July 2003 posts
BehindtheBoard LJ fic! Be warned, it's unsavory. -- Random, LittleBit and LadyS.,
14:02:51 07/07/03 Mon
While relaxing one day at the ATPo mansion, your three recorders
happened to notice Rob looking very furtive as he walked inside.
So we decided to follow him up. He went into a room on the top
floor, and, as luck would have it, forgot to close the door immediately.
We slipped in, our ever-present video cameras in hand, and hid
in the shadows just before TCH noticed the door was open and went
to close it. What we observed in the next few hours was a scene
of such depravity that we were reluctant to publish it. However,
we finally decided that the board had a right to this information
about its fellow posters. So here it is, in all it's untrammeled
By the way, take note of the new icon. It contains the pictures
of several posters on the board. We have others, with other posters,
and will occasionally change the icon around. So check back on
occasion to see the fearsome visages of your compatriots in the
ATPo mansion. We're also sending out an open call for more pics.
We have a couple dozen (more, if you count the ones we're not
allowed to post), but want as many as possible. Please mail e-mail
them to the address given. Oh, and be sure to include your posting
[> Oops, forgot the link...it's...
-- Random, Bit, and LadyS., 14:07:23 07/07/03 Mon
[> [> just guessing here,
but shouldn't that title be... -- anom, 15:09:24 07/07/03
...oh, I can't spoil people for it before they even follow the
link! "Vol" should be "Voy"...right?
OK, now I'll go read it.
[> [> Bravo! Brava! Hella
cool! -- Rob, 15:34:32 07/07/03 Mon
Apologies to TCH, but "looking so uncomfortably British that
even his hair has painfully good posture" made me laugh the
Oh, and should I admit this...you guys were right not only about
the cast picture (although I have the Season 6 cast, with ASH,
so it's basically, yeah, the same), but the smiley face Alyson
drew over her boobs. Creepy!
[> [> oh yeah, &...
-- anom, 15:34:48 07/07/03 Mon
...that 3rd word in the title? No "E" at the beginning.
[> [> [> Heh, sorry,
you're right about the "voi". -- Random, 15:51:00
My mistake...but, while the "e" can be omitted, it is
[> [> [> [> wait...you
mean you're quoting that line straight? -- anom, 17:46:28
You're not punning on "Voy"??? [Master of Pun
Fu makes vain attempt to comprehend...inevitably fails] What's
wrong with you? You can let a pun opportunity like that go?! It's
perfect! How can you pass it up? [shakes head in consternation]
As for my 2nd q., I thought that w/the "e" it was Spanish,
& the Italian left it out. But then, I know Spanish a lot better
[> [> [> [> [>
No, no, I changed it, oh Master of Pun Fu. Check it out
-- Random, 17:47:34 07/07/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> um...still says "vol"...wait! once i refreshed
it--there it is! -- anom, 18:33:02 07/07/03 Mon
That's more like it! If only we could make Voy take it seriously...right
now it's more like the other way around....
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> And I say, Thanks for that brilliant suggestion,
anom! -- Random, 00:19:52 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> aww...you're welcome! flattery will get you...
-- anom, blushing, possibly for more than 1 reason, 11:28:55
...um, actually, suspicion about what you might be planning for
me once my turn comes up...uh-oh...are you just buttering
me up now so that later you can...err, wait...y'know, never mind
that part about the butter...not my kinda thing anyway, really....
Hey, glad you liked the pun! More where that came from--if you
watch your step. (Hmm...any double entendres w/"step"?
don't think so...OK.)
[> [> Hey, I haven't
owned a bunny suit since I was like, four! -- Anneth, rarring
and stomping., 15:40:32 07/07/03 Mon
[> [> [> If you're
still speaking to me (rarr, stomp?).... -- LadyStarlight,
15:52:31 07/07/03 Mon
...I have some loonies and toonies for you.
[> [> [> [> Lady
S, you should always assume... -- Anneth, 16:22:35 07/07/03
that I'm directly, specifically addressing you. :) (Rarr, Stomp,
of course, being especially elevated dino-prose.) If I'm writing
in monosyllabic phrases, however, then you can assume I'm addressing
Acutally, though, there I was merely acting upon certain of my
feoral demon propensities. (See, eg, BehindATPo, most recent entry.)
(Suddenly distracted) Oo, LadyS, shiny!
[> [> [> [> [>
So are you still speaking to me? Still e-mailing me? (makes
puppy-dog eyes) -- Random, 17:51:09 07/07/03 Mon
[> [> [> [> [>
[> of course! message soon! (after I get home and eat and
stuff) -- Anneth, 18:21:05 07/07/03 Mon
Plus, I still owe you a picture! And I wanna come visit chat tonight
and glow about my loverly weekend, from which I bear scars. Well,
burns. Sunburns! Really deep peuce ones!
[> [> Dammit! I knew
I shouldn't have gone home..... -- O'Cailleagh, 15:46:40
[> [> Can't . . . breathe
. . . laughing . . . too . . . hard! -- HonorH (who needs
meds and ellipses restriction), 18:26:53 07/07/03 Mon
I think that was the best installment yet! I laughed harder at
it than at any previous installment, in spite of the fact that
I wasn't in it. I'm remarkably self-absorbed--can't help it, there
are two of me.
Speaking of which, if one of you can enlighten me as to what's
up with H lately, I'd be exceedingly grateful. She's acting--well,
almost sane. I don't like it. She's up to something.
[> [> You nailed my character
surprisingly well... -- Tchaikovsky, 02:28:57 07/08/03
Except I don't have Firefly notes as I don't have Firefly.
But I do drink bitter, and I am rather Giles-ish, and I am very
suspicious of cell-phones.
You know all this stuff about overhearing and looking in at doors?
It's not a front. These people are genuine papparazzi.
Great job everyone.
TCH- going off to check his hair is straight.
[> [> [> I think I
speak for all of us when I say... -- LadyStarlight (and possibly
Bit and Random), 08:24:00 07/08/03 Tue
that rather than paparazzi, we'd prefer to be referred
to as "chroniclers of the (mostly) human condition".
[> [> [> [> I suspect
the word is 'parahuman' -- TCH, 08:43:16 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> of course
you know that... -- lunasea, 08:37:12 07/08/03 Tue
Cell phones were invented by a bored warlock.
[> [> My reputation,
Iago! -- Caroline, 08:38:41 07/08/03 Tue
You get away for a while and come back to discover that your tits
have become a punch line! Well, the twins are good sports and
thank LadyS, Random and Bit for their day in the sun...er...
[> [> Ooh spicy talk!
I love it! -- ponygirl, 09:55:38 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> Very nice! The
icon/pics are very ingenious. :> -- WickedBuffy ::trying
to recognize who's who::, 13:10:25 07/08/03 Tue
[> YAHOO, I LOVE MY CAMEO
-- Giles (With Nick reading over his shoulder), 17:18:21 07/07/03
I... am... soo Happy.
I just want to thank all the little people who helped me get this
Well now i am an offical ATP member, at least in my own mind (and
if you disagree then
BLEH *sticks out toungue like in kindergarden*
[> [> I remember my first
appearance -- lunasea, 20:23:25 07/07/03 Mon
It was a beautiful day. The birds were singing. The roaches had
decided this was not a good day to die and stayed out of my apartment.
The kids were well behaved and did as they were told even before
I told them. The next door neighbor took the night off from practicing
Enjoy it. Nothing is like your first time.
Now, if they would just chisel off that blasphemy before I go
down to the armory and borrow something large to blow up the frelling
statue, life would be good again.
Notice they didn't say what the card looked like. As a photographer,
I have a nice fancy Photoshop progra, which I am rather proficient
in. I replaced Spike's genitalia with a zucchini, a really really
tiny one. [beg]
[> [> [> A Tiny one???
-- Giles, 18:44:47 07/08/03 Tue
you are an evil evil woman
[> ::sob:: I *DO* exist!
I *AM* real! I'm having an odd sense of belonging. -- WickedBuffy
and the rest, 10:34:17 07/08/03 Tue
That was hilarious - but exhausting. Morphing really takes a lot
out of a person, even just reading about doing it. For some reason,
I feel so real, today. What powers you all wield from those keyboards.
.... and you weren't real gentle for my first time.
Also, thanks for solving the eternal mystery of where the other
sock mysteriously disappears to by the time the laundry is done.
::pondering how many of my aliases you've recognized and whether
I should now move to another posting board::
Was the First
Slayer Wrong? -- Rosie, 15:23:34 07/07/03 Mon
I've read a good number of essays about the First Slayer's words
in "Restless" - "No friends, just the kill. We
are alone." Was the First Slayer completely wrong? I wonder.
I believe that part of the First Slayer's message was right. That
she was alone. I've noticed that a good number of viewers have
commented that alienating herself from the Scoobies is the worst
thing that Buffy could do. That she was breaking away from humanity.
Personally, I believe that Buffy should have been more concerned
with breaking away from humanity within herself, than with other
human beings. What is more important? Connecting outwardly with
humanity, or connecting with humanity within oneself?
I am not saying that Buffy should have broke away from the Scoobies,
her sister and Spike, completely. As the Beatles once said, "I
get by with a little help from my friends." And having friends
has always been a major aspect of Buffy's role as a Scooby. But
it has affected her negatively, as well. It was her friends who
ripped her out of a pleasant afterlife, because of their inability
to function without her. If Buffy had not been so concerned about
not alienating her friends, she would have been honest about her
relationship with Spike. And the eventual revelation would not
have resulted in the unpleasant events of "Entropy"
and "Seeing Red". If Buffy had been more concerned with
giving in to her friends' feelings about Caleb in "Empty
Places", would she had ever gone after the scythe? The same
scythe that helped Buffy and Willow empower all of the potential
Slayers and change the system entirely? I cannot answer that question.
But instinct tells me that Caleb and the First would have gotten
their hands on the scythe before Buffy.
For years, Buffy has depended upon the Scoobies acting as aspects
of the First Slayer - hands (Buffy); spirit (Willow); mind (Giles)
and heart (Xander). This has given her an advantage over past
Slayers. But I believe that Buffy could have discovered the same
aspects within herself, instead of depending upon her hands only,
as she has done in the past. Or has she learned this lesson? If
so, please point this out to me.
In the end, I believe that what Buffy needed to learn was how
to strike a balance between a connection with her friends and
the rest of humanity and discovering peace or solace within herself
[> Whistler put it better
-- lunasea, 09:06:38 07/08/03 Tue
"The more you live in this world, the more you see how apart
from it you really are."
Or has she learned this lesson? If so, please point this out
Heart = Season 5. In dying for Dawn she learned that her love
was indeed brighter than the fire.
Spirit = Season 6. When she crawled out of the "Grave"
with Dawn, Buffy learned how strong her spirit is and how her
spirit could turn love/pain into strength.
Mind = Season 7. The wisdom of Buffy surpassed the book learning
and intellect of Giles. She learned that there is more to Slayer
than killing demons.
[> Re: Was the First Slayer
Wrong? -- deacon, 14:30:23 07/08/03 Tue
Great post. One aspect of how Buffy needs her friends is "the
wish" in Season 3, we saw how buffy would have turned out
if she did't have the Love from Willow, Xander, and Giles
and English Majors, etc.! The Official "Help Rob Get Educated"
Thread! -- Rob, 09:16:30 07/08/03 Tue
So, I was going through the college course catalog for next semester,
and I'm having trouble picking an English class, so much so that
at the moment, I'm left completely stumped as to which to choose.
All the classes are open for the moment, and my schedule is just
about completely free, so that can't be a deciding factor. Neither
can the professors, because I don't know any of them. So I thought
I'd just lay out for you guys the classes I'm considering, and
any feedback from you guys would be greatly appreciated.
Cervantes and the European Narrative: The Rise of the Novel:
Centers on close readings of Don Quixote and selected
exemplary novels. Using Cervantes as a model text, the class attempts
to define the "novel" as an evolving genre in European
I've thus far in my college career managed to avoid reading
Don Quixote, but always felt like I should, which is why
this is one of the options. Care to persuade or dissuade me from
Comparitive 19th-Century Novel: A study of four major
novels, their respective national obsessions, and contrasting
historical contexts (British: Dicken's Great Expectations;
American: Hawthorne's Scarlet Letter; French: Balzac's
Eugenie Grandet; Russian: Dostoevsky's The
Possessed). Texts are read in conjunction with historical
This one sounds interesting, too. To me at least! On the downside,
I've read Great Expectations and The Scarlet Letter,
and I usually like being exposed in classes to novels that I haven't
read yet. On the up side, I haven't read the other two novels
(what do you guys think of them?), and although The Scarlet
Letter is not my cup of tea, Great Expectations is
one of my favorite books.
Philsophy and Literature: A study of how philosophical
themes have been developed in recent fiction and an examination
of the relationship between philosophy and literary criticism.
Now, this is the one that made me "ooooh!" the most.
Unfortunately, there is no indication whatsoever as to the syllabus,
which makes it kind of a gamble. But possibly a good one, 'cause
with the philosophy! Philosophy and literature in the same class
may be too good to pass up.
I could always take 2 of these classes. Probably don't want to
do 3, which would be just an awful amount of writing. So feedback
please! Especially on those books I haven't read yet. Thank you
ever so kindly! ;o)
[> Start w/ the broadest
coverage your 1st sem. "Philsophy and Literature"
-- Olde English Majorette Suggests, 09:25:12 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> Good idea on the
class, but it's not my 1st semester... -- Rob, 09:27:27
Unless you mean for the year. I'm a senior. ;o)
[> [> [> =:O so sorry
- thought you just graduated HS. -- OEM <still voting on
that one, though>, 09:38:13 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> No
prob. And still good suggestion! ;o) -- Rob, 09:52:01 07/08/03
[> [> [> [> [>
::suddenly realizing that some of the others WEREN'T trying
to rob the cradle:: -- WickedEnlightened, 13:30:05 07/08/03
and also that Rob isn't imprisoned in some backwards High School
while being a misunderstood genius.
[> You, called? -- fresne,
09:46:47 07/08/03 Tue
Huh, Rise of the Novel sounds interesting. And that's a very interesting
novel/author to pick. I know that I really enjoyed my Rise of
the Novel class, but it focused primarily on the English novel.
In particular, the novel's evolution from epistolary to prose
and the novel as a female form. Real men write poetry. Women read
trashy novels. I'd be curious to have you slog through
the class and then throw out random insights.
Comparative Lit of the 19th Century - Well, prepare to be depressed.
Much more historically literate. All comparative and stuff. And
Philosophy and Literature - Sounds really intriguing. You might
want to check out what kind of stuff the professor specializes
in, has assigned before, teaching style, etc.
So, no Dante huh?
[> [> There actually
was a Dante class last semester that I wanted to take... --
Rob, 09:49:47 07/08/03 Tue
...but it filled up. I'm hoping it's taught again in the spring.
[> One more suggestion...
-- Darby, 10:05:39 07/08/03 Tue
You may have done this already, but check to see if the syllabi
are online - that will give you a much better idea of what you'll
be expected to do for the meat of the classes. If 50% of the Cervantes
grade is based upon your rendition of "To Dream the Impossible
Dream," and your pipes are good...
But seriously, if this is not the centerpiece of your studies,
you'll probably want to weigh the work factor into the equation.
- Darby, who wants prospective students to know that they won't
have to do oral presentations but will probably have to participate
in cutting up little critters...
[> Re: Attn: Literature-philes
and English Majors, etc.! The Official "Help Rob Get Educated"
Thread! -- MaeveRigan, literature dudette, 10:22:14 07/08/03
"Philosophy and Literature" may end up being not so
broad--more philosophy, less literature--more of a literary criticism
course. You may like that, of course. Are you an English major?
It's a worthwhile thing to have, if you are.
For full-on literature, either novel course should do, but a lot
does depend on the prof. & his/her perspective & approach.
Do you know any English majors who can give you a hint about the
professors? Do the profs have websites--have they written books
or anything that would give you a clue about their backgrounds
[> [> Darby and Maeve...
-- Rob, 10:35:04 07/08/03 Tue
Very good suggestions from both you and Darby. I am an English
major, so literary criticism would be a good thing to have.
I've been searching the web so far for professor websites or syllabi.
Been unsuccessful so far, but I'll keep trying. NYU had a much
better on-line school community. There were message feedback boards
for every professor, where students could discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of each, and the classes, talk about what books
were used, etc. Haven't found anything like that at Purchase yet.
Will keep looking.
Unfortunately, I don't really know anyone at this school yet.
I started last semester, and only had one night class, since I
registered very late, so I didn't spend a lot of time on campus.
Hope to rectify that this semester, but doesn't help me much at
the moment. ;o)
[> [> [> You ain't
kidding! -- Darby, 09:30:26 07/09/03 Wed
I know it's an arts college, but damn!
There's almost nothing there!
[> Any more suggestions?
TCH? Or Ran perhaps, seeing that he's a self-proclaimed literary
genius? ;o) -- Rob, 13:08:29 07/08/03 Tue
Just listed those 2 names off the top of my head. I want to hear
from anybody who knows anything about any of these books! ;o)
[> [> Okay, quasi-flattery
will get you everywhere... -- Random, 14:16:21 07/08/03
Since you've already read Great Expectations and The
Scarlet Letter, I'll address the others. Balzac is marvelous,
especially if you read him in the original or find a top-notch
translation. Eugenie Grandet is a deceptively simple work...fairly
tragic (Balzac had a knack for that), but very engrossing once
you get into it.
I've never read The Possessed, oddly enough, though I am
an enormous Dostoevski fan. Can't help you with that except to
say that he is a literary god and anything by him is worth reading.
Now for "Don Quixote"....this is problematic. It is
not a simple work, nor is the style always easy for a modern,
English Lit-trained reader. It is undoubtedly one of the great
works of literature, and as epics go, it is very accessible. Plus
you can just watch "Man of La Mancha" and get the gist
of it. It is a must-read...but approach with the same care you
would give to an authentic verse translation of "The Odyssey."
My rec? Go for the Philosophy one, but the evolution of the novel
is definitely a close second, and Quixote is something worth reading,
if for no other reason than as a foundation of modern literature.
[> Re: Attn: Literature-philes
and English Majors, etc.! The Official "Help Rob Get Educated"
Thread! -- sdev, 14:40:39 07/08/03 Tue
"Comparitive 19th-Century Novel: A study of four major novels,
their respective national obsessions, and contrasting historical
contexts (British: Dicken's Great Expectations; American: Hawthorne's
Scarlet Letter; French: Balzac's Eugenie Grandet; Russian: Dostoevsky's
The Possessed). Texts are read in conjunction with historical
I find the Balzac and Dostoevsky choices in this course strange
and esoteric. Not the best or most representative of the authors.
Balzac- why not Cousin Bette, his best. Dostoevsky- why not several
others- The Idiot, Crime and Punishment, The Brothers Karamazov.
[> speaking as a ph.d. student
and uni-english instructor, Go Meet the Profs, then decide.
-- Rochefort, 18:41:04 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> Seconded. Except
for the PhD bit. -- Caira, 04:38:56 07/09/03 Wed
[> You should definitely
read "Don Quixote" . . . -- d'Herblay, 19:54:31
. . . it competes with Tristam Shandy and The Decameron
for the title of "serious work of literature I claim is one
of my favorite novels to cover for all the Philip K. Dick I read."
But it's not necessary to read it in class, much less for
an entire semester. I'd go with Roche's and Darby's suggestions;
then, if you end up with Cervantes, gravy!
[> On choosing classes and
supplementary reading -- Haecceity, 02:12:46 07/09/03 Wed
Right there with you on how difficult it is to pick courses at
a new school! Especially in the summer when the lit students society
is probably not meeting. My suggestion is to try out the philosophy
course--not only is it a subject you have an interest in (and
aptitude for:), but it seems like it may offer more scope for
exploration (at least in theory--hard to tell without a syllabus/reading
list). With the others you already know which works are up for
discussion, and since you've read some of them you may want to
head for the course where more of the reading is new.
That said, I have to agree with the others about reading Don Quixote,
etc. I've found over the years that I couldn't always read these
straight through as elective reading, so I developed my very own
"Plow through great literature at the car wash" system
of self-improvement. I call it the "emergency book".
The system is simple--buy a cheap paperback version of some impossibly
thick "Great Novel" (remember, "cheap" is
for the paper--get the best translation available) and carry it
everywhere--that way you always have something to read when the
bus is late, you get 'round to all that reading, plus you impress
the heck out of those car wash attendents:) The emergency book
is only for these situations, so it doesn't interrupt all your
other reading. Highly episodic books--Don Quixote, Dickens--work
best for this, as it might take months to get through one. In
fact, I think DQ was my first emergency book.
P.S. Maybe you could get a course reading list for the phil. class
by calling the bookstore? The professor has probably ordered the
[> Re: Attn: Literature-philes
and English Majors, etc.! The Official "Help Rob Get Educated"
Thread! -- Cactus Watcher, 09:21:11 07/09/03 Wed
Just a suggestion. Don't take foreign literature courses in the
English department. It will seriously limit your exposure to varied
opinions about what's important in literature, and in my experience
can give you misleading information about the place of the work
within its own culture. It would be better to find time to take
the Cervantes in the Romance language dept. (presuming your school
has such a thing) if they offer it in translation.
Don Quixote is one of my absolute favorite books, too.
More Accurate Than "Buffy"? -- Rina, 09:45:28
I cannot honest say that I agree with this assessment:
"Raymond Buckland, noted Wicca and author, had quite a bit
to say about Charmed in his The Witch Book, he said yes it is
Hollywood witchcraft with more emphasis on eye candy and fx than
religion, but he did praise it for trying to get it right and
he said the writters at least do their research and the girls
try to follow the rede. He did not have much to say about Buffy
Yeah Willow on Buffy was my favorite witch too, but Tara was why
I stayed with the show. After they killed her and destroyed Willow
I figured why watch it anymore?"
"RE: Charmed's Magic vs. Buffy's.
Ack where to begin.
Well for starters the last book I helped finish (and just had
published) was a book on the magic on Buffy. I'll tell you right
now. Buffy's magic system is a mess. It's a hodge-podge of crap
thrown together by people who barely know the difference between
Isaac Bonewits and Doug Henning, and my job was to put it together
as a complete whole. There were so many sidebars and addendums
it is obvious to me there was no underlying vision or philosophy
Charmed on the other hand has been remarkably consistent. The
one advantage to watching all the episodes at once (like I have
been doing of late) is seeing the logical progression of powers,
the consistent use of spells, potions and other magical paraphernalia.
Not to talk about another board, but there is an ongoing discussion
on a Willow and Tara based board about magic in the Buffyverse.
You know what, they also think Charmed is better.
To take on one point.
BUFFY's portrayal of witches, although certainly not accurate,
is a more improved and complex portrayal than CHARMED. That show
is not as one-dimensional in its portrait.
Actually I say the opposite is true. Charmed is the more detailed
portrayal, while Buffy (of late) has relied on one-dimensional
clichÈs in it's portrayal of magic and witchcraft. Yes,
I like Willow and Tara as characters more than the characters
on Charmed, but Charmed has the better overall portrayal and the
better magical paradigm.
A good friend of mine, Robert Black, wrote an article that is
linked at TheCharmedOnes.com, it in fact sat on my website for
months before the webmasters put on their own site. He makes a
lot of these same points.
The book I co-authored on Buffy's Magic
The Buffy Magic Discussion at the Kitten Board
Robert Black's Charmed Essay
What do you think?
[> I have to disagree
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:27:23 07/08/03 Tue
For one thing, it's not entirely certain on "Charmed"
whether witches outside the Halliwell family have magical powers.
For the most part, they just seem to chant a little, occasionally
wear magical talismans, and one or two will fight with an athame,
but the Halliwell's often seem to be the only ones to really have
Then there's the confusion between warlocks and demons. Many times
the show has brought up warlocks (supposedly evil witches) and
used terminology with them that greatly confuses them with demons
(the other primary adversaries on the show).
Again on the subject of warlocks, the show often seems unsure
whether they are people who turned to practicing dark magic, or
if they were born that way.
Then there's the fact that, when the half-demon Cole was around
in Season 3, he wasn't supposed to use his demonic powers, but
teleporting apparently didn't count as one.
Then there's the very confused stance on the afterlife (we have
appearances by the Charmed Ones' mother, grandmother, and of their
ex-boyfriends being either in Heaven or being sent down by higher
powers as ghosts, but then there's their appearant support of
Then there's the fact that often they have to go searching through
the Book of Shadows to find the right spell, but other times they
seem able to whip up a spell capable of doing almost anything
in no time flat.
Then there's how they violated their own continuity by giving
Phoebe the power to levitate. Supposedly, as the power of the
Charmed Ones advances, their powers get stronger and develop into
new forms (for example, Piper's ability to freeze time advances
to where she can speed up time, causing molecular comubstion).
However, Phoebe's ability to levitate developed even though it
is in no way connected to her initial ability to have premonitions.
Then, of course, there's the much touted line that magic happens
for a reason and that there's a greater plan behind it, while
oftentimes spells go completely wrong and cause chaos.
Lastly, there's how they present demons. Over the course of its
five seasons, "Charmed" has gone from showing demons
in the traditional scary makeup and grotesque figures, to showing
them as just looking like normal human beings. Rarely, if ever,
do demons appear as demons.
And this is all just from a casual observer of the show. I'm sure
there are many more.
[> [> Gently disagreeing
with the agreeing of some disagreements -- WickedBuffy, 11:54:23
From what I've seen of the show, here's my take:
"For one thing, it's not entirely certain on "Charmed"
whether witches outside the Halliwell family have magical powers"
I've seen others have powers - there are plots based on the whitelighters
protecting or nuturing them as they come into their powers.
"The show often seems unsure whether they are people who
turned to practicing dark magic, or if they were born that way."
It's both. One doesn't cancel out the the other.
"... he wasn't supposed to use his demonic powers, but
teleporting apparently didn't count as one."
I think they got around that by having us assume that teleporting
was not exclusively a demonic power. If a demon used it, it was.
If a "good" person used it, then it was a "good
person" power. Cole was using it as a "good person".
The drawback of using any of his powers was that it would reveal
where Cole was, which was not what he wanted when he was hiding
You see the use of several different options in a situation as
"confusing", but I've always seen it as there are just
different options for a given situation. Such as afterlife, ghosts,
heaven, etc. It pretty much parallels the liberal ways many people
view those things in real life. The number and variety of different
options we accept or embrace depends on our personal beliefs or
religion or whatever else shapes us.
As for the Book of Shadows, some more familiar demons are quickly
fought because of the Haliwells continuing increase in experience.
Others aren't and they need to look the demon or situation up
in the Book. If I need to hang a picture, I grab a hammer and
nails and do it. If I needed to replaster the wall, I look it
up in my Readers Digest Home Repair Book. ;>
I'm not clear on the Phobe levitating issue, but I kind of remember
them commenting on it to explain it. Was it innate and dormant?
a by-product of being a demon?
" ... there's the much touted line that magic happens
for a reason and that there's a greater plan behind it, while
oftentimes spells go completely wrong and cause chaos."
Again, just like life. Out of chaos comes order. A greater plan
doesn't automatically mean a smooth journey getting to it. By
the end of the episode(unless it's a multi-parter), isn't the
greater plan goal reached?
As for demons, they can appear in a variety of forms on both shows.
Sometimes more than one. Angel and Spike have human forms and
demon vampire forms, for instance. Depending on the specific demon,
it may or may not be able to appear human or non-human or both.
I don't watch the new shows as they come on, I was just immersed
in the syndication repeats during a long housebound period.
Charmed seemed to flow accurately to me - but I prefer the deeper
writing of ME's shows. And I only know bits and pieces of witchcraft
and Wicca, etc. so I rely more on the experts to state what is
more accurate in that sense. But the other points you made I disagree
with in the most politest of emotion. :)
ok, I just reread that and it sounds like I'm a Charmed fanatic.
Which I'm not! Really - it was all that was on at that time! I
can take it or leave it! My only regret is I never ever got to
see the episode where Shannon D. dies.
[> Re: "Charmed"
More Accurate Than "Buffy"? -- Eryn, 10:33:57
This is one of my biggest pet peeves; ie. the current notion that
any witch figure is somehow representing or corrupting Wicca.
The mythological and literary traditions of witchcraft have nothing
to do with the contemporary religion. Unfortunately when shows
like Buffy use "witch" and "wiccan" interchangeably
it leads to confusion. Glinda the Good Witch isn't Wiccan and
neither is the Wicked Witch of the West, nor are Baba Yaga, Medea
and the Witch of Endor.
Perhaps the writers were hoping to represent Wiccan sentiment
with the character of Tara Maclay, who seemed more concerned with
her spiritual side than Willow. Willow, however, belongs smack
in the middle of the literary tradition, like the witches in MacBeth.
One day I hope there are two clear meanings of the word "witch":
A practitioner of Wicca; and a literary or mythologicial witch,
a magical figure.
Eryn, in ranting mode.
[> [> And "Charmed"?
-- Rina, 10:39:16 07/08/03 Tue
What about "Charmed"? Are they guilty of a similar crime,
or do they have witchcraft and Wicca down pat?
[> [> [> Re: And "Charmed"?
-- Eryn, 00:44:31 07/09/03 Wed
My initial reaction is to put "Charmed" in the same
category as "Buffy," as witches, not Witches (thank
you WickedBuffy!). I watched the show for about a season and I
never really got the feeling that the writers were disseminating
Wiccan philosophy or belief. More frequent watchers, however,
can probably clarify that one. Since the show is centred around
witchcraft exclusively and not Slayers, vampires, werewolves,
special operatives, Keys, vengeance demons, yadda yadda yadda,
I'm sure there are more of the recognizeable trappings on "Charmed"
than there are with Willow and her Latin spells.
[> [> I think that is
the perfect idea, Ranting Eryn -- WickedBuffy, 13:24:26
"One day I hope there are two clear meanings of the word
"witch": A practitioner of Wicca; and a literary or
mythologicial witch, a magical figure."
Is this correct?
All Wiccans are witches but not all witches are Wiccan.
Maybe even as simple as Witch and witch. Or move from using the
generic term to utilizing the term Wiccan.
"Are you a good witch or a bad witch."
[> Actions and Reactions
-- Anneth, 10:45:37 07/08/03 Tue
I've never seen Charmed, so I can't compare and contrast the way
the two shows use magic. With that in mind...
On a show like Law & Order, we can reasonably expect that the
authors research legal theory and practice because otherwise the
show would be nonsensical. Legal and police work, on L&O,
are not used as a metaphore; they are the point of the show, what
it's about. L&O gives the viewer a vision of the way the two mesh
Magic in the Buffyverse, however, is a different creature entirely.
Magic is not often used solely as a plot device. It is largely
a metaphore; it is used to illustrate and emphasize intellectual
and emotional growth. As Willow, for example, becomes more comfortable
with her self, her image, her sexuality, her place in the world,
her abilities develop accordingly. Magic is very obviously used
as a metaphore for her burgeoning sexuality in S4, and for her
escapist tendencies in S6, but these two themes are revisited
time and time again from S2 on. She tries to use magic to solve
her problems in S4 (Something Blue) and S5 (the episode where
Glory mind-wipes Tara) as well as S6. Her abilities develop as
she matures sexually; she begins practicing in S2, which is the
same season in which she begins dating. By S3 she's more powerful,
in keeping with her Xander/Oz relationships. By S5, she's fully
comfortable with her sexuality, and has become a very powerful
witch/wicca - enough so that Tara mentions that she's "afraid"
of Willow's power. (Again in the mind-wipe ep.) Magic is also
used to illustrate her difficulty controlling herself emotionally
(she loses control of the flying pencil in S3 and it stabs itself
into a tree, as she and Buffy discuss Faith.)
Magic is also used, time and time again, to illustrate the idea
that every action, no matter how well-intentioned or simple, has
consequences - sometimes dreadful. The possessing ghost-thing
that was created when the Scoobies brought Buffy back is an excellent,
if obvious, example. For every action in the Buffyverse, there
is an equal and opposite reaction - true of both physics and metaphysics.
Because I view BtVS' use of magic mainly as a metaphore, it has
never bothered me that ME hasn't tried to be more consistent with
the magic 'system' they've developed. BtVS isn't 'about' magic
the way a show like Law & Order is about law and detective work.
Magic isn't the point of the show; growing up is. Magic, witchcraft,
wicca - they all serve as metaphores to illustrate the joys and
pains of traveling from adolesence to full-blown adulthood. Magic
is consistently used to indicate themes such as sexual im/maturity,
emotional control, and the ability to accept responsibility for
actions and their consequences. Because magic has such an enormous
artistic load to bear on BtVS, it's not surprising that ME hasn't
followed any specific magic system. The more open they leave the
idea, the more they can use it to illustrate their themes and
[> [> And of course,
there's the old explanation: it's magic; anything is possible
-- Finn Mac Cool, 13:40:46 07/08/03 Tue
Magic, by its nature, violates the natural laws of the world,
accomplishing tasks that should be impossible. There is no system
of magic in the Buffyverse because a system requires rules and
logic, but the essence of magic is breaking rules and going against
logic. If you accept magic as the impossible becoming real, than
it is fully acceptable that magic can't be properly defined or
[> [> [> ::thinking
back on all the things we used to think were magic:: -- electricitymedicinestrainsconceptionetcetc,
20:35:27 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> [> Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke, 07:43:05 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> Um....I
still think of those as magick........ -- O'Cailleagh, 07:45:20
Well, maybe not trains. But then that's the British rail system
[> [> [> [> [>
Here's how it all works, O'C -- WickedTeacher, 10:03:52
It's all very scientific.
A boy train heading one way enters a dark tunnel. In the tunnel
it slowly passes a girl train coming from the opposite direction.
As parts of their cars rub each other, a by-product of large sparks
start flying. This is called "electricity".
Of the millions of sparks produced, there will be one that does
not go out on the tracks. It will shoot into very special empty
railcar, just in front of the caboose. This is called "conception".
"Medicine" is simply mixing several substances
together and having an official group of people deem it appropriate
to call it medicine. Much money usually passes through many hands
in this mundane process.
("Money" is sheets of paper or
lumps of metal with vast magickal powers to do most anything.)
[> More accurate in some
ways, depending on your POV -- WickedBuffy, 11:20:53 07/08/03
In Buffy, there is more emphasis on character development and
metaphors. I agree the magic is a hodgepodge of all kinds of stuff,
real and invented. It was as if the magic element was liberally
tailored simply to suit where the writers wanted the characters
to be going.
In Charmed, the focus is more on their bodies :koff:: and magic.
Character development is a distant third. It would have been nice
to see the BtVS writers being as accurate (or trying to be as
accurate) as the Charmed ones are.
But, they both had different visions to follow - Charmed seems
very demographically sensitive, Buffy seemed more Joss's-vision
But I also feel that the great success of Buffy fiction and non-fiction
publishing is because of ME emphasis on the characters. There
is a much richer field to tap from than Charmed.
Maybe the way the two shows were very different helped keep them
from being too alike to the average viewer. Which kept them on
the air simultaneously.
Is there an interview anywhere about the Charmed writers views
of magic on the two shows? Or even just Charmed? I'd be interested
to know if the focus on portraying magic closely accurate was
part of the initial plan or based on the writers integrities or
Also, did Joss directly state much about why the magic in BtVS
is such a mix?
[> [> Re: More accurate
in some ways, depending on your POV -- Rina, 13:30:57 07/08/03
I came across a post on a CHARMED forum by someone who is either
a witch or practices Wicca (by the way, not all witches are Wiccans,
and not all Wiccans are witches). This person claimed that the
closest CHARMED came to portraying witchcraft and Wicca was during
its first season. After that, the accuracies became less and less.
But it was never completely accurate.
[> Re: "Charmed"
More Accurate Than "Buffy"? -- O'Cailleagh, 14:31:29
The portrayal of Witches/Wiccans and magick on 'Charmed' has generally
been more accurate than the portrayals within the Buffyverse.
That being said, I don't feel that their research was as exhaustive
as you seem to think. All of the terminology presented within
'Charmed' can be found within just about any pamphlet on the Craft
with the exception of Whitelighters, which is a term used by Laurie
Cabot (formerly well-respected Witch, now considered a sell-out,
and even a joke by some) for those floaty witches who seem to
think that they are composed of light...or something. What our
Willow would call a Blessed Wannabe.
This leads me to think that the only book they read was 'Power
of the Witch' by the aforementioned Laurie Cabot.
And "Raymond Buckland, noted Wicca and author" ?
I'm hoping that this is a typo, because if you've been helping
to write books on Wicca and Witchcraft, you should know that Wicca
is the religion, not the practitioner!
O'Cailleagh -who uses Witch and Wiccan! <;-)
[> [> Re: "Charmed"
More Accurate Than "Buffy"? -- Rina, 14:49:34
Other than using a Book of Shadows and spouting the words - "Blessed
Be", CHARMED hasn't really been that accurate. And the show's
portrayal of magic, in general, tends to be less accurate than
BUFFY. In fact, there are a lot more mistakes I have found in
CHARMED than I have in BUFFY.
[> [> [> Re: "Charmed"
More Accurate Than "Buffy"? -- O'Cailleagh, 15:11:21
Well both shows are pretty inaccurate regarding magick and the
Craft. However, 'Charmed' has painted a more accurate picture
of the modern Witch than 'Buffy'. If you disregard the demons,
warlocks, crazy powers, whitelighters, deceased relatives, monsters,
Yes 'Charmed' has and does make mistakes (I'm not a regular viewer
btw, I just watch now and again when I have nothing better to
do), one recent and glaring example would be the depiction of
the Crone in a season five episode I saw a few days ago. But,
all in all, it contains far less than 'Buffy' does.
For instance, the Book of Shadows (although nothing like a real
Witch's book), athames, occasional Wiccan ritual (such as the
Wiccaning of Piper's baby-although we tend to have live people
conducting them!), I could go on if I could be bothered...
Of course, IMO, 'Buffy' is still the superior show, magick being
used primarily as a metaphor (as someone...was it Anneth, already
mentioned). As to its conflicting magickal systems..well to me,
it's reminiscent of the variety of magickal systems available
to us here in the Real World. I'm eclectic myself, in my private
practise, so I tend to use 'conflicting' systems then. When I'm
with the coven, we work according to our Book of Shadows (which
is Alexandrian-very strict)
[> [> [> [> Oops!
I meant the those (athame etc) as things 'Charmed' has got right!
-- O'Cailleagh, 15:13:09 07/08/03 Tue
[> [> [> Apologies
to posting again so soon but.... -- O'Cailleagh, 15:37:10
There I was, making something to eat when something hit me, and
I had to stop and come back here.
You seem to have started this thread defending 'Charmed' over
'Buffy', and now, with your more recent post, you have taken the
opposite stance. Or is it simply that my recent dye job wasn't
good enough to cover up my Inner Blonde and I have completely
If it's not me being stupid, I'd really like to know why you have
changed your mind so quickly.
[> Re: "Charmed"
More Accurate Than "Buffy"? -- Rufus, 15:49:34
A good friend of mine, Robert Black, wrote an article that
is linked at TheCharmedOnes.com, it in fact sat on my website
for months before the webmasters put on their own site. He makes
a lot of these same points.
I've read the "Charmed" essay and have to wonder if
all the glowing talk about Charmed is just a smokescreen to cover
the continued anger over the death of Tara. If Tara hadn't died
I doubt Mr. Black would have wasted so much time trying to glean
out as much negativity as he can by writing essays about Joss
Whedon and Mutant Enemy. I'm not going to engage in a pissing
contest over which show is better...I do say that I feel that
the only reason that Black has decided that Charmed is better
is based upon one reason only, the death of Tara.
[> [> the Black article?
-- Anneth, 16:10:01 07/08/03 Tue
I'd be interested to read the article Rina and Rufus mention,
but can't find it after a (topical) search of the website mentioned.
Can someone give a more specific link?
[> [> [> Link inside
-- Rufus, 16:17:37 07/08/03 Tue
Charmed is better than Buffy
[> [> [> [> thanks!
-- Anneth, 16:53:45 07/08/03 Tue
Mr. Black makes it sound as though he views Charmed as superior
in part because it has well-deliniated, black-and-white morality.
And that BtVS' later-season problems stem from its complicated
shades-of-grey take on growing up and dealing with problems. I
know I'm not the only Buffy fan who loves the show precisely because
of the grey, though - so, different strokes... His points aren't
in any way invalid; we just respond differently to the same things.
Anyway, I stand by what I wrote above re. magic in the Buffyverse.
There's no pressing need for a consistent "magic paradigm"
in the Buffyverse because of the function it serves - a metaphor
for sexual growth, emotional maturity, etc. Any 'paradigm' in
the sense that Mr. Black uses it would inherently limit magic's
[> [> [> [> [>
Point-by-Point... -- Darby, 09:28:35 07/09/03 Wed
I got the same impression of Anneth - this is very much based
on a personal preference for a universe with clear borders.
On the other hand, there were a number of criticisms that were
somewhat valid to me as well. Let me run down the list:
Consistency in witchcraft. Absolutely true that the rules
are better drawn and more faithfully followed on Charmed.
Whether that matters is a personal preference - Anneth is right,
and Black acknowledges, the magic has a different purpose on Buffy,
as metaphor, one which I think might be said was also rife with
inconsistencies. My personal feeling is that one can sustain a
consistent world and shift metaphors (look what they did with
lycantropy!), and in the case of witchcraft ME just didn't try
hard enough. The shift from lesbianism to power was fairly smooth,
but I don't think they fully bought into the addiction schtick,
that it was still about power but they lacked the guts to take
Willow down that path.
How are minorities treated? This has been discussed to
oblivion here, but that just confirms that there is reason for
Big Honkin' Good and Evil. Black sees this as a strength
of Charmed, but I like my morality with a bit more reality.
It has gotten better over time - Evil was a motivation in itself
way more often in early Charmed seasons, which is profoundly
silly, especially when the characters talk about it that way.
Interestingly, the show has gotten somewhat grayer recently, but
that was, I feel, mostly because Julian McMahon (Cole) commanded
that sort of treatment of what started as a typical Charmed
bad guy. The show is not script-driven, as Buffy usually
is, but actor-driven (it's a pleasure to watch the sisterly nuances
the three principals are putting in now), and the bad guys are
almost always cast with hamfisted scenery-chewers. That makes
the shallows of the scripts remain.
Death is real. Not sure what to say here, except that the
evidence presented is faulty. Joyce's death has had longterm consequences,
Jenny's less so but some, and Tara's surprisingly little (but
the way the show deals with season-to-season time gaps, much of
the grieving would have happened offscreen). And the uses
of dead characters is all over the map on Charmed and feels
inconsistent (I don't want to think that through right now, so
it's just a feeling). I have to ponder whether they always are
used for purposes of torment on Buffy.
The heroes have "real lives." It seems that
since the move to college "opened up" Buffy,
they have shied away from extending the characters' lives. The
fan reaction to the college characters may have made them gunshy
(and the followup with all of the Potentials might have confirmed
it), but I don't think the show would have suffered from a real
effort to give the characters lives. One of the weaknesses of
Buffy under Marti's watch has been a real inability to
give peripherals much personality - for every Clem there is a
herd of Janice's or Sam's or What's-His-Name from Older and
Far Away, or the DMP employees. The Charmed peripherals
have nothing but stock personalities too(unless they luck upon
a good actor), but that's the show. I've said before, Angel
does much better with peripherals, which is why so many of them
get re-used - we want to see them again.
Who's being protected? Here, Black misses the point bigtime.
The point of Buffy, I feel, is that the world being saved
is largely anonymous and unappreciative - that's the source of
a lot of Buffy's angst. The Spider-Man Syndrome. On Charmed,
the one-on-one nature of the savings often actually is used to
keep the characters in the fight. The 2 shows are kind of making
the same point from 2 directions.
All relationships are not doomed. Okay, he's got me here.
I'm a big believer that a married couple can be interesting, that
staying together and "happy" doesn't equal boring bliss
(didn't this guy work on Roseanne?). And it's good, too,
to have some happy characters for contrast - remember how Buffy
and Riley played off Xander and Anya, and how knowing that the
"happy" couple was in trouble but the "troubled"
couple was happier than they realized was fun? Did that wind up
being an actual sentence? Anyway, the Whedon Way is too set in
stone, and gets annoying after a while. On the other hand, the
interactions of couples on Charmed is another area that
totally relies on the actors' abilities (although there is 1,
maybe 2 writers they use that can handle that in text).
Characters remain true to themselves. This only seems to
be true, as characters with less depth are easier to portray within
their limited ranges. The Buffy staff can lose the characters
occasionally (but we all disagree on who and when, so they can't
be that bad at it), but they are trying to do much more with much
deeper personalities. This does not make it a comparative weakness.
Richer texture presents more story opportunities. Y'know,
this might be true - Charmed's world is broader and more
varied than Buffy's - but Black is seeing what he wishes
for rather than what is really there if he thinks that Charmed
does a good job of taking advantage of those opportunities. Although
both shows have their cookie-cutter qualities, those on Charmed
are much more obvious, a long sequence of demons-of-the-weeks
with simple power schemes that are set up and knocked down in
a similar pattern. I find that I largely ignore the meat of most
episodes and focus on the marrow - the little moments when the
girls are almost certainly off-script, the occasional guest that
knows how to have fun with the premise (such as Danny Woodburn,
a joy on Special Unit 2, Angel, or Charmed), and,
what the hey, I like Holly Marie Combs.
Black sees the seasonal arcs as a weakness, I see them as usually
Personally, I see in Black a former Buffy fanatic so disaffected
by Seasons 6 and 7 that it has soured him on all aspects of the
show. He spent this past season enjoying Charmed more.
I think Sara did, too, so I know that it can happen to smart,
reasonable folks. But to have it color your view of the show as
an entity...well, I guess that's human.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Re: Point-by-Point... -- Rina, 14:50:05 07/09/03
It's strange that you stated that Black was a former "Buffy"
fanatic whose disappointment drove him to "Charmed".
For me, it was the opposite. I became a fan of "Charmed"
during the show's first season. But the lackluster performance
of Season 2 nearly drove me away. I would have broke away from
"Charmed" for good, if Julian McMahon had not joined
the cast. His character gave the show a more complex nuance that
added to the show. And I remained a loyal viewer, until his departure
in one of the worst story arcs I have ever seen in Season 5.
Because of my final disappointment of "Charmed", I had
decided to finally give "Buffy" a chance during mid-Season
7. Not only am I now a fan of "BtVS", I'm a big admirer.
And it only took 6 months.
[> [> [> [> Just
read the article -- KdS, 03:58:19 07/09/03 Wed
And I thought for most of the article that we were simply dealing
with the gulf between a theist of some kind and an existentialist
until I got to this ending:
In "Centennial Charmed," the three Charmed Ones reunite
in the alternate universe and triumph over evil.
In "The Wish," alternate-Buffy and her alternate-friends
kill each other in a meaningless fight. I say "meaningless"
because Giles is the one who saves the day, and he's off somewhere
else doing something completely unrelated.
That difference says it all.
Sorry, Mr. Black, you're a cretin. You spend a whole article complaining
about the lack of supernatural moral guidance and high level of
moral greyness in BtVS, and then you take one of the few statements
of absolute faith in BtVS, misrepresent it and spit bile over
[> [> [> [> [>
Ack! I need to wash my brain, I feel all icky after reading
that article. -- ponygirl, 07:23:45 07/09/03 Wed
[> [> [> [> [>
Re: Just read the article - "Centennial Charmed"
-- Rina, 14:51:40 07/09/03 Wed
Robert Black actually liked "Centennial Charmed"? God!
Talk about bad taste!
[> [> [> [> The
Importance of Being Buffalonious -- fresne, 15:42:24 07/09/03
Since, I post on a BtVS/AtS Philosophy Board and not a Charmed
One, I'm not sure I agree. It's kind of baked into the title of
Actually, it's pretty funny since most of the points are the things
that I errr .. laugh at on Charmed. A show which, as I've mentioned
before, I do watch. Enjoy. It's a funny, light little Èclair.
Well, maybe a pie of some sort. But, is it the rich Buffy steak
with bÈarnaise sauce? Containing 50% more butter, cholesterol
and brain fry. Well, again I post here, so it's all kind of one
Given the Cole yo yo of death I'm not sure that death means something
on Charmed. Actually, apply some yo yo of relationship too. Poor
guy had a good death and they yanked it from him. Sigh. And then
there was this season's finale. Which was evil and I liked it.
Another relationship bursts into flames, so to speak. But you
I love the fact that the Book of Shadows, a book with one spell
a page and pages only use one side of the page, contains all that
info. I love that characters have these cool high flying jobs.
Well, except Page, who quit her job and yet wears Jimmy C shoes.
I love to see SF houses with yards. Christmas lights on the Financial
District year round. Look leprechauns and nymphs and mermaids,
A person could make the same ripping points about BtVS. Look someone
did. From my perspective it's a bit like saying the Importance
of Being Earnest* is a far superior work to the Divine Comedy.
Gosh, I like them both. It'll be real tough for me to decide what
I like better. What someone with different tastes likes best.
*This is not to say that I equate Charmed with IoBE. Hmm .. must
go out and buy latest version.
[> [> [> [> Funny
thing is... -- Alison, 18:47:00 07/09/03 Wed
most of the things the author considers negative about the Buffy
are the things that make me prefer it to Charmed.
[> [> Quote from Miami
Herald interview with Stephen King -- Rufus, 16:12:04 07/08/03
If you're writing about a hotel full of ghosts or a town full
of vampires, people tend to forget about thinking of these
things as a metaphor for other, real things, and just say
'That's a piece of trash.' Stephen King
I've watched the constant criticism of ME over the past year or
so related to the death of Tara. A favored character of some fans
died and they have been furious about it since. On the surface
the criticism of the Wicca elements could be seen as just that,
but when you look closer the real thing is the death of Tara and
the fans unhappiness over that fact. Buffy the Vampire Slayer
is not about the accuracy in the portrayal of Wicca or other religions,
it is about the use of metaphor to illustrate real life situations.
I personally don't care if they don't get the Wicca or witch stuff
"just right" I care about the continuing story of characters
I've grown to love. I loved the character of Tara but I'm fine
with her being killed off. If she had returned she would have
been back as a form the First uses to attempt to shake Willow's
confidence in herself. I wouldn't have been offended in that use
of the form of Tara as it became clear that Willow knew in her
heart that Tara would never have told her to destroy herself.
Dawn was tormented by the vision of her mother and I wasn't offened
In the first episode of season seven we get Buffy telling Dawn
that it's who has the power that counts. She also reminds Dawn
that she is only just a girl. The constant back and forth over
who has power in season seven ended by proving that power can
increase exponentially with the amount of love involved in letting
go enough to share what could be hoarded for one. Buffy the Vampire
Slayer has always been about the metaphor and less about accuracy
in the portrayal of magic. I wonder what Shakespeare would have
been able to write if he went with the restrictions that Mr. Black
suggests. If people want to see shows with Shiny Happy People
there are a plethora of those on the air, they don't have to watch
Buffy. If characters dying is offensive to some they could just
as easily tune into a sit-com or something else that would have
the guarantee of a happy ending.
[> [> [> Re: Quote
from Miami Herald interview with Stephen King -- Rob, 08:34:29
If she had returned she would have been back as a form the
First uses to attempt to shake Willow's confidence in herself.
I wouldn't have been offended in that use of the form of Tara
as it became clear that Willow knew in her heart that Tara would
never have told her to destroy herself.
And, of course, from the IGN interview, Tara eventually would
have returned as herself, if Joss could have gotten Amber back.
[> Well... -- Eric,
19:53:04 07/09/03 Wed
Charmed was pretty much eye candy, that's true. But to say its
more or less representative of true magic and witchcraft is off.
What is "true" witchcraft and how can this Raymond Buckhard
guy tell? The common Wiccan/Pagan interpretation of magic is based
on widely differing sources spread across different historic periods,
much of it sketchy and added to sociological studies of cultures
with existing magic traditions. It kind of boils down to if whether
either show matches the pop Wiccan/Pagan paradigm extrapolated
from those sources in the modern era.
The episode where Willow goes to the college Wiccan group kind
of illustrates this. The group was wrapped around fund raising
and off kilter feminist spirituality because it was never rooted
in a real tradition. It was clueless about magic. Willow and Tara
had some exposure to the tradition and knew that whatever spiritual
aspects witchcraft had, magic was integral to it. Given the choice
of whether to have an intellectual discussion of girlpower or
exercising it they made a natural choice. Now I wont say that
in real life there isn't an honest spirituality about Wicca (I
have some friends who'd strongly disagree). And I believe that
its possible somebody, somewhere carries on a real bona fide magical
tradition via family or otherwise from the witches and pagans
of the past. But (Charmed likely hit this nail on the head) they
keep it off the New Age bookstore shelves and the incisive analysis
Buffy's writers morphed magical rules for poetic license - it
was never meant to be a primer on magic. A more accurate accusation
is that magic in the Buffyverse lacked its own internal logic.
Often in Charmed the series lacked its own internal logic. I will
add, however, my ultimate bias concerning Charmed: It was an OK
show (all the girls are hotties), but it never remotely approached
First time I've been able to post in a while. Currently vacationing
with the British in a hot (not Hell, but not Manchester either)
dusty place. Sadly, circumstances forced me to miss the entire
BTVS season and net access. Thank God for the DVDs. As the Brits
lunasea's W&H2 post -- KdS, 11:15:51 07/08/03 Tue
Really fantastic, lunasea, and a pity it got archived so fast.
I especially loved the point by point counterposing of Holland
and Angel's positions in Reprise/Epiphany, and the symbolism
of the third eye in those eps.
Just one quick question - I suspect that the whole "evil
hand" business in Dead End, including Lindsey finding
out the source of his new limb, was set up as a final test by
W&H to find out if Lindsey was sufficiently willing to step on
others to work for them. Agree/disagree?
[> I'm about 1/3 of the
way through. Will try to respond if I have any insights. ;o)
-- Rob, 11:18:02 07/08/03 Tue
[> Agreed. I wrote a response...and
it got archived whilst I was writing... -- Random, 11:34:45
Luckily, I saved most of it. So here's what survived, heh.
The true complexity of W & H in season 2 hinges upon the fact
that we are dealing with the ultimate unreliable narrator. Do
we trust that W & H are telling the truth about their motives,
or even their basic philosophy? In the short term, accepting that
they are the manipulators, not warriors, seems a safe strategy.
In the long term...well, as the saying goes, you don't drown by
falling in the water -- you drown by staying there.
Evil is not secure. This is a basic tenet of both the Buffyverse
and the Angelverse. Were it secure, it wouldn't bother with the
grandiose plans of world-domination and the occasion apocalypes
(apocali). The focus on evil as the corruptor is, perhaps, exactly
what W & H wishes. Think of them as a mislead, an optical illusion.
Why pick a law firm as your manifestation? Perhaps because it
most closely mirrors your basic strategy...but perhaps because
they merely represent an aspect of that strategy that dictates
that the true motives and methodologies of the forces behind W
& H must not be laid bare. The law firm as the ultimate PR agent,
so to speak.
So we look at the predestination aspect. Holland's zombie elevator
reveals nothing except that which they wish to reveal. Evil will
always exist. The issue is whether evil is content with the status
quo. And an interesting question is whether Evil in any form is
monolithic. Is there a grand plan? Or is Evil partaking of the
philosophy that any act of mayhem/evil/destruction furthers the
cause, regardless of the damage inflicted on other elements of
the "Grand Plan." Evil as competition, or as chaos --
where Holland may be telling the truth as far as he knows...he,
perhaps, knows very little.
Prophecies are indeed predictive. They are prescriptive rather
than proscriptive, of course. Rather than being agents of change,
they are descriptions of the teleological end. The agents of change
are, in fact, not only those directly affected by the prophecies,
but any interested parties with sufficient influence to effectively
involve themselves. The framwork never changes, but the constituent
elements within do. If W & H seek to mold the prophecies to their
own liking, they do so with the understanding that such influence
is predicated upon the fact that they are completely free to act.
They are not playing the games slavishly, they are picking their
games, and are often rewriting the rules. And Angel's epiphany
is not a ticket to freedom. So long as W. & H. adjust to play
whatever game is currently being pursued, Angel has no choice.
Influencing Angel is not a desperate attempt to avoid the obvious
conclusion to the prophecy...it's an attempt to realize the possible
best interpretation by their lights. Taking out the object is
not an attempt to negate the prophecy, but another way of molding
it. Kill the vampire with a soul? Well, maybe there's another
one out there (and, as it turned out, another one did pop up.)
[> [> Will respond to
everyone later. -- lunasea, 13:41:08 07/08/03 Tue
I am glad that people got a chance to read what I wrote. I just
hit a stride with fictional writing and I don't want to go back
to analytical just yet. I will respond, I promise.
of De-Connoring? -- Q, 13:54:43 07/08/03 Tue
A thought has just occured to me that I have not seen discussed.
Forgive me if it has and I missed it, hope I don't bore you, but
I just started wondering about it.
It seems that the events in "Home" suggest that to everybody
but Angel, Connor never existed. He has been wiped from everybody's
memory just like Buffy and Angels day in I Will Remember You.
The thing about that, though, was that it was only one day, and
they hadn't effected many lives, so it didn't effect the show
But think how much Connor HAS effected the show!
If Wesley would not have kidnapped Connor... he would not have
ever been estranged from the group. If he had not been estranged
from the group, he would not have developed this darker new personality.
If he had not been estranged from the group and developed this
darker new personality, he would NOT have become sexually involved
with Lilah. How will Wesley be treated now? Will he be back to
his more lighter personality? Will he have no emotianal or intimate
connection to Lilah? Because if they keep these aspects of Wesley's
character, how will they explain HOW they happenned if Connor
What about Cordelia? She still seems to be in a coma after giving
birth to a giant goddess... but how did she become pregnant? How
will the gang explain this pregnancy, if Connor never existed
It is like all of the time travel movies where the time traveler
is warned not to mess with ANYTHING because it could SERIOUSLY
effect the future. The powers at W&H went back in time and messed
with something that WILL seriously effect the future. Now that
Connor for all intents and purposes NEVER existed, and instead
grew up in a happy, but corny, family... How will ALL of the things
that happened BECAUSE of Connor be treated?
[> Re: The effects of De-Connoring?
14:04:11 07/08/03 Tue
First It is not true that only Angel knows about Connor, Lilah
seemed to know so that means some other members of Wolfram and
Hart know. I would guess that the mainipulating done by Wolfram
and Hart alos put in phony memories so that the events of the
last two seasons happened but they know it differently. We may
not know what those memories are but they will be enough to keep
the current plot going is my guess. My worry is that Wolfram and
Hart have the power to change the world like that.
[> I think Connor's effect
will remain, but no one will realise he was the cause -- Finn
Mac Cool, 20:17:55 07/08/03 Tue
For example, we could get a scene where someone asks Wesley how
he came to be estranged from the group, leading to his relationship
with Lilah, and he realises he doesn't know why. Or someone will
ask who the father of Jasmine was, and they'll realize they don't
remember. This could be the key to everyone else figuring out
what Angel did.
[> [> Re: I think Connor's
effect will remain... -- JCC,
10:02:33 07/09/03 Wed
I think W&H will have the power to change people's memories. Like
the monks did with Dawn. The events of the last 2 seasons will
remain the same, but Connor's effect will be remembered as something
else happening. Perhaps Cordy's pregnancy will be remembered as
an immaculate conception type thing. What worries me is how they
will remember Darla's death. Will she still be remembered dying
in the way she did, or will her semi-redemption be forgotten?
[> De-Connoring us instead.
-- WickedBuffy, 20:31:12 07/08/03 Tue
"How will ALL of the things that happened BECAUSE of Connor
Maybe there won't be any scramble to be sure things move smoothly
from last seasons finale and this seasons opening show.
There have been lots of posts about how that might be pulled off
- but maybe Joss isn't going to have the same reality we saw before.
Maybe Connor's nonexistance will be treated accordingly and everything
will be as if he had never existed.
Cordelia won't be in a coma, Wes never went dark, it'll be a huge
adjustment for us, the viewers. Trying to catch up and refigure
out what's going on with each character.
The only thing staying the same is the memory erase - since that's
the pivotal point of it all.
We'll have to get used to a world where no Connor existed and
adjust to it! :> What a challenge!
[> Metaphysics is fun
-- lunasea, 08:16:54 07/09/03 Wed
How many people know why they are the way they are? It tends to
be something that most people take for granted. What if part of
the spell that takes Connor out of the time line for everyone
but Angel also prevents people from looking back and questioning
things that would have to do with this? Think of it like the spell
in "Older and Farther Away," when no one even wanted
to leave the house.
People will still be the same way, since that is the whole point
of the show (to get them from nerd to hero), but they just won't
examine why. We will know why, but the characters are so embroiled
in their present lives that they don't.
The non-memories of Connor aren't quite the fake memories of Dawn.
Dawn is literally inserted into the timeline. Buffy's personality
changes from only child to older child. Joyce gets her normal
child that she wanted so badly. Removing the memories of Connor
probably won't change the timeline. Everything still happened,
just some points are now missing, but the characters don't care
It's sort of like worldwide conflicts that most people have forgotten
the origins of. They are just concerned about the most recent
perceived wrong, not what led to that and what led to that and
so on and so on. They aren't interested in unraveling the thread
and getting to the source. They are too wrapped up in their current
feelings. It could be a nice metaphor for current world affairs.
To give it some metaphysics, X happens and we create a memory
about it. This memory is what affects who we become. Sometimes,
though, we create two memories for an event. This happens when
we suppress things. We have the memory of what actually happened
stored somewhere in our brain. We can also create a more benign
memory to replace that memory so we don't even realize that we
are suppressing something. Both memories affect who we are, even
if we don't realize we have the suppressed memory. That is what
I see happening on Angel next season. I see it being a non-issue
that the writers aren't going to address. There's my wank to address
it. Connor's existence hasn't been wiped out. It has been suppressed.
[> [> What If They Found
Out -- Rina, 14:29:37 07/09/03 Wed
What if the Fang Gang found out what Angel did to Connor and their
memories of Connor?
And didn't he do something similar before? Back in Season 1, when
he erased Buffy's memories of him being human and their day together?
What if Buffy ever found out?
[> [> [> Honestly
-- lunasea, 16:45:23 07/09/03 Wed
Either they probably wouldn't care or they would react like Doyle
and Cordy did to IWRY and think that Angel is even more of a hero.
They might be more worried about Wolfram and Hart pulling something
this big to get Angel into the firm.
Angel didn't erase Buffy's memory. He had time folded. He carried
his memories with him when that happened. No one's were erased.
It isn't like only Angel has the "real" story. Everyone
else's is real. Angel's is the one whose isn't in this time line.
What if Buffy some how found out? Depends on what the writers
want to say. Is she just finding out or is she getting that memory
planted? I can see her going any number of ways. Willow has pulled
how many spells on Buffy? I don't think she will feel violated
or anything like that. Maybe Angel can make her chocolate chip
cookies to get back in her good graces.
[> Ben and Glory have soem
sort of... connection? -- Ace_of_Sevens, 21:43:58 07/09/03
Maybe it will be like the Ben and Glory spell where they can't
think about it.
More July 2003 | Current