July 2003 posts
a quick question, please answer me -- Andrea,
20:39:26 07/26/03 Sat
i was just wandering why is it the in almost every Fanfiction
i,ve been reading lately they say that Buffy's name is Elizabeth
Anne Summers, i mean i know Anne is her middle Name and all, but
did they actually said at soe point in the show something about
Elizabeth?? at least before Storyteller 'cause im up to that point
on the show.
btw on Angel i just gotta say i loe the last scene with the kiss
and the burning cross and the music, it was a great ep.
[> Stinking. Irritating.
Fanon. -- HonorH (OBAFU Headmistress), 22:28:21 07/26/03
No, Andrea, that's not canon; it's fanon, and stupid fanon at
that. Buffy's name has always been Buffy on the show. No one has
ever called her "Elizabeth." If it were her first name,
one would think it would be on her gravestone, or even on her
wedding invitations ("Something Blue"). As it was neither
of those places, I must conclude that her mother simply named
her "Buffy," and that's that.
Not irritated with you, btw; it's just that I've seen that so
much, and there's not a shred of canon to back it up. It purely
[> [> Well, actually...
-- Sheri, 14:17:04 07/27/03 Sun
Buffy is a fairly common nickname for Elizabeth... did a name
search on Buffy on babynet.com's baby name finder and got:
A name that orginated as a pet fom of Elisabeth, probably from
a child's attempt to pronounce Beth.
Does that mean that Buffy's given name is actually Elizabeth?
I have no clue, but I can see why so many fanfic writers believe
it to be the case.
I'm not sure if the wedding invitation or even the tombstone are
sufficient evidence... it's a growing trend these days to use
nicknames instead of full names, I've been to two weddings this
year where nicknames (Becky instead of Rebecca and Jenny instead
of Jennifer) have been used. As for tombstones... I'm presuming
that the tombstone was either purchased or (more likely) magicked
up by Willow... I doubt the Scoobs took the time to check Buffy's
birth certificate for her real name, but rather just went ahead
with the name that they knew her by.
[> [> [> Re: Well,
actually... -- Kenny,
16:18:05 07/27/03 Sun
As for tombstones... I'm presuming that the tombstone was either
purchased or (more likely) magicked up by Willow... I doubt the
Scoobs took the time to check Buffy's birth certificate for her
real name, but rather just went ahead with the name that they
knew her by.
Don't you kind of think that Dawn would know her older sister's
name was Elizabeth? Canonically, it seems more likely that her
name is Buffy, not Elizabeth.
[> [> [> [> Agree
with this. -- HonorH, 17:46:15 07/27/03 Sun
In any case, we've no evidence at all that her name was anything
but Buffy. I think the real deal is that some fen can't deal with
the idea of her name actually being Buffy, so they change it to
the more dignified Elizabeth. That seems to me counter to Joss
Whedon's intent, though--little girl with silly name saves the
[> [> [> [> Clarification
-- Sheri, 21:54:45 07/27/03 Sun
Actually, what I meant by the tombstone comment is that I more
picture the Scoobs (Dawn included) saying "But she's always
been Buffy to us" "She want it to have the name
she goes by every day." I personally put more stock in the
names we use day to day and not what appears on our birth certificates;
so if "Buffy" is a nickname, I don't really see how
that deminishes the whole, as HonorH puts it, "little girl
with silly name saves the world." For all intents and purposes,
that's her name regardless of whether it's nick- or given. As
far as bringing it up in fanfiction... it seems just a little
pretentious to me and more of a lame way of filling up space in
a story than anything else.
[> [> [> [> [>
the scene w/the guardian would've gone differently -- anom,
22:43:43 07/27/03 Sun
The Guardian asks her name, & Buffy replies, "Buffy."
The Guardian says, "No, really." Buffy shrugs, & the
Guardian goes on w/her explanation.
Buffy doesn't say, "Well, it's really Elizabeth, but no one
calls me that." If nowhere else, this is where any "official"
name on her birth certificate would have been used.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> Haven't we seen Buffy's school record on occasion?
-- Finn Mac Cool, 10:52:40 07/28/03 Mon
As far as I know, they don't put people's nicknames in those.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> Re: Haven't we seen Buffy's school record on occasion?
-- Kenny, 14:02:54
I'd say that's patchy. I think all the school records were shown
before S3, at the beginning of which she received a middle name.
Most school records would have a complete name, so if one wasn't
present, we could just as easily assume that the program had a
"common name" field, and that's what displayed on the
screen. I thought about this one yesterday, but it didn't seem
to hold much weight at the time, so I didn't mention it.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> [> [> College, the initiative computer and principal
Flutie -- Rook, 21:44:12 07/28/03 Mon
All of Buffy's college records that we see use Buffy (like when
Spike and Tara are searching the dorm records.)
Also, the initiative computer calls her Buffy. I'd imagine a major
government operation would be limited to using a person's real
name rather than a nickname - and it definitely wasn't limiting
itself to code names, because it used Riley's full name rather
than "Lilac One".
The most telling use of official records though, is in the scene
in WttH in Flutie's office.
Flutie is seated across from Buffy, and he's basically summarizing
what he's just read in her records, and uses the name Buffy. He
doesn't call her "Elizabeth" followed by her instructing
him to use "Buffy", he just does it after looking at
the record. And we know that this is the first time they've exchanged
names, because of the "All the kids here are free to call
me Bob." line. There was never any opportunity for Buffy
to inform him of a nickname, and so the only place he could have
gotten Buffy from was the cumulative record, whihc would have
used her "real" name almost exclusively.
[> Wedding invitations in
Something Blue -- fidhle, 08:01:40 07/28/03 Mon
In the episode Something Blue, Buffy and Spike, who are under
a spell by Willow to cause them to get married, discuss their
Buffy: Honey, we need to talk about the invitations. Now do you
wannt be William the Bloody, or just Spike? 'Cause, either way,
it's gonna look majorly weird.
Spike: Whereas the name Buffy gives it that touch of classic elegance.
Buffy: What's wrong with Buffy?
Giles: Huh...such a good question.
Spike: (Ignoring Giles) Well, it's a terrible name.
Buffy: My mother gave me that name.
Spike: Your mother, yeah, she's a genius.
Buffy: Don't you start on my mother.
From that sequence, it would seem that Buffy is the given name,
[> [> Script quote above
is from Buffyworld.com transcript. -- fidhle, 08:59:54
[> [> Ok, I give in...
Joyce was just nuts :) -- Sheri, 13:21:09 07/28/03 Mon
and JW (adult content) -- sdev(il), 23:49:16 07/26/03 Sat
I was very puzzled by the term Moral Compass and its use especially
by some posters who often quoted JW with great effect to justify
their interpretations of the characters of Spike and Angel. Moral
compass, what could that mean? I remember asking but receiving
no reply to this great mystery. Was it electronic or one of those
old fashioned magnetic ones from old camping trips and wilderness
studies. Was it still four directional or did it now just point
up and down. Sometimes the way the term was being used I had the
impression it could be used inside out, to turn a person's very
being into something else. A compass that could remake the landscape
turning wasteland into a tropical forest of musacea kind of thingee.
Made the Scythe look downright ordinary!
I finally found an old JW interview in which he described in great
detail the Moral Compass. The interview follows. The questions
are being asked by Artemis (Ars).
Ars: I wonder if you could describe how you see the character
JW: Well, I see his good and evil issues like a big old moral
compass (editiorial note: this is the first known use of the term
as applied to BtVS and AI).
Ars: What the heck is that? And which direction is good?
JW: I think of it as a banana...
Ars: Did I hear you correctly, did you say a banana?
JW: Yes, hear me out on this one. I'm sure you'll get it when
JW: It's a banana- a big, long, hard, I mean strong banana. And
the outside is evil and the inside is good. With the peel on,
it still has all the attributes of an incredible banana but it
is vile, evil. Have you ever tasted a banana peel? Then you know
what I mean. But if you peel it and eat it it has all the same
strengths for the good. Hmm, delicious. Getting hungry just thinking
of it. Angel has the power to be this strong tasty banana when
you peel him or the big evil virulent, banana no one would want
to eat when he has his coat, I mean peel, on.
Ars: I think I am getting this. But what does this say about Spike?
I have my suspicions.
JW: I'm sure you do. Spike is kind of a wimpy, tasteless, mushy
banana. His moral compass is flaccid, I mean, placid. His inside
isn't much different than his outside. Because of that I don't
suggest peeling him. He just doesn't have the layers thing going.
What you see is what you get. Therefore he cannot be trusted.
Ars: You mean weak in all ways. I get it. But what about the fact
that he deliberately sought out, and endured great physical trials,
and got his soul back.
JW: Soul, shmole. We are talking moral compass here, you know
the big banana. Don't you get it? Angel has a soul too. His banana,
I mean moral compass is so great they had to curse him to get
the peel off but now no one can eat him.
End of Interview
[> Re: Moral Compass and
JW (adult content) -- d'Horrible, 01:26:33 07/27/03 Sun
Everyone seems to assume that "moral compass" refers
to one of those magnetic north-finder doojigers when instead it
refers to one of those metal circle-drawing thingamajigs, and
indeed as Angel can arc forward and backward on the moral plane,
saving the world here, letting some lawyers die on the backswing,
we can go around and around on this until I just want to take
the pointy end of this "moral compass" and stick it
in my eye.
But that's ok: I've got seventy-three more.
[> [> That's why mommy
always says -- CW, 09:00:32 07/27/03 Sun
Never run with a moral compass in your hand.
Andrew was raised in a poor family that couldn't afford a moral
compass. Which is why he is so compliant, and why he sat (admittedly
tied up) in that chair so long this year, while everyone else
was running around in circles.
[> Re: Moral Compass and
JW (adult content) -- aliera, 06:42:33 07/27/03 Sun
Good lord, I never guessed....
[> Re: Moral Compass and
JW (adult content) -- devilish, 08:54:25 07/27/03 Sun
I'll never look at a banana quite the same now. Is it Angel? Is
it Spike? Well, that's one more food item on the list of foods
that my minions won't be serving me anytime soon. Which is fine
cause dining on sacrificial virgins? Not so good for the figure.
[> Spike and Donne (still
adult content--just barely) -- mamcu, 17:08:34 07/27/03
Stiff twin bananas? That explains the poster!
[> EEEvil banana split
-- MsGiles, 06:19:54 07/28/03 Mon
Does if the moral field vary slightly from year to year, like
magnetic north does? This could explain all sorts of apparently
inconsistent behaviour in people that own one, like Buffy, Xander
and Willow. I believe that the magnetic field of the earth flips
completely over every now and then, so eventually I expect we
will be waking up to find that Wrong is the new Right. All the
people previously categorised as Good will then be Bad, so perhaps
there'll be a kind of moral amnesty while everyone readjusts history.
Or maybe that has already happened.
It's possible to buy a moral compass at the Army and Navy stores.
Unfortunately it just points to the fellow in charge, but it's
OK for displacing blame in a crisis. Then there's the mortal compass,
a depressing sort of gothic thing that points to the skull behind
the flesh (or the churchyard behind the pub). More useful is the
morel compass sold in health food shops for finding edible fungi.
I assumed Spike had an immoral compass originally, and had to
get it converted. Immoral compasses point to Wily Bad, Lurky Bad,
Big Obvious Bad or Bad Without Shirt.
I'm glad Joss cleared that up about bananas, I'd always wondered
where they came in (ahem).
[> [> isn't that what
happened to caleb? i mean, right before the rest of him had to
-- anom, 10:56:49 07/28/03 Mon
I think you're right about the shifting of the moral field, MsGiles!
That would explain a lot. And thanks for that entertaining list
of compass types! I think there are a few others:
The morale compass, which lets you know what tack to take in a
motivational talk (Xander in The Freshman & Spike in Touched used
The more-tell compass, much beloved by gossips for pointing toward
the person who knows the juiciest rumors
The more-or-less compass, for when you don't need to know exactly
the right direction....
The Moreau compass, which always points to an island where horrific
experiments are performed to turn animals into humans (inscribed
with the words "Are We Not Men?"--the compass, not the
poor brutes subjected to these experiments)
The mural compass, which can help you find art, but only really
large art on walls
The Merle compass, a demonic yet ineffectual instrument that you
can intimidate into pointing in whatever direction you want
[> What the Hell? --
Rina, 11:03:00 07/28/03 Mon
What the hell is JW saying?
[> [> It's a parody
-- Miss Edith, 18:39:16 07/28/03 Mon
I think. At least I'm fairly certain Joss never actually compared
either guy to a banana :)
[> [> spoof -- sdev(il),
19:48:32 07/28/03 Mon
and not such a good one judging from your reaction.
to See the Wizard -- Diana, 09:25:13 07/27/03 Sun
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow the yellow brick road
Follow, follow, follow, follow
Follow the yellow brick road.
Follow the rainbow over the stream
Follow the fellow who follows a dream
Follow, follow, follow, follow
Follow the yellow brick road.
We're off to see the Wizard
The wonderful Wizard of Oz!
We hear he is a whiz of a Wiz
If ever a Wiz there was
If ever, oh, ever a Wiz there was
The Wizard of Oz is one because,
Because, because, because, because, because,
Because of the wonderful things he does!
The question is: What if never a Wiz there was? Modern mythology,
such as Buffy and Angel, try to address this question. There is
no yellow brick road to follow and there are no wonderful things
he does. The Wizard is just a man behind the curtain. L. Frank
Baum's masterpiece wouldn't still be shown every Thanksgiving
(an aside, if you haven't heard/seen the version where Jewel plays
Dorothy that was done as a benefit for the Children's Defense
Fund, I highly recommend it. I'm listening to it as I type this
up), if it was just the quest of some girl to get back home. What
makes it resonate is the Scarecrow, the Tin Man and the Cowardly
Lion and how they all work together with Dorothy (and your little
dog, too) to find that what they all wanted and actually become
more interested in helping each other than in their own desires.
They each want what we all want: to belong, a be smart, to feel
and to not be afraid. Even the Wizard has his own desires, which
are mirrored as evil in the Wicked Witch. Even though only two
of them are human, they are all really us. Same thing with the
cast of characters on Buffy and Angel. As Tim Minear said about
Angel in a 2002 interview, "He's physically inhuman, but
he's got a soul. He's already a guy. You do sort of take your
own experience and graft it on. What does it represent that he
has a past, or feels shame, or feels like he needs to atone for
something? These are things that aren't exactly alien to us."
AtS has even gone as far as to have a mini-arc that pays homage
to "The Wizard of Oz." The simple metaphors of the various
horror monsters can be adequately dealt with in a single episode.
The complexity of the Wizard of Oz takes a bit more. As usual
they put their own spin on it, by bringing Lorne back home to
face things. It is this complexity that the series is built on.
Heart-mind-spirit. Countless essays have been written about how
this applies to Xander-Giles-Willow. "Restless" even
went as far as to make it canon. As the series continued, other
aspects of Buffy were represented with Spike, Anya and Dawn. For
"Older and Farther Away," they even brought in a few
more characters to give a complete picture of Buffy.
The series starts with a pretty innocent 16 year old and is about
her maturation. With that maturation came an understanding of
her power and what it was for. Since Buffy started out this way,
so did the supporting characters for the most part. Buffy's home
life isn't ideal and neither are any of the other characters.
This helps gray them up, but this is nothing compared to the characters
over on Angel.
When AtS opens, Angel isn't remotely innocent. They show was still
finding its way, so supporting cast was Doyle and Cordy. Doyle
was Angel's link to the PTBs and Cordy was his link to his humanity.
If anything the chemistry between Glen Quinn and David Boreanaz
made Doyle more of a link to Angel's humanity than Cordy. ME decides
to revamp the show and Doyle makes a mythic exit. In enters Wesley
and soon after Charles Gunn.
The supporting cast becomes Cordy-Wesley-Gunn. Cordy changes rather
quickly when she is on Angel. She has to to fit the show and Angel.
Angel is not some innocent 16 year old growing up. Not only is
he a tad older than 16, but he isn't close to innocent. His horrid
past has left deep scars. When Cordy was on Buffy, her chemistry
with Xander was so good that the writers just had to put the two
together. It is fitting that when she goes over to AtS, she plays
the same role, but since Angel is different than Buffy, there
is an important difference. Often Xander will play perspective
guy and say things that Buffy doesn't want to hear. In some cases,
he will voice things that Buffy cannot. Cordy also plays perspective
girl, but more often she says things Angel wants to believe. She
voices things that Angel cannot bring himself to.
Season 1 Angel is just trying to reestablish contact with humanity.
Cordy is the dating fool this season. She is the one that passes
out business cards and tries to make contacts. Just as Angel is
trying to find his way in the world of humans, Cordy is trying
to find her way outside the world she once knew. Cordy voices
concern about things, mainly Angel, when Angel cannot. It is Cordy
that realizes that Buffy would be upset about what Angel did in
"Pangs." If you want to see what Angel's heart feels
about something, things he cannot bring himself to voice, watch
what Cordy says. She is used the same way that Xander is.
Doyle is killed (as Tim says "I killed Doyle, and I'd do
it again." If a character dies, chances are s/he was killed
by the Tim Reaper) and is split into Wesley and Gunn. Wesley gets
Doyle's demon lore and Gunn gets his sense of mission. The comparisons
between Wesley and Giles are pretty obvious. The differences are
what is important. We get a bit of Giles' backstory in "The
Dark Age," but the baggage that Giles has is nothing compared
with the inferiority complex that Wesley suffers. This need to
prove himself drives him every bit as much as it drives Angel.
There is another interesting difference between Angel-Wesley and
Buffy-Giles. Buffy will assert herself when necessary, but the
relationship of Buffy-Giles is Slayer-Watcher. Even as late as
season 5 she wants him in this capacity. Angel is the boss who
hired Wesley. Angel nurtures Wesley's confidence. It is fun to
watch Cordy and Wesley bicker. Season 1, these two are equals,
with each thinking they are better, but Angel is still the one
in control. He tries to get them to get along.
Gunn's dysfunction is started right off the bat. He has a bit
of Spike in him. He loves the fight and anything dangerous. His
personal feelings get in the way of the mission. If he had accepted
Angel's help at first, would Alana have been vamped? Gunn is officially
all about the mission, but Angel knows better. He gets Gunn to
help in "Blind Date" by telling him it will be extremely
His evolution has been extremely interesting and mirrors Angel's
own commitment to good. At first it was just about protecting
his neighborhood, as Angel just wanted to not be that monster
any more. Then after he lost Alana, he wanted to make up for that,
just like Angel wanted to make Amends. Then Angel realizes that
the smallest act of kindness is the most important thing in the
world and Gunn realizes that his crew isn't what is important,
the people who believe in the mission are. Gunn is starting to
realize that there is more to him than just muscle. Angel has
just be handed Wolfram and Hart. I have a feeling that Angel is
about to learn that there are more ways to help the helpless than
Season 2 sees a massive shakeup in the relations of the characters.
Angel goes over to the dark side and fires Cordy-Wesley-Gunn.
He loses his heart, rationality and even his sense of mission.
Instead it becomes about revenge. The three of them try to continue
without Angel, but no part of us exits without the totality of
us. When Angel comes back, he puts Wesley in charge. After that
bout of extreme irrationality, which culminates in him wanting
to lose his soul, he puts his mind back in control. Not a bad
idea. Heart is the hardest to win back over. In his absence, mind
and spirit have been bonding and this bonding makes Angel stronger.
This season also sees the addition of 2 new characters. Just as
Doyle was split into two, now it is Cordy's turn. First new character
is The Host. It is Angel's heart that enables him to read others
and himself. That is why the heart plays perspective guy/gal on
both shows. Angel reveals his deepest feelings by talking with
Lorne. Lorne tells him things that he already knows, they are
just painful to admit.
The other character introduced is one of my favorites, Winifred
Burkle. Cordy was a good representation of heart when Angel wanted
to just reconnect with humanity. Angel's heart has been severely
damaged and it takes an equally damaged character to really show
what he it is going through. Being trapped on Pylea for years
was a good parallel to Angel being Angelus and what that did to
his heart. Fred comes back and hides in her room. Angel's heart
really doesn't want to come out.
Season 3, Cordy, being relieved of having to represent Angel's
heart, now becomes his Spike or shadow-self. The parallels between
Cordy-Darla-Lilah are every bit as strong as the Season 2 parallels
between Angel-Lindsey-Kate. Angel's shadow is a lot more complicated
than Buffy's because of his dual nature. He has an alter-ego in
the form of Angelus. That isn't his shadow, so much as just Id-boy.
Cordy has to mirror all his baggage that he gets because of that.
She does this incredibly well s4 as Jasmine.
Wesley's relationship with the group shows how rational Angel
is being. Season 3, after bad things happen to Connor, Angel tries
to kill him. From this point on, Angel isn't the most rational
thing on the planet. His feelings for his son totally color everything
he does. It is Angel's mind that saves him from the ocean depths.
Angel's rationality comes back after he patches things up with
Wesley, but it is too late.
As Angel accepts himself more, it makes sense for a romantic relationship
with Cordy to develop (even if it doesn't go with S2 of BtVS).
It also makes sense for Cordy to reject him in favor of Groo at
first and then to reject Groo. Groo is non-evil demonic Angel
(Groo is a demon as well). He is a very interesting character.
When Angel still rejects his evil side, Cordy rejects him for
Fred has warmed up more and was the focal point of the turgid
supernatural soap opera. Intellect and mission got along rather
well earlier, but throw heart into the mixture and things get
messed up. As Fred is starting her relationship with Gunn, Angel
is mixing feelings for his son with his commitment to the mission.
Intellect has no place in this. Angel needs to find a way to get
all three together.
What makes Buffy and Angel mythic isn't the redemption or even
the main character. It is the scope of the shows that are illustrated
with the supporting cast. The scarecrow, tin man and cowardly
lion has been replaced by Giles-Willow-Xander and Wesley-Gunn-Fred.
Here's to hoping that Buffy reruns will be shown on Thanksgiving
for years to come.
That is just some quick thoughts that will hopefully jump start
discussion about the cast of Angel. What do you think?
[> Re: We're Off to See
the Wizard -- VampRiley, 18:48:51 07/27/03 Sun
I liked it. Very informative. Something I definetly wouldn't have
thought of. For some reason, I have this feeling of there being
some connection between Connor-Lilah-Jasmine. I don't have a clue
why. You got any ideas?
[> [> Ideas :-) --
Diana, 06:40:35 07/28/03 Mon
When I get into Wolfram and Hart Season 3, I will go more into
Lilah. Season 1 for "The Ring" I refered to her as the
Angelus of Wolfram and Hart. She is actually the Darla. She is
totally into the view. Lindsey's issues matched up better with
Season 3, Wolfram and Hart become bit players who aren't aware
of what is going on around them. They lose sight of the big picture.
With Connor, they are more interested in dissecting him and finding
out what things mean than in the goals they had Season 2.
Jasmine doesn't just interpret the signs. She makes the signs.
She isn't curious about Connor. She uses him. Jasmine isn't concerned
about meaning. She takes away meaning and replaces it with herself.
Jasmine/Cordelia and Lilah contrast most directly season 4 with
their interaction of Angelus. Jasmine tricks Angelus into thinking
he has escaped. After he has escaped, she has the one thing he
wants (or rather doesn't want) and is able to control him. Lilah
offers to let Angelus out. When he does get out, he chases her
(and Angelus can unnerve Lilah. He does it rather well as Angel
Prior to the desouling is another contrast. One of my favorite
early season memories is when Angel tells Lilah that he smells
Wesley all over her. Lilah is following young Connor around and
Angel warns her to stay away from him. Cordy well, yuck, even
typing about it invokes the memories, so we will leave that out.
We all know about what Cordy did with young Oedipus.
Lilah contrasts wonderfully with Angelus. Angelus is a schemer,
but only when the scheme is fun. When it ceases to be, he will
send the world to hell and give up his goal. Lilah is Id girl
all grown up. She is also a schemer, but she is willing to do
things in order to obtain her goal. She will help Angel get Gavin
off his back for her greater good. She is willing to do her own
research. She has no problems following orders from the Senior
Partners, even if that means Angel gets to live.
But Jasmine has been revealed to be planner extraorinaire. No
one in the history of the Buffyverse has executed such an elaborate
plan. Jasmine is also willing to do things in order to obtain
her goal of world peace. As much as Lilah is the Id all grown
up, Jasmine is the Super-ego.
Caught in the middle of this is Connor. Connor is Angel's innocent
self. Even up to his death, there was still a sense of innocence
about him. Connor wants to be loved, but is innocent of what this
is. When it is offered to him, he can't recognize or believe it.
It is too good to be true. It must be a lie.
Connor is what Angel believes he is buried under everything. Rather
what Angel thinks Connor is is what he thinks he is. Angel has
no idea how damaged Connor really is until the end. The only way
to save Connor is to wipe him out of existance. Angel has to do
the same thing with his own ego.
So the three relate as id-ego-super ego. When Angelus was running
around, there was no need for another representation of Id, so
bye-bye Lilah. Under Jasmine's paradise, Id is removed, so still
no Lilah. She comes back to offer Charlie the keys to the Chocolate
Factory. Her lines tend to be all about desire, all the way back
to season 1. The relationship of Lilah to Connor and Cordy/Jasmine
to Connor show Angel's own relationship of these things.
All this stuff about the Super Ego actually matches up with Angel's
shadow. The shadow is more than just the "bad" parts
of us. As Angel's ego focuses on one thing, whether that be Father
or Champion, everything else is pushed to the shadow. (As Angel
is playing Father S2, Cordy is becoming a demon in order to be
a Champion) The best illustration of this is Connor's amazing
monologue in "Peace Out." That speech was dissected
as it applies to Connor. What about Angel?
Angel thinks the world seriously sucks. He tells Bug Priest that
his world needs him. Everything Angel does is based on this. What
if it doesn't? Angel had to turn what Jasmine did into something
evil, because World Peace just isn't possible. Innocent Connor
at least thinks that Jasmine's lies are better. "Peace Out"
is a bit more complicated than Free Will=good. Angel doesn't even
have this desire that Jasmine and young Connor does. That is why
Angel can't be the one to kill her. Only someone that valued what
she offered could (Cordy or Connor).
This desire beats the crap out of Angel. I am getting tangential
here, but if anyone wants me to continue, let me know.
[> Re: We're Off to See
the Wizard -- luvthistle1, 04:16:25 07/28/03 Mon
You made some valid points....I often wonder "who was the
man behind the curtain? or will the "wizard" be reveal
in season 5 of Angel. I also notice that the finale of Angel was
called "home" ..as in no place like...
[> [> The Man Behind
the Curtain -- Diana, 06:55:04 07/28/03 Mon
The man behind the curtain, which we think can give us everything
and ends up having no real power, is Ego. Angel is so concerned
about working on being human. All he has to do is realize that
he already is.
The lesson of The Wizard of Oz is that "there's no place
like home." AtS uses Angel's home as a symbolic representation
of him (I can't wait to see what his penthouse will look like.
I want a HUGE bed in it). In The Wizard of Oz each character finds
out that they already possess what they desire. They are given
some symbolic representation of that, just like ME's standard
MO is solve the psychological problem and then show some metaphor
to represent this.
[> [> [> Re: The Man
Behind the Curtain -- luvthistle1, 00:06:55 07/29/03 Tue
ooh, great . one of the things Angel now have "desire".
He oh, and "ah" at the big screen t.v in home ( although
he wasn't brought off by it.) it was obvious that he desire it.
Wesley said in "shansu in L.A",that what made humans
different from vampires was " desire", our wants, and
[> I hope to respond later,
but for now just have to tell you how GREAT that post was!
-- Rob, 09:55:04 07/28/03 Mon
[> How Weird -- Diana,
13:44:39 07/28/03 Mon
My summer project is a fan fiction that is currently at over 100
pages about Buffy and Angel. I went back and analyzed it from
the perspective that I spoke about in this thread and even without
doing it on purpose, Fred-Gunn-Wesley all fell into the roles
I talk about. Their relationships with and concerns about Buffy
just naturally fell into how those various parts of Angel would
feel and the conflict wonderfully illustrated the conflict going
on in him about her.
I wondered if any have noticed the same thing happening with their
own writing. Perhaps that is why fan fiction that neglects the
supporting cast comes off as weak. It isn't just that an important
character is missing, but what is going on with the main character
cannot be fully addressed without all the supporting cast.
Another thought is that when the supporting member becomes the
focus of the episode, such as "The Replacement", the
main character assumes the role of the supporting player. For
example, in the mentioned episode, Xander becomes the main character
and the focus on Buffy that episode is her heart. Same thing happens
in "The Zeppo." I'm sure others can come up with other
was looking for Lord Byron's vampire story? -- WickedBuffy,
12:41:58 07/27/03 Sun
A month or so ago, someone had posted about "Fragment of
a Novel, a vampire piece purportively by George Gordon aka Lord
I've found it and can fwd it to you (email) if you still want
it. Just let me know somehow. :)
[> Wasn't me, but would
love to have it! -- mamcu,
17:05:21 07/27/03 Sun
I have seen it, but long ago. I'd love to see it.
There was also a movie that involved Byron, but not this book--also
Mary Shelley, I think, and the writing of Vampyr. Has all this
already been discussed? If not, it's going to be good to have
it during the future Melees, so if you know the title, please
remind me. Made in the 80's, I think.
[> [> 'Gothic' Ken Russell
1986 -- sdev, 20:46:49 07/27/03 Sun
[> [> [> Re: 'Gothic'
Ken Russell 1986--See it before the Melees! -- mamcu, 07:44:59
[> [> I remember seeing
that movie & being very confused. -- WickedBuffy (maybe I
saw a later, badly, edited version), 10:11:06 07/28/03 Mon
[> Wasn't me either but
sounds interesting. -- deeva,
17:58:50 07/27/03 Sun
[> WickedPurveyor if you
could send it my way that would be great thank you! -- pr10n, 18:14:52 07/27/03
[> ayup to you all (and
lol pr10n). I'll send it tomorrow. Anyone else want it, let me
know. :> -- WickedBuffy, 19:02:26 07/27/03 Sun
By the Power
of Grey Skull... -- Sheri, 13:55:20 07/27/03 Sun
Ok, please keep in mind that I'm still formulating this theory,
but I just wanted to get it down here before I forget what I was
thinking about and blah blah blah get on with it and quit waisting
all the bandwidth, you say?
Ok, I know a lot of people have questioned the wisdom behind activating
not just the potential Slayers fighting by Buffy and Faith's side,
but also ALL the potential Slayers in the world. Lots of good
arguments as to why this wasn't such a hot idea.
So I got to wondering... were ONLY the girls who had been identified
as potential Slayers the ones in danger of being gutted by the
First's minions? My interpretation of Buffy's intentions for activating
the potentials was not only so that they could win the imediate
battle, but also so that they wouldn't be living in fear of being
killed by eye ball-less henchmen every which way they turn. I
have trouble believing that the First was waiting around for the
WC to identify potentials, and not doing its own leg work to find
out who its future enemies would be.
Ok, so we know that the First cannot be destroyed, right? The
battle between good and evil will go on and on and blah blah blah,
so I think the activation of ALL the potentials was really the
only option in making sure that girls in danger of being murdered
would be able to defend themselves.
[> Autobots! Transform....and
roll out!!! -- Rochefort, 00:48:44 07/28/03 Mon
vs Lindsey -- JBone,
20:03:14 07/27/03 Sun
The key to Wolfram & Heart, don't let them make you play their
game. You gotta make them play yours.
The first round is half over. The Tiebreaker Council for the next
two weeks will be d'Herblay, Masq, and Dub. In close contests,
the Council emails me who they voted for in case there is a tie.
The first round has been predictably without need of it so far,
but you never know. I'd really like to recruit some volunteers
for the coming weeks. But I'd like those who have served in the
first round to be there in the final rounds. So if you're voting
everyday anyway, why not have your vote count more? If you can't
check in to see if it's close, just email me when you vote. My
mailbox can handle it.
I meant to have learned a new software thingy this weekend, but
summer life got in the way in the way it thankfully can. No sunburn
this time. At least of the peeling kind. But I'm going to further
test the patience of the Board overlords by asking you to continue
posting comments here or email them to me.
[> Ah, Lindsey of the blue
eyes and Angelic UST-- -- HonorH, 20:13:06 07/27/03 Sun
Sorry, sweetie, but my vote goes with the Mayor. He just had that
something, y'know? What was it? Oh, yeah: immortality, invulnerability,
and a heck of a civic plan!
[> [> Wilkins III!
-- Rochefort, 22:02:57 07/27/03 Sun
The Mayor was not only one of the best acted roles on BTVS, but
also one of their best metaphors as evil. Mayor Wilkins puts on
his pasta-eating-napkin and eats up Lyndsey like a big black beatle.
[> [> [> Ooh! New
mini-troll! -- HonorH, 22:41:23 07/27/03 Sun
C'mere, little Lyndsey! Who's a sweet little mini-troll? Aww,
lookit those big blue eyes--come with me to OBAFU, Lyndsey. We'll
feed you all the Spam and root beer your little heart desires!
[> Re: Mayor Wilkins vs
Lindsey -- ApOpHiS, 23:16:29 07/27/03 Sun
Now, I like Lindsey, I really do. He's a great character. Nobody
loves the Evil Hand more than me. However, nobody loves the Mayor
more than me, either. He's my leader, my friend, and my biological
father. He's taught me that evil is no excuse for impoliteness,
nor for poor hygiene. He's immortal, indesctructible, turns into
a giant serpent, and is a helluva miniture golf player. Mr. MacDonald
gets disbarred while Richard Wilkins, III, begins his 600th term
[> Matter of principle
-- KdS, 02:31:36 07/28/03 Mon
Yeah, Wilins was cool. But compared to certain other Buffy villains,
he still had that faint "He's evil because he's evil"
thing that stopped him from being a fully-realised character.
Have to vote for Lindsey here.
[> Re: Mayor Wilkins vs
Lindsey -- cjl, 07:04:03 07/28/03 Mon
As much as I admire Harry Groener's performance as Mayor Wilkins,
I'm going to shock everyone here and vote for Lindsey. While Tricky
Dick's Delusions of Demonhood were, by their very nature, a dead
end on BtVS, Lindsey's character still has a lot of room to grow
on ANGEL, and I devoutly hope Joss backs up the Brinks truck to
get Christian Kane and the Evil Hand back in action. (If we're
lucky, they'll let him sing...)
[> Re: Mayor Wilkins vs
Lindsey -- MaeveRigan, 07:30:19 07/28/03 Mon
While the odds for this match sort of depend on whether it takes
place before or after Wilkins ascends to giant-snake-hood, I'm
still putting my bet on Lindsey, who may be ambivalent, but who's
also backed up by the entire resources of W&H--nothing to
sneeze at. And even if a giant, demonic snake sneezed at W&H,
I'm sure they have a plan for that.
[> Re: Mayor Wilkins vs
Lindsey -- Anneth, 10:34:37 07/28/03 Mon
Anyone or -thing that can a) eat Snyder in a single gulp and b)
not suffer so much as mild indigestion afterwards gets my vote.
Sure, Wilkins was a giant snake-demon-thingee at the time, but,
as a wise old man once said, "details, details." If
it hadn't been for them interferin' kids, he'd be a giant snake-demon-thingee
yet. Wilkins victorious.
and Rochefort Gets a Part in Bat Boy!!! Woo Hoo! -- Rochefort,
22:13:08 07/27/03 Sun
So who's gonna marry Kerry now, Rob!? Yep, for all who were following,
my auditions were today. They lasted much of the day, and they
cast the play this evening. I'm Sheriff Reynolds!! I've been high
all day. Had I not gotten a part, I was going to just pound nails
in boards for the play. I would have been thrilled to have landed
a small role or a role in the chorus, but Sheriff Reynolds is
a really good part, and I get a gun and lots of time on stage
and solo singing, and I'm in most of the big fun production numbers.
I come 5th on the billing on a cast of 16. PLUS!! I GET TO BE
IN BAT BOY!!! My favorite play!! Thanks Rob! I can without a single
possible doubt say I wouldn't be going to rehearsals for a play
anytime soon if you hadn't posted that fateful post.
[> Congratulations Rochefort!
-- deeva, 22:40:47 07/27/03 Sun
It seems like just yesterday that you were waxing on about the
beauty of Kerry. But it sure did get creepy when I found out you
had never seen her, just heard her! ;o) Watch out Kerry! Here
comes the sheriff!
[> [> Thanks, Deeva!!
-- Rochefort, 22:59:24 07/27/03 Sun
And thanks for asking for another chapter of Next Season's Angel.
It's coming if you still want it. I have ideas. Including Spike
in a hockey helmet. Just got distracted by practice and grading
end of semester papers and what not. Sorry I came across as creepy.
Creepy people can be ammusing when they're far away from you on
a Buffy board though. :) And would anyone reallllllly creepy get
cast as Sheriff Reynolds, the singing dancing law-man with a good
[> [> [> Of course
I'm still going to demand another chappie!!! -- deeva, 09:26:11
That stuff is just really hilarious! No worries about the length
of time, though, you know sooner is always better than later.
Just saying. And as for the creepy, it was/is highly amusing because
I know that you are far, far away. hee hee
[> [> I, on the other
hand, MET Kerry (for real!) and was the one to tell Roche her
first name. -- Rob (who so kicks Roche's ass in the Kerry
dept.), 13:36:31 07/28/03 Mon
[> Oh my God, that is so
great! A REAL part! Congrats! -- Rob, Roche's Bat-Boy sire,
22:56:48 07/27/03 Sun
Oooh, major solos in "Christian Charity" and in the
finale...and some other small sung parts here and there too...Great
work! And you get to sing, "Call me, I've got stun guns and
a chain," which is probably the coolest part.
P.S. Kerry wants me to tell you to stop calling her. She's not
interested. We're engaged, and very happy...so why don't you do
something productive like stalk Madonna or something? ;o)
[> [> Stop calling your
poodle 'Kerry.' It's creepy. -- Rochefort, 23:07:23 07/27/03
Anyway, I can't believe you'd even go so far as to IMAGINE that
your dog is my future wife. What a betrayal! You were my SIRE
man! My SIRE!
Thanks for appreciating my achievement Rob. I wanted to be in
that play soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo bad. And the director
seems really cool. We're not doing the hat switching multiple
parts thing cause he wanted to have more people in it cause he
said that would be more fun socially. (also makes my part bigger.
relatively. heh). He also said that he doesn't want to play it
safe or cutesy. He said if we don't want to cause a stir in the
town and have everyone talking about it we should get out now.
Our animal sex scene for instance isn't going to have stuffed
animals. It's going to have bumping and grinding in skimpy vegas
[> [> [> Dream on,
Sheriff. Dream on. -- Mr. Kerry, 08:46:23 07/28/03 Mon
No stuffed animals?!? I'd feel gypped! Heheh...nixing the multiple
parts thing is understandable. On off-Broadway, they basically
did that because it was such a small theatre. Just a little too
bad that it'll lose a little bit of the comedy there. But definitely,
more people with parts is better!
I hope that since your director wants jaws to drop that no skimping
can be expected on the blood and gore...On off-Broadway, there
was some gushy blood. I'd expect nothing less from your production.
[> And congrats from me!
(Though I have absolutely no idea what 'Bat Boy' is!) -- Marie,
03:11:37 07/28/03 Mon
[> [> Re: I have absolutely
no idea what 'Bat Boy' is! -- mamcu, 07:17:34 07/28/03
I didn't know either so googled for this:
[> [> [> Thanks for
this, mamcu! And it looks like something I'd enjoy... -- Marie,
07:45:21 07/28/03 Mon
...though I don't suppose it's likely to come to Theatr Gwynedd,
[> [> [> [> Get
the CD!! Best score for a musical...ever! -- Rob, 08:48:47
won't be sorry!
[> Congratulations! And
echoing Marie... ? -- aliera, 04:58:18 07/28/03 Mon
What's the play about?
[> Congratulations -- that's
great! -- LadyStarlight, 06:29:58 07/28/03 Mon
we could see it! -- mamcu, 07:29:23 07/28/03 Mon
Actually, maybe some of us can. When/where?
[> Congrats! When is this
happening? -- ponygirl, 08:24:46 07/28/03 Mon
[> Congratulations Smoochies
from me :-) -- Diana, 08:30:54 07/28/03 Mon
but does this mean that you will be too busy to come to chat :-(
Kerry is a very lucky woman.
[> [> Thanks everyone!!
(and answers to questions) -- Rochefort, 11:35:37 07/28/03
Thanks so much for all the congratulations! I've been walking
around all day pretending to draw my guns and hooking my thumbs
in my belt and stuff.
Bat Boy is about a small Virginia town where a boy turns up who
has fangs, sucks blood (a la Angel), and sings songs. He's taken
in by a family who tries to teach him to be civilized a la My
Fair Lady. The town is of course afraid of the Bat Boy and the
Sheriff has to deal with that, and then of course Bat Boy falls
in love, but not with the Sheriff. The music robs from the styles
of everything from Music Man to Phantom of the Opera, to the Lion
King and Rent. And it's a comedy and there's a parental advisory
due to blood and animal sex amongst other things.
I didn't think there was anyone on the board from Michigan; that's
where it's playing. If anyone IS close to Michigan, the shows
are in October and November. But if you want to see it in YOUR
town (with an inferior Sherriff Reynolds), the link that Rob gave
above has a list of all of the showings across the country.
Diana re Angel's tattoo -- Celebaelin, 03:24:40 07/28/03
I couldn't find your posts on Angel's tattoo in the archives but
following your lead I checked the Book of Kells and found the
depictions of the four evangelists. I'm assuming that Angels tattoo
is the depiction of St. Mark (top right in the link below)
Evangelists, Book of Kells
I can't be certain 'cos I still haven't got a clear look at the
If this is the case I'm guessing you know that the symbolism of
the lion for St. Mark is a constant but interestingly in the Book
of Durrow (folio 19) the lion has no angels' wings.
[> Want to see Angel's tattoo?
Go to... -- Marie, 07:50:10 07/28/03 Mon
[> Posted link below
-- Diana, 08:42:55 07/28/03 Mon
I also went on and on and on about the tetramorph. I think people
are missing the point of that tattoo when they go off on the stuff
about the Griffon.
St. Mark's Gospel is EXACTLY what Joss is saying about Buffy.
You have this Messiah/girl with power, that humanity rejects.
The story of Buffy, who episode after episode fights the forces
of darkness, compares well with the Gospel of Mark which goes
into Jesus's ministry in a vivid style where one incident directly
follows directly upon each other. The term Gospel even comes from
Joss proclaims the good news that is Buffy. Buffy empowering Angel
to be a Christ-like figure himself in "Amends" really
foreshadows what happens in "Chosen."
Angel season 5: losing humanity -- luvthistle1,
04:01:46 07/28/03 Mon
I read the sides, and the spoilers, for the first epsiode of season
of "Angel", so if you haven't and do not want to be
spoiled. turn back
*At the end of the first Ep Angel shoots "Hauser"(the
special ops guy)with the shotgun killing him .which can't be good
. There was no immediate threat. the kids were all safely away,
and Hauser wasn't carrying a "stake"
My question is:.. isn't Hauser, suppose to be "Human"?
Angel once said he do not believe in killing "human', because
they have the chance to be "redeem". so, if Angel killed
Hauser in the first episode, doesn't that means the character
of Angel is walking dangerously close to the "darkside"
and could be in danger of losing his humanity?
Note:he lost Connor and Cordy. the two people that he loved and
who most tied him to humanity.
fill free to email me.
of Buffy, Slayer of Sunnydale -- KdS, 06:43:42 07/28/03
Experimentally posted on my livejournal, and sufficiently popular
to transfer over here. Hope you enjoy it.
PROLOGUE, a demon
BUFFY, a Slayer
SPIKE, a Vampire in love with the Slayer
WILLOW, a Witch in denial
DAWN, Sister to the Slayer
WARREN MEERS, a Villain
ANDREW WELLS, his Zany
JONATHAN LEVINSON, an Equivocator
an ARMY of DEMONS
The action takes place over one night in the town of Sunnydale,
between the events of the canon episodes "Normal Again"
(We see a figure seated at a Renaissance writing desk,
shadowed in the light of a single candle. It turns to us, and
we see that its face is a foully decayed, undead caricature of
the famous Droeshout engraving. This is PROLOGUE, a demon)
Pr: Good readers all, I pray you to draw near
Your dire PROLOGUE doth summon you to hear
A tragedy, where each shall play his part
Until the end shall break your mortal heart
Plots have I laid, and fell designs begun
With WELLS, the lech'rous MEERS, and faintheart LEVINSON
But they know not, although I ne'er can lie
That SLAYER, GEEKS and VAMPS
And all are doomed to die (Evil laughter)
I.1 (A graveyard, enter THREE VAMPIRES)
V1: When shall we three meet again?
(Enter BUFFY, unseen by them)
V1: In thunder, lightning, or in
(BUFFY stakes him)
V1: ...unh... (dusts)
B: Foul monsters of the darkest pit of Hell
Prepare to meet your well-deserved doom!
(They fight. BUFFY stakes a second VAMPIRE. Enter SPIKE, who
stakes the last)
S: Thou seest my heart doth guide my warlike arm
For all thy bed is barred unto my shaft.
B: Ill stars did rule that night wherein we joined
I thank thee for thy aid, yet never may
My heart thy demon love requite
S: I fear
That 'tis the truth, and yet... What means this verse?
For though our speech be ever finely wrought
In iambs ne'er did Slayer rail till now
B: And why do words of antick sort and style
Proceed from tongue and throat with scarce a strain?
This is some spell, of virtue fierce and strong
I must unto the witch
S: I'll come along (Exeunt)
I.2 (Enter a CLOWN)
Cl: O indeed I must win her back, for without her I become
the worthless drunken knave that I feared to be with her. Thou,
good ale bottle, shall personate my love. Indeed, thou art bitter
and cold, although she always feared things that hop. It is wondrous
strange that she is as hard as you now, when once she was so soft.
Hold, why do I speak in such base wordplay? And from whence comes
this Giles's grand-dad speech? This is some revenge of Anya's!
I must find her. Yet will I speak to Willow first, for in truth
I do not wish for Anya to see me in this sad plight, if it be
not her doing. (Exit)
II.1 (The Magic Box, enter BUFFY, SPIKE, WILLOW,
DAWN, and the CLOWN)
W: For sure this is a spell, and I do fear
That you must find some other versed in Art
For magic now to me is like unto
Free cocaine base unto some gutter trull
Should I attempt th'erasure of this curse
Some worse curse I would bring, through poor restraint
S: Indeed this is a very paltry witch
Who fears for her own state when friends are cursed
Cl: Silence, fiend!
I still did not in meter speak until I met
With thee, ill-omened creature of the night
This is some prank of thy design
S: Oh please!
D: Wherefore this brawl? This is a merry sport
In English class next day I will delight
In this new pretty state, and I will awe
The slack-brained teachers that ne'er can freestyle
In antick verse
B: Remember, good my sib
The musick that did seem a merry sport
And that did end in flames of blazing Hell
S: And well we know whose dabbling brought that forth
W: Peace! We still may find what demon vile
Or mortal's spell has made us versify
Within these books. Let us research, though sure
We have no cause to fear too greatly yet
S: In prose did thou soliloquise?
S: Then we have cause.
B: Thou fear'st?
S: Indeed I do
For all of us do speak in verse well scanned
Alone, the boy did speak in prose, of puns
Well filled, which means the clown is he, whose jokes
Though gross and poor, do leaven pain and fear
High verse and no mere prose, in mouths of all
A dark suggestion makes. We are entrapped
Within a tragic play, and hence are doomed
To wash the final scene with our heart's blood
Or dust, in my superior blessed case
Cl: How knowest thee of such obscure facts?
I still do feel that this our painful state
Is brought by thy rash act
S: To calm thy fears
And stop the black calumnies thou dost speak
I must admit, when I was but a man
Great verse and drama did I study much
Though all my work availed me but for naught
And when my Dru did make me as I am
I cast off books, and turned to rougher sport
D: Thou wert a man of books? Spike was a geek!
W: Though I do hold that state in higher praise
Than thou dost give, the jest is passing fair
S: If you do spread that jest, all fear my fangs!
B: Thou canst not bite, and threaten not my friends!
We must unmask the author of our plight (Exeunt)
II. 2 (A basement. Enter WARREN, ANDREW, and JONATHAN,
much in ale)
Wa: Now is the Slayer doomed. The fine demon Andrew did summon
hath bound her in a tragic tale that must end by her death.
A: Neither Luthor nor great Doom could have created such
a fine plan!
J: Yet is it true, her friends must also die?
Wa: The devil take her friends, they are a paltry crew
of triflers. Now shall the name of Meers be remembered by all
creatures of darkness, that I, a human, did kill the Slayer who
none of them durst touch.
A: And Wells! And Levinson!
J: (aside) I hoped not to be remembered for such sport
Wa: Yet one thing I do still hope, that I may know her
'ere she dies. To have such a proud warrior upon her knees before
me, her sharp tongue upon my sharper sword... Gentles all, I give
you the "Lay of the Vampire Layer"!
(Sings) Thou hast known a deal of dick
Thou hast lived too long a time
Thou hast known a deal of dick, Buffy
But thou knowst not mine!
J: (aside) God have mercy! By sweet Katrina's soul, I am
compact with a monster who knows no law of God nor man! (Exeunt
III.1 (The back room of the Magic Box. Enter BUFFY
S: I fear I must away, to save thy life
B: What does this mean? For all thy lack of soul
My sister and myself thou oft hast saved
S: In tragic mode this spell doth have us trapped
And tragedy, I fear, doth mark my love
Remember Greg'ry Peck and beauteous Mistress Jones
In that wild tale we saw on DVD?
How love and hate did flame, each raising each to height
Until with leaden balls each tore the others flesh
In union more perfect than life could bear
Were not this spell in force, our love might end
In my free-falling dust and thy heart's blood
I know thou longst for peace, and for myself
To die by thy sweet hand would be no pain
B: I would not find that peace. Dost thou not know?
I sought not death upon that fatal peak
I thought of naught but life, the world's and my dear sib's
And for that gift, 'tis sure my death was blessed
To seek for death, I fear, is grievous sin
And would consign me to some darker spot
S: Yet I am truly damned, and thou must know
That pain and sweet delight are not for us opposed
In Hell we may yet meet, and burning flame
May kindle sweeter flames and endless joy
B: Why this is just the morbid stuff I would expect
From one who seeks to pull me 'neath the waves
I see within LJs how black-lipped Goths
Do write such dismal stuff in foolish dreams
And think grim Death a perfect gentle knight
And kiss his skull, and lewdly use his bones
But I have seen the truth that such trash hides
And known the end of mother, friends and self
To know the dark is wise, but to believe
That dark alone is truth and light a lie
Is foolery, for sentimental brats
That true pain ne'er has laid its hand upon
E'en were I sure that joy again would wrap
Me in a cloud of comfort and of peace
I could not leave my sister and my friends
To face the dark without my strong right arm
S: Then let me leave, for I must be thy doom
B: What if my doom is lack of thy bold aid?
What if I die with none to guard my back?
If we are doomed, our doom will come for sure
And flight will not prevent its sure and deadly aim
If thou wouldst be a man and not a beast
Then fight for life with me and seek not death
(Alarum. Enter WILLOW)
W: The base knave Meers, and both his mountebanks
Approach us here with conjured demon force
B: Then arm for battle! Spike, art thou with me?
S: With all my heart, for life and love of thee(Exeunt)
III.2 (A street. Enter WARREN, ANDREW and JONATHAN
mounted before an ARMY OF DEMONS)
Wa: The bitch shall die!
A: As Doomsday fierce and bold
Did smash the Last of Krypton in his pomp!
(Exeunt WARREN, ANDREW and ARMY. JONATHAN tarries)
J: My lazy evil fast begins to burn
My soul with fire like unto a Hell
And yet like Hell nothing does it consume
I joined with them for sport! O God forgive me!
My sleep is filled with dark presentiments
Of future punishment for bitter crimes
For fair Katrina raped and foully slain
And Slayer tortur-ed to feed Meer's lust
Once at the prom I crowned her Protector
And her sweet smile did warm my lonely nights
When I did steal her powers, like a saint
With stern yet loving warning she forgave
And thus do I repay her kindnesses
Like false Mollari compact with the dark
Or Turlough plotting death for kindly Doc
Yet like both these, I still may yet repent
But yet I fear that Meers may work my death
Though I am base, I may yet save my saint
Foul Meers I shall unto the Gang betray
If so I may and still preserve my life
For I do fear that I am yet unsaved
O Lord preserve my soul, but if I die
Consent that Meers may also come to fry (Exit)
III.3 (The street before the Magic Box. Enter from
the right BUFFY, SPIKE, WILLOW, DAWN and the CLOWN in arms, and
from the left WARREN, ANDREW, JONATHAN and their ARMY likewise)
Meers, if your Art did place us in this coil
Know that the laws of drama you invoked
Decree your death as equal price for mine
Therefore, surrender. Though your many crimes
Deserve the highest penalty of law
Know that, if you submit yourself in peace
To human law, all vengeance I do quit
For human blood I hate and fear to spill
Wa: Thy prattle, slut, doth bore me near to death
As for my life, I hold it but a toy
To end thy life, though my life be the price
Will bring me fame to last a thousand years (All commence to
A: Oh spirits, let the name of Wells
Be famed as Octopus, or Servalan! (The CLOWN knocks him senseless
with a single blow. As ANDREW falls, the DEMONS dissipate. WARREN
and BUFFY fight, and WARREN falls.)
Wa: Strike true, and end my foul designs. For I
Did drive thee from thy wits, did rape my love
And break her head with bloody shattered glass
And make thee take the blame, with matchless zeal,
Upon thy spotless head. All this and more
I did with joy, and if thou letst me live
Will do again. Dispatch! (Buffy moves to stab him with her
sword, but hesitates and pulls her blow. As she hesitates, Warren
strikes a low blow with a hidden dagger than would have killed
her as she finished him)
B: You bastard! You wanted us to die together? You
think that's romantic as well?
XANDER: Hey, no more verse! And I'm not the CLOWN any more!
I've got my name back!
W: That's all it took to break the spell! Of course!
W: Don't you see? We were in a tragedy. Tragedies happen
because people do dumb stuff over vengeance and honour. You did
(There is a clap of thunder. PROLOGUE appears in a cloud of
smoke and dust.)
Pr: Though you have broke my spell, I am not weak
Prepare to meet your doom, quail and look meek!
B: Uh, Will? Any special way to kill this?
S: You sod! You made me show I had a bloody classical education!
And your extemporisation's lousy! (He hurls himself at PROLOGUE
and tears him limb from limb)
W: Well, that works...
A: (Recovering consciousness) Q'THAGUN Q'THAG Q'THAG!
(Three winged demons appear from the sky, grab the dazed TRIO
and fly away)
S: Shut him up, next time, someone.
X: Is this over now!
B: More or less. Happy ending. Doesn't that make it a comedy?
S: (wolfishly) They end in marriage.
(Spike and Buffy yell at each other as we FADE TO BLACK)
A/N: Conceived during a particularly unfortunate performance of
Shakespeare's Richard III at the Globe Theatre. III.1 inspired
by certain particularly doom-ridden Spuffy fics, which shall remain
nameless to avoid singling individuals out. Warren's song inspired
by the Bloodhound Gang's Ballad of Chasey Lain.
[> ROFL! , throwing oranges
-- MsGiles, 07:38:29 07/28/03 Mon
[> [> Ditto! (Except
for the oranges part - I'll throw petunias, instead - they're
lighter!) -- Marie, 08:01:11 07/28/03 Mon
[> [> I'll throw roses!
Bravo! -- ponygirl, 08:19:09 07/28/03 Mon
[> Most excellent, sweet
sir! -- mamcu, 10:36:16 07/28/03 Mon
[> A bold and saucy jest,
my liege! -- clj, 10:54:57 07/28/03 Mon
Methinks those geeks are passing strange (Doctor)...
[> Brilliant! -- HonorH,
11:44:34 07/28/03 Mon
KdS, you have to post this at a fanfic archive somewhere. It's
too bloody fantastic to not have the audience it deserves. Bravo!
[> An instant ATPo classic!
-- Masq, 11:52:23 07/28/03 Mon
This has to go in ES....
[> [> LadyStarlight already
asked me -- KdS, 15:32:47 07/28/03 Mon
I told her no, but now I come to think of it, it might as well
go on there. Do you or Lady Starlight want the original document
with the tags?
[> [> [> Lady S is
doing her job! -- Masq, 16:25:32 07/28/03 Mon
When she asks first. Send it on to her, and if you want to be
nice and html it, I'm sure she'd kiss you. Virtually speaking,
of course. ; )
[> [> [> [> Re:
Lady S is doing her job! -- The
Sidereal Coder, 06:39:32 07/29/03 Tue
(waves at KdS) psst, over here!
If you could send it in Word format with the tags in it, I think
that would be easiest to deal with. If not, send what you've got
and I'll work it out. Remember, HTML tags say "I lurve you!"
[> a tragedy most comic,
o good sir... -- anom, 20:22:58 07/28/03 Mon
Whose antics, being in antick style expressed
Do all the more into comic relief
Its modern themes throw. Bravo KdS!
[> [> Nice one, anom
-- KdS, 02:09:09 07/29/03 Tue
[> [> [> thanks, kds--coming
from you, that really means a lot! -- anom, 13:25:16 07/29/03
Even for such a brief little effort (mine, that is). I hope you'll
post more in this vein, so to speak, once in awhile, in among
your equally well-done serious posts.
And yours deserves a little more detailed praise. It hangs together
so well, the way you melded the show with, well...older literary
traditions, & it has admirable internal consistency. And not just
internal--as far as I could tell, it could actually have fit into
the show's timeline where you set it. This could have happened!
I loved reading about things like DVDs ("Greg'ry Peck"--haha!)
& cocaine in iambic pentameter! And that you made the prologue
itself a demon, & Xander the clown! (No, that's not a slam against
him--just felt I had to say that in the current climate >sigh<.
But it was a welcome break from that climate!)
Have you ever read Poul Anderson's A Mid-Summer Tempest?
It takes place in a Shakespearean universe: the events in Shakespeare's
plays really happened; he's not the Bard, he's the Historian!
And the characters speak in iambic pentameter. Your Tragedy reminds
me of it.
[> Shakespeare would be
so proud. Bravo! -- jane, 20:33:30 07/28/03 Mon
[> [> Re: Thou art a
poet and a wit! Bravo! -- Brian, 10:51:52 07/29/03 Tue
motivation? a reaction to Shadowkat's Season 7 Critique --
ZachsMind, 12:19:23 07/28/03 Mon
The following is intended as a positive compliment, constructive
criticism of a criticism, a series of perhaps disconnected reactions
to the words of another respected colleague in the area of BtVS
analysis, and a public invitation for others to share their point
of view. There is no intent to malign or harass, and such maliciousness
should not be inferred. And frankly I'm upset that I feel I have
to preface this diatribe as such, but someone threw eggshells
on the board not too long ago, and I'm just trying to politely
react to that.
"...the characters were being forced to serve the story
as opposed to the story serving or naturally arising from the
is one of Shadowkat's better essays. I so admire Shadowkat's work.
Even and especially when I disagree with her. I mean, she says
this as if it's a bad thing. That the characters were serving
the story when she appears to believe the opposite should be the
case, and that can't be further from the truth.
The fact is, this is true from beginning to end. Characters serve
the story. They are pawns in a shell game between the imaginations
of the writer and the reader. It's prestidigitation of the mind.
The trick is, the writer is supposed to trick the reader (or viewer
or what have you) into believing the characters have free will,
when in actuality the writer dictates their fates. It is there,
perhaps, that the Mutant Enemy writers failed us. However make
no mistake, the characters are intended to serve the story. When
the story serves the characters, that's when you get little to
no plot furtherence at all. I mean, left to their own devices,
Willow would read a book, Buffy would go shopping, Xander would
find an arcade and Giles would move back to England. The characters
don't write the story. They are tools that the writers use to
tell the story.
So where did the writers fail us? Or did they? Both seasons six
and seven of Buffy the Vampire Slayer were fighting an uphill
battle. There was a lot happening behind the scenes that we don't
know about, but the show must go on. The story had not quite been
completed. We'll never know everything that was happening behind
the scenes which led to what we saw on the screen. However, we
got what we got and I dunno about anyone else but I loved it.
Warts and all. To be fair, Shadowkat does her best to uncover
those answers, but truly we'll never know the whole behind the
scenes story, and perhaps that is for the best.
Of course that won't stop me from reading (and writing my share)
of criticism and essays about the series in the years to come.
I hope the Kat keeps at it too. Her breakdown of serial versus
episodic television is spot on. I do however have some reservations
for her frustration over times when a character seems to look
up at the writers and ask "what's my motivation again?"
I'm reminded of a story (perhaps an apocryphal urban legend) from
behind the scenes in Hitchcock's "The Birds." The lead
actress' name was Tippi Hedren, and near the end of the film there's
a point where the script requires she go up these stairs to her
certain doom. She turned to Hitch and asked him why she would
actually walk up these stairs towards the darkened second floor
when her character was perfectly safe where she was. Hitch responded,
"because it's in the script."
"But what's my motivation?" she asked. Hitch told her
it was her salary. I do understand the frustration we as viewers
sometimes have when the only valid reason for (say for example)
Xander standing there like a knob is because the script requires
he get his eye gouged out and in order to accomplish the closeup
shot on that, the makeup artists need Nick Brendon right over
there and that Firefly guy playing the priest has to stand over
here and the lighting has to be just so and when we get to that
point in the final episode it appears flawed and faked cuz, well,
it is. It all is. It's quite frankly amazing that they ever accomplished
the pilot. To have done seven seasons of this series is nothing
short of a miracle.
So shall we forgive them their little faults, the writers of one
of the greatest television series known to man? We can argue that
perhaps M.E. should have stopped at season three, where pretty
much everybody agrees the series was at a particular peak. However,
the story had not been completed. There were still tales left
to be told. I enjoy the following four years, even though some
hated the college episodes and some hated Glory and some thought
the Troika were lame villains and some felt season seven started
with a bang and ended with a whimper. I love all of it. Even those
moments when Buffy metaphorically walked up (or literally down)
a flight of stairs to certain doom, when the alternative wasn't
as bad as one might think. In the final analysis, that is ultimately
what made Buffy who she was. The archetype of Buffy for Whedon
was that sweet innocent girl in the horror films persecuted by
evil. He gave that girl the means to fight back, so she didn't
have to keep on running. Is it logical? Is her motivation sound?
Who cares? It was entertaining.
Buffy would walk into that dark alley. Not just because she had
to, but because she could, when no one else would.
And where Buffy goes, so goes my nation. =)
[> Synergy -- Darby,
13:08:04 07/28/03 Mon
There is a level of storytelling that puts neither plot, message,
or characters at the forefront at the expense of the others. Of
all the many shows on television, the very best tend to blend
all synergistically, and I assume we're all here because we put
Mutant Enemy's products up as examples of tv at its best.
But to be good storytelling, there has to be telling (or showing,
in this visual medium), and there should be a consistency (even
if it's a consistent inconsistency, as in David Lynch). If the
characters seems to be behaving contrary to their established
natures, the explanation should be fairly obvious (think the first
few episodes of Season 4). And in good storytelling with well
fleshed-out characters, one has to work to set the cast into the
plot. This was the weakest season for that integration, especially
since many plot points relied upon the characters (like Buffy's
strategies or Willow's magic use) to drive them, and they often
had to slip out of character to do it. Was it still great television?
Mostly. Was it up to their best work? I don't think so.
The season's emotional arcs, a hallmark of the series (so you
could say the show is set up for the story to serve the characters,
but that isn't completely fair), were weakly delivered. How did
Buffy get from emotionally from episode Lessons to Chosen?
There wasn't much difference, although the path between involved
changes, but her emotional state along the way was spotty and
her character inconsistent. The same could be said for Willow.
Dawn, Giles, and Xander were nonentities in terms of emotional
arc. Anya's was truncated. Who had them? Spike and Andrew?
The best Hitchcock films included actors who could hold onto a
consistent character while being driven by a plot (Hitch expected
the actors to be able to do their jobs - that's why he hired the
best). He told his story while they told theirs (and guess which
side won out if their was a disagreement?) - that's why the movies
are great. TV's pretty different, though, and in ME productions
the actors are used to doing what they're told, delivering what's
on the page and trusting the writers.
[> Ah Zach...you wicked
poster...trying to tempt me back ;-) -- s'kat (delurking),
15:15:36 07/28/03 Mon
Just delurking briefly to let you know I've been enjoying your
posts, Zachsmind. (well not just yours.) (Not sure what all this
egg-shell business is about - all the boards right now are a tad
contentious...outside of maybe one, due to the phenomen of dog
days of summer...and for me, the phenomen of not having steady
employment. The combo of the two turns me into the writing version
of the Hulk. I keep having Bruce Banner moments, so I've had to
restrict myself and my reading lately.) So am very glad you enjoyed
my critique;-). Worked very hard to make it fair and even, not
overly emotional or ranty. (For the corrected most up to date
version visit my site.) Appologies if this post is somewhat, well,
looking back over it, very rambly...lots of stuff rambling around
the brain from your post.
I've seen many many reviews of Chosen and Season 7 now, so many
that it's begun to make me realize that it is close to impossible
for anything to be seen precisely the same way by any two or more
people. While we may agree with another or portions of what one
another states, we will always differ on some thing - sometimes
aggressively and sometimes demurely depending on how emotionally
invested we are in the ideals that something represents. Heck,
I've read so many critiques both positive and negative on this
dang season now, that I'm no longer sure what I think about it
any more. It's beginning to be less about my impressions of the
season and more about my impressions of the ability of the reviewer
to persuasively critique or praise it. Leaving me feeling, as
Jimmy Stewart states in Shop Around The Corner, somewhat
I think this is true about more than just tv shows or Btvs by
the way. It's also true of posts. While one post may make me see
red and become DarkWillow all veiney with the vengeance, it may
make another person thoughtful and generate lots of cool ideas.
Same with characters and storylines, I think. For instance - way
below there's mention of the television character Diane Chambers
from Cheers. I have friends who hated this character and preferred
Kristie Alley, while others loved Diane and hated Kristie Alley.
I, myself, was somewhat neutral. Although something tells me that
if I met Diane Chambers in real life, I would be hard pressed
not to go all Carla on her and threw a beer in her face. This
is not to say, I didn't like the character, I did. Absolutely
fascinating...particularly considering how the writers dared to
develop her. I often find flawed characters more interesting and
more real. Less Mary Sueish
as it were. Fascinating character - Diane Chambers, partly b/c
she is so incredibly flawed and the writers truly punish her for
those flaws. Same with the Seinfield characters - wicked characters
who we enjoyed laughing at. I know some people who hated them
and can't understand how anyone liked them.
I wish I understood why a post that makes me want to throw rotten
eggs, makes someone else all bright and cheery and want to throw
roses. Just as I wish I understood why what you seem to have enjoyed
about Chosen, others did not. See I'm getting back on topic -
just give me time. ;-)
How is it possible for us to see the same thing so differently?
For instance I really don't like Andrew, a friend of mine loves
Andrew. I disliked Storyteller, still do, my friend loves it.
He can't understand why I dislike Andrew and Storyteller so much
and I can't understand why he loves them. Luckily it's one of
the few things about Btvs that we split on. We've tried to figure
out why...but I think it's beyond us. We just perceive the character
through the veil of our senses, experience, and own makeup
I've been enjoying lots of little posts on ATP this week, most
notably an interesting (although somewhat over my head) discussion
on intent, morality, existentialism, Kant and Nietzche by the
wonderful manwitch, Random, Caroline,
and Sophist. Reading these posts - gave a horrid dream about
the meaning of mens rea in rape cases. Yep my punishement for
coming to the board at 3 am in the morning. Also somewhat bewildered
about the meaning of teleological - it does not appear in my dictionary,
dang it. Anyone know what it means?
(Ugh, I'm hopeless, truly hopeless...I write this lengthy goodbye,
and less than four days later I'm responding to someone. Which
means I'm reading the board when I swore I'd go cold turkey! I
think the only way I can stay completely away is if I sold my
computer and well that's impossible since I need the pesky thing
to find a job, or stay off the internet - also impossible b/c
I need to check those pesky job emails...ugggh!! So here I am
doing what I swore I wouldn't do for a while and responding to
a post, b/c well, it had my name in it and it was good and funny
and a wonderful example of how one should in my oh so humble and
unexpert opinion criticize someone. Ugh! So you all can blame
Zachsmind for bringing me albeit briefly out of hiding again -
the evil thing. ;-) (joking - we really really need emoticons
on this board, methinks) )
Anyways end of stupid tangent and back to my point - I honestly
think the brilliance and at times frustration of really really
good tv shows, is their ambiguous nature. Same with movies and
books and interesting paintings. How many scholars have written
lengthy discourses trying to figure out James Joyce's Ulysess
or Shakespear's Hamlet or Faulkner's Sound and Fury? How many
try to figure out the far more upfront and unambiguous works of
say John Grisham or Stephen King? If we wanted to be preached
to or told what to think - we would watch something else. But
we don't, well not all of us, at any rate. We like the ability
to project our own values on to something else or draw from that
art medium what we need to.
But getting back to the topic at hand...I oddly enough agree with
many of your points as I oddly enough agreed
with your take on Earl Allison's critique below. I think you have
a good handle on what Whedon intended, whether it is what came
across on screen, is open to debate. (Just as whether or not some
of us enjoyed or liked it or were even entertained by it. Some
of Whedon's proposed themes, to be honest, disturb me a little
when I concentrate on them too long for what I'm talking about
see the link at the bottom.) In short, I'm left muddled myself.
I honestly can't tell you which view of S7 is the correct one.
Is it OnM's? Mine? Cjl's? Sophist's?
Yours? Caroline's? Or the review I've included a link to below?
I do believe every single view of the season is valid, whether
or not Whedon intended that view. And Whedon himself - has been
somewhat contradictory regarding his own intentions regarding
the season - he reminds me a bit of Joyce, David Lynch, and Faulkner
in this way, almost prefering the audience to work it out for
themselves. Oh some themes are pretty clear and everyone agrees
on - ie. the whole female empowerment by scythe/Willow concept.
What we disagree on is how all these themes were presented and
some of the morally ambiguous themes beneath the surface.
We also all appear to disagree on how to define terms such as
intent, masculain and feminine, existentialism, determinism, and
empowerment, which makes things even more muddled and reminds
me an awful lot of the argument about memes, which I still can't
Okay, okay, back to your topic, thanks for bearing with me - It's
been a while since I looked at that particular critique you're
quoting...so my views regarding parts of it may have changed somewhat.
Regarding characters serving the story? I agree they should serve
the story, but by the same token the story should come naturally
from them. No this does not mean what story the character wants
to tell - ie, Xander wants to go to the ice cream store and gets
a date with the girl at the counter (wait they sort of did that
in First Date? Well you know what I mean). What I mean - is that
character should not be twisted out of wack in order to serve
some agenda of the writer. ME attempted to avoid doing this, I
believe, by introducing the character of Andrew. (They could have
pushed Xander off the cliff and had him kill Jonathan but that
would have been completely out of character, just as it would
be for Giles to turn all evil suddenly - although some of us desperately
wanted that. Kudos to the writers for resisting the urge - must
have been tough.) They wanted to do a redemption story - but needed
another male in it - sort of two women and two men to redeem.
A man/woman dies, a man/woman lives = nice balance. Got two gals
- check. But need two guys...dang! Enter Andrew. (Course it's
fault that I really disliked the actor playing Andrew...nor do
I suspect they care - since so many other people did.)
Unfortunately - certain off-stage things may have happened to
cause a bit of a truncation of the dual female redemption storyline
(one's we'll never know about...but I have a hunch Hannigan and
Caulfield may not have been available at a certain point and they
had to work around them. So as a result, the two guys got most
of the story - which uhm sort of put a damper on the whole equal
time male/female thing. )Regardless - I think where the story
suffered was the female redemption side of the coin. Anya...just
seemed out of character to me since Selfless, as if she'd been
regressed. So did Giles. Those where the two I had the most difficulty
with. You may not have. I honestly don't understand that...but
hey, I don't understand a lot of things right now. So there you
Anyways, I enjoyed your take on my essay Zachsmind. Missed you
when you were gone. Glad to see you posting again.
And for what it's worth, I think you did a good job of responding
to some of the issues it raised. As did Darby in response to you.
For your next assignment, should you choose to take it:
It's a review of Chosen by a woman who saw the episode somewhat
more negatively than you did. Do I agree with her?
Not sure. She's very persuasive. But...well, I like some other
takes better, including my own original take way way back when
the episode first aired. The thing of it is?
I'm no longer sure which take is the one I saw on the screen.
Thanks again for your comments Zach...taking off again, to look
at those pesky job emails. With any luck I'll find something to
apply to. ;-)
[> [> Teleology: The
use of design or purpose as an explanation of natural phenomena.
-- Sophist, 16:28:49 07/28/03 Mon
For example, if we find a watch, we deduce it was built for the
purpose of marking time. If we find a person, we deduce it was
built for the purpose of [insert your own preferred purpose here].
This argument is commonly used to deny evolution in favor of divine
[> [> [> Thanks!
-- sk, 16:37:39 07/28/03 Mon
[> [> Opinions are orifices.
Everybody has some. =) -- ZachsMind, 18:11:58 07/28/03
The opinion read at http://www.stakeme.com/episodes/episode_722.html
was intriguing and understandable, but I also felt it like the
old adage about a glass being half empty or half full. One can
choose to see all the negativity or one can choose to enjoy it.
The episode, and indeed the entire series, is not adversely affected
one way or another. It exists whether an individual finds it good
or not, and will theoretically live on forever in syndication
and in dvd a few years from now.
Good to see you delurking briefly Shadowkat. I've had to do the
job hunt thing, and may have to do so again soon. It's too soon
to tell. When I was job hunting I found this place to be one of
those places I could go in between emails and job sites. A welcome
respite for when I've done about all I could bare to do at the
moment and just needed a break. So as long as you do that other
more important stuff first, if you have time afterwards to come
visit with us, I hope to speak for all when I say you're always
welcome. Just get what you need to get done done, go be cookie
dough, and when you're cookies come on back. We're not gettin'
any older (well alright we are but I was ..it was a thang.)
As for Andrew... well I'll save that for a main post.
[> [> [> Thanks, Zachs...
-- s'kat, 20:41:11 07/28/03 Mon
Appreciate the welcome. Thanks.
Stupid job hunt. ;-)
PS: Agree on the review. I actually liked your take both on B/S
and on the season much better.
[> [> Oh, THAT review....
-- Rufus, 18:32:10 07/28/03 Mon
I have a problem with that review (which on the whole was okay)
and it is the fact that this person seems to only see things through
one character, which is Spike. Forgotten is the fact that he has
been a villian for many years, instead we get people who seem
to think that redemption (not talking Christian type redemption
but the process of becoming whole) should not be painful because
Spike has suffered enough. The other problem I have is that the
reviewer sees Chosen as a total end to the story when it is just
the end of the series. Chosen was a paradigm shift where the old
rules (there can be only one slayer) have been changed and we
don't know yet what the result of those changes will be. I'm not
saying that Chosen was perfect or that season seven was perfect,
but I'm happy with the results. I think the final redemption of
Spike was wonderful and I always expected that he would die. The
guy had already lived long past a normal lifespan so I can't say
that he died to young (well unless you count the first time).
I use the quote from Marie Louise VonFranz a lot because it sums
up how I feel about Angel and Buffy the Vampire Slayers as shows..
"By our interactions with each other we redeem us all."
By our interactions we change those around us and when it goes
well we redeem each other. Thing is we don't know exactly which
action or what series of actions do the trick. To condemn a character
for one action and ignoring all the other actions they do keeps
us in emotional hold, something both shows never do. As in life
things change and people do shitty or wonderful things.
Buffy does not have our sympathy at the end of the series;
he does. It's a terribly poignant moment when he realizes that
her last-minute "I love you" was spoken not to him,
but to his already fading memory; gratitude for the vampire that
loved her enough to die for her. This is, the series suggests,
what woman wants, what she "deserves."
That's not a conclusion I agree with. Again, ask my husband -
a really swell guy who I don't require to die for me. And I, like
most people, like it a bit better that way.
I disagree that only Spike has our sympathy at the end, unless
of course the only character you are interested in is Spike. I
feel the message at the end was that being a hero isn't limited
to gender or how "good" a person has been. Spike died
because he felt he had something he had to do, had to see through
to the end just as Buffy did before she jumped off the platform
in The Gift in season five.
Everyone can be a hero and the power that a hero uses is something
that everyone can share increasing the power exponentially with
ones ability to share instead of keeping it for one alone. Buffy
the Vampire as a series is over but the character of Buffy lives
on. Now she has a chance to do more than spend her nights protecting
the world...seems like the job can now be done in shifts...;)
Now tell me exactly where it was required or when Buffy asked
for Spike to sacrifice himself?
[> [> [> It's an odd
review, agree and disagree...but not how you think -- s'kat,
20:23:20 07/28/03 Mon
It's an odd review, parts of which really bugged me. So thanks
for the response. But I didn't get the impression the only character
the writer was interested was in Spike, actually I got the impression
the writer was less than thrilled Spike got that much attention
at the expense of the other characters.
What bugged me about the review - was something that's bugged
me for quite some time, which is the character of Buffy...when
I saw the episode, first time, I saw a girl who had finally seen
past good and evil into the light, she had experienced something
trasencendent in that hellmouth when she gripped Spike's hand,
and they had what felt to me a communion of souls. When she said
I love you - she spoke as to a fellow soul ....Spike when he says
no, you don't but thanks for saying it - was more or less acknowledging
that while she cared for him, it was not the type of romantic
love that would leave her grief-stricken when he died. I did not
see Buffy as choosing Spike to carry the amulet instead of Angel,
b/c she wanted Angel to live and Spike to die (ie. Spike was more
disposable as many online fans seem to view it and it is this
view that I find incredibly squicky and disturbing and the reason
I can't quite deal with the concept of Buffy falling into Angel's
arms any time soon.) But so many others seem to see this.
Regardless of ship. And it disturbs me. It disturbs me that the
heroine would exploit someone, ie. use them to further her own
ends. If that is the case and/or the intent of the writer (not
saying I think it is) then I really can't watch the show or post
on it or even allow my website to stay up a moment longer. The
idea of exploiting others to reach your own ends makes me cringe.
That is not a hero, that is a villain, someone evil - someone
like the First Evil who did attempt to exploit and use others
to meet it's own ends. And that I think is the biggest arguement
against this writer or anyone's else's belief that Buffy was behind
Spike's sacrifice, or Anya's or Amandas, or Chao-Ann's or
anyone elses. That was the FE's modius operandi, not Buffy's.
When we revisit that scene in Chosen:
Buffy goes up to Spike (shocked by what is happening to him) and
asks him to stop. "You've done enough." She says.
Pleading with him. Faith is meanwhile trying to get her to leave
- but Buffy refuses, trying to get Spike to.
He refuses to stop. She argues with him about it.
And he insists she leave.
Their last scene - and it's been interpreted many ways on the
boards and by the actors - seemed to me, to be a meeting of souls.
A love that while not romantic in the
Romeo and Juliet, Anthony and Cleopatra view, was in a way in
the more classic, metaphorical folkloric sense. Understanding.
Seeing and completely accepting another person for all that are
and all that they have become.
And letting them go. Buffy finally was able to let him go.
Let him find his peace.
I don't think of that as exploitation.
Same with Amanda, Chao-Ann, Anya - yes, it might have felt more
equal if we'd had some men die *cough*WoodAndrew*cough*
but would it have mattered? Buffy didn't choose their deaths.
They did. They walked in with eyes wide.
Granted it might have helped if we had a little mourning on screen,
but whose to say they didn't mourn? As Sol suggests in hir wonderful
essay above - Daesin - or the moments that take place off-stage
mean the character is constantly developing and are just as important,
even if we never see them. Why do you think BTVS out of all the
tv shows and books out has the most fanfiction? Because just as
much happens off screen as happens on...and a good portion (not
all, but a good portion) of those fics are all about filling in
the gaps, figuring out what happened off screen.
I disagree that the writer made it all about Spike - if that was
the case, I would have been able to dismiss it out of hand. We
have to watch, I think, assuming that just because a writer or
poster is a bit obsessed with one character - that all their comments
are just about that character. That's not to say some don't. I've
been on quite a few boards that do. (Have left some of those boards...very
annoying after a while. )But I got the feeling this author really
wasn't. IF anything she seemed upset that so much of the focus
was on him - when she would have preferred it be on some of the
other characters. If he was all she cared for, she probably would
have liked Chosen better, I think. Although I can't really speak
for her - so you could very well be right in your interpretation
and I could be wrong. ;-)
I do however agree...that her take that Buffy used Spike and Anya
to further her own ends is not what Whedon was going for. Nor
what I saw on screen. While I can certainly see how she may have
seen that on screen or interpreted it that way. I don't see it.
If I did? I would be throwing out my S7 Btvs tapes right about
now. Personally, I think I prefer Zachsmind and my original non-critical
positive take on the episode, way back in May. It really is an
issue of picking the glass half-full or half-empty. We either
decide to see all the negative and we can choose to view things
that way if we so wish - or the positive. Right now...I'm thinking
I'd much prefer to view positive.
Thanks for the response. Was curious to know what others thought
of it. It seems to be making the rounds on the net.
[> [> [> Re: Oh, THAT
review.... -- btvsk8, 04:14:12 07/29/03 Tue
I personally found the reviewer's interpretation of the empowerment
montage scene very surprising. Sometimes I think people take what
happens on screen too literally. To me (and I realise this is
a personal interpretation) it seems obvious that the message was
not meant to be that all non-slayers i.e. women in our world are
weak and oppressed (though many are- oppressed I mean), rather
that we all can be slayers (for slayers read strong empowered
This was just one example of where the message had been chosen
to be interpreted in a glass-half-full kind of a way. I tend to
watch the show looking for the positive, not only because I'm
a fan, but also because when it comes to the message the writers
are trying to portray (particularly when things get very metaphory)
the positive message rather than the disturbing one is surely
the most likely intention.
anyone agree/disagree/think I should be burned at the stake?
[> EM Forster: Characters
vs Story -- dmw, 08:04:27 07/29/03 Tue
Writing isn't as simple as characters being forced to serve a
predetermined story. There is a balance between character and
plot that cannot be swayed too far in either direction without
destroying the story. E.M. Forster spoke eloquently on this topic
in his lectures that are published as the classic Aspects
of the Novel. In particular, I like this quote:
They [the characters] have numerous parallels with people
like ourselves, they try to live their own lives and are consequently
often engaged in treason against the main scheme of the book.
They "run away," they "get out of hand":
they are creations inside a creation, and often inharmonious
towards it; if they are given complete freedom they kick the
book to pieces, and if they are kept too sternly in line, they
revenge themselves by dying, and destroy it by intestinal decay.
Unfortunately, in seasons 6-7 the characters were kept too
sternly in line with the plot without regard for their inner natures
as shown in earlier seasons of Buffy, so they did accomplish their
revenge by dying and rotted away the whole story as a consequence.
-- Darby, 12:32:15 07/28/03 Mon
Warning! Contains Spike-related materials! Can lead to snarkiness
and bad feelings, Enter at Own Risk!
It isn't really about Spike, though - am I allowed to make
an assertion like that?
Anyway, I've been perplexed about the Buffy-Spike relationship
of Season 7, and I've got some ideas to toss out.
First, we know that Buffy has some grave doubts about herself,
especially her humanity. I think that she so feared losing more
of it through the season that she felt she had to distance herself
from the Slayers-in-Training - she felt too much, but feared,
as usual, that she didn't feel enough. She pushed her friends
and Dawn away as the season progressed. No big revelation there.
But not Spike. Why not Spike?
Buffy has had bad luck with the men in her life - her Dad, Angel,
Parker, Riley, Giles, had all left her, and for each she was perfectly
okay to accept a lot of the blame on herself. The dream of Hank
in Nightmares, Angel becoming Angelus and then being sent
to Hell, then not returning but not being able to stay, her post-PoopyHead
period, the follow-up to Into the Woods, her inability
to fully engage the world which she saw as part of why Giles left,
all showed that she connected her own flawed character (by her
perception) to the failure in these relationships. It has led,
more and more over time, to a compulsion to hide what she sees
as similar flaws from everybody - that has come out in several
ways, most obviously her concealment of her fling with Spike,
but also the closing up through Season 7.
She never trusted Spike's feelings for her, partly because she
refuses to see herself as lovable (and if someone does love her,
they don't truly know her), partly because Spike's unsouled nature
makes it easy to believe that true love is not something he is
capable of. But she is drawn to him, someone who is more of a
kindred spirit than anyone else around, and she comes to trust
him and feel deeply for him, even though she denies it. When he
attacks her in Seeing Red, there is a confirmation to what
she has been saying - what they have can not be love. But her
reaction to the attack is not what it seems many viewers expect
- she does not react like the victim, and her trust of Spike has
changed but not disappeared. Without quite articulating it precisely
(although she comes close in Conversations with Dead People),
she obviously feels some responsibility for his actions. She feels
that their affair involved her descending to some level of depravity
with Spike, letting out an ugliness that frightened her but Spike
seemed to accept, but he was an ugly depraved thing anyway, of
course he accepted that side of her. He expected reciprocity in
the bathroom, and he may have had valid reasons to ignore her
protests. What their relationship has taught her is that, maybe
he can't be trusted, but at this point in her life, she also hasn't
learned to truly trust herself.
And then he leaves. Like every man (but Xander, but there's a
whole 'nother essay there) has left her.
But then he's back, but seems to have gone mad - is this a result
of her rejection of him? Did he so see the attack as business-as-usual
that her stopping him was that traumatic? Is this her fault,
or can they at least share the blame? She needs to know how much
to blame herself, she needs him lucid.
Through Beneath You, when Coherent Spike does come around,
she reacts with distance and distrust - the Spike she knows appears
to be at least partly back, but she now knows what he's capable
of and wants to give no mixed signals.
And then the big revelation - he has a soul now. He's traumatized,
as expected, but no longer expects her to love him, he understands
why she doesn't.
But, very importantly, even knowing all that he knows about her,
even having the human touch of a recovered soul, he still loves
and accepts her. A line here, a line there, he reveals
that he knows how she used him previously, how he understands.
There is no accusation in it, and although Buffy initially reacts
defensively. Eventually she just listens.
Spike, because "he has a soul now" (and this is why
that becomes a mantra for her), has become trustworthy, not as
a romantic lover but just as someone who knows Buffy's darkest
aspects and still accepts and loves her. He's no longer drawing
her into the darkness, but into the light (does this connect to
Through Season Seven, Spike becomes Buffy's humanity, her
true tie to this world, her real motivation to stave off another
Apocalypse (early in the season he replaces Dawn in the role).
He is the one piece of the puzzle that she comes to feel is absolutely
necessary. He should, I think, have become her sounding board
(boy, that might have explained some of her S7 strategies!), but
he at least became her anchor. She was right that Spike was essential
to beating the First, but it wasn't the use of the amulet that
won out, it was Buffy's acceptance that she didn't have to fight
the fight alone - it was no accident that during her epiphany
she was with Spike. How this all fits into the function of the
amulet, if it does at all, I couldn't say.
Did she love him in the end? I would tend to accept Spike's assessment,
and Buffy's that she wasn't ready to give that part of herself
up yet. But she needed him, absolutely and desperately,
and I think he knew that as well, and that was enough.
[> Re: Buffy's issues
-- ZachsMind, 14:10:14 07/28/03 Mon
To further clarify Spike's motivations, or perhaps muddy the waters
depending on your point of view, Spike also realized that while
he did love Buffy, what he had also been doing as the unsouled
Spike was repeating a complex behavior modification that has been
with him since before he was turned.
I cite Fool for
As You Were
and Lies My Parents
"Well, that's bloody funny coming from you! No more games?
That's all you've ever done is play me. You keep playing with
rules you make up as you like. You know what I am. You've always
known. You come to me all the same."
Spike had a history of bad dealings with women, from his mum,
to Cecily, through Dru and Harm, on up to Buffy. There were differences,
but ultimately it was a cycle he found himself trapped within.
When he got his soul, he was able to look back and see that while
he did love Buffy on
some strange level, it wasn't the same quite as what he felt
for her when his soul was returned. He had also been infatuated
and obsessed with her. Much as he had been obsessed with Cecily
a couple centuries before, before his turning. He was in the same
rut he had been at the point Dru changed his existence. He was
trapped in a cycle. Having a soul changed that. He knew he could
never have Buffy in that way, but there was still the glimmer
of hope, and there was also the irrepressible knowledge that despite
everything in their past, souled Spike respected her. He sincerely
cared for her well-being. He wanted to fight the good fight and
go down taking as many baddies with him as possible.
And that's what he did. So through Buffy and his own soul, he
found a love for life, a love for death, and a result in redemption.
He broke the cycle.
[> [> Hope this doesn't
get flamey -- Diana, 14:37:40 07/28/03 Mon
In the Season 4 commentary on Spike, the say that Spike was bitter
towards women and took this out on Harmony. I don't want to debate
that, but let's just take it as a given for this essay. I have
said that the difference between Angelus and Angel is that Angelus
lashes out because of the pain and Angel can't, so he has to reach
out. Liam just buried the pain in wine, women and fighting.
Let's take that to Spike. William/Spike has certain feelings for
women. As human he deals with them by elevating certain ones,
Cecily and Mum. This balances out the negative feelings his Victorian
society has towards them. He removes the two women out of the
realm of women and brings them to the realm of Madonna.
When vamped he still has these feelings. Spike is still bitter
towards women. He shows little patience for Dru. He reminds me
of the man that abuses his wife and then apologizes afterwards.
"The bird is dead Dru" was a very well done scene.
When Dru leaves him again, he takes out his feelings on Harmony.
Unlike Dru, Harmony just annoys Spike. In OOMM, Spike finds a
way out of this, fall in love with Buffy. Spike cannot even take
Harmony to the realm of Madonna, but he can with Buffy, though
it isn't normal Madonna land, but vamp Madonna land.
In SR he finds that she isn't going to go, so he has to go to
her. He goes to get his soul. After he gets it, he still has all
these feelings about women, but he has to find a new way of dealing
with them. He has to take Buffy off of the pedistle and see her
as a human being.
Does he do this? Buffy you're the one? Not sure how much he has
grown. After LMPT Mom is still on a pedistle, too. This will probably
be dealt with more next season. With him on Angel's show there
is no way he can have a relationship with Buffy.
[> [> [> Re: Hope
this doesn't get flamey -- Rina, 15:05:30 07/28/03 Mon
[With him on Angel's show there is no way he can have a relationship
Is this the point of the whole topic?
[> [> [> [> You
are obviously determined to make it flamey -- KdS, 15:31:09
[> [> [> [> If
that one sentence bothers you... -- Dariel, 19:35:25 07/28/03
Why not just ignore it? No, it doesn't really follow from the
rest of the post--so what? Just think of it as Diana's personal
[> [> [> 'You're the
one...' -- Dariel, 19:27:25 07/28/03 Mon
Spike wasn't talking about his love for Buffy here--he was expressing
his confidence in her. Which is why Buffy responds somewhat unhappily
"I don't want to be the 'one'."
On his mother, well, I tend to agree that he still has issues
[> Re: Buffy's issues
-- CW, 18:22:30 07/28/03 Mon
I think it would be fair to say that as far back as before OMWF
Spike was Buffy's tie to the world. At first he was the only person
in the world she would trust with the secret that she was not
trapped in hell after death. At that point she began trusting
him in all sorts of ways she did not admit to the others, because
she was afraid of what the others would say. This is echoed in
the way that Buffy becomes his link to the world in the 7th season
when she become the image he focused on when resisting the First
It would be best to say that the disaster between her and Spike
in Seeing Red, led to a realization by both of them, that their
relationship had hit a dead end. While a certain amount of mutual
respect was possible between them, real trust and even friendship
were not possible. The ensouling could not change Buffy's fundamental
lack of romantic love for him. But, as he became more human, and
less the creature of the night, she did come to love him as a
friend, one as close as Xander and Willow had been to her before.
Spike realized before and at the time of his death that Buffy
was never going to love him the way he loved her. But, think she
did prove adquately that her trust in him and friendship for him
[> [> Re: Buffy's issues
-- ECH, 19:44:50 07/28/03 Mon
I am sorry, I have to disagree, B/S in season 7 came off as a
stunted romance not a deep friendship. I mean Buffy told Angel
that he was in her heart and they cuddled together for 2 nights
with the final night left up in the air if it was sex or just
cuddeling again. Suffice it to say there is no way in hell I could
see her acting this way with Xander or Willow and I don't think
she was just being nice to him. I don't think Buffy knew what
she really wanted from Spike, but in no way would I call what
they had in season 7 just a friendship.
Here is a great essay on this topic on Chosen and B/S in season
[> [> [> Re: Buffy's
issues -- CW, 20:23:13 07/28/03 Mon
Calling it a stunted romance is fair from Spike's side. But, it
never was a romance from her point of view. That's the whole point
of season six. Perhaps she never would have curled up beside Xander.
I won't argue that. But, the kind of love she was looking for
from Spike was more like that of a brother than of a lover. And
there was absolutely nothing stunted about it. He was not her
brother so the best I can do to describe it is call it a deep
trusting friendship. Platonic love is too cold a term and just
doesn't cover it.
[> [> [> Deep or Stunted?
-- WickedBuffy, 16:51:23 07/29/03 Tue
It always seemed to me as if Buffy's friendships with Xander and
Willow were very easy, natural, they didn't have to really "work"
at it. Then later, when Buffys slayer status was revealed, they
smoothy (fairly) took that in stride with the already solid friendship.
Spike was more complicated - besides not being a human schoolmate,
he was trying to kill her. Building a friendship with all that
negative history behind it would be rocky. Not easy like X and
When Xander had a crush on Buffy, it played out pretty much like
it would in real life. Very normal and comfortable because that
situation has been modeled for years by peers, tv, reading, media
But having a vampire have a crush on you - there are no AfterSchool
specials for that situation. All completely new and confusing
territory. Nothing to read to see how others handled it. Add in
Buffy's in inherant confusion about relationships as a whole.
Buffy kept having to put more thought into Spike, especially when
he became less one-dimensional, not just another of the many demons
out to kill her. He seesawed between doing good things and doing
bad. Then he started leaning more to the "better" actions.
That really through her off. I think Buffy always craved stability.
To me, B and S in S7 was a very complicated version of an old
and common situation. Boy loves girl. Girl isn't completely sure
what her feelings are. It's about romance and about friendship
and about that very difficult to see line that sometimes separates
the two kinds of relationships.
Buffy seesawed trying to figure out which it was for her. Tried
hating him, tried loving him aka sex, tried being friends. It
was a continual search for her to understand how she felt about
him, which side of the line it fell on, and how to show it. She
did keep at it. Meanwhile, Spike waited. Sometimes patiently,
My interpretation of the final moments between them is that Buffy
loved him deeply as a friend, was still abit confused about how
that worked, and didn't want to lose him. Really, who wants to
lose a friend you've been through so much with, understands you
better than you do yourself, and who loves you just as you are?
You blurt out "I love you" and mean it with every cell
of your body.
Maybe if they had both been able to go on to a S8, it could have
turned into romantic/partner love. Maybe not. Buffy hadn't gotten
to a place yet where she knew what that could be yet. Her cookie
dough speech reflected that. Spike was already baked and waiting
in the cookiejar.
I don't feel anything was stunted, though. But maybe I'm mmisunderstanding
the definition. It seemed everything continued to flow naturally.
Action... reaction.. so on.
[> Preserving -- Masq,
15:29:01 07/29/03 Tue
Season 7 BtVS
& Giles' Dream in 'Restless' -- Rina, 13:30:09 07/28/03
I found this interesting essay about Giles' dream in the Season
4 episode, "Restless" and how it pertains to his role
in Season 7:
going to start up the 'Frankenstein' Book Melee? -- Rob, on
his way out the door, 13:55:08 07/28/03 Mon
[> A few quick thoughts...
-- ponygirl, 15:45:45 07/28/03 Mon
... since I have to dash soon too. But in no particular order:
- The introduction of my copy of the book noted the portrayal
of women in the book. There's Victor's mother who has little choice
in marrying a friend of her father. Elizabeth who is taken from
the family who raised her to be presented almost literally as
a gift to Victor. She asks Victor several times if he wants to
released from their unspoken promise, he never returns the favour.
He even refuses to tell her his secret until after they
are married. Justine too is taken from her home to be a servant.
And finally the Creature's intended mate is destroyed when Victor
suddenly realizes that she may want a say in her fate. Victor
had come very close to creating a female who would have been stronger
than human men, it may have been a factor in his decision.
- While Mary Shelley wanted us to be aware of the position of
women in her society, I'm not sure she was as aware of the ideas
of class that are present in her novel. All of the major characters
and most of the minor have their noble and/or suitably distinguished
backgrounds carefully noted. Elizabeth may have lived with peasants
but she was the orphaned daughter of a nobleman. The Creature
did not take shelter on the farm of an ordinary peasant family
but with that of a formerly wealthy merchant family. Poverty it
seems can happen to anyone but a good family ensures that your
voice will be heard.
- It is a fear of death I think that really motivates Victor.
The action really starts with the death of his mother, Victor's
brother William is carrying an image of his mother when he is
killed. Victor ignores nature, he ignores the natural order of
things and seeks to create life. Of course the result is nothing
- It's been years since I read this book but I do notice that
my sympathies have changed. I still have no sympathy for Victor,
who is not only selfish and arrogant but was also voted "most
likely to faint and lapse into a fever at times of crisis"
in his high school yearbook, but I was surprised that most of
my pity for the Creature was gone as well. He was greatly wronged,
but when he kills William he makes a conscious choice and I think
becomes morally responsible for his actions.
Hopefully I'll have more later!
[> [> I've already posted
this, comparing Victor to a certain BtVS figure -- KdS, 16:07:27
But it's interesting, as Victor is usurping the feminine role
of creating life, how much his vices (panickiness, shallow judging
by appearance, indecisiveness, cowardice, tendency to fall ill
at the slightest provocation) are those stereotypically considered
[> A woman's contribution
to mythology -- Diana, 16:25:44 07/28/03 Mon
Frankenstein is different from previous Horror monsters in that
it is caused by creating life. In the previous male written stories,
a life was taken/warped to create the monster. Frankenstein's
Monster takes the feminine power of creation and a female's fears
about this creative power we have was given form. I don't think
that a male could have come up with this.
What will our children become? How much control do we have over
our creations/children? These issues are addressed by Ms. Shelley's
[> [> Re: A woman's contribution
to mythology -- Rendyl, 22:05:22 07/28/03 Mon
Considering that Mary became pregnant again less than two months
after the death of her first child I wonder how much grieving
she was able to do. I don't know what the attitudes were in her
time but even now there is a (usually unspoken) attitude that
a miscarriage or death of a newborn or preemie is somehow not
as painful as the death of an older child. It is hard to grieve
when no one else wants to take notice of the loss. It is also
difficult to get past the 'what did I do wrong' or 'what did I
not do I should have' that comes with the death of a child.
I agree with her using it to address childbirth issues but I also
wonder how much of it came out of her guilt over events in her
Did she see a small part of herself in the monster? Did she blame
herself for the deaths of her children and her sister? (I am not
sure when Percy's wife committed suicide so I don't know if that
was a factor or not) Did she wonder if her life (much of which
was lived shunned by society) was worth the sacrifice of her mother's
death? Did she wonder if God was punishing her for her choices?
(That last is far out speculation. While many see 'Frankenstein'
as a morality tale along the 'don't usurp God' line I am not sure
she was religious in that way)
Of course the snark in me likes to think that while she considered
Percy to be brilliant, etc maybe she was not so sure he would
be a good father. I wonder if some of her fears about him show
up in Victor.
[> A note from Sara
-- Darby, 06:04:29 07/29/03 Tue
Sara wants to keep this thread up long enough to finish the book.
With Graffiti's impending bar mitzvah (August 9 - I figure Sara's
decompression around the 11th may be a Krakatoa-sized event) and
her mom's hospitalization, she's getting a bit behind.
And she feels responsible to contribute. But for the moment, she's
delegated that to me, and it's been 25 years since I read the
But I bought the DVD of Young Frankenstein recently. Does
[> [> it is one of my
Hubby's favorite movies -- Diana, 06:27:31 07/29/03 Tue
Also, since this story has been adapted so many ways, I think
it might be interesting to compare these adaptations. For example,
this is one story that was done on BtVS. How did Mary Shelley's
(a female) differ from Ty King's? What elements did he pick out
of the story to use for his? Same thing with Mel Brooks. What
elements from Frankenstein are missing from Young Frankenstein?
Just how I've been looking at things lately.
Mini Lecture #23, Revisited -- Solitude1056, 14:27:56 07/28/03
I was recently notified that there has been some confusion about
existentialism, its definition, and its application in the the
Buffyverse. So I'm back, and as a general starting point I'm going
to have everyone do a little refresher course. This is a mildly
revised post from about two years ago, but apparently it's still
This essay has been written to entertain those masochistic members
of our ranks who wanted to know about Epistomology and Phenomenology.
Suckers. I mean, uh, oh ye enlightened and inquiring minds. Yeah.
That's what I meant.
Ok, let's see. First, if you read this & say, "Hey, that's
not the [insert fancy philosophical style] that I know and love!"
then it's okay. There's several different branches of it since
to each philosopher hir own. I studied Heidegger and Kierkegaard
the most; I studied Sartre only at gun-point (Being & Nothingness
was my cure for insomnia in college). I know a bit o' Husserl
but didn't like him as much. To jump right into it - and I'll
try to tie it into the Buffyverse as much as possible - let's
start with existentialism, which can be expressed simply as "existence
In the Buffyverse, each person is born, grows up, and along the
way develops into him- or herself. Some say essence preceeds existence.
The soul has to be there for the existence to begin. In the Buffyverse,
though, there's an awful lot of existence preceeding essence,
though. Well, for starters, you have to define "essence."
Soul? Personality? Spark o' life? Dawn's faux memories may be
an existence that preceeds her essence (energy), or they may be
simply providing the appearance of continuity when in fact her
existence began with the Monks, and only afterwards (in the past
few months) has she developed an 'essence.' All philosophical
rantings and meanderings aside, the bottom line of existentialism
(or at least one of them) is that you start out with a clean slate,
and what you do determines who you are. Your existence defines
Going backwards to Kierkegaard and forwards to Sartre, existentialism
contains strong notes of absurdism, too. The element of the absurd
can be summarized as: when all choices are equal and there is
no set path, then stating that "this is the way such-and-such
is done because that's the way it's always been done" is
absurd. That "always been done" clause is false, since
there's not been any "always been done" by you, the
creature that only recently came into existence and even more
recently developed an essence that even allowed you to process
your existence. Etc, etc. (Yes, philosophers love this stuff.
You guys just panting in total excitement yet? Wait til I get
to the part about aesthetics and seduction vs. pornography in
artistic settings... oh, wait, different precis. Oops. Ahem.)
Alrighty now. So now you've gotten your ten-cent two-cup version
of existentialism, let's move to the even less scholarly version
of epistomology. (And they said pop philosophy was dead. Panicmongers!)
Heidegger's definition of epistomology is "how we know, what
we know." Small diversion here: Heidegger did not agree with
Cartesian philosophy. Existing "outside of the world"
wasn't Heidegger's intent; his point was that to truly experience
and understand the world, you had to be part of it.
Epistomology tends to run hand-in-hand with Phenomenology, and
phenomenology is the study of, well, things. Yeah, things. Heidegger's
biggest focus was on "everydayness," that usual, mundane
being-in-the-world. Again in direct opposition to Descartes, Heidegger
posited that since we are of-the-world-and-in-it, to determine
how we know what we know, we have to either study how we interact
with things (and go even crazier than we are now), or we just
set aside the question of "does this exist?" and ask,
"what is the experience - ie, the existential interaction
with this thing?"
In that sense, Heideggarian phenomenology is what we're doing
as the audience of the Buffyverse. In a writer's mind, we're practicing
suspended disbelief. In a philosopher's mind, we're setting aside
the question of existence in order to study our direct interaction
with the stimuli, which are the plots, characters, and motivations.
According to Heidegger, "phenomenology should make manifest
what is hidden in ordinary, everyday experience." And whew,
Joss has got plenty that's hidden in everyday ordinary interactions
between his characters. And from those, we intuit certain conclusions,
which we then turn around and discuss at length - it's the discussions
of "what did you see that I didn't?" which constitute
the phenomenology (study of things) of this board, and of the
Buffyverse. And it's the meta-discussions of "how did you
then draw your conclusions?" which constitute the epistomology
(study of our knowledge about things) of this board, and the Buffyverse.
And if you're really interested suddenly, or just want to freshen
up with less scatterbrained explanations, I highly recommend The
Basic Problems of Phenomenology, by Martin Heidegger. I have a
copy but no, you can't borrow it, I'm considering framing it.
Otherwise you'd be able to see all the dirty jokes I scribbled
in the margins during class. And FYI, Being And Time is not nearly
as scary as some people make it out to be. (Usually they're confusing
it with Sartre's Being And Nothingness, which really is very scary
- and badly written, too. Heidegger's much better organized.)
If you want a good overview to the absurdism of existentialism,
and the strange overlapping dialectical arguments, read my favorite
anthology of Soren Kierkegaard. It was compiled & translated by
two Kierkegaardian scholars, called The Laughter Is On My Side.
You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll feel all gooey inside. On the
other hand, you could really burn your braincells and go read
the ultimate post-modern existentialist text... Zippy the Pinhead.
I'm not making this up. Enlightenment is in the spin cycle.
Frankly, most of philosophy is a type of cosmology - "how
do we fit into this universe, why are we here?" and beyond
that, "does this universe even exist, and how do I know I
exist?" This division is the basis of most Cartesian and
Cartesian-influence philosophies, such as solipism where the argument
is that I'm asleep and dreaming every single one of those rotten
spoilers, and their authors! None of you exist! You're all a figment
of my imagination, and damn, my imagination sucks! Ahem, ack.
*polite cough* Okay.
The cosmology of the existential viewpoint is that we enter the
world and become who-we-are, by interacting with a world filled
with natural ("Natural") and cultural ("Manufactured")
tools, most of which we didn't make, but we can use and adapt
to, and also adapt to us. I'm convinced that Heidegger spent his
free time building footstools and handy time-savers for kitchen
cabinets. Very concrete, hands-on; truly an emphasis on the physical,
the tangible. What do things do, how do they work, what happens
when I use them? Heidegger even spent time talking about things
like "obtrusiveness," when a tool breaks. That's after
you've gotten over the habit of trying to use the tool (like flicking
the lightswitch even though the bulb's been burnt out for two
weeks), and now it's just taking up space. It's obtrusive, hanging
out in the corner of your study, watching you, leering at you,
thinking its little broken-tool thoughts of glee at your discomfort
about its broken-ness... ahem. Anyway! You get the idea.
One of the reasons I enjoy the existential perspective is that
it lacks a lot of the dualistic thinking in western philosophy
ever since Plato came up with that damn list. Grrrrr against Plato
- or whomever it was, I'm pretty sure it was Plato, but feel free
to correct me while I open my mouth to change feet, again. *grin*
Getting back to my point (which is buried in here somewhere),
the idea is not to approach the "Me Versus The World (or
God)" but to just set that aside. Instead of a separation
- be it visual, mental, emotional, physical, or spiritual - our
senses and minds tell us we're part of the world, so go with it.
We stub our toe, that's an experience, now what does this toe-stubbing
tell us about large rocks buried in garden paths? And what can
we learn from what we've gathered? We're not designating The Rock
as a "something else" and ourselves as "the opposite,"
but instead we are all - the rock, the garden, the path, us, our
companions - Dasein, which can best be translated as "the
being." This isn't the Cartesian separatist idea, that Dasein
is a thing that "be"s - if that makes sense - but that
Okay, so I give you credit and a gold star if you can process
that without scrunching your forehead up and contemplating printing
this out to burn me in effigy for such insanity and hair-splitting.
Wait, it is hair-splitting. But it's the basis of the existentialist
view: that who-we-are, is what-we-are. We aren't things that also
are, we are things. Don't know if that helps, but hey, nothing
wrong with a little confusion. Call it a little extra protein,
kinda like swallowing bugs when you're riding a bike in July.
Hah! How's that for a visual?
But to put this non-polarized notion into the Buffyverse, let's
see... Feel free to jump in here if you can come up with something
better. I'm no biggie poster or philosopher, but I've played one
on Voy Forums for three years now. Bwahahaha. First, Joss (I suspect)
doesn't play nice with the traditional polarized viewpoint, although
his original black & white, good & bad stories were acknowledgement
that his predominantly western audience is used to this type of
dichotomy, and that we are used to the expectation that conflict
occurs where the good & the bad meet.
What Joss has been doing has been to draw, slowly and surely,
to the center point where the majority of the characters are in
the center, and even those potentially qualifiable as "bad"
are more just another "middle" character with non-aligning
motivations (ie, Glory wants to go home, but she has to kill Dawn
to do it, and while Buffy doesn't care if Glory goes home, she
does care how Glory does it, hence conflict). If the conflict
is because Glory is bad and Buffy is good, well, that's one. But
if it's because of the older, and far better storytelling line,
that both characters are, well, themselves, and they want conflicting
things - that's way better IMO than their conflict being based
predominantly on external polarizing judgements of "good"
And alternately, we could polarize ourselves into "the show"
and "the audience," but instead we have been treating
the story, and the characters, as things - dasein - that we are
experiencing directly. And therefore, if we treat the show and
its moving parts as Dasein, then we are implicitly granting those
Dasein an existence independent of our interactions with it. If
that doesn't make sense, think of how many times we've seen steps
B, C, and E, and were expected to just "figure out"
that step D occured when the camera wasn't on that character.
That's giving the character the power of being a Dasein, in that
it's doing and interacting in ways and events that we don't witness
directly, which means that we're required to re-assess each time
we interact with that particular aspect. This prevents the static
no-character-development of some stories, and it's also helped
along by our willingness to existentially participate in the story,
by studying what the events/dasein indicate, relating those dasein
to each other, and then studying what conclusions we've drawn
Definition of terms: the audience/writer exchange is an interaction,
not a dialectic. Technically, dialectic is a type of debate where
you follow a movement of thesis, antithesis, and thereby reach
a synthesis, which becomes your next thesis, against which you
place another antithesis, ad nauseum. We'd be going into the dialectic
if the writers were positing statements, and we sought to prove
the statements not by proving them, but by positing the opposite
and then proving the negation, which in turn proves the positive,
and the summation of both creates the synthesis. That's all a
fancy way to say that theologians (who tend to use dialectic more
than anyone else) just can't argue a straight line if their lives
depended on it.
The amusing footnote is that I usually tell people my degree is
"logical dialectic," since the real degree ("20th
century european theology with a concentration in feminist existentialism")
usually makes most coworkers blink in uncomprehending disbelief.
On the other hand, I work with mostly programmers and engineers,
and I don't think most of them could logic their way out of a
paperbag. It's just a different way of processing information,
and fortunately for me, the Buffyverse is logical... it just doesn't
use the same basic assumptions as we do. (Like, "magic works,
demons exist, and Hell Gods do their shopping at Hot Topic and
Getting back to the idea of existentialism, I really think Joss
may be an unwitting agent for existentialism. Sheesh, he even
includes the Heideggarian angst that results from isolation from
the experiential world. We've got Angel, whose existence as a
new vamp defined him, until he had the time to develop an essence
based on his experiences as a vamp. And we've got Buffy, whose
role as Slayer was her existence for quite some time before she
developed an essence that includes both her pre-Slayer self as
well as her Slayer self.
I suppose there's always the question of, "what if you began
with an essence, but your existence changed radically? How much
is new, of you and to you, because your existence (and thus your
interaction with all around you) has shifted so dramatically?"
In this case, is it "essence (original persona) preceeds
existence (new way of doing)"? Or does the new existence
effectively null the previous essence, thus revealing that previous
essence as illusory, and rendering the person open to creating
a new essence based on the new existence - thus illustrating that
existence does preceed essence? And why are we travelling at this
speed, and what are we doing in this handbasket?
I mean, I suppose that in pre-Slayer days, Buffy would'nt have
been the first to beat up what she couldn't solve; with the Slayer
part, now, that's usually her first response. Her existence has
shaped her essence to the point where we're dealing with almost
an entirely different person. For that matter, this is metaphorical
for all battles humanity faces as each person grows up, and grows
[> Great to see you, Sol!
-- Masq, 15:59:49 07/28/03 Mon
Forgive my lack of comment, my brain is taking a break from all
[> Can I just say....I love
your lectures???..;) -- Rufus, 16:25:21 07/28/03 Mon
[> Bloody well about time
we saw some fresh, logical dialectic here! -- OnM, 19:21:13
Liked the handbasket, too. It fits my week so far.
[> Thanks, Sol...great essay!
-- s'kat, 20:45:50 07/28/03 Mon
Her existence has shaped her essence to the point where we're
dealing with almost an entirely different person. For that matter,
this is metaphorical for all battles humanity faces as each person
grows up, and grows into themselves.
In a nutshell you explained why I became obsessed with Btvs in
Season 6. Thank you. Been puzzeling over that for a while now.
It's b/c I was undergoing this very same thing.
You also did a wonderful job of giving me a clear overview of
existentialism. The best I've seen online. Thanks.
[> Board Good -- Celebaelin,
06:06:44 07/29/03 Tue
A great pleasure to read such a thought provoking post.
And from the file marked weird co-incidences Beer Bad has just
been on the TV and the resonances are exceeding strange. By means
of the theme of inherent primal desires the nature of the inner
man is again put under scrutiny.
Having last night drifted into a Monday drinking session the passage
from a discussion of St. Thomas Aquinas and the theological dialectic
to "Where girl go?" is not unfamiliar to me. The entertainment
began moderately well with an attempt to define ontology. As it
happens a fairly inadequate attempt more closely related to Voltaire's
assertion that 'If God did not exist it would be necessary to
invent him' than any actual learned ontological treatise. This
progressed through 'if existentialism is then ontology should
be' and by the end of the evening had resulted in the formation
of that most vexing of philosophical questions 'Where did I put
my shopping?' Such things happen when you bump into an old friend.
Curiously the previous day in that very watering hole I had touched
on ontogenesis in the embryological sense in a short conversation
regarding developmental biology and the reasons why clones will
never be anything other than genetically identical to the parent
I guess the problem with defining ontology is that nobody really
knows what it means. Is the presence of essence guaranteed by
the very fact of self examination or is the later defined biological
view of the development of the pre-parturition animal a more fitting
use of the term? I should be more exact I guess, by the biological
definition parturition itself is not required, embryos that develop
externally to the mother are also exhibiting the process. The
more usual terminology for this process would be 'embryology'
in any event.
Anyway, after a short interlude mainly consisting of sleep then
came Beer Bad as I say and Willow's "I tell you men haven't
changed since the dawn of time." Now, in my current frame
of mind that is seemingly a denial of essence whereas in its'
original context I think it was meant as a more straightforward
and pedestrian insult to men as a gender, motivated at least in
part by Oz's as yet unexplained fascination with Verruca (?possible
mini-troll?). I became as submerged and involved in the episode
as I have ever been, enjoying it far more on the second viewing,
probably because of the RL context it was placed in. As an indication
of how high a compliment I consider that to be I will say that
the wonderful Caveslayer lines still had me rolling around on
the floor (well, chuckling merrily) the second time and my heart
was filled with joy once more at the immortal words "Want
people, where people go?"
A wonderful re-run matched in quality by your re-posting of the
above, I'm very glad I got to read it the second time around.
[> Tabula Rasa -- Diana,
06:55:39 07/29/03 Tue
But in the Buffyverse, doesn't a show like "Tabula Rasa"
show that we aren't competely rasa? Even when the slate was wiped
clean, the characters fell into some sort of core that they were,
especially Buffy who was so Rasa she didn't even have a name.
Even before Buffy found out she had super powers, her love for
her sister and her natural ability to lead came through.
Is Angel becoming human or is he already human and just has to
realize it? Buffy fears that she is losing her ability to love,
when really her love has always been greater than the fire. The
potential of the Potentials has to be unlocked, not created.
There is an existentialist bent to the shows, but essentialism
isn't completely missing either. Both Riley tells Buffy and Giles
tells Willow that there is some essense that events and what we
do cannot touch. No human in the Buffyverse is irredeemable because
of the human soul. Existentialism presents the journey, but essentialism
gives the characters hope.
I would say that the position of the Buffyverse is that we have
potential and that potential is realized by our experiences. The
potential has to be there first on one hand, but if it wasn't
for the experiences, the potential won't be realized. It takes
the Sycthe spell or being Called to unlock this.
Is that existentialist, essentialist or a mix of the two?
[> Also wanted to add
-- Diana, 07:39:32 07/29/03 Tue
I mean, I suppose that in pre-Slayer days, Buffy would'nt have
been the first to beat up what she couldn't solve; with the Slayer
part, now, that's usually her first response. Her existence has
shaped her essence to the point where we're dealing with almost
an entirely different person. For that matter, this is metaphorical
for all battles humanity faces as each person grows up, and grows
But who is Buffy (or any of us for that matter)? Is it how we
solve problems, such as you give in the above example? In order
to answer the essentialist versus existentalist debate, there
has to be a "me." Such a debate negates the concept
of Dasein (or in Buddhism we used Vidya). That to me is where
existentialism starts to collapse on itself.
In order to be who-we-are is what-we-are there has to be a we.
Show me that concept. At what point in time are you talking about?
Show me a descrete enough amount of time that you are actually
something concrete. We have trouble figuring out who/what we are
because that illusion is that there is a "we." All thought
built on "we" is firm logic built on a foundation of
I'll just stick with the Buddhist concept of emptiness and the
three marks of existance: anitya (impermanence), duhkha (unsatisfactoriness)
and anatman (insubstantiality)
And Joss readily admits he is "an angry atheist existentialist."
[> Just wanted to say...
-- deeva, 08:39:56 07/29/03 Tue
it's always a good thing when you post an essay or essay-type
thing. I always learn something new or I'm given something to
think over for the rest of the day, sometimes week.
[> [> I know I haven't
done it in awhile... -- Solitude1056, 13:25:51 07/29/03
And all those posts in the first half of the board are a good
reason why. Way I see it, I come here to read things that make
my head swim, not things that make my head hurt.
Perhaps later this week I'll do that essay on postmodernism that
I've been meaning to do for about two years now...
[> [> [> Looking forward
to that, Sol! -- Rahael, 15:03:54 07/29/03 Tue
[> Re: Existentialism, Mini
Lecture #23, Revisited -- Caroline, 14:18:21 07/29/03 Tue
Thanks for this Sol, it's much appreciated. Despite my criticisms
of existentialism in another thread, I don't want to give anyone
the impression that I dislike this strand of philosophy. I don't.
I think that existentialism has much to offer concerning ethics,
the trials of existence etc. Many of us have had experiences of
angst or having been inauthentic to oneself (I'm using these terms
in their very specific philosophical sense, not the popular sense).
Existentialism gives us a way of accessing, intepreting, giving
name to all sorts of experiences.
I have a particular interest in psychology, and one of my sub-interests
is in the origin of behaviour. Most philosophies which deal with
why people behave the way they do end up in helpless teleologies
by defining behaviour by its goal. I've discussed this before
in Rina's thread on intention and I won't repeat those points
here. But I have a particular problem with existentialism in terms
of determining causality of behaviour. Basically, there is none.
Like behaviourism (think Skinnerian stimulus-response type stuff),
existentialism sees the individual as an empty box, it tells us
nothing about the agent or how the agent experiences, learns,
self-knows and self-creates. So for those of us trying to assess
the motivations for behaviour in a non-circular way, existentialism
is not very useful. Like behaviourism, I think that there is implicit
in existentialism of some kind of mechanism within the agent which
learns etc. We just don't get the sense of what it is.
Heidegger is actually one of my favourite existentialists and
many of his ideas have been brought into psychology by existentialist
psychologists such as Binswanger. He defines dasein as
being-in-the world in a very active sense. It's the potential
for being and therefore the possibility for authenticity and inauthenticity
of the individual. We are totally and completely responsible for
ourselves we are agent that choose and that is inseparable from
being, we have no intrinsic nature. But here I have a conceptual
problem with existentialism. Even in a state of 'being-fallen'
(an inauthentic state), we are choosing to remain in that state.
If so, how can what we choose to be actually be inauthentic? Everything
we do is by definition authentic. If being-in-the-world is self-chosen,
then the expression 'inauthentic being' has no referent, it's
a contradiction in terms. And since we have no intrinsic nature,
our being is just this principle of self-choosing, then we are
identical to what we do, how we behave, how we present ourselves
in the world, to our consciousness, etc.
Needless to say, that doesn't work for me. I can (and have) spackled
in more determinate origins for the origins of behaviour that
satisfy me enough to be able to use the more interesting explorations
of the human condition that existentialism provides. But I still
think that the basic tenets are compromised.
[> [> See, this is why
ignorance is bliss. -- Arethusa, 14:55:48 07/29/03 Tue
In my ignorance I can call myself an existentialist because I
don't use the philosophy to explain behavior; I use it to process
data and make decisions. Operating system versus hard drive. (Thereby
exposing ignorance in two fields.) I vaugely know why I
do things, a combination of who my parents are/were and my interactions
with them, as well as my interactions with the greater world.
But when it comes to deciding how I want to live and who I want
to try to be, it's very comforting to feel justified rejecting
social and parental influences. (And that's what I sometimes think
philosopy and religion exist merely so we can find a way to live
[> [> [> Re: See,
this is why ignorance is bliss. -- Caroline, 06:54:14 07/30/03
You have just shown why sometimes we are our own best philosophers.
Very well said.
[> [> [> [> Thank
you. -- Arethusa, 07:36:29 07/30/03 Wed
[> Re: Existentialism, Mini
Lecture #23, Revisited -- Vickie, 16:21:36 07/29/03 Tue
Thanks, Sol! Good to see you here. And so very very good to see
some content, instead of our interminable squabbles over our squabbles.
I couldn't possibly comment on the philosophy, but I can on the
Call it a little extra protein, kinda like swallowing bugs
when you're riding a bike in July. Hah! How's that for a visual?
Um, visual? I'm choking over here. ROFL!!!
[> Preserving this thread
-- Masq, 04:44:27 07/30/03 Wed
[> Fantastic stuff --
Tchaikovsky, 05:12:35 07/30/03 Wed
After my brief flirtation with Wittgenstein at the end of last
year, I'm back to the position where philosophy leads me quickly
off on tangents. My essence is vanilla and my existence is a David
Cronenberg film. But what can you do? Brilliantly written in any
case- calling to mind that old Monty Python philosophers song...
[> [> Re: Fantastic stuff--O/T
-- Arethusa, 06:57:35 07/30/03 Wed
Oh, vanilla is wonderful, so fragrant and evocative. I've known
girls who wore it as perfume because it made guys think of baking
cookies.... Sorry about the Cronenberg thing, though.;)
[> [> For your edification
(extraordinarily silly and demeaning to Sol's thread) -- Tchaikovsky,
07:25:53 07/30/03 Wed
Emmanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable.
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under
David Hume could out consume good old Freidrick Hegel.
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach about the raising of
Socrates himself was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will on half a pint of shandy
was particularly ill.
Plato they say could stick it away - half a crate of whiskey every
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle and Hobbes was
fond of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart: I drink, therefore I am.
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed:
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
[> [> [> One of my
best friends in college always hummed this before exams...
-- Solitude1056, 07:41:13 07/30/03 Wed
She always aced the exams, too, so there may be something there...
[> [> [> Yay Python!!
-- Rob, 07:45:16 07/30/03 Wed
[> [> [> They're all
cricketers Bruce -- Celebaelin,
09:58:31 07/30/03 Wed
I always heard this as
David Hume could out-consume Hobson and 'Banks' and Hegel
Presumably this Hobson
and this 'Banks'
Bancks, William. 1688 Sir Robert Rede's Lecturer (Philosophy)
(Nothing more to see with any link here)
Maybe, at a push, even this Bancks
And, even if I am getting a bit nit-picky for someone working
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle, Hobbes was fond
of his dram
And Rene Descartes was a drunken old fart: I drink, therefore
Though Socrates himself is particularly missed:
So as not to come over as too self satisfied I should say that
for a number of years I went around declaring in a loud voice
that Lichtenstein was a beery swine. I now realise of course that
the philosophical bent of of a small land area in the Pyranees
is probably not what was intended and I am only slightly comforted
by the existence of a pop artist of that name.
[> [> [> [> Lichtenstein
is in the Alps (between Switzerland and Austria) -- Celebaelin,
10:13:41 07/30/03 Wed
Why was it
Andrew and not Jonathan? -- ZachsMind, 18:22:45 07/28/03
I enjoyed Andrew for what the character was, as I try to appreciate
whatever scraps the PtB & M.E. threw our way. However, the character
who DESERVED Andrew's place was Jonathan. When they killed the
character off, I could understand from a cerebral point of view
that this was perhaps seen as fitting by the writers, and also
perhaps hoped to be a surprise to the audience. That a character
(though minor he may have been) who had been with the series since
the beginning would be killed off. Maybe by doing that they were
hoping to insinuate to us that they were taking off the kid gloves
and anything could happen.
Blah blah. All it did was tick me off. The ONE guy of the Troika
would was remotely redeemable, and they just kill him off. What
I dunno if they simply couldn't get Danny Strong to work a semi-regular
role into his hectic schedule, or if someone on the production
crew thought Strong couldn't handle it.. The character Jonathan
has been with the series since the unaired pilot, and then there
was that young female mummy episode where he almost died. Jonathan
was there when Buffy got the third degree after her return from
L.A. Buffy talked Jonathan out of killing himself. It was Jonathan
who presented Buffy with the Senior Prom Award of Class Protector.
He'd been a victim of egg parasites and Oz took a bullet for him
in the cafeteria. Jonathan once stole Buffy's powers (but he gave'm
back) and he was the reluctant third of the Troika. I think the
guy deserved to finally be unofficially inducted into the Scooby
hall of fame. He'd put in his time.
I don't know who Strong dissed to have gotten himself killed so
soon in the last season, but I for one was sorely disappointed,
and that may/could have affected my appreciation of Andrew, and
Tom Lenk's performance, cuz I kept thinking Jonathan should be
the one there trying to fit in. It's what he always wanted. So
I ask you, why do you think it was Andrew who survived to go on
the road of redemption and not die, when Jonathan was all the
more worthy of being given that chance?
[> Re: Why was it Andrew
and not Jonathan? -- RJA, 18:32:51 07/28/03 Mon
According to Tom Lenck (I think), the reason why it was Andrew
and not Jonathan was that DS wasnt available for the commitment.
He could only do a few appearances compared to TL.
Originally, the plan was for Jonathan to kill Andrew, but schedules
didnt work out.
And to be honest, if it was Jonathan that had killed Andrew, after
Earshot, after Superstar, after Grave, I would just assume he
was irredeemable. If he hadnt got an idea of what was right or
wrong after all that, he never would.
[> [> Well maybe...
-- ZachsMind, 18:52:40 07/28/03 Mon
Maybe they coulda kept it like it was with Andrew being prodded
by Warren/First and Jonathan oblivious but in his own small way
redemptive, talking about how he wishes he knew what the other
alumni of the school were doing now, and Andrew tells Jonathan
that nobody cares, and Jonathan shrugs and says that doesn't matter.
That he's not hung up with the negative vibes anymore. And then
Andrew looks over at Warren/First, and they decide to turn on
But instead of Jonathan just standing there like a putz and letting
himself be slaughtered, Jonathan coulda grabbed Andrew's hands
and the two would have struggled over the seal with the knife.
They could have corny melodramatic music playing in the background
and Warren/First is standing there rooting them on, not really
caring which one actually wins just that he wants to see blood.
Then we get a shot of the two guys squirming with the knife and
the knife moves off camera and it's near their guts and then they
both react to the blade going into flesh and they both look at
each other and then Andrew loses feeling in his legs and falls
slowly and clumsily out of the shot and on the seal, and Jonathan's
standing there holding the knife, horrified.
But okay, if Strong couldn't commit then that's life.
[> [> [> Re: Well
maybe... -- RJA, 18:56:47 07/28/03 Mon
Well, sure, if it happened that way, then fair enough. But if
the original plan was to have Jonathan in Andrew's place I would
have very little sympathy for him. But an accident and remorse
I could be happy with.
But yeh, it was apparently just availability.
[> [> [> [> My
ideal tv spinoff... -- ZachsMind, 22:04:54 07/28/03 Mon
I wanna see "No Really You Think?" The Series
starring Nicholas Brendon (Xander), Danny Strong (Jonathan), Michelle
Trachtenberg (Dawn) and Elizabeth Allen (Amy). With recurring
roles or guest star spots by any Buffy or Angel series alumnus
who wanted to make an appearance. If only wishes were horses.
[> [> [> [> [>
Tee-hee -- dream, 11:55:32 07/29/03 Tue
My Buffy dream-series? Giles in England, as a ghost-hunter (the
premise for Ripper). But he has a link to the nether-world through
GhostTara. She talks to him, tells him things (of course, most
of what she offers him helps more in terms of Giles' development
than just in terms of that week's ghostly trouble.) Ethan Rayne
shows up regularly as a general nuisance. Willow shows up occasionally
- she can't bring herself to stay all the time because 1) she's
too busy running the new Council of Helpers and 2) she finds it
too traumatic that Giles can see Tara, and she can't. Olivia can
make some appearances as an on-again, off-again love interest,
though I would like a competing love interest as well, one from
the magical world, rather than the regular world. Jenny Calendar
will haunt Giles sometimes. He'll need at least one other person
as a regular, someone who will serve as a foil. I wouldn't mind
Spike in this role, because the possibilities of the Spike/Giles
relationship always seemed immense to me - after all, Spike is
Giles turned inside out - the geek turned tough who never turned
back. But I think after all that has gone on, Spike might be a
bit overpowering in a show with Giles, so we'll need a new character.
(I would have wanted Anya, but of course, that - sniff - is no
longer possible). Once a season, we'll need a Slayer, and I vote
Um, I'm getting a little lost in this fantasy...time to stop.
[> [> [> [> [>
[> This would be a great show. -- Sophist, 12:53:25
[> [> [> But that
wouldn't have been enough to set up the storyline -- KdS,
02:29:32 07/29/03 Tue
Jonathan kills Andrew in self-defence? Who cares? The same idea
was one of Andrew's lying flashbacks in Stroyteller, to
make himself feel better about killing Jonathan. As other people
in the topic say, if Jonathan had played that role it would have
been another regression for him.
[> [> [> [> 'J
kills A in self-defence? Who cares?' -- ZachsMind, 08:09:08
J kills A. A's blood falls on the seal instead of J's. A, being
a bit taller and less anemic than J, triggers the opening of the
seal. J freaks out and runs as fast as his little legs carry him.
Insert really amusing yet suspenseful chase scene. ...Of course,
come to think of it, J would probably have just gotten eaten by
the UberVamp at that point, and then none of the Troika woulda
survived. I guess things turned out for the best.
[> Re: Why was it Andrew
and not Jonathan? -- Cheryl, 19:24:03 07/28/03 Mon
I thought I'd read somewhere (I thought here), and what made sense
to me, was that Jonathon had completed his journey but Andrew
It's not like they killed off Jonathon and we never saw him again,
so I don't think it was an availability issue. I don't know what
DS has been up to, other than a small bit in Seabiscuit (and boy
was I surprised when I saw him in it!), but I do know the actor
and the character were personal favorites of Jane Espenson's and
I can't just see ME killing him off just for the sake of killing
[> [> OT: Remember, Seabiscuit
was directed by Gary Ross, the writer/director of Pleasantville....
-- cjl, 12:06:01 07/30/03 Wed
So it's natural that Ross would bring back DS (who played the
Juke Box Kid in Pleasantville) as one of the jockeys.
I'd say Danny has a potentially sweet deal as a featured player
in Ross' movies--except Ross only seems to make movies once every
[> Because Jonathan had
less of a distance to go. -- HonorH, 19:35:00 07/28/03
Jonathan died doing what he believed was right. He wanted to make
up to Buffy what he'd done the previous year. He also *got* it--that
having been picked on in high school didn't matter. He'd stopped
being bitter and just wanted to help those people. Jonathan, in
short, had already acheived a sort of redemption.
Andrew, OTOH, did have a long way to go. He needed to be dragged
back to reality and to the understanding that the world isn't
just a big game of D&D (even if in Sunnydale, it did resemble
it at times). Now, I loved Andrew and Tom Lenk's performance,
so I'm operating on my own biases, but I really enjoyed watching
as the layers slowly fell away and Andrew was finally able to
find something like his own redemption. By the end, he was a real
boy, not Warren's bitch or the First's puppet.
[> Not trying to be flamey
. . . -- Finn Mac Cool, 00:04:41 07/29/03 Tue
But I found Andrew much more enjoyable than Jonathan. I don't
dislike Jonathan, but I don't like him either. I guess I just
never really GOT him. He seems to have this big appeal for everyone
that I just don't get. Why does everyone seem to like him so much?
For me, he's like Lenny and Carl on "The Simpsons":
he's just there. Doesn't take much away from the story and doesn't
add much to it; he's just there. Andrew, on the other hand, was
funny. Not so much in Season Six, but Season Seven was big into
self-reference, and a character who's totally delusional about
reality and fantasy provided great qualities of humor. Could Jonathan
have been used in the same way? Maybe. But, frankly, I don't think
his perceptions of reality were quite screwed up enough to bring
it to Andrew's level.
Of course, it could just be I don't like Danny Strong's acting.
A distinct possibility.
[> [> The deuce you say!
-- ZachsMind, 08:51:58 07/29/03 Tue
"Of course, it could just be I don't like Danny Strong's
acting. A distinct possibility."
Them's fightin' words, youngun!
BUFFY: Great. Thanks. Anybody else want to weigh in here?
How about you by the dip?
JONATHAN: No, thanks. I'm good.
Actually I'm beginning to think of Jonathan metaphorically as
the Bob Dole of the BuffyVerse. He put in his time and did a lot
of things behind the scenes over the years, and when his time
came to get the brass ring, things just didn't go his way. Not
that I'm saying Bob Dole got sacrificed on the republican altar
of Ubervampism.. Actually maybe this metaphor doesn't work too
Perhaps diehards who are really into the series, or were with
it from the beginning, would see Jonathan in a way different from
someone who has a more objective point of view. It's like he's
a fellow passenger whom you got a glimpse of a few times and didn't
pay much attention, but then after awhile when that same face
keeps standing out in the crowd, you realize that even though
you took him for granted and he didn't really make any splash,
he's been a fellow passenger all this time. It's like he's on
the same team you're on. Naturally you'd cheer for him when he's
up and urge him on when he's down. However, an objective viewer
who finds Jonathan brought to his attention late in the game and
wasn't sharing the virtual journey would not care so much. They'd
see the surface. He's one third of a bad guy team, big deal..
and not a very good bad guy at that I mean how can you be a bad
guy when you're heart's just not into being bad?
Still, to say Danny Strong is not a good actor? I can't wrap my
mind around that one. I'd like to see the allegedly greatest film
actors of today (Hanks, Cruise, Travolta) do as much with as little.
It takes a special breed of talent to be given one line and leave
a memorable imprint.
JONATHAN: That's my cue to leave.
[> [> [> Agreed!
-- Rob, 23:33:36 07/29/03 Tue
[> Roles and humour
-- pellenaka, 05:35:27 07/29/03 Tue
I'm not sure that it was because of availability issue as I remember
several interviews in which Tom Lenk tells about how they read
through the CWDP script and Danny Strong ignored the 'actions'.
After-wards he said something (paraphrasing): This is great, it's
so open for us to come back!" and TL told him to read it
one more time.
Also, Andrew provided much of the funny in S7 and kinda took over
Xander's role as funny-guy. And I'm not sure that Jonathan took
have done the same thing, like Finn Mac Cool said, Andrew's delusions,
in a seasons where the situation is so serious all of the time,
made him oblivious to said serious things. Jonathan would have
reacted a whole bunch differently as he, already in S6, was 'growing
He didn't thrust Warren who left him to take the trash in Seeing
Red and wouldn't have killed Andrew - he was shocked a lot by
the incident with Katrina.
| More July 2003