July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002  

More July 2002

Here's a silly diversion... -- Darby, 07:27:20 07/21/02 Sun

What tv shows would the characters watch?

I quoted South Park with Anya down below, and I absolutely believe Xander and she would have watched. But what else would constitute the viewing habits of the Scooby Gang, on those rare nights that the world is not in peril?

It could be something reasonable, like Anya having the hots for Louis Rukheyser, or metaphorical, like Buffy watching Trading Spaces and sighing, or silly, like Willow watching Martha Stewart to see how it's really done, that taking over the world with Dark Powers thing.

Go nuts!

I think it's obvious that I'll be waiting for you there...

[> Re: Here's a silly diversion... -- Kitt, 11:09:50 07/21/02 Sun

Actually, for one charecter, that's easy: Xander.
If he can recognise Klingon love poetry from 3 feet away, then we KNOW he watchs both Enterprise and all the other Star Treks.

[> [> Let's not forget the Babylon 5 commemorative plates. -- Rahael, 11:18:18 07/21/02 Sun

[> Re: Here's a silly diversion... -- Rob, 17:17:52 07/21/02 Sun

I would peg Buffy as a closet-Saved by the Bell watcher, because her character is my age--and basically every American teenager and young adult my age looks back on Saved by the Bell fondly, and still sometimes secretly catches it now and then on reruns on TBS. Also, such a light, mindless view of high school would be the perfect antidote to Buffy's more heady high school and then college and post-college experiences.

Willow, I think, would get a kick out of Alias for no particular reason but I still get a feeling she'd like it. Xander--cartoons, definitely--I picture him watching Tom and Jerry, with Anya sitting beside him, perplexed. Secret favorite show, though? Sex and the City. Just trust me on that one. lol

Anya's favorite show? Would have to be the Suzie Orman business make lots of money show on CNN or MSNBC, or whatever that is...

Giles, one might assume would love a stuffy show like Masterpiece Theatre but I'd say no. I think he loves The X-Files, except for the final season. ;o)

And we all know about Spike's Passions obsession!


[> Re: Here's a silly diversion... -- d'Herblay, 17:55:11 07/21/02 Sun

I know Xander was, like me, a fan of the cult favorite Night Stand!, because in "Nightmares," he delivers the line "What can I say? I'm sick. I need help" in a perfect imitation of that show's alcoholic, drug-addict, sex-addict lowlife Bob.

For some reason, I like to think that Dawn and Spike sit around watching The Powerpuff Girls. Spike jokingly calls Dawn "Blossom," and Dawn responds, "I want to be Buttercup!" because that's who she identifies with but Spike secretly has a crush on the raven-haired spitfire and isn't going there. (This may be projection.)

Clem is so obviously a big West Wing fan. And Antiques Roadshow. And Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman.

The Mayor must have had his TV set permanently to American Movie Classics. They just don't make them like they used to anymore. And when Robin and the 7 Hoods came on for the eighteenth time that month, he liked to sing along with Sammy and Dean to "Mr. Booze."

Holtz really never understood TV. Sahjhan really, really tried to get him into Freaky Links though.

Ethan Rayne I see as watching Molto Mario on the Food Channel. And when he's home in England? Countdown!

The Sisters of Jhe like to watch The View and plan a bloody end for Meredith Vieira.

And should any network try to put a show on the air about vampires and demons and the woman who slays them, the audience in Sunnydale will laugh it right off the schedule.

[> [> Maybe the Scoobies are watching Angel. -- JCC, 02:26:09 07/22/02 Mon

And who plays Daphne in "Scooby Doo" in the
Buffyverse? Does SMG exist? What about the
rest? What show is on Tuesdays at 8pm on
UPN? Some things, man just aren't supposed
to know.

[> Re: Here's a silly diversion... -- Lyonors, 07:02:13 07/22/02 Mon

I have this pet theory that Clem likes the Golden Girls and sometimes even gets Spike to watch Murder She Wrote with him....hehehehe


Sense and Sensibility & the noise factor (Part 1) - - John Burwood, 08:04:14 07/21/02 Sun

There is a long thread down the board which covers, among other things, why some people dislike Buffy the character but love other characters more. Rufus pointed out that Joss had said early on that people would find it harder to identify with Buffy as the superhero, and I nearly posted there, but I have an alternative theory on that so am starting a new thread rather than hi-jacking the old one.
In Sense & Sensibility, there is one scene where Elinor hears sudden distressing news, & retreats into shocked silence, her sister Marianne sees Elinor's silent distress & breaks down in hysterical tears at the sight.
The result is that everyone rushes to comfort Marianne when Elinor is the one who is really suffering.
It is almost a symbol for the whole novel - both sisters suffer romantic grief, but Elinor internalises her pain & gets on with what she has to & her duty to others whereas Marianne indulges in an epic emotion trip - all her pain open to the world the whole time.
Guess who gets all the sympathy throughout.
Remember Passion? When Buffy & Willow hear about Jenny's death? I remember some people finding it odd that Joyce went to comfort Willow instead of her own daughter, but actually it was natural - because Buffy was sinking in silent shock, but Willow was crying out loud - making the noise so she got the attention.
Remember Tabula Rasa, when the SG talked about helping Buffy deal, & Willow's spell kicked in to stop her. From that point on, the SG seemed to forget about Buffy's distress as Willow's break with Tara & magic problems took everyone's attention.
Guess which was making the noise again?
But I am not Willow-bashing - will have to go on to Part 2 to make my point properly.

[> Sense and Sensibility & the noise factor (mild S6 Spoilers)(Part 2) -- John Burwood, 08:48:23 07/21/02 Sun

The point I am making is that those who make the most noise get the most attention - twas ever thus. And those who show their feelings of distress get the most sympathy. And those who show their concern tend to get credited with being more caring. And so on.
Does not of course follow. Those who downplay their feelings & get on with things are often the more responsible types who put their duty to others first - like Elinor & Buffy - yet those who let their emotions rip easily are often being irresponsible & self-indulgent when doing so.
But yet it is only natural to judge people by what we see of them. Emotions on the surface gain sympathy - failure to show feelings tends to produce the assumption that they are not felt - that the people are cold, insensitive or pompous, etc.
Unfair - but natural. Buffy has always internalized her pain, and rarely shared it, but stuck with her duty & trying to do the right thing. Others like Willow & even more Spike who operates almost entirely on his feelings with little attempt to hide them are naturally more likely to earn sympathy from those who watch them.
I remember some people disliking Buffy's speech in Villains about not killing Warren, & denouncing it as self-righteous - some even so far as to say good for Willow & Warren deserved it.
Same factor - people naturally sympathize more with open emotional reactions and actions than controlled reason.
Of course, doing the right & responsible - the superhero - thing is mostly an exercise in not indulging your emotions & controlling your actions - it is never going to be that sympathetic.
IMHO anyway. What other comments - BTVS examples can others come up with?

[> [> Re: Sense and Sensibility & the noise factor (mild S6 Spoilers)(Part 2) -- Cactus Watcher, 09:44:10 07/21/02 Sun

I think you've got a very good point, John. It may be why I like Buffy very well until the last few episodes of season five, and have been impatient with her since. I come from an extended family of people who internalize emotions in public. My brother's sister has commented how strange and out of place it felt to be the only one of many relatives who cried at my father's funeral. Buffy, used to act like someone from my family would, be more or less strong and public and wait till having privacy to let it out. During Buffy's long depression we haven't even seen her let it out at all except very rarely. It's interesting that posters that say they really liked last season, often say they can empathize with Buffy's depression.

My example would be the scenes in "Innocence" when Giles is probing Buffy to figure out what happened to make Angel turn bad. The first time, Buffy is clearly distressed, even lets out a tear, but she hurries away to be in private rather than breaking down when Giles contines to prod. The second time when Giles finally realizes what happened, she looks hurt and guilty, but still quite strong.

[> [> [> CW, your brother's sister? Is this one of those riddles? -- Curious-but-strangely-cold Darby, 12:10:36 07/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> [> Re: CW, your brother's sister? Is this one of those riddles? -- Cactus Watcher, 16:40:32 07/21/02 Sun

Yes. How many time can you retype a post before it becomes unreadable? Should be brother's wife or my sister-in-law. Squeeze 'em together and you get ... Then, the master of lousy proof reading, as usual, misses it.

[> [> [> Depression involves numb feelings. -- Rahael, 12:12:52 07/21/02 Sun

[> [> The Body/Forever -- MaeveRigan, 10:38:07 07/21/02 Sun

Although the viewers are allowed to see some of Buffy's grief-stricken reactions to her mother's death--vomiting, crying--she shows almost nothing to her friends or to Dawn. Thus Dawn concludes that Buffy doesn't care that Joyce is dead, when in fact, Buffy finally admits, when confronted:

BUFFY: I didn't mean to push you away, I didn't. I just, I couldn't let you see me.

Dawn begins to cry too.

BUFFY: (still crying) I don't know what we're gonna do. I'm scared.

Trying to be the solitary hero just went nowhere in this situation. Dawn ended up the hero of this one, but Buffy's admission of vulnerability let us (and Dawn) love her.

BTW, in checking the dialogue quote, I noticed that Marti wrote this episode.

[> [> [> Re: The Body/Forever -- Jane's Addiction, 12:26:16 07/21/02 Sun

Forever was a great episode, and perhaps a bit overlooked in the shadow of the groundbreaking greatness of
The Body(not just one of the best hours of Buffy, but one of the best hours of television drama ever, IMHO).

That last scene was a wonderful example of Dawn (Buffy's inner-child?) bringing out something in Buffy that no one else could touch at that point.

But just a couple of episodes later, in Tough Love, Buffy was giving Dawn the full 'Miss Minchin's Select Seminary for Girls' treatment. Why? Because she understood the danger they were facing (Little Dawn becomes a ward of the state or goes to live with the father who couldn't be there for his own children when they'd just lost their mother), though she doesn't share that knowledge right away. Again, her first instinct is to internalize and take everything on herself. Poor Buffy. Even when dealing with tragically real life, non- demonic challenges, she still has to be obsessed with this idea of solitary duty and obligation.

Isn't that the reason that the writers have to have characters like Dawn, Spike and Willow (though Willow has hidden quite a lot, especially in this past season, even from herself) that wear their emotions on their sleeve? From the storytellers' perspective, they have to have characters who can externalize things and bring more of the audience along for the emotional journey.

[> [> [> [> Sideline: Willow's hidden emotions -- MaeveRigan, 20:43:18 07/21/02 Sun

"though Willow has hidden quite a lot, especially in this past season, even from herself"

I've always (well, maybe not always, but for a long time) thought that the reason Willow doesn't sing a complete song in OMWF can be very easily explained dramatically by this point, which is quite coherent with her character development. The fact that AH didn't want to/couldn't sing might just as well be irrelevant, or was used very cleverly by JW.

Willow is obviously unhappy that she only has one line and "I think this line's mostly filler," but if we assume that DarkWillow was speaking things that had been repressed in the heart of NiceWillow, even if she had revealed them in a cute, Shirley-Temple style tapdance routine--well, no question about who the season's big bad was going to be!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sideline: Willow's hidden emotions -- Jane's Addiction, 11:12:50 07/22/02 Mon

Exactly. With all the other characters unable to stop themselves from literally singing out the truth, Willow's silence seemed so evocative of just how deeply buried in her subconscious her 'truth' was.

That's what has fascinated me about the Willow character this season. Her issues seemed to be as well hidden from herself as they were from her friends.

Was there one crushing blow that made her snap and sink into darkness? I really don't think so. As devastating as Tara's violent death may have been, I doubt it would've driven Willow to the depths that it did had it not been preceeded by each small step that came before. It was such a gradual, subtle, emotionally realistic process and showed just how a good person might be corrupted or driven insane by forces that technically are within their control, but realistically are not entirely in their control if only because they can't always see the underlying emotional reasons behind their choices. Or are afraid to look.

It's not as if Willow went directly from restoring Tara's mind in season 5 to stealing part of her memory in season 6. It was a long, gradual process. And each step - looked at in the context of the moment and from Willow's perspective - made sense. That's what makes it scary. No one can know with certainty (ok - at least I can't) that they wouldn't make similar mistakes in similar circumstances.

I believe Shadowkat has mentioned seeing a parallel to Sept. 11 in the Willow arc (intentional or unintentional), and I tend to agree. Perhaps that's part of what has drawn me into this particular arc this past season.

Sorry - this kind of rambled beyond the "Yeah, I noticed the songless subtext too. Cool, huh?" bit that I meant to post. Back to work now...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Why deeply buried? -- Vickie, 12:56:28 07/22/02 Mon

These are great points about Willow in OMWF, but I wonder. Could Willow's lack of a solo indicate her growing magical power, and therefore ability to resist Sweet's influence? Does this lack have to be Willow deeply burying her feelings?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why deeply buried? -- Jane's Addiction, 15:39:42 07/22/02 Mon

That was my reading of the ep. But you're right - it's entirely subjective. I just didn't see anything in that ep that indicated she was knowingly hiding something, unlike the chilling little smile when she pulled the forget spell on Tara and later tried the spell on both Tara and Buffy. And even that I saw as incredible hubris - thinking she knew what was best for others - rather than the act of some sort of mustache-twirling power mad "soon my electro ray will destroy Metropolis" villain.

But I guess we really won't know until next season just who is behind the curtain in Willow's mind.

Did you see anything in the ep that made it appear she was consciously resisting Sweet's influence?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, not consciously -- Vickie, 16:10:46 07/22/02 Mon

I don't know if you would HAVE to know about a magical attack to resist it. (Shades of my role-playing days, gads!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No, not consciously -- Jane's Addiction, 17:05:55 07/22/02 Mon

I don't know about that role playing stuff. Well, there was this one little summer hiatus Inquisition on the X-Files board but that was years ago (and we only did it because no one was expecting it...and we were bored).

Anyway, I'm feeling much better now and haven't denounced anyone in, uhm, days ...

[> [> Re: Sense and Sensibility & the noise factor (mild S6 Spoilers)(Part 2) -- Kitt, 11:44:39 07/21/02 Sun

Sorry to burst the bubble, but while Spike's emotional outbursts make him easier to understand, that's not why I identify with him a lot easier than Buffy. Let's face it, whether as Spike or William, can any of us ever see him as being part of the 'In' crowd? Yeah, he had minions, who he bullied, but with the exception of Dru, do you think anybody actually "had affection for" Spike before he started working with the Scoobies? (ok, maybe Harmony, but he didn't like her, so I don't think she counts). Now, cannon is that before being called, Buffy was a 'popular girl.', and while Xander and Willow were outsiders, the Scobbie Gang has provided them with a setting where they are not just accepted, but key members of the group.
Acceptance is something we all crave, no matter what we may tell anyone; "I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man, and that's..." Is it any wonder he loves her? She accepts him. So does Dawn. Maybe Willow and Tara, and that's it. For 100+ years, the only one who accepted him was Dru, and see how much he was devastated by her rejection? And the thing is, this struggle for acceptance, this perenial outsider status? THIS is what I identify with in Spike. A case of Been there, Done that, nice to see I'm not the only one on the planet. That's why I respond to Spike (and Willow, and even Xander for that matter) more than Buffy.

[> [> [> Acting like an outsider, and being an outsider -- Rahael, 11:56:31 07/21/02 Sun

These are two important differences.

Buffy may have once been 'popular', but only for her surface appearance. Once her 'real' nature started slipping out, was she popular? It is those who are ejected from the 'in' crowd who sometimes suffer the most.

One of my closest friends is someone who is a perennial insider. She went to expensive schools, with members of the royal family. Her friends are well connected, she is rich. She looks the part too - attractive, English rose looks. She feels more of an outsider than me, educated in ordinary schools, looking like a foreigner, and hell bent on 'not belonging'.

She feels that people make assumptions about who she is, and that she can never show the real person, the person who cares about the world she lives in and gets angry about injustice. Because then she would get rejected, not only by acquaintances, but by her own family. That is a terrible feeling. And she's still struggling with a depression that cripples her life. Being in the in crowd, as Cordy pointed out, can be as lonely as being out of it. Doesn't Buffy, Willow and Xander find more acceptance with their real friends, being who they really are, loved for who they are?

As you yourself have pointed out, Spike has chosen himself to disregard people who loved him. He treated Harmony as callously, as coldly as any in crowd arrogant man toward a 'outsider' girl. He has his minions, he had Harmony, Drusilla, his own little family. He likes walking alone, being the big bad who doesn't need anyone.

And as for Buffy, Dawn, Tara etc who accept him, 'that's it'? really? I would consider that richness.....to have such people accept you. Especially for someone who isn't just a lonely tragic figure rejected by society, but someone who rejected society and cut a swathe of blood through it.

[> [> [> cannon? -- Robert, 08:23:41 07/24/02 Wed

>> "Now, cannon is that before being called, Buffy was a 'popular girl.', ..."

Did you really mean to use the word "cannon", which means;
1. A large heavy gun usually mounted on a carriage, a heavy- caliber automatic aircraft gun firing explosive shells.
2. A loose, independently revolving metal sleeve that fits over a shaft.
3. The projecting part of a bell by which it is hung.
4. A smooth round bit for a horse.
5. The large bone between the fetlock and knee or hock of the horse and allied animals.

... or did you mean to use "canon", which means;
1. A rule or law; especially, a rule of faith and practice enacted by a church council and, in the Roman Catholic Church, ratified by the Pope; also a body of such rules or laws.
2. An established rule; principle.
3. A standard for judgement; criterion.
4. The books of the bible recognized as the divinely inspired rule of faith and practice.
5. The sacred books of any sect or religion.
6. A list, as of the recognized works of an author.
7. The list of canonized saints.
8. The portion of the Mass between the Sanctus and the Lord's Prayer.
9. A composition or passage in which one or more voices follow and imitate the melody of the first voice, the various parts overlapping in time.
10. A size of type, 48-point.

[> [> Very good post, John -- Caesar Augustus, 16:59:07 07/21/02 Sun

This is true. Buffy's reaction in 'The Body', as pointed out by MaeveRigan, was very stoic. People tend to see stoic people as being strong, coping well with the death - when if anything, the opposite is true. They are so hurt deep inside that they have temporarily lost connection with the outer world, and a part of them has almost died and is unable to feel. They are very focused on the tasks at hand, such as funerals, sympathising with loved ones, but still show a huge amount of fatigue (shown by her meeting with Angel). They may seem strong but they also tend not to get much support or sympathy from those around because they are the ones supporting and sympathising with others, feeling that duty. Dawn attacks Buffy for not feeling, even tho Buffy has been looking after Dawn.

Buffy's s6 status was almost a year-long extension of this feeling. She was dead inside, couldn't communicate with her friends, and looked for the only solace she could find in Spike! As you said, it's natural for these people not to get much sympathy from us - especially on a TV show, where one expects emotions to be fairly out in the open - but it takes someone who's been there to fully appreciate the process that Buffy is going through, and actually sympathise with her.

[> [> [> Year long recovery -- Just George, 12:25:06 07/22/02 Mon

Caesar Augustus: "Buffy's s6 status was almost a year-long extension of this feeling."

I have felt for a while that losing her mother was what put Buffy over the edge into a state of depression. It has taken her over a year to recover. Why was losing Joyce so much harder than the other losses in S5?

* Losing Riley is a lot like losing Angel.
* Protecting Dawn is a lot like protecting the Scoobies.
* But losing Joyce was like nothing Buffy had ever dealt with before. She had never lost someone that close, that central to her life.

It is not a coincidence that Buffy's most powerful statement of confidence in her abilities (Checkpoint) is soon followed by her greatest loss (The Body.) The Jossverse is an ironic universe. Declarations of universality or power are quickly punished by circumstance.

Some people are annoyed with Buffy's numerous epiphanies in Season 6. However, she had a number of issues to work through. She could not move forward until each had been dealt with:

* Not being there to save her mother
* Using/abusing Spike
* Ignoring/holding back Dawn

In some ways, all three can all be traced back to Buffy's loss of her mother. Guilt for not saving Joyce is obviously connected. But, what does Buffy get from Spike (other than great sex?) Unconditional love, a type of support that she hasn't had since Joyce died. What does Dawn represent to Buffy? The last remaining connection to Joyce (one that must be protected at all costs) and the burden of taking over as Mom (a role that Joyce played so well.) Given that of these can be tied to losing Joyce, I believe that the most important of Buffy's Season 6 epiphanies was saying goodbye to her mother in Normal Again.

[> [> [> [> Re: Year long recovery -- leslie, 13:34:30 07/23/02 Tue

"But, what does Buffy get from Spike (other than great sex?) Unconditional love, a type of support that she hasn't had since Joyce died."

Joyce, who, for whatever confused reason, always kind of liked Spike except for that first time when she whacked him with the back of an axe...

Said it before, I'll say it again--they really missed a wonderful chance by not making Spike fall in love with Joyce instead of Buffy. Okay, I understand that that kind of thing doesn't happen in TVland--fortysomething single mothers don't get to screw dangerously sexy undead guys, especially when there is a nubile heroine who happens to be their daughter around--but, to go back to Marti's strange ideas of what constitutes a good relationship, I certainly can see Joyce and Spike sitting around the living room arguing-- amicably--over what to watch on tv.

[> [> Re: Sense and Sensibility & the noise factor (mild S6 Spoilers)(Part 2) -- leslie, 13:24:03 07/23/02 Tue

I agree with the S&S comparison, but I think it's also significant (and typical of JA) that Marianne's real epiphany comes when she realizes that Elinor *does* feel very strongly, as strongly as she, and thus a) not showing emotion does not indicate lack of emotion, and b) she has been able to indulge her own emotionalism *because* of Elinor's stoicism--she's been taking advantage of it. And Marianne's happy ending occurs because she tries to be more like Elinor from this point on. Even though JA acknowledges that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, as long as she's in charge, she makes sure that the quiet one eventually gets her man (not only Elinor Dashwood, but also Anne Elliott in Persuasion, Fanny Price in Mansfield Park, and, interestingly enough, *Jane* Bennett in Pride and Prejudice- -Elinor, Anne, and Fanny are all the heroines of their novels, but Jane is the second fiddle in P&P to the more potentially Marianne-ish Elizabeth).

[> Marianne, Elinor and Elizabeth Bennet - The Golden Mean -- Rahael, 04:03:20 07/22/02 Mon

Or, "Why Buffy isn't a Stoic" (as Sophist pointed out very clearly the last time this came up.

It is instructive to note that Jane Austen was an author who clearly matured, both in writing and in thought over the years. Each novel is finer, and Sense and Sensibility is surely her worst novel. (She is a wonderful writer, with a deepening thougthfulness and subtlety, as her Juvenilia makes quite clear).

Marianne is a caricature of the 'Romantic', all overblown feeling, going into raptures at the reading of a poem (quite disgusted with Edward's passionless reading of poetry). She indulges every feeling, sorrow, joy, despair, to the point where she gets sick from unhappiness.

Elinor is rational, sensible, logical. She makes her decisions from careful thought. Austen's heroines tend to veer from one of these extremes to another, whether it is the impressionable and foolish Catherine Morland, or the patient, stoical Fanny.

But I'd like to look at some other models, because Jane Austen never caricatures, and always can see the full complexity and consequences for any kind of behaviour.

Anne Elliot, heroine of her finest novel, Persuasion patiently endures her trials in life. But we learn that all this disappointment and unhappiness came about simply because she was a good girl and listened to the rational sense of her godmother, rather than follow her heart. At the end of the novel, she sets off to an unusual, love filled life, on the ocean seas.

Fanny Price who has to bear the insults of life because she is poor, patiently waits and waits for the good things of life. But she has no choice, poor thing! Jane Austen knew too well the terrible life that awaited women who a) made the wrong choice of husband b)didn't marry. Fanny has to negotiate these rocks. She, in the end, chooses love over social advantage, rejecting the showy Henry Crawford, the logical choice, for Edmund, the moral one. All along she defies her family because her heart and head, her emotions and morals are in perfect alignment - I'd call her the most complex, developed and 'rational' heroine Jane Austen has shown us. I love her, but she is without doubt the most unpopular heroine among readers.

Then we have Emma, who is shown learning to control her emotions, slowly learning the value of wisdom and compassion and thoughtfulness over impulsive, emotional decisions.

But finally, we have Miss Elizabeth Bennet, the most likable of all her heroines. Jane Austen wrote in a letter about Elizabeth, "I must confess that I think her as delightful a character as ever appeared in print, and how I shall be able to tolerate those who do not like her at least, I do not know".

Stoicism is caricatured in Pride and Prejudice in the shape of the dreary Mary, who is of course forced to be stoical because she is going to end up on the shelf (Jane Austen is always aware of the ironies of life, and the shortcomings of human beings, especially herself). She spends the novel imparting advice to her sisters, especially about moral decision making, and disregarding the false things in life.

Elizabeth is impulsive, generous and witty. She judges Darcy without thinking things through logically. She rejects Collins, though the dutiful thing to do would have been to marry him. She treks through the muddy fields out of love for her sister (though I don't see stoicism as seeing that as a bad passion, necessarily.)I'd like to point out that her calm, good sister Jane nearly loses the love of her life, Bingley because Darcy is able to persuade him that Jane feels nothing for him. As Charlotte shrewdly points out, she had better give him indication of her passion, even more than she felt, if she was to catch him.

What does this have to do with Buffy? Because I think she is more like her namesake, Elizabeth than any other Austen heroine. Not for Buffy the meek obediance of Fanny, or the patience of Anne, or the irritating silliness of Marianne.

She is engaging, witty, lively. She is not a stoic because she does not control harmful passions - she risks a great deal for her injudicious love for Angel. She engages in sex with Spike, even though it is clearly a bad decision by Stoical thinking. She allows negative emotion to overwhelm her after Becoming - the correct thing to do would be to master her passion and stay in Sunnydale. Similarly, the catatonia in Spiral, again not the Stoical thing to do. Emotionlessnes is not necssarily Stoical. Stoicism is to recognise and master emotion through rational and logical means.

I remember the Buffy of Prophecy girl, I remember someone who exhibits the full range of human emotions. This is precisely why her lack of feeling in Season 6 is so marked. She feels anger, love, sadness, joy, lust. She doesn't slay calmly and rationally, she does it with a twinkle in her eye and a quip. She doesn't need to attract attention in the same way as Willow. She is the centre of the Scooby gang, the focus of all the attention. She has a mother who has always loved her, a Watcher watching out for her, a group of friends who spend all their time helping her. Willow makes noise because she has grown up neglected, with parents who clearly don't care about her.

Buffy is always the focus of attention, whether she's in Sunnydale, in LA or in heaven. She's the Slayer, and of huge importance. She already has just about as much attention as she can take.

So I'd say that Buffy is neither unemotional nor lacking attention. She is so good at emotions, that she can utilise it to her advantage. Willow on the other hand goes between the extremes of Elinor and Marianne - either calm, rational and logical, or wracked by pain, or filled with joy.

[> [> Re: Marianne, Elinor and Elizabeth Bennet - The Golden Mean -- Ronia- Agree completely, 06:56:01 07/22/02 Mon

[> [> Acting stoically is temporary behaviour, not permanent -- Caesar Augustus, 06:57:16 07/22/02 Mon

Emotionlessnes is not necssarily Stoical. Stoicism is to recognise and master emotion through rational and logical means.

Stoicism is the endurance of pain/hardship without emotion/complaint (straight from dictionary). Stoicism is switching off on an emotional level. Emotionlessness is very much a huge part of stoicism. Stoicism is not about recognising your emotions and logically overriding them!! That's called 'being rational'. Stoicism is about disconnecting from your emotions - the best way I can think of putting it is 'your brain disconnecting from your heart'.

The other main thing that bugged me is that there's no such thing as a stoic person. Some people act stoically in certain circumstances. A stoic response to death is not uncommon - it certainly does not mean that people who react that way have never shown emotion in their life!!! It is a particular response to extreme emotions and circumstances. It has nothing to do with usually being unemotional. Buffy was initially shut down about the Angel thing too (Innocence), one should remember. Buffy certainly responded stoically to her mother's death and her whole s6 'feeling dead' response to coming back to life is as clear a stoic reaction as I could imagine. Refusing to talk to her friends! Being more concerned with them not worrying at all about her than her own situation!

One trivial point I feel obliged to mention because at times I'm just a petty man:
Please don't use capital S. The school of Stoicism (teaching that virtue comes from knowledge) has very different connotations from the general word stoicism. Saying someone is a stoic also emphasises the Stoicism connotation, which I dislike. All this talk about her being a Stoic is, in my own (very critical at the moment) opinion, a hint that the point has very much been missed.

[> [> [> I was talking about Stoicism with a capital S -- Rahael, 07:09:51 07/22/02 Mon

And I assumed you were too - this being the Philosophy board and all.

Since John Burwood talked about being rational versus emotional, and this is very much the dichotomy that he sets up using Elinor and Marianne. Elinor emphatically does not disconnect her heart and mind. Her heart and mind are in perfect harmony.

I have never used stoicism, either on this board or in ordinary life, to mean anything but Stoicism with a capital S. Epicureanism, on the other hand, I frequently use in the non philosophical way, because ordinary use and philosophical use has diverged widely on that term.

You ask me to not use Stoicism with a capital S. Why? Have I applied the principles of Stoic philosophy incorrectly? It is true that it is about 5 years since I last sat in on philosophy classes. Please correct me if I have got it wrong.

[> [> [> [> Re: I was talking about Stoicism with a capital S - - Vickie, 07:14:37 07/22/02 Mon

From my feeble understanding of porch philosophy, I think you have it correctly Rah. Doubtless, Cleanthes will chime in and correct us if not. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> Porch philosophy, lol -- Rahael, 07:24:12 07/22/02 Mon

Thanks Vickie!

I would say that Buffy's actions in Season 6 are those of a depressed person. I always thought that Stoical, as it is in common parlance has good connotations, arising from the philosophy itself, which had a whole moral and ethical outlook on life. In any case, since English is not my first language, I often learn the use of words in different contexts - I'm far more likely to know a word in an academic rather than a colloquial sense since I didn't grow up with English speakers.

I wasn't responding to CA, as such in my post - I was responding to John Burwood's post, and the qualities of Elinor are very much of the idea that the virtuous person is prepared for the misfortunes of life, and treats them as she would the fortunes of life, always acting as virtue, rather than passion dictated.

[> [> [> [> Definition of Stoicism with a capital S -- Sophist, 12:50:31 07/22/02 Mon

Here's a more complete one:

The Stoics emphasized the role of fate. The goal of each human being is to understand the divine plan and to act according to it. This means acting in accord with virtue, which for the Stoics, is the only good. The Stoics believed that happiness was achieved by following reason, by freeing themselves from passions, and by concentrating only on things they could control.

Doesn't sound like Buffy to me.

[> [> [> [> [> I didn't realise that Stoicism were fatalistic -- Rahael, 13:58:25 07/22/02 Mon

I had always thought they considered the full range of possiblities, and were prepared for all of them.

But I bow to superior wisdom!

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL -- Sophist, 16:36:14 07/22/02 Mon

In that case, I'm embarrassed to report that the definition came from the World Book encyclopedia. Quickest source I had online. And worth every penny I paid for it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You're shattering all my illusions! -- Rahael, 00:20:32 07/23/02 Tue

You looked it up? LOL

Okay, I consulted my Penguin dictionary of Philosophy and nary a mention of fatalistic outlooks on life. Of course,silence does not mean absence.

Someone needs to arbitrate!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cleanthes, call your office! -- d'Herblay, 03:34:00 07/23/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> The Stoicists were not fatalistic -- Masq, 11:33:44 07/24/02 Wed

The Stoics were not fatalists. Their views more closely resemble what is known as "determinism" or "scientific determinism" (see my webpage http://www.atpobtvs.com/philos2.html#fw).

The difference between fatalism and determinism is this: the determinist believes that if event A happens, event B must also happen. If Angel locks Darla and Drusilla in with the lawyers (A), the vampires will eat the lawyers (B). B must follow A, no question

A -> B

Determinists also believe, on the other hand, that if event A doesn't happen, it's an open call whether event B will happen:

not A->not B or not A-> B

If Angel doesn't lock the lawyers in with the vampires (not A), maybe the lawyers escape the vampires (not B), or maybe the vampires lock themselves in with the lawyers and the lawyers end up getting eaten (not A->B). Either could happen.

The fatalist, on the other hand, is the person that says "The lawyers were fated to get eaten no matter what Angel did". Angel locks them in (A), the laywers get eaten (B). Angel walks away leaving the door open (not B), the lawyers get eaten anyway. There's no escaping their "fate".

A->B or not A->B, no chance of the result not B.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks!! -- Rahael, 14:58:51 07/24/02 Wed

For taking the time to explain. I owe you lots and lots of paragraphs!

[> [> [> [> Completely different wavelengths -- Caesar Augustus, 17:38:41 07/22/02 Mon

Obviously I didn't realise you were talking about proper Stoicism. That's fine. It's just after all the talk about Buffy reacting by downplaying her feelings, etc., I thought we were all talking about stoicism. Stoicism is very different (even though that's where the word 'stoicism' derives from) and I would only add to Sophist's very good definition that the Stoic philosophy believes that the path to virtue should be understood through knowledge/study/etc. Buffy's certainly not a Stoic. I don't think anyone was claiming she was. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[> [> [> [> [> Buffy's path to Eudaimonia -- Rahael, 02:39:57 07/23/02 Tue

Yes, different wavelengths, since I only knew one definition of stoicism! Perhaps I've been misunderstanding it when people have used it in ordinary conversation/books for years? Or is it because I rarely read anything written after the 1950s?


Certainly, emotionlessness seems to be the popular understanding of stoicism, emotionlessness in the face of misfortune, but to me, it always meant a calm emotionlessness in the face of fortune itself (which is capricious and not to be trusted).

Also, perhaps I've a very one sided view of Stoicism, (and I've approached it in later years in a very sideways perspective, with the Renaissance interest in Ancient philosophy – Cicero, Seneca’s importance to the Renaissance courtier, etc.). So my view has connected it to the long running debate between public office as being virtuous versus public office as being corrupting. The idea that the Ancients could provide a model of living. Rather than knowledge, I’d say wisdom. The idea of ‘knowing’ and ‘knowledge’ are so complex. Then there’s the whole issue of false impressions/true impressions.

This kind of connects to the discussion around Arystocrat’s post. Buffy may still live a virtuous life, and thereby a happy one, but one which might not involve money or worldly success. Money is an ‘indifferent’ thing. The path to the good life is travelled by rational emotion (emotions aren’t bad, but they should be appropriate). Stoicism, as I understand it, is not fighting your emotions – but going with them, because we should desire virtue. Our emotions should be rational. Rationality and emotion are not dichotomous (a view which I’m very attracted to). In the sense that Buffy’s emotions, at moments of crisis at least, lead her to virtue, she is on the way to eudaimonia. For example, Cave Buffy, governed by emotion chose to rescue Parker and Willow. Her other emotional choices weren’t so virtuous however (though she did exercise a healthy intellectual curiousity!!). Anyway, Buffy’s happiness should be independent of the twists and turns of life, independent of poverty, or riches, fortune or misfortune. Because at the end of the day, she’s got herself, and her mind, and the ability to exercise virtuous choices. And she’s pretty gifted at finding choices out of black and white situations (pun intended!)

Anyway, all this comes from 2 years of high school philosophy, and we were taught by one of those wonderful eccentrics you never forget. I remember a lot of Aristotle and Wittgenstein and virtually nothing else. All I remember about Bertrand Russell is something about a chair. He always insisted on pronouncing Kant a certain way, and he used to call Roger Scruton ‘Roger Scrotum’. I remember a discussion where he insisted that the Stoics were not fatalists, though it would be easy to confuse them as such. But he could be wrong!! He had a unique perspective on the world.

(He was also the person who I discussed poetry with. We spent lunch hours discussing literature and poetry – I’d bring Herbert, he introduced me to Graves. I owe him more than this – he taught me to always think clearly, and rationally, and that no problem was to big not to spot the virtuous course of action).

[> [> [> Small rider -- Caesar Augustus, 07:10:49 07/22/02 Mon

I said "The other main thing that bugged me is that there's no such thing as a stoic person."

Actually there is such a thing as a stoic person, but I don't think anyone is suggesting that Buffy is a stoic person in the stolid sense that some rare people in this world are. The usual meaning of the word stoic refers to how people respond to grief situations ...

Just thought I'd add that before I get shouted down for one stray comment rather than people actually analysing the points I made.

[> [> Emotional withdrawal -- ponygirl, 10:46:18 07/22/02 Mon

"Buffy is always the focus of attention, whether she's in Sunnydale, in LA or in heaven. She's the Slayer, and of huge importance. She already has just about as much attention as she can take."

It's interesting that Buffy's response in times of extreme emotional stress is to withdraw, definitely emotionally, sometimes physically. We see this in WSWB, when Buffy tried to distance herself from family and friends, we see it in Becoming when she left for LA. As mentioned that response is very evident in Forever and most dramatically in Weight of the World where Buffy actually went catatonic in order to avoid dealing with emotions of guilt and helplessness. It's almost as though with her huge responsibilities, that as you say make her actions the constant centre of attention, she can't bear for a scrutiny of her inner emotions, seemingly even by herself. It has been an interesting process watching an understandable defence mechanism turn into a fullblown disorder. For me what made Buffy's struggles in s6 so poignant is that unlike her earlier withdrawals her depression was something she was aware of and actively trying to break out of.

Love the Jane Austen comparison Rahael and John! I'll have to forward them to my friend, she's a new Buffy convert but a huge Austen fan.

[> [> [> Re: Emotional withdrawal -- Vickie, 11:23:17 07/22/02 Mon

I *think* the first time Buffy withdraws this way is the school hallway scene in Innocence.

Angelus threatens her friends, threatens her, then kisses her. He throws her up against the wall and leaves. Buffy slides down the wall and sits on the floor, staring into space as her friends come up to her. She ignores them (and we go to station break).

"Uh, oh self," I said to myself, "this girl is close to the end of her ability to cope." And she was.

I wouldn't say Buffy does this a lot, but it is her ultimate reaction to stress.

[> [> [> [> Catatonia -- auroramama, 21:36:40 07/23/02 Tue

Oh, Vickie, I like that. She doesn't do it a lot, she's very hard to break -- but when she breaks, that's the fault line: withdrawal, with the endpoint being permanent catatonia, as in NA.

[> [> [> [> Re: Emotional withdrawal -- hathir_child, 22:48:31 07/23/02 Tue

She does this earlier too. In WSWB, Hank tells Joyce about how Buffy was during the summer with him - friendly, but distant, not quite there. There are earlier, but more subtle examples.

[> [> Re: Marianne, Elinor and Elizabeth Bennet - The Golden Mean -- John Burwood, 12:36:40 07/22/02 Mon

Love your post, Rahael - great analysis of Jane Austen heroines - you in Jane Austen Society, too? Got to say Fanny Price is my persoanl favourite too - & first love. When I was 14 in an all-boys school & got asked to write an essay on a book of my choice I chose Mansfield Park - perhaps luckily was not asked to deliver it to my class like Willow in Restless.
But I do agree totally on your comparison of Buffy & Elizabeth Bennet - to me Buffy is the most delightful character ever on the screen.
Hence my interest to rationalise why some people actively dislike her, & use of the classic Elinor/Marianne contrast. Of course, JA, like JW, always writes her characters much more complex and subtle but it is there & it has mythic significance to me.
I have always been fascinated by the way different observers can interpret the identical people/actions/events in totally opposite ways.
Too often in the realverse - especially in politics - people can refuse to believe the opposite interpretations can be both sincere & sensible - thank God the posters don't fall into that too easy trap.

[> [> [> A passionate Austenite (and she has kick ass table manners to boot!) -- Rahael, 14:27:37 07/22/02 Mon

She's probably the writer I have most read and reread, throughout my childhood, through to now. I should join the Austen society, shouldn't I? lol

I love Mansfield Park. I think it is the sharpest political critique Jane Austen has ever written. The beautiful, harmonious Mansfield Park, mismanaged in the hands of the careless Sir Bertram. The lure of showy London, with its total misunderstanding of the ways and traditions of the countryside. The play within the novel that is enacted, that becomes a focus for unbalanced emotion and the breeding ground for immorality. And we have two symbols of hope, Fanny and Edmund, loving, moral, clear sighted.

The Court versus Country debate translated into a new century.

Most of all, I simply love her prose. I find it the most elegant, well balanced beautifully written English I've ever encountered. The sentence construction in Mansfield Park is something I swoon over!!!

Joss when asked who he'd have for dinner, said Jane Austen, because she was a brilliant novelist, and she'd have kick ass table manners!

[> [> [> [> Well...Joss to Jane -- fresne, 14:50:27 07/22/02 Mon

Well, (and let’s see if I can make this work), since I have this on hand.

Perhaps, there's a good reason for the Joss to Jane connection.

fresne-voting for Buffy as Mr. Darcy, because it's wrong and I don't want to be right.

[> [> [> [> [> LOL!!! (and am now v. intrigued by Buffy as Darcy hmmmmm) -- Rahael, 14:59:13 07/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well...Joss to Jane -- shadowkat, 09:57:11 07/23/02 Tue

Yes as a fervent reader and lover of Austen, I thought a while ago that Buffy made a better Darcy than Elisbeth.

I remember reading someone's analysis and thinking just
this. Buffy like Darcy is fairly contained. Somewhat
judgemental. And loves people against her will.
Keeps her emotions to herself. And always does what is best for everyone concerned in the end. (Well not always but most of the time.) Hmmm wonder how much of Austen Whedon
read? Anyone have a biography of Whedon available?

[> [> [> [> Re: A passionate Austenite (and she has kick ass table manners to boot!) -- Caroline, 15:00:29 07/22/02 Mon

What a fabulous analogy! Now I have these visuals, Buffy as Elizabeth (loved by Darcy/Spike but won't give them the time of day), Spike as Darcy (whom Buffy/Elizabeth both seriously prejudge), Angel as Wickham (deserted the heroine), Tara as Jane (loyal sister/friend), Willow at end of season 6 as Lydia (betraying family/friends)...

No no no have to stop - too much work to do.

It's always the same old story.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A passionate Austenite (and she has kick ass table manners to boot!) -- fresne, 15:17:27 07/22/02 Mon

That works. Although, Darcy/Wickham, hmmm...

However, (sometimes I feel like I talk about it waaaay too much, so I apologize if I'm taking up bandwidth)
what I meant was Joss Whedon's Pride and Prejudice.

About a year ago my housemate and I took P&P (yes, the entire book - and with pictures), reversed the genders and replaced everyone with Buffy characters.
Character switches were chosen based on rightness (it worked in some strange way. The Buffy/Spike, Darcy/Liz switch works horrifyingly well.) and yet was very, very wrong.
To wit, Angel was Lydia. Mrs. Bennett - The Mayor, etc.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: A passionate Austenite (and she has kick ass table manners to boot!) -- Malandanza, 19:53:31 07/22/02 Mon

"Now I have these visuals, Buffy as Elizabeth (loved by Darcy/Spike but won't give them the time of day), Spike as Darcy (whom Buffy/Elizabeth both seriously prejudge), Angel as Wickham (deserted the heroine), Tara as Jane (loyal sister/friend), Willow at end of season 6 as Lydia (betraying family/friends)..."

I agree with Tara as Jane Bennet, but Spike as Mr. Darcy? I really can't see him as Wickham, either, even if we allow Harmony to be Lydia (which seems a good match to me).

For Spike, I'd pick Henry Crawford -- since he destroyed months of work ingratiating himself with the heroine, only to throw it all away in a moment of ill-advised passion with Maria Rushworth/Anya. Although Henry Crawford's manners towards his beloved are much more becoming than are Spike's.

At first, I thought Willow might fit as Emma, since Emma ought to be insufferable, but isn't. And Emma would have been insufferable had it not been for the quiet guidance of Mr. Knightley (which, I suppose, would make Tara Mr. Knightley). But I can't really see Willow as a heroine of a novel, even a flawed one like Emma. She doesn't have enough subtlety to be Lady Susan -- maybe Bingley's sister?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Surely a little harsh, lol -- Rahael, 07:21:12 07/23/02 Tue

Since she's neither stupid, vulgar or snobbish?

As far as I know, the Bingley sisters didn't have any saving graces. (they may have had stylish clothes however. Hmmmm).

I have another comparison: Cordy = Emma

Spoilt, rich, witty. Taught by life and Mr Knightley that she could be more than this.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> It depends on your view of Caroline Bingley -- Malandanza, 09:03:57 07/23/02 Tue

"Since she's neither stupid, vulgar or snobbish?

As far as I know, the Bingley sisters didn't have any saving graces. (they may have had stylish clothes however. Hmmmm)."

Had I seen the Colin Firth adaptation of P&P before reading the book, I would likely agree with you about Caroline Bingley. However, I don't think that she's quite so bad as you make her out to be (or that Willow is quite so free from these same faults as you would like her to be). The snobbishness is partly a product of the times -- things we consider to be snobbery were not considered so -- consider that even Elizabeth Bennet would be a snob by our standards:

"They [the Bingley women] were of a respectable family in the north of England; a circumstance more deeply impressed on their memories than that their brother's fortune and their own had been acquired by trade."

Their father worked for a living! How common! A similar observation is made by Emma regarding Mrs. Elton -- although she also had the problem of having an Uncle who still worked as a lawyer (never mind that Mr. John Knightley was also a lawyer...)

Elizabeth also went through a period where she was ashamed of her mother and younger sisters (Mary included, but especially Lydia) which reminded me of Great Expectations when Pip says that it's a terrible thing to be ashamed of your relations.

Elizabeth's other observations on the Bingley girls have some positive aspects, even though she was inclined to dislike them:

"They were in fact very fine ladies; not deficient in good humor when they were pleased, nor in the power of being agreeable when they chose it, but proud and conceited. They were rather handsome, had been educated in one of the first private seminaries in town..."

So, not vulgar or stupid either. And they couldn't have been so very bad -- Mr. Darcy only danced twice at that first ball, with Mrs. Hurst and Caroline Bingley and "spent the rest of the evening in walking about the room, speaking occasionally to one of his own party." Since Mr. Bingley danced every dance, it suggests that Mr. Darcy conversed sometimes with Caroline or Mrs. Hurst -- it's hard to imagine Mr. Hurst having anything to say. He is frequently in Miss Bingley's company (no doubt, partly by Miss Bingley's design -- but I feel confident that a forthright person like Mr. Darcy could have easily escaped her presence -- or, at least, avoided going on intimate walks with her -- had he chosen to do so). Plus Caroline Bingley was bright enough to join Mr. Darcy in trying to prevent the Jane/Bingley romance for her own reasons (if Mr. Bingley is near Jane, Mr. Darcy will be near Elizabeth).

So for the pride and the feelings of being unnoticed because of Buffy, I'd say Willow is a pretty good match for Miss Bingley.

But Cordy and Emma? Emma knows what tact is.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It depends on your view of Caroline Bingley -- Rahael, 09:33:30 07/23/02 Tue

Yes you're right in one way, the recent version does indeed stick in my mind.

But I always thought that the 'fine' ladies were a satirical portrait (along with Darcy's aunt and 'betrothed') about how the upper classes could be just as vulgar (in their behaviour) as Elizabeth's mother. They after all do not realise that Georgiana was responsible for the same behaviour they mock in Lydia. They cannot recognise true breeding, mistaking wealth and outward appearance as substitutes.

Jane Austen is snobbish. She thinks the working classes can never aspire to truly refined behaviour (they may aspire to be good people, however, and worthy of respect). She considers a good upbringing and an education as essential in creating true nobility. But I don't think she ever mistakes wealth and birth as automatic qualifiers for good breeding. Vulgarity transcends class. Elizabeth finally discriminates between the finer man. She also recognises Darcy is equally unfortunate in his relatives as she is in hers. Darcy himself is forced to confront this.

As for Emma being tactful, remember the picnic? where she was so rude to Jane Fairfax's aunt? If that isn't untactful, I don't know what is!

The Bingley sisters are made fine by their clothes and their money but their true image is shoddy. I'd still say that Willow is not vulgar, nor stupid, nor snobbish. Immature, yes. Self centred yes. But also sweet, helpful and constantly wanting to put herself out to help others. The Bingleys don't even understand why Elizabeth would be so concerned about her sister.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I (politely) disagree -- Arethusa, 09:49:56 07/23/02 Tue

Lizzie was ashamed of her relations because their actions were shameful-her mother's stupidity, and loud and naked ambition for her daughters, Lydia and Kitty's vulgar behavior and chasing after soldiers, even her father's refusal to do his duty and correct the behavior of his wife and children. Lizzie was proud of her lawyer uncle and his wife, her aunt, because the were well-bred, sensible, intelligent people.

Caroline Bingley actively discouraged her brother from pursuing Jane, whom Caroline had taken up as a friend, because she wanted Bingley to marry Darcy's sister, tightening the binds between the families. (Of course, she wanted Darcy for herself.) Lizzie said a gentleman's daughter was good enough for a gentleman, and Jane was good enough for anyone. A wealthy young woman's private seminary was not an intellectual stronghold. She could very easily be stupid, and it was stupid to denegrate Lizzie in front of Darcy, when he admired her. Would Willow double-cross a friend for personal gain, or denegrate those who were socially beneath her?

Austen made great distinctions between those who acted well- bred, and those who were. Look at the Bertrams-the father finally learned in the end that a fine appearance doesn't compensate for a vulgar heart. Mrs Elton was common to the core-ambitious, grasping, overly familiar, presumptuous. Emma was often snobbish, but there was also a huge difference at the time between a son of the town's oldest landowner being a lawyer, and a man of no family dignity being a lawyer.

I think Cordy is quite similiar to Emma. Both were rich, beautiful, popular, and self-satisfied, but basically good. Both became more empathetic as they grew older, and both thought they knew everyone's romantic wishes. Compare Cordy's advice to Fred to Emma's advice to Miss Smith-both read the romantic situations totally wrong. Emma could be rude too-remember what she said to Miss Bates at the picnic.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I (politely) disagree -- Malandanza, 23:17:59 07/23/02 Tue

Well, Miss Bingley is certainly far from perfect, and I don't care to defend her any further, having gone beyond any reasonable expectation. I only meant that she is not quite so bad. However, you mention Willow:

"Would Willow double-cross a friend for personal gain, or denigrate those who were socially beneath her? "

To which I would reply yes, and yes. In All the Way and Tabula Rasa she betrays Tara. In Doublemeat Palace she says this of her social inferiors:

WILLOW: You shoulda seen their headquarters, it was like, the nerd natural habitat.

Miss Bingley mocked Elizabeth Bennet for having two lawyers in her family, forgetting that she had lawyers in hers as well -- here, Willow mocks the nerds, conveniently forgetting her own past.

"Emma could be rude too-remember what she said to Miss Bates at the picnic."

I also remember how mortified Emma was by her own behavior after Mr. Knightley spoke to her about it. I can't imagine Cordy ever apologizing or feeling remorse after putting someone down. On the other hand, I can't imagine Cordelia ever doing something as deliberately cruel and calculated as Emma's deliberate snubbing of the Martins (in chapter 23)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> (politely) disagreeing again -- Rahael, 01:18:50 07/24/02 Wed

Well, this is purely a matter of perspective, but in my view Willow's casual aside about the nerds (who are after all, self styled nerds) is not layered with the implications that Caroline Bingley's comment about Elizabeth was. Elizabeth could have been a prospective wife - the implication of her comment was that Elizabeth was fundamentally unfit to be any gentleman's wife, and the same for Jane. It's money plus class that's crucial, as Jane Austen points out - money conceals the greatest of faults, including lawyers and uncles in Cheapside aplenty. And it is money and marriage that the books very first sentence concerns itself with. Therefore, that comment goes to the heart of power, class money, and has more drastic implications for the Bennetts than any sneer that Willow made.

And it's not so much from the tv adaptation that I dislike Miss Bingley (I have far too much affection for Anna Chancellor). Its the sly cruelty she exhibits. Not as openly vulgar as Mrs Bennett or Mrs Elton (which is the nickname I have for a universally loathed member of staff), but in her subtle little digs to Elizabeth in front of Darcy and Bingley. It's a kind of bullying I recognise all too well, the cruelty masked with a slight smile.

As for Cordy not being as cruel as Emma's deliberate campaign against Martin ever marrying Harriet, I think I'm remembering a very different Cordy from the first season than you. "Obsession of dork" "No wonder you're such a boy magnet". I'd rather someone snubbed me than engage in such serial cruelty on a daily basis. Willow and Xander loathed Cordy for a reason.

Emma was mortified precisely because it was tactlessness rather than cruelty at the picnic, and about 50% of her remorse came from the fact that Knightly was so caustic toward her. Knightley, disapproving of her! How could she bear this? I'm pretty sure Cordy feels remorse about her earlier cruelty "if I felt less, I could speak more" - to paraphrase Knightley himself.

(Okay, I really enjoy nitpicking Jane Austen much much more than nitpicking BtVS!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (politely) disagreeing again -- Arethusa, 05:38:48 07/24/02 Wed

From Rm w/a View

Angel goes to stand beside Cordy: “You know, this really is just a place to live.”
Cordy: “No, It’s more. It’s beautiful, - and if it goes away it’s like..”
Angel: “Like what?”
Cordy quietly: “Like I’m still getting punished.”
Angel: “Punished. (Cordy nods) For what?”
Cordy: “I don’t know. For what I was? For everything I said in High School just because I could get away with it? - And then it all ended, and I had to pay. - Oh, but this apartment – I could be me again. Punishment over – welcome back to your life! Like, like I couldn’t be that awful if I get to have a place like that?

From Waiting in the Wings
"I was the ditziest bitch in Sunnydale...."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (politely) disagreeing again -- Malandanza, 09:08:27 07/24/02 Wed

"Well, this is purely a matter of perspective, but in my view Willow's casual aside about the nerds (who are after all, self styled nerds) is not layered with the implications that Caroline Bingley's comment about Elizabeth was...but in her subtle little digs to Elizabeth in front of Darcy and Bingley. It's a kind of bullying I recognise all too well, the cruelty masked with a slight smile."

I doubt Warren Jonathan and Andrew would have considered being called nerds a compliment any more than Willow considered being called "Captain of the Nerd Squad" a compliment. All three of the boys were trying rather desperately to be far cooler than they had been in high school. As someone who resented the charge of being a nerd, Willow ought not to have made such a remark. But if you want casually cruel asides, look at the Willow/Anya scenes, where Willow, with her superior wit, insults Anya in front of her friends (especially Xander) -- and not just in Triangle. While more common in Seasons Four and Five, even in Season Six Willow takes time out from wallowing in self-pity to be cruel to Anya.

ANYA: Did I look like that? I hope I didn't look like that.

WILLOW: No, I'm sure you looked really glamorous cutting up your face.

After Life

(regarding Anya's suggestion to Buffy that she charge for slaying -- although this remark was after Anya left)

WILLOW: You're throwing away a gold mine.


Or this scene, where she adds a little insecurity to Xander's pre-wedding jitters:

XANDER: (to Willow) Welcome to today's episode of "Go Money Go." I hear it every day.

WILLOW: Right. For the rest of your life.

Doublemeat Palace

So I think Willow has made plenty of remarks that are more cruel than Miss Bingley's comments about Elizabeth Bennet's "fine eyes." And for what reason? Willow doesn't even want Xander. If you're looking for "cruelty masked with a slight smile," Willow's your girl.

"As for Cordy not being as cruel as Emma's deliberate campaign against Martin ever marrying Harriet, I think I'm remembering a very different Cordy from the first season than you. "Obsession of dork" "No wonder you're such a boy magnet." I'd rather someone snubbed me than engage in such serial cruelty on a daily basis. Willow and Xander loathed Cordy for a reason."

I was thinking less of the sabotaging of the marriage proposal and more of the chapter 22-23 visit to the Martin farm, where Emma sets out to deliberately affront the entire family. Emma's intent was worse -- Cordelia never bothered to think that Willow or Xander had feelings. Keep in mind that Xander and Willow said pretty bad things about Cordelia as well ("1-800-I'm-Dating-A-Skanky-Ho").

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Impasse! I agree to differ! -- Rahael, 09:52:19 07/24/02 Wed

[> [> Lizzie Bennett and Buffy -- celticross, 23:12:04 07/22/02 Mon

Hmmmmm....interesting read, Rah. Elizabeth Bennett and I go way back (ok, back to my sophomore year in high school, but that's beginning to have been a while) and I can honestly say I've never made a connection between her and Buffy Summers. However, I can see a shift between Seasons 1-4 Buffy, with her Lizzie-esque twinkle, and the Buffy of the past two seasons. Buffy has had no end of troubles (I'll spare everyone the now familiar litany) and they have overwhelmed her. In this, she is most un-Lizzie like, but she is finding herself again, and this is the part of growing up that's just as important as learning new things about oneself; holding on to what we know about ourselves already. Elizabeth Bennett has one of the strongest senses of self I've seen in any novel I've ever read, and as a reader, I find that even more appealing than her wonderful wit. It is knowing herself that helps her rise above her mistakes (plus a few well written letters :). As for Buffy, maybe now she can use the lessons of her long dark season and a half of the soul and rediscover her sorely missed sparkle.

(And as for Miss Austen, I have promised myself I will re- read Persuasion before grad school starts in another month...better get to it :) Ah...Captain Wentworth...)

[> [> [> Captain Wentworth -- Rahael, 07:00:38 07/23/02 Tue

may be my favourite Austen hero.

As for Lizzy, isn't she ever in mind of the knowledge that she is able to be independent and strong minded because of circumstance? and that circumstances might change for her. The whole situation underlying the plot of P&P is the financial and marital vulnerability of the women.

How long will Charlotte remain intelligent, wise and happy having to endure married life with Mr Collins? How wretched will Lydia's life become? All her novels tell us that people's characters are molded by circumstance. Kitty's character takes a turn for the better because she is taken in hand by her older sisters. Fanny is still better brought up than the rest of her siblings because she was lucky enough to be adopted by the Betram family, shallow, stupid and selfish as most of them were.

How lively might Lizzy Bennett remain, if subjected to misfortune after misfortune?

[> [> [> [> Re: Captain Wentworth -- Arethusa, 08:53:33 07/23/02 Tue

"The whole situation underlying the plot of P&P is the financial and marital vulnerability of the women."

I was also stuck by what a big difference the choice of a wife made for the men in Austen's works. Look at Marianne and Elinor's brother-a weak man who might have been decent if he married better. The beginning of Sense and Sensibility has one of the most merciless depictions of greed and self-delusion I've ever seen in print.

I felt sorry for Charlotte, but she knew exactly what she was doing. Independent misery is better than dependent misery, and she'll have a beautiful home, her duties, children and poultry to keep her busy. No doubt she'll continue to encourage her husband's gardening interests, as often as possible.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Captain Wentworth -- celticross, 11:18:44 07/23/02 Tue

Well, we know Austen wrote from the examples she saw in her circle of family and friends. It's striking to discover how she interacted with her brothers' wives. And she was all too aware of the role circumstance played in life. Her eldest brother lived the life of a country gentleman, married to the daughter of a baronet, because he had been adopted by a gentleman as his heir. He had a lifestyle far out of the reach of his siblings, though he was very good to them, particularly his sisters. *veering back into Buffy territory* I think Austen could have apperciated Buffy's straits, given her taste for irony and her eye for circumstance. Buffy is, in many ways, a Austenesque heroine. She's doing what she can in the situation she's found herself in, though her life is a bit more like the "horrid novels" that Catherine Morland was so fond of, and not so much like one of Austen's own books.

As for Charlotte Collins, I'm with Arethusa. Look at her family. They're not the brightest bunch. She knows how to deal with stupid people. :)

[> [> [> [> [> Charlotte Collins & the high-jump=bar principle -- John Burwood, 13:14:23 07/23/02 Tue

Changing the subject somewhat (but if I can't hi-jack my own damn thread whose damn thread can I hijack?) I have always seen the Collins' marriage as a classic lesson for the problems of modern marriage. So often when high divorce rates are reported you get media pundits pontificating on what is wrong with marriage today when the real problem is what is right.
It is the high-jump-bar principle - the higher you raise it, the fewer can jump it. The more is expected of a marriage, or a relationship, or a career, or a government, the more likely the disillusionment when it is not achieved.
Charlotte set her bar so low there is no chance of her ever seeing her marriage as a failure. Thank God women today don't get forced to 'settle' as Charlotte did - they can set the bar so much higher, but the price is amuch greater failure rate.
Reminds me of Xander's comment of how much pressure life on the hellmouth puts on relationships - and life as a Slayer on the hellmouth practically shoves the bar above head height for any relationship. Buffy would have to find someone not only to share cooking, paying bills, taxes, love, remembering to take out the garbage, parent teacher meetings etc, but also patrolling & fighting demons.
What odds against would that be?

[> Heads I win, tails you lose -- Sophist, 09:10:28 07/22/02 Mon

Remember Passion? When Buffy & Willow hear about Jenny's death? I remember some people finding it odd that Joyce went to comfort Willow instead of her own daughter, but actually it was natural - because Buffy was sinking in silent shock, but Willow was crying out loud - making the noise so she got the attention.
Remember Tabula Rasa, when the SG talked about helping Buffy deal, & Willow's spell kicked in to stop her. From that point on, the SG seemed to forget about Buffy's distress as Willow's break with Tara & magic problems took everyone's attention.
Guess which was making the noise again?

Is this the same Willow who is constantly said to be repressing her true feelings, only to let them out at last in TTG/Grave?

Could we label these Willow One and Willow Two? That way, the Cat in the Hat can keep track of them.

[> [> Re: Heads I win, tails you lose -- Rahael, 10:01:51 07/22/02 Mon

Requoting myself:

"So I'd say that Buffy is neither unemotional nor lacking attention. She is so good at emotions, that she can utilise it to her advantage. Willow on the other hand goes between the extremes of Elinor and Marianne - either calm, rational and logical, or wracked by pain, or filled with joy."

Actually I agree with you re Jenny's death. I thought it natural that Willow be more upset - Buffy after all, would have terribly mixed feelings. She hadn't fully resolved her coldness to Miss Calendar, while Willow clearly looked up to her, and helped take over her classes and so on. Willow had more of a relationship with Jenny than Buffy did.

I think what I argued re Willow was that she does not cope well with feelings, and would rather try and get rid of them. I mean, she wasn't exactly repressing feelings when Oz left. She couldnt' bear them, couldn't deal and tried to make it go poof. Buffy lost Angel and had to run away from the world. Willow lost Tara, and tried to make the world go away.

[> [> [> <Smiling> -- Sophist, 10:47:05 07/22/02 Mon

I wasn't responding to you. Your post on Buffy is one I agree with (as you knew). In fact, I wasn't necessarily responding to anyone in this thread. Just making the point that criticism of Willow comes from 2 directions: that she displays too much emotion, and that she represses too much.

Along with great drama, each BtVS viewer gets his/her own alternate reality version of Willow.

My own personal Hell contains only Xander. :)

The Demonic Sea Cucumber! or The Identiy of the Hellmouth Spawn! -- Majin Gojira, 09:05:49 07/21/02 Sun

Random thing - slight revelation on the Hellmouth Spawn - what the hell is it?! what is it shaped like and what is it's true fave?

I beileve I have the answer! It's a Giant Sea Cucumber!

All the Tenticals and 'heads' are the mouth parts of a Giant Worm-like organism. Since it has no limbs and is ravenously hungry, when the hellmouth is opened, it streaches out it's mouth parts to try and snag a meal.

Retracting the mouth parts when it is further out, it reveales it's real face.

Nasty! :D

[> Hmmm . . . I'm no marine biologist -- d'Herblay, 17:58:17 07/21/02 Sun

However, I have seen a fair number of sea cucumbers while diving, and while I may have only successfully avoided the really dangerous ones, the ones I've seen are sessile and are about as ravenous as the tubes of chocolate chip cookie dough they resemble.

[> [> Re: Hmmm . . . I'm no marine biologist -- Majin Gojira, 18:03:15 07/21/02 Sun

Yeah! A fellow Diver! I Smile.

Yes, Sea cucumbers are pretty much docile lumps (Like the Donkey Dung some resemble...wait...there is a Donkey Dung Sea Cucumber!!)

Anyway, this is a demonic predatory sea cucumber, not the benign filter-feeders we're used to. It's the only thing I could think of Biologically to figure out the rest of the body and it's true face.

Hell, we may see the rest of it some day, and I'll be proven completely wrong!!!

[> [> [> Ok, I'm laughing like a treeful of monkeys on nitrous oxide for some reason -- d'Herblay, 20:24:03 07/21/02 Sun

[> [> [> could this have anything to do w/a certain menu item... -- anom, 23:25:10 07/21/02 Sun

...I saw a few years ago in a Japanese restaurant? For some reason I still remember it was No. 94: Mental Cucumber. If a cucumber can be mental, why can't a sea cucumber be demonic?

Then again, maybe it has more to do w/killer tomatoes?

[> Evil Pickles;) -- Drizzt, 18:10:05 07/21/02 Sun

LOL on your post:)

In the vein of evil pickles...

On another website is a woman who calls herself DeathPickle;)

There is a guy there who calls himself Squirle-(Something; I forgot the second part)

So these two people regularly get into freindly discussions on how squirles are going to take over the world & of course the reply is evil pickles are going to take over the world. It is much funnier if you read their posts vs my description.

Remember Atari?
My fav game on Atari was Space Doungene.
My second favorite game on Atari was this game where food was flying at you...FAST. If you ate normal food you got points & extra lives, but if you ate a pickle you DIED! So the object of the game was to avoid the poisonas pickles;)

Foreshadowing (major Angel S3 spoilers) -- sunshine, 12:24:24 07/21/02 Sun

I recently watched the Angel episode "Darla" again. In it, there's a crucial scene where Darla tries to get Angel to feed on a baby to prove he's serious about coming back to her. Post-curse Angel can't bring himself to do it, and Darla orders him away in disgust. With the benefit of hindsight, this scene is an important piece of foreshadowing for Angel S3. It certainly has a lot more emotional impact, knowing what happens in S3 (esp. Darla's self sacrifice to save her baby).

This happens a lot with B/A - you're rewatching an old episode, and something takes on fresh significance in the light of things to come. An extreme example is Buffy's quip in "The Freshman" about her mum's imagined reaction to the text book bill Buffy's running up - "hope it's a funny aneurism! (!)

Anyway, I have a couple of questions about foreshadowing:

1. What's your favourite example of foreshadowing?
2. Why do B/A use foreshadowing so heavily?

Regarding question 2, it may be useful to compare foreshadowing to the way that later episodes of Buffy heavily reference previous apisodes. One good reason for doing this is that it adds to the illusion that the Buffyverse is real - the characters remember things that happened years ago, and occasionally refer to them in conversation knowing that other characters will also remember... so those things must really have happened right?

I'm wondering if there's a similar reason for the heavy use of foreshadowing. Something to do with evoking a sense of fate, perhaps? When it's obvious that something is being foreshadowed ("counting down from 7-3-0") this creates suspense in the mind of the viewer, but I'm more interested in those cases where the foreshadowing only becomes clear after a second, later, viewing.

[> Re: Foreshadowing (major Angel S3 spoilers) -- AngelVSAngelus, 14:34:38 07/21/02 Sun

You actually totally listed my own personal fav foreshadowing example, simply for its creepiness. How would you like to have quipped about the EXACT manner in which your mother actually dies? *shivers*
I almost wanted Buffy to blame herself for that reason when I was watching The Body. Not because its really her fault, just, that'd be a natural reaction. "I was joking about this a year ago..."

[> Re: Foreshadowing (major Angel S3 spoilers) -- luvthistle1, 14:53:23 07/21/02 Sun

My favorite episode of foreshadowing are "Restless" (which have been already been talk about) and
Tabula Rasa. In "Tabula Rasa" Dawn and Buffy are the only one without names, or know who they are. Next season they will explore the origin of the slayer and the key. Anya and Xander did not interact with each other, which foreshadow their break up in hell's bell. Spike thinking he was Randy Giles-forshadow spike getting a soul at the end of season 6 . Giles and Anya thinking they were married, might be foreshadowing them getting becoming closer next season (Giles and Anya for season 7, maybe?) Spike waking up behind the counter of the Magic Shop and thinking he is Giles son, could be foreshadowing Spike taking on the role of a watcher for Dawn perhaps. Dawn picking up the stake at the end of the episode could be foreshadowing her becoming the next slayer. There are a lot more episode like them, that forshadows whats to come, or have not yet came into play.

[> Re: Foreshadowing (major Angel S3 spoilers) -- Alvin, 18:01:43 07/21/02 Sun

I was surprised how much foreshadowing was in Dad when I saw it as a repeat. For instance, at the end Wes moves closer to the baby and suggests he should be named Wesley, but every person in the group says (emphatically) NO causing Wes to back away from the group. Also, baby Conner rejecting all the faces Angel makes until Angel vamps out and the baby is happy with that as Angel's real face. There was also one that maybe for next season: One of the lawyers says "Before we know it, that baby will be all grown up and hunting us down one by one."

[> Foreshadowing, esp. in Birthday (Angel S3 spoilers) -- oceloty, 22:56:08 07/21/02 Sun

Last questions first. First questions last. :)

sunshine wrote:
Why do B/A use foreshadowing so heavily?

My take: the more fantastic the premise, the more events have to be grounded in a consistent internal reality. Both programs ask the viewers to believe some pretty bizarre stuff. To make that believable, they have to make it seem like a logical progression, so they introduce hints and snippets beforehand, so that when the big surprises come, the viewer (hopefully) looks back and sees not only the last big leaps, but the previously unnoticed smaller steps that built the foundation.

I think both shows have increased the amount of foreshadowing compared to earlier seasons, maybe because of the increasing reliance on long-term plot arcs. The bits help tie individual episodes (especially standalones) into the long-term events while also providing the emotional groundwork for later developments.

sunshine also wrote:
What's your favourite example of foreshadowing?

This isn't exactly an answer, but I just saw the repeat of the Angel ep Birthday and was struck by the amount of visual foreshadowing for the rest of Angel season 3:

1. Cordelia and Fred cleaning the floor of the hotel lobby (like they will in The Price, also for a mess created by Angel).

2. When Angel goes to talk to the powers, it's in a big dark medieval-ish room lit by torches (which reminds me of Sahjhan's space, especially from Forgiving). And of course Angel's reaction to Cordy's coma is a less desperate version of his actions in Forgiving (and was itself set up by That Vision Thing). Also, Angel being unable to receive an important message from Cordelia is exactly what happens at the end of Tomorrow.

3. In that room, the voices say of Angel: "Does it know suffering?" All right, this isn't visual foreshadowing, but boy, is that an understatement of what's to come for him.

4. Scruffy, unshaven Wesley of Cordelia's alterverse looks remarkably like scruffy, unshaven Wesley of the end of the season, except for the big throat scar replacing the lack of an arm. (I guess the look won't count as a coincidence since they're played by the same actor but it's a nice hint of Wesley's coming despair.) Especially the scene where he takes Cordelia and Gunn into his apartment -- the way it's framed and lit looked a lot like the shot in which Wes walks through the door in Double or Nothing).

5. At the house in Reseda (171 Oak), the red pentagram o' evil-summoning, complete with black candles, was like the one in Forgiving, in miniature. I hadn't noticed that before, but boy did it give me shivers when I watched the rerun.

6. Crazy Angel. (All right, he's not actually present in season three, but does anyone think Angel won't be crazy, at the start of season 4?)

7. The blue lighting of Crazy's angel's room reminded me of the final scenes in Tomorrow, not so much because of the color but because the quality of the light (like the heavenly Cordy beams and the light filtering through ocean water around Angel's box).

Also, few extra bits which might not count as foreshadowing:

1. Wes kicks butt with a sword (a la Waiting in the Wings).

2. The CGI monster summoned at 171 Oak looked suspiciously like the one Groo and the gang kill in Couplet. :)

3. The appearance of Skip (who was from accounts intended to be a one-shot character) and of course floating Cordy. (I suspect David Greenwalt had the whole Cordy ascension in mind from early on, so that the levitation was reverse- engineered as groundwork.)

I guess some of the similarities could just be because the production and design staff kept the designs for later stuff consistent with what they'd done before (like the pentagram). Still, I was amazed by how this one episode set up so many of the visuals important later in the season.

Will Firefly become a Blatant Rip of Dear Favorite Scifi shows? -- neaux, 16:53:09 07/21/02 Sun

You could say I just wrote that subject heading for some attention.. but It makes me very very worried.

I know Joss likes to play homage to other shows and movies... but everytime I see that damn promo on Fox for Firefly.. it looks like such a big rip-off of Outlaw Star it makes me want to cry. From what I understand of the show it even sounds like it might be a rip-off of Cowboy Bebop.

I would love for someone to explain to me that what Joss is doing is creating something new.. but from the specific clips shown in the trailer..
i.e. of the naked girl in what looks like a suitcase.
I pray that is not the case.. because that is exactly how "Melfina" appeared in Outlaw Star.

I have the outlaw star artbook and can scan in the image in question if anyone needs me to.. so someone please shut me up. >_<

[> Re: Will Firefly become a Blatant Rip of Dear Favorite Scifi shows? -- Miss Edith, 17:43:55 07/21/02 Sun

It does look a bit dull. And I have to laugh when there is so much hype about it being anti-Star Trek. Not only did that piss off potential viewers but that is hardly a new idea. Personally I'll stick to Farscape. Anyone who hasn't watched it it's on great form at the moment.

[> [> Re: Will Firefly become a Blatant Rip of Dear Favorite Scifi shows? -- parakeet, 22:13:18 07/21/02 Sun

I certainly agree about Farscape, an excellent show. Even when it looks like they're venturing into cliched territory, it pays off, and they certainly aren't venturing into cliched territory this season. After Buffy, it's my favorite show (Angel comes a close third).
I haven't seen the promos for Firefly, but, despite my admiration for Mr. Whedon, my expectations aren't too high. I hate too say it, but the odds are really against it living up to Buffy and Angel. I mean, Buffy and its spin-off are great because of a number of factors (Mr. Whedon, the cast, the other writers and directors, a fresh feeling, and a beautifully ridiculous name). I hope I'm being pessimistic, but my doubt remains. We'll see.

[> [> Re: Will Firefly become a Blatant Rip of Dear Favorite Scifi shows? -- Amber, 12:06:08 07/22/02 Mon

I don't think its fair to judge the show based on the promos. Remember Fox made the promos, not Joss. Basically they take footage from the pilot and arrange it to look like what they think will grab the audience's attention -- In this case, it appears to be an intense, action-packed space drama, but where's the quirky dialogue, where's the pain? I'm sure all the usual Joss goodness is there, it just isn't in the preview because Fox doesn't think it would attract an audience.

If you have any doubt that promos lie, check out the original Buffy commercial that's on the S1 DVD. It certainly doesn't convey everything that's great about the show and if all I'd had to go on was that preview I doubt I would have become a Buffy fan.

[> The thing is... -- Majin Gojira, 18:06:33 07/21/02 Sun

Few people watch those anime. I've seen them (More Outlaw Star than Cowboy Beebop). and, is it such a bad thing?

Now, you can say "Yeah, but it got it's ideas from..."

You're freind's 'll be like "Huh, Really?"

And you say "Yeah, let me show you"

Then, you've rangled more Anime fans - and lord knows we need more of them in the west. (Wait...maybe we don't...)

[> [> I just hold Joss to a more creative standard than.. -- neaux, 18:14:59 07/21/02 Sun

If you watch Joss in his own words on the firefly website.. he sounds as if he is showing us something "that hasn't been seen on television in quite a while"


is that why Cowboy Bebop and Outlaw Star made their way from Japan to Cartoon Network for many many many Americans to see last year?

I do agree with you though.. it could be a good thing. I just want these shows to get the credit they deserve.

and you are right. Too many Otakus are a very scary thing indeed. (shudders in fear)

[> Re: Will Firefly become a Blatant Rip of Dear Favorite Scifi shows? -- Robert, 23:07:34 07/21/02 Sun

>> "... it looks like such a big rip-off of Outlaw Star ..."

What is Outlaw Star?

[> Hopefully, farther back than that -- fresne, 14:35:59 07/22/02 Mon

Well, if it makes you feel better, given the suitcase scenario you describe, my first thought would be that Joss is ripping off the story of how Cleopatra and Julius Caesar first met. In which case, cool.

So, far I've been fairly intrigued with the descriptions. Joss has specifically compared characters to Post Civil war soldiers who have been pushed to the frontier because, well, their side lost. These are people who fought for something they believed in and unlike Buffy and Co, couldn't save their world. Now they are without home, culture, country, family.

It helps that the concept of the West and Westerns has always intrigued me. I can't help it; dad grew up on a ranch and on his side I'm a fifth generation Californian. The Western is a rich place for someone as myth savvy as Joss to mine. The West. A place where young men are exhorted to go, the land of eternal youth, the land of the setting sun. A liminal place, where identities may be lost and remade, but whose time is finite. After all the Federated Empire to the East is expansionistic, Manifest Destiny and all that.

So, if Firefly appears to be ripping off Outlaw Star and Cowboy Bebop (I'm sorry, but I've never seen either), I can only ask how much they themselves are based on the myth of the American West.

Note: I'm trying to differentiate between the myth and the reality of the American West because they are slightly different animals.

[> "We rip things off all the time" - David Fury -- Rahael, 14:46:22 07/22/02 Mon

Just finished watching David Fury/James Contner's commentary on Primeval (much food for thought within), and in it he was talking about the Matrix effect when Willow decodes the Initiative disc. He says "we rip things off all the time, but we try to put a spin on it".

I am not at all familiar with the shows you mention, nor have I seen the promo for Firefly.

And for comics fans, the UberBuffy was based on the comic book heroine Promethea. Joss mentioned her when the story was breaking, and David Fury went out and bought some of the comics.

Foreshadowing in Primeval? -- Kerri, 22:11:59 07/21/02 Sun

I came home tonight in time to catch the majority of Primeval, and I have to say that upon watching it two years later it seem to have new meaning.

The spell that combined the Scoobies always struck me as odd that Xander was the heart. I mean yes, he has heart, but so does Buffy. She's always struck me as the one who was held the group together, and its her heart and love and strength that leads to so many of her victories. In fact it seem that in many ways Buffy could have fulfilled each of the four roles. And maybe that was the point.

Willow chants:

From the transcript:
The power of the Slayer and all who wield it. Last to Ancient First. We invoke thee. Grant us thy domain of primal strength. Accept us and the powers we possess.
Link us mind and heart with spirit joined. Let the hand
encompass us. Do thy will

From the shooting script:
By the generous will of the Ancients, the almighty power
of the Divine Spirits… Your supplicants humbly beseech thee
to behold us, and that which we possess… the moieties of the One, the Avatar…

We enjoin that we may inhabit the vessel - the hand -
daughter of Sineya, First of the Ones.

In the spell Buffy acts as the body-the vessel where all elements of the necessary slayer/warrior/hero/human being join to create this perfect being who can defeat Adam.

I think the joining of all these elements (heart, mind, spirit, and also the power of all the slayers and their primal strength) within Buffy can be looked at in two ways.

Part of Buffy's journey has been about accepting all of herself. She must encompass the power of the slayers into herself by accepting that element of herself. Buffy, as the vessel in Pimeval, accepts the First Slayer and all her power, but rejects her to some extent after the spell has ended for fear of what it means about herself.

Buffy must also encompass Giles, Willow, Xander, and all the the lessons they have to teach her within herself. She needs to learn from them to complete her journey.

When Buffy became the slayer she was given strength-but everything else must be found from within on her journey. She was soley the hand, but then found mind, spirit, and heart within. Again, connecting with the primal power of the slayer-something Buffy has yet to fully do, but will be found from within.

So is the whole spell, on some level, completely internal to Buffy? Willow seems to say so much in the shooting script version, calling Buffy the daughter of Siyena, first of the Ones, and saying that heart, mind and spirit are the moieties of the One, the Avatar (who one would assume is Buffy (being as she was called th daughter of the One and certainly seems to fit the description of Avatar.

Now let's look at what happens when the spell is joined (representing the completion of Buffy journey and the joining of what is within, what is learned (from the other Scoobies)-her human side, and the primal power of every slayer). She becomes a better fighter-but that's to be expected from joining with the primal power of all slayer.

More importantly, IMO, is that Buffy turns the bullets into doves and makes Adam's machine gun retract. Yes, the slayer fights and kills, but remember what Buffy learned in The Gift...more importantly the slayer gives life. The bullets become doves-symbolizing the bringing of peace and life from hatred and agression, and isn't this what Buffy strives to do? And in many ways what she does in The Gift?

In shadowkat's essay on Restless she writes, "An enormous amount of energy flows through our hands - energy to heal, to create, to balance, to communicate, and to transform." The healing power of the Hand is only enhanced when the other elements are added making Buffy complete (hence the birds), as she is in The Gift.

One more connection to The Gift. When Buffy floats the uranium core in her hand it disappears in a flash of white light that expands then contracts, much as the portal did when she died.

Could Primeval be a huge chunck of foreshadowing for The Gist? It would make sense since at that point that's all Joss knew the series would go till. Or maybe it foreshadows further-afterall Buffy has yet to encompass the Slayer fully into herself. And I can't help thinking of Fray and what we are told about the last slayer- closing the portal and bringing peace to the world.

Granted I could be way off here and completely overanalyzing . What do you think?

[> Excellent points -- Rahael, 02:32:32 07/22/02 Mon

I haven't as yet watched the commentary for 'Primeaval' on my DVD (I know!! Work stress).

Will watch it tonight, and come back with any insights David Fury decided to share with us.

[> Re: Foreshadowing in Primeval? -- Cactus Watcher, 03:01:17 07/22/02 Mon

I have a few questions perhaps someone or no one can answer. First who or what is Sineya? Is that indeed the name of the first slayer as the chant implies directly or is it the name of figure of power behind the slayers?

Second, the wording concerning the moities is not in the broadcast version, so the second question will be even more esoteric. If I remember my anthropology correctly, a moiety always refers to a two-way division. Did the author of the script use the word incorrectly as Kerri implies, or is there some structure of two-way divisions I'm not seeing?

A Friday Topic Revisited: Buffy's responsibility to self -- Arystocrat, 07:54:49 07/22/02 Mon

I wasn't able to get back to the board over the weekend so I missed the chance to respond to the responses to my post, which responded to Shadowkat's great 3 part essay about Buffy as Hero/Slayer and misunderstanding.

Sorry for the revisit if the topic is a dead one, but I just wanted to clarify a couple of my own ideas in my original post.

First I do appreciate that Law school and "Doctor School" are hard work. I used those examples in my post as an extreme to try to illustrate that Buffy is not restricted from doing things in her life by any specific doctrine or sacred rite. If she wanted to find a way to try to juggle school and Slaying and Dawn then she could try to work it out. (I'm still a little unclear as to the reason that Dawn's father bears no responsibility either financially or emotionally in any of this, but I'll just skip over that since it seems to be a point that ME want us to not concentrate on.)

My broad point was that Buffy (in my opinion) takes no real responsibility for her life outside of being the Slayer. I do realize that this was intrical to the plot of season 6, but this has been an on going issue that bugs me. Everyone is responsible (especially at Buffy's age) to make their lives what they want it to be. We all deal with the limitations life gives us in our own way. Sure none of us have to go out at night and save the world from the undead (I don't think), but everyone is faced with challenges. Being a Slayer makes Buffy a stronger person in all respects, but so far I haven't seen her live up to the potential of that strength outside of Slaying.

Life is what you make it. Be it school or just general personal discovery we are responsible for becoming adults.

The only other thing I wanted to clarify is that despite my posting name (which was taken from the band name of my Champions character) I am by no means an upper crust, high life kind of person. Financially I'm just as broke as can be. I was raised with a straight blue-collar upbringing. The only aristocracy I lay claim to is an imaginary rock n' roll band.


Oh, and a PS about Champions: I, too, love the game. The universe my husband and I run has been going unbroken for over 20 years. When I realized that I felt a weird geeky pride. :-)

[> Re: A Friday Topic Revisited: Buffy's responsibility to self -- Arethusa, 10:22:38 07/22/02 Mon

It's very true that everyone is responsible for their own lives, and for becoming adult. But I'm still confused. Just what is it that you expect Buffy to do that she hasn't done or tried to do? I already responded with examples from high school (Seasons 1-3). In Season 4 she adjusted to university, started a new relationship, battled the Initiative, Spike, and Adam, and experienced major shiifts in her relationships with almost everyone in her life. During Season 5 she began doing just what you suggested- expand her understanding of and skills for slaying, in her stepped-up training sessions with Giles. She also spent as much time as she could with her ailing mother, helping to care for Dawn. In Season 6 we did see Buffy avoid responsibilities and not make the most of her abilities, but that is clearly due to stresses that overwhelmed her, and promises to change in Season 7, as we saw in the finale.

Buffy's options are not limitless, something ME went to pains to point out in Xander and Dawn's conversation in "Doublemeat Palace." (Quote by psyche)

DAWN: My friend Janice? Her sister's a lawyer.
XANDER: You think I should sue over the burger? That's interesting.
DAWN: No, I just mean... (sighs) Buffy's never gonna be a lawyer, or a doctor. Anything big.
XANDER: She's a Slayer. She saves the whole world. That's way bigger.
DAWN: But that means she's gonna have like crap jobs her entire life, right? Minimum wage stuff. I mean, I could still grow up to be anything. But for her ... this is it.

There's no rule that says Buffy can't do anything specific, but everyone has limitations on their lives. Being the slayer gives her some physical advantages but does it make her stronger in all respects? Slayer responsibilites actually made her comatose at one point.

You said Buffy is whiny, that she makes sure she can't live a normal life. Can you give me examples of excessive and irritating complaining, or anything that Buffy's done that deliberatly subverts her chances for a normal life, besides mistakes anyone might make?

Spike has a pretty good grasp of human nature, but his relationship with truth, let alone Truth, is pretty shaky. His whole persona is based on a lie. ("I've always been bad.")

I shouldn't make assumtions about other posters. I apologize for insinuating you're aristocratic. (First time I've needed to say that!)

[> Re: A Friday Topic Revisited: Buffy's responsibility to self -- Vickie, 10:29:42 07/22/02 Mon


In that earlier post, you said:

Being the Slayer doesn't really stop her from doing anything except (for the moment at least) leaving Sunnydale. She was going to school and stopped not because of Slaying, but because her mom died. Something that could have happened to anyone. If she tried, I'm sure she could find a way to go back. Really she could become anything she wanted to be in the daylight world, and maybe the lessons she learned as the Slayer could help her. Can you imagine the power of a Slayer/Lawyer? Or if she's so reconciled to being The Slayer, couldn't she learn things that could help her with her job? Private Detective skills? Demonology? Theology?

Or if she just wants to work couldn't she get a job better than minimum wage? I mean, Angel Investigations manages to work on some paying cases every now and then, what about Scooby Investigations? Or she could be a bouncer at the Bronze, lord knows they need one.

Really I guess all I'm saying is that I acknowledge that Buffy makes sacrifices to save the world, but she also seems to have stuck herself there as well. She only makes excuses for not growing up and growing into the responsibility end of the Slaying. She makes sure that she can't have a normal life within the Slayer parameters. Really, it doesn't seem to me that she's made any effort to do so. Before or after her death.

A major theme of Buffy the Vampire Slayer is stated in the teaser of The Gift: "But, you're only a girl." We've seen Buffy save the world so often that we sometimes forget this little thing. Buffy is only human.

So, let's see. She's 21, not academic (though very bright-- beat my SAT scores anyway), has no immediately applicable job skills. She's starting from scratch.

Quite apart from the logistics nightmare of any of the paths you suggest (try getting a PI license at 21 with no law enforcement background and a history of violent behavior, suspicion of murder twice....), Buffy is somewhat in shock. Some have said clinically depressed--I cannot diagnose that but according to the popular literature someone should get her to a doctor and check. And clinical depression isn't something you can just "snap out of" one day.

In the past two years she has 1) gained a sibling (with complications), 2) lost her boyfriend, 3) lost her mother, 4) fought a god, 5) died to save her sister (and the world, again), 6) come back from death. I'm sure I'm leaving things out, but do you have any inkling where this would rate on a stress meter? She's doing well just to keep on keeping on.

Yes, eventually Buffy must make a life for herself in addition to her slaying. Assuming she doesn't die young, as every slayer has before her. But I really don't consider a year too long to mourn her mother (let alone herself).

The fact is, slaying really does limit her, in that she must go out every night and protect humanity. To survive that, she really must train and keep in top form. Add to slaying her responsibilities to Dawn, and she really has little time (and probably no energy) for anything other than the simplest of jobs. Certainly she cannot both work and go to school. There are not enough hours in a day. And she cannot go to school unless deadbeat Hank starts living up to his responsibilities. No money.

In fact, I believe that the only thing you think Buffy must do is the one thing not required of her. There is no slayer requirement to live in Sunnydale. All the other slayers have defended humanity where they were planted (so to speak). Kendra was not sent from Jamaica to Sunnydale (at least, not until the "dark power" was about to rise--and she went home afterwards). Faith was not sent from Boston to Sunnydale. When Buffy answered to the Council, Giles and Wesley told her she had to stay, but that was the Council party line, not any traditional obligation. The only reason Buffy must stay in Sunnydale is her own perception of the hazards of the Hellmouth.

I really think Dawn had it right. Buffy will never be anything "big" in her day job, because her night job is too big to allow much outside focus, development, or devotion of time and energy. In that one scene in Doublemeat Palace, Dawn starts to understand the sacrifices a slayer makes. It's not just (just!) fighting and danger and not a lot of sleep. It's also losing the possibility for a conventional life (being a normal girl) and for professional development. And it is also usually losing most of her years of life. The Cruciamentum happens "if" a slayer reaches her eighteenth birthday.

Certainly, we all are responsible for "becoming adults." But that need not mean Buffy takes an academic or professional path on top of her duty to defend humanity and her familial responsibilities. It just means she needs to learn to cope with what life hands her, and maintain her integrity while doing so. I think we need to remember that learning to cope does not always resemble actual coping.

MHO, of course. Take it and shred.

[> [> Excellent points, Vickie and Arethusa -- Rahael, 10:45:17 07/22/02 Mon

In my opinion, Buffy has been growing up this season. It may look like a rut, but she's learning huge life lessons. (Vickie made a very valuable point that what looks like coping and actually coping are two different things. I'd say that Buffy was having rational responses to an irrational situation).

Being only a couple of years older than her, I can remember how stark everything seemed, but as I grew older, I realised that the whole of my life lay before me, and I didn't have to read everything, do everything, achieve everything by the next year.

Worldly success, moreover, does not equate to a fulfilled or ethical life. There is nothing wrong with the people who work the hard jobs, earning the least pay. Someone is always going to be stuck doing those jobs.

But I think the key point is this: Buffy, until Season 5 was trying to go to University, do well in her studies. Her leaving University was only temporary. The key thing is this: She Died. She had no future. She didn't have to worry about these things anymore. Except, she was ressurrected, and tried manfully to work her way through a debt that had accumulated while she was dead, a sister who was in trouble in school and virtually no qualifications. No doubt, in the long term, Buffy will figure out a way to manage better. She tends to be pretty resourceful. Or the writers will try and find a way around the no qualifications thing!

[> [> [> "manfully"? LOL Is this an interesting Fruedian slip or a provocative insight? -- redcat, 11:03:14 07/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> Actually, it's perfectly correct usage -- Tanker, 12:51:45 07/22/02 Mon


[warning: highly opinionated English rant ahead]

Let's just get this out of the way: yes, the meaning is sexist, or rather is based on sexist views. But what is important is the actual meaning of the word. From the Webster's entry in the above link: "brave, courageous, resolute, noble." These are "manly" attributes. The fact that we now accept that women are perfectly capable of showing them is beside the point. They're what the word means, and thus Rahael used it correctly.

This reminds me of the flap over Maryland's state motto, "Manly Deeds, Womanly Words." The point of which is that BOTH were considered good things. It's the meaning behind them that matters, not the sexist construction.

Yeah, I know that people will vehemently disagree with me. Just remember Godwin's Law. :-)

[> [> [> [> [> Welcome back, Tanker! We've missed you! -- d'Herblay, 13:44:20 07/22/02 Mon

However, I think redcat was commenting on the irony of Rah using "manfully" to describe Buffy during the Spuffy arc. I suppose it would be a clearer Freudian slip to minds other than redcat's (which is, admittedly, in the gutter) had she written "Except, she was resurrected, and tried vampfully to work her way through a debt that had accumulated while she was dead," or "Except, she was resurrected, and tried, cocksure, to work her way through a debt that had accumulated while she was dead," or "Except, she was resurrected, and tried, whilst being penetrated by 10 full inches of undead love machine, to work her way through a debt that had accumulated while she was dead." Generally, however, Rah is much more concise.

Sorry, I owed rc an irony warning!

[> [> [> [> [> [> BWAHAA! That was too funny! -- ponygirl (not telling my co-workers why I'm laughing), 13:58:03 07/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> ROFLMAO -- Sophist, 16:26:37 07/22/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Welcome back, Tanker! We've missed you! -- Tanker, 18:27:32 07/22/02 Mon

You mean someone remembers me? I'm impressed.

As usual, my irony detector is non-functional (so why I even try to read this board is a mystery), so I missed that meaing of "manfully" altogether. Still, it was used correctly. Now I have to try to go smooth things out down thread.

[> [> [> [> [> Them's fighting words... -- Arethusa, 13:57:32 07/22/02 Mon

I'm feeling manfully argumentative today, so let the fur fly:

The fact that someone can talk about how women are "capable of showing" "manly" attributes shows how strong notions of gender-based characteristics are. You don't state "women have these attributes, too;" you say they are "capable" of "showing" them-very condescending words that infer these characteristics are not intrinsic to women. Now, I do *not* accuse you of any sexism whatsoever (and of course, not Rahael). But I know men who, right now in 2002 C. E., still think women are incapable of such emotions or actions as loyalty, bravery, self-sacrifice, or idealism. It's not in them. They are maternal, nurturing, blah, blah-but they are not capable of thinking or feeling anything that requires abstract reasoning or emotion, anything that does not directly relate to them. The oppression of women is a fundamental part of too many societies, including pockets of ours, to assume we no longer need to discuss these issues.

Look at abortion, if you want to poke a fire ant hill with a sharp stick. People are still debating if it's wrong or right, ignoring the main issue-men deciding the fate of women.

Sexist construction is important. The words we use give shape to our ideas. If the words aren't there the ideas can't be there either-or so some say. Also, if words are corrupted with hateful, negative connotations, the words are no longer innocuous, and neither is their use. The sexual abuse of children, usually girls, rape, denial of educational and economic opportunities, prostitution, slavery, mutilation, physical abuse, demands of moral and emotional subordination to men by religions-these are ways of life for far too many people. And by "people" I mean "women."

[> [> [> [> [> [> Woops -- Arethusa, 14:06:58 07/22/02 Mon

I always edit anything I think is inflammatory from my posts, but somehow the above was posted before I edited it. I apologize if I offend anyone.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Woops -- Tanker, last post ever., 19:02:55 07/22/02 Mon

I suffer from poor word choice. I DO believe that those "manful" attributes are inherent in women, which is what I should have said.

I am incapable of explaining myself any further without being misinterpreted, and I'm sorry I said anything. There's a damn good reason that I almost never post on this board. I haven't the educational background or the writing ability to participate. If it's any consolation, I'm feeling extremely stupid right now. I will stick to lurking from now on.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apologies again, Tanker -- Arethusa, 19:51:17 07/22/02 Mon

Like I said, I (almost) always tone down my posts when they get confrontational or emotional. I goofed, and hit the "send" button twice, or something. I try very hard to never make an attack personal, and I knew very well (and tried to say so) that you meant nothing negative. I frequently feel uneducated and inept when reading some of the great posts here, but I discovered that there's room here for me too, even when I stupidly antagonize nice posters who I really just wanted to discuss things with.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cut the crap, Mike -- d'Herblay, 20:19:35 07/22/02 Mon

I've admired your too few posts since August, and while I do not know what your academic background is (though I've been more impressed by the posts of some of our blue-collar friends than by some of our college professors [not you, CW! you're peachy]), I do know that you in no way lack the writing ability to hang with the big guns here. You missed a bit of irony, you provoked discussion, it happens. (I myself have been jumping a little too hastily, and a little too cavalierly in word choice, into the breach these past few days.) So stop po' mouthin' yourself -- you only get one "No! Don't leave the board!" out of me -- and get posting again, you little chicken.

What? You want someone to serenade you with "Pinhead"?

By the way, anyone who uses the phrase "last post ever" owes my girlfriend fifty cents in royalties.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> As dH playfully points out, greater things have been lived down here -- Rahael, 00:26:17 07/23/02 Tue

A misunderstanding is surely too small a matter to go back to lurking. Now huge fiery debates, that's another matter, LOL.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL! Poll:How many of us have threatened to leave? -- shadowkat, 06:37:57 07/23/02 Tue

Been wondering how many of us have threatened to leave
after getting slammed for saying something?

I know I did twice.

Stay Tanker. I get in trouble all the time for making historical and literary and psychological errors - just
ask the other posters...

I think my last one was Henry (the Eighth), or was it
the name post?

[> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with you -- Rahael, 14:17:31 07/22/02 Mon

I had an unusual background. In a sociology class early in my English education, we were asked to divide up words to associate with men and women.

I instinctively placed "aggression" with women (in the most positive sense, as a kind of primal energy), and gentleness with men (my father is the most gentle man I know). I was rather startled to find that no one else had placed words that way!

I just find it hard associating any of these words with men or women exclusively anymore, and this isn't an afterthought, it's my instinctive thought.

I do like to use the word 'manfully' with a twinkle of irony though!

Arethusa, you certainly didn't cause me any offence. I heartily agree.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gosh, I was sure I wrote "LOL" in my post... -- redcat, cleaning her glasses and muttering "oh, dear", 18:32:21 07/22/02 Mon

(Dear all, Please read in the mildest mental-vocal tone possible - thanks.)

Hmmm. I just thought I was giggling along with Rah about what I was *pretty* sure (but not absolutely sure, hence the
interrogatory nature of the subject line) was the conscious choice of a subtle, interesting, witty, ironic comment, both on the nature
of the meaning of the word in terms of it’s applicability to Buffy when considered in an “objective” (dictionary- definition-type) way,
and on the irony of it’s etymological history as it seems to be developing in a (not-at-all)-post-feminist world. I thought that if it
*was* intentional, given the many layers at which the word can operate, it was a “provocative” insight. It certainly provoked me to
giggle out loud, which I was pretty sure was Rah’s intent. (But again, I wasn’t absolutely sure -- and if it *had* been a Freudian slip,
I thought she’d probably get a good laugh out of that being pointed out, too.)

Just didn’t expect the vehemence my comment caused here...

And Rah, I will never read the word “manfully” again without hearing a delightful “twinkle of irony” in my head.

I'm just GOL [giggling out loud] (hopefully) along with 'ya.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Me too! -- Rahael, 00:29:12 07/23/02 Tue

Especially after dH's post.

There's a lot of this glass cleaning going around!

[> Re: A Friday Topic Revisited: Buffy's responsibility to self -- Rendyl, 11:40:04 07/22/02 Mon

There is also another point to consider. Buffy -is- the Slayer. We on the board sometimes get caught up in all the metaphorical aspects of that and forget the very literal problems associated with it.

No job, no class, no career is ever going to come before her slaying duties. She will always need to be able to drop everything with no notice and go save the world. There are many fields where that kind of flexibility is impossible.

And I agree with some of the comments made. She has only been back alive a short time. Getting back into the flow may take a little longer.


[> Re: A Friday Topic Revisited: Buffy's responsibility to self -- Sofdog, 14:02:34 07/22/02 Mon

I too find the absence of Hank Summers extremely absurd. The only explanation I've figured is that the spell around Dawn is a glamour that takes effect when you're in her presence. People who've never met her, don't know who she is. Somewhere in the world Hank Summers is being a jerk to Buffy, who probably hasn't mentioned Dawn since Hank wouldn't know who she is.

Just a thought.

[> [> Hank Summers -- Dochawk, 22:16:20 07/22/02 Mon

I agree with you, it is extremely upsurd, but unfortunately your explanation doesn't help. In "The Weight of the World" Buffy remembers Hank and Joyce bringing little Dawn home and in Bargaining Part I" the gang doesn't want Buffybot to answer the phone because they are afraid Hank will want to take Dawn away from them, so Hank must know about and have some communication with Dawn. I can understand a deadbeat dad letting Dawn live with Buffy, but there ought to be some money there, if only out of guilt.

[> [> [> He's dead, Doc -- Vickie, 10:10:30 07/23/02 Tue

JOKE folks!

Seriously, the only way I can make sense of Hank's continued absence is that something has happened to him. This is pure speculation, but wouldn't it be classic Whedon if Buffy had to stake her dear old dad?

[> [> [> [> I love Lady Starlight explanation in a fanfic :) -- Ete, 17:25:47 07/23/02 Tue

Lavendar Blue in the fictionnary center

[> [> [> [> [> Hardly an explanation -- Vickie, 19:04:07 07/23/02 Tue

Nice evocative little ficlet, though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Thank you both. <g> -- LadyStarlight, 05:43:18 07/24/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Spoiler for that fic -- Etrangere, 09:31:02 07/24/02 Wed

My interpretation from reading the fic was that the woman was some kind of siren or something like that who enraptured Hank, hence the explanation.

Not you ?

A Midsummer Night's Shakespeare Parody (LONG) -- lindabarlow, 15:19:03 07/22/02 Mon

Folks, with your indulgence: I don't post here often (last time, I think, was when I posted my analysis of "Normal Again") but someone suggested I share this with you. It's obviously based on the recent speculation about possible season 7 parallels to A Midsummer Night's Dream ;)

Most of the speeches from Act 1, scene 1 are in here (except the Theseus and bride scene that begins the play). Some subtracted, some changed, and a bunch of added stuff.

For the real text check out:
http://the- tech.mit.edu/Shakespeare/midsummer/midsummer.1.1.html

A Midsummer’s Nightmare, with apologies to Will, the Poet, Shakespeare:

ACT ONE – The Palace of Joss


Thanks, good Rupert: what's the news with thee?


Full of vexation come I, with complaint
Against my ward, my stubborn Vampire Slayer.
Stand forth, good Xander. So, my noble lord,
This man hath my consent to marry her.
Step forward, William: and my gracious Joss,
This demon hath bewitch'd the bosom of my girl;
And other nameless parts of her as well.
Thou, Bloody Spike, hast made her honeyed rhymes,
Which, though hardly fit for human ears,
Have won her heart with false claims and pretense
That thou hast against all chance obtained thy soul
Thou hast ‘changed body fluids with her, and by
The moonlight at her window sung,
And through her window dragged thy death-cold flesh
To feast upon her warm and foolish throat.
With silly verses thou hast feigned thy love,
And stolen the impression of her fantasy
With bracelets of thy hair, rings, demon hearts,
Knicks, knacks, hot cocks, orgasms, messengers
Of strong prevailment in her tender youth:
With cunning hast thou filch'd my Slayer’s heart,
(Not to say her tits and ass and other parts),
Turn'd her obedience, which is due to me,
As her Watcher: and, so my gracious duke,
If she will not here before your grace
Consent to wed this noble carpenter,
Who may lack superpowers but still saved the world
When it was threatened by a whacked-out witch,
I beg the ancient custom of this town,
Since she is mine, I may dispose of her:
Which shall be either to our Xander here
Or to her death… In which case maybe I’ll
Have better luck by bossing Dawn around.


What say you, girl? Please be advised, fair maid:
(Well, maybe maid’s the wrong term, after all)
To you your Watcher should be as a god;
And think not ‘cause you busted Glory’s ass
That you need not obey thy holy gods
Like Marti and the scribes, but mostly me.
Xander is a worthy gentleman.
I made him in my image – hence the dorky shirt.


So is Spike. He is worthy.


Maybe so,
Now that he hast his soul returned to him
Not to mention the fawnings of the fans
Who lusted for his beauteous naked bod.
But lacking still your Watcher’s agreement,
This Xander must be held the worthier.


(gazing lustfully at Spike)
I would my Watcher look'd but with my eyes.


Rather your eyes must with his judgment look.


I do entreat your grace to pardon me.
I know not by what power I am made bold,
Well… I do know – I’d rip your insides out --
Nor how it may concern my modesty,
In such a presence here to plead my thoughts;
But I beseech you please that I may know
The worst that may befall me in this case,
If I refuse to marry Xander… Eeew.


Either to die the death or to abjure
For ever the society of men.


(Laughs hysterically)


Therefore, fair Buffy, question your desires;
Know of your youth, examine well your blood,
Whether, if you yield not to your Watcher’s choice,
You can endure the livery of a nun.


How’s the food?


And how much happier is the rose distill'd,
Than that which withering on the virgin thorn
Grows, lives, and dies in single chastity.


Hello? Angel. Riley. Spike. And Parker, too.
Go read the scripts, your Jossiosity.


Take time to pause; and, by the next new moon--
The sealing-day ‘twixt UPN and me,
For everlasting bond of syndication --
Upon that day either prepare to die
For disobedience to Rupert’s will,
Or else to wed thyself with Xander,
(Assuming he won’t dump you at the church)
Or on Diana's altar to embrace
For e’er austerity and single life.


Relent, sweet Buff: and, Evil Soulless Thing,
Yield thy crazed title to my certain bride.


Look, you bloody sod, I have a soul
And it’s as good as yours, you shriveled twit.
You have her Watcher’s love, I see --
Always wondered about you two --
Let me have Buffy’s: you can marry Giles.


Scornful Spike! true, he hath my love,
And what is mine shall rend him.
(Actually Shakespeare said “render him” but
I like the slashy vibe we’re building here…)
And she is mine, and all my right of her
I give to Xander, even if he is a wanker.


I am, my lord, as well derived as he --
Despite the trifling point of being dead --
As well possess'd; Ok, so yeah, no job
And, fine, no home, since you tore down my crypt
But still, my love is more than his;
I bleedin’ died to win my human soul
And now I live with William’s bloody rhymes
His guilt, his stupid hair and foppish clothes.
I mean, sod it, Joss, what’s it gonna take?
Some mercy for the fangy guy, ok?
Besides, she loves me now. Acourse,
She always had a thing for me, and once
We got it on and made the two-backed beast,
Buffy couldn’t keep her hands off my --




I am beloved of beauteous Buff:
Why should not I then prosecute my right?
Harris, I'll charge it to his face,
Made love to Anya – ok, so did I -- but
He won her soul; assuming she still has one,
Which she might not, not that I’m one to talk,
Having lived a century free of such encumbrances,
But getting back to Anya …
She, sweet lady, dotes still upon this Xander
Loving this dim-witted and inconstant clod.


I must confess that I heard that gossip, too,
And with Xander thought to have spoke thereof;
But, being over-full of self-affairs,
And being forced to re-write Firefly,
Lest the damn network condemn all my shows
Unto the garbage … My mind did lose it.
But, Alexander, come;
And you, too, Rupert; go with me,
I have some private schooling for you both.
I don’t mean Eton, nor will I harrow thee.
For you, fair Slayer, look you arm yourself
To fit your fancies to your Watcher’s will;
Else you will die or vow a single life.


So that’s different from my usual fate, how?

Exeunt all but SPIKE and BUFFY


How now, my love! why is your cheek so pale?
How chance the roses there do fade so fast?
Perchance you’re slaying way too many vamps…
Or did some vile thing get a taste of you?


Belike for want of rain, which I could well
Beteem them from the tempest of my eyes.


Huh? We’re alone now; speak English.
(Tilts his head and does the tongue thing)
Don’t listen to that sodding crap from Joss
No way he’s killing you again this year
It’s boring, pet, – sod this, you wanna shag?

(They rush into each other’s arms and clothes go flying as they fall to the ground oblivious to everything else but the INCREDIBLE SEX. Five hours later…)


Ay me! for aught that I could ever read,
Could ever hear by tale or history,
The course of true love never did run smooth.


That Shakespeare says the cutest things!


If I put that line in my poetry,
I’d get attacked for using a cliché.


O hell! to choose love by another's eyes.


Or, if there were a sympathy in choice,
War, death, or sickness did lay siege to it,
Making it momentany as a sound,
Swift as a shadow, short as any dream;
Brief as the lightning in the collied night,
That, in a spleen, unfolds both heaven and earth,
And ere a man hath power to say 'Behold!'
The jaws of darkness do devour it up:
So quick bright things come to confusion.


(Awed) Ok. We don’t change a line of that speech.


Check it out, luv:
I have a widow aunt, a dowager
Of great revenue, and she hath no child:
From Sunnydale her house is seven leagues;
No clue how far away that is, though, pet,
But she regards me as her only son.
That’s ‘cause I ate her real son, but let’s keep
That little secret just between us, luv.
There, Slayer, will I make my vows to thee;
And to that place the wankers at M. E.
Cannot pursue us. If thou lovest me then,
Steal forth from thy house to-morrow night;
And in the cemetery where we meet,
There will I stay for thee.


My dearest William!
I swear to thee, by Cupid's strongest bow,
Or by my super stake with sharpest point --


O swear not by thy stake, my love!


By Cupid’s arrow with the golden head,
By the simplicity of Tara’s doves,
May she rest in peace… By that which knitteth souls
Now that you have a soul to join with mine,
And by that fire which burn'd the Carthage queen,
When the false Troyan under sail was seen,
By all the vows that ever men have broke,
In number more than ever women spoke,
In that same place thou hast appointed me,
To-morrow truly will I meet with thee.


Come early and we’ll grab ourselves a shag.
Keep promise, love. Look, here comes Anyanka.

Enter ANYA


God speed fair Anya! whither away?


Call you me fair? then fair again un-say.
Xander loves you now; may his cock fall off.
Your eyes are lode-stars; and your tongue's sweet air
More tuneable than lark to shepherd's ear,
Blah, blah, blah.
O, teach me how you scheme, and with what art
You sway the motion of my Xander’s heart.


(to Anya) You’re not still fretting over Xander, pet?
I thought I told you to forget that sod.


(Punches Spike in the face). Don’t remind me of that.

(to Anya) I frown on Xander, yet he loves me still.


O that your frowns would teach my smiles such skill!


I give him curses, yet he gives me love.


He even likes your curses better than mine??


The more I hate, the more he follows me.


The more I love, the more he hateth me.

(rubbing his latest bruise) I can relate to that.


His folly, Anya, is no fault of mine.


Oh, sure. When things get tough he
Hides behind his Buffy.
God, don’t you ever take responsibility for anything?


Take comfort: he no more shall see my face;
Spike and I will fly this place.
Before the time I did sweet William see,
Seem'd Sunnydale a paradise to me:


A bit of an exaggeration, luv.


O, then, what graces in my love do dwell,
That he hath turn'd a heaven unto a hell!


Er, wasn’t that Willow? Bringing you back and all…

SPIKE (cont)

Anya, to you our minds we will unfold:
To-morrow night, when Phoebe doth behold
Her silver visage in the watery glass,
Decking with liquid pearl the bladed grass,
A time that lovers' flights doth still conceal,
Now that is poetry! We’re getting out of town.


And in the wood, where often you and I --
Or maybe that was Willow – used to lie
Emptying our bosoms of our counsel sweet,
There my sweet William and myself shall meet;
And thence from Sunnyhell we’ll turn our eyes,
To seek new friends and demon companies.
Farewell, Anyanka: pray thou for us;
And give my best to D’Hoffryn when you do.
And good luck grant thee thy sweet Xander, too!
Keep thy word, Spike: we must starve our sight
From lovers' food till morrow deep midnight.
And don’t drink any blood first; it makes your kisses
taste weird.


You never minded my kisses before!
In fact--


SPIKE (cont)

Bloody hell!

Anya, adieu:
As you on him, may Xander dote on you!



How happy some people can be!
Though, dammit, I am thought as fair as she.
But what of that? Xander thinks not so;
He will not know what all but he do know:
Love looks not with the eyes, but with the mind;
And therefore is wing'd Cupid painted blind:
Nor hath Love's mind of any judgement taste;
Wings and no eyes figure unheedy haste:
And therefore is Love said to be a child,
Because in choice he is so oft beguiled.

Jeez! What’s a demon gotta do to win?
I tried to curse him, but I can’t begin
Before I chicken out; he doesn’t know
How close he came driving nails Below.
Ere Xander look'd upon the Slayer’s eyne,
He hail'd down oaths that he was only mine;
And when this ass some heat from Buffy felt,
So he dissolved, and showers of oaths did melt.
I’ll have revenge! If no one makes a wish
I’ll bait a hook for him, that slimey fish
I’ll tell him all about the Slayer’s flight:
Then to the wood will he to-morrow night
Pursue her; and for this intelligence
If I have thanks, it is a dear expense:
But herein mean I to enrich my pain,
To follow him thither and back again.
I love him, and I’m really, truly f*cked
So don’t be shocked if soon I end up pucked.


END Act One, scene one.


[> Thank you!! -- Rahael, 15:39:10 07/22/02 Mon

Loved this!

A very literary board today....

[> [> Re: Just delightfully funny and on the mark! Pure thumbs up! -- Brian, 16:04:32 07/22/02 Mon

[> I wish you'd taught my high school English classes... -- LadyStarlight, 16:13:10 07/22/02 Mon

...maybe I'dve learned something from them.

Great job.

[> I can't remember the last time I laughed so hard! Thank You! -- Dead Soul, 17:01:34 07/22/02 Mon

[> Get thee to a Fic Corner! -- d'Herblay, 17:13:59 07/22/02 Mon

[> Thank you for such a wonderful & fun post! -- Deeva, 17:26:15 07/22/02 Mon

[> Encore! Encore! -- Arethusa, 19:41:47 07/22/02 Mon

[> Huzah! and then, more, more! (NT) -- fresne, 22:14:55 07/22/02 Mon

[> There's genius out there! -- Vickie, 22:33:51 07/22/02 Mon

Act One Scene two, please!

Followed by the rest. If you do one act by a couple of weeks, doubtless someone could pick it up to perform at WorldCon.

Maybe even the original cast???????

[> [> Re: Thanks, everyone! -- lindabarlow, 00:30:05 07/23/02 Tue

Oh, jeez, wouldn't it be a hoot to do the whole thing? I'm still going -- Act One, scene 2 is done (not ready to be posted anywhere, though) and I'm about to move onto Act 2...

Thanks for the encouragement!


[> Re: A Midsummer Night's Shakespeare Parody (LONG) - - Rufus, 22:50:18 07/22/02 Mon

I read this over at the Stakehouse..very good.

[> [> Re: A Midsummer Night's Shakespeare Parody (LONG) - - Vickie, 23:02:52 07/22/02 Mon

Puhleeese tell me you mean out loud. To other Buffyverse nutcases like us???

[> *APPLAUSE* -- Lyonors, 07:22:52 07/23/02 Tue

Wow Linda....I really needed a laugh. That has to be the funniest thing I have read in ages. You rock...please...keep on, this has the potential to get even funnier!


[> Brilliant! -- ponygirl, 07:57:03 07/23/02 Tue

Current board | More July 2002