July 2002 posts

Previous July 2002  

More July 2002

Spike's Modus Operandi -- Finn Mac Cool, 21:14:31 07/28/02 Sun

Spike has developed quite a modus operandi when it comes to relationships. Whenever he pursues a woman, he seems to use the same method of seduction. He claims that the people around her are nothing, that they are dirt. That she is glorious, above everything, and that only he can truly appreciate her for what she is.

Cecily - Spike says that the aristocrats are barbarians, or something close to that. He acts as though Cecily and himself are deeper, more intellectual and emotionally in tune.

Buffy - He tells her (in Dead Things) that she doesn't belong with her friends, that they are too mortal and human for her. Spike claims that vampires get her hot and she "needs a monster in her man". Again, setting himself and his love on a plane above all others.

Anya - In the episodes Entropy and Where the Wild Things Are, he acts as a fellow demon. He encourages the feeling that the Scooby Gang is too righteous and can't comprehend either her or him. Spike tells her that, as a vampire and ex-ex-vengeance demon, they are better than the human Scoobies.

Harmony - We did not see the beginning of their relationship, but she mentions that Spike promised to take her to Paris, which sounds like the actions of someone using this manner of seduction.

Drusilla - In this case, Spike's love used the same method on him. She said that the people he knew couldn't understand his greatness, but that she could. I also find it likely that Spike used his modus operandi after he was turned, saying that he was the only one who could understand Dru. Given her insane ramblings, this is literally true. No one else seems able to make heads or tails of what she says.

Dawn - Spike unintentionally seduced Dawn like this. The rest of the Scooby Gang treated her like a child who couldn't understand the important things going on. But Spike treated her like she was an adult, someone to be respected. I'm not saying that Spike tried to get the Nibblet to get a crush on him, but it happened subconsciously.

Any thoughts on this aspect of Spike and relationships (I know that Spike is talked about to death (err, more death) but I've never heard of this point before, and felt like I should bring it up)?

[> Re: Spike's Modus Operandi -- Cactus Watcher, 06:22:36 07/29/02 Mon

I don't know if psychologists have a name for this type of personality, but its certainly not abnormal. Spike and William before him have always had trouble relating to a large groups. As Spike he can command others, but he isn't a 'team member' even among vampires. As William he doesn't relate well to the average person in his circle especially when they are together as a group. He always comes closer to understanding others on a one-to-one basis. He knew Cecily was a snob. He just didn't realize he was one of those things she looked down on. He knew that Dru needed understanding. But, he didn't notice that most of all Dru needed attention. That's why she created him in the first place, to be her constant companion. When his mind started drifting to Buffy, long before he even loved Buffy, he lost Dru. He understands Buffy's need for passion and gives it to her. He doesn't understand she also needs honesty and decency to go with it. He's always trying to please those he's interested in, and as FMC says he's always trying to tell them that only he understand's them. What he always fails to realize is that the rest of his behavior matters, not just his moments of 'understanding.'

[> Re: Spike's Modus Operandi -- Purple Tulip, 06:32:55 07/29/02 Mon

You've brought up some really good points here. Spike is my faveorite character on the show, and I never get tired of talking about him! ;) I've always kind of thought that Spike behaves this way with women kind of out of desperation. I think that deep down he is just really lonely and he thinks that if he has a woman by his side then he won't be alone--- it's kind of like William peeking out from behind the Spike bravado. To him, the way that he seduces women is kind of romantic- to make them feel like they are the greatest and most beautiful thing in the whole world, whether it's just for companionship (Harmony), love (Buffy, Drusilla), protection (Dawn), lust/comfort (Anya), or infatutaion (Cecily). This is one method of conquering that Spike has never given up on- make the woman feel special and important and they will reward you with whatever you are seeking (love, lust, companionship, etc.) The mantra for the way that Spike does things should be "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

Tara's Return - How many ways - Spoilers!? -- Brian, 04:56:01 07/29/02 Mon

Tara could return as a:

Spiritual guide
(an)entity in Willow's mind (projection, interior landscape, etc.)
Long lost twin, cousin, etc.
Alternate dimension person
Time warp shifter
Or a completely new character.

Any others?

However, Joss has said that Amber will be back but not Tara

[> Tara's Love and Death - How Much Her Choice? -- Banana Hammock, 05:54:12 07/29/02 Mon

'I would rather have had one touch of her hair...than have lived an eternity without it.' - 'Seth', City Of Angels

'All you need is love.' - The Beatles

'Oh, my love! For the first time in my life, I can see.' - John Lennon

'Whoever said it is better to have loved and lost, has obviously never tried it.' - Anon

'If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.' - Sting

'Despite the desire to enjoy the small time we had together, a small voice in the back of mind still whispered, 'Why torture yourself with love today, knowing it will have vanished by tomorrow?'' - Elizabeth Astonfield, 'The Cold Summer'

It has been established through episodes such as 'Family' (Btvs, S5) that Tara's life before she met Willow, fell in love and became friends with the Scoobies was pretty miserable. She had no friends, was too nervous to socialise, and has to live with an overbearing family that wanted her to stay this way for their own purposes. The assumption is that, had Tara never met Willow, she would never have discovered the inner strangth she had to break away from this life, and would have remained miserable. Therefore, the assumption is that had Tara known that to live she would have to stay away from the Scoobies, that when she had first met Willow that their relationship would have ended in her murder and Willow's destruction (and almost the end of the world - bet Tara didn't know she possessed THAT much inner strength!), she still would have been with Willow while she could, because she loved her. Also the fact that Tara and Willow had a same sex relationship supports this theory, because they were willing to go through the hardship of prejudices against homosexuality, therefore would be willing to go through these hardships. But is that really the case?

I'm not good at putting my point across in paragraphs, so instead I'm going to split the arguments into pros and cons.



1. Tara would have been happy, even if it had been for a short time. She would have had between two and a half to three years to enjoy with Willow before she would have been killed. With no guarantees that she would have any kind of happiness without Willow or her friends, no matter how long she lived, she would have chosen three years of happiness over it.

2. She would have been able to help the group substantially before her death. Tara was the kind of selfless person would have seriously considered giving up her life for those of others, when others might have ran screaming at this option! When you think about it, Tara was the reason the gang found out Faith had taken over Buffy's body, and almost definitely wouldn't have otherwise, not until Faith was long gone with Buffy's body. She also saved Willow and Anya's lives in Bargaining (Parts 2 and 1 respectively). Without Tara, the gang woudln't have found Glory's tower in time to save Dawn in The Gift, either. So she's saved practically everyone in the gang's lives at one point or another.


1. Obviously, Tara would die. She would have to sacrifice any kind of future for happiness right now.

2. Again, Tara was a very selfless person. And she may not find her own present happiness reason enough to put Willow through the pain of losing her, and also almost ending the world. I saw a very classic poster displaying this point just before Grave was screened here in the UK, which had a picture of Tara in the top left corner, and Willow in the bottom right. Beside Tara it said, 'Her life is over.' Beside Willow, it said, 'If she gets her way, so is ours.' If Tara had known that her death would send Willow over the edge this way, I think she would have walked away.

3. Any happiness Tara had was oblivious to her imminent death. If she had known she was going to be murdered for being part of the Scooby Gang and still chose to stay, any happiness she might have had would be marred by the thought of what was coming hanging over her head.

If you go deeper into it, there would be hundreds more reasons for either side, but in the end, I believe there would still be more reasons for Tara to walk away than stay if she had known the future. There is also the slightly unromantic idea that she could have found someone else. After all, Tara was Willow's someone else. She was devestated when Oz left her, certain there would be no one else. But there was. If we were to look at the show realistically (and just to clarify, I'm not sitting here going, that show is so unrealistic! I know it's supposed to be, I'm just saying, how might it have went if?) then Tara and Willow could have moved on from each other to better, more fruitful things. And maybe not. What do others think?

[> [> *cough* ...correction -- Solitude1056, 12:43:30 07/29/02 Mon

'If you can't be with the one you love, love the one you're with.' - Sting

Sting may have covered it, but he sure didn't write it. (Perhaps he wrote something similar, probably on the Dream of the Blue Turtles Album. Knowing Sting, he was quoting.) The song is Love the One You're With by Stephen Stills of Crosby, Stills and Nash fame; Stills wrote both the music and lyrics. The full song is:

If you're down, and confused
And you don't remember, who you're talkin' to
Concentration slips away
'Cause your baby is so far away

And there's a rose, in a fisted glove
And the eagle flies, with the dove
And if you can't be, with the one you love
Love the one you're with

Don't be angry, don't be sad
Don't sit cryin' over good times you had
There's a girl, right next to you
And she's just waitin', for something to do

Turn your heartache right into joy
She's a girl, and you're a boy
So get it together, make it nice
You ain't gonna need, any more advice

[> Re: Amber's Return - How many ways - Spoilers!? -- Darby, 09:47:37 07/29/02 Mon

It has been suggested by others that Amber may be back but not on camera - she may be a writer or director.

Has the show had any female directors?

[> [> Re: Amber's Return - How many ways - Spoilers!? -- Purple Tulip, 10:33:07 07/29/02 Mon

Haven't Marti Noxon and Jane Espensen directed?

[> [> [> Yes, but... -- GreatRewards, 13:28:15 07/29/02 Mon

They must've had a man helping them. You know, showing them the ropes, making sure they don't screw things up, etc.

just kidding! tee hee!

/me ducks to avoid various thrown objects!

The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- Darby, 07:38:42 07/29/02 Mon

In the recent Angel - v - BtVS thread, many people mentioned the Pylean trilogy as a low point, which got me thinking about it.

First of all, I thoroughly enjoyed the trip to Lorne's home dimension. I like to see what can be done when you move characters into a drastically different setting, and I thought the blend of humor and action was better than through most of S2. But that's not what I'm here to talk about.

I think that the closing trilogy of S2 AtS, and the closing trilogy of S5 BtVS, were directly intended to set up the next season's switch in attitudes. For now, I'm going to focus on Angel and Pylea.

Lorne is a demon from a demon dimension, some minor ring of Hell not bad enough for the AtS characters to call it a legitimate hell, but this is the first version of demon demension that we actually get to see.

And what is it? It's a cross between Earth's Dark Ages and Planet of the Apes. Torment for humans, true, but more of the socio-political type than burn-in-the-pit variety. There is evil, but it is cultural and institutional, not heaven-and-hell evil.

How are demons from Pylea different from humans? Well, they use humans as domestic beasts, including use as food, and offer them no more rights than beasts are accorded on Earth. An interesting commentary on vampire demons, whose main evil is to eat humans and discount their rights (yeah, yeah, more biological imperative and less cultural, but still...).

Pylea is not shown so much evil as backward, with the potential to change (although it seems that Groo couldn't bring it about). After two seasons of being shown a spectrum of demons, from bad through innocuous to actually good, we are being primed for the next stage of the reveal: demons may be largely a product of their environment! Sure, Lorne is an anomaly (anom, that's not trademarked here, is it?), but the other Pyleans seem to be as capable of good or evil as humans in a similar culture.

Through Season Three, with the increased graying of the good- vs-evil in terms of demons (thank goodness we still have lawyers to represent absolute Darkness!), we have been given a basis to question all of the dogma. Angel is becoming the story of an interdimensional war, with Earth as a battlefield and the other, "demon" participants just refugees from places that are more like alien planets than Biblical Hells. Places with governments, and cultures, with families and traditions.

Even Quortoth was a place where a man could raise an infant to adolescence, and it's supposed to be one of the worst Hell dimensions there is. Makes me wonder what Angel's hell dimension was like - his persona on his return was a slightly less socialized version of Connor, sort of. Maybe it wasn't so horrible, maybe running around for years with no wardrobe and no hair product was just too much for him.

I'm starting to understand why Joss is doing Firefly without intelligent aliens - he's already been doing that on his current shows. And I think that the previous accepted parameters of what's good, what's evil, what deserves death and what deserves understanding, are going to keep getting murkier. If you start hearing "alien" when people say "demon," you'll see that it has to.

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- yabyumpan, 08:49:09 07/29/02 Mon

I too enjoyed the Pylea arc and see loads of foreshadowing and insights into the characters. Not going to comment too much on what you've written as I'm on my way out, but I'll put forward some points re: the characters.

Angel: We got to see just what his demon looks like. The demon must have had some memories/remnants of Angel/his soul. There was enough awareness there to bring him back when he saw his reflection and when he was fighting Groo. Not sure what that means and haven't really got time to explore it right now, but I do think it's interesting. We also saw how far he was willing to go to save Cordelia.

Cordelia: Very much a foreshadowing of 'Birthday'. She chose, for the first time to keep the mission over her fantasy of what she thought she wanted, and over love. Interesting forshadowing of 'Tommorrow'

Wesley: Stepped up to take the leadership role in a big way, prepared to sacrifice others for the 'greater good'

Gunn: Made a clear decision about where he belonged i.e. with AI

Fred: Obviously, being rescued from said 'hell dimension' but also the first inclination of her possible role in A.I. It was because of Fred that they were able to get home

Lorne: Dealing with unfinished business, saying 'goodbye' to home, making a diffinate choice about where he wanted to be. The first time he came to earth was by accident.

"Even Quortoth was a place where a man could raise an infant to adolescence, and it's supposed to be one of the worst Hell dimensions there is. Makes me wonder what Angel's hell dimension was like - his persona on his return was a slightly less socialized version of Connor, sort of. Maybe it wasn't so horrible, maybe running around for years with no wardrobe and no hair product was just too much for him."

Just a quick comment about this. I think his return from hell was underplayed but I think that's because the show's about Buffy and his role in that was to be Buffy's 'love interest'. To focus to much on his hell experience and the aftermath wouldn't have been appropriate. He was there mainly as a foil for Buffy's emotions etc IMO. I'm hoping that his return from spending 3 months locked in a box at the bottem of the ocean will be handled better.

[> Pylea Power activate -- neaux, 08:54:11 07/29/02 Mon

to be honest, it was the Pylea storyline that got me actually Watching Angel Again.

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- matching mole, 09:16:46 07/29/02 Mon

The dislike of the Pylea episodes has been puzzling to me mostly because most people haven't really expressed what they didn't like about them.

My theory (which is mine and possibly no more insightful than some theories about the Brontosaurus (now renamed Apatosaurus)) is that it contrasted unflatteringly with the angsty, noiry period leading up to it. Angel is in full tilt brood mode, locking lawyers to be eaten, sitting former girlfriends on fire, snubbing his friends, and then trying to lose his soul. Then he has to try to make things right again. Gripping stuff and I loved it. As did a lot of other people.

Then all of a sudden we're off to 'Planet of the Apes' as Darby says. Maybe this setting just didn't fit into some peoples' idea of AtS. But this is what I love about Pylea (and AtS overall) - it sucks you in and then it dumps you out someplace you didn't expect to be. But the same themes are still being played out as Darby points out. And simultaneously on the two shows we had hell on earth (with Glory tearing down the dimensional barriers) and earth (more or less) in hell on AtS. Sunnydale is the scene of an epic climax while a pseudo-medieval fortress is the scene of a relatively anti-climactic ending. A nice contrast and a nice balance.

Now I probably wouldn't be so happy if they had hung around Pylea for all of the next season. But they didn't.

[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- Rob, 09:56:28 07/29/02 Mon

I'm not a regular "Angel" watcher, but I LOVED the Pylea episodes. They're among the few I've seen. I love pure fantasy, with magical lands, wizards, sorcerers, etc, and those eps were very much in that vein.


[> Re: The Pivotal Prelude of Pylea -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:44:57 07/29/02 Mon

Pylea is the second demon dimension we've seen, actually.

The first was Ken's demonic factory from the first episode of BtVS season 3, "Anne".

[> [> Very true... -- Darby, 11:11:39 07/29/02 Mon

Forgot about the Soviet propaganda poster / Morlock dimension.

But we could have just been seeing a single sweatshop; at least we got a regional perspective if not broader on Pylea.

Who knew Kathie Lee Gifford had connections to the demon realm?

Oh...you all did...

Awarness of the "Cliché" (added here to avoid archive death) -- cjc36, 09:59:15 07/29/02 Mon

Part of the problem with the W/T cliché debate I think comes down to the fact that a cliché isn’t one if one isn’t particularly aware of it. I’m not gay, so I’m rather deaf and blind to it. Is this my fault? I don’t know. But fault or no, the result is two groups of fans, one attuned, whether gay or not, to seeing a hackneyed plot device in the final three of S6, and other group who simply see another example of things getting tragic and dark in Sunnydale. And with no cliché alarms blaring in the second group’s heads, they have a somewhat better chance at seeing the things Joss intended to show: Senselessness of male violence and, ultimately, the love of friendship triumphing over an individual’s descent into darkness. Ones who are all too aware of the cliché can’t get past it to notice anything else.

This is perhaps the reason why no real conclusion or summit meeting is possible. Either you are on the side of the “Clichéists,” or you’re not. I don't think there's really a right or wrong here, just differing viewpoints brought about by divergent experiences.

[> Re: Awarness of the "Cliché" (added here to avoid archive death) -- Masq, 10:08:43 07/29/02 Mon

"Ones who are all too aware of the cliché can’t get past it to notice anything else. "

I don't think you meant to make such an over-arching statement about a group of people. There are many of us who were aware of the cliche' and believe it is old and tiresome, and we are sick and tired of seeing it.

But we are also Joss fans who understand why he did what he did.

The truth is, Joss inadvertently stepped into a big pile of doo-doo without intending to. He wrote Tara's death for his own story-telling reasons, ones we are familiar with as fans of Joss. He's done the same dark thing to other characters for 6 seasons.

I do not judge him for not being aware of the cliche' before hand. But I think he, and Steven deKnight, can be judged well or poorly for how they react to the news of the cliche' afterwards. Are they sympathetic at all? Are they defensive? Do they make jokes that show a lack of concern for the feelings of a group of fans and alienate them?

They don't necessarily have to apologize for taking the story where they did, but being considerate of fan's feelings is simple courtesy that doesn't hurt anyone.

[> [> Re: Awarness of the "Cliché" (added here to avoid archive death) -- cjc36, 10:39:07 07/29/02 Mon

Blanket statement alert. And you are right. I should have qualified that. "Probably more than half...Some…"

DeKnight was acting like an insensitive arse if what I've read were really his responses, and I believe they were.

Courtesy of fans feelings is necessary, but there were more than a handful of fans declaring Jihad on ME for killing Tara. Again, I wish Tara were alive, was not aware of the "LC", and didn't take Tara's dying, Willow's decent, or Xander saving her as Dead Lesbian Cliché, Evil Lesbian Cliché, or some repudiation of Willow's sexual preference (being saved by a MAN!).

I saw Willow losing her mind due to immeasurable grief and reaching for the only weapon she had handy - Dark Magick. And I saw love - the kind only attainable by long-term friendship - saving the day. Worked for me.

[> [> [> Oh, I don't disagree with you about the Jossian interpretation -- Masq, 10:44:41 07/29/02 Mon

I know what Joss intended and I saw it that way myself the first time I watched it.

But the Kitten's response reminded me of another lens to view it through, and I stand by their right to be irked.

The truth is, both points of view are correct here. Joss told his story his way, and he inadvertently fed the cliche'. It's not either-or. It's both.

[> [> [> [> Re: Oh, I don't disagree with you about the Jossian interpretation -- Rufus, 14:11:25 07/29/02 Mon

The truth is, both points of view are correct here. Joss told his story his way, and he inadvertently fed the cliche'. It's not either-or. It's both.

Absolutely...Joss did inadvertently feed the cliche, and if you listen to comments by David Fury and Jane Espenson they are aware of that and have said that it was unintentional, and were respectful in what they said. I don't know what else they can do but reflect what they learned in season seven. Steve DeKnight was the one who may have been less than compassionate when he appeared on the Succubus Club, but he was also presented with some insulting e-mails and e- mails insulting to the ladies that run The Succubus Club. If people want to get something constructive done profanity, and writing that could be taken as threatening isn't the way to go. Steve DeKnight was acting in character for what I've seen him post on the Bronze. He joked like writers do joke about killing characters (Tim Minear has a t-shirt reflecting that). To make the writers understand the depth of the hurt fans of Tara feel profanity and calls to destroy the show aren't the way to go. It makes the writers understandably defensive, in a year that there was more than the Tara storyline that had fans upset.

Jane Espenson and David Fury were very compassionate in how they spoke of Tara and her death. They say they never intended for the death to spark cries of Lesbian Cliche. I didn't see the Lesbian Cliche til it was pointed out to me. I don't think the writers wanted to hurt anyone as deeply as fans of Tara are hurting. The constant insults are only going to get the writers to act in a defensive way. And frankly, I am offended at the way real people have been treated because of a fictional one. I suggest instead of investing so much time in hateful activities, the people do something posative, they may find the writers more willing to talk in a honest compassionate way, right now it's a standoff with both sides feeling on the hostile side. Insults and hate are only going to make matters worse, I'm not saying that opinions can't be vented but insults only perpetuate more insults.

[> [> [> [> [> Kind of reminds you of... -- Masq, 14:21:34 07/29/02 Mon

That whole hub-bub when the stunt director Jeff Pruitt/Buffy stunt double Sophia left the show at the end of season 4. Except this time the hostility was within the ranks of those who produce the show.

What made it worse in that case was Jeff airing his personal feelings on a fan forum, because he'd visited there many times and knew he had the fan's ears (or is it eyes?).

I'm one of those people who doesn't pay much attention to producers/writers/actors because I am much more caught up in the fictional world of the story. Unfortunately, you can't completely separate the two, and in the age of the internet, fans not only witness what happens to their show when things behind the scenes sour, they can now interact with the producers of the show and influence, for better or worse, the production of the show.

It's a strange age we're in!

[> [> [> [> [> Rufus, completely agree! -- Caroline, 12:36:32 08/02/02 Fri

[> [> [> Re: Awarness of the "Cliché" (added here to avoid archive death) -- Miss Edith, 11:57:15 07/29/02 Mon

I really do think ME should consider hiring a media spokesperson to advise them. They have shown no compassion towards the Kittens which has unfortunately caused a feeling of "well we'll make them care. They've hurt our feelings and should pay". If you have been hurt badly it is irksome if the individuals who have inadvetently caused you pain seem to have no human feeling for you.
Some acknowledgement of the promises broken and the way the story had gone being offensive to a minority group (although not intended as such) would have done a lot to prevent the situation from becoming as bitter as it has. Unfortunately an apology at this point is probably too late. I can see the Kittens reacting with "screw his apology, he is backsliding and trying to save face" etc. The writers comments just make me groan sometimes. Saying things like we can't make Willow bisexual at this point as it would offend the Kittens only encourages fans divisions. The Kittens are rightly responding that Joss choose to make Willow gay etc and the writers stirring up such feelings really isn't helpful.
Of course the Kittens aren't blameless either and some people are taking things too far and threatening the writers, which is completely inappropriate obviously, but ME really have made a rod for their own back in their insenstive responses.

[> [> [> [> World of Pain -- darrenK, 13:36:42 07/29/02 Mon

I've read so many types of responses to Tara's death that I'm starting to have trouble remembering where the different arguments being and end.

I understand both sides and I think that Joss's answer on May 22 might not have addressed the whole world of hurt caused by Tara's death, but it was an austere, dignified defense of his right to do what he wants with his characters, whether he steps in cliché or not.

And I have to say that, as a writer, there's no worse fate than inadvertantly ending up with a clichéd plot device. That in itself is a hell I would wish on no writer. So, in that regard, I imagine that Joss and DeKnight are suffering.

The other thing that's important to note is that the show isn't over yet . And that no story on Buffy really ends. Joss is a genius at circling back around to it and adding layers. So I'm waiting to see what happens with Willow to find out the real meaning, subtext and outcome of Tara's death.

Until then, cliché or no, I have to be glad that Tara and Willow got one last night together.

There are many people, fictional or no, hetero or no, who never find that type of love. And there are way too many people in this very unfair world who never get that one last night.

I have to be happy for them. Maybe even envy them.

[> [> [> [> [> Joss and cliche's -- Masq, 14:43:36 07/29/02 Mon

Well, Joss has inadvertently created his own cliche'd plot device, IMO, "kill a character", and this is only peripherally related to the lesbian cliche.

Joss wants to give the viewers a jolt with things like Tara's death, but perhaps the collective response from the viewers should have been, "*Yawn*, not again..."

I mean, Joss has killed major characters before, he's killed on-going characters before. The sudden death of a character in what seems like the middle of his/her story line is nothing new:

Season 1:

- Joss wanted to put Jesse in the "WttH/TH" main credits along side Buffy, Willow, and Xander so people would think he was one of the main characters before Joss offed him.
- Principle Flutie was the established principal by the 6th episode--crunch.
- And of course Buffy the title character has died twice. Third time we really *will* be yawning.

Season 2:

- Jenny, of course, just as the romance with Giles was rekindling
- Kendra, and rather an dishonorable death at that (and by the time Forrrest was killed in season 4, black viewers I know were complaining about the 'dead black person' cliche)

Season 3:

- Trick really was built up as part of the season's big bad posse and then suddenly *poof* for no apparent reason he was offed.

Season 4/Season 1:

-ditto with Dr. Walsh, although we knew something about the actress's need to leave the show despite the fact her story was supposed to continue
-Doyle--the debate still lives, problems witht the actor or killed for story line purposes? His death really changed the tone of Season 1 of Angel, and ultimately what the whole show could have been like later.

Season 5/Season 2:

-The death of Joyce was a shocker mainly because she'd been around for 4 1/2 seasons
- In the Pylea arc, we really had reason to fear that Lorne was dead after he was beheaded because hey, that's what Joss does
-see above re: comments on Buffy's 2nd death

Season 6/Season 3

-Darla's second death could be seen as necessary to the story line, or a convenient way to get Momma out of the way so Angel get tangled up in an intense relationship with his son.
-Tara's death can be seen as Joss getting kind of old and predictable. To move his character's stories forward (lke Buffy's in season 5), kill somebody important to them.

Wonder who will die next year??

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss and cliche's -- Wizardman, 15:29:00 07/29/02 Mon

I hope that no one on either shows in this upcoming season- it's too soon from this season. I don't have a problem with character deaths, as long as they are done intelligently and respectfully- which is why the only problem I've had is with Kendra's death. But that's not a rant for this thread. Anyway... Buffy will be lighter-hearted this season. Angel now... I'm predicting more darkness and angst. We'll just have to wait and see- and hope for the best. And as for the cliché issue- I didn't know about the cliché. I was upset because one of my favourite characters died senselessly.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> The cliche worst than death -- yabyumpan, 06:10:53 07/30/02 Tue

I'm not actually to bothered about the character death cliche, heck, the show's about death/dying/killing in some ways, it's even in the title (slayer). Two of the show's main characters are actually dead (Angel and Spike). Death is a major reality of life, happens all the time to all sorts of people under the strangest of circumstances.

The cliche that really bugs me is 'no one is allowed to have a happy relationship for to long'. Now that one is truely getting old and tired. It is also unrealistic. In RL, people do have happy, long term relationships. I'm not saying it should be all 'white picket fences no angst' stuff, that would also be unrealistic, but it might actually be interesting to see two characters dealing with what they have to deal with on both show's and actually managing to maintain a relatively healthy relationship.

It's got to the point now that even before two characters get together (say Angel and Cordelia)I'm reading posts on forums which discuss when the break up will happen and how. Do Joss and co really want to be that predictable?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Both shows (before the apostrophe police get me) -- yabyumpan, 06:52:40 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We all make apostrophe mistakes from time to time.. -- Masq, 09:10:13 07/30/02 Tue

It's how you go on after the error that determines the content of your character.

Oh, and I agree that Joss has a real THING about "No relationship is going to work! Not on my show!"

Didn't mean I wasn't overjoyed! when Buffy called quits whatever that thing with Spike was.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'rite for yourself -- skeeve, 10:59:33 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think I just did. : ) -- Masq, 11:13:45 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Apostrophe mistakes. Board Pet Peeve #1! Collect them all! -- Darby, 13:00:33 07/30/02 Tue

To me, as I have been proofreading student work for a (sigh) long time, it's weird how apostrophe usage has changed. Fifteen years ago, you'd almost never see an apostrophe applied to any but the oddest plurals - now they're all over the place.

Weirdest examples - posted flyer on campus for "Professional resume's"; just when I'd settled in to asking students, "You wouldn't spell more-than-one-dog D-O-G-apostrophe-S, right?" I pass a sign: "DOG'S FOR SALE."

And the one that drives me crazy, and is the most common grammatical error on the board: possessive pronouns do NOT get apostrophes. People are generally fine on hers and theirs, but it's "its" that gets them every time. I'm often seeing student papers that ONLY use an apostrophe for a possessive on "its," never on the times when it's appropriate. Reading an online history of microscopes (much more interesting than you'd expect) the other day, and the little buggers were all over the place...

Okay, I'm done and I don't feel better...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Board (& other places) pet peeve #1! - "discrete" instead of "discreet" -- Dead Soul, 13:13:26 07/30/02 Tue

Oh, and the peeked/peaked/piqued problem (more prevalent, and egregious, in fanfics than here).

Dead Soul - who knows that havoc is wreaked, not wrecked

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Your Welcome" and "Here! Here!" -- d'Herblay, 17:33:30 07/30/02 Tue

My two big pet peeves. Of course it's my welcome! Whose else would it be?

I do wish people would agree to a spelling of Drusilla as well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Pet Peeve - centered around -- Brian, 18:31:36 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> what, brian, you don't like oxymorons? -- anom, 22:35:26 07/30/02 Tue

I've also seen "focussed around."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Shouldn't that be "Oxymora"? -- Rahael, 11:06:23 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> if you're speaking greek, definitely. otherwise... -- anom, 20:39:26 08/01/02 Thu

...well, I've only heard "oxymora" once before, used by Richard Lederer on a public radio call-in show (which I'd say puts you in good company). It surprised me, but then I realized, "Oh--like 'phenomena!'" But I've never heard or read it anywhere else till now--everyone I know of says "oxymorons," & I was never taught that the plural was anything different. Is "oxymora" more common in England?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That reminds me... -- dubdub, 20:43:46 08/01/02 Thu

My mother was recently informed by someone in her writers' group that oxymoron is pronounced OX-simmer- on.

Am I the only one who thinks that's insane?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> never heard that, but... -- anom, 22:55:52 08/01/02 Thu

...I have heard "ok-SIM-o-ron," which also follows the pattern of "phe-NOM-e-non." Haven't heard it often, though.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It seems that it should... -- aliera, making haste slowly, 05:15:00 08/02/02 Fri

at least according to my dictionary...and


Although I've haven't 'heard' the word either; actually, aside from here, can't recall hearing anyone say oxymoron recently. :-)

a favorite: jumbo shrimp...

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Rahael, 05:24:55 08/02/02 Fri

Saves me looking it up.

I understood, like 'criterion'/'criteria', the plural form of Oxymoron was Oxymora.

And as for it's pronounciation - I'm pretty sure it's:


I also think it applies really to conflicting words that are put together for the sake of effect/wit/rhetoric, rather than words used incorrectly together, or mistakenly opposed words used together.

For example, this Sonnet by Shakespeare is full of subtle oxymora:

"When most I wink, then do mine eyes best see,
For all the day they view things unrespected;
But when I sleep, in dreams they look on thee,
And darkly bright are bright in dark directed.
Then thou, whose shadow shadows doth make bright,
How would thy shadow's form form happy show
To the clear day with thy much clearer light,
When to unseeing eyes thy shade shines so!
How would, I say, mine eyes be blessed made
By looking on thee in the living day,
When in dead night thy fair imperfect shade
Through heavy sleep on sightless eyes doth stay!
All days are nights to see till I see thee,
And nights bright days when dreams do show thee me."

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Thanks! -- aliera, in brief, 07:18:54 08/02/02 Fri

I also like idiot savant....thanks for the morning dose of Shakespeare, I feel much better now ;-)

Do you have email up now? I had something I wanted to send you...my work email is.angela.gustafsson@nysna.org(just the nurses assoc!)....home is (after 3pm your time.aliera9916@aol.com.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You should have mail! -- Rahael, 07:28:15 08/02/02 Fri

At your aol private address. Let me know if doesn't arrive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whoops...time warp -- aliera, 07:29:15 08/02/02 Fri

should have been home after 9pm your time!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pet Peeve - 'conversating' -- Marie, 02:04:20 08/02/02 Fri

I first heard that on a Rikki Lake show a couple of years ago, and have heard it (and others like it!) a LOT, since then, mostly on US chat shows - is that really how people talk, these days? I've never heard it here (Wales).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yes! & other your/you're confusions -- anom, 22:49:13 07/30/02 Tue

The mnemonic (remember that one?) is that none of the possessive pronouns uses an apostrophe: my (mine), your(s), her(s), his, its, our(s), their(s).

So "your" means "belonging to you," & "you're" means "you are."

OK, now we'll see if that takes....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I guess you need family in the South to get it . . . -- d'Herblay, 00:09:00 07/31/02 Wed

But I've been known to joke that the only possessive pronoun with an apostrophe is y'alls.

However, there are a few possessive pronouns that use apostrophes: whoever's, someone's, etc.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking as someone in the South... -- Arethusa, 16:01:55 07/31/02 Wed

Actually, you mean "ya'll"-you all, which is plural, and therefore would not need an additional "s." To make it plural possessive, add an apostrophe plus an "s"-ya'll's. As in "Put that there dog of ya'll's in the back yard." You'd only use "ya'lls" if you wanted to indicate more than one pronoun-as in "Your ya'lls are driving me crazy."

When I first moved to Texas from San Diego, everyone told me I spoke with an accent!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You and Dedalus . . . misplacing those apostrophes -- d'Herblay, 16:54:14 07/31/02 Wed

I'll forgive you because you're really a Californian. Anyway, there is no way you can contract you all and end up with ya'll for the simple reason that the a is in all and not you. Spelling the word ya'll makes about as much sense as contracting do not into do'nt. And, had you read closely, you would already know that I was using the possessive form (thus my phrasing "the only possessive pronoun") and that, according to anom and others, no possessive specific pronoun has an apostrophe in it.

Except for y'alls.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So is the possessive plural y'alls' ? -- redcat, who has relatives in TX towns named Wink & Muleshoe, 17:03:53 07/31/02 Wed

As in "You boys get y'alls' filthy dawgs outta my kitchen this instant or the baby Jesus will send you to H-E-Double- Toothpicks and that ain't no country song I'se a- singin'!!!"

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How do you pluralize a plural? -- d'Herblay, 17:14:13 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> 'cause in Southern-Speak, "y'all" ain't necessarily always a plural -- redcat, 17:26:02 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, if you're Australian 'you' becomes 'yous' -- Caroline, 07:03:15 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and in new york, we spell it "youse"! -- anom, 21:11:07 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Defending my honor! -- Arethusa, 09:05:01 08/01/02 Thu

The possessive form of the indefinite pronoun "everybody" is "everybody's." "Ya'll" is commonly used to mean "everybody I am talking too." Therefore, if I use "ya'll's," it would be correct. I double-checked myself at:


As for the spelling of "ya'll": if you do a google search of the word, you'lll see *almost* everyone uses "ya'll." I've never seen it spelled any other way until now. Not logical, but true. ;o)

Let me know if I goofed again.

Arethusa, praying to the Grammar Gods she's right.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, heck. "everybody I am talking to," not "too" -- Arethusa, ungrammatically, 09:07:50 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Or "Everybody to whom I am talking". A dangling preposition being -- Sophist, 09:27:02 08/01/02 Thu

something up with which we should not put. :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ah ha! -- Arethusa, 09:50:14 08/01/02 Thu

One of my university grammar professors said that the laws of English grammar are based on the laws created for Latin grammar-which of course means we have some English grammar laws that make little sense. The dangling participle rule is one of them, he said-evidently in Latin one can't dangle a participle. But in English we can, and often do. I don't see a problem with saying, "Where are you going to? instead of "To where are you going?" Others disagree, but *if my professor is right*, I don't see a problem with modifying language rules to match how English is spoken. (Another grammar error, we're told, is a split infinitive. Splitting infinitives evidently also can't be done in Latin, but is often done in spoken English.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Winston Churchill -- Sophist, 18:41:04 08/01/02 Thu

Was once corrected for dangling a participle, and famously responded, "That is arrant pedantry, up with which I will not put." He agreed with your professor; as I intended to do in my own obscure way.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks. -- Arethusa, 19:15:16 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> possessive pronouns, southern &...othern -- anom, 20:37:20 07/31/02 Wed

"But I've been known to joke that the only possessive pronoun with an apostrophe is y'alls."

Actually, I'd spell it w/2: "y'all's." Despite what I said above about no apostrophes (as in "your" & "its"), this particular possessive pronoun just doesn't look right without one--I agree w/redcat that it looks like more than 1 "y'all." However, I agree w/d'Herblay that the apostrophe goes after the "y" (I've only seen it migrating recently).

"However, there are a few possessive pronouns that use apostrophes: whoever's, someone's, etc."

Yeah, but you know what I meant....

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Board (& other places) pet peeve #1! - "discrete" instead of "discreet" -- yabyumpan, 22:29:29 07/30/02 Tue

I have problems reading anything with bad grammar (even though my spelling's pretty crappy). I even have problem with graffiti. There's one I walk past every day on my way to work - 'your a whore', I always have to resist the urge to add the apostrophe and the 'e' at the end.

ok, that's my sad confession for today, night night :-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Apostrophe mistakes. Board Pet Peeve #1! Collect them all! -- Arethusa, 13:38:15 07/30/02 Tue

Yeah! Just what the frilly heck happened in the last five years or so? I learned from my grammar courses in college that since English grammar is based on Latin grammar, it doesn't always make perfect sense, but the punctuation and spelling rules are pretty clear. Now I see flagrant mistakes and misuses everywhere. Quit teaching for a few years to raise your kids, and the whole world goes to heck! It makes me want to get back into the classroom just to teach the entire world how to pluralize and use possessives.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Apostrophe mistakes. Board Pet Peeve #1! Collect them all! -- skeeve, 07:49:34 07/31/02 Wed

'Tisn't all that bad. At least all those errant apostrophes aren't on your resume.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The cliche worst than death -- Wizardman, 15:35:57 07/30/02 Tue

Yes! One thing that I am sick of on the show is the destruction of all the relationships. I for one hope that Gunn and Fred stay together. They have a sheer cuteness that no couple has had since Willow and Oz. And as for people wondering how C&A will be broken up, I don't know how much of that's from Joss' track record, and how much is from hope. We have seen over and over again on the shows that friends and lovers are two different things, and that mixing the two is dangerous. Not that it can't happen successfully, but it is unlikely. Just my two cents.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The cliche worst than death -- yabyumpan, 22:13:35 07/30/02 Tue

"We have seen over and over again on the shows that friends and lovers are two different things, and that mixing the two is dangerous."

Maybe it's just that I'm brain dead after my night shift but I can't think of another long term friendship that has become a romantic relationship on the shows.

"And as for people wondering how C&A will be broken up, I don't know how much of that's from Joss' track record, and how much is from hope"

Not from hope from the boards I've been to, which are C/A boards (me being a worried C/Aer), it's definatly from Joss's track record.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss and cliches (apostrophe police;) -- mundusmundi, 15:51:00 07/29/02 Mon

Wonder who will die next year??

Ummm, I dunno....Anya?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I want dead people!! lol -- Rahael, 15:56:02 07/29/02 Mon

Like the last scene in Hamlet. Everyone dies!!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ahem -- Rahael, 16:18:19 07/29/02 Mon

I forgot to say that I was referring to the final finale!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Jeez. Joss has a real homicidal streak. -- Masq, 16:29:32 07/29/02 Mon

Please don't end "Buffy" like they ended "Forever Knight"! It kind of ruined re-watching the earlier episodes because you no longer saw any point in rooting for Nick or any other character in Season 3.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Joss has a real homicidal streak. - so do some of the Fanged fic writers! -- Rahael, 16:35:05 07/29/02 Mon

Don't know what Forever Knight is, but my suggestion was tongue in cheek

Who likes looking after all her characters!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, speak up in e-mail... *big future spoilers for Fanged fic! For fff writers only! * -- Masq, 16:44:07 07/29/02 Mon

If you don't want to see Inez die a sudden, embarassing and hideous death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well, speak up in e-mail... *big future spoilers for Fanged fic! For fff writers only! * -- VampRiley, 17:37:50 07/29/02 Mon

Oooooo. She does?


The thing about killing characters is that you have to create others to replace them to help keep the story fresh, though a sudden death of one character after another does help in keeping things from getting boring. I could give you an example, but it seems Solitude calc is keeping her very busy. Glad I don't have to have calc. [shakes visibly]

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just realized I'm not a FFF writer. I'll forget it. -- VR - the forgetful, 17:39:48 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> VR, you might not be a fff writer but... -- Deeva, 22:48:28 07/31/02 Wed

We were glad to get you feedback from maybe a few days ago. But the only thing is that it got cut off. So we only got maybe the first 3-4 sentences. You mention an inconsistency somewhere between Angelus & Spike, I think? I would love to know what the rest of your message was. That is if you see this post in this wildly weaving thread!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Damn you, you bloody web site!!!! Spoilers for Fanged Four fic. -- VampRiley, 18:16:23 08/01/02 Thu

[Pulls out his Rolf 9 semi-auto, which he had converted to a full auto himself, with his right hand. He placed his left hand near the front of the weapon and pulled the trigger back. After 30 seconds, he aimed it off to his left and saw the smoke churn and float away from his monitor. Sparks of electricity shot out every which way as he looked at the destroyed circuits and glass and got a first hand glimps of what some of the things inside a monitor are. Realization hit him at what he'd done. Back he went to go to the computer store to get another monitor.]

Oh, crap. I may not be able to remember word for word, but here goes.

I like the story. I really do. I finished chapter 6 today. I like where it's headed and I have forgotten the spoiler. Truely.

But, there are one or two things.

First is, there are some descriptions I feel could be added.

Like, what is in the rooms? Are there windows? Furniture? Is there any light? If so, where is it coming from and how much is there? What does the amount of light in the room make the whole scene look like? Are there a lot people there or are there only a few in there? Are they far away from whoever entered or from the door?

How are the people dressed? When any of the characters enter a room, does the room make them have a visible, physical reaction that someone watching them could see and/or hear?

Another spot is when Spike got tied up by Angelus. He pours holy water on the younger vamp's shoulder. We are told that Darla touched his shoulder and Dru's head was lying on his shoulder after they woke up outside of town. Did they both interact with the same shoulder or did they both come in contact with separate shoulders?

At the card game, what is the seating arrangements?

Here's one passage.

Looking over their shoulders and between their swaying bodies, Spike saw Mayor Wilkins, holding the Glaive in his heavily gauntleted hands. Gesturing with the Glaive as a priest would with a communion chalice, the Mayor, in liturgical sounding Latin, addressed an ugly female idol.

When I first read it, I was unfamiliar with how a priest gestures with a communion chalice. I was later told that it was like bringing it above ones head or something. When you say someone is making some movement that are like the movements of certain ones, like a priest and a communion chalice, you may lose some those that are familiar with the movement.

For me, I would have written it more like this:

Spike looked over the shoulders of those in front of him and between their bodies and saw Mayor Wilkins. The Mayor wore gauntlets on his hands as he held the Glaive. He moved it up above his head with his hands, like a priest would gesture with a communion chalice. He spoke a litrugy, which sounded like it was in Latin, as he addressed an ugly female idol.

or something like it.

The scene Dru gets rescued in, what are some of the moves they do? One of the hardest things to do when you have a fight scene where there are people you know and a bunch of others that you don't know the name of is keeping the no namers straight. You can do it by number, but if some of them have any distinguishing features (race, scar, hair color or length, gender, etc.) or dress, all the better. Saying vamp #1 or 2 or whatever can get boring very fast. Mixing up how you describe them helps to keep things fresh in your mind and for the reader.

I could give you a perfectly good, 308 pages example of what I'm talking about, but it seems Solitude's clac is keeping her busy to put my fic up for the last week or so. I worte it as a combination of transcript and novelization of a Buffy/Angel ep. If I couldn't visualize it in my mind or hear it or see it, it wasn't aloud in. There was one part where someone was thinking, but if it was on TV, the audience would here it. I added it only because I felt it was important for the story and the character. The thoughts and emotions of the others were described in how they acted. And I did do a couple Flashes where we see and hear what the character is thinking.

Descriptions like this help me make a better visualization of the scene in my mind. For me, if things like a room are described at least partly, it won't jar my reading too much if like a small thing is added in telling me what is in the room. I don't mean I think you should describe things down to very exact detail, like the number of grains of salt on a pretzel, just at least general descriptions.

Okay, bare with me just two small things. Real quick.

Seond, in the chapters, one paragraph will be describing one scene and then, the next will be talking about something in another scene some. It seems rather abrupt and makes me stop to readjust to a new scene without there being some kind of separation between the scenes to tell the reader the scene is changing before they read the text. Maybe a line, like there is between the chapters or a string of some other character(s).

And just one spot of dialogue:

"A chill. It signifies nothing." -- Angelus

Signifies? That word made me stop. Doesn't seem very Angelus, even soulless Angelus in 1896. It'd make sense if it was "It means nothing" or "It's nothing." But, that's just me.

VR -- who's still crossing his fingers on both of his hands, waiting very patiently for Sol.

PS -- Just noticed the "ATPoBtVS&AtS" addition. Very nice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Jeez. Joss has a real homicidal streak. -- Rufus, 16:43:28 07/29/02 Mon

Yes, I followed faithfully Forever Knight because it was a story within a story every week. The end left me cold but I still watch the reruns, avoiding the series ender choosing to watch the more posative episodes....but I still watch the show. And it's on Space starting in September...I think the vampires are taking over the Space Channel...;)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gotta watch out for those Canadian vampires, they're the sneakiest! -- Masq, 16:45:18 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forever Knight -- Brian, 20:23:49 07/29/02 Mon

I always thought that the last episode of Forever Knight was either the best cliffhanger or finale for an adventure series. Even knowing how the characters end, I still enjoyed watching the earlier seasons to see how they got to that point in their life.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forever Knight -- Masq, 09:11:58 07/30/02 Tue

It didn't strike me as anything the writers were building to. It struck me as a cheap way to end the show when they found out they weren't being renewed.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forever Knight (Spoilers) -- Brian, 11:28:29 07/30/02 Tue

It's interesting that we have such a different view of the ending. I thought it demonstrated that no matter how much more "human" Nick became, no matter how much good he did, he couldn't defy or defeat the "evil" that was in him by his being a vampire. When Jeanette became human because she could truly love ( a nice irony since she continually told him that vampires couldn't change their basic nature), Nick was shown the path that he had to take, but he couldn't do it. He couldn't trust himself to take just enough blood; he couldn't control the vampire within. And he was right. He killed Natalie trying to bring her across.

I see all sorts of comparisons between Jeanette and Darla, Nick, Angel, and Spike (all tormented vampires). When I've rewatched FK enough times, I hope to put together an essay comparing and contrasting them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Guess I was a Nick Redemptionista : ) -- Masq, 11:40:02 07/30/02 Tue

Of course, he'd be turned human in the very last episode and walk off into the sunset (or rise) hand-in-hand with Natalie, and that would be the end of the show because the "happily ever after" stuff is boring in fiction.

PS I'd love to see a comparison essay of FK characters and Buffyverse characters!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Who Will Die? Sort of Spoilers for Season 7, but hopefully Masq will read anyway -- Dochawk, 17:54:23 07/29/02 Mon

I am speculating (somewhat based on spoilery knowledge but not really) that Joss is going to try to answer some of these cliched messages this year. I am hopeful we will see more color characters (lets see this is Southern California, Hispanic? Asian? as well as black). And I don't think Joss will kill them off. And I think Willow will now get a new relationship (too soon after tara's death? will there be complaints that Willow didn't mourn long enough?).

As for Who will die, is Oz the only character who has left the show on two feet (well I guess Faith did) and not in a box? We know some things based on contracts, all but two of the prinicpal players are signed until season 9. They obviously aren't going to die. Sarah is one of the unsigned players. That leaves one other, will s/he die? Will they join the army or go off to school in Europe? I hope that if this character dies it will be for a truly important story reason and not because s/he is leaving the show (this person has made it clear they are leaving at the end of the season).

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Characters who lived. (Spoilers to Season 6 only) - - shadowkat, 18:46:22 07/29/02 Mon


Riley lived. So did Sam.

Angel and Cordy and Wes moved to Ats intact.

Jonathan is alive.

Parker lived. (unfortunately)

Dru is still undead as is Harmony.

Tucker survived.

So Joss doesn't kill everyone. Heck he's nicer than me, just ask my fanged four fellow writers. I'm homicidal when it comes to fictional characters.
I would have killed everyone except Wes, Angel and Cordy
without remorse.

Also we don't know if Sarah will sign or not for Season 8.
This is still an open issue according to the articles on slayage. SMG is keeping mum until the end of Season 7 and her contract comes up. Smart girl.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Characters who lived. (Spoilers to Season 6 only) -- Dochawk, 18:58:19 07/29/02 Mon

Well Riley certainly qualifies as a major character (and I didn't count the trio who left for Angel, because its still the Buffyverse). So thats good, I goofed.

As for SMG I pointedly ignored her in my comments because I am disabused of the notion that they will kill Buffy yet again (if they do it will be for good). I was just commenting on the mysterious Scoobie who will definitely be leaving and whether or not s/he will be killed. You came up with better examples than I did.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Characters who lived. (Spoilers to Season 6 only) -- Miss Edith, 10:12:51 07/30/02 Tue

I don't think that many characters have died that it can be called a cliche. Obviously villians such as Maggie Walsh or Mr Trick are killed off for plot purposes. But people die all the time in Sunnydale anyway at the hands of vampires etc. Whilst the villians are a bit more than extras I would personally say only the death of regular recurring characters could be used as an example of too much death. Buffy is based around the idea of Buffy preventing death and carnage after all.
My examples of people dying for shock factor would simply be Doyle on Angel, and Jenny, Joyce and Tara on Buffy. Of course the rumours are that Doyle was fired for being impossible to work with as turned up drunk etc. It is hard to know how much trust can be placed in those rumours but Joss has publicly stated he will not work with the actor playing Doyle again I believe. The actress playing Joyce moved to Italy and was planning to leave, hence her not being available much in season 4. She agreed to return in season 5 in order to give Joyce a good send-off. The actress playing Jenny was a born-again Christain and I believe objected to the shows content and wished to leave. Again I am not sure how much truth there is in those rumours.
It is only Tara who was killed off for the purposes of story, against the actresses wishes. The other actors wanted to leave, although it could certainly be argued that Jenny and Doyle did not have to be killed off. I think Buffy's mother would have needed to die in order for her absence to make sense. If many of the scoobies other halfs had died it would be an unoriginal cliche. But all of Buffy's boyfriends are still around (Angel, Parker, Riley and Spike). Xander's exes Cordy, Willow, Faith and Anya are still alive. As is Willow's boyfriend Oz. The only partners of the scoobies to die is Willow's girlfriend Tara and Giles girlfriend Jenny. Surely Doyle's death in Angel was so shocking precicely because he was a regular and prior to his death the only recurring charatcer to die was Jenny who appeared in every 2- 4 episodes. Even Joyce did not appear in the series as a regular scooby, although her role as Buffy's mother was important.
I would agree that the misery with relationships in Sunnydale is bordering on a cliche but I don't think killing people off is at quite the level people imagine. It was in season 5 Joyce died and in season 6 there were rumours another character would die and people took the attitude off "oh no, not again, why does someone have to die every season" etc. But personally I don't feel that death of regular, beloved characters is that commonplace. hence the outcry when Doyle and Tara were disposed off. I don't think there was such a fuss over Joyce and Jenny since they were not important members of the scoobies or fang gang. Anyway the misery in relationships and the despair is what needs addressing, more than the number of deaths, although I would say that resorting to death for shock tactics is not good writing. But someone did need to die at Angelouses hands to make the pain more real for Buffy and Jenny's death was understandable in that context. Again Joyce's death was part of Buffy's growing up and played an important part of the season particulaarly in The Body and Forever when the way we deal with death was studied. Doyle's death had an impact but wasn't particulary necessery for the story being told. Tara's death did trigger Willow's rage but the story could have been played very differently. Willow could been mistaken in believing Tara dead, Tara could have recovered from serious injuries, being in a coma unknown to Willow and taken part in the intervention to save Willow rather than just Xander. Willow could have been seduced by power gradually as hinted at in Flooded when she threatened Giles or in TR when she used spells on those she loved.
The X-Files is a series that did seem to have an obsession with killing off characters every seaosn, otherwise the season can't be considered worthwhile? I would say Buffy is not quite in that league yet.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss and cliche's -- cjc36, 01:47:09 07/30/02 Tue

I guess for myself it's important to remember that Joss is...a Hollywood writer/producer. He's not [insert revered figure here]. He's a man who wants to tell stories that is, partly, on some level, melodramatic cheese. With the proverbial 'twist.' Things matter, emotional depths are mined. But cheese is still there. Ever had a non-fan friend roll their eyes at an SMG crying jag that just sends you into an emotional crisis? It ain’t music unless you’re used to the melody, I guess.

Let's watch the show, enjoy the show, but never fall for the 'cult of the creator.' Which is, I suppose, trite in it's own right.

Tara was a motivational agent (for lack of a better term at 4 in the morning) on Willow. It was Willow's story all along, Tara being a very large and necessary component of that story. But to boil Tara down to 'plot device' doesn't really do her service, either-- the relationship was show with humanity and compassion, and there was never a 'sweeps stunt lesbian promo' in the 2.5-year run.

[> Re: Awareness of the "Cliché" (added here to avoid archive death) -- Darby, 11:05:35 07/29/02 Mon

Having grown up in the rural North with a single black family in my entire school district, I was unaware of what I know now are many cliches about African-Americans. Did that make the inclusion of them in popular images less objectionable? To me, sure. Does individual personal awareness really matter if the cliche exists? Does it matter if you only insult one group if the other groups don't consciously know? Isn't that how stereotypes get reinforced? And much of the problem from the lesbian community has been their perception of the cliche's message - that lesbianism leads to an early death (punishment by God?) or is a sign of mental illness, which are two stereotypes I don't blame them for reacting to.

Now if years ago I had used a black stereotype out of ignorance, that's a mitigating circumstance. I don't think that ME's claims of ignorance of the stereotypes they were reinforcing are valid. They knew what they were doing but didn't foresee the backlash.

Incidentally, for those who've noticed that I said I'd drop this when the thread got archived, I'm invoking the "continuation of lower thread" clause as an excuse to continue responding...

[> [> Re: Awareness of the "Cliché" (added here to avoid archive death) -- cjc36, 01:53:24 07/30/02 Tue

I don't mean any disrespect here, but to place the "DLC" against Amos and Andy is just...I don't know. People don't have to eat watermelons or whatever. Everybody dies. And sometimes they die after having sex. And sometimes that sex is lesbian. Killing a character is a valid dramatic choice. To imprison it in some PC 'do not touch' box is limiting to the dramatist, IMHO.

[> Joss quote from Wanda today -- Rufus, 16:30:53 07/29/02 Mon

"Tara’s death was unique. That made a lot of people angry. And unlike Tara’s introduction, it made poeple that I actually LIKE angry. Not people that I know personally, but you know, it didn’t anger a bunch of morons. But it did anger a lot of people who I think maybe missed the point. I never court controversy. I don’t really care about issues. I didn’t care about the one I introduced with Tara, and I didn’t care about the one when I killed her. I cared about narrative and what I needed to do to Willow.”

[> [> Re: Joss quote from Wanda today - ie he still doesn't get it -- Dochawk, 18:06:04 07/29/02 Mon

Joss still doesn't get it. Much of the antagosnism would have been avoided if 1) the writers hadn't lied about it so forcefully when the rumor of Tara's death started (No comment means no backtracking, especially when you say No comment to both true and false rumors) 2) the death hadn't occured in such a way as to seem it was directly connected to sex (both Fury and Espenson have acknowledged this)not in the bedroom etc. 3 they had acknowledged the feelings of their fans rather than try to defend their decision (which really doesn't need a defense, a writer has a right to their own story, but they have to understand that once they set it out there, other people have a right to interpet it).

[> [> Re: Joss quote from Wanda today -- Miss Edith, 18:24:55 07/29/02 Mon

I do sympathise with Joss and his clear bewilderment over the bad feeling towards ME. I really do feel at this point from the people critisicing Joss it is more a case of feeling personally betrayed, rather than the lesbian cliche being invoked. Obviously both are factors but the anger has gone on for so long precicely because ME were not prepered for it and didn't know how to handle fans challenging their work who had previously seen them as infallible Gods (often the way with cult shows such as Buffy).
Joss did develop close links with the gay community and make promises to them. To hear him say he had no idea what the impact to the community would be and he had no knowledge of a lesbian cliche is being seen as the final insult as other writers (Doug Petrie for one) have acknowledged the cliche, assured fans ME are aware of it and plan to avoid it. This was of course prior to Tara's death.
Jane Espenson and David Fury have avoided the harsh criticisim experienced by other writers precisely because they were tactful in their interviews and Jane in particular expressed sorrow for the pain some viewers were experiencing. The writer of the episode Steven DeKnight was not personally attacked or seen as a villian until he took a callous attitude towards the fans who had become emotionally invested in his work. Again Joss and Marti have made some very tactless remarks which really aren't helping their cause. The fans feelings should have been taken into account more.
At this point both sides of the debate need to take a deep breath and ignore all the bad feeling that has been generated and concentrate on the reak issue, whether or not the cliche was used. Unfortunately human beings will not be willing to put aside the mocking they felt they recieved from writers and the fans who were encouraged by the writers to treat them and their issue as a joke.
I really don't see either side winning back the trust or putting aside the bad feeling at this point. Fair enough to Joss trying to win back fans, but they are fans he has already lost. He just needs to try and forget the whole mess at this point and move on with the show. Certain individuals will never put aside their pain and anger with him for killing Tara. He is not going to win them over at this point, he had a chance in his handling of fans directly after the airing of SR and he blew it basically.

[> [> Re: Joss quote from Wanda today -- Miss Edith, 18:27:01 07/29/02 Mon

I do sympathise with Joss and his clear bewilderment over the bad feeling towards ME. I really do feel at this point from the people critisicing Joss it is more a case of feeling personally betrayed, rather than the lesbian cliche being invoked. Obviously both are factors but the anger has gone on for so long precicely because ME were not prepered for it and didn't know how to handle fans challenging their work who had previously seen them as infallible Gods (often the way with cult shows such as Buffy).
Joss did develop close links with the gay community and make promises to them. To hear him say he had no idea what the impact to the community would be and he had no knowledge of a lesbian cliche is being seen as the final insult as other writers (Doug Petrie for one) have acknowledged the cliche, assured fans ME are aware of it and plan to avoid it. This was of course prior to Tara's death.
Jane Espenson and David Fury have avoided the harsh criticisim experienced by other writers precisely because they were tactful in their interviews and Jane in particular expressed sorrow for the pain some viewers were experiencing. The writer of the episode Steven DeKnight was not personally attacked or seen as a villian until he took a callous attitude towards the fans who had become emotionally invested in his work. Again Joss and Marti have made some very tactless remarks which really aren't helping their cause. The fans feelings should have been taken into account more.
At this point both sides of the debate need to take a deep breath and ignore all the bad feeling that has been generated and concentrate on the real issue, whether or not the cliche was used. Unfortunately human beings will not be willing to put aside the mocking they felt they recieved from writers and the fans who were encouraged by the writers to treat them and their issue as a joke.
I really don't see either side winning back the trust or putting aside the bad feeling at this point. Fair enough to Joss trying to win back fans, but they are fans he has already lost. He just needs to try and forget the whole mess at this point and move on with the show. Certain individuals will never put aside their pain and anger with him for killing Tara. He is not going to win them over at this point, he had a chance in his handling of fans directly after the airing of SR and he blew it basically.

[> [> OT Rufus PLEASE email me, thanks -- EMCEE, 18:51:05 07/29/02 Mon

[> [> If you were Joss what would you have done... -- shadowkat, 09:24:49 07/30/02 Tue

I wasn't going to go here because I think this topic truly has been thrashed to death and nothing appears to be resolved.

But into the fray I go with a question no one seems to have answered:

Imagine you have a created a television fantasy series.
Or Joss Whedon if you will. You have created a character in which you want to explore the dark side of rejection, pain, addiction, vengeance, etc through. At the end The second season of your show, you decided to explore this character, Willow's insecurities and how these insecurities can become really really dark. You decided that this story could be a four season arc - coming to fruitation in the final part of the 6 season, assuming you go that far. It's a risky story, highly challenging, but you have an amazing actress and the perfect venue to do it. What you are most interested in as a writer is the characters internal insecurities. Willow has had problems in love department. Struggles with how people view her. You're interested in those struggles. And you want to take the character to the darkest place you know.

The best way to do that is to rip from her - her true love. Someone who makes her feel wonderful. Someone she met through magic. Someone who makes her feel accepted. You intended on this "true love" being OZ - even set it up that way. But oops, the actor wanted out way too early for the storyline to work. You need at least another year to build it up. And you can't do it in Season 5 - you have other plans for that year. It has to be Season 6. So you decide, okay, I'll create another character, less central to the show, not contracted like OZ was, but lovable and go from there. A character that can die like Jenny Calendar died.
You know you have to kill this character, you planned on killing them the moment OZ left - this is inevitable in your mind.

What do you do? How do you avoid offending people you like?
Should you worry about offending those people? Should you let their opinions and concerns affect how you tell your story, affect your art?

Would it have been better for Joss Whedon to never have created the character of Tara? Would it have been better if the character who was killed was Xander? Or OZ? (Would have screwed up the male dominance theme he discovered with the Tara character...maybe another theme would have surfaced?) How should ME have gotten around it?

And most important - what should they do now to make up for it? What would resolve this issue? Bring Tara back?

Would it have been better if they never had a W/T romance to begin with? OR should they have done the romance after Willow lost her one true love? Maybe kept Tara as just Willow's magically inclined friend as they originally intended before OZ left. Maybe if OZ stayed - Tara could have been the romance after OZ died - would that have been better? Would it have been better if Whedon ignored the awards and honors and fanfare and said - I can't accept any of this? Could he have done that without giving away his story?

I ask these questions because as a writer - I'm wondering if we should avoid certain situations. Should we avoid offending people? It's a handicap to writing.

Mark Twain offended tons of people with his stories. Huckleberry Finn has the distinction of being banned by
the upstanding white citizens of certain communities in the early 50's and 60's and years later - being banned by upstanding black citzens. Both claiming how it furthers certain rephrensible images of african americans.

James Joyce's Ulysess was banned in US for it's language and sexual explicitness. I think Molly Bloom's menstruation at the end of the book and Leopold's discussion of clap got to people.

The Last Temptation of Christ - was protested against and banned because of how it portrayed the Story of Christ in a negative light. No theatre would show it in Colorado Springs at the time of it's release. I ended up seeing it in a Unitarian Church with protesters out front. Should Martin Scorscese have directed it?

What is the resolution to the cliche? Is it to avoid writing about it all together if you can't do it justice?
Is it to cater to it, and not go a certain route, even if they destroys your pre-planned arc? Or could they have just changed a few things?

And if you do misstep, accidently portray something in a way that offends a minority or group of people in a horrible way? What do you do about it?

[> [> [> Oops didn't read Doc's comments before wrote this - - shadowkat, 09:31:58 07/30/02 Tue

Do agree with Doc...they could have lessened the impact:
if they 1. Didn't do it in the bedroom
2. Didn't lie when asked up front about it
3. Didn't toss it aside after the fact.

They would have been much better off if they didn't do interviews with reporters. I think they learned their lesson, haven't seen any interviews except Joss's since it all blew up.

[> [> [> Re: If you were Joss what would you have done... -- Miss Edith, 11:44:33 07/30/02 Tue

If Willow's story had been developed over season 6 as she struggled with power and Tara had died during that story I honestly don't think the protests would have been as great.
What is insulting people is that all season we were sat watching Willow dry out from her magic addiction. Tara was killed off for a 3 episode plot arc. The true Willow was gone after absorbing the black magic. The writer David Fury has said in an interview when questioned over Willow's culpability that it was the black magic, and Willow was possessed so we cannot say it was the true Willow. I would argue this was reflected on-screen. We saw a drastically different Willow with black hair and veins on her face. She was almost a disney cartoon villian with her appearance showing she was evil.
With no prior suggestion she was trying to kill Dawn because Dawn's whining was irritating. She challenged Buffy to a duel and attempted to kill Giles. She used language like "I am so juiced", "Buckle up Ripper cause I've turned pro", "Get off me superbitch". All of this was suggested that we were not waching subtle character development. We were watching Willow entertain the audience for 3 episodes by behaving as outrageously as possible.
People are angry because they don't think seeing evil Willow falling off the wagon for 3 episodes was worth the destruction of W/T a beautiful relationship in which so much could have been done. A common critisicsm of the plot arc is "what a waste" or "they killed Tara for that?".
Joss does have a right to tell his story any way he wants. But if people think that social progression was happening on his show they will not be thrilled at the only lesbian couple on US tv being destroyed for a 3 episode plot. JMHO.

[> [> [> [> Re: If you were Joss what would you have done... -- Miss Edith, 13:19:37 07/30/02 Tue

Just wanted to add it is not just Tara being killed so we could have dark phoneix Willow. It's the fact that her death as treated so lightly. We all remember the episodes dealing with Joyce's death and the impact it had. Tara's death was not mourned appropriately in many viewers eyes. Giles off- handedly telling Willow he is sorry about Tara 5 minutes after discussing haircuts and laughing shortly after this is considered insulting by many. Tara being dragged out in a bodybag and scarcely mourned is considered insulting. The words "treated like yesterdays trash" are often heard. Tara's death being treated as an after-thought and Amber's character being called a plot device in interviews with the writers is not appreciated. There really is a lot of anger unrelated to the fact that Joss wanted to kill off a lesbian character. It was the way he did it. I can imagine the fuss that Spike fans (of which I am one) would make if when Riley had staked him in ITW he had died in such a casual way. People want more than that. They want deaths to have meaning. Tara did not necesserily need to die heroicly as Joyce's death was still poignant without that. But viewers weren't able to grieve for Tara. Her death was barely mentioned in the final and her importance was not played up enough in many viewers eyes. They see it as a waste regardless of Joss talking about needing to kill Tara in order to produce a good story. A lot of people weren't happy with the fanboy catfights that resulted with Willow. They wanted a worthy example of Tara's legacy.
And Joss's recent comments such as the following are very offensive to viewers who believe W/T were soulmates: "Marti and I...debated about whether or not Willow was bisexual, experimenting, going back and forth". He goes on to say "we would have played a grey area in terms of sexuality had their not been such an outcry over Tara"(not exact quote there, just summorising). The repeated declaration of Willow's sexuality by the writers, not the fans, the death of Tara driving her lover to death and insanity and the word experimenting is now being used by Joss. He really needs to stop with the insensitive remarks as his recent interview with Wanda that I quoted from has got the Kittens even more riled up as he is blaming them for Willow being gay because of their "knee-jerk reaction" and he used the word "experimenting" which the Kittens have been arguing against when other viewers want to see Willow and Xander together. Joss made Willow gay and real life people are accused of experimenting when defining themselves as gay. Therefore Joss is causing outrage in that area as well. It was his choice not to make Willow bisexual and he should not blame the fans for him feeling pressured to stand by that decision. On the cross and stake board more than one person has accused the pc brigade of forcing Joss to keep Willow gay and unavailable to Xander.
Joss made promises. He said W/T were the most important thing he had ever done and he valued the letters thanking him from gay youth saying just one letter from them was worth 600 hate letters. He is now saying he never gave two hoots about issues one way or the other. Seriously he really needs to stop putting his foot in his mouth. He mocked fans anger by saying "being gay is so passe, we're over that". He saw it as a cute, flippant comment but people have taken it badly and it is constantly being reposted by outraged fans. Joss going on to deny knowledge of how unique and important W/T is also angering the people who gave him awards and wrote him letters based on W/Ts relationshiop.
Steven DeKnight responded to upset fans by jokingly accusing "the lesbians" of causing technical faults on the radio that was intervewing him and made remarks about Joss killing Tara because he was a christian. Even the interviewers were begging him to not add fuel to the fire.
There is a lot more anger unrelated to Joss killing the lesbian. It is also the way it was handled that did offend a lot of people. Keeping fans hope up and securing their loyalty by blatently lying to them and then treating their requests for answers as a joke has all contributed to the general mood. It would be a lot easier if the issue was just about if Joss had used the lesbian cliche. But the fact is certain fans are outraged about a whole lot more than that.

[> [> [> [> [> Mourning and Buffy -- Dochawk, 14:22:28 07/30/02 Tue

I am still bewildered at the final scene (spike notwithstanding). for the past 36 hours Buffy has been running on high emotion, she didn't have time to mourn. But the last scene? "I want to see my friends happy"? Smiles and giggles with Dawn? After her epiphany Buffy ought to be devestated. Her best friend is nowhere near "happy", she has crossed a devestating line, killing a human. Her next closest female friend has just been killed in a murder attempt aimed at her. Yes Giles and Dawn provide some positive reinforcement, but Buffy ought to at least be concerned that one of her best friends was just killed. It is this poorly done scene that makes me rank Grave as the worst season ender in Buffy's history (up until this scene I loved the episode). And it is this scene that hurts so many other people because it ignores an awful lot of pain.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Miss Edith, 16:29:11 07/30/02 Tue

It is not just the final either. Buffy barely reacted when being told of Tara's death. She didn't have time to break down fair enough. But she didn't spare one tear for Tara despite of the friendship between the two being given emphasis this season. Buffy was more concerned about lecturing others on giving in to vengence. Fans wanted to see some sign of grief or mourning at losing such a major character. Joss said the most important part of the final was Giles laughing at recent events. The fans of W/T are not loving that.
And I agree the final scene with Buffy telling Dawn "I want to show you the world, god there's so much I want to show you" and then taking her on a tour of Sunnydale was beyond cheezy. Along with many other fans I laughed at the spoiler that the season would end with Buffy emerging from a hole in the ground into a world full fo flowers as lacking the touch of irony I have always enjoyed in Bts. Not to mention subtlty. Can't say I was too impressed with how the season ended.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- MaeveRigan, 06:37:29 07/31/02 Wed

Fans whined all season that Buffy was "mourning" too much. "When is Buffy going to get her stuff together?" Apparently, in TtG/Grave, but nooooo--now we're going to whine that Buffy *should* be mourning. It's a 1-2 hour show; they can't show everything Buffy feels in the allotted time, along with the rest of the plotlines. To say "Buffy doesn't mourn Tara's death" is the same kind of childish reaction Dawn had when she saw Buffy working, organizing things, rather than crying, in the aftermath of their mother's death.

Also, yes, Tara was dead, but also, Willow was trying to kill several other people that Buffy loved *and* destroy the entire world. Is Buffy supposed to just let that happen while she sits down and mourns for Tara? Isn't it more fitting to try to stop Willow? Are we so sure that "lecturing others on giving in to vengeance]" isn't a way of mourning? And afterwards, isn't she allowed even a moment of relief, to acknowledge some "dawning"? (sorry about the pun).

As one who's experienced a death in my family recently, I can say that just because someone you loves dies, you don't immediately cease feeling every emotion except sorrow, loss and pain. Even while you're aware of the beloved's absence and the feelings of sadness, you can still laugh and feel joy about other things.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Miss Edith, 09:42:50 07/31/02 Wed

I never said Buffy should have sat down and mourned for Tara whilst Willow was destroying the world. I said that instead of giving speeches it would have been nice for Buffy to take a moment and look sad. If you read my post you will see I said Buffy didn't have time to express grief as so much was going on at the time. But she didn't even look on the verge of crying when Willow told her what had happened. Of course Buffy can still laugh and feel joy. But she and Tara had grown really close in season 6 after Buffy confesed she was sleeping with Spike. So I found her utter lack of reaction a bit cold. And it was just an opinion, there is no need to be rude and accuse others of "whining" and being "childish". I think that was uncalled for.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:35:15 07/31/02 Wed

When Buffy did look happy near the end, she was running on "the world's still here, we didn't die relief". I think that reaction was perfectly acceptable.

I think Buffy would have mourned Tara, except that Willow was not only on a destructive rampage, but a self- destructive one. Buffy's concern that Willow would end up emotionally and maybe physically destroying herself took dominance in her actions.

However, all of this is just my opinion. Really it comes down to whether the writing and direction for the end of season arc was up to par, which is a point that cannot really be argued or agreed upon.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Newbie post -- HonorH, 22:01:14 07/31/02 Wed

Hope this post isn't a repeat. This board (and my 'Net provider) is being difficult.

I have to disagree, which is probably a bad thing to do in one's newbie post, but here goes (deep breath):

Re-watch the scene in "Villains" when Willow tells Buffy and Xander that Tara's dead. Buffy looks shocked and grieved. She says something to the effect of, "Oh, my God--Tara." Then she turns her attention straight back to Willow, who, after all, is the one going off her nut. Buffy's voice cracks as she says that they love Willow *and* Tara, and, "I don't understand . . . anything."

Later, at the house, Buffy looks sad and troubled when she sees Tara's body, and again, her voice cracks as she talks to Dawn. Downstairs, as Tara's body is being taken away, Buffy is slumped over, tired and defeated. That's not "My friend's on a rampage" posture; that's "My friend just got taken out of here in a body bag because of a bullet that was meant for me" posture. She has to talk Xander and Dawn down and then chase down Willow afterward, which doesn't leave much time for mourning, but I think the "looking sad" requirement is definitely there. Buffy's not one to burst into tears, but that doesn't mean she reacted "coldly" to Tara's death. Besides, that's not the Buffy we know.

Furthermore, the story's not over yet. My guess is the fallout from Tara's death will be all over next season. If I'm wrong, you can say, "I told you so!" But I think we're both hoping I'm not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Welcome!! And, good post! -- Rahael, 02:15:33 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> welcome, honor h -- aliera, 04:33:46 08/01/02 Thu

Thank you, a good post, newbie or not. I especially like your take on Buffy's body languange.

May I ask about your name? Mine comes from a favorite character in the Steven Brust Dragaera series; is yours based on Honor Harrington?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: welcome, honor h -- HonorH, 07:12:55 08/01/02 Thu

'Tis indeed! Love that woman. I wanna be her when I grow up.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great post agree -- shadowkat, 06:09:53 08/01/02 Thu

And will add to your eloquently put comments above:

In the shooting script - Buffy is mentioned as being on the point of tears twice. First when Willow tells her Tara was killed. And the second time when she discovers Spike's gone.

Have to remember something about Buffy - the two people she confided in regarding her pain and the fact she came back wrong were Spike and Tara. As unhealthy as it may have seemed - Spike was her sole support for a while. When that got out of control - she turned to Tara who not only comforted her, but also was the only one who did not judge her. Tara in some ways played the role of Joyce in Dawn and Buffy's life. (Actually Spike and Tara felt like psuedo replacements for Hank and Joyce this year...as did Xander and Willow at times...but perhaps I'm feeling something that isn't there.)

I felt Buffy containing her grief. You are right - how do you handle a friend going off the rails? They lost Tara but Buffy was terrified of losing Willow as well. Then she's worried about the world ending because of her best friend.
Way too much trauma to handle.

And you're also right about it being far from over. I think we'll see fallout from Seeing Red - Grave in the first five episodes of next season. Just as we saw the fallout being handled from Season 2's Becoming in Season 3's Ann - Revelations, and the fallout from Prophecy Girl handled in When She was Bad - School Hard. The story is far from over.

Great post. Thanks and welcome.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks -- MaeveRigan, 06:37:34 08/01/02 Thu

You said what I wanted to say more eloquently and with more textual evidence. I'm sorry anyone took my comments personally. I confess that I sometimes over-identify with Buffy's self-containment too much and tend to get defensive.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't know -- Sang, 15:24:40 07/31/02 Wed

I don't know that Buffy ever can mourn for a death. If I am in Buffy's position, it may would takes several decades. For one who was dead and in heaven, and one who torn out of there and was longing for going back there, death is not an ending of life, it is actually a return to home. Buffy mourned all season, not because she was dead but because she was not.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Interesting point, well stated. But.. -- redcat, 15:53:55 07/31/02 Wed

I think of mourning as being more about the person who survives than the one who has passed. Buffy could have a very "enlightened" (pun intended) view of consciousness after physical death and still mourn the loss of Tara in her own life, as a friend, as a confidante and as the partner of her best friend. I also think this fits in quite well with the idea that Willow's own grief over Tara's death was so personally-oriented. She left Tara's body but went out to commit her own vengence. Mourning and grief, even rage over death, often have a component of being afraid for the fate of the one who has died, particularly in cultures that have distinct ideas about heaven and hell, but I suspect that in most cultures, and in most humans, the main function of mourning, either as an emotional state or in terms of culturally-codified behavior, is as an aid for the living.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: well said, cultral behavior about death. -- Sang, 20:37:23 07/31/02 Wed

That is quite interesting point. The attitude to the death depends on cultural background. In Japan, people taught to refrain sorrow from loved one's death in public. Some one may remember that when the great earthquake took away lots of life in Hansin sometimes ago, western reporters are shocked that no survivors crying for their lost families. I asked a Japanese professor about that and the answer was. "You cannot cry in front of others, especially in front of the camera. It is too embarrassing."

On the ohter hand, in Korea, you must cry on that kind of tragedy. Otherwise, people think you didn't love the late one. Also interesting thing about Korean furneral is that, traditionally, people had a big village party at the house of deceased. In some area, they brought comedians and musicians and singing and dancing all night. Even grave workers singing and dancing over the new grave when they finish their job. We are told that this is to solace the dead soul. Actually all these are for survivors.

One thing I noticed about Buffy is (and I think someone already pointed out before) that she never express her emotion. Only times she broke out her emotion were, when she heard her own voice called Joyce "body" and Dawn accused her that she didn't mourn for her own mother. I would think it strange if she showed quite a emotion on Tara's death.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> disagree on Buffy's lack of emotion -- shadowkat, 06:46:57 08/01/02 Thu

"One thing I noticed about Buffy is (and I think someone already pointed out before) that she never express her emotion. Only times she broke out her emotion were, when she heard her own voice called Joyce "body" and Dawn accused her that she didn't mourn for her own mother. I would think it strange if she showed quite a emotion on Tara's death."

Not sure this is true. She's not a venter - that is true.
She doesn't emote to her friends. And does hide it. PArtly due to the fact that she's had to hide her slaying duties and other secrets all her life.

But I've actually seen Buffy show more out and out emotion than any of the other characters on both shows.

Examples: Amends - sEason 3 - on the Cliff above Sunnydale while Angel is about to commit suicide, Buffy is wracked with tears. She's so upset, she is crying on her knees in front of him

When She Was Bad - she is furious, rude to her friends,
and pounds the vampires. HEr rage is quite apparent.

Surprise - breaks down with tears again when Angel is about to leave town

Innocence - is so overwhelmed with emotion after seeing Angel almost bite Willow, she is sitting on the ground next to the wall. It's almost redundant when her friends ask if she is okay. Obviously not.

When Spike finds her on the back porch in FFL - she is sobbing.

In I Will Always Remember You - again sobbing when Angel says he's going to turn back time.

In Dead Things - she's in tears as she's beating up Spike and horrified by her actions.

Actually I saw more emotion on Buffy's face in Villains than Xanders. Her emotion in Normal Again when she was in the hospital was very visible.

When I rewatch the epsiodes...and actually count the emoting of each character - Buffy seems to break down and cry more than the others do. She tries to hold it together, but I felt her grief. She's crying in Grave. And she is on the point of tears in Villains. And is certainly crying when Xander finds her in Seeing Red.

So...I've changed my mind on this one. I know in past essays and posts I said she was more stoic and unemotional. Nope the episodes prove me wrong. She is very emotional.
HEr emotions prove to be her strength and her flaw. IT's her emotions that lead her into dangerous relationships with two vampires. If she was less emotional...that probably wouldn't have happened. Who knows?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agreed! Her emotions are her rocket launcher! -- Rahael, 06:54:24 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree that she is emotional -- Sang, 16:34:20 08/01/02 Thu

I should change my statment. Yes, she is very emotional. I guess she just doesn't want show her grief to others. I think that is her charactor. Since she has explosive emotion, it would require greater strength to hide her sorrow to others.

It reminds me S3 'Beauty and Beast'. She was so calm when she told to her friends about killing angel in previous ep, but when she visited the counselor (she didn't know he was dead) she burst into tears. She couldn't show her weakness to family or friends.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Mourning and Buffy -- Akita, 05:45:41 08/02/02 Fri

Dochawk wrote: "I am still bewildered at the final scene (spike notwithstanding). for the past 36 hours Buffy has been running on high emotion,she didn't have time to mourn. But the last scene? "I want to see my friends happy"? Smiles and giggles with Dawn? After her epiphany Buffy ought to be devestated."

Moreover, at that point she has no way of knowing if any of those friends she wants to see happy are even still alive. She only knows that Willow stopped or was stopped. She doesn't know if she is still alive. She has no idea where Xander is, or what happened to him. The last she heard from Anya, Giles was dying. And Tara is most definitely dead. So, yes, in that context her little "epiphany" rings a bit false.

"It is this poorly done scene that makes me rank Grave as the worst season ender in Buffy's history (up until this scene I loved the episode). And it is this scene that hurts so many other people because it ignores an awful lot of pain."

Well, I had other problems with the episode as well (and, of course, much of the season). My concern with this scene is its implication that next season much of that pain and many of the deep character flaws exposed in the human characters this season will be glossed over.

[> [> Re: But Wanda got it right. -- Sang, 22:04:08 07/30/02 Tue

After Joss's comment, Wanda made a great point.

"As far as the larger issue, I'd just like to say this: Tara's death was a tragedy. And Joss should take responsibility. But the greater tragedy is that she and Willow were the only positive lesbian role models for young women on television. And that's not Joss' fault."

I understand that many people upset and express their feeling about Tara's death. But I cannot understand why people try so hard to make a logic out of their angry comments.

[> [> [> Artistic Integrity -- Rahael, 05:59:34 07/31/02 Wed

Thanks for quoting that comment Sang - I agree too, that Wanda got it right.

We have had two divergent opinions here - one side arguing about the responsibility the artist owes to his audience, and the other side talking of the need to privilege the story, the narrative.

I think in my view, both opinions can be reconciled by this very important consideration - the duty the artist owes to his own artistic integrity. To follow the narrative, but also, to ensure that his ingerity as a human being, a member of society and and as an artist are not conflicting, but intimately linked. An artist does not speak in a vacuum. The narrative does not exist by itself. It exists as a dynamic dialogue with its audience. The needs of the narrative, and the true needs of the society it arises in should match up. Because the narrative is not free standing - it gains its power from the dialogue.

Thus, artists have a duty to not sell themselves out, and this includes not being irresponsible, as well as telling the story they want to tell.

[> [> [> [> yep - agree what I tried to say above -- shadowkat, 08:11:34 07/31/02 Wed

"artists have a duty to not sell themselves out, and this includes not being irresponsible, as well as telling the story they want to tell."

Something that is becoming increasingly difficult in our information obsessed mass media world.

When you pitch a story for a tv show or movie - it's a bit different than a book. You need network approval. Advertisers have to agree to it. It has to be marketable.
It's not quite like writing a book or a fanfic in the safety of your own home and praying it gets published.
In the wonderful world of television - or from what I've heard via interviews, books and documentaries on the topic - the approval process is not immediate.

Example: Buffy won't be working at DMP next year not b/c ME doesn't like the idea. But because their advertisers hate it. Don't make fun of our products - or we will won't place ads near your show.

Did Shakespeare have these problems? Probably. He certainly was careful to avoid the Elizabethan era when he did his plays.

It's very thin line we artists walk. I know when I was writing my novel (which may never see light of day ;-) )
I wondered if i was crossing that line when I did a homerotic relationship. Would I offend? I hope not. Was it important to the characters and book? Yes. Truth is you can't write a line if you worry about offending people, it's inevitable. When I wrote my essays - I think about it as well, I avoided certain topics such as "love themes" due to fears of offending people, of crossing a line. My essay on Willow and Spike and Heart of Darkness got all sorts of angry responses from people who could not believe I'd compare Willow to Kurtz. Or when I mentioned that Spike might be a sociopath - boy the responses I got. Or the Tara and Spike comparison - about Domestic Violence. Even now, writing this post...I find myself wondering if I chose my words carefully enough.

HAving read all the posts on this board regarding the topic - I think Rah is right about what the two opposing views really are.

"We have had two divergent opinions here - one side arguing about the responsibility the artist owes to his audience, and the other side talking of the need to privilege the story, the narrative."

"I" don't think (don't mean to be putting words in your mouth Rah) its about whether or not there was a lesbian cliche, whether or not homosexuals/lesbians are accurately portrayed on television or whether we all miss Tara - I think everyone on this board is in agreement on these points. We all miss Tara. Homosexuals/lesbians are portrayed horribly in media. Yes there is a horrible cliche.

What we disagree on - is ME's role in all of this and if they were true to their story, their characters, and themes. Did they successfully communicate these themes to their audience? (And I'd argue we've had this same exact debate over Spike. Over Xander. And others.) Did they live up to their responsibility to their audience?

I'm on the fence on this one. My initial reaction? YEs they were true to their story and themes. It totally worked for me. I loved DarkWillow. Everything fell into place. After reading the posts on the board? Not so sure. I keep changing my mind. People have brought up things that never occurred to me. IS The fact that they didn't occur to me make them invalid? Of course not. Make me ignorant? I hope not.

I believe ME sucessfully communicated the message they wished to convey. (We all agree they communicated it, we disagree on whether it was sucessful and on the manner they chose to do it.) I also believe they successfully conveyed several complex themes in a controversial manner. (The most controversial manner I've ever seen portrayed on TV.) Without hitting me over the head with them. These themes were about sexual addiction and how it can lead to violence and be self-destructive, addiction itself, insecurity, responsibility, random acts of violence, male dominance and male violence, vengeance, depression...and rejection. How we handle it. How it effects us. And I've seen numerous posts showing how well ME conveyed these themes on this board - so I think everyone agrees that ME conveyed these themes, we disagree on the manner they chose to do it.

Again on the fence here. I agree with Rah's statement -

"the duty the artist owes to his own artistic integrity. To follow the narrative, but also, to ensure that his ingerity as a human being, a member of society and and as an artist are not conflicting, but intimately linked. An artist does not speak in a vacuum. The narrative does not exist by itself. It exists as a dynamic dialogue with its audience. The needs of the narrative, and the true needs of the society it arises in should match up. Because the narrative is not free standing - it gains its power from the dialogue."

What I'm not sure about is if it is possible for any artist to truly accomplish this without pissing someone off or letting some group or group of people down? Whedon pissed numerous fans off, including the network just by doing Willow/Tara. Should he have backed off? Whedon pissed people
off when he killed off Trick and Forrest and his portrayle of Forrest. Should he not have done this? Would ME have been better off if they had Tara die in say Tabula Rasa? OR
had Glory kill her off last year? OR just have her leave town like OZ did? Would the scene have held more artistic integrity if they did it in the coffee house? Or if we saw Buffy mourning Tara and had a funeral before we got the whole vengeance storyline going? I don't know the answers to these questions...sort of playing Socrates at the moment.

The best literature and best tv in my opinion is often the ones that make me the angriest or saddest or most thrilled.
I like to be challenged.

Did ME live up to my expectations for challenge, yes.
Do I think they could have handled Tara and Willow differently or in a better way? I don't know. Maybe having more W/T sex scenes earlier in the year would have helped.
Maybe having Tara shot somewhere besides their bedroom after sex would have helped.

What I hope and pray is that the up-roar over this does not scare networks and mass media people from doing any other lesbian storylines in the future.

[> [> [> [> [> Needs, wants and Shakespeare -- Rahael, 08:43:21 07/31/02 Wed

I think Shakespeare had quite a different view of the place of artists in society than we do. Yes, it is true, that in the Renaissance, leading artists like Leonardo da Vinci saw themselves as a visionary, their role as a 'creator' as being animated by a kind of divine gift/power/fire. Hence that iconic image of God and Adam's hands touching in the act of creation. Like the artist's brush touching canvas, creates new life.

But this is a novel view. Most painters and sculptors of that time just did the job they were given. They did not see themselves in the mold of 'artist-genius'. Nor did they set out a special place in society for the artist. Shakespeare saw himself as a jobbing actor/playwright. He wrote plays to entertain, and to make money. What's the evidence that he didn't conceive of himself as some kind of culturally significant figure? Well, that view was not widespread at that time. And, most importantly, Shakespeare did not keep a master copy of his plays. Everything we have know are transcripts taken down by spectators.

And yes, Shakespeare did get into trouble with the Government. There is the famous incident of 'Richard II', which was acted in front of the Earl of Essex directly before he went off to perform his feeble little rebellion against Queen Elizabeth (I've no great patience for the incompetent!). Elizabeth was alarmed. She is said to have remarked, referring to 'Richard II' - "that's me!" Okay, perhaps not quite those words.

At some point in the 1590s, the Monarchy decided to forbid any discussion in public of matters of state. This affected English history plays. This is probably why Shakespeare stopped his cycle of English history plays and moved on to the Roman ones. But to correct you, Shakespeare did co-write Henry VIII - that's pretty close to the bone for Elizabeth.

But yes, history plays were dangerous, and Shakespeare sailed very close to the wind. Let's not forget that other playwrights ended up in prison (my mind is going blank on me - I can't remember whether it was Marlowe or Jonson).

(Elizabeth's successor, James I & VI was far more tolerant of critical plays. Ironic, considering his adherence to divine right theories)

But by the middle of the next century, we see Milton conceiving of himself as a Seer to the nation, guided by God, which is probably the confluence of the dramatic political events he lived through, and the drip drip effect of the Renaissance conception of the Artist percolating through.

You paraphrased my thoughts correctly. I'd say that maintaining your artistic integrity means both that you give the audience 'what they need' as well as guarding against being exploitative, crude, lazy and unthinking. No one, I think is saying that ME shouldn't pursue storylines they think are important. What people are complaining about is that due care was not given to make sure that they put that message across sensitively, or properly. For what artistic message is ever damaged by too much nuance, sensitivity and thought?

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Needs, wants and Shakespeare -- shadowkat, 09:31:41 07/31/02 Wed

"What people are complaining about is that due care was not given to make sure that they put that message across sensitively, or properly. For what artistic message is ever damaged by too much nuance, sensitivity and thought?"

Very good point. And so hard to do. Harder than one might think. I'm not sure, but I think we all, including ME, agree that they probably should have dealt with this topic more sensitively.

Just finished reading Wanda's chat on www.slayage.com and
discovered that Joss and Marti had discussed making Willow bi-sexual and flipping her the other way, but nixed it and decided they had to keep her gay. That to do otherwise after Tara's death would be too insensitive. If Tara had left like Riley had, it wouldn't be an issue. This shows that they may have learned something.

Joss is actually quite a bit like Shakespeare - not an issue guy. More interested in telling the story or narrative. Agree on Shakespeare. Of his contempories - he really saw himself as just a hack - the modern day equivalent of Stephen King or John Grisham. He didn't want to educate so much as to entertain. And picked whatever topic he thought would do it. Some happened to be historical. I think he, like most writers, was interested in entertaining himself. Though it is hard to know this for sure - since everything we have on him is through another source. In fact for a while people insisted Shakespear didn't write his plays, Marlow did. LOL!

I think it was Johnson who got thrown in prison over it. Can't remember...so long ago that I studied all this. MArlow may have gotten thrown into debtors prison. HE had financial problems I think. Marlow wrote some brillant plays
Jew of Malta was one. I think it was a little more controversial than MErchant of Venice, but having never read MErchant of Venice not sure. Did get to see Jew of Malta at Stratford on Avon...back in the 1980s. Still remember the image of the lead character on stage mooning over a slave/servant girl. Downtrodden. But for the life of me can't remember anything else. Odd the images that stay with us.

Okay I had a point - what was it? Ah yes...being sensitive in how we portray something as artists. I think pretty much everyone on the board agrees that ME should have handled this situation with a greater amount of sensitivity. Actually I can think of at least one other situation I wish they'd handled with more sensitivity, but we've already thrashed that horse to death.

Its hard to do and still be true to material. Sometimes I actually like it when they aren't - seems more risky and surprising. But shocking just to shock - can get old fast. Howard Stern, what's his name - the guy who did all the horrible jokes and had his own series and was hated?, etc - have made livings doing this and become grating after a while. So would ME's story have been as strong if they'd been more sensitive, yes, I think so. And it didn't really require much. But then I don't know what the network was willing to allow in terms of sexual situations. Television is a weird world. We can show violent sex scenes, torture, rape, but not show two women making love repeatedly? Now that I find shocking and tragic. I do think if they'd shown more of Tara and Willow loving one another prior to SR, this may have lessened some of offending pain yet kept intact the impact and message of Tara's death. IF anything the resulting story would have been much stronger. I also think if they had shot Tara on the street or in the coffee shop as originally intended the episode would have been just as strong.
Small choices. It's amazing how a small detail in a script like location or wardrobe or what the action was prior to the scene can affect everything.

Okay..I think I'm rambling away from my point again. ;-)
In this case - I think ME could have done the Willow story with a great deal more sensitivity to the topic than they chose. They could have done this and still been true to their narrative arc. All that was needed was a few more sex scenes between W/T earlier in the year. Killing Tara somewhere other than the bedroom and certainly not right after sex. If they wanted the bedroom? Fine. They could have done it while they were studying or something. The coffee house probably was a better choice. And maybe actually have a funeral somewhere in there. I agree on those points as presented by other posters..

But what's done is done. Can't change it. Can't revoke it.
So I guess all we can do is see where they lead us next and if they do it with a little more sensitivity than before.
My guess is they will from all the interviews I've read.

Someone once told me that it was okay to make a mistake, as long as you learned from it, didn't repeat it. It's all we can do really - try to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Needs, wants and Shakespeare -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:52:30 07/31/02 Wed

I'm glad they didn't do a funeral. A funeral would take at least a couple days to arrange. Part of what I liked about the end of season was that, from Tara's death till Willow's outburst of tears on the cliff, less than a day went by. From the instant Warren fired that gun, events went out of control, and they went out of control fast. Fitting a funeral in would have stretched the finale out to cover several days instead of one very chaotic day. JMHO.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Needs, wants and Shakespeare -- DEN, 11:23:01 07/31/02 Wed

To repeat a point I introduced in an earlier thread, the real problem is that s6 was so poorly developed that nothing short of the "dead lesbian cliche" in its most extreme form was enough to set off Dark Willow; and nothing but an almost- caricatured actualization of the "magic as drugs" metaphor accounts for Willow's behavior in the final eps. Even then, we get less evil Willow than naughty Willow--AH has no room to do much beyond reprise her "American Pie" role. I half expected her to interrupt one of her rants with "one time at band camp..."and start brandishing a flute.

[> [> [> [> [> Is there an uproar? -- Darby, 09:46:15 07/31/02 Wed

Although the internet allows closer contact between fans and creators, we are still a vanishingly tiny fraction of the viewers whose Nielsen numbers are the deciding factor in issues of controversy.

I know that the ME production team is aware of at least specific parts the internet community - I've not seen any evidence that they are aware of our little philosophical backwater. I feel that Joss, as he receives criticism, sees the whole community more and more as a lunatic fringe. Is any of the internet hoo-hah really reaching beyond to the network in a significant way?

The phrase, "tempest in a teapot" keeps coming to mind...

[> [> [> [> [> [> Internet Fandom -- Arethusa, 11:39:34 07/31/02 Wed

I reluctantly agree-reluctantly, because I would hate to think we would be lunped in with the lunatic fringe. I thought "Waiting in the Wings," which Wedon wrote, had some rather pointed comments about the obsessiveness of internet fans:

Angel: "There will be no coming together, okay? Everything we've been through together and all anybody wants to talk about is..." [Cordy and Angel].

Angel: "Yeah. You love her that much? (Hauls back and clocks Kurskov on the chin, dropping him to the floor) Start a website."

And the ballerina's speech about the obsessive, uncritical devotion of the Count for her performance.

quotes by psyche

[> [> [> [> [> [> LOL ....you're probably right. -- shadowkat, 11:50:16 07/31/02 Wed

Yep - I'm sure they think of us all as a bit nuts. I know my non-buffy watching friends and family do. But as SMG put it some time ago- we keep them alive with our consumer purchase etc. (Not that I've really bought anything..but you know.) ;- )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...You've had to stare at hours of commercials between acts of the shows -- Masq, 12:32:34 07/31/02 Wed

That puts butter on her bread.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is there an uproar? -- Malandanza, 23:33:45 07/31/02 Wed

"The phrase, "tempest in a teapot" keeps coming to mind..."

Had you asked me a few days ago about the Evil/Dead Lesbian Cliché, I would have agreed that it is the controversy is the work of a tiny but vocal and hypersensitive group of people. However, after careful consideration, I find myself sympathetic to the Kittens’ views. In fact, the only thing that surprises me is that the Kittens didn’t speak up back in Seasons Four and Five when the stereotyping was so blatant and the E/DL Cliché was in full swing. Previously, I had held the WB censors responsible – I felt that the censors had imposed a double standard upon ME that they were obliged to follow, and that Joss and Co. had done their best to subvert the clichés and stereotypes. Upon reflection, I see that I was mistaken. Joss plans his stories out carefully, months in advance; the symbolism and metaphor is rarely accidental. Looking at the magic-as-metaphors-for- sex scenes, it becomes disturbingly clear that Joss is not on the side of the angels in this debate.

The scene from Who Are You? is typically pointed out as the magic-as-sex scene, but it is ambiguous. Willow contacts Buffy via astral projection (or something similar, according to Tara) at the moment he is having sex with Faith – it is unclear whether Willow is experiencing ecstasy as a result of the spell or Riley’s sexual prowess.

(OT a little, but since many people see Riley as an unimaginative lover who leaves Buffy unsatisfied, I’d say that it was not ME’s intent to portray him as such, but that WB also has a double standard about heterosexual sex. Most variants cannot be simulated on network TV any more than could lesbian sex, so Riley ends up looking less inventive than ME wished. Certainly given the number of sex scenes during Season Four, it seems as though they meant Riley to be perfect in all respects, even in bed. By contrast, Anya and Xander didn’t get very many sex scenes even though they were Sunnydale’s resident sex addicts – ME managed to convey the variety and frequency of X/A sexual activity via Anya’s crude revelations of their intimate moments. Very few of Anya’s remarks would have made it past the censors had ME tried to act them out rather than recount them second-hand. In Season Five, Riley is less perfect, but he’s undergone a crisis of confidence of epic proportions – it’s a wonder that he could perform at all).

The most disturbing images come from A New Man when Willow and Tara perform the “Floating Rose” spell:

They close their eyes. They concentrate. Their hair blows in a swirling breeze. The symbol on the floor GLOWS, the rose QUIVERS, and then LIFTS. Willow and Tara open their eyes to see it floating above their heads.

TARA: It worked.

WILLOW: Now the hard part... the petals...

Suddenly the rose TAKES OFF... ZINGING around the room, bouncing off the walls and ceiling, petals flying off. The girls jump to their feet, and they have to duck it a couple times. Zing, zing... Finally it lands at Willow's feet. A battered, SMOKING, rose stem. Puzzled, she picks it up.

We have magic as sex, then destruction, clearly prefiguring the E/DL cliché in Seasons Five (with Glory) and Six (with Warren). This imagery was no accident – Joss was deliberately using the cliché to insult the very audience that was praising him.

Furthermore, the lack of graphic sex scenes between Willow and Tara during Season Five has been too easily passed off as the WB’s fault. ME never wrote a scene with Willow and Tara romping in bed like nymphomaniacs out of an adolescent boy’s fantasy – how do they know that the censors would ban it? They never even tried. Tara is more than just a supporting character in BtVS – she is a positive lesbian role model. In fact, she is the only positive lesbian role model ever, in the history of television, film and literature. All other lesbians have been evil – every last one. As such, Joss has a responsibility to see that she gets equal treatment. If Buffy and Riley have a sex scene, Tara and Willow should have one too – of the same length and intensity. If Xander and Anya share a passionate kiss, Willow and Tara must follow suit. If Spike and Buffy engage in a little SM fun, Willow and Tara have to as well – we want equality, not some tepid, little romance. Clearly, this has not been the case – the heterocentric writers of ME have allowed her character to languish.

The calls for boycotts, the name-calling and the open letter writing that the Kittens have engaged in have been far too tame. What we have before is a clear case of a civil rights abuse and it should be treated as such. Boycotts are a good starting place, but we need retroactive action – a revising of some of the injustices of past scenes so that people watching Buffy reruns or DVDs won’t be subjected to the same scenes of hate-mongering that we have suffered through, often unknowingly. Each episode should begin with a scene of Willow and Tara’s bedroom – a tastefully done sex scene with sheets concealing the action. Low moans and panting finally build to a crescendo as we zoom in on the face of the person in the bed – it’s Tara! Ecstasy written on her face. Then, a second head appears above the sheet – Willow. And a little dialogue, just to prove that W/T is about more than just great lesbian sex – something like “Gosh, Will, the things you can do with your tongue!” (Which wouldn’t cheapen the relationship at all).

Anya’s sex talk scenes could easily be supplemented with Willow sex talk – when Anya mentions spanking, Willow could easily bring up the baby-talk and story-time she enjoys with Tara. Instead of having Willow and Anya fighting over a man (as they did in Triangle), they could bond over sex stories and the puritanical embarrassment of their lovers. Anyway, five or ten minutes devoted the Willow and Tara would hardly be missed – just cut a little of the plot and metaphor, no one watches BtVS for that stuff anyway.

Naturally, I expect such reasonable (I hesitate to call them demands, negative connotations) requests to fall on deaf ears. ME has been arrogant and self-righteous throughout the controversy. Ray Bradbury once suggested facetiously that if people didn’t like the way he portrayed minorities in his books, they should write their own stories – at the time, such a thing was impossible, but with the advent of the internet, such advice is valid. Imagine a world where the only evil people are heterosexuals! Imagine that every lesbian character has nothing but happiness and joy in her life! It’s possible – the BtVS Tara fanfic is out there, it just needs to be collected into one place. Fanfic where every character is a lesbian (except Xander, because, let’s face it – if he had a sex change operation, he’d end up straight)! You can read about Faith having sex with Buffy or, if you’re in the mood for something strange, Anya and Willow ‘ships! Relationships the way they were meant to be rather than the unsettling, dark ‘ships that the ME writers force down our throats. So write your own perfect lesbian world fanfic and collect what’s out there – make your own personal page dedicated to Tara. Rewrite the last episodes of Season Six in a way that makes actual sense and is true to the character of Tara, Positive Lesbian Role Model and boycott all WB, ME, Fox and UPN products and shows until sanity returns to the writing staff!

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a manifesto to write.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Is there an uproar? -- Finn Mac Cool, 06:31:18 08/01/02 Thu

Please tell me there was at least a little satire in that. If there wasn't, well, I pity you.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Evil, Mal, very very evil -- Rahael, 06:42:31 08/01/02 Thu

Let's hope you take this compliment with a better grace!!!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> LMAO...perhaps Mal is channeling Jonathan Swift? -- shadowkat, 07:02:28 08/01/02 Thu

One of the greatest satirists of his time.

In A Modest Proposal - Swift proposed eating children. He was not serious of course - he was making wicked barbs at how the English treated the poor. His great work
Gullivar's Travels is a wicked satire on manners and culture.

This made me think of him. Also reminded me of Mal's evil satire on how Spike was the perfect hero...way back in March I believe.

Satirists are an acquired taste but well appreciated!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Speaking of Jonathan Swift... -- Malandanza, 21:13:56 08/01/02 Thu

I worked with a student last year who had been assigned "A Modest Proposal" -- she is a brilliant student, one of the most able mathematicians with whom I have worked, but she took every word of the satire literally. It took me the better part of an hour to convince her that Jonathan Swift didn't really advocate eating the children of the poor and that his actual proposals were the ones to which he dismissively alluded at the end of the essay.

I have seen similar difficulties with irony/satire/sarcasm with my SAT students -- there is a pronounced tendency to take everything at face value. Passages from "Cranford" or Twain are read like a Biology textbook. Sometimes, I can see why -- when the irony is slight (like some of JA's remarks) and the passages are taken out of the larger context, but Mark Twain? The particular passage that keeps coming up is with Twain talking about the shortening of the Mississippi River (from the straightening out of bends in the river) in his lifetime which he then extrapolates "scientifically" back in time to the "old oolitic" period when the Mississippi River was so long that it "stuck out over the Gulf of Mexico like a fishing pole" and forward in time to the point when it would have contracted to nothing and Illinois and Louisiana would be touching.

I'm not sure why satirical writings are difficult to comprehend for students who watch movies like Austin Powers -- unless they watch the movies without understanding that it is a parody of the old 1960's spy movies, laughing at the non-parody parts.

I do appreciate your comments (as well as those comments by the others), but I had expected somebody to take offense. I even had a defense prepared -- the Landover Baptist defense: no one thought that parody was offensive, yet it clearly was worse than my remarks -- double standard, etc. And maybe a Spike quote ("I feel I'm being mistreated") if I could figure out the html code for petulance.

This board is getting way too non-judgmental :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> This board is getting way too non-judgmental - LOL! -- tomfool, 18:39:29 08/02/02 Fri

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, you don't get to be the Eleventh Evil without... uhh... without.... -- The Third Evil, 07:09:21 08/01/02 Thu

... well, it takes talent, not just a few drunken votes cast very late one night in the ATPo chatroom, that's for sure!

Remember, 11 is #1, twice!


Is your tract on 'Why short lesbians got no reason to live' due out anytime soon? Looking forward to it!

Sincerely, in admiration,

The Third Evil

( Which in binary notation is also 11, you know. )

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are you sure this is Malandanza and not Buenandanza? -- LittleBit, 07:11:35 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> All lesbians on TV have been evil, Mal? Does this include Ellen? ;o) -- Rob, 18:20:53 08/01/02 Thu

I am left speechless, Mal...

If I were a little more speechy at the moment, I would tell you what a brilliantly subversive lil' piece of satirical writing that was...

"'Gosh, Will, the things you can do with your tongue!' (Which wouldn’t cheapen the relationship at all)."...Can't type...Too busy ROFLMAO!

Rob :oD

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You suckered me, Mal! -- Vickie, 13:29:38 08/02/02 Fri

I refuse to admit how far into this post I had to read before I realized how subversive you were being. Great post!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ditto! -- tomfool, 18:38:11 08/02/02 Fri

[> Kittens supporter -- Caesar Augustus, 06:48:35 08/02/02 Fri


Fact: there exists an infamous dead/evil lesbian cliche.

Fact: The end of s6 had a dead lesbian and an evil lesbian.

We can hence deduce that Joss is an unforgivable asshole who should be hanged, drawn and quartered so we can all be put out of our misery.

[> OK, a more serious post: Why all the cliché stuff is bullshit -- Caesar Augustus, 07:35:30 08/02/02 Fri

It is a loathed day that the protest becomes more important than the cause.

People talk of the evil/dead lesbian cliche forgetting that it has very little to do with either being evil or dead. The original objection was to bringing in lesbian characters in minor roles, virtually to fill an imaginary quota, and, as tends to happen with minor characters, they die or are villain-sidekicks.

Yes, I'll repeat, the evil/dead lesbian cliche has very little to do with actually being evil or dead. Coz how many white people do we know in television shows that have died or been evil? Heck, a hell of a lot more white, heterosexual characters have died or been evil than black or lesbian characters.

The objection is about just putting in random minor minority characters. They are often associated with evil/dead, since, in general, the only characters that are GOOD and STAY ALIVE are major characters. Once one remembers the actual cause behind the evil/dead cliché, it becomes apparent that BtVS is guilty of no such thing. Willow has been one of the 3 major characters ever since s1, and was probably THE major character of s6. Tara, at very first, sorta did fit the lesbian cliché mould, but s5 changed that when she became a permanent part of the SG, and no longer a minor character. So lesbians did not play a minor role in the story, they were a major part, and indeed the climax of s6 was almost completely centred around the lesbians.

At this point, I've made my point. But I feel obliged to also discuss two (aka three) considerations which have been brought up time and time again by the cliché band, even though they are technically not relevant to the cliché:

1. Being a lesbian is actually linked to being evil.

To me, it's obvious that anyone who genuinely believes Willow turning evil had anything to do be with being a lesbian has the cranial capacity of a bacterium. (And for the non-scientific, they don't have much) Any talk of BtVS sending out that message is, in my opinion, bizarre. But let's look at things even more objectively. Obviously there've been lots of heterosexual villains too. So why is Willow special? Well, the only thing that makes her special is the fact that she's part of the SG, "one of the good guys". But let's not forget Angel became Angelus, and, I didn't pay that much attention, but he didn't seem to dig Xander much. So all a cliché supporter can say is that the mere presence of an evil lesbian evokes the idea that other shows send the message that lesbians are evil. To which I have to reply: analysing the actual message of a show has to be of more portent than analysing other shows, or else analysis is meaningless.

2. It reinforces the idea that lesbian relationships end in disaster. (all that W/T sex stuff before the shooting, blah, blah)

Well, let's count the number of successful relationships in BtVS and AtS history. Ummm ... there was that one time - oh, wait, no, praying mantis ... then there was - hang on, left at the altar ... ummm .... err ... A big fat 0 comes to mind. When Buffy jokes, "Let's face it. None of us are ever gonna have a happy, normal relationship", boy is she right!! So should ME, to avoid the notion of a lesbian relationship not working out, have W/T as the ONLY relationship that did work out? No. That simply generates the stereptype trying to be avoided, since it then emphasises that a lesbian relationship is NOT a normal relationship. It's special. And that's the very kind of attitude the clichéists are trying to fight against.

3. We object to having Tara die and Willow go evil after they had sex.

This is the closest to a good point. The writers could have had them go to the carnival together and spend the whole day holding hands. Sex -> death and death -> evil are in fact clichés, but separate to the dead/evil lesbian one. In horror movies, the chick that has sex always dies. The villain is always evil because someone they loved died. The fact that they're lesbians is irrelevant. Buffy and Angel - yup, their sex went well (killed Angel/turned him evil). Buffy and Riley's sex had disastrous consequences in WTWTA. Let's not even mention Spuffy. Yup, I'm thinking 'sex = evil' is a common theme in BtVS land. They must be opposed to the spread of the AIDS virus or something.

OK, it's late. I'm done ranting. Hopefully I've said enough to offend every living person on the planet and be flamed to death. Bye-bye.

[> [> No flame here... -- Rob, 09:59:27 08/02/02 Fri

I've said this before and I'll say it again...

The "Evil/Angry Lesbian" cliche/stereotype is being promoted far more by the fans who sent death threats to the writers and made a huge ruckus over this situation than the actual events in the show themselves.

In fact, most people, including myself, weren't even aware of the existence of the "cliche" (thus negating the term "cliche" but let's ignore that for now...) until these very vocal people made everyone aware!

I'm not even going to go into the portion of my argument where I detail the reasons why the events can be seen as anti-gay only when taken completely out of context...! I already promised myself I wouldn't respond to another W/T thread, and here I go again!

Grr Aargh!!!


[> [> [> Re: A Necessary Cliche -- DEN, 11:05:51 08/02/02 Fri

Seeking vengeance for a lost lover is such a familiar plot line that ME's intended trigger for unleashing Dark Willow would work only in the context of an unusual relationship. In that sense the last four eps did depend on a particular, variant form of the "cliche:" a love that attracted attention in good part because of its unconventionality, and then attracted wider and deeper support because of its presentation. Oz's death wouldn't have had the necessary impact on either Willow or the audience, even once Joss got his come shot of blood spurting on a white shirt.

[> [> Sex and BtVS -- Finn Mac Cool, 10:57:43 08/02/02 Fri

I don't think Buffy the Vampire Slayer says "sex=evil".

What they do often say is that happiness=torture. Anytime somebody gets really happy, it's taken away and angst is shoved at them. Anya is ecstatic at her wedding, but Xander chooses then to leave. Willow enjoys doing magic and ends up creating a monster. Faith really likes Slaying until it leads her into becoming a homicidal nut.

Perhaps someday, if asked about her religion, Buffy will say:

"Yeah, I believe in God. He's a big sadist."

Symbolism in Buffy (spoilers for end of season six--- longish) -- Purple Tulip, 11:34:10 07/29/02 Mon

This weekend I re-watched Entropy, Seeing Red, and Villians with my sister who actually hadn't seen them yet. Watching it with her was like experiencing those shows all over again, and by seeing them so many times, I keep picking up on different symbols and references in those last few shows.

In Entropy, Anya was stunningly dressed in red throughout the whole episode (I think), and the first time I watched it, I remember thinking how that was shocking against the blahness of everything else (no other bright colors, shocking scenery). I knew that the name of the next episode was going to be Seeing Red, and I thought that this was a foreshadowing of what was to come; that the next episode there would be red everywhere (the sheets on Willow and Tara's bed, clothing, Willow's hair and the nickname that Spike had given to her, Tara and Buffy's blood). Anya was the first one of the SG to display anger, and therefore she was the first to don something red, a whole episode before the rest of them.

Again in Seeing Red, the phalic symbols come into play concerning the Evil Trio. The most obvious being the Orbs of Nezla Khan, two round balls that when held, give their handler great, unstopable power. The use of these orbs by Warren in that particular episode, the one where he is the evil villian, went to show the supposed power that men have over all others; that just because a man may have these certain attributes they are believed to be stronger, more dominant. But it really ended up showing is the barbarianism that is still ever-present in some males. And the fact that he chose another phalic symbol to try and off Buffy for good (a gun), further goes to show, not only his frustration and desperation, but also his reliance on his "male attributes" to make him stronger than some small blonde girl, when really she still had, and always will have all the power. It was one grand swooping gesture to show that it doesn't matter how strong and unstopable one may appear, but that what's within is more powerful than anything physical. Warren did damage to the Buffy camp, no doubt about that, but he ended up losing in the end as Buffy was able to stop him at that point, and Willow ultimately stopped him for good. So even the gun and the orbs were no match for the good side, and for Joss's original theme of "girl power".

Two other things that I picked up on, which I'm sure that everyone else did too and already talked about to death so bear with me, were the "fourth one's a charm" and Spike's duster. these were things that I noticed upon first viewing, and gasped in awe when I realized their symbolism. Obviously the "fourth one" was the fourth gunshot, the one to strike and fataly wound Tara. There's really no big in- depth thought there, I just was impressed that ME had managed to keep that much quiet about HOW she died.

The duster was another thing. Spike taking off his duster when he went to Buffy in Seeing Red, was symbolic of him stripping away his demon, stripping it all down to go to Buffy with nothing, just one final plea to really see him and accept that his love for her is real. His duster is the one thing representative of his demon side and, of his greatest conquer, killing his second slayer. By taking it off, he was giving Buffy one final chance to really see the man that he is, to see that he would give up everything evil for her, go against everything he knew, felt and was supposed to be, just to be with her and give her "what she deserved". When she rejected him for the final time, he lost it and became crazed, frustrated that this final agonzing attempt was still not good enough for her- he didn't know what else to do so he resorted to what had always worked in the past- physical advances. I really don't think that he went there with the intent to hurt her, and the stripping of the "evil" jacket gives that theory a little more creedence. I think that he was amazed that he could still hurt her even when he was stripped down to nothing. So going and leaving the jacket there was almost as if he were abandoing his evil side and dark past for good to try and make up for what he did to Buffy. When he left without the jacket, it was almost as if he were saying "the evil didn't work for me, so why do I still need this? What can I do but really try to be good now, really try to be a man and not a demon." He was obviously ashamed of what he had done and the jacket represented everything evil to him, everything that he had done to her and to all of his other victims. This is one reason why I for one was not at all surprised when I learned that Spike was really going after his soul and not to get the chip out. That, and the fact that Clem gave that whole schpeel about his cousin being resurected by "some kooky shaaman", thus leading me to believe that Spike was really on a mission of redemption, not revenge.

It also struck me that whenever Spike was either fighting Buffy or having some sort of rough sex with her, he was wearing the jacket (alley scene in DMP, fighting/sex scene in Wrecked, alley scene in Dead Things). When Spike wasn't wearing the jacket, he was more open, more vulnerable and more willing to give her everything (crypt scene in Gone, beginning and and dream sequence in DT, first kiss in OMWF, opening scene in Smashed). He also wore the jacket the whole time at the party in OaFA, which seemd odd since they were inside the whole time- but he did this because he had to keep up his bravado for Buffy'd friends and Dawn; had to make them think that he was still the Big Bad and that there wasn't anything between him and the Slayer. By wearing his jacket there, he was keeping his relationship with Buffy hidden, as the jacket was also representative of their secret sex.

Ok, well this is a lot longer than I had intended, so if you actually finished it, then belss you and thank you. Sorry if all of this has already been discussed, it was just some thoughts that I had to get off my chest.

[> Sorry it took so long, PT! RL was getting in the way... : ) -- Masq, 09:19:01 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> Another archived-thread option for folks to think about... -- Masq, 11:17:19 07/30/02 Tue

There is an option in voy to allow people to respond to archived threads. When this happens, they are brought back onto the main page.

This could create total and complete chaos, but then again, it might not. : )

[> [> [> A little chaos is starting to sound good... -- aliera, 12:15:27 07/30/02 Tue

[> Re: Symbolism in Buffy (spoilers for end of season six- --longish) -- leslie, 09:41:19 07/30/02 Tue

Ah, that duster--remember how he got it? It was his trophy from slaying his last Slayer. I've always been rather amused by the persistence with which Spike remembers to take his duster with him, even when he's running out the door as in Something Blue, when he escapes from Giles's apartment--he's barrelling out the door and visibly swerves to grab the coat- -he ain't coming back! He thinks. So a) leaving the coat is an unconscious acknowledgement that this time he *is* coming back, but b) abandoning the duster symbolizes abandoning his slaying-of-Slayer ways, but then also c) is this a parallel with Angel giving Buffy his leather jacket back in S1? (That was my first thought in Fool for Love when Spike took the coat in the first place, that it was a reversal of Angel's gift of his jacket to Buffy, which was his first actively protective move toward her.) There seems to be some kind of "economy of leather coats" going on here as they pass from Slayer to vamp and vamp to Slayer.

[> Dressed to kill in Buffy slightly OT -- aliera, 10:33:23 07/30/02 Tue

If your looking for the clothing signal to the next BB, please go elsewhere...

There's been some great/weird clothing, scenery things going on all season. And we have talked about it before; but not for a while and hey, why not get ready for next season! I'm not going to touch the phallic issue; fools rush in and what not...leave that on the floor for other posters. And I know the writers swore that the duster meant nothing and neither did the numbers on shirts, so that's enough to make me believe they do...

A few things I remember from early season and I'll be watching for next year, sorry, this is from the office, there's more back in the archives from other posters (and my memory is not the best) but:

Red sheets: isn't this the ME red sheets cliche?

Leather/black: early seasons this was always the bad girl bad boy signal. I guess I'm thinking too of the Faith/ Buffy fight. faith in black. Buffy with the red leather; I remember thinking good choice. Red for passion, love, blood.

Coats:Dawn steals one for Buffy for her birthday. Tara wears a black look-a-like but cotton duster late in the season. Buffy also takes her coat off in OMWF when she reveals herself. Anyone else?

Clothing colors: Characters this season tended to appear in certain colors indicative of the character and/or where they were at or heading. Please feel free add to the list. Xander earth tones. Dawn, lots of purple (I know MT likes purple but it was a good choice.) Buffy in mourning or light mourning pretty much all season by my memory. In Smashed, white shirt and black skirt (conflicted much?). Alison in red/black a lot after Bargaining? Spike? I notice you avoided some of his unpleasant clothing choices and focused on his nakedness or duster. Both good choices, and I thank you, but we must be strong and confront our demons head on, so WHATS up with wardrobe for Spike? (good lord, please don't bring William back in the suit or one of those odd shirts...please, I beg you Joss, the pain has been enough).

Numbers on shirts: referred to episodes #'s (and/or, sorry ponygirl, but I can defend a tarot card reference too)

Wardrobe I most wanted? AH. But not not the last outfit. Blech. Thanks for the post PT, hope others add something more insightful.

[> [> aliera, I like tarot references really! I just ODed on Promethea's! -- ponygirl, 11:07:31 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> ; -) -- aliera, 11:19:25 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> Re: Spike's clothing -- PT, 12:06:43 07/30/02 Tue

I didn't say anything about Spike's other clothing because I was kinda just thinking about the duster at that point. But now that you mention it, Spike is probably the most neglected in the way of fashion more than anyone else in the cast. He spent most of the season in his uniform of worn black jeans, black t-shirt and the ever-famous duster. There were some exceptions, like the ugly brown suit in Tabula Rasa when he was hiding from the Shark-Head Man, and his bright red shirt instead of the duster in OMWF. These are the only two that come to mind right now---but I think that, along with the duster, his other clothing choices have some significance as well because of the fact that he doesn't get to change very often. The red shirt came at a time when he was at a conflicting high in his feelings for Buffy---the red could have represented the love he felt for her, which would make some sort of sense as that is the episode where the first kiss, where he sings his love to her and the pain that she is putting him through. The suit came at a time when he was hiding, something that he really didn't do too often (though lurking he sure was good at)--- and this is also the time when they all lost their memories and he thought that he was Giles' son. This can go back to my theory of foreshadowing, that Spike will take on a more Giles-esque role next season, as he wore a similar brown suit in the dream sequence in Restless in which he said that Giles was training him to be a watcher. Could be nothing, but I love to read into things ;)

[> [> [> Re: Spike's clothing -- Dead Soul, 12:18:05 07/30/02 Tue

He wore a couple of shirts this season that he must have nicked from Ethan Rayne in Season 4. I'm thinking of a paisley one (shudder!) in particular. It reminded me of Crush where he shows up at the Bronze in a green and brown, very Rileyish kind of outfit. Like he's trying too hard.

It's like all the other things about himself that he tries to change for Buffy - it doesn't quite work. I hope his new soul is a better fit.

Dead (but well-dressed) Soul

[> [> [> [> Re: Spike's clothing -- leslie, 12:54:47 07/30/02 Tue

Ah, well now, here's a fertile field for speculation--how will Spike's new soul affect his wardrobe choices? Will he become like Anya, whose rapidly changing hairstyles seem to reflect her search for a human identity? Too bad men's clothing doesn't offer as much scope for experimentation. A simple shift to blue jeans and colored t-shirts, not tucked in? A fondness for cardigans rather than leather? Perhaps, in his despair, he will revert to the costume that drove him to near suicide: shorts and a gaudy Hawaiian shirt? Personally, I'm kind of surprised it never occurred to him to invest in a sweatshirt with a tin-foil-lined hood that he can pull up while navigating in sunlight.

[> [> [> [> The clothes make the monster -- ponygirl, 14:36:45 07/30/02 Tue

Because I've been meaning to do it for a while, because I actually did the work I'm paid for like an hour without going online, and because gosh darn it there hasn't been enough Spike on the board lately... just what everyone secretly craved - a lengthy analysis of Spike's clothing! Yay!

Spike's clothing is pretty easy to look at on a symbolic level mainly because it so rarely changes. We first see him in School Hard in pretty much what he will wear for all of s2, black jeans, black t-shirt, red shirt and the coat. The jeans and the t are the classic adolescent rebellion uniform, black for that extra goth touch (and is a nice colour contrast to Dru who in her initial weakened state wears only white). It represents Spike as the teen-age bad boy stage he has been stuck at for the past century. The red shirt seems to suggest his other role besides bad boy, that of lover to Drusilla. He is wearing his heart and his passions on his sleeve. It also may have been a slight wink at the Star Trek convention of killing off their "red shirts", when Spike was introduced he was intended to be killed by midseason.

When Spike is injured he keeps to the same wardrobe, rather defiantly since a long duster in a wheelchair has to be pretty impractical. Angel/Angelus is seen constantly in his midlength cloth coat, Spike's full-length leather could be seen as over-compensating, trying to prove that he's the bigger Bad.

The clothing stays pretty much the same for the rest of Spike's appearances up to his capture by the Iniative (nice of them to perform surgery but not mess up his clothes, at least they respect some boundaries). Once Spike is under the protection of the Scoobies he is stripped of the coat, in a sense his power. He still has his snarky attitude but nothing to back it up. As mentioned Spike makes sure to grab his duster when he makes his escape in Something Blue and he gets to wear the coat quite a bit in this episode, perhaps a reflection of his elevated status as Buffy's fiance.

Spike's lowest point emotionally and fashion-wise occurs in Doomed, when he shrinks his clothing, in keeping with the constant emasculation references that dog him since his chipping. Spike is forced to take on Xander's clothing, in a sense taking on Xander's role as the clown or the ineffectual member of the group. The bad boy has now become the class clown, the wacky neighbour. It's enough of a loss of identity that Spike is ready to do himself in. Fortunately for him by episode's end he is able to find that he can still kill (and piss people off as he proves with Xander and Willow), and even more miraculously steals a pair of jeans from Giles that fit him.

Spike keeps to his uniform for the rest of s4 and much of s5. His dream in OOM is the first time I believe we see him in a buttoned shirt minus t-shirt. One suspects this was mainly practical - allowing him to take it off quickly for filming - but it is also symbolic, he is laying himself bare emotionally to himself, exposing his emotions.

Spike's back to regular clothing after his dream, still a bit unsure of what to do with his feelings. He experiments briefly with Riley-style clothes in Crush, essentially trying to make a superficial change for Buffy. It's quickly abandoned. It would take Intervention to make a more lasting change.

Here we get to see Spike *ahem* even more exposed. The Buffybot rips open his t-shirt, baring his heart in a sense. Later Glory rips his t-shirt in the same way, which upon first viewing struck me as the wardrobe dept. saving money, but later seemed more significant. Glory's tortures seemed focused on finding out what lay beneath the surface -- she sticks her finger inside his chest, the point at which Spike appears to give in follows her threat to peel off his skin. Finally in the last scene, Spike is exposed bruises and all to Buffy and she responds to the depth of emotion he surprisingly contains.

At long last s6! At first Spike's wardrobe is the same, a bit stripped down perhaps, no more black nail polish, until OMWF and the long awaited return of the red shirt! It seems that Spike can no longer contain his passions, with the shirt he is returning to his role as a lover. It also ties him visually to Buffy's red shirt in the final scenes. In TR we of course see Spike taking his identity literally from his clothing, assuming the name inside his disguise to be his own. Others have analyzed TR far better than I so I shall jump ahead to Smashed and the emergence of PimpDaddySpike!

There is something almost weirdly touching about Spike's decision after finding out about his ability to hurt Buffy to dress up for her. He puts on jewellery for their confrontation as though dressing for a date. For the duration of their sexual relationship we never see Spike without some form of jewellery, most particularly the chain around his neck. It is both a symbol of his elevation in status with Buffy and his subjugation to her. His sudden parade of new shirts seem both designed to provide Buffy with easy access and to demonstrate his varying attempts to deal with her, sometimes demanding honesty other times trying to appeal to her dark side. Significantly he is more often naked in contrast to a fully clothed Buffy, suggesting that he is on display both sexually and emotionally.

When Buffy ends things Spike retreats back to his old uniform. Until his final disasterous confrontation with Buffy in SR, when he appears for the first time without jeans or a t-shirt or the coat. He has taken on adult clothing, but it is still utterly black. Whatever has changed within him it still isn't enough. When he flees Buffy's house he finally leaves behind his coat, the final trapping of his Big Bad persona. He goes roaring off on his motorcycle clad from his boots up in entirely new clothes (thank goodness for all night Banana Republic outlets!).

In the finale Spike appears stripped down once again, barefoot which in some cultures is required in holy places. Whatever clothing he wears in s7 I expect it will be something he's never worn before.

Well, better actually try to do some more work! Hope this made sense. The really scary thing is that I remembered all those outfits from memory, I only checked the transcripts twice!

[> [> [> [> [> yummy post, ponygirl! -- Dead Soul, 15:08:01 07/30/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> [> oh, let's *really* overanalyze.... -- leslie, 15:31:14 07/30/02 Tue

Red, white, and black. There is a popular motif in early Irish literature which gets taken over into Welsh and thence into Continental Arhturian literature of a person being overcome by the sight of red, white, and black together that makes them think of a real or hypothetical loved one. One of the earliest occurs in the fore-tale to the Cattle Raid of Cooley in the tragedy of Deirdre: Deirdre, who has been betrothed to king Conchobor since she was in the womb, sees her foster-father flaying a calf and a raven drinking the blood spilled on the snow [hmmm, relevent!], and says, "I would [i.e., wish that I were in a position to] love a man who had those three colors on him: black his hair as the raven's wing, white his skin as the snow, red his cheeks as the calf's blood." (To which her foster-mother says "Well, hey, that exactly describes Naoise up the road" and thereby sets the tragedy in motion.) In the Welsh romance of Peredur, Peredur sees a crow drinking blood [again with the drinking blood!] in the snow and is struck into a stupor contemplating in memory the beauty of his beloved, with her blonde ("white") hair, red cheeks, and black brows. (She obviously bleaches her hair...) In the Cattle Raid of Fraech, Finnabhair sees her beloved Fraech swimming across a lake with a branch of berries in his mouth (he has been suckered into fetching them from an island in the lake by her father, Aillil, who is trying to arrange an "accidental" death by lake-monster mauling for this unwanted prospective son-in-law) and the text says that Finnabhair ever afterward said that the most beautiful thing she had ever seen was Fraech swimming, with the whiteness of his naked body, the blackness of his hair, and the redness of the berries in his mouth. And of course, there is the whole Snow White story. In any case, a) there's that shot of Spike when he has been captured by the Initiative, lying on the floor of his cell, which always makes me think of the red-white-and-black motif, and b) these love-struck red-white-and-black romances never end well.

[> [> [> [> [> [> rouge et noire -- Vickie, 15:52:07 07/30/02 Tue

There is also The Red and the Black and some connection to French politics (I think).

Etrangere, save me!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rouge et Noir - Stendhal -- Rahael, 16:33:31 07/30/02 Tue

One of my favourite novels.

Connecting to the idea that Leslie was talking about in an archived thread, the rebel against society, Julien Sorel plays along with the hypocratic conventions of his contemporary society to get ahead, but has a dramatic fall from grace. He's someone who is both sensitive, but calculating. Full of grand dreams, but also someone who keeps hesitating and failing.

Julien despises his humble beginnings - he is socially ambitious. He dreams of a better life, a life more respectable, rich, with higher status

Julien Sorel is an extremely complex 'hero', an unromantic Romantic.

Etrangere might be able to help with the actual meaning of the title, cos I'm can't coming up with anything. Nor do I know if it is what you were referring to Vickie. Perhaps the phrase has an older meaning that I'm not aware of?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rouge et Noir - Stendhal -- Simone, 22:03:03 07/30/02 Tue

I'm no Etrangère (sadly) but I think the title refers, at its most literal, to the red of military uniforms and the black of clerical dress. Julien fancies himself a Napoléon type but, born too late to follow his dream of making a name for himself in his hero's army, the clergy is the only outlet left for his ambition. In the spirit of "if you can't beat them, join them," he suppresses - or tries to - the more positive side of his conflicted nature (passion, heroism, idealism: the red) in order to succeed in the France of the Bourbon Restoration, where only amoral, hypocritical intrigants (the black) have a chance at "arriving." Of course, he's doomed to ultimately fail.

(Err, at least that's how I remember it. I haven't re-read the book since I was about 15, so I could be wrong. And I'm afraid I have no idea whether the colour symbolism is strictly of Stendhal's invention of whether it was just a variation on an older theme).

I suspect that some interesting parallels with Spike could be made here, but I'm too damn lazy to really think about it. One thing that strikes me immediately is that, with both Spike (so far) and Julien, the good and the bad are rather hopelessly entangled.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was hinting at those parallels -- Rahael, 06:04:30 07/31/02 Wed

But I didn't want to make them explicit and attract accusations that I was bashing Spike!

I think you have it right re the red/black Napoleonic thing. Julien did have his ambitions cast in the Napoleonic mold.

Leslie (if I understood it correctly) was discussing Spike as someone who aspired to rise above his class/place in society.

So does Julien. Julien was bookish, as was Spike. There is the issue of complex romantic relationships with women of a higher class. I've often talked of Spike as a Romantic, and Rouge et Noir is a Romantic novel with a complex Romantic hero.

The only thing is, if Julien had been vamped, I'd expect someone to be much angrier re the hierarchies of society, which never admitted him, or allowed him to climb up the ladder. Spike, though standing out of societies bounds as a Vampire, does not seem to exhibit overt class resentment.

But someone else might have a differing view.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Rouge et Noir - Brel -- Etrangere, 06:48:20 07/31/02 Wed

But from what I know, Simone's right. Black for the clerical dress that Julien must wear, and red for the military wearings.

Could be linked with Spike because of the way the chip is emasculating him...

On a vu souvent
Rejaillir le feu
De l'ancien volcan
Qu'on croyait trop vieux
Il est parait-il
des terres brûlées
Donnant plus de blé
Qu'un meilleur avril
Et quand vient le soir
Pour qu'un ciel flamboie
Le rouge et le noir
Ne s'épousent-ils pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas
Ne me quitte pas

(Much better than Stendhal :)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And on an almost completely irrelevant historical note... -- red(but-not-black)cat, 09:47:58 07/31/02 Wed

The colors red and black (and white) have ancient symbolic associations, of course, which no doubt have been discussed in other threads. But in modern times, one of the symbolic uses I find quite fascinating, given this sub-thread's linking of William/Spike with Romanticist notions and Stendahl's novel, is the fact that about the same time Spike became Spike (late 19thC), anarchists across Europe were in the process of developing the international anarchist flag. What became the "classic" version is now most often seen represented in the Basque anarchists' version of the design. My personal favorite is the Australian version, which has a multi-colored stripe running down the middle in solidarity with the Aboriginal people there (which, while dramatic visually, also subverts the starkness of the classic version - surely a good thing for an anarchist design). Many contemporary anarchist magazines and newspapers are called "The Red and Black" or versions thereof. While I can't quite see Spike joining an anarchist social club, I can kinda see him in the 30s, sitting in a park with a bunch of Old Anarchists, commiserating with them about the wimpy New Deal Progressives (well, just before he eats them, I mean).

"I'm a rebel. You're an idiot." (Whack!)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: And on an almost completely irrelevant historical note... -- leslie, 10:48:17 07/31/02 Wed

And let's not forget the political implications of Spike's punk persona, for chrissake! Mr. Sex Pistols Fan, the band who sang "Anarchy in the UK"? ("Don't know what I want but I know how to get it/ I want to destroy the power supply/ Cause I/ Want to be/ ANARCHY! (Get pissed: Destroy)!" Forget his cover of Sid Vicious's cover of "I Did It My Way," this is Spike's personal anthem!

But anyway, what I was trying to get at with the red-white- and-black theme was that, in Celtic mythology at least, it's associated with both sex and death, the kind of sexual love ("love is in the blood, children... screaming to work its will") that makes people overthrow all social commitments and bonds and usually ends up in a murder or two-- interestingly, in the Celtic myths, usually one of the lovers murdered by a jealous outsider.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> About red, birth and connection to myths... -- shadowkat, 11:46:09 07/31/02 Wed

Agree with the above on the rebellion bit. Sure that has a lot to do with the leather duster and certainly the white hair. As Glory states : "And why is it's hair that color?"

"But anyway, what I was trying to get at with the red-white- and-black theme was that, in Celtic mythology at least, it's associated with both sex and death, the kind of sexual love ("love is in the blood, children... screaming to work its will") that makes people overthrow all social commitments and bonds and usually ends up in a murder or two-- interestingly, in the Celtic myths, usually one of the lovers murdered by a jealous outsider."

Red very much symbolizes this. I remember reading in my own explorations of myth several years ago, how so many dealt with the birth theme. The ancients struggled with the concept that a woman could survive after bleeding so much.
Menstruation and birth baffled them. You bleed heavily for two or five days and survive? How? They knew little about this. And to explain it created myths. Often the devoring female - was to explain how it was possible for life to come from death. When you bleed you die? Right? But when you give life - you bleed as well - the child comes forth covered in blood? The miracle of life is covered with the red of death. It's a paradox. And one we still subconsciously struggle with.

In vampirism - the vampire sucks the blood - red of the living - kills them and then if siring - brings them back by having the childe suck theirs. This goes back to the ancient creation myths. One myth which Anne Rice borrowed for her book Queen of the Damned has people eating their dead and drinking the blood of their dead in a way of perserving the memory and soul of the dead by literally devoring it. Death is recycled. Death - Birth - connected.

Here's another practice that according to Joseph Campbell lives to this day in South Western Australia amongst the aborigines - a boy comes of age by drinking nothing but human blood for one whole moon. The blood is taken only from his relative or in some cases someone they've killed for this purpose. Usually it's just from the men of the tribe and no one dies. Once again the view is birth, becoming by being bathed in blood.

In Western Culture we have the practice of "blood brothers" - not sure anyone else did this as kids. But I remember wanting to combine my blood with my friends so we would be connected.

Now we have tragic diseases that travel throught blood. And in a shocking news item last night - I learned that there are people in the world who believe HIV can be cured by sleeping with a child. (Not true of course, but people do believe this.) HIV - sexual disease - cured through sex with innocence. Again the image resonates.

Have we truly moved past our fascination with the link between death and birth? Clearly not...red can mean both.
What better color for a vampire which is neither alive nor dead?

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> A rather nastier historical association I get from Spike, red, black and white... -- KdS, 05:04:26 08/01/02 Thu

I hope we all know which mid-20th century political logo was red, black and white (although the colours most usually associated with them were brown and black).

I really don't want to push this too hard, but while Spike is far too cynical and independent-minded to be any kind of fascist, his Big Bad-era appearance always reminded me of Nazi iconography - the black leather and white-blond hair. It was especially strong with the aggressively-gelled down thirties-lounge-lizard hair he assumed for most of Season 2.

And remember that the Sex Pistols et al were fond of using swastikas for peurile shock value - at least I hope it was shock value..

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A rather nastier historical association I get from Spike, red, black and white... -- shadowkat, 06:29:28 08/01/02 Thu

Not sure if the Sex Pistols used swastikas for the reasons you think.

Swastikas predate Nazism by a few thousands of years. Actually go all the way back to B.C. They were considered symbols of power by the ancient Celts. It was considered a symbol of good luck and prosperity.http://www.manwoman.net/swastika/swastika.html Hitler was obsessed with the occult and often grabbed occult or ancient symbols and incorporated them into his campaign. He was known for subverting and twisting the ideas of others to promote his own ideology. As a result, people identify swastikas entirely with nazism and fail to see that :"Almost every race, religion and continent honored the swastika -- a perfect example of the universal spread of a symbol thru the collective unconscious used by American Indians, Hindus, Buddhists, Vikings, Greeks, Romans, Celts, Anglo-Saxons, Mayans, Aztecs, Persians, Christians, and neolithic tribes. There are even Jewish swastikas found in ancient synagogues side-by-side with the star of David!
The swastika was associated with the hammer of Thor which returned to him like a boomerang, the footprints of Buddha, the emblem of Shiva, Apollo, Jupiter, and even Jesus Christ! The swastika was the first Christian symbol and is found in the catacombs in Rome. Hindus and Buddhists to this day still revere the swastika as their sacred sign. Jains make the sign of the swastika similar to the Christian sign of the cross. " And it does predate Christianity to ancient Gaule.

I think ME meant for Spike to be like a 30's style villain.
Definitely not a nazi - from the Initiative when he discovers he's captured he compares the Intiative to the Nazi's "Who - the government? the nazi's? a major cosmetics company?" In Restless commentary - Joss states he always saw Spike as the 1930s style villain. (Nazim was late 30s and early 40s). If anything Maggie Walsh and The Initiative and Riley/Forrest were more associated with Nazism in the series...people have compared Sam and Riley leaving in the helicopter in AYW to Leni (god what is her last name?)
Nazi propaganda films. I seriously doubt this was Petrie's intent when he wrote and directed the episode - he liked Riley. But I got the feeling from Joss's commentary on Restless - particularly Buffy's dream that the Initiative had fascist undertones - nameing things etc.

Spike fits more of the rebel or wild boys - Marlon Brando image. Or JAmes Cagney who also had white blond hair and the leather jackets.

Can see why'd you see it...but with more analysis, don't think it tracks.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, no -- Rahael, 06:39:20 08/01/02 Thu

I'm pretty sure that the Sex Pistols were not into Hindu mysticism.

They used the swastikas as a kind of sick publicity stunt. Like KdS, I hope it didn't mean anything more.

The swastika is everywhere in India, yet it doesn't have the same connotations, because the older religious, authentic ones predominates in people's minds.

If I see a swastika on a British street, *I know exactly what it means*.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not just Hindu - also Celtic -- shadowkat, 06:52:25 08/01/02 Thu

It's not just Hindo mysticism though. It is also Celtic/Druid mysticism. It goes back to Celtic times and is found on many Celtic relics.

So it is also mysticism of the Ancient British Isles.

I have no idea what the Sex Pistols were into. But maybe
it could mean more than you think?

In America - I assume it means the same thing - neo- nazis.
Then three years ago, I learned more about it for a book I was working on (happened upon it by accident)...I realized that some new ageists and celtic mystics were using it as well. I didn't know it was part of the Hindu religion until today. Apparently more than one religion has used it in practice.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not just Hindu - also Celtic -- aliera, 12:26:43 08/01/02 Thu

Many also avoid using it for that reason as they are aware of the current connotations, was reading about this last night in regards to the runes of Norse mythology. When used for more than just writing, four runes could be joined together forming a more potent symbol, resembling the svastika. In Iceland, it is prominently displayed in its reversed form (or was when I was there) on a building near the port in Reykjavik which belongs to Eimskip, a shipping company.

You see a form of it in Bargaining repeatedly over the buffybot's shoulder (it's in the training room wall)...it is one of the most ancient of symbols (one reason that the Nazis were believed to have chosen it) and one which shows up in many cultures...meaning transformation. The other symbol on the wall is, I think, the black sun.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A rather nastier historical association I get from Spike, red, black and white... -- ponygirl, 06:59:14 08/01/02 Thu

Definitely shadowkat, the swastika is an ancient and positive symbol that was co-opted by the Nazis. However I'd have to argue that the Sex Pistols, bless their nasty punk hearts, were using swastikas exactly as KdS suggests: both to imply that British society was fascist, and because nothing would piss off their parents, who had suffered through WWII, quite so effectively. There are a lot of darker elements in the punk movement, racism was often the cause of a lot quite violent clashes between different factions in the late '70s. I took a great sociology course on British youth culture -- the punk movement is pretty fascinating, of course the class was taught by a wildly attractive professor but still it's interesting.

However getting back to the red, white and black thing - according to marketing types nothing else pops out to the eye quite so effectively. It's a colour scheme that just works. As for Spike, for me, while Joss and others may cite Billy Idol and Sid Vicious as sources, it's not something I see in his clothing which seems more goth than punk. As a former semi-goth girl myself Spike's whole look, especially in S2, seems lifted from Peter Murphy, lead singer of the vampire-loving group Bauhaus and a solo artist in his own right. Peter's look in the 80s and early 90s was Spike right down to the cheekbones!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> thanks for clarification and the history on punk! - - shadowkat, 07:04:28 08/01/02 Thu

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Good posts -- KdS, 07:18:36 08/01/02 Thu

I knew about the Indian associations of the swastika but wasn't aware of the Celtic significance. On the Nazis' magpie attitude to symbols, I once read a rather amusing tongue in cheek essay on the web from a Norse pagan revivalist upset about being accused of Nazism by people who confuse Norse with Nordic. He suggested that the utter destruction of the Nazi regime was a warning to anyone who tried to subvert Norse symbolism to evil... By the way, I once read that the "bad" Nazi swastika is anticlockwise, while more benevolent Indian versions are clockwise. True, or are both used?

I'm not to sure about Nazis being "late thirties" though. As I recall, Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in '33, and the NSDAP had already been going for several years.

Although a friend of John Lydon's, Jah Wobble, subsequently became well-known for applying a wide range of mysticisms to his music, I sincerely doubt that the Pistols gave the proverbial about Celtic culture, or that they used the swastika for more than shock. There's a story about Sid Vicious, who seems to have been an utter buffoon, walking around the Marais (old Jewish quarter) in Paris covered in swatikas and being deservedly beaten up in a bakery for it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A rather nastier historical association I get from Spike, red, black and white... -- Arethusa, 08:34:55 08/01/02 Thu

Black, white and red are also the colors newborns respond to most, according to research published in the early 1990s. Evidently, the studies showed the sharp contrast between black and white and the vividness of red stimulates babies, and are easier to focus upon than pastels. Watching my kids, I also noticed that they seem to respond instictively to red-when they saw several cans of different sodas, they would always reach for the bright red Coca-Cola. (Not that they ever got to drink any.)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: A rather nastier historical association I get from Spike, red, black and white... -- Dead Soul, 10:12:08 08/01/02 Thu

When I was about five years old, my mother asked me what colors I wanted my bedroom painted. I said red and black. (and I still want a red and black room, dammit!). What I got was pale blue and white. Sigh. And people ask me why my soul is dead. Childhood trauma!

Dead (but looking lovely wearing a red dress and black Doc Martens) Soul

p.s. - totally agree w/Ponygirl (I think) re Peter Murphy, but only during the Bauhaus years. Afterwards, IMO, he got way to Howard Jonesy.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Brel rocks! -- Caroline, 12:32:10 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The problem with red -- Fred the obvious pseudonym, 12:51:37 07/31/02 Wed

The predominant color of Napoleon's army's uniforms was blue. Red did not enter the French military spectrum until the 1850s with "le pantalon rouge," the red trousers of the infantry.

In the Napoleonic era, military red was the British infantry color -- the men who stopped Napoleon at Waterloo. (Wellington, oddly enough, did not wear red in action -- he wore a respectable British dark brown or black civilian coat).

Red, in the early nineteenth century, was more the color of revolution than of the French military. The Communists borrowed the color from these early revolutionaries.

[> [> [> [> [> [> colors in painting, and life white dwarfs, black holes, supernovas -- shadowkat, 11:29:18 07/31/02 Wed

"a) there's that shot of Spike when he has been captured by the Initiative, lying on the floor of his cell, which always makes me think of the red-white-and-black motif, and b) these love-struck red-white-and-black romances never end well."

Interesting. If there ever were colors that symbolized Spike it's red/black and that white hair.

But it just occurred to me in Lie To ME - Angel also wears the long black leather jacket, red shirt, and black undershirt.

Dru wears the colors white and black and red as well. In the beginning of Season 2 she appears in a white neligee very childlike, very snow white. Later she is in sultry black with red lined jacket and blood red nails. Very wicked queen from snow white.

In Crush - Spike wears gray, khackie or olive (so not his color) and brown in the beginning when he is attempting to date Buffy whether or not she is aware of it. Then after Dru appears he's back to black duster, red shirt, and black undershirt.

People have mentioned how what colors Spike is wearing seem to indicate how he is meant to be portrayed in each episode this year. Not sure about this. Could be overanalyzing here.
But isn't it interesting that in the episode SR - Spike is stripped completely of color? And in each of the episodes after his hair is the whitest it's been all season? Prior to that his hair was actually more blond. But in SR through
possibly two-to-go it is white. Not blond. White like it was in Season 4 and Season 5. His makeup is also more pale, dead looking in SR. He doesn't wear a red shirt. Just a long sleeved black t-shirt. This struck me as odd, because before - he always seems to have an overshirt of a shirtsleeved t- shirt or a button down. No jacket. Also odd.
When he leaves town - again long sleeved black t-shirt which I've never seen before. HE looks like he's wearing a black cat suit, black jeans. black top. long sleeved.
No color.

Then we go to Willow in Villians. All black. Black hair. Black eyes. Black jacket. Black jeans. With white undershirt. White skin.

It was like looking at a negative image. Stripped.
In Grave both regain color - Spike is lite from within with a golden light and hair is blonder. Willow regains her red- hair.

Now this is just intiutive guessing on my part - if I'm wrong someone will correct me ;-) - white feels like absence, not purity, but the feeling of being a blank slate, no remorse. Black is also a feeling of absence but the counter image. In art classes - I was instructed that it was cheating to have black paint - much better to create my own shade with the other colors...if I used blues - this would give my black a blue tint, if I used reds it gives it red tint. Black is not absence of color but the combination of color - imagine what it would be like if color were people and they all tried to jump into the same well? Black.
Or a "black hole" - this is a phenomen where everything is sucked in and can't escape. "An object whose gravity is so strong that not even light can escape from it." - http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dictionary.html#B

When Willow turns black - she has sucked all the text into herself, it can't escape, it flows into her in shades of red, but all the shades combined with the color of her natural aura turns Willow black. In art - the absence of color is white or blank space. We are instructed that using white paint is also cheating - particularly in watercolor. Use the page instead.

But if you have white paint - it can be used to lighten shades and reinforce importance of other colors, possibly erase. In Spike's case - stripping him of his persona, causes a blank slate. Or Tara's white magic - absence of color absence of rage...it is neither good or evil. White is a neutral color in the art world - it neither brightens nor darkens. It lightens and erases. In space a white dwarf is a dead sun. "A white dwarf is what stars like our Sun become when they have exhausted their nuclear fuel. Near the end of its nuclear burning stage, such a star expels most of its outer material (creating a planetary nebula), until only the hot core remains, which then settles down to become a very hot (T > 100,000K) young white dwarf."http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/dictionary.html#B

So White can represent - loss of color...exhausted color not just purity.

What does red represent? In art it is often used to bring out other colors or darken them. I've used it to create brown or when mixed with blue to creat violet. It also is used to show a sense of violence. In the Business World - we're told wear red if you want to make a powerful impression.

Spike has no red on in SR. It is absent. He does have a red cushion on his crypt sarcophagus but that's it. And It's not real visible. The scene in the crypt feels almost black and white. Willow also does not wear red. The red seeps into her and turns black. After blood dries it looks black. Darkened red can appear black. Deepened maroons come to mind.

Whedon uses red in Willow's Restless dream to connote sexuality (as he mentions in his commentary about the curtains) - Kubrick did the same in the movie Eyes Wide Shut. In The Shining he used red get across violence.
In Schindler's List - Speilberg uses a red coat in an otherwise black and white film to show a child fleeing the nazis in the ghetto. Oh and the brillant film by Wim Wenders about Angles - called Wings of Angels (I think)
the girl tempting the fallen Angel wears Red.

Red seems to connote life - the blood of life in menstruation or childbirth. But it is painful life. If White is the absence of Color. And Black color combined and swallowed whole. The Red is the birth of it. A primary color in artists pallets. Also the color of a hot exploding sun in Space - the supernova. Life at it's most violent.
And death as well - since when we bleed - it is red. And once spilled? Turns black.

Hope this was somewhat coherent...see when I write spontaneously I tend to ramble. ;-)

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Beautiful rambling ;) -- Etrangere, 11:41:17 07/31/02 Wed

And it works with the celtic thing :

White is the Maiden, the innocence of youth but also the neutrality of nothing yet accomplished

Red is the Mother, the richness, the love, the violence of life / passion

Black is the Crone, death as the great equaliser

I think another color was important this season but this trilogy of black/white/red, it's Blue, the color of reason, lack of feeling and ice. Of course it was in opposition with the Red most of the time (in OMWF most of all) but sometimes the two merges to create the royal purple of Synthesis / Temperance.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wings of Desire -- ponygirl, 11:51:06 07/31/02 Wed

Interesting that you mention the Wim Wenders film in the discussing use of colour. When we see from the perspective of the angels in that film everything is black and white, from the human perspective colour. The angels can observe life but not live it. The contrast between the types of film seems to suggest that what you lose in clarity you make up for in the range of emotions. The same could probably be said for the graying of the Buffyverse!

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: colors in painting, and life white dwarfs, black holes, supernovas -- leslie, 13:27:41 07/31/02 Wed

"In Spike's case - stripping him of his persona, causes a blank slate."

i.e., literally, a tabula rasa.

[> [> [> [> [> Props to ponygirl and everyone involved in this sub- thread! -- Caroline, 12:34:30 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ditto - wonderful sub-thread, everyone!! -- redcat, 13:04:07 07/31/02 Wed

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ditto - wonderful sub-thread, everyone!! -- Purple Tulip, 14:05:08 07/31/02 Wed

WOW!!! I'm always impressed by you all! I had surmised as much about red, black, and white symbolizing love, death, and life respectively (and some times reversely), but I was unaware of the Napoleonic connections and the French military colors. Kudos to you all for your brilliant minds and thank you for bringing my post back to life (a la vampire style) after it was too quickly archived---you guys are great:)

[> [> [> [> The Red Shirt (was Spike's clothing) -- arystocrat, 09:15:16 08/01/02 Thu

I always saw trhe red shirt as an homage to James Dean's red wind breaker in Rebel Without a Cause.

Symbolism theory in this?: The correlation between Dean's character and Spike? Useless, undirected rebellion. Emotional, vulnerable, but very tough (and tuff). Passionate. An underlying hope and yearning for redemption, but without the true patience or emotional maturity to figure out how to get to it.

Just a thought, though


[> The Duster -- Spike Lover, 11:14:49 07/31/02 Wed

Also, the jacket Spike has proudly worn has always been his trophy. When he leaves it on the banister, it is also symbolic that he has been vanquished. The slayer has killed him.

Don't be surprised if Buffy is seen wearing that jacket next season. (Although she may say she is wearing it because she misses him (the lighter) -wait, she would never admit that. She will come up w/ some other excuse.)

If she is seen wearing it, one may argue that it is symbolic of role reversal: That she is the evil, bad ass. She is the cold, dead one. She is the one to be feared.

Current board | More July 2002