter is more dependable, but ya never know.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: And yet ...then again -- aliera, 10:36:06 07/12/02 Fri

Anom:On the other hand, Spike had more conscious control over his actions at the time than Oz did.

It’s not clear to me which part of Spike was in control, if any *discreet* part at that point. But from what we think about Spike he certainly should have had more control than Oz.

Sophist: those of us who see the demon and the souled creature as separate and distinct will see no difference in the two events. In WAH, the werewolf controlled the human Oz. In SR, the vampire demon controlled the body of Spike. In both cases, the person who returns has found a way to control the demon, Oz by meditation and herbs, SouledSpike with a soul. Seems clear to me that the latter is more dependable, but ya never know.

The perception of separate and distinct is critical to the point. I’m not convinced on this (but very willing to be convinced, I add). On the first point, the lack of vamp face still has me curious if the demon was in control. On the second point, I know we would generally assume that the soul would have that effect…not watching Angel very much but I have read some of the posts here regarding the series and so I ask is it a 'certainty' that he would have control? And are we sure now that the demon souls are the same for Spike and Angel. Very interested if someone could clarify this.

Shadowkat: Personally I see Spike emulating Giles/Ripper more than Angel/Angelus or OZ. But that's just my gut talking.

This I suspect is at the root of my problem in thinking about Spike in general but particularly in terms of either SR or DT and why I generally avoid the Spike threads. I seem unable to separate my emotional or gut reactions enough to analyze the scenes. In SR, I saw intense pain and conflict on his face; but, that was my *feeling*.

Tillow: I think Buffy feels a lot of guilt and self blame over the situation. The whole hero complex. "I should have known better; never have let it get that far." I also wonder if Spike might have thought that's how it would be (the oz dialog), but the soul teaches him otherwise. i.e. that he is "beneath her."

Two good points. I’m unclear on full implications of the soul as it affects the storyline and we can’t forget Buffy.

Anyone else have any thoughts? And where's that Advil?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Would like some of that advil myself -- shadowkat, 12:12:43 07/12/02 Fri

"This I suspect is at the root of my problem in thinking about Spike in general but particularly in terms of either SR or DT and why I generally avoid the Spike threads. I seem unable to separate my emotional or gut reactions enough to analyze the scenes. In SR, I saw intense pain and conflict on his face; but, that was my *feeling*.

Two good points. I’m unclear on full implications of the soul as it affects the storyline and we can’t forget Buffy."

Agree ...having the same problems. Spike soul threads just
give me a headache. Doesn't stop me from analysing him though. ;-)

I'm really unclear where ME is going with Spike, they can go in so many directions. I'm also unclear where they are
going with Spike/Buffy...my gut says one thing, my head
another and the board a third. It is reassuring to know
that everyone else apparently feels more or less the same way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Would like some of that advil myself -- aliera, 12:44:23 07/12/02 Fri

hey you...printed the essay off read it once but have to wait and go through it again, quite a lot to mull over and looks like you got responses so the thread will be up a bit, (aliera=she who reads quickly but thinks slowly, if at all).

No one knows...we're all just blind men verbalizing our bit of the elephant ;-)

Here's what *I* want tho. Spike as a chance to grow his own character and reclaim a bit of the warrior (Buffy's love interests seem to lose their fighting skills) and let's just keep the tension unrequited so we can keep him on the show a while!

[> [> Good catch, anom... -- Tillow, 06:02:37 07/12/02 Fri

Interesting to see how the difference in Buffy and Willow's behavior before both male character's left will affect the scene when Spike comes back into Buffy's life. Willow was essentially an innocent bystander whereas I think Buffy feels a lot of guilt and self blame over the situation. The whole hero complex. "I should have known better; never have let it get that far."

I also wonder if Spike might have thought that's how it would be (the oz dialog), but the soul teaches him otherwise. i.e. that he is "beneath her." FFL

Can't wait.

Tillow

Season 7 Spec. -- Bachman, 21:18:32 07/11/02 Thu

You people re fucking morons!

Buffy's just some bimbo who fights a bunch of lameass vampires and acts all mopey!

Grow up and get a life.

[> Excuse me? -- Wizardman, 21:39:27 07/11/02 Thu

If you truly believe that, then why are you here? We 'fucking morons' happen to be fans of two highly intelligent and captivating shows. Therefore, it is only natural that we like to comment and theorize about what has come before as well as what is coming in the future. Are there more worthwhile things that we could be doing? Quite possibly yes. We do realize that Buffy and Angel are only television shows. However, they happen to be two of the best television shows aired, written by people who are very good at what they do, directed by people who are very good at what they do, acted by people who are very good at they do... I could go on, but I trust that you get the point. I also trust that no one on this board has ever gone to a place that you enjoy frequenting, and flamed it, so please do not do so to us. Thank you kindly.

[> [> Tripple Ditto Wizardman:) -- Drizzt, 21:48:04 07/11/02 Thu

[> [> [> Re: Tripple Ditto Wizardman:) -- SLF, 00:28:53 07/12/02 Fri

I find it sad that people apply their 'minds' to making infantile posts . Intellectual exchanges of ideas, philosophical thought and literary criticism are fundamental to the human state of being. I am sure this poster will be back soon to giggle at what ire he has provoked.

[> [> [> [> yup. makes me get all contemplative -- yuri, 01:32:18 07/12/02 Fri

about what kind of person would get a kick out of that... do I know any people of the sort? What sort of friend would they be? Lover? TTMQ, anyone? Do they do it all the time? First time? What does she/he consider "a life" and being "grown up" --?

P.S. I don't really agree that philosophical thought and literary criticism are fundamental to the human state of being... at least not the common definitions of the two. But hey, to each their own.

[> [> [> [> [> Contemplation on a troll -- Darby, 05:56:53 07/12/02 Fri

Yuri's right. What kind of person does this kind of hit-and- run-and-snicker-under-the-bleachers kind of thing?

How obvious is it that we're dealing with, say, a male, no older than 15, certain that they really get things while all around them are clueless? A limited circle of friends, even including some buds in a shadowy chatroom somewhere that alternates between whining and sniping? Is this a male version of Faith whose powers extend only to getting a keyboard to jump? Is a troll by definition a coward? I've got cowards on the brain this morning, thread to follow.

Whaddaya think? Too off-topic (I tend to think of the board itself as always being on-topic, but that may be just me)? Too nasty for speculation in a warm environment like this?

I do agree with d'Herb - often these sniper attacks produce unique and interesting threads. Just dunno if this is one of them.

[> BOARD CLEANERS-PLEASE DELETE -- Off-kilter on troll patrol, 01:48:57 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> Ummm . . . this is Masq's purview, but . . . -- d'Herblay, 02:30:40 07/12/02 Fri

. . . we don't really do that here. Much. Generally, even the really obvious troll threads can be turned into something worthwhile by the combined energies and insights of the posters here. Of course, these tend to be of the "Angel chopped off Lindsey's hand, therefore we must nuke Afghanistan!!" variety, rather than the "You guys suck!!" variety. Trolls of this approach tend to be just ignored. There's not much one can really say. We don't suck. Quod erat demonstrandum. Luckily, trolls of this variety are usually hit-and-run, and they never get around to comparing us to Nazi Germany.

Because of the lack of responses, these threads usually take care of themselves by falling quickly into the archives, just a click away but beyond the range of most posters' patience. You've got to love the free marketplace of threads.

Should a poster make a habit of obnoxious posting, sometimes the invisible hand will administer a slap, though. I think that two or three people have been banned in the lifetime of this board. Believe me, they earned it. However, this is a tough decision for Masq to make, and she really does prefer a laissez-faire approach. One of the great difficulties with it is its selective enforcement: banning is much more effective with people with static IP addresses than it is with those who have a larger pool from which to be assigned. This means that AOL users seem almost impossible to ban.

Anyway, Masq needs her sleep, so it will be a few hours before she even sees this thread to delete it, by which time who knows what sort of philosophical turn it may have taken?

[> [> [> Late night club! late night club! (...early morning club?) -- yuri, 03:11:13 07/12/02 Fri

[> I vote we turn lemons into Margaritas -- Board Janitor, 06:43:10 07/12/02 Fri

Been saving this for the FAQ, but seems apropro here:

"People search for deeper meaning because they want and need to, not because it's "necessary " or "appropriate." Whether the meaning actually exists is almost besides the point. BtVS is the common language we use to discuss whatever is important to us-justice, morality, sex, friendship, fate, God, whatever. This board lets us conduct conversations with like-minded people that range from the ridiculous to the sublime, and that is a wonderful thing-rare, and worth having. Where Buffy is shallow we spackle in the depth, and where it is deep, we plung our minds into the heady intellectual malestrom of discussion, argument and debate. Hamlet used a silly play to work on the conscience of his king-we use a tv show about a pretty vampire killer to examine ours." --Arethusa

[> Poll: Why do you post? -- Masquerade, 07:22:28 07/12/02 Fri

OK, you could be out there in the sun, frolicking as we speak. But you're sitting by a computer reading this. Why?

Speaking personally, I post because I love the fantasy genre- -movies, t.v., books. I love understanding the nuts and bolts of the fantasy world I am seeing unfold in front of my eyes. I like admiring the artistry a complex, well- constructed fantasy world. And the Buffyverse is one of the most accessible and interesting ones around.

And it's a lot more enjoyable when you can hear other people's perspectives on it that are usually different from your own!

[> [> Re: Poll: Why do you post? -- aliera, 09:11:42 07/12/02 Fri

I agree, Masq.

But that is actually why I read the board. Posting is something different...off the top of my head in the last three months I've posted because...1)I have a question...2)want to recognize someone else's post...3)bored and impulsive...4)have something to share...4)have nothing to share but am so compelled by the other post that I can't help myself.

The turning of a pig's ear into a silk purse is a lovely attribute of this ATPoBTVS!

[> [> Re: Poll: Why do you post? -- Cactus Watcher, 11:42:45 07/12/02 Fri

There isn't much to add to what you, Masq, and aliera said about posting about Buffy. I'd guess it's fair to say those are the general feelings of everybody who posts here.

I sometimes think that we get trolls here at slow times because the words "All Things..." puts the main site early in the alphabetic web search lists. At busy times, the word "Philosophical" seems to scare a lot of people away.

Why we choose to post here is clearly because we have similar interests. I think most of us choose this site precisely because we do have real lives, and sharing with friends outside those lives is an important part of our day.

I had a strange incident happen yesterday. A young relative is visting us from out of town. We took her to a local space museum. The last time we went, the tour guide was an entertaining speaker, but he didn't know which way was up as far as science goes. Every other minute I felt like speaking up and saying "Er, actually no!" But, of course I didn't. Yesterday, the tour guide was completely different. He couldn't keep his mind on any topic long enough to explain any thing. He talked on such a high plane that most of the group, including the little girl we brought, was lost and bored silly most of the time. but, I kept thinking, 'Gee, this guy knows his stuff. He's a terrible tour guide, but I'd love to get him off in a corner and just talk.' Finding people with similar interests is a joy. Even if I don't agree on everything I read here, its fun to read what everyone has to say. Most people here are worth listening to, no matter what the average stray troll may think.

[> Bachman.... How dare you degrade the false name of King with this post? -- Forsaken, 11:44:59 07/12/02 Fri

What was the Original Hell like before humans? -- death, 21:19:44 07/11/02 Thu

[> According to Sartre . . . -- d'Herblay, 23:10:59 07/11/02 Thu

Null set.

[> [> ROTFLMAO! :) -- tim, 10:21:39 07/12/02 Fri

[> [> huh? i thought sartre's hell... -- anom, 14:19:37 07/12/02 Fri

...was other people, with No Exit.

[> [> [> Re: huh? i thought sartre's hell... -- Dead Soul, 17:13:47 07/12/02 Fri

Wasn't that the point? Without people there's no hell? I thought d'H was paraphrasing.

Dead Soul, who knows nothing about Sartre and is criminally bad at anything remotely mathmatical, arithmetical, algebraic, geometric, calculated and shutting up now, even though it's way too late to keep the ignorance under wraps.

S/W Journey Part III: Atonement w/Father Intro -- shadowkat, 05:40:24 07/12/02 Fri

Spike/Willow Journey: Atonement with The Father, Angelus & Giles

Spoilers Through Grave!!

“cough*DaddyIssues*cough” (Anya to Halfrek in Older and Far Away)

As we approach adult hood, we have to come to terms with our parents. The first task is obviously separating from our mother, the second reconciling or atoning with the father.
In Btvs, the writers have focused on both struggles. In Part I of my Spike/Willow journey, I discussed Separation from the Mother, now I hope to discuss the next stage in their journey, Atonement with the Father. But before I do, a little background information.

INTRO: Star Wars, Shane, Red River, and Btvs

When I was a child, I was afraid of Science Fiction movies – they all had scary monsters. So when my father suggested we go to Star Wars, I fought him. But he insisted, saying it was a rite of passage and that it wasn’t scary but fun, something akin to the Wild West meets WW II. So off we went approximately two –three hours away, to see the premiere of Star Wars. Of course we all adored it, particularly my brother and I, who at the respective ages of 8 and 11, became quite obsessed.

The Star Wars trilogy brilliantly explores the hero’s atonement with two separate aspects of his father – the indulgent mentor (Obi-Wan Kenobi) and the horrible ogre (Darth Vader). Many Star Wars fans saw the series as a coming of age tale, many boys as a reflection of their own struggle for manhood. For those who aren’t familiar with it - by the end of the trilogy, the boy (Luke) is forced to come to terms with both aspects of his father in a climatic sword fight, which is both physical and oddly psychological. Luke’s goal in this sequence is not to destroy his ogre father as Obi –wan advises, but to somehow redeem him, save him. Obi-wan believes such a task to be impossible. But Luke ultimately succeeds, literally pulling Anakin, the man, out of the black hooded armor of the monster Vader and in doing so, reunites Anakin with his mentor/foster father Obi- Wan.

Before I ever saw Star Wars, I saw this drama played out every Saturday evening beside my father’s armchair. Most notably in the classic westerns Red River and Shane, both are Westerns that deal with a boy’s struggle to accept aspects of his father and reconcile those aspects with himself. In Red River – the boy, played by Montgomery Cliff is forced to break with his father, John Wayne, to lead a cattle drive. Wayne has been abusing the cattle and the men, trying to prove something. In order to save the herd, Cliff must betray his father and lead the drive. His father swears vengeance on him, but by the time the two men meet, Cliff cannot kill his father any more than his father can kill him. Instead they have a fist fight and bond in the process. Shane – is a bit more complex, in that film, a gunfighter, named Shane, comes to town and saves a boy’s family from local cattle barons. The boy idolizes Shane who in some respects becomes a metaphorical representation of the boy’s future self. Shane flirts with the boy’s mother and saves the boy’s father. But it’s not until the boy’s father sticks up for himself and his family that the boy bonds with him and Shane eventually rides away. Shane, like Star Wars, represents both aspects – except in Shane the gunfighter represents the positive image or indulgent father, while the stoic farmer is the ogre – not allowing the boy to have any fun, seeming to be a coward in the boy’s eyes.

What’s interesting about all of the above examples and most of the examples in Campbell’s book Hero With A Thousand Faces is they are all male. In Buffy the Vampire Slayer: the journey emphasized is not the male’s atonement so much as the female’s. Actually Btvs gives equal time to both with the journeys of Spike and Willow and by extension Buffy. In Btvs Giles and Angelus represent the negative and positive elements of the father, elements that we must somehow reconcile in order to move on to the next step in our respective journeys.

(Splitting this in parts - 1 & 2 to follow) sk

[> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 1. Giles, Indulgent Father -- shadowkat, 05:42:19 07/12/02 Fri

Spike/Willow Journey Part III: Atonement with The Father

1. GILES: The Indulgent Father

The Indulgent parent is described in myths as the father who gives his children whatever they demand. This parent does not restrict or supervise the child, so much as indulge the child’s whims. A classic example is the myth of Phaedon, where the Sun-God Phaedon in Greek myths allows his son to drive his winged chariot. The boy loses control of the chariot, since the power the chariot harnesses is far above his capabilities, and almost destroys the earth in the process. According to the myth, the boy’s misadventure got him killed, scorched the earth, and turned the people of Ethiopia black. Sort of reminds me of DarkWillow’s little misadventure in dark magic at the end of Season 6. Like Phaedon’s son, Willow almost burns the earth to cinder, harnessing the magic that she took from her father, Giles.

Throughout Seasons 1-5 Btvs, Giles indulges Willow’s interests in the occult.
Willow offers to help him research in Harvest and surprises him with her hacking abilities on the computer. Instead of chastising her for doing something illegal or questionable, he encourages her to continue pursuing this path, since it does aid him in his Watcher duties. Then Jenny Calendar is introduced, a computer teacher and techno-pagan, who develops close relationships with both Giles and Willow. (I Robot, You Jane)

Willow is far closer to Jenny than the others are. It is Willow who rushes into the library with Jenny in Prophecy Girl to meet the apocalypse. It is Willow, Jenny asks to help cover her classes when she hunts a way to return Angel’s soul. Not only stroking Willow’s ego, but also giving her a role besides school geek. Jenny is not only Willow’s role model, but also in a sense, surrogate Mom.

From the beginning, Welcome to the Hellmouth – there is the indication that Willow is attracted to the new librarian, Giles, as a potential father figure. Her own father is unapproachable. She refers to him as Ira Rosenberg and mentions him once in Passion, as forbidding her to have any Christian relics or references in their home. Prior to this episode, we rarely hear her mention him. Giles, on the other hand, Willow goes to repeatedly for advice and support. She even admits to having a crush on him in Where the Wild Things Are, managing to give Xander the wiggins in the process. Willow’s own parents appear to be somewhat removed from her life. So she naturally replaces them with Giles and Jenny, two beloved teachers.

After Jenny Calendar dies in Season 2, we see Willow gradually take Jenny’s place. She moves into Jenny’s classroom. Finds Jenny’s old pagan websites. And in I Only Have Eyes For You – gives Giles one of Jenny’s keepsakes. Giles appears to take little notice of Willow’s interest in studying magic, far too wrapped up in his own grief at the time. But Giles does not discourage her either.

Of the four Scoobies, Willow seems to take on the role of comforting Giles. She gives him Jenny’s crystal. She tells him that the ghost haunting the school can’t be Jenny. And when the ghost attempts to suck Willow into the floor, Giles rushes to her rescue, pulling her out. They roll down the stairs in a pseudo-sexual manner, with Giles protectively covering Willow. This reminds me of a comment in Campbell’s The Hero With A Thousand Faces – that while the male fights his father for power, the female takes the mother’s place at the father’s side, to be dominated. (a la Electra Complex). (Personally, I think ME is going for more of the struggle for power metaphor, having grown out of their Freudian obsession.) In Season 2, they examine the Freudian father- daughter incestuous metaphor first. A metaphor that is examined in further depth with the Angel/Buffy relationship. Angel – the protector, father figure, beloved tutor, becomes sexually enamored with Buffy, sleeps with her, and goes evil. Attempts to destroy and dominate her. She eventually wins, destroying him. (More on this in the next section.)

If it weren’t for Jenny and Giles, I wonder if Willow would have pursued magic. Or even known about it. In Becoming Part I: Giles aids Willow with the soul spell – that Jenny had started, the spell that had gotten her killed. (Although he may not know that.) He even encourages Willow to do it because it was Jenny’s last wish. In Seasons 3 & 4, Giles asks Willow to cast all sorts of complicated spells. Example: Truth spell (Something Blue), locator spell (This Year’s Girl), Destruction of box (Choices), and living flame (Revelations). Only a few times does he come down hard on her for playing too harshly with magic. Suggesting she stay away from some of the more complex spell books in Season 3. (Beauty and The Beasts, Choices) And in Season 4’s Something Blue, he advises that she shouldn’t play with magic while emotionally unstable. When she ignores his advice, causing him to become blind, Giles lightly punishes her by forcing her to decal his car and make cookies. Much later that same year – he encourages her to lead the gang in a complex joining spell. (Primeval Season 4, Btvs.)

Giles rarely chastises Willow for increased use of magic. He merely comments on it. When she enters Buffy’s mind in Weight of the World, Giles says off-hand, “that’s a very complicated spell for a novice”. This echoes his words in Becoming Part I, Choices, WOTW, and Primeval. But not once does he attempt to stop her. It’s not until after she brought Buffy back, in Flooded Season 6, that Gile admonishes Willow. Calls her a rank arrogant amateur. But by this time, his admonishment falls on death ears. He’s indulged too many of her whims for her to take much notice of his words now. She even states, somewhat irritably, “that’s right, I’m a very powerful witch, you might not want to piss me off.”

Willow’s journey reminds me more of the anti-heroe’s, who challenges the father, seeks to destroy him in order to take his place. “You ceased to matter long before you left,” she tells Giles in Grave. In some ancient cultures – adulthood is obtained through a ritual cannibalism. The young men symbolically devour the father to become adults. They take his power into themselves. In episode II of the prologue to the Star Wars Trilogy, Anakin is fighting with his foster father and mentor, Obi-Wan, for more power and control. Obi- Wan has been far too indulgent of Anakin, allowing him to race speedcars and use his power at times recklessly. Now Anakin believes Obi-Wan is holding him back, is jealous of his power, doesn’t fully appreciate it. Willow has the same problem with Giles – she tells him in Grave, “when we last spoke, you told me I was a rank arrogant amateur, well guess what, the amateur has turned pro!” Then she fittingly invokes the name of the witch Asmodea, which Giles only manages to stop with a greenish energy field.

The witch Asmodea, according to redcat’s post on 6/29/02, was a woman who was forced by her family to enter a convent. (*Disclaimer: the opinions expressed regarding convents, Asmodea, etc are largely mine, not redcat’s. Her post went in another direction. So if you disagree with these points don’t flame her – flame me! If you wish to read her post in full go to www.atpobtvs.com, archive 3, Dedalus’ essay post, it’s the thread near the bottom. Redcat and aliera did all the research on Asmodea of which I am deeply grateful and taking shameless advantage.) In vengeance, Asmodea’s rebellion takes the form of confessed devil worship and witchcraft. Women were often forced to enter convents by their fathers in medieval and renaissance times because they refused to marry a selected mate or had children out of wedlock. Hence the phrase in Shakespear’s Hamlet: “Get thee to a nunnery.” In books such as Les Liaisons Dangerous and Richardson’s Clarissa, both written in the 18th century, women are either taken to convents by their fathers or coerced into marriages. As late as the early 1900s, women were considered chattel, property in the United States as well as abroad. I’m no historian, but I do remember from my years with Domestic Violence, that as late as 1990, Missouri still had laws on the books, that stated men could beat their wives and sell their daughters into matrimony. They were his property. Another point – in Btvs as well as Western Culture (not sure about other cultures), when women marry – they take their husband’s name and give up their father’s. In effect, they now become their husband’s property. A woman was not allowed to fight her father or the replacement father (husband) for dominance, culturally; no she fought her mother or the mother-in-law for the right to serve her father or husband. In “some” cultures, when a woman got married – she moved into her husband’s family home and served his mother until her death. Asmodea is a little like Willow, insisting on fighting for her own rights, not serving anyone. When these are denied – she enacts her vengeance for being forced to serve a life-time in cloistered repression to a male God.

Redcat goes on in her Asmodea post – to suggest that Willow’s use of Asmodea’s name may suggest a “deeply sexualized relationship to witchcraft and power. In addition, Willow’s “training” in the dark arts, as she calls them – and if such training can even be said to have taken place – occurs primarily through her relationships with books and ancient texts, not with a living mentor or teacher…” Here I disagree with redcat, she did have a mentor, and I’m not speaking of Tara. Giles. Granted he wasn’t entirely present in his mentoring but he does indulge her interest. Where did Willow get access to those books? Giles. In Buffy vs. Dracula – Giles is asking Willow to scan all of his books into the computer and confiding in her his desire to leave Sunnydale. He tells her that she can take over his role of Watcher now. He’s taught her and Buffy, all he knows. Giles is the one who instructs Willow to scan the book containing Moloch into her computer in the Season 1 episode I Robot, You Jane. And again it is Giles who helps Willow figure out the spell in Primeval. Giles is a lot like Phaedon in this story – permitting Willow the use of his books (chariot) but none of the training. Giles doesn’t mentor her so much as just indulge her interests. Then when Willow rises, in her perception, above Giles – she wants to fight him. To take over, to take control. She tells Buffy in Grave– “I don’t want to fight you, I want to fight him!” Willow has always been more interested in impressing Giles than Buffy. From Willow’s perspective, Giles is now her competition in the SG dynamic, he’s the Watcher – the role she wishes to usurp with her magic and her studies. It’s not the slayer she wants to be – so much as the slayer’s manager, the one that she perceives controls the slayer, Giles.

Spike and Buffy who also have taken Giles on as a surrogate father, react differently. If Willow’s reaction to Giles reminds me of Anakin’s reaction to Obi-Wan, Spike and Buffy’s reactions remind me of Luke’s reaction to Obi-Wan. Why is this? Why does Giles cause Willow to react with rebellion? To want to take over? While Buffy continues to see Giles as a mentor, a guide, who shows her laughter? While Spike appears to try to befriend or even obtain Giles approval?

Perhaps because Spike and Buffy have been abandoned by their biological fathers or is it because, like Luke, both have an ogre father they must somehow reconcile themselves with? An ogre represented by Angelus? Willow’s ogre father is her own father, the never seen Ira Rosenberg. Spike and Buffy’s is the formerly present Angel/Angelus. Their own biological fathers having long since left the scene.

Giles to Spike and Buffy is more of a positive role model. He doesn’t appear to indulge them as often as he does Willow. Throughout Seasons 1-6, Giles is placing a lot of pressure on Buffy. In Season 3, he even becomes a bit of the ogre father – poisoning Buffy in order for her to pass a test. ( Helpless.) While being understanding, Giles lets Buffy know on numerous occasions that her role as slayer must always come first. (See Witch, Freshman, Never Kill a Boy on the First Date, and Revelations.)

Giles places a similar amount of pressure on Spike. In the I in Team, he suggests to Spike that he may have a higher purpose. When Spike dismisses this, Giles dismisses him. Makes him pay for any future help. And treats him like a neutered pain. Even makes it clear in IWMTLY that Buffy is off limits. It’s Buffy who allows Spike back into the group, not Giles, who questions her judgment in Spiral, then relents when he realizes that outside of Buffy, Spike is the only one strong enough to handle Glory. In season 6, Spike appears in some ways to be emulating Giles. Or at least trying to up until Giles’ departure. In Tabula Rasa, Giles continues to show disapproval towards Spike. Before and after losing his memory – before he loses his memory he states: “Well, now that we've recovered from Spike's ... sartorial humor,” and after he loses it – “And you do inspire a, um ... (Spike walking out from behind the counter) particular feeling of ... familiarity and ... disappointment”. The episode before, OMWF, when Spike offers his opinion, Giles states – “If I want your opinion, Spike, I'll- (pauses to consider) I'll never want your opinion.” Giles clearly relates to Spike in the way a disapproving father would. Spike can never measure up.

So while Giles appears to be more indulgent where Willow is concerned, he appears to be more demanding where Buffy and to a lesser degree Spike are concerned. I’m not sure if this is because he doesn’t consider Willow to be his responsibility or if he just believes Willow more capable of managing herself. Possibly the latter, which is fitting with the Phaedon myth and to some extent the Star Wars myth of Darth Vader, in both cases, the indulgent father gave the son the tools in which to destroy the world. Tools that come close to destroying the son in the process. At the end of Grave, Giles provides Willow with the tools in which to destroy the world and herself, it’s Xander who stops her not Giles. As Campbell states in The Hero With A Thousand Faces – by indulging the child, the parent allows chaos to erupt.

One last point to make regarding Giles and Spike before moving onto Angelus: in Giles we have two sides = Ripper/Giles just as we have two sides in Angel = Angelus/Angel. In some ways Spike has more in common with Giles’ two personas than Angel’s. (Which leads me to believe Spike is more likely to become like Giles with a soul than like Angel with a soul). Perhaps this is the familiarity Giles notes? Shadows of his former wild boy self? The self we see in Band Candy boinking Joyce Summers against the hood of a car? Remind you of anyone else?

I plan to discuss Becoming Part II in more depth in the next section, but regarding Giles – Spike and Buffy team up in a way to save him. Spike saves Giles first from Angelus and the chain saw, obtaining, oddly enough, Angelus’ approval in the process. “I don’t fancy digging Librarian out of the carpet,” he offers Angelus by way of explanation. Angelus responds: “It’s nice having you watch my back, we make quite a team.” In saving Giles, Spike receives his vampire father, Angelus’ approval. Willow meanwhile is using Giles’ knowledge and his crystal to restore Angelus to his former ensouled self. It is ironically the beginning of both character’s journey’s to atonement – Spike’s to the cave and rebirth, Willow’s climatic fight with Giles and the eventual chaos at the bluff. One results in a soul, one in the potential loss of one.

[> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 2. Angelus: The Ogre/Universal Father -- shadowkat, 05:43:59 07/12/02 Fri

Spike/Willow Journey PArt III: Atonement with The Father

2. ANGELUS -The Ogre Father or ANGEL/ANGELUS – the universal father/contradiction

“the ogre aspect of the father is a reflex of the victim’s own ego – derived from the sensational nursery scene that has been left behind, but projected before; and fixating idolatory of that pedagogical nonthing is itself the fault that keeps one steeped in a sense of sin, sealing the potentially adult spirit from a better balanced, more realistic view of the father, and therewith of the world. Atonement (at-one-ment) consists in no more than the abandonment of that self-generated monster – the dragon thought to be God (super-ego) and the dragon thought to be Sin (repressed id). But this requires an abandonment of the attachment to ego itself, and that is what is difficult. One must have a faith that the father is merciful, and then a reliance on that mercy. Therewith, the center of belief is transferred outside of the bedeviling god’s tight scaly ring; and the dreadful ogres dissolve.” (Cited from pp. 129- 130, The Hero With A Thousand Faces, by J. Campbell, 1973 Princeton University Press.) (*Yes, I’m referencing Campbell who references Freud, who is a pain. While try to swing around the Freudian stuff as much as possible. )

Spike’s journey appears to be the opposite of Willow’s. Perhaps because Spike’s father figure and role model was Angelus/Angel. Talk about your mixed messages. Angelus represents the SIN or repressed id in the above quote, while Angel represents the Super-eg or God. Or Angel/Angelus (if you hate Freud) seems to represent the primal universal father, called Viracocha in Peru, who represents both death and life, ogre and mercy, terrifying in the contradictions.

Spike’s relationship with Angel/Angelus parallels Buffy’s. In Season 2, Spike is introduced in School Hard as Angelus’ offspring. He calls Angelus his sire or yoda. Is furious at what he perceives as Angelus’ betrayle of his kind. “You Uncle Tom,” he screams at him in game face. “You were my sire, my yoda!” Angel tells him that people change. Spike screams, “Not us, not demons!” The disagreement reminds me a little of Willow’s confrontation with Giles in Grave. Or even Flooded. It also reminds me of the hero confronting an unexpected side of his father – the contradiction. When Spike encounters Angel in School Hard, he expects to find his old mentor, cruel yoda, Angelus instead he finds Angel, ensouled and more merciful, the Uncle Tom.

Later, in What’s My Line Part II, Spike grabs his old sire, and handcuffs him. He allows Dru to taunt him. Dru, whom we later find out is the one who sired Spike. This actually works, because in What’s My Line, Angel attempts to get Spike to stake him by flirting with Drusilla in front of Spike. Spike is now sleeping with his mother. But his grandsire taunts him with the fact that he will never be good enough. You’ll never satisfy her like me, Angel suggests. This threat is later actualized in Innocence through Becoming Part I, where Angelus literally sleeps with and flirts with Dru under Spike’s nose. Spike incapacitated in a wheelchair must watch as Angel strokes and seduces Dru in I Only Have Eyes for You. Taunting Spike about how Dru only gives him pity access. This is the negative aspect – the portion of the father that challenges Spike.

Spike eventually rises out of the wheelchair and ironically does what Angel might have done if he hadn’t lost his soul and their positions had been reversed. Spike helps Buffy save the world. Granted he does it for selfish reasons, but the image is there. He rises up out of the wheelchair and bangs old Daddy over the head with a wrench. Not unlike Willow who rises up off the ground and bangs her Daddy over the head with dark magic.
Spike’s final act before leaving SunnyDale in Season 2, is to take his mother back from his grandsire, leaving the grandsire to be destroyed by the sister-self. (Not to be confused with shadow self. This isn’t an unconscious projection as much as it is a parallel between the two characters.)

What I continue to find fascinating about the whole Angelus- Spike-Dru-Buffy storyline, is how the characters of Spike and Buffy are paralleled throughout that season. It’s almost as if they are flip sides of each other. Both are incapacitated by their love for the significant other, which in both cases is a pseudo parental figure. Spike will do anything to save Dru, to the degree he ends up being the one incapacitated at the end of What’s My Line not Drusilla. Buffy similarly will do anything for Angel. Literally walking into the lion’s den without backup. “Nobody messes with my boyfriend!” she declares. Luckily the SG is in pursuit. For Spike – it’s Drusilla. For Buffy – it’s Angel. They fight each other, in defense of their significant others. Buffy had threatened Dru’s life just a few episodes earlier in Lie to Me. Spike returns the favor by threatening Angel’s, although he only does so to save Dru. Buffy’s nemesis is Spike not Dru, just as Spike’s nemesis is Buffy. It’s Spike she fights and vice versa. Ironic. When in reality it is Dru that turns out to be the main threat to her relationship with Angel, as well as Buffy herself. Buffy/Dru in combination cause Buffy to lose Angel. Not Spike. Hence Buffy’s dreams of Dru staking Angel. Rewatching them in combination with Becoming Part II = you see Drusilla overlapping Buffy, the Daughter kills the merciful father. (Much like Willow attempts to do in Grave and in the same manner – by touching the heart.) And both times in Buffy’s dream and in reality – it is Angel the merciful father who gets staked not Angelus, the ogre. Spike is the one who wounds the ogre with a monkey wrench.

Spike’s feelings for Angel in Season 2 are murky at best and have an undercurrent of sexuality. On the surface we see the father/child relationship with a homo-erotic sexuality underneath. For instance- (What’s My Line Part II) in response to Willy’s question about what Spike plans to do with an injured Angel. “I’m thinking maybe dinner and a movie. I don’t want to rush into anything. I’ve been hurt.”

Buffy’s feelings towards Angel are equally murky, filled with obvious sexuality and an underlying father child relationship. (The flip side of Spike’s.) Throughout the first part of Season 2 and a portion of Season 1, Angel takes on a protector role for Buffy, acts in many ways like Buffy’s father. He takes her ice-skating just like her biological father used to do. Listens to her hopes and dreams. Enters some of her dreams, guiding her, telling her what to look for. He gives her information on the demons, helps her fight them, saves her life. In some ways he acts like Buffy’s yoda. Just as Angelus might have once acted like Spike’s.

When Angel becomes Angelus - both get betrayed. And both don’t realize it at first. Angelus leads both on. In Innocence Buffy thinks he just went wonky on her, until near the end of the episode when Angelus attacks Willow. Spike thinks they are a family now, that Angelus is his friend and on his side, his father is back, only to realize at the end of Innocence that Angelus is an ogre, leaving the incapacitated Spike behind to face the SG. Doesn’t care a whit about Spike except as something to torment. Both Buffy and Spike struggle with their feelings for Angelus. Angelus, the ogre father, taunts both of them in separate but powerful ways, building their animosity towards him until it reaches the breaking point. In I Only Have Eyes For You – both Buffy and Spike are close to the end of their respective ropes. Spike can barely hide his fury, rising up out his wheel chair and kicking it. Buffy identifies so closely with the rejected spirit of a dead boy, she rages at the spirit and her friends. By the time we reach Becoming Part II, the resulting truce is almost inevitable. The two battling kids have finally banded together against their father. Becoming Part II also echoes Buffy’s prophetic dreams in Surprise, except instead of Angelus’ dark daughter Dru killing him – it is Buffy who sends him to hell as he reaches out to her. (Another interesting point – when Darla first kills Liam she indicates that he should close his eyes, when Buffy sends Angel to hell, she indicates he should close his eyes, symbolically taking Darla/the mother’s place with the father.) Spike is similarly echoed, in School Hard he embraces Angel thinking he is Angelus and in Innocence he attempts to kill Angelus thinking he is Angel, then finally in Becoming, he attacks and wounds Angelus knowing it is Angelus in order to take back his mother/lover Drusilla and take the father/Angelus’ place with her. And Willow symbolically takes Jenny’s place in Becoming Part II, returning Angel’s soul to save the father/Giles.

In one of the posts I read, there was a point made about how Angel and Spike had the same name. Both have variations on the name William. When a father gives his son both his first and last name, it is in a sense passing on his reputation or “good name” to the son. My guess is both William and Liam inherited their names from their fathers. But even if they didn’t, isn’t it interesting that they share versions of the same name? Liam is the Irish version of William. Both mean protector or guardian. Perhaps there is some significance that Spike’s human name is a reflection of Angel’s?

Perhaps I’m reaching? How about this – in Western Australia, the aboriginal people practice the following rite of manhood – for a whole moon, a boy is not allowed any other food but human blood. The blood he must drink is the blood of the men of his tribe or family. In some cases they kill someone and use that blood. But in most cases the blood is taken from each man’s wrist, while the boy’s father holds his head and forces him to drink the blood. This practice, Campbell compares to the metaphorical eating of the primal father or the ogre. (See The Hero With A Thousand Faces). By consuming the ogre, the boy becomes reconciled to him, at one with him, and takes the ogre’s place as the new father. In Btvs – vampires are created by drinking blood. Dru sired Spike with her blood, which in turn was taken from Angelus. Prior to becoming a vampire, Spike was the boy William, a niave young man. Then he drinks blood for many moons – becomes an undead thing, the adolescent, the hoodlum. He gets the chip and stops drinking human blood, has moved to animal blood as far as we know. Then finally, in Spike’s trials, the bugs clean him out and he is given the soul, adulthood.

If Angelus is the ogre father, than what is Angel? Angel may be the merciful father, not the indulgent one. The father who can turn into an ogre at the slightest hint of trouble. How does one trust in this father’s mercy? Spike for the longest time resists becoming anything like Angel, a demon he previously emulated. Now he calls him soul-boy with more than a little disdain. Buffy-whipped. Slayer’s lap-dog. All incredibly ironic terms when viewed in hindsight. After becoming chipped, Spike has become more and more like Angel. Slowly usurping his pseudo-father’s role with SG in the process. Now Spike has Angel’s old place in the Btvs credits, just as Willow has taken over Gile’s. Spike is the vampire Buffy is trying to resist. And soon the vampire with a soul that helps her from the fringes??

By going to the lurker demon –Spike may have wandered down the path he once swore he’d never follow, Angel’s. Several posters have compared Spike in the past to the Greek God, Dionysis. Well there is another term for this god, Dithyrambos – it means killed and resurrected or “him of the double door”, who survived the awesome miracle of a second birth, but not from the mother’s womb -- the father’s. Interesting. It reminds me of a theory I read a while back that the Lurker demon was the oldest of the vampires, a sort of father figure. If this is the case, then Spike’s meeting with him – could metaphorically symbolize a reconciliation with his own ogre father Angelus/Angel. As Campbell states in The Hero With A Thousand Faces : “The problem of the hero going to meet the father is to open his *soul * beyond terror to such a degree that he will be ripe to understand how the sickening and insane tragedies of this vast and ruthless cosmos are completely validated in the majesty of Being. The hero transcends life with its peculiar blind spot and for a moment rises to a glimpse of the source. Beholds the face of the father, understands and the two are atoned.” I’ve seen this happen twice in BTvs: with Willow and Giles, Giles gives Willow the ability to feel and ultimately understand the sickening pain of the cosmos, a pain that almost causes her to rip the world to shreds, and with Spike and Lurker, the Lurker gives Spike his soul which allows Spike to feel the sickening pain of all his past deeds. Once Spike feels this pain – he will ultimately understand Angel. And become reconciled to what Angelus/Angel has now become. Because in essence Spike has now chosen this route himself.

Conclusion

Spike and Willow both seek atonement but in different ways and with different types of fathers. Spike reconciles himself with his father. He metaphorically goes to the father to seek who he once was, to grow. In doing so, he is reborn and becomes in essence like his father, Angel, an ensouled vampire. Yet very different. Just as his name William is but a version of Angel’s name Liam. He chose his father’s path, and in a sense his vampire father’s old place at Buffy’s side, but he has not become his father. He has not become Angel. He has merely faced the universal father and accepted both the merciful and the ogre and seen that the two are one. Willow fights her father. She wants to usurp him, to take over his role, to take his power. She believes she can control it. Instead she becomes overwhelmed by the power he has given her. The moral of the indulgent father is actualized, chaos results. Thus, the journeys that were begun in Becoming Part I & II come to their denouement in Grave. Spike and Willow have atoned with their respective father figures with varying results. Neither have taken their father’s place nor have they become their father. The next stage in their development, like all stages is up to them.
Just like our next stage in development, is up to us.

Hope this made sense and didn’t contain too many historical inaccuracies or mistakes.

Thank you for reading. Feedback please?

;- ) shadowkat

[> [> [> That was great 'kat! Thinking more about Giles -- ponygirl, 08:53:33 07/12/02 Fri

I liked your essay! Your points about Giles echoed some of my thoughts especially in relation to the naming sub-thread (sadly off to the archives, before the thread ate the entire board). Giles certainly was a different kind of father to each of the characters-- his constant impatience with and belittling of Xander could certainly warrant some examination, I think Xander was pretty accurate in his assessment in Restless of Spike taking his place in Watcher training. For all the arguing Giles and Spike seemed to have a greater rapport than Xander/Giles, it was only when Spike was seen as a sexual threat to Buffy that the other two seemed to unite against him. But that's probably a whole other essay, I hope ;)

I keep coming back to Giles' continual rejection of the label of father, wanting to be the "rakish uncle" in Life Serial, Randy's older brother in TR, and singing that he wished he could "play the father" in OMWF. Why can't he play the father? It's a role he seems to have been playing for a while, but without that final step of taking responsibility for his charges. Giles seems to feel that his larger responsibility is to the world, thus he can turn a blind eye to Willow's magic, send Buffy off to fight, even urge the killing of Dawn in The Gift, and finally leave Buffy for her own good. I can only imagine that this detachment is as much a product of Watcher training as Giles' personality, after all Giles was fired in Helpless for having a father's love for Buffy.

Giles came back in the end, but did he come back for the world or for Buffy and Willow? And will he be able to take on the role that he has fled with all of its attendant responsibilities and risks? Or will he return to playing the Absent Father?

[> [> [> [> Thanks ponygirl, agree, keeping thread alive! -- shadowkat, 10:05:10 07/12/02 Fri

Giles' struggle with the father role continuously fascinates me.

I agree - he refuses to be Xander's father. While it surprised and baffled many that he did not return for Xanders' wedding to Anya, it didn't baffle me. Why? He seemed to barely tolerate Xander most of the time.
And he wasn't all that thrilled with the X/A pairing.

You see it in All The Way - after Xander announces his wedding to Anya, and they engage in a kiss. Giles takes off his glasses and wipes them. Buffy suddenly realizes that's why he's always taking them off, so he doesn't see what they do.

I think he truly loves Willow and Buffy, but he does not want to be their father. He says this to Jenny way back in Season 2 - "I'm not her father." He is accused of having
a father's love for Buffy in Helpless, but he doesn't consider that a good thing, it gets in the way of his Watcher duties.

In two earlier threads - in the naming one and the one
about identity discussing angel - we wondered what roles define us. I think that's Giles' problem. He doesn't know
how he wants to define himself. Does he want to play the father? the watcher? the teacher? the warlock? the singer?
As Spike tells him in his dream in Restless - "You need to make up your mind Rupes..." Too true. By didallying and indulging Willow...he has unleashed a force on Sunnydale
that he can only begin to imagine.

It reminds me a great deal of some of the indulgent father myths I recently read. In Phaedon myth - the kid bugs Phaedon relentlessly, until to stop the nagging, he lets him borrow the chariot for a day. Doesn't take the time to go with him or teach him how to drive it. What happens?
The earth is nearly destroyed. Was Phaedon indulgent?
Or merely neglectful in his duties? Is Giles?

Giles seems to be more aware of Spike and Buffy's actions in the last three years. And his laughter regarding their sexual relationship was interesting. I keep wondering if his rapport with Spike is due to seeing himself in him.
Older brother indeed?

Xander...well, I always got the feeling that Xander got on Giles' nerves. When Xander tries to learn how to be a Watcher and works with Giles, Giles appears ready to smack him. The sarcastic comments in HLOD, Hush, Doomed and much of Season 4...are fitting. Giles and Xander almost come
to blows at least twice: 1.Over the restoring Angel's
soul and over Jenny's death in Becoming Part I and
2. Over what Xander did in BBB.

My impression was that Giles saw Xander as having his own parents. He may have liked Xander. But saw no need to be more than a teacher or uncle.Not sure.

Anyways thanks for the comments!

PS: saw what ponygirl stood for...I too was an Outsiders
fan. Like the reference. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Q re Phaedon -- Dead Soul, 10:19:26 07/12/02 Fri

IIRC, Phaedon (Phaeton) was the son of, in different versions, Helios or Apollo and he was the one who, also differect in different versions, was allowed or took without permission the Chariot of the Sun. Am I right?

Also, BTW and appropos of nothing, a popular 17th c. small carriage was called a Phaeton.

Dead Soul

P.S. Also a big S.E. Hinton fan

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Q re Phaedon -- shadowkat, 11:27:11 07/12/02 Fri

Campbell's version was confusing. But he said it was Phaedon the father and Phaeton the son. Yes, this is why Campbell gives me a headache.

I think Apollo and Phaeton make more sense. I decided to
just state Phaedon and his son...or did my eyes cross when I read Campbell? Campbell experts??

[> [> [> [> [> Watching -- ponygirl, 11:15:43 07/12/02 Fri

"In two earlier threads - in the naming one and the one
about identity discussing angel - we wondered what roles define us. I think that's Giles' problem. He doesn't know
how he wants to define himself. Does he want to play the father? the watcher? the teacher? the warlock? the singer?
As Spike tells him in his dream in Restless - "You need to make up your mind Rupes..." Too true."

By definition the role of Watcher seems to be one of being on the sidelines. As for being a father, once the child has reached adulthood, is there a sense that the parent's story is over? That they must cede the tale to the next generation? Giles seems to fear irrelevance a great deal, it was what he struggled with in s4, his reason for leaving in BvsD, and of course the taunt Willow threw at him in Grave. If Ripper ever gets made maybe we will see if Giles is finally able to define himself.

ps. S.E. Hinton rocks!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watching -- shadowkat, 11:34:52 07/12/02 Fri

"By definition the role of Watcher seems to be one of being on the sidelines. As for being a father, once the child has reached adulthood, is there a sense that the parent's story is over? That they must cede the tale to the next generation? Giles seems to fear irrelevance a great deal, it was what he struggled with in s4, his reason for leaving in BvsD, and of course the taunt Willow threw at him in Grave."

He does seem to fear it. We see hints of this in Season 4. First in Where the Wild Things Are when he sings Behind Blue Eyes - a song that deals very strongly with identity
and past acts. Then in Yoko Factor - he sings Freebird, which indicates his desire yet reluctance to go.
Spike certainly picks up on his fears of irrlevance in Yoko Factor, using them against him. Just as Ethan Rayne does in A NEw Man. In Season 5, he's given a new sense of purpose, albeit briefly with Dawn being the key and the whole Glory thing and helping Buffy figure out who she is.

But what I always found fascinating is in Fool For Love - the person she goes to for answers is not ultimately Giles, but Spike. Spike seems to know more about who and what she is than Giles does. Just as Angel appeared to know more in seasons past. Possibly the reason she is attracted to them?

She asks Giles why Watchers can't tell her how the slayers died and why they died. He has no answers. Then she thinks a moment and says...wait there's someone who does. Next scene, she's pushing Spike against a piller and asking him for information.

One wonders if part of Giles' problem with Spike towards the end of Season 5, is that Spike is beginning to take his place as well?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Watching -- aliera, 14:45:26 07/12/02 Fri

Perhaps they are telling us (Buffy) that for true answers you must go directly to the source?

I had a similar thought to ponygirl about Giles ambivalence as a father figure although perhaps it depends whose eyes we're looking though. As an adult, I was viewing him as more of a mentor than father; but that may be my own preconceptions coloring the picture and perhaps I'm splitting hairs and they may be viewed as the same.

My own experiences regards my father were mild since he always had quite a hands off approach vis-a-vis my decisions and even today is more encouraging of my learning than most others. Our parenting styles are very similar. I don't have his intellect or charm but my approach to child rearing is very similar. I have my structure but tend to attempt to enable good behavior rather than enforce it. And I believe that there must be mistakes made for the individual to experience true learning or growth. Of course if I make a mistake it doesn't lead to an apocalypse.

This reminds me of Giles approach. There are probably a number of reasons for the strength of Willow's reaction in Flooded; but, I myself was surprised by Giles's statement to her. 0-60 in less than 6seconds and quite out of character.

Perhaps he is indulgent; however, perhaps it is his style to allow events to unfold rather than control the minutae and guide with some gentleness (and often with dry humor) rather than dictate and punish? This made his more feminine? approach in Grave more in character.

All that being said, when we look at it from Willow's point of view it could be much different. In addition to the need to overcome and assimilate the father, we ,may see abandonment and unfair criticism being issues and further alienating her.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks ponygirl, agree, keeping thread alive! - - leslie, 16:24:12 07/12/02 Fri

"Giles and Xander almost come to blows at least twice: 1.Over the restoring Angel's soul and over Jenny's death in Becoming Part I"

The latter occasion has always interested me. Xander somehow seems to feel that he has some claim to be Jenny's champion- -is this a hold-over from her sexual approaches to him when that love spell goes awry? A spell for which Giles reprimands him far more harshly than he ever reprimands Willow until Willow brings Buffy back. Xander definitely appears to be usurping Giles's role as primary bereaved, and Giles reacts strongly to this intrusion on his territory. For Xander, this appears to be an almost Freudian, Oedipal move, but Giles refuses to accept it as such.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks ponygirl, agree, keeping thread alive! - - shadowkat, 20:16:55 07/12/02 Fri

"The latter occasion has always interested me. Xander somehow seems to feel that he has some claim to be Jenny's champion--is this a hold-over from her sexual approaches to him when that love spell goes awry?"

Hmmm...that hadn't occured to me, but it should have.
Xander seems to want to be the dominant male in all the women's lives. He battles with each male figure.

Spike - he never saw as a threat until Entropy - and when he discovered he was, it really hit him, maybe far harder than anything else, possibly enough to push him out of or further into his self-pitying malaise?

Xander in a lot of ways reminds me of Angel. Like Angel, he has a father he hates. Like Angel he has a thing for being the ruling party where women are concerned. But most notably in The Pack - he's cruelty seems very similar to Angelus'.

Not sure where this is leading me...excuse the ramble...
but Xander hates Angel in Becoming. In Passion - he states
that Giles should kill Angelus. Doesn't think for an instant that it could get the Librarian killed. In Becoming Part II, he decides not to tell Buffy, Will is restoring the soul. And in Becoming PArt I is ferociously opposed to the spell. Later when Angel returns, he wants to join forces with Faith to kill Angel.

Why is this? Is this because he felt close to Jenny and Buffy and Will ? In Becoming, Xander is twitchy. He is upset when Will calls out for OZ instead of him. He fights with Giles
about Will getting Angel's soul back. He doesn't tell Buffy about the soul restoration. And he looks very uneasy in the last scene when Buffy does not return to school.

In a post a long time ago, someone noted that Xander wanted to be the comfortador for all the women. I wasn't sure about this at first...but now, I think it may be true and may be partly at the heart of his inability to commit to Anya. What Snyder says to him in his dream in restless may be true:

Xander: I'm a comfortador no a conquestador
Snyder: You're neither...

Xander's problem is he wants to be the bell of the ball, as Buffy states way back in I Robot You Jane. "You're upset because you're no longer bell of the ball". (When Willow gets interested in someone else.) Xander doesn't really want Willow. He doesn't really want Buffy. He wants to be wanted by them. BBB = was Xander's deepest darkest fantasy come true but it almost got him killed. In that episode every woman
wanted him: Joyce, Jenny, Buffy, Willow...but the one he
already had. How ironic. It happens twice. Xander gets the girl. But he loses her because he's too busy concentrating on what he doesn't have or believes he doesn't deserve. As he puts it in one of the early episodes of Season 2, "we want what we can't have...not what's under our nose."

The number of times Xander brags to Giles about a girl having a crush on him - is interesting. He brags first with Faith in This Year's Girl. Then later in regards to Dawn - in Bloodties. Giles scoffs both times, highly annoyed with Xander.

Much has been made of how upset Xander gets regarding the information about Spuffy - this means he has latent feelings for her. No. I think it's far simpler than that.
Xander is upset, because Spike got two women Anya and Buffy and he's undead, evil. (One of those women is his ex-finance and the other, whoa, is the girl he lusted after all through high school. Not FAIR!) Here's Xander, normal guy, why aren't the women falling over him? He gets upset in a similar fashion when he learns Dawn has a crush on Spike.
To him Spike is the lowest of the low. The loser. What a crushing blow.

It is ironic I think that when Xander finally gets the girl, the girl who loves him completely for who and what he is, he tosses her aside, rather brutally (standing up Anya, cheating on Cordy = both resulting in a vengeance demon being called). Makes one wonder if Xander should have a girl? If all he's going to do is break her heart?

[> [> [> Riveting - much to reread and ponder -- Dead Soul, 10:13:33 07/12/02 Fri

Especially Willow having the decal Giles' car. I wonder what the decal would read: "I (heart) my Slayer"?

I actually think she said she had to detail Gile's car, but, hey, maybe I misheard.

Dead Soul

[> [> [> [> "You too can be a Slayer! Ask me how" -- Arethusa, 12:09:27 07/12/02 Fri

Willow: "I'd rather be destroying the world."

Buffy: "I (heart) Mr. Pointy." (with a little stake icon)

Xander: "Carpenters do it plane-ly." (Sorry, couldn't think of a good one.)

[> [> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 2. Angelus: The Ogre/Universal Father -- leslie, 16:13:12 07/12/02 Fri

Another mid-read comment:

"Spike’s feelings for Angel in Season 2 are murky at best and have an undercurrent of sexuality. On the surface we see the father/child relationship with a homo-erotic sexuality underneath. For instance- (What’s My Line Part II) in response to Willy’s question about what Spike plans to do with an injured Angel. “I’m thinking maybe dinner and a movie. I don’t want to rush into anything. I’ve been hurt.”"

Parallel with a scene in Something Blue that inevitably cracks me up, between Spike and Giles (quoting from memory, but it's a good memory):

Giles is on the phone leaving a message on Willow's answering machine. Off screen, Spike howls: "It's telly time! Passions is on! Timmy's down the bloody well, and if I miss it..."

Giles snaps: "You'll what? Lick me to death?" (back to the phone) "For one thing, I would like to take a shower sometime today. ALONE."

[> [> [> [> LMAO! Thanks forgot that -- shadowkat, 21:01:55 07/12/02 Fri

"Giles is on the phone leaving a message on Willow's answering machine. Off screen, Spike howls: "It's telly time! Passions is on! Timmy's down the bloody well, and if I miss it..."

Giles snaps: "You'll what? Lick me to death?" (back to the phone) "For one thing, I would like to take a shower sometime today. ALONE.""

You know there was a thread on this yesterday under breeding which I loved. But I honestly think Joss and Company were chomping at the bit to do homoerotic story with our vamps. And JM really plays the character as having the ability to go both ways. Hence all the slash fiction
that popped up after his introduction. Angel also plays it.

Hmmm, maybe it was with both fathers...we do have that
awkward hug in TR and Spike does accuse Giles of owning a car that is "something red and shaped like a penis".

[> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 1. Giles, Indulgent Father -- leslie, 16:02:14 07/12/02 Fri

Oooh oooh oooh--just jumping in here before I've even finished, but:

"From Willow’s perspective, Giles is now her competition in the SG dynamic, he’s the Watcher – the role she wishes to usurp with her magic and her studies. It’s not the slayer she wants to be – so much as the slayer’s manager, the one that she perceives controls the slayer, Giles."

In which case, parallel Willow with Anya, who wants to usurp Giles's role as proprietor of the Magic Box. And then think about this in terms of how Grave works out: Willow makes Anya her (unwilling? just how unwilling?) accomplice in overcoming the spell that Giles lays on her; Anya then uses her demon powers for the first time since she has reacquired them not to wreak vengence but to help both Giles and Buffy- -with her priority clearly with Giles. And think back to Giles and Anya's assumption of a husband/wife (to-be) relationship between them in Tabula Rasa. Willow is taking the break-from-the-father route, Anya the stand-by-the- father route.

[> [> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: 1. Giles, Indulgent Father -- shadowkat, 21:11:37 07/12/02 Fri

"In which case, parallel Willow with Anya, who wants to usurp Giles's role as proprietor of the Magic Box. And then think about this in terms of how Grave works out: Willow makes Anya her (unwilling? just how unwilling?) accomplice in overcoming the spell that Giles lays on her; Anya then uses her demon powers for the first time since she has reacquired them not to wreak vengence but to help both Giles and Buffy--with her priority clearly with Giles. And think back to Giles and Anya's assumption of a husband/wife (to- be) relationship between them in Tabula Rasa. Willow is taking the break-from-the-father route, Anya the stand-by- the-father route."

Another thing I hadn't thought of. Very good pt. When Giles returns...Anya waits for him to notice her then embraces him. He notices Buffy first. Anya says - "I'm a blond. Again." (Competing with Buffy?) Yes - I see her standing by him. She even goes back to him after everyone else leaves.

It's ironic when you think back to the early episodes. Willow wants Giles to stay. Anya keeps trying to get him to leave. Now they've switched roles. Anya is so happy he returned. Willow wishes he never did, although she likes that power boost.

Be interesting to see where they take Anya and Giles next year, if anywhere.

[> Spoilers for Seasons 1-6 (Grave) in above posts!! - - shadowkat, 05:45:08 07/12/02 Fri

[> My printer's a hummin'. Will comment later on good/bad parents, and "lineage" in BtVS -- cjl, 09:46:54 07/12/02 Fri

[> Re: S/W Journey Part III: Atonement w/Father Intro -- Drizzt, 13:47:47 07/12/02 Fri

Hey Shadowcat
Love your essays.

Have you thought about submitting them the the essay section of the Fictionary Corner?

[> [> Re: S/W Journey Part III: Atonement w/Father Intro -- shadowkat, 21:07:00 07/12/02 Fri

I keep trying to...but they never get there. So don't know how to do it. I've corresponded with liq twice on it.

Oh Well (shrug) Maybe they prefer to do the link to my website?
It may be easier for them.

Don't know.

Thanks for the compliment though. Greatly appreciated;-)

[> Fascinating as usual, 'kat; just one point to make.... -- cjl, 22:12:11 07/12/02 Fri

It occurs to me that the Scoobies (and for that matter, most of the other characters on the show) have THREE sets of "parents": (1) their birth parents, usually absent or deficient in some way; (2) their surrogate parents, either beneficent or monstrous (as you stated), whose conflict must be symbolically resolved for the character to reach true adulthood; and (3) the character's ancestral heritage.

The last one is important, because this three-dimensional exploration of parents, both real and symbolic, is what distinguishes Buffy from the run-of-the-mill fodder which passes for television in the early 21st century.

The common soap opera, whether daytime or prime time, concentrates on set #1. Characters endlessly debate about who fathered whose child, whether Mommy is an ogre and if daughter will rebel before she can inherit the family fortune, etc., etc. SMG and Susan Lucci did this bit in All My Children. When I was unemployed, I actually watched the show for awhile. I was hooked. Then after awhile, I got so tired of the blatant emotional manipulation and ludicrous plots, I went back to cartoons and game shows. I was much happier that way. (Thank God I found a job before I completely vegetated....)

The second set of parents are the key figures in the modern bildungsroman in film, TV and literature. They are cautionary figures/spiritual guides to the young protagonist, who either bring the callow youth out of ignorance, or drag the poor creature down into the gutter, and the audience is all the better for the lesson. BtVS is teeming with these figures: Giles as paterfamilias (or rakish uncle) of the Scoobies, and Joyce and Jenny as surrogate moms; Angelus and Darla as the Parents from Hell; and what the heck, you can throw in Snyder, the Master, and even Holtz as negative examples of parental authority as well.

But the third category is what makes Buffy truly special, truly unique. It adds the dimension of myth to the saga of a young person's quest for adulthood. In terms of parentage, Buffy has Hank and Joyce (level 1), Giles (level 2), and the first slayer as ancestral mother (level 3). This point was brought home in Bargaining, when Giles was working with the Buffybot and Anya reminded him that this blond object wasn't the latest in a long line of mystic warriors--it was the descendant of a toaster-oven. BtVS isn't just concerned with reconciling the present and the recent past; there are constant reminders and connections to the beginning of time, to allegiances and forces so awesome and remote that the narrative threatens to explode from the sheer scope of it all.

You can make a case for this with the other Scoobs as well: Willow, in her pursuit of witchcraft, brings into play both the coven (symbolic of the eternal forces of white magic) and Prosperexa (Willow's demon mother, the pseudo-Lilith figure of BtVS); Giles, naturally, has the entire history of the Watchers crushing his shoulders, represented by another evil parent--Quentin Travers (boo, hiss); all the vampires we've come to know and love on BtVS can be traced through the Master all the way back to Aurelius and the Ancients; even Xander--well, Xander's situation truly sucks. We know his parents are completely useless. He picked a surrogate father--Giles--who ultimately rejected that responsibility. His female role model, who pretty much substituted for Mom in forming all his moral values...yeah, I know, this is starting to sound a bit sick. But even Xander has that link to the eternal, the same horrifying link that ME explored in "Billy": the seeming endless parade of violence in the soul of mankind, passed down from one generation to the next. (It's my sincere hope that "the line ends here"--from Xander's dream in "Restless"--means Xander will be able to break the pattern of violence and become his own man.)

It's this third dimension to the question of parentage that has helped make Buffy the Vampire Slayer the unique entertainment we've enjoyed for the past six. Given the spoilers for next year, I think Joss will fully explore this theme is Season 7 and make us all deliriously happy.

Cross your fingers.

[> Intriguing essay, shadowkat! -- aliera, 06:39:53 07/13/02 Sat

...and bears rereading. I continue to be impressed by how prolific your writing and thinking about the season is, especially appreciated in the slow time of summer as we await the new season. Your most recent offering was not just an interesting take on pulling together some of the disparate elements of the show, but indicated some intriguing items for the future watching since many of these issues although addressed are certainly not resolved. Very timely as we look back on this season of change which took a new path and addressed the internal hero's journey and confrontation with the self, without the previous externalizing of personal demons. As we anticipate some role shifting and growth again next season, it will be interesting to note how the themes you noted may affect the direction the show travels next.

Just a sidenote, thanks for the mention; but the research and realization of the Amodea reference was redcat's. As usual I was off on one of my tangents! She drew the appropriate connection to the mention of Aradia in Bargaining II and recognized the signifigance of Amodea's story and how it relates to Willow's journey.

And I am developing quite a file on your essays and those of the other thinkers and writers on this board! Lovely food for thought, not just about the show but about the journeys we each make take.

If you didnt know. Here is the Official BTVS Video Game website -- neaux, 07:57:11 07/12/02 Fri

This is the link

or go to buffy.ea.com

The game comes out july 30th. damn i wish i had an xbox.

[> Re: the video trailer is very very nice too -- neaux, 08:07:07 07/12/02 Fri

Dark Willow and "The Story." (S6 finale, etc., spoilers) -- Darby, 08:09:37 07/12/02 Fri

Reading "The Story" thread below got me thinking about this, but there wasn't really a logical place to insert it...

Tara (or whoever Willow was loving) needed to die to turn Willow to vengeance. Okay, I quibble with the actual realization of the theme, but I'll buy into the necessity for the sake of The Story.

But where in Our Girl Willow has Dark Willow been lurking? As I think back over the character we saw, I see some hint of what is to come, but some apparent contradictions.

We've seen Willow pissed off, and Dark Willow is mega- pissed, enough to do some legitimately evil things. Good enough.

We've seen Willow want to get back at people...have we? We know D'Hoffryn saw a potential vengeance demon in her, but that was telling us she's vengeful. Having we ever been shown Willow attempting "payback"? Resentment doesn't imply revenge.

Dark Willow is sarcastic, as Willow is sarcastic, she's tired of being the sidekick, which we've seen before in Willow, she's needlessly hurtful to Dawn...huh? I get that she was kind of "the voice of the fans" in the scene at Rack's, but it didn't seem "true to The Story" to have her taunt and threaten Dawn. The Willow we know has ocasionally let her "real feelings" slip, but never without massive immediate remorse, but Dark Willow revels in the effects.

And what part of the Willow we know is capable of torture, of toying with someone physically and psychically and killing them in an intensely grisly fashion? And I don't count VampWillow, as that aspect could have been connected to the vampdemon (and itself was not linked to an aspect of the Willow we knew), as it presumably is in Angel. We know that Willow likes power, likes control, but she has never been shown to be cruel, has she? To me, she has always been an interesting combination of deep empathy with limited insight - she feels people's pain even when she doesn't really understand it. That is not a facade over a torturer.

What I'm trying to say here is that ME had over a year to foreshadow the type of person Willow could be, but did a poor job of it. Tara dies, Willow wants to kill Warren, maybe even end the world to end her own pain, I can see all that in the character we know. Was the rest just making the Dark Willow character "interesting," or setting up S7 in violation of the character?

You can't talk about the importance of The Story if you make the puppets dance your dance regardless of the characters they have become.

[> Re: Dark Willow and "The Story." (S6 finale, etc., spoilers) -- Rahael, 08:25:53 07/12/02 Fri

Just a quick point. Do not assume who might and might not torture other people. Perfectly 'normal' people find themselves quite capable of inflicting incredible physical pain on other people.

Also, Willow came *this* close to cursing Oz to a joyless, loveless life forever after she found out about his infidelity.

I've never met anyone who hasn't been capable of cruelty, whether in word or deed. It seems, sadly, to be a constant.

I'll repeat a story - I was once at a human rights reception with my father, when he pointed someone out, and said that he had earlier come up to him and introduced himself as the former governor of a notorious prison. Notorious for torture and other terrible things. My father said "I know. I was there too!" (umm, as a prisoner, I hasten to add!)

So you see, torturers, and those who order it can be perfectly normal people, like ourselves. To pretend that only a few, evil people are capable of it, is to not heed the warnings of history. It's just that most of us are lucky enough never to find out exactly how low we can plunge.

[> [> All too true, perhaps, though we like to think not (usually of ourselves). -- Sophist, 08:34:08 07/12/02 Fri

However, I think Darby's bigger point was to question the continuity of "the story". If everyone is capable of torture, then Willow's actions can hardly be said to be necessitated by "the story".

[> [> [> "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent underneath" -- Rahael, 09:05:18 07/12/02 Fri

and from the same play:

"oh, full of scorpions is my mind"

Macbeth is an honourable, courageous, loyal man who is shown descending in a spiral toward treachery and murder. It's been referenced before. He and his wife are actively shown repressing all that is good in them, so they can perform what they need to, in order to fulfil a narrative within a narrative - the prediction made by the three witches.

In a way, Macbeth is as possessed by o'er vaulting ambition, and greed, and superstitiousness as Willow by dark magic, and his wife asks for the milk of human kindness to be replaced by gall. They are 'possessed', once honourable but still responsible for their actions.

Season 6 showed us that all our favourite characters were capable of ignoble behaviour. Willow exhibited the worst of it, precisely because 'she was the best of us'. Buffy, already worried about turning into a killer, neglected her responsibilities, and beat up Spike. Giles abrogated his responsibilities. Anya chose to become a vengeance demon, Xander walked away from the thing he had once said "he would never give up". The list is endless.

That was the story. What we are discussing is, did Willow have to be saddled with the worst crime? And that is definitely up for question. I think that seeing someone who appears to be so kind, innocent and sweet behave that way poses more interesting questions than if Buffy had done it. We could easily have argued that Buffy is a dispenser of justice, and that Warren had to be killed. But by then Buffy is shown emerging out of her state, as Willow descends, and Spike moves outward. It's the pattern of those movements that made the end of Season 6 so strong for me, whereas the middle part seemed less satisfying.

[> [> [> [> Re: "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent underneath" -- Darby, 09:56:56 07/12/02 Fri

I'm not certain that I agree that absolutely everybody is capable, under the wrong circumstances, of any horrendous behavior. I wonder if, when being exposed to the worst in people, there isn't an odd comfort in still being able to see them as regular folks under extraordinary circumstances. I choose to believe that the capacity for evil in individuals is as variable as a sense of humor.

I have no problem, however, with knowing that apparently nice acquaintances can do heinous things, but Willow isn't an acquaintance, she's a person we know well - this may be her "worst of times," but if the writers are doing their jobs, what arises from this tragedy should be an extension of attributes we've already seen. We know that Buffy tends to withdraw and solve problems with violence, that Giles doesn't always pick the best solution to a problem, that Xander fears his family and fears himself, that Anya is a vengence demon in a human - all of those developments were natural extensions of our "friends."

But Dark Willow is like Angelus, exhibiting personality traits that make her seem "other." And it didn't have to be that way - as I've said before, a gradual descent over the season, rather than the "magic is drugs" metaphor that painted Willow as a weak victim (everyone said she was strong, but did we really see it?) to a craving, could have shown us hints of the Darkness. They had even started, yet seemed to veer off from it. The closest they came to showing cruelty in Willow was her attitude toward Tara, but that was much more arrogance than cruelty (that's why the "ending the world thing" works, as it derives from Willow's Supreme Arrogance).

I agree that the directions the various characters were moving at the end of the season were satisfying, and I think Buffy and Spike's trajectories were fairly smoothly set up and very much rooted in the established characters, even the "give me a soul," if you try to fit it to William / Spike. It's this Darth Willow thing...

[> [> [> [> [> Re: "look like the innocent flower, but be the serpent underneath" -- leslie, 12:36:56 07/13/02 Sat

I saw Willow's "turn" as an example of how those who are victimized all too often turn into victimizers the instant they have a chance. Not to open a whole political can of worms here, but as a Jew, I find the whole situation of Israel v. Palestine to be a sickening example of this. Part of me wants to scream at Israel, DON'T YOU REMEMBER???? Willow may not have been physically tortured, but she was certainly psychologically "tortured" before she met Buffy and began to gain a feeling of acceptance. And it seems to me that part of the reason it is appropriate that she would torture and kill Warren is that she also wants to torture and kill that part of her--her inner nerd--as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Agree completely (S6 spoiler; includes S7 spec at the tail end) -- J, 13:04:57 07/13/02 Sat

And it seems to me that part of the reason it is appropriate that she would torture and kill Warren is that she also wants to torture and kill that part of her--her inner nerd--as well.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Willow's entire story since Sunnydale High is about coming to terms with her inner nerd. I don't think that makes her self-discoveries (as witch, lesbian, hottie, etc.) any less real or important, but Willow's still insecure at heart, still afraid of herself--she can't embrace her inner nerd. The trauma of her softer side of Sears years has really scarred her, and killing off Warren, hunting down Jonathan and Andrew, and ultimately trying to end the world were progressively more extreme ways of trying to kill her inner nerd off.

I think that the Willow / Xander scene in "Grave" was the beginning of the end of that phase -- perhaps when Joss talks about how S7 is "back to the beginning", one of the things he means is that we're going to see more nerd Willow (a la S1) in S7.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Excellent points! -- Rahael, 07:13:46 07/15/02 Mon

My initial reaction to Villains, where Willow taunts Warren with his abuse of women was that this accusation must have been all the more felt for Willow because she herself had abused Tara.

Not only does Warren appear more despicable to her because he reminds her of him in a nerdish way, but they both maltreated their lovers. They both tried to make their lovers their 'slaves' in different ways, and could not respect the dignity and boundaries that separated them.

And it echoes the theme of ill treating the person you most identify with because you can't bear to be who you are (Dead Things).

[> [> addendum -- Rahael, 08:39:56 07/12/02 Fri

This is basically a reprise of my post about Willow following Villains, but, to assume that only a very few of us are capable of such acts is to accord them with a demonic status, that allows us to do whatever we want to them.

Which is exactly what Willow did to Warren after all. Someone capable of murder? of cruelty? Torture? We aren't - they must either be 'evil' or insane. No punishment will be good enough for them.

Despite my 'unforgiving' attitude, I've always maintained there is a difference between an evil person, and an evil action. There is a big gap, the gap which is leapt by our choices. And that means that we give due responsibility and agency to human beings. People don't just 'act' because they have a certain nature, a fixed identity - BtVS, shows how complex and uncertain a defition of 'human' is. And Willow is never so sure of who she is either - how come we are?

We are not fated or determined by our personality. We forge our own destiny, we make our own choices.

Rahael, who liked Dark Willow, and depressed Buffy best of all the storylines in Season 6.

[> [> [> Re: addendum -- Finn Mac Cool, 09:08:51 07/12/02 Fri

As I see it, when she went after Warren, Willow got a taste of her own cruelty and decided that she liked it. She'd never shown a cruelty streak before because she had never let herself try it.

[> [> [> [> Re: addendum -- Arethusa, 11:00:55 07/12/02 Fri

There were hints, here and there, of Spiteful!Willow peeking through. The only one I can immediately think of is in "Who Are You," when the gang and Faith/Buffy discuss Faith. (quote by psyche)

Willow: Yeah. I hope they throw the book at her.
Giles: I'm not sure there is a, a book for this.
Willow: They could throw other things.
Buffy: I forgot how much you don't like Faith.
Willow: After what she's done to you?
Oh, I wish those council guys would let me have an hour alone
in the room with her, if I was larger and had grenades.

Thought of another. From "Inca Mummy Girl."

Cut to Willow. Buffy finds her.

Buffy: Where's Xander?

Willow: He's looking for Ampata.

Buffy: We need to find him. Ampata's the mummy.

Willow: Oh. (absorbs the information and smiles) Good.

There have been hints, here and there, of Willow's passive spite or anger. She sometimes seems to let Buffy be her anger substitute, maybe even enjoying Buffy's violence vicariously.
Willow, ignored by her parents, rejected as dating material by her childhood crush, mocked by her classmates, is bound to have deep stores of anger and resentment.

I remember reading in a psychology book about an experiment done at a university, using ordinary students as subjects. The students were told they could anonymously administer painful shocks to other student test subjects. The researchers were horrified to see how readily most students administered and even accelerated the pain, even when they could hear the (fake) screams of the other students.
We never really know what we, let alone others, are capable of until the situation arises.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: addendum -- DL, 11:21:43 07/12/02 Fri

Great thread!

I agree without a shadow of a doubt that Willow is a very angry person. Anyone who has lived life carries anger like that. The key issue to me is the control that one exerts over how they act upon that anger.

Rahael says above that there is a difference between an evil act and an evil person; I agree. Willow is a good person - does anyone dispute that? But immediately after Tara's death, she is temporarily insane. She willingly chooses to utilize the dark magicks that she knows will control her. Those magicks eventually cause everything else. Am I saying that Willow isn't responsible for what she did? Of course not. She is.

We are, as is stated above, painfully in control of our actions. As humans, we do have the capacity to recognize what is evil to us individually, and that in itself allows us to possess evil. Once we see and recognize evil, unfortunately, we gain the capacity to do it. It's our soul, our conscience, and our mind that prevents us from doing so. It keeps us in control. Willow was so befallen with grief that she thought the only way to give Warren et al. what they deserved was to give into the darkness, as she was too smart, too good to do anything to them in her current state.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: addendum -- DL, 11:21:44 07/12/02 Fri

Great thread!

I agree without a shadow of a doubt that Willow is a very angry person. Anyone who has lived life carries anger like that. The key issue to me is the control that one exerts over how they act upon that anger.

Rahael says above that there is a difference between an evil act and an evil person; I agree. Willow is a good person - does anyone dispute that? But immediately after Tara's death, she is temporarily insane. She willingly chooses to utilize the dark magicks that she knows will control her. Those magicks eventually cause everything else. Am I saying that Willow isn't responsible for what she did? Of course not. She is.

We are, as is stated above, painfully in control of our actions. As humans, we do have the capacity to recognize what is evil to us individually, and that in itself allows us to possess evil. Once we see and recognize evil, unfortunately, we gain the capacity to do it. It's our soul, our conscience, and our mind that prevents us from doing so. It keeps us in control. Willow was so befallen with grief that she thought the only way to give Warren et al. what they deserved was to give into the darkness, as she was too smart, too good to do anything to them in her current state.

[> [> [> [> [> agree--slight correction on the social psych -- tim, 13:25:09 07/12/02 Fri

The shock experiment you're thinking of was performed by Stanley Milgram, a Yale professor in the 1950's. It was really more about obedience to authority than people's capacity for torture. That is, if a researcher in a white lab coat tells you to do something, will you do it? (Virtually everything published in social psychology in the 1950's was bent on explaining why the Holocaust happened. This was yet one more take on that question.) A surprising number of people obeyed, even going so far as moving the researcher's confederate's hand onto the (fake) electrode to receive the shock that the researcher claimed was "necessary."

I do tend to agree with those who argue the best of us can become monstrous under the worst of circumstances, though, in part because of another famous study, which indicated it doesn't even have to be the worst of circumstances--there just has to be some minimal justification in our own minds. Students were randomly assigned to one of two groups, a role which they were to act out for two weeks. Some were assigned to be "guards," while the rest were "prisoners." These were normal college students without any unusual histories of violence. They understood the "prisoners" had done nothing worse than be on the receiving end of an unfortunate coin flip. Yet the "guards" became so abusive towards their fellow students that the researchers had to shut the study down after six days, less than half the time they'd allotted.

Never underestimate the human capacity for cruelty. We've spent too long in the jungle for a little civilization to have permanently altered our essential natures.

--tim, who didn't expect this to take such a turn for the dark

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks, tim -- Arethusa, 14:13:45 07/12/02 Fri

I read about both studies ten years ago-had forgotten the second, probably deliberately.
Woody Allen said we are monkeys with car keys. I agree. And we aren't very nice monkeys.

The truth often hides in the dark-where our pretensions are stripped away. Sometimes you must go there.

[> [> [> [> [> [> A footnote -- Rahael, 15:12:20 07/12/02 Fri

Sometime this year, ap