July 2001 posts

Previous July 2001  

More July 2001

Real me...the season in miniature? -- Wiccagrrl, 23:06:51 07/11/01 Wed

This excerpt from the shooting script for 'Real Me', actually gives away quite a lot of things, with mid-summer 2001 benefit of hindsight, naturally:

R: Morning, Mrs. Summers. You look great.

J: Thank you, Riley. (Buffy goes and greets Riley as Joyce exits upstairs)

B: Suck up.

R: What, it's a nice outfit. Besides, 'I'm here to violate your firstborn' never goes over with the parents. Not sure why.

D: (in voiceover): Riley, my sister's boyfriend, is so into her. They're always kissing. And groping. (pause) I bet they've had sex.

R: (noticing Dawn watching ): Hey, kid.

D: I'm not a kid.

B: This is a surprise of the nice kind.

R: Now it's my turn to be surprised. Thought we had plans today.

B: Plans? We planned plans?

R: Well, you said 'come over and we'll hang'. Then I said ''kay'. Not the invasion of Normandy, but still a plan.

B: Oh, right, uh...

R: We're not hanging, are we?

B: Giles is on his way to pick me up.

R: (understanding): Slayer training.

B: Slayer shopping, actually. (defensive) But it's just as important.

R: I've no doubt. Okay, we'll hook up later.

B: You're not mad?

R: No, no, I'm plotting your death, but in a happy way.

B: (teeny bit worried): Oh, good...

R: (sincere): Buffy, I know what this means to you. I think it's great you've got this new mission. (he kisses her on the cheek and exits) See you tonight. (calls out) See you, kid!

D: I'm *not* a *kid*.

(REVERSE ANGLE ON BUFFY, in doorway, watching him go and feeling somehow guilty)


OK, you might want to go back and read that again. Yes, this is the second episode of the season, and this one little four-way conversation (Buffy/Joyce/Riley/Dawn) has just laid out about half of the main events of the rest of the season, and the comments that are most relevant are those that Riley makes, by the implications of what Dawn really turns out to be, that he complements Joyce who then 'exits upstairs', that he had plans with Buffy that get deferred, that he respects her 'new mission' and that he is 'plotting her death, but in a happy way'. Either this show's writers are having their keyboards possessed by the Buffyverse PTB, or they had the whole year planned in exacting detail before 'Real Me' was written. (Your call).

This is from OnM's Riley Post, and I just thought it was interesting enough to discuss in more detail.

A while ago I came to the conclusion that Guise Will Be Guise is very much the Darla arc/Angel season 2 in miniature. So many of the seasons themes are dealt with on a smaller scale there- Angel's Darla obsession (which drags him away from the gang) The Guru's advice about Angel sleeping with a "small blond" to get over Darla. Wesley being forced to step up to the plate and take on Angel's role as leader of the group, and many more small and large details (which I'd need to go back and rewatch to remind myself of)

So, could the same be said of Real Me as it relates to Buffy? In addition to the things OnM has mentioned, think about the basic plot- a not-too bright blonde and her minions kidnap Dawn, threatening to kill her (chaining her up, and yet seeming to wait for a certain point to do it) Buffy has to save her. Riley does get blown off because Buffy has to deal with Family stuff. (Also, her intensified Slayer training is interrupted by Dawn and "family stuff"- namely, Buffy must look after Dawn because JOYCE CAN'T)

Is this a reasonable theory or am I stretching?


[> Totally reasonable theory! -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 05:46:31 07/12/01 Thu

Having just got the first half of season five on video, I was able to watch it in light of its impact on later episodes and I agree that 'Real Me' is full of foreshadowing. However, I would go further and suggest that the first three episodes are entirely devoted to mapping out the themes that are dealt with in more detail later on.

I won't elaborate on foreshadowing in the other two episodes since that's not what you asked about. As for 'Real Me' being kinda like the whole season in miniature, I don't think it's quite that simple. There is a combination of large story arcs being foreshadowed on a smaller scale (Harmony + minions, etc), important elements being introduced (a 'crazy', the 'Magic Box', the Buffy/Dawn relationship) and themes starting to be developed (slayer history, family). But that's probably what you meant, right?

One little thing I spotted: just as Dawn brings Glory down upon the Summers' household, she invites Harmony in...without Dawn, there would be no Glory.

And one thing that seems to disappear completely: how much Dawn likes Xander.

So, no, I don't think that's stretching at all (sorry for sounding like a teacher - this is actually just a long-winded way of agreeing with you, isn't it). I think that this kind of complex foreshadowing / introduction is one sign of how mature 'Buffy' has become.


[> [> Miniatures, Foreshadowing, Clever Writers and a Gift -- darrenK, 06:36:39 07/12/01 Thu

You hit it on the head.

RealMe is the entire season in miniature. Right down to the speech Harmony gives to Dawn when Dawn is chained up.

It does more than foreshadow the entire season, it enacts it.

It's similar to what Joss did with the Teaser section for the Gift. Made it the entire show in miniature: normal person runs from horrible vampire, cool girl slays horrible vampire saves normal person. It was so spare and ceremonial. It gave me chills.

Those clever, sneaky, genius Buffy writers. They're so damn intimidating that they almost scare me away from spelling.dK


[> [> [> Re: That is so cool, Wiccagirl! You get a twinkie. -- Dedalus, 12:50:58 07/12/01 Thu
The cutest thing I've ever seen -- Shaglio, 06:53:46 07/12/01 Thu

In light of the recent anniversary topical questions (specifically the Most Memorable Moment on, but it's lost somewhere down on the posting board so I started anew), I decided to post my favorite moment. I was thinking of this last wednesday, but I forgot about it until last night when I saw my lovable Willow again. The cutest thing I have ever seen was in The Body (yes, The Body) when Xander was in Willow's dorm room and he was all pissed off at the doctors for Joyce's death. Willow walkd up to him and put up her "dukes" and said, "Okay, let's go, you and me." I can't describe it! It was the most adorable moment I've ever seen on the show. And yes I'm aware that I said I can't describe it and the proceeded to do just that. I love the action and the adventure, but it's those little cute and/or comical scenes that keep me coming back for more.


[> Re: The cutest thing I've ever seen -- Cactus Watcher, 07:24:28 07/12/01 Thu

While the scene was set up for 'cuteness' (re: Willow having to jiggle down her too long sleeves just to show her fists) I found it to be a very moving dramatic moment as well. Willow's love for Xander has changed, but she still loves him and knows him very well.


[> [> Re: The cutest thing I've ever seen -- Squonk's Tears, 19:12:10 07/12/01 Thu

Did you also appreciate the parallelism of Xander and Tara's intereaction with Willow? They each kiss Willow on the forehead. There you have their shared aspect as Willow's closest companions (Buffy may be Willow's best friend, but Xander and then Tara, obviously, share something more). Xander and Tara exchange empathetic glances. Tara's "platonic" forehead kiss is supplemented by three gentle "lover's" kisses. A very nice scene. And at the end of it all, poor Anya is still an outsider in the group, despite the fact that she loves Xander and shares his bed. Very poignant.

Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- OnM, 22:27:38 07/12/01 Thu

Masq's response to the thread just below made me wonder, considering the older-age skewed nature of ATPo being what it is, what would ya'all consider your fantasy faves on TV over however long you've been watching? You may interpret 'fantasy' broadly. Always like to understand my fellow poster's perversions better, so go to it! ;-)

My I'll-buy-these-on-DVD-ASAP-should-I-not-already-own-them TV shows:

1. Buffy (du-uh!) 2. The Avengers (only the years w/Steed and Emma, sorry) 3. Angel 4. The X-Files (except the last season) 5. The Prisoner 6. Twin Peaks 7. Most of Deep Space Nine 8. Star Trek: Harlan Ellison's story 'The City on the Edge of Forever'. 9. The Days and Nights of Molly Dodd 10. My So-Called Life 11. Sliders 12. Farscape


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- JBone, 22:40:20 07/12/01 Thu

I don't know alot of the shows you listed. My would be:

1. Buffy 2. ST:TNG 3. Lonesome Dove: The Outlaw Years (I feel I need to explain this one. It's a western based on the MacMurtry character Newt. Lots of killin.) 4. ST:Voyager 5. Hercules: The Legendary Journeys 6. Angel 7. ST:DS9 8. Baywatch (You said fantasy) 9. Xena: Warrior Princess (at times great series) 10. South Park (occasionally brilliant)


[> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- JBone, 20:10:10 07/17/01 Tue

just want to add "Son of the Beach," (more tongue in cheek than any show I remember), and a new one "Witchblade". I love Sara Pazini, and am finding Yancy Butler very hot.


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Liquidram, 22:51:10 07/12/01 Thu

I would have to say that X-Files was my all time favorite.... miss Mulder, love Skinner .... (always on the controversial side of the stick.)

Buffy/Angel gaining, mainly (and no shock here) because of the Spike arc.


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Wiccagrrl, 22:53:25 07/12/01 Thu

Humm...ok, here ya go:

Buffy Angel Xena (yeah, I was a big Xena fan) The Avengers (agree- Just the Emma years) The Prisoner Red Dwarf ST:TNG Twilight Zone

like Dark Shadows and Twin Peaks, but have only seen a few of each


[> [> D'oh- forgot to name X-files and South Park -- Wiccagrrl, 22:55:23 07/12/01 Thu


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Rufus, 23:04:16 07/12/01 Thu

Boy, that is a hard one. I was around for many shows I'll list some of my favs. No particular order of preference.

1. Lost in Space, I remember clearly the first ever episode of this family in space, I loved Dr. Smith, he was one of the first men I had seen that could scream like a girl.

2. Night Gallery. Rod Serling was a wonderful storyteller.

3. Twilight Zone. Classic could make you laugh make you cry, poor Burgess Meredith and his broken glasses at the end of time.

4. Kolchack the Night Stalker. This show is pure fun.

5. Avengers (only with Mrs. Peel)

6. Dark Shadows, so it's a soap, I loved it.

7. X-files. Leaving Canada did the show in .

8. Star Trek in each generation.

9. Deep Space Nine.

10. Babylon 5

11. Dr. Who. I spent many hours with the Doctor. Tom Baker was my favorite one.

12. Red Dwarf. Holograms can be prissy and hilarious..can't forget Rimmer World.

13. Ultra Violet

14. Outer Limits

15. Forever Knight

16. Good vs. Evil

17. Kindred the Embraced. My favorite ep was the one where the fellow who played Kralic casts a spell to look like a normal man instead of a Nosferatu.


[> [> I hope you all realise that Buffy and Angel are a given on my list. -- Rufus, 23:05:58 07/12/01 Thu


[> [> [> Well of course. BTW, I really liked G vs E too... -- Wiccagrrl, 23:11:01 07/12/01 Thu

Too bad it didn't last longer.


[> [> [> [> Re: Well of course. BTW, I really liked G vs E too... -- Rufus, 23:18:51 07/12/01 Thu

I got an opportunity to catch Babylon 5 and Good vs Evil on the Space Channel. I'm glad that I had this chance they are great shows.


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Q, 23:12:32 07/12/01 Thu

1 Buffy 2 Angel 3 Twin Peaks 4 X-files (including last season, which I really liked) 5 Maybe TNG


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Sebastian, 23:28:59 07/12/01 Thu

Bloody hell....my original list didn't post.

1. Buffy 2. X-Men: The Animated Series 3. Thundercats 4. Voltron 5. Law & Order 6. Designing Women 7. Golden Girls (love that Lifetime Channel) :-) 8. Ultraviolet 9. Wonder Woman 10.GI Joe 11.Scooby Doo (how very ironic) :) 12.Charlie's Angels 13.V 14.A Different World 15.Dateline 16.Daria

I know I've forgotten some from my other (and traumatically lost) post.... ;)


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Slayrunt, 02:37:33 07/13/01 Fri

1. Buffy (du-uh!) 2. The Avengers (only the years w/Steed and Emma, sorry) 3. Angel 4. Stargate 5. Red Dwarf (Cloister the Stupid (LOL)) 6. Star Trek (original/TNG) 7. Hercules/Xena


[> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Brian, 03:01:11 07/13/01 Fri

Make that an early morning poll for me:

1. Buffy

2. Angel

3. Avengers (with Emma - witty, sexy, clever science fiction)

4. Star Trek (original series - the first thinking man's science fiction for me)

5. Babylon 5 (concept of an extended arc blew me away)

6. Space Patrol (Buzz Corbett - my first hero)

7. Flash Gordon (1954 - Introduced me to the whole concept of science fiction)

8. Twin Peaks (only the first season - a twisted murder mystery with coffee and donuts)

9. Dr Who - (especially Tom Baker)

10.Knight Rider ( a talking car with attitude)


[> [> [> Yes, isn't Tom Baker great. -- Rufus, 21:15:46 07/13/01 Fri


[> [> [> Umm, wasn't that coffee and...cherry pie? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 22:09:17 07/13/01 Fri


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Millan, 05:11:15 07/13/01 Fri

Here's one more list (not much different from many others):

Buffy Angel Babylon 5 X-files V Farscape ST-Voyager ST-TNG Third rock from the sun



[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Shaglio, 05:54:06 07/13/01 Fri

1) The Simpsons (yes they are #1) 2) Buffy 3) Angel 4) Law & Order 5) Whose Line Is It Anyway? (this can be argued as fantasy) 6) Seinfeld


[> Apart from the two that need not be named... -- Marie, 06:02:58 07/13/01 Fri

(in no particular order - depends on my mood-of-the-moment):

Babylon 5 Stargate Twin Peaks V Dr. Who Ultraviolet American Gothic Avengers (the Emma years!) Twilight Zone (the original) Star Trek Farscape Tales of the Supernatural X-Files Spike - the Early Years


[> Re: Continued-the-next-day-poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- OnM, 06:31:59 07/13/01 Fri

Veeeeerry interesting.

I've heard many people comment favorably on 'Red Dwarf', but I've never seen it to date. I'll try to remedy that sometime.

I watched 'Lost in Space' when I was a kid, but kept asking myself why these people were all so terminally stupid. Later I found out this was the network that turned down 'Star Trek' because 'we already have a science-fiction series' (a direct quote from the network brass).

This was one case where the movie version (Lost in Space) was far, far better than the TV show. I wouldn't give it 'Classic Movie' status, but at least it was fun and didn't grossly insult your intelligence. I feel the same about 'Charlie's Angels'. Roger Ebert absolutely detested that flick, but I enjoyed it, so I guess it falls into the 'guilty pleasure' category for me. Great director's commentary track on the DVD, BTW.

One show I saw listed that I would also add to my list would be 'Daria'. I seldom watch it, because the commercial load on MTV (22% of the hour, in case you ever wondered) is just too outrageous, but it is a truly brilliant program, easily rivaling 'The Simpsons'.

Keep 'em coming guys! Cool stuff!


[> [> OnM, on Red Dwarf, one of the crew is a Hologram.............. -- Rufus, 21:24:21 07/13/01 Fri

You have to see this show, I love it. Chicken vindaloo is mentioned a lot.....


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: The Night After... -- Wisewoman, 22:15:20 07/13/01 Fri

Well, I obviously went to bed too early last night!

Buffy/Angel The Man from U.N.C.L.E. ST:TNG Twin Peaks Avengers (ditto) X-Files American Gothic

..and I really liked a show a coupla years ago that only lasted about 6 eps; I think it was called "Prey?" About a separate humanoid species that shared the Earth with us, and preyed on us? Starred the woman from Will and Grace? Hello, anyone out there...?



[> [> Opps sorry I forgot one Prey..loved it........... -- Rufus, 22:41:16 07/13/01 Fri


[> [> [> Prey OT -- Solitude1056, 14:50:40 07/14/01 Sat

The actress in Prey (if I remember the show rightly) was from RI. And you could tell - she wore brown lipstick.

(A very Roe Dyland thing to do.)


[> I grew up on Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers... -- Wilder, 22:39:20 07/13/01 Fri

I don't really have T.V. now, but my best friend kindly tapes Buffy and Angel for me. Back in the day it was: · the above · Dr. Who · V long pause · Twin Peaks · Quantum Leap · ST:TNG longer pause · two season of X-files bookending the movie ..and of course, the best reason for VCRs - the show's that brought me to this board.


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Rendyl, 22:52:52 07/13/01 Fri

Er...Am I the only person to have seen 'Strange Luck'? You know, guy survives plane crash as a little kid..now has wierd luck..D.B Sweeney was in it? "People say I'm lucky..." (sorry, to this day that line cracks my hubby up) Anyway...

Sticking strictly to fantasy..cough...and not delving into sci-fi (most of those you all posted I like) here are some of my faves,

Pirates of Dark Water -- (why do networks never finish cartoons? This one was too cool)

The Tick -- (which might be SF, the line is thin)

The Sentinel -- (and not just to drool over Blair-get your minds out of the gutter-grin)

Brisco County, Jr. -- (which was ...well it was wierd, but good.)

Poltergeist:The Legacy -- (very uneven but when it was good it was really good)

Highlander -- (like I am the only one who watches this...)

Kung Fu (the first one)

Since people did list sci-fi here are some that got overlooked--

Prey...did I mention Prey? Did one of you mention Prey? Is Prey on my list? Is Roger Howarth an amazing actor? Was this show not ultra cool? Did I mention Roger Howarth was in it? (grin)

Quantum Leap -- (my mom has such a thing for Dean Stockwell)

The Lone Gunmen -- (aghhhhhhhh..they cancelled it...aghhhhhhhhh)

First Wave -- (come on..it has Eddie)

Freakylinks -- (another cool show cancelled...sigh)

Mission Impossible -- (the original series...)

I loved Alex Mack and the Forever People -- (yes, I really am demented)

Wild Wild West (somehow the series was just so much....neater..than the movie turned out to be)

Harsh Realm -- (did anyone catch this? I only saw three episodes..did they make more?)

Batman -- (the animated series. I think someone else mentioned this..it is so well done)

Men in Black -- (the cartoon is even better than the movie...and I liked the movie)

DangerMouse -- (at one time I was addicted to this...I would miss school..work...dates..to watch DangerMouse)

Finally, several people mentioned Farscape (cheers) but does anyone else watch the Invisible Man? I love it. Darian wears the ugliest clothes on the planet...it is just a very fun show.



[> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Cynthia, 03:44:38 07/14/01 Sat

All the previous mentions are great. But I have a soft spot for Thunderbirds. You know, the puppet kids show from the early sixties. Guess it's because I was so little and I totally accepted them as characters (strings and all LOL).

I also enjoyed the previous series what ASH was in. The one with Lori Singer. Can't remember the actually name of the show though.

And, guess, I too, think Roger Howarth is great. Unfortunity you have to be a watcher of One Life to Live (an American soap for those outside the US) to see him. Wouldn't mind seeing him and Marsters in something together.

Does anyone every read a story and visualize what it would look like as a movie as casted by your favorite actors?

Oh, I almost forgot, another guilty pleasure. Ghostbusters, both one and two.


[> [> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Cynthia, 03:48:27 07/14/01 Sat

I should never try and type at this time of the morning and before my first coffee. The spelling, grammer and editing abilities (what little I have) just don't exist then.


[> [> [> [> ASH & Lori Singer? Was it called VR5 or something like that? -- Wisewoman, 11:29:23 07/14/01 Sat

Um, and she had a twin sister she'd been separated from for years? It was a totally cool virtual reality thing that lasted about six eps as well. TV sucks sometimes...



[> [> My list also includes Harsh Realm -- sollig, 05:46:18 07/14/01 Sat

Here are mine (not necessarily in order): 1. Buffy 2. Angel 3. Twin Peaks 4. Alien Nation 5. X Files 6. Star Trek, TNG, Voyager 7. Harsh Realm (There were maybe five, which I enjoyed; I think it had potential.)

I don't think these are technically fantasy shows, but since some of these were listed elsewhere: 8. The Simpsons 9. King of the Hill 10. Futurama 11. My So-Called Life (Why, oh why was this cancelled?) 12. Freaks and Geeks (This was one of the best shows on television: by turns hilarious, real and touching. About a high school in the 80s,seen through the eyes of two siblings (one a former Mathalete who hangs out with the underachieving "freaks", the other a slight, D&D playing "geek"), their friends and sometimes their parents. If you weren't one of the "cool" people in high school, it's especially entertaining. It was an absolute travesty this was cancelled after only a season! I was just heartsick. Reruns sometimes air on Fox Family Channel and if you haven't seen it you must find a way! Okay, I'll now step down from my soapbox.)


[> [> [> More on soapbox rants and Emmys -- sollig, 06:12:40 07/14/01 Sat

After posting this, I realized how much I miss watching "Freaks and Geeks," so I went to its website and found that it was nominated for a writing Emmy. While it's a crime "Buffy" wasn't nominated, this really did deserve the nomination it received (16 months after it was cancelled). If you want to watch this excellent show, it now airs on Fox Family, Mondays at 10 PM (not sure what time zone). End of thoroughly off-topic post.


[> [> [> More on soapbox rants and Emmys -- sollig, 06:13:48 07/14/01 Sat

After posting this, I realized how much I miss watching "Freaks and Geeks," so I went to its website and found that it was nominated for a writing Emmy. While it's a crime "Buffy" wasn't nominated, this really did deserve the nomination it received (16 months after it was cancelled). If you want to watch this excellent show, it now airs on Fox Family, Mondays at 10 PM (not sure what time zone). End of thoroughly off-topic post.


[> [> Strange Luck - finally! -- Solitude1056, 14:54:42 07/14/01 Sat

I was sorting through the posts, waiting to see if anyone mentioned Strange Luck - I adored that show. Very compelling, but a hard one to keep coming up with ideas on if you weren't a true genius... and it suffered badly when they cut the original writers crew and shut down the show to replace it with Sliders. When they brought back Strange Luck (temporarily) it just wasn't as good. My favorite remains the episode with the convicted killer heading for death row at the same time that DB Sweeny's character is figuring out, 10 yrs later, who really committed the crime. Worth finding, if you can, but wasn't around long enough to go into syndication. Bummer.

Also, Daria gets marks - only reason to watch MTV (which I don't have now, since I don't have cable). And Beavis & Butthead - oh, wait, that's not fantasy, that's documentary. Never mind.


[> My poll of top Sci-fi. -- Emcee003, 05:43:46 07/14/01 Sat

Due to my ever increasing clarity to the apparent age difference with myself and the average poster to this board, which is probably measured in number of grandchildren, I only have 18 years of Sci-viewing, so don't be to shocked with some of my own selection. Live action list.

1. Red dwarf. The first thing Sci-fi I ever really enjoyed. This was a Friday night ritual of mine as a kid.

2. The Pretender

3. Buffy/Angel (Although I now seem to prefer Angel to Buffy, as in the last session each Eps. had some kind of ending at the end.)

4. StarGate. A Sci fi show with something near really people. (STar Trek can shove its Prime Directive where the sun don't shine)

5. Dark Angel. Dam Sky for not picking up S 2!!!


1. Batman/Batman (of the future/Beyond) Why can't any live action show today rival this?

2. Teenage Mutant (Hero/ninja) Turtles

3. Transformers, but why did that robot turn into a tape player??

4. X men/Spiderman (and Evolution!). Its X men need I say more!(added spider man to this to keep my list to 5 each, plus they ran here at the same time so I can't really separate the two)

5. Secret Agent man. So its not animated, the characters and plots are as flat as the best cartoons, this one I watch because its bad, but only if I can't find my copy of Plan 9 from outer space.


[> [> Re: My poll of top Sci-fi. -- Wiccagrrl, 10:57:48 07/14/01 Sat

I don't know that you can assume how old many of us are from this list- I'm 30, which isn't real young, but younger than some of the shows I listed. But in this day of VCRs and The SciFi Channel, I've discovered and absolutely love some of the classic SciFi shows.


[> [> [> Sorry. -- Em, 04:28:35 07/15/01 Sun

My comment had no other meaning other than to get some cheap and silly laugh before I "grow up" and can no longer get away with saying such silly things. Sorry :(


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Andy, 06:02:46 07/14/01 Sat

>1. Buffy (du-uh!) 2. The Avengers (only the years w/Steed and Emma, sorry) 3. Angel 4. The X-Files (except the last season) 5. The Prisoner 6. Twin Peaks

These are all on my list as well, although in the X-Files' case, I pretty much limit my viewing to the first five seasons.

Others I like:

Batman: The Animated Series and the old Adam West series Superman (the WB cartoon) The original Star Trek The Adventures of Brisco County Jr. (Actually, I've got time for just about anything with Bruce Campbell in it) The new, short-lived version of Fantasy Island, with Malcolm McDowell and Madchen Amick was amusing.

Um, that's just about all I can think of, I think...


[> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Joann, 07:36:53 07/14/01 Sat

1. Angel and Buffy The others not in any order 2. No Where Man - (Bruce Greenwood starred in a series about a photographer that took a picture and had to hide out from the government because of it; even his wife was in on the conspiracy--really paranoid series) 3. She Wolf (about a woman who was a college student by day and a she wolf by night and had her college professor protecting her and helping her hunt for a cure) 4. Forever Knight. 5. Friday the 13th (owners of antique shop hunting down cursed antiques). I remember Stange Luck but it wasn't one of my favorites. It started off one way and then they started tampering with it. I like the really strange ones, not so much sci-fi though. Also, The Early X Files, and, of course, The Granddaddy, The Twilight Zone.


[> [> [> Nowhere Man was cool; it had great possibilities, then got cancelled. Add it to my list! -- sollig, 11:29:49 07/14/01 Sat


[> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Andy, 08:42:55 07/14/01 Sat

D'oh! I can't believe I forgot the Twilight Zone!


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- rowan, 08:41:04 07/14/01 Sat

These are in no particular order:

Night Gallery (creepy!)

Buffy (except for S4, which was saved by the Return of Spike)

Star Trek: Next Generation (Picard...the Borg...!)

Deep Space Nine (love Avery Brooks)

Quantum Leap (welcome back to TV, Scott Bakula)

Twin Peaks (except the last few eps when it got really crazy)

Dark Shadows (terrified me during the original run when I was 4-5, but great camp appeal in syndication)

Spiderman (the animated 70s version)

Batman (the animated New Adventures)

The Night Stalker (ah Darrin!)


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- vampire hunter D, 13:36:24 07/14/01 Sat

I don't know why I'm posting this. It's so far down the board noone will read it. But here's my list (note: Buffy and angel aren't on it because my interest in them should be obvious by now).

Live-Action: Star Trek (any of the four) Babylon 5 Farscape Andromeda Hercules: the LEgendary Journeys Lexx Seaquest (season 1 only) Battlestar Galactica

Animated: Robotech Transformers: Beast Wars ReBoot Gundam Wing, Gundam 0083 Dragonball Z Voltron Neon Genesis: Evangelion Record of Lodoss War Scooby Doo Batman Beyond


[> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Fainting In Coils, 18:54:29 07/14/01 Sat

Here's my list:

1.) BtVS 2.) Deep Space Nine 3.) The Prisoner 4.) Gumby (Very weird, incredibly stoney at times) 5.) Twin Peaks 6.) The Wild Wild West 7.) The Twilight Zone 8.) The Simpsons (Gotta love Planet of the Apes-The Musical!) 9.) Angel 10.) Voyager 11.) Get A Life (Wallet Boy Lives!) 12.) The Outer Limits 13.) The Avengers (w/Emma Peel--EEE URP!)


[> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Nina, 19:55:27 07/16/01 Mon

Hmmmmm.... the list isn't long. I can't say that a lot of tv shows inspired me in my life. So here they are:

1. Buffy (Obvious or I wouldn't be here!)

2. Cupid (Probably the best cancelled show ever!)

3. Northern exposure (Just love the philosophical angle in that one. Very deep)

and when I was a child:

4. Space 1999 (ah...fantasy about Maya and Tony! :) :) :)


[> [> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Fainting in Coils, 17:08:34 07/17/01 Tue

Didn't you love the last episode of Northern Exposure? Very nice.


[> [> [> [> Re: Just-before-bedtime Poll: Your favorite fantasy related TV shows over the years. -- Nina, 18:06:35 07/18/01 Wed

Where is my post? I answered earlier this afternoon and it's not there!!!!!!

Anyway! I was just saying that I didn't have the pleasure to see the finale yet. When Northern Exposure first aired I didn't speak English at the time so I'm catching up on A &E. Happy to know that there's someone else out here who loved that series! :)


[> [> [> [> [> It's good to know the show is still airing somewhere. -- Anthony8, 23:49:45 07/18/01 Wed

I only really became invested emotionally in 'Northern Exposure' when it aired in nightly 1 am reruns on a local commercial station. That ended about three or four years ago, and since I don't subscribe to cable, all I have are fading memories. Alas.

By the way, if it's not too intrusive, what is your native language? You express yourself so well. It makes me ashamed to say that, after 5 years of Spanish (2 yrs high school, 3 yrs college), I can understand the telenovelas on Univision, but I couldn't communicate with a native speaker to save my life (or at least not without sounding like an absolute idiot). And during some late night ramblings, it wouldn't be unfair to accuse me of knowing English as a second language. So much for the effectiveness of a lifetime of American public education.



[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Quite OT now, isn't it? :) -- Nina, 11:43:01 07/19/01 Thu

Anthony, my native language is French. I've been learning English in school but I have never been able to speak or understand it (English is not taught very properly in the province of Quebec!) So that's why I feel I only learned the language a few years back. I think that Northern Exposure airs at 1pm on A&E in the States (not sure though). I found a few old sites devoted to the series, with quotes and even transcripts. If you are interested I can always give you the link! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah, OT, but it's interesting to find out how diverse the contributors to this board really are. -- Anthony8, 12:15:26 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Totally agree! :) -- Nina, 16:05:40 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> OT ? for Nina or any other Bilingual Canadian Types -- OnM, 17:39:49 07/19/01 Thu

If you have been reading my Classic Movie reviews for the last several weeks, you will have possibly noticed that I have begun including info as to alternate language soundtracks that are available on the DVD versions of the flicks under consideration.

It occurred to me that since we have a large Canadian contingent on this board, and for that matter may have a number of posters/lurkers who are bilingual in English/Spanish, it might behoove me to mention this, since it's one of the great features of DVD's.

In the US, very nearly all DVD's I own have English as the 'primary' language, by primary meaning it gets allowed the greatest amount of data space on the disc, usually for a 5.1 surround sound mix. The alternate languages (most commonly French and Spanish) are usually in a stereo (2-channel)/Pro-Logic surround mix, which takes up less space.

My question, if anyone knows-- in Canada, is this reversed for mostly French speaking provinces, or are the DVD's exactly the same as the ones in the US?

Just wondering.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: OT ? for Nina or any other Bilingual Canadian Types -- Nina, 19:38:32 07/19/01 Thu

Gee, I'd like to have an answer for that, but I don't! The fact is that I read you movies of the week column all the time, but I don't read the DVD's informations because I don't own one. I'm almost ashamed to admit it, but I don't even know how the thing looks like! (dinosor much!;)

Even though I don't know what I am talking about and I shouldn't venture on this topic, I believe that French dubbed versions exist on DVD (like in normal video) and that it may also be possible to have access to other languages. But I don't want to misinform you. If no one answers you on that topic, I am willing to look at the local video store and let you know. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> (OT) - No biggee-- just need to know so I can think too much about it. -- OnM, 21:33:27 07/19/01 Thu

I'm sure someone will know, and duly post.

You aren't a dinosaur, I work in an audio/video store and customers still come in all the time and when we ask about DVD players, they say Huh? What's that? or something to that effect.

DVD's have been out about 3 1/2 years now. They look like CD's (compact digital audio discs) but store information at a far higher density (they hold a lot more stuff).

This higher storage ability allows a disc maker to place an entire movie (up to 2 hours and 20 minutes) on one side of the disc, and the format allows for two-sided discs or two-layer discs, so you could actually double or quadruple that amount.

There is also enough space to put several different soundtracks on the typical disc, usually used for multiple languages, or a directors commentary track, or other extras and goodies that film buffs go nuts over.

One way to compare the amount of space between a CD and a DVD is to figure the size in bytes of data, like computers use. If you do this:

CD = 650,000,000 bytes (650 Megabytes)

Standard DVD = 4,700,000,000 bytes (4.7 Gigabytes or 4700 Megabytes)

Dual-layer DVD = 9,400,000,000 bytes (9.4Gig!)

Just some useless factoids for your enlightenment!



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (OT) - No biggee-- just need to know so I can think too much about it. -- Nina, 09:55:31 07/20/01 Fri

Thanks OnM! I did know the basic facts, I just never "saw" a DVD player! :) It's always nice to know more!!!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (OT) - Okay, got the info!!! :) -- Nina, 20:06:38 07/20/01 Fri

I went to the local video store and sneaked in looking for DVDs. What I could gather is that we only get the original English DVD version and French speaking people who want to see the movie in French have to use the dubbed version or subtitled version (if available). It also means that they don't have access to the surround sound! So I guess it will be a lot less expensive for DVD stores in ten years as they won't have to buy videos in French and in English. They will simply buy original DVDs. I wonder if French movies have English subtitles as well on DVD?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: (OT) - Okay, got the info!!! :) -- FanMan, 02:12:06 07/21/01 Sat


DVDs should have the surround sound for music and all background noise on one "track". It is simply a software/programing issue...although maby a headache for the techies that would be doing the programing! So even if the languige is dubbed, you could get the full surround sound experiance on any of the languages on the DVD.

Regarding multilanguages; makes sense to me that the best experience and quality would be in the original language. A French movie would have French as the primary language. Also translations will allways lose some factor or nuance of meaning from the original.

AH if only the US were not so arrogant and it was standerd for most people to have one or two secondary languages like in Europe! Very off topic I guess, I forgot all the French I learned in school except je suise, and I rememer cinco(five) from spanish class...he he

FanMan was laughing in nervous embarassment...
Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Solitude1056, 07:53:31 07/12/01 Thu

Read for yourself & tell me what you think is missing.

yahoo news site


[> Wish I could say I was surprised. -- Wiccagrrl, 08:03:36 07/12/01 Thu

I did kinda think, if the show had a shot at really getting some good nominations, this was the year. But the show's been consistantly snubbed at Emmy time. Good news is that it does seem to be getting some good press, and the critics and mainstream press seem to be noticing it. So, even if the Emmy people still don't "get it", a lot of people do.


[> [> Typical...Just Typical! The Emmys wouldn't know a quality show if it bit them in the throat. -- Rob, 08:29:08 07/12/01 Thu


[> [> Re: Wish I could say I was surprised. -- Deeva, 09:53:56 07/12/01 Thu

But I'm not surprised at all. Unless they dramatically changed the voting guidelines, we will continue to see the same shows voted for over and over. Most big awards are behind the times anyway and they don't usually catch on till the very end of something great


[> [> A rant, also wishing I could say I was surprised -- dream of the consortium, 10:46:37 07/12/01 Thu

Americans don't trust fantasy. As a whole, we assume that "realistic" art is more serious-minded than art with fantastical elements. We don't have a canonical history of American-born fantasy; fantasy has always been considered peripheral. Consider the novelists most Americans would agree make up the canon of American lit - Hemingway, Melville, Fitzgerald, Hawthorne (at least the most widely-read Hawthorne - not Young Goodman Brown, of course), Updike, even Twain, if allowance is made for the exaggeration of comedy. All maintain the illusion of "reality" in their works. We are left with just Poe, who is largely left to the adolescents. Nothing to compare to Borges, Garcia Marquez, the Faerie Queen, Italo Calvino, the great British horror tradition, Shakespeare, the Arthurian cycles, I could go on, but I'll spare you. Even "new canon" contemporary authors who use fantastical elements in their fiction (I'm thinking Pynchon), seem drawn to a type of spinning conspiratorial paranoia, a type of fantasy that seems more deeply rooted in neurosis than mythology, (Kafka vs. Jung, perhaps? I'm out on a limb here, and hanging on for dear life).

But my question is why? I think this national literary character is partly a result of the youth of the country. We don't have the depth of mythological tradition that other parts of the world have. Our mythology is the frontier, James Fenimore Cooper stuff. Not much room for fantasy there. And I think the country has a somewhat adolescent attitude artistically - we daren't be whimsical or fantastical because then everyone else might not take us seriously. I also think that, particularly in terms of television, this attitude allows people not to think. Gravitas stands in for quality. You don't have to explain why a show is good, don't have to use some sort of critical faculty to analyze the writing or acting. You just make sure it's "realistic" and that it takes on "important" themes, and you will be taken seriously. Of course, important themes in America seem to be those which can be summed up in a public-service announcement - don't do drugs, talk to your kids, have safe sex, blah, blah. (OT - I just have to point out here the horror of the pact which allowed networks to "pay off" money owed the government for purchased anti-drug ad time with anti-drug storylines on their shows. So disturbing.)

I realize I'm ranting a bit here, but Buffy is the only television I watch at all, and for good reason. Anyway, I would like to hear what other people think. Why the bias toward "realistic" art (despite the fact that fantastical art is hugely popular)? Why are fantasy writers and genre movies and television always dismissed in America as works for teenagers or entertaining fluff for adults? Any thoughts?


[> [> [> Not just America -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 11:27:41 07/12/01 Thu

I can't add anything to what you've said about the problem in the US, but I can say that things aren't that different here in the UK. I'm sure you've heard about the ridiculous marginalisation of Buffy in the schedule over here (on the BBC, anyway - it's on at about 6pm, cut so much that some scenes barely make any sense and regularly taken off the air for two or three weeks because of some kind of sporting event).

This seems like straightforward whining, but the fact that a show like Buffy appears in this time slot shows that it is not taken as seriously as more 'realistic' shows about doctors, detectives or lawyers that get lower viewing figures but are still given a higher priority. Buffy gets higher ratings; it's artistic value is clear to all of us - why can't the establishment take it seriously?

I'm living in the country that produced Blake and Shelley and has a gothic / fantastic tradition that has been maintained right up to the present day by writers such as Angela Carter and Peter Ackroyd and yet Buffy is still ignored, often by the very people who sing the praises of some of the figures I have just mentioned.

I watch very little TV and having tried to get interested in 'The Sopranos' and 'The West Wing' I am even more convinced about how superior 'Buffy' is to more 'respected' drama. But, then, William Blake was ignored at the end of the eighteenth century - maybe Buffy will be appreciated more by future generations.

Sorry if I've added nothing but another angry rant. The only reason I can guess at for fantasy being less popular is that people like order and the illusion of a stable, controllable universe and that is what 'realism' gives them - I'm not gonna get started on how unrealistic 'realism' is but I think we have to remember that fantasy can be scary and, in the case of Buffy, isn't necessarily all that easy for everyone to follow. Like real life, Buffy rewards hard work.

Oh, God, I've done it again - anyway, I agree with you! Time to shut up.


[> [> [> [> Re: Not just America -- Dedalus, 13:02:48 07/12/01 Thu

Ahh ... Blake ... Shelley ... ahh ... home.

Anyway, I think it all comes down to the fact that, just as Joseph Campbell said, "nobody knows what the hell a metaphor is." Just think in the history of religion of all the debates, battles, bloodshed, and torture that has caused. And now, Emmy snubs. Buffy is one of those shows that makes you think three dimensionally instead of just two, and a lot of people refuse to do that. So you can either enjoy it from the intuitive viewpoint of the child, or the analytical/emotional viewpoint of an adult, but it's not something you can watch while clipping your toenails, if you know what I mean. Same thing with Star Wars.

I have no doubt it will be loved and adored for centuries, but not until we grow up and move past our "adolescence" as a culture and a race. Maybe even Jar Jar will catch on eventually.

Just for the record, though, Buffy has gotten some of the best reviews of any show here in the old US of A.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Agatha Christie -- Brian, 13:29:11 07/12/01 Thu

Agatha Christie wrote a series character called Harley Quinn. A fantasy-type figure. Mostly short stories. In one story she reflects on the concept of "Diamond in the rough" That is what the Buffyverse is. For those of us who have discovered the great facets of the show, we are the lucky ones. We can only hope that eventually "others" will get with the program. For me, the Buffyverse and this board have made a difference in my life. Enough said!


[> [> [> [> Re: Not just America -- AK-UK, 14:41:48 07/12/01 Thu

I like BtVS a lot, but I don't agree that the standard of writing is as consistently excellent as "The West Wing". Season 5 has sidelined various characters, featured a few clunking episodes, and has, at times, bent it's own internal logic to the point of breaking.

That being said, I think episodes such as "Fool For Love" can stand shoulder to shoulder with the very best episodes produced by any TV show of the past 10 years, and how James Marsters failed to get Emmy nod confounds me.

Scheduling in the UK of both BtVS and AtS has been......puzzling. The BBC do show unedited episodes later at night: lets not mention Channel 4.

I think the problem with fantasy shows, and the reason for the lack of respect accorded to them, is the fact that 90% of them are truly awful. Contradictory plotlines, cliche ridden characters, corny dialogue, etc etc etc. As a fantasy show (a teen drama fantasy show) BtVS finds itself in some terrible company.

Of course, none of that should have affected the decisions of the Emmy panel.


[> [> [> Re: A rant, also wishing I could say I was surprised -- Rattletrap, 19:30:37 07/12/01 Thu

Yes! So well said.

These sentiments are hardly new. C.S. Lewis ranted throughout his life that Science Fiction and Fantasy remained contantly marginalized by "serious" literary critics. The same thing holds true for television in the present day.

I tend to think that by not trying to be "realistic," BtVS is more realistic than the shows out there that do. Anyone agree?


[> [> [> [> Absolutely. -- Solitude1056, 19:53:58 07/12/01 Thu


[> [> [> Re: A rant, also wishing I could say I was surprised -- Javoher, 20:12:11 07/16/01 Mon

"The youth of the country"...you may be on to something there. "Adolescent attitude artistically"...yes, very much so. The only part I disagree with is "the bias towards 'realistic' art" part. I find the usual artistic bias is towards uncomplicated things and that includes things the average viewer can identify with easily, not necessarily realistic or unrealistic. We have regular discussions around this topic in my household. I steadfastly hold that our real lives are so very, very complicated and move so fast (at least in Silicon Valley) that when the average person sits to watch TV, he/she really doesn't want to think too much because she/he has already done a great deal of thinking over the 12-hr workday. Television, which usually plays to the lowest common denominator, caters beautifully to that desire and that's what's reflected at Emmy time.

I liked "Young Goodman Brown" the best of Hawthorne's works.

That's my rant and I'm sticking to it. I told myself I'd post more often, even if I am a day late and a dollar (or more) short.


[> [> Could be worse-- it could be the Grammys, where one year... -- OnM, 19:25:35 07/12/01 Thu

..they gave a Grammy to Jethro Tull as 'Best Heavy Metal Band'.

Never paid much attention to the Grammys before that, and I didn't pay any attention after.

Wiccagrrl is absolutely right, the critical acclaim the show has received from a *wide* variety of sources, and the loyal devotion of the fans is enough. Joss knows this, and so we should try to be content.

Not that getting a little 'Class Protector' umbrella every so often isn't a bad idea...


[> Re: Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Andy, 11:19:23 07/12/01 Thu

What's even more shocking to me isn't just that Buffy was *completely* snubbed (has that even happened before? I could almost swear it's always gotten at least a minor nomination), but that there was so much doubling up and even tripling up of nominations for The Sopranos and West Wing in many categories. Check out the Supporting Actor drama category: five nominations, TWO shows. Best writing? Again, five nominations, two shows, FOUR nominations for The Sopranos with the leftover being West Wing. It just looks as if the voters are absolutely terrified of anything different than what they're comfortable with. Really pathetic. I wish I hadn't checked out The West Wing last month to see some episodes and find out what the big deal was. What I saw certainly wasn't bad but it was very standard television ensemble drama. They set it in the White House, but in structure, pacing, acting, etc. it's basically the same old "cops, docs, and lawyers" method. I was very underwhelmed. (OTOH, I also checked out Sex and the City and was impressed with it. Good show :)).

Oh well. The good thing is that the present-day critics' darlings of tv rarely stand the test of time. I've got a hunch people will still be talking about Buffy years from now while many of these other shows are fading into irrelevance.


[> [> Re: Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Rattletrap, 19:26:49 07/12/01 Thu

There was a minor nomination last year: "Hush" was up (deservedly so, of course) for one of the smaller writing awards. 20th Century Fox tried to push "The Body" for the same category of this year--I haven't seen the list of nominees in those categories to know if it worked or not. I'm not sure "The Body" was really the best choice, though a brilliant episode wonderfully executed, it requires the viewers to know a little bit about the background to the show. Since most of the pig-headed emmy voters clearly don't watch the show, that may have been a bad move on 20thCF's part.


[> [> [> Re: Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Andy, 06:19:27 07/14/01 Sat

Actually, I think the Best Dramatic Writing nomination for Hush was quite big. Television is known as a writer's medium, after all. The fact that Joss got nominated was part of why I was slightly optimistic that the show would get more attention this year. Oh well. I think in past years, I'm pretty sure that the show has gotten one or two technical nominations for something like Best Makeup or Costuming or whatever, and I think Chris Beck got a nomination for his score in Becoming.

I think The Body was as good an episode to pick as any, but it is true that the voters are said to often just go with what they know, hence the numbing, year-after-year repetition of the nominees.


[> Well, what did you expect? -- vampire hunter D, 11:39:26 07/12/01 Thu

The Emmy nominations are decided by a bunch of guys in suits behind desks who I don't even think watch TV. They just pick people and shows that will make themselves look smart for watching


[> [> Re: Suits! Always a danger! -- Brian, 13:37:40 07/12/01 Thu


[> Re: Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Sebastian, 16:45:27 07/12/01 Thu

I'm not all that surprised. Although, I at last thought "The Body" would have gotten a nod. :(

Joyce Millman brings up the exact same points on the crappiness of Buffy being snubbed on www.salon.com.

Its unfortunate - but we have to recognize the fact that shows viewed by the "maginal" population are NOT going to be nominated.

(I was hoping for at least ONE nomination for "Queer as Folk" - but I suppose its easier to deal with the fuzzy-animatronic queers of "Will & Grace" rather then the in-your-face reality of the real thing on QaF).

But I'm digressing. It IS a shame that Buffy was snubbed - and and its an ongoing shame that it will continue to be shubbed by the "dark suits."


[> [> Re: Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Q, 23:34:19 07/12/01 Thu

The Joyce millman article is excellent, because it not only defends Buffy as one of the best shows ever--it points out how cliched and hokey the West Wing can actually be, with specific examples as to why it should not be so over-rated. I found it very interesting.

The thing I hate about "The West Wing" is how seriously they all take themselves. They have let all of this attention go seriously to their heads. I swear they think they *really* are running the country!

Unfortunately, even Joyce Millman, one of the most outspoken media fans of Buffy, considers Buffy only the second best show on TV, after the Sopranos.


[> [> [> Re: Grrrr. That's all, just grrrrr. -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 01:21:49 07/13/01 Fri

I agree about the West Wing. As a Brit (and maybe AK-UK disagrees with me here) the whole cheesy, inverted national anthem thing at the start just throws me off straight away (didn't that actually win an Emmy last year - if so, then double-grrr). I don't know about how all the Americans here feel about that...

Anyway, that cheese just seems to be carried through the whole show and often takes over. Oh, dear, starting to rant again.


[> Solitudebot......growls...what else can you do? -- Rufus, 23:36:17 07/12/01 Thu


[> Who cares what they think? We know better -- verdantheart, 07:19:01 07/16/01 Mon

This is what I expect from the Emmys. I only keep track of the Oscars (& they can be pretty bad, too). I generally don't even check the noms, but I did this year in case a miracle occurred. However, this season's noms are so bad that I'm sorry to say that the Emmys' level of credibility has sunk to that of the Grammys. I hadn't realized, for example, that there are only two dramas on television... Doesn't matter, though. Doesn't change the fact that James Marsters *is* the best supporting actor.
A Different Perspective -- Rufus, 00:56:55 07/13/01 Fri

I've always considered perspective as being able to see things clearly. Season five was all about perspective, the ability to see things clearly. Buffy has the one talent above the physical power that has saved her life again and again. Buffy has been able to look at things in a different perspective, even if reluctantly. In Checkpoint there was a reference to perspective in Buffys history lecture that told us what Buffy needed to succeed with the Council of Watchers. While Giles kept Travers busy at the Magic Shop, Buffy nodded off until she heard something she zero'd in on. Rasputin. But there was more than just how Rasputin died, there was a comparison between the perspective of the Professor and Buffy.

Buffy: I, uh, about, you know, killing him.....you know, they, poisoned him and, and they beat him and they shot him, and he didn't die."

Professor: "Until they rolled his body in a carpet and drowned him in a canal."

Buffy: "But there are reported sightings of him as late as the 1930's, aren't there?"

Professor: "I can assure you there is near consensus in the academic community regarding the death of Rasputin."

Buffy: "There was also near consensus about Columbus, you know, until someone asked the Vikings what they were up to in the 1400's, and they're like, discovering this America-shaped continent." (Professor looks annoyed) I just....I'm only saying, you know, it might be interesting, if we...came at it from, you know, a different perspective, that's all."

Professor: "Well, I'm sorry if you find these facts so boring, Miss Summers. Maybe you'd prefer I step aside, so that you can teach your own course. Speculation 101 perhaps?...Intro to Flights of Fancy."

Buffy had a point, perspective, look at all the information instead of just seeing things as dry facts from books and the same old consensus. Buffy is alive because she has blended information that is written, spoken, mixed with first hand experience. If something she was told from books is inacurate she doesn't try to fit a round hole into a square peg...she adapts and works with what she knows to be true. Checkpoint was all about power and how it is obtained and retained. The Council was back in town to reassert their position of power.....they wanted to call the shots again. At first both Giles and Buffy felt powerless against a bureaucracy that had existed for centuries, unquestioned. The Council has the power over the Watchers, the information that is given out, and what information is acceptable, they aren't used to being questioned. The review was just another form of test that was to keep the CoW balance of power in place and keep Watcher and Slayer in theirs. They came into Giles shops and confiscated books and talismans ect. that they wanted to look over and judge the suitability of. They could have cared less about the Magic Shop, they were making a point, they have the power and Giles and Buffy don't. That is before Buffy was able to see things more clearly. Gain perspective over the situation. If we took the Council interviews of the SG to be how we perceived them, we would have considered them children with no use to the cause. Throw out all of their practical experience, just judge them by the useless tedious questions that the Watchers threw out at them. They missed the fact that Anya is a demon, uninterested in the truth only gathering basic facts...."You spell that A N Y A?" They glossed over any contribution Xander had made and said "no special skills". The witches......Willow and Tara....they wanted to make sure were registered Witches. Spike.........first, why didn't they kill him?........then why bother questioning him on what it's like to be a vampire when they could find out if Buffy was going by the books...in not going by the books and killing him in the first place. The whole thing was a useless sham. The information they gathered useless as they wouldn't hear the truth if it was told to them. If it didn't fit the academic consensus...it wasn't included. A chance to question a demon about her life, a chance to at least try to get a straight answer out of Spike on what it was like to be a vampire.......and why was he helping the SG if he is only capable of evil? The Council may not be blind but they sure didn't see anything they didn't want to.

In the end Buffy was able to see clearly. She was able to see who had the power and who didn't. She questioned the council and came to the conclusion that they had a place in research but were not the power over her. Buffy was able to, through a different perspective, deconstruct the Council, removing their undeserved power.

Buffy was also challenged by reality, Dawn was introduced in BvsD, as a bratty sister that we knew didn't exist. Buffy's reaction was to act like Dawn was the biggest pain in the world. She was jealous of the attention that Dawn got from Joyce. In NPLH, Buffy found out the truth, the reality of Dawn was that she was the key. Buffy was angry that the monks had endangered her family, and gave her a sister that wasn't real. The monk helped Buffy see Dawn in a different perspective by telling her that Dawn was an innocent that didn't know that she wasn't a sister, a daughter, a human. The monk died to protect what he saw as precious, Buffy watched this tortured man die. He died trusting that the Slayer would protect. When she got home she looked at her sister anew, she apologized for pushing her and sat down and softly stroked Dawns hair, comforting her sister. Buffy went from seeing Dawn from one perspective and in a few short hours accepted her unreal sister as precious.

Spike is someone else who benefitted from Buffys ability to see things from a different perspective. Spike should have been dead for many reasons. Buffy was unable to kill who she saw as helpless. Buffy was revolted by the idea of a soulless creature having feelings, the ability to love. She rejected Spike. In Intervention Buffy again was forced to see from a different perspective when she went to the crypt to kill the lovebot shagging Spike. Here was an almost really dead undead guy, tortured to the point he was hard to look at. Buffy was there to kill a threat to Dawn, what she found out instead was that Spike had endured punishment to spare the Slayer.....Buffy....pain. She kissed him, then looked at him in the eyes and for the first time "saw" Spike, not the pose, but the creature capable of an unselfish act, even without a soul.

In the Gift Buffy had to make a choice, kill her sister, or.....what? Again Buffy looked at the situation, gathering her memories and made the choice to take the chance and take her sisters place in the portal. Buffy finally understood her gift, and it was to the world. Buffy changed from seeing her Slayer job as a burden, in the end she found that it was one worth dying for. Things are never what they seem in the Buffyverse. We can choose to limit our perspective to what is comfortable or we can like Buffy be willing to look at a situation from more than one perspective.The Buffyverse was set up in season one with some basic canon and a power structure, that has all changed. We know that some information is innacurate, outdated, and wrong. We know that because you have power doesn't mean you have earned it or are deserving of it. Most of all the Buffyverse is slowly going through deconstruction through the experiences of Buffy, Giles, and the Scoobies. This is a new world with new realities that have to be considered. The Buffyverse has looked at gender issues, demon issues, and the ethics of doing your work, be it Slayer, Watcher, or a normal guy like Xander. Either the old information or ways of doing things will stand up to scrutiny or will have to give way to a new approach. All because Buffy is capable of seeing things from a different perspective.


[> Re: A Different Perspective -- John Burwood, 00:25:43 07/14/01 Sat

I agree with your analysis of the importance of Buffy's ability to see things with a different perspective. IMO it includes an ability to think originally or laterally. She has had this talent from thestart. In the Witch, it was Buffy who saw a plate of Brownies & deduced the body switch. In teacher's Pet, it was Buffy who identified Miss French as a giant insect in face of Gilesand Wilows scepticism. In a way, it makesBuffy smarter than either Giles or Willow. When just learning facts & applying them logically, Giles & Willow are the clever ones, but when it comes to puttingthem together creatively - to linking apparently urelated facts & forming conclusions from them, Buffy has been the smarter. Her punning in the midst of battle is a permanent running reminder of her ability to think creatively and originally. I can not help thinking that if she got interested & focussed on a subject she could outsmart Willow at an acedmic subject - come to think of it she did once - in Psychology!


[> Why the watchers did not kill Spike -- Liquidram, 01:13:57 07/14/01 Sat

Here is a major portion of the script which was omitted from the final episode. This is the beginning of the watcher Lydia's interview of Spike:

LYDIA (V.O.) You can't hurt anyone?


Spike sits on his bier. Two Council members stand in front of him, braced and tense. One holds out a cross, the other has a crossbow trained on Spike. Lydia, wearing a turtleneck, stands some distance away, holding a clipboard.

SPIKE That's right.

LYDIA But you are a vampire.

SPIKE If I'm not, I'm gonna be pissed about drinking all that blood.

Lydia doesn't crack a smile.

LYDIA So it's this chip in your head that keeps you from hurting people.

SPIKE My goodness, you put that together all on your own? That's right. Leastways that's what I've got 'em all believing.

The humans all tense at that.

SPIKE Could just be a hoax, though. I fake some headaches, everyone gets used to poor helpless Spike. Then one day, no warning, I snap a spine, bend a head back, drain 'em dry. Brilliant.

If she's scared, she hides it well. She soldiers on...

LYDIA The chip. Assuming it exists. It takes away the... ability. But it leaves... leaves the...

He smiles at her sexily.

SPIKE Desire? Yeah, I've got tons of that.

She's a little shaken by his flirting.

LYDIA Um... but we understand that you help the Slayer. etc.. etc. etc...


[> Re: A Different Perspective -- Cactus Watcher, 06:40:56 07/14/01 Sat

I'm glad you mentioned Buffy 'challenged by reality.' One of the things I noticed during the season was the high number of surreal moments, where the 'reality' of the Buffy universe as we knew it became blurred. The obvious examples are Buffy's trance, the surreal Christmas scene during "The Body" (Joyce was too ill to have concidered hosting such a gathering at her home last Christmas. The Christmas before neither Tara nor Dawn would have been there.), and Dracula the vampire who doesn't die when he's staked, but merely dissolves into mist. I think there are such moments where things aren't quite normal (in the context of the show) in most if not all the episodes this past year.


[> Re: A Different Perspective -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 09:29:11 07/14/01 Sat

I agree with what you have said.

I know I've mentioned this before, but in 'A Restless Exegesis', the writer mentions Buffy's conversation with Tara in this episode. When Tara tells her that her friends are lost, Buffy replies, 'No, I think they need me to find them' and this reversal of a negative situation into a problem that can be solved is typical of Buffy's ability to look at things from a different perspective.
Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- OnM, 22:30:50 07/13/01 Fri


HOST: It's called a moment of clarity, my lamb. And you've just had one. Sort of appalling, ain't it? To see just exactly where you've gotten yourself.

ANGEL: I don't know how to get back.

HOST: Well, that's the thing -- you don't. You go to the new place. Wherever that is.

ANGEL: I don't know if I can. I've done... things... questionable things.


Angel and Kate sit together. She is drinking coffee. They sit a moment in silence. The mood is quiet, tentative, but there is an understanding between them, not obvious warmth so much as the unspoken trust of two people who have been through a war, and came out together. Kate breaks the silence.

K: I feel like such an idiot.

A: Lotta that going around.

K: I just couldn't... my whole life has been about being a cop. If I'm not part of the force... it's like nothing I do means anything.

A: It doesn't

K: Doesn't what?

A: Mean anything. In the greater scheme, the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win.

K: (confused): You seem kind of chipper about that.

A: Well, I guess I kind of worked it out. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters... then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today. I fought for so long, for redemption, for a reward, and finally just to beat the other guy. I never got it.

K: And now you do?

A: Not all of it. But now I just wanna help. I wanna help because people shouldn't suffer as they do. Because, if there isn't any bigger meaning, then the smallest act of kindness is the greatest thing in the world.


It is night. Two men are walking together in some obviously depressed area of some exotic foreign locale. One man is tall, and obviously hales from a developed, Western country. He seems out of place and his demeanor partly reflects that. He is nonetheless curious and involved at what is happening around him.

The other man is small, almost dwarf-like. He seems more at ease in this environment, possibly because his features sport characteristics of a mixed heritage, some Western, some Eastern. His name is Billy. The tall man, whose name is Guy, speaks:

G: Where are we going?

B: This is a little market for the poor. (a long beat) 'And the people asked Him, saying "What shall we do, then?"'

G: What's that?

B: It's from Luke. Chapter 3, verse 10. What then, must we do? Tolstoy asked the same question. He wrote a book with that title. He got so upset about the poverty in Moscow, that he went one night into the poorest section and just gave away all his money. (pauses briefly, then continues)

B: You could do that now. Five American dollars would be a fortune to one of these people.

G: Wouldn't do any good. Just be a drop in the ocean.

B: Ahh. That's the same conclusion Tolstoy came to. I disagree.

G: Ah. What's your solution?

B: Well, I support the view that you just don't think about the major issues. You do whatever you can about the misery that's in front of you. Add your light to the sum of light.

(a long pause)

B: You think that's naive, don't you?

G: Yup.

B: That's alright. Most journalists do.

G: (chuckles lightly) We can't afford to get involved.

B: Typical journo's answer. (a beat) Good luck for tomorrow. You'll need it. Go home, get some sleep.


What makes people seek out danger? It certainly is a commonplace desire, and respects neither race nor gender nor historical time and place. It manifests itself in many ways, some cleverly disguised to make the death-seeking element both less obvious and less actually likely. It is so pervasive that even those of us who don't wish to truly put ourselves in harm's way are still likely to do it by proxy, such as by watching extreme sports activities, or those 'Survivor' type shows that pit man against nature, or maybe by seeking out and riding the most gut-wrenching roller coasters in your finest regional amusment parks, or at least by driving to work each day.

Earlier this week in my Riley character essay, I mentioned that Riley's persona sports a pretty decent sized component of 'danger man' within it. I complimented him on seeking out a place within the military, where as long as he doesn't become deranged or obsessive, he can harness this drive to productive ends. He gets to fight the good fight, protect that which needs protecting, and if all goes well, gets a big honkin' adrenaline rush out of it as a bonus. Is this such a bad thing? Heaven knows our current civilization seeks to coddle us, protect us from harm. We even sue people over spilled hot coffee. Is this the end result of trying to balance our primal desires to look Mr. Death in the eyeball and flip him the bird, fully cognizant of the knowledge that Mr. D. always-- *always*-- will win in the end? That the thrill comes from putting it off *just one more time*?

Ah, youth. Those sweet days when you feel invulnerable, you take chances, you look at your parents and the other adults around them and they just seem so... so *tame*. So beaten down, so afraid. You vow you will never become like that, like them. You will be different. You will beat the odds, take the bullet, kill the shark, win the girl's heart. You will be beautiful, powerful and desired, all enhanced by your daring disregard for...


Oh, shit. There's that nasty word again. No, not shit-- reality. That's the thing that hits you when you get old. That day when you wake up with a headache, and you shrug it off, but the Tylenol doesn't help and after several days of walking around with a phantom fist clenched around your temporal lobe you seek out medical care and there's a... shadow. It's probably nothing, the doctors tell you. But you look in their eyes and you can see that they're hiding something. They want more tests...

How does it end?

Does it matter? It turns out you are lucky, they operate, cut out the tumor, you can still remember who you are, your arms and legs and genitals still work, and that, by damn, you've won again. But there's no adrenaline rush this time. That one was just a little too close to... reality. And that's no shit.

This week's Classic Movie deals with a number of pretty existential issues, and we get to see them played out in one of filmdom's most fascinating and realistically rendered recreations of a genuine historical time and place. The time is the middle 60's, the place is Jakarta, in Indonesia. A man named Sukarno is about to experience his last moments in power, as revolution violently grips the country, but the story isn't about him, or even about the revolution.

What it is really about involves a young Australian reporter, on his first foreign assisgnment. He is given a potentially plum assignment, but when he arrives at his destination, instead of meeting with the man he is replacing, and getting 'the tour' and a list of invaluable contacts, he is plunged into the chaos that seems to spill out of the streets and houses and take over the very air itself, forcing one to breathe in not only the stifling tropical humidity, but the constant taste of fear, itself.

A 'sensible' individual would run for his life, grab the next plane out, but he doesn't. He stays, finds his way, makes some friends, gains some contacts, tells his stories to his home office. He thrives, and why should he not, he's a 'danger man'.

Then one day, unknowingly aided behind the scenes by a half-Australian, half-Chinese near-dwarf of a man who seems to sincerely befriend him, he meets a woman, an attache for a British diplomat. He is instantly smitten, but plays it cool. They start to see each other, become involved. There may even be love.

Then one day comes a coded message, and it is clear that in a scant few days, all persons Western will become even more persona non grata than they are currently in this seething caldron of political instabilities. Now is the time to damn the torpedoes and get the bloody story.

Except, of course, for that nagging, supremely annoying, Danger-Man-Destroying bitch...


Welcome to the Classic Movie of the Week, director Peter Weir's greatest film, *The Year of Living Dangerously*. Starring a very young-looking Mel Gibson in the role of Guy Hamilton, correspondent for the Australian Broadcast System, and Sigourney Weaver as Jill Bryant, the diplomatic attache who along with the character of photographer Billy Kwan acts to provide Guy with, let us say, a new perspective on the relative values of things both within and beyond our control.

I cannot really begin to describe the many things that make this one of the greatest films of the last half-century, you need to see and experience them for yourself. One of the things that is usually a given in nearly any of my movie recommendations is that there will be at least one 'perfect moment' that takes place in the course of the screening, those minutes or seconds where you forget where you are and become one with another place and time, be it real or imaginary. The moment can occur because of a certain unique photographic styling, or soaring musical vision, or when dialog begets meaning that transcends mere words, or acting that goes beyond the gift of finesse. There are at least two of these moments in this film, and incredibly they last for not just a few seconds, but are sustained for over a minute or more.

One of them occurs when Guy attends a party at the British embassy, which he was going to blow off until he finds out that Jill will be there. Even though she has been gently rebuffing his advances for the last several days, because she will only be in Jakarta for another week or so before heading home and does not want to involve herself in a romance that is done before it starts, he persists, and she and he leave the party together in a car, driving out into the night after curfew, a very dangerous idea when the roads are stippled with roadblocks and angry men with hatred of Westerners. The music rises up and we are in the moment. It cannot be described, but it tells us why we seek danger out, and sometimes why reality needs to be defied.

The second occurs after Jill transcribes a coded message at the embassy offices, and without a single word, and only the torrential tropical rain falling on Jill, pouring down, drenching her in reality's revenge, sadness and despair at humanity's rampant stupidity is all but made tactile.

And yet there is hope. Reality is neither good nor evil, light nor dark, danger may be the bringer of death or the bearer of enlightenment, but ultimately either is what we choose to make of it. You will see, that even from chaos, it is possible for one to add one's light to the sum of light.

Add to the sum of your light, and buy or rent *The Year of Living Dangerously*. The Shadow Puppets will thank you, as will I.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



The Shadowy Glow of Technical Candelight:

*The Year of Living Dangerously* is available on DVD, and I *very strongly* recommend you view it with this media and *not* get the VHS version. I know there may not be a choice, but the movie is made in a very widescreen format (aspect ratio is 2.35:1) and the entire frame is used extensively to convey the emotional and visceral impact of the story. The last time I viewed this film on a VHS copy I was shocked at how crappy it looked. This film is a masterpiece, it deserves far better than a grainy, washed-out hack job on videotape. Even if you have a smaller TV, where there will be a lot of letterboxing to preserve the widescreen image, it is worth it. The pan and scan version is a completely different film.

The film was released in 1982. Running time is 1 hour and 55 minutes. The sound mix is mono, which was how the soundtrack was originally mastered, but the DVD version presents it in '2.0 stereo' form, meaning it will play out of the left and right front speakers, rather than just out the center speaker. This is usually a good arrangement for a home theater setup. The DVD also contains French and Spanish alternate soundtracks, each with subtitles available. As on many DVD's, the video is presented in anamorphic format ('enhanced for 16x9 televisions') for you lucky folks who own these high-tech beasties. If you do, use this disc to convince skeptical friends that your expensive 'toy' can serve the cause of art as well as slam-bang action flicks that rattle the rafters.

Music is by Maurice Jarre, and the screenplay is by David Williamson, Peter Weir and C.J. Koch, based on the original story by C.J. Koch. The film was produced by James McElroy .

The cast overview:

Mel Gibson .... Guy Hamilton, Australian Sigourney Weaver .... Jill Bryant Linda Hunt .... Billy Kwan, Photographer Bembol Roco ... Kumar, Guy Hamilton's Assistant Domingo Landicho .... Hortono, Guy Hamilton's Driver Michael Murphy .... Pete Curtis, Washington Post Correspondent Noel Ferrier .... Wally O'Sullivan, Sydney Herald Correspondent Paul Sonkkila .... Kevin Condon, Correspondent Bill Kerr .... Colonel Ralph Henderson, British Military Attache Kuh Ledesma .... Tiger Lily


The question of the week is short and simple: What was the most dangerous thing you've ever done in your life, and did it turn into a positive experience or a negative one, or some measure of both?



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- Rufus, 22:50:43 07/13/01 Fri

I can't think about this movie without considering the wonderful job Linda Hunt did as Billy Kwan.

As for dangerous things......going out on a boat with my Dad who had no idea of how to read a chart....think big rock...and ending up on a near sinking ship. I made up any excuse possible to never go on anything that floated with my parents again.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- Cactus Watcher, 23:36:39 07/13/01 Fri

I hate to say it, but I personally found The Year of Living Dangerously dull, and if anything over done. Don't get me wrong. It's well acted and all. Many besides OnM think it's a great movie and with reason. There is an aspect of the movie, however that is important, but easy to forget. I've spent a good bit of my life playing it safe. But, I was involved with serious study of the USSR back in the bad old days. A dear friend of my was briefly arrested for taking a picture of a Soviet shoestore. Someone thought she surely was going to use it to demonstrate how awful shoestores were in the USSR. That person undoubtably believed they were going to get into desperate trouble over it. One of my professors, a native Lithuanian, was cornered by the KGB, and on pain of imprisonment, forced to say he would work for them. The fact that he outwitted them easily is beside the point. The point is what in the hell did the KGB think it was going to learn from what a literature professor could tell them? I know, even if perhaps you don't. The most dangerous things I did in my life had nothing to do with how much danger I was in. Over the years I spoke to many people who had sold their souls to a horrific dictatorship to make things a little better for their families. Soviet citizens who talked to too many foreigners could get in deadly serious trouble, and yet I never had a problem getting people to talk. Maybe they couldn't be honest about what was going on in their country, (some were, some weren't), but they talked with me. It's one thing to risk your own well being. But, knowing you're risking someone else's, and knowing you have to do it, is something else. Journalists love to tell people their job can be risky. One thing you should remember as you watch The Year of Living Dangerous is that their job can be risky for others as well. It isn't Mel Gibson's character who dies!


[> I am totally in love with this movie. Great choice! -- rowan, 08:32:31 07/14/01 Sat


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- Aquitaine, 12:35:55 07/14/01 Sat

Great review, OnM!


Most dangerous thing I've done? Paragliding in Greece. I break out in a cold sweat every time I think of how many things could have gone wrong that day. Shudder. Of course, sometimes the most dangerous things we do are only peripherally harmful in the physical sense. It's the emotional scars that are the most persistent.

- Aquitaine


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- Cynthia, 15:03:27 07/14/01 Sat

I would have to say the most dangerous thing I've ever done was becoming a mother. To be responsible 24/7/365 for another life can be terrifying at times. You actually have to make decisions that effect someone other than oneself.

I could also go on and on about all the positive aspects of motherhood, but I won't. Except to say that it has made discover strength within myself that I may have never found otherwise.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- Fainting In Coils, 18:31:25 07/14/01 Sat

This movie is in my Top 20 along with a number of other Peter Weir films. 'Picnic at Hanging Rock,' 'Gallipoli,' 'Witness,' 'Fearless,' etc.--What a body of work. Most dangerous thing I can recall was driving back from Lake Beryessa, California to UC Davis in the pitch black of 3am, in neutral, letting gravity do the work. Extremely scary, extremely reckless, and exceedingly stupid!



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 13th 2001 -- Anthony8, 18:35:39 07/14/01 Sat

Yeah, this is indeed one of my favorites. Anything by Peter Weir is fine with me. I would also recommend 'The Last Wave,' although I haven't been able to find it on video or DVD for the last couple of years.



[> My Year of Living Dangerously -- Wisewoman, 13:28:13 07/15/01 Sun

Good question, OnM! I had to go waaaaaay back to remember anything dangerous I'd done, which probably says a lot about my life now.

My own year of living dangerously was 1972, when I was 19 years old and living on my own in Toronto in a big old house that had been converted into a number of tiny bachelor apartments, most of which were inhabited by women in their 30s of "questionable" virtue.

On one occasion I stepped between a drugged-up, knife-wielding pimp and one of his girls, and talked him out of killing her while we waited for the police to arrive.

Another time the same house caught fire in the middle of the night, and I went back into my apartment, which was actually burning at the time, to get a kitten I'd inadvertently left behind.

Perhaps because I was 19 I didn't consider either act to be all that dangerous at the time, just something that I did because the situation arose, but looking back on it now I figure I had more guts than brains!



[> [> You are the patron saint to cats now........:):):) -- Rufus, 14:59:29 07/15/01 Sun

A stupid and very lucky saint, but we have to look at the end result of what you did. After all that was a tiny kitten and I could see why you would run back into the apartment. With the pimp maybe it helped that he had this niggling bit of humanity that you could speak to.


[> [> [> Re: You are the patron saint to cats now........:):):) -- Wisewoman, 18:55:33 07/15/01 Sun

You hit a couple of nails on the head there Rufus, one of them being my stupidity!

The other was the thing about the pimp's humanity. If I try to analyze it, I think what slowed him down a bit was that I started out by taking his side and letting him know that I agreed he had a beef against his girl, but that it would be really dumb to spend the rest of his life in jail over her (my feminist nature shudders at this now!).

Fortunately, he was not so whacked out that he couldn't hear me, or that probably would have been the end of Dumbwoman, right there!



[> [> [> [> Re: You are the patron saint to cats now........:):):) -- Rufus, 20:20:58 07/15/01 Sun

You took a chance that I think in the safety of the present you can be glad you did. Once you had him identify with you in a posative way you were home free. Just be glad he didn't offer you a job:):):):)


[> [> Do you know whatever happened to the woman whose life you saved? -- OnM, 16:46:41 07/15/01 Sun

That was indeed pretty gutsy. Lots of us think about what we would do in a situation like that, that we would do the 'heroic' thing, but in reality putting yourself in danger like that is something else entirely.

A sincere 'good show' to your bravery!


[> [> [> Re: Do you know whatever happened to the woman whose life you saved? -- Wisewoman, 18:47:52 07/15/01 Sun

I left that house, and Toronto, in 1973 to move permanently to Vancouver. When I left, the woman, whose name was Teena, was still with the same pimp. I lost a lot of my starry-eyed idealism in the years I spent there, believe me. We had another tragedy a few weeks later when Teena's siamese cat escaped and killed Dorothy's budgie. Dorothy was an extremely fragile middle-aged alcoholic and she lived for her bird. She immediately went to throw herself under a train in the nearby subway station and I followed her through about six inches of snow, coatless and in fuzzy slippers, and tried to persuade her to come with me into a church instead, which failed miserably when the church turned out to be locked up tight! At least I managed to talk her out of the subway station, but really I think that was more owing to the fact that I appeared to be the insane one...she was suitably dressed for the weather, and I think I was embarrassing her!

Yup, I think I did a lot of growing up during those two or so years. For instance, the reason the house caught fire is that it was next door to a small and very old wooden church (not the same one I tried to get Dorothy into) that was being used by the Jamaican-Canadian Society. It was fire-bombed by racists... :o(


[> [> [> [> And people think writers just make up crazy stuff like this... -- OnM, 20:09:12 07/15/01 Sun

.. or wonder why other people would rather spend time in fantasy worlds rather than the real one.



[> [> [> [> [> Re: And people think writers just make up crazy stuff like this... -- Rufus, 20:17:49 07/15/01 Sun

The people that go on about things in the Buffyverse not being realistic cause it could never happen in the real world haven't been paying attention.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: And people think writers just make up crazy stuff like this... -- Wisewoman, 20:32:38 07/15/01 Sun

Sometimes I reassure myself that this is the reason I find it so difficult to write fiction. Any effort I make to create something convincingly "true-to-life" turns out totally unbelievable! (lol)



[> [> Does danger = living fully? -- Wisewoman, 20:52:32 07/15/01 Sun

Okay, I may be getting a bit maudlin now, as this "conversation" has caused me to do quite a bit of thinking about a specific period in my own past, but I've been wondering...why is it that I haven't done anything "dangerous" in the last thirty or so years? The person I was at 19, perhaps foolishly, didn't stop to think much before she put herself into potentially dangerous situations, and I think that person was perhaps much more "alive" than the person I am now. Watching Fool for Love again last night, I was reminded of the sort of intensity and passion for life that people of Buffy's age seem to have. (And I'm including Spike here, as his mental age doesn't seem to have changed much in over 100 years!)

I really miss that, the feeling that every minute was fraught with potential danger, and excitement, and importance. The feeling of, well, immortality. Where does that conviction go? Is it a natural casualty of aging, or does something in the way one leads one's life, in the choices one makes, deaden the feeling? And is it ever possible to get it back?

And, in an attempt to remain on topic, is this exactly what draws me, and others like me, to BtVS? Am I re-living my youth vicariously through Buffy? And if so, would it be better then to stop clinging to the fantasy re-enactment and instead pursue a more fulfilling and meaningful reality?

Aaaaaargh! That's a bit too much angsty questioning for a Sunday evening...g'night all!



[> [> [> Re: Does danger = living fully? -- Anthony8, 21:45:24 07/15/01 Sun

IMO, danger at age 19 is more along the lines of living carelessly (though no necessarily carefree, which is, I think, a good thing) than living fully. I feel lucky to have survived, when so many have not. For example, I lost one friend who attempted foolishly to have his picture taken on a precarious rock outcropping in the Grand Canyon with disastrous results. He really wasn't living dangerously (or fully) at that moment so much as carelessly since he was more concerned with how cool the picture would look rather than the possibility that he would lose his footing and never be in another picture again. To me a glider ride over the canyon or some other similar adventure would have been more in line with living fully in that moment.

I don't think that this friend's life would have been any less full had he chosen a slightly less dangerous path. Also, as we were all to discover at his funeral reception, he had so much more depth of character than we ever knew, had he lived, there would have been quite a full enough life ahead for him.

I don't in any way mean this to be a sermon on the benefits of living a boring life. I'm just saying that hindsight not only is 20/20, but it also tends to be overly romantic. That's not to say that I wouldn't mind having the same overall energy level that I did at 19, but I'm happy for the wisdom (which has its own fullness)I have acquired since and wouldn't part with that in exchange for a little more danger. Now, give me the wisdom and send me back to age 19--well, maybe then I'd be singing a different tune.



[> [> [> Re: Does danger = living fully? -- Solitude1056, 07:42:28 07/16/01 Mon

I am reminded of something I was told shortly after I opened a bookstore, many years back. "You may be liberal now, but you'll become conservative as soon as you have something to lose." Which, I suppose, is the this-era corrollary to Joplin's statement that freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose.
It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- Slayrunt, 06:56:36 07/15/01 Sun

It's my birthday and I'll start a strange thread if I want to!


here is the premise, we don't know Darla's human name, Darla doesn't know Darla's name, so it's time to NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE!

Rules: 1. I .... make the rules 2. you .... NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! 3. I will be the judge 4. refer to rule one

Winner will be immortalized forever(?) in the 1st aniversary posting party Darla thread.

Thank you for playing NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! and for forgiving a tired guy who's going to bed.


[> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- Brian, 08:58:43 07/15/01 Sun

How about: Mary Carpenter


[> [> Gee. -- Solitude1056, 11:36:24 07/15/01 Sun

I was thinking more like "Betty Lou."


[> [> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- Slayrunt, 16:05:03 07/15/01 Sun

Is that the girl with Dr Jekyl(sp?)?


[> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- Wisewoman, 12:13:49 07/15/01 Sun

I'd go with Jane Stride--Jane for the time, place, and her profession, and Stride for the third victim of Jack the Ripper. She'd probably have been called Janet by her friends and clients.

I like Mary Carpenter too, though.



[> [> Interesting and a (ot) question -- Slayrunt, 15:57:03 07/15/01 Sun

I've never thought about the Ripper and Buffy (Jack, not Giles).

Any reason you chose Stride and not Chapman or Kelly or one of the others whose name escapes me now?


[> [> [> Re: Interesting and a (ot) question -- Wisewoman, 18:29:31 07/15/01 Sun

Random choice, really. Chapman seemed too close to Brian's Carpenter, and Mary Kelly was Irish, but I don't think Darla originally was. I just thought Stride went well with Jane or Janet. The Ripper's other victims were Ann Nichols and Catherine Eddowes. Nothing wrong with either of those names, I just preferred Stride for someone with Darla's pesonality.



[> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- Liquidram, 15:54:15 07/15/01 Sun

I like Mary Carpenter also.

Which brings up another question.... why Darla? We know where Angelus came from and we know the reason for Spike.

And what about Drucilla? Do we know her human name?


[> [> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- Slayrunt, 16:02:08 07/15/01 Sun

If you're asking why her vamp name is Darla, the Master gave her the name because it means precious or something like that and she was his fav.

Dru is also and interesting question. It was never made clear if that was her human name or not and why (if not) is she called Drucilla.


[> [> [> If it's not her birth name -- Greta, 06:52:41 07/16/01 Mon

Maybe Sister Drusilla is the name she was going to assume when she took her vows as a nun?

Oh, and for the record, I like Jane Stride, it's so full of historical allusion:)


[> [> [> [> Re: If it's not her birth name -- Can't be, 15:55:13 07/16/01 Mon

When you become a nun, you must take saint's name. That was the rule until the 1970's or similar.


[> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- purplegrrl, 08:30:12 07/17/01 Tue

How about Hester Prinn?

(I was watching "The Scarlet Letter" yesterday. Hester was a strong-minded woman who didn't take much crap from anyone. I could see her becoming a vampire, especially if it meant she could have revenge on a bunch of narrow-minded townspeople.)


[> Re: It's time to play...NAME THAT DEAD HUMAN WHO'S NOW A VAMPIRE! -- d'Herblay, 13:48:14 07/17/01 Tue

Many poets have been appreciated only posthumously, but rare is the poet who discovers his muse after his own death. Perhaps there has been only one. In this game of "name that dead human who's now a vampire," I offer you Spike=William Ernest Henley (1849-??), lesser Victorian, supposed tubercular invalid, worshiper of force and dynamism.

From "Space and Dread and the Dark":

Life--life--let there be life! Better a thousand times the roaring hours When wave and wind, Like the Arch-Murderer in flight From the Avenger at his heel, Storms through the desolate fastnesses And wild waste places of the world!

Life--give me life until the end, That at the very top of being, The battle-spirit shouting in my blood, Out of the reddest hell of the fight I may be snatched and flung Into the everlasting lull, The immortal, incommunicable dream.

In other words, "I always knew I'd go down fighting."
The importance of Anya's list and unmixy oil & water. -- John Burwood, 07:26:20 07/15/01 Sun

In The Replacement anya quotes a list of desires in recognition of her 'imminent' demise - car, boat! puppy! child. Anya's list is a garbled allusion to what real life, & real love, are all about. Real love is not about romance or sex but about sharing a life,including homes, taxes, children, boats, etc. It is about normal life, & Angel left Buffy because as a vampire he could not give her that normal life, & nor could Spike. Rileycould have, & so could Angel as a human -but Angel in IWRY & Riley in S5 both faced the problem of Buffy's other life - slaying, the oil unmixy with the water of normal Anya'slist life. Angel chose to stay a vampire, because he knew he could not share that life as a human. Riley tried hard to share it, but Buffy would not let him. But IMOfor any relationship with Buffy to work, her partner would have to be able to share both the oil of slaying & the water of Anya's list. If Riley could not, who could?


[> Re: The importance of Anya's list and unmixy oil & water. -- Joann, 07:54:50 07/15/01 Sun

The way you describe it makes it sound like...Xander.


[> Re: The importance of Anya's list and unmixy oil & water. -- VampRiley, 08:22:58 07/15/01 Sun

At this point, I can only think of two. First, Willow but that just my dirty little mind going off on a tangent. The second is Giles, but like she has said at least twice, combining both Giles and sex is gross 'cause he's old. Chances are neither would actually happen. Although, it might make for an interesting story if Buffy dated either one at least for awhile but Giles will be in England for most of the season. Maybe a little long distance romance - maybe not.


[> [> Re: The importance of Anya's list and unmixy oil & water. -- John Burwood, 09:06:19 07/15/01 Sun

Your responses intrigue. I would have mentioned Xander in my 1st post if I had time,but I only get 15 mins to type each message on my TV Internet system. I remember how often Xander tried to patrol with Buffy when he was first obsessed with her, but he was nowhere near as effective as commando Riley proved he could be in FFL. Maybe the answer is a younger trained watcher who had previously done a stint as an Army or Marine Commando & studied magic to some level of proficiency, & who had Xander's level of loyalty to his 'hero'. Asking one hell of a lot is the problem! There will not be many guys worth anything who can sit at home getting the dinner ready while the girl they love is all alone fighting for her life.


[> Re: The importance of Anya's list and unmixy oil & water. -- Wiccagrrl, 10:48:06 07/15/01 Sun

Hmm...who in the Buffyverse would be able to understand and share Buffy's slayer life? coughFaithcough Talk about chemistry. Ok, so...it ain't gonna happen. But still...

Also,I don't know that I agree that a human Angel would never be able to share a life with Buffy as a human. The impression I got with IWRY was that we were partly talking about it not being the right time. Angel (and Buffy, but more Angel I think) still had miles to go before he slept. The oracles seem to indicate this is something of a fluke. The indication is that Buffy will die, as will many others, if he stays human (all things considered, ironic much? She died a year later anyway.)

If and when Angel gets his Shanshu, this is supposed to be something TPTB give him. I don't think there'll be the same kind of "is this right" issues that IWRY had. And frankly, unless Buffy's married or dead (again) at that point, I can hardly imagine him not making a mad dash straight to her when he does become human.

Don't really see her getting together with any of the Scoobs. Giles, Willow, Xander...they're all like family at this point.

And Spike- well, frankly I see all of the same drawbacks/issues that the B/A 'ship had (minus the curse, but without the soul) So, I'm kinda thinking no.


[> [> Oracles -- Cactus Watcher, 11:45:50 07/15/01 Sun

Wiccagrrl- I agreed with you on Buffy. But, I'm not sure it's fair to call what the oracles said ironic. Angel never actually asked whether his becoming an immortal again, would keep Buffy alive. Angel's assumption, that it would, was what was ironic. Would he have gone back to being an immortal, if Buffy had died before he met the oracles? It's an interesting question.


[> [> [> Re: Oracles -- Wiccagrrl, 12:05:13 07/15/01 Sun

Oh, I know they never made any guarentees, and I'm not saying they misled him, but I think it's fair to say that a large part of the decision on Angel's part had to do with Buffy's safety. He was concerned that, under the circumstances, and given what the oracles did say, she was likely to end up getting killed. Sadly, it happened anyway.


[> [> [> [> Re: Oracles -- Cactus Watcher, 17:31:15 07/15/01 Sun

Right. But, if he had asked the magic question, he might have been told, what he did would make no difference to Buffy's destiny. And, of course, that would have ruined most of the past season for all of us. Fortunately, oracles of the Angel universe, like oracles of Greek mythology had a habit of answering the question that was asked not, the question the knowledge seeker would really want answered, if she/he had a better idea of what was going on.


[> The Slayer and the Hunter -- Wisewoman, 12:01:40 07/15/01 Sun

There was a spoiler/rumour going around a while ago that was probably fanfic. It had to do with the plot of ASH's BBC series and said that he would be searching for The Hunter who was the male other half of the Slayer. There supposedly had always been Hunters and Slayers as couples but then one Slayer died during a Cruciamentum (sp?) and the Hunter refused to work with the Watchers Council after that.

I kinda like the idea that there's an "other half" out there, waiting for Buffy, destined to be her perfect partner. I know lots of fans think of Angel that way, but I'd be okay with someone brand new.



[> [> Re: The Slayer and the Hunter -- Liquidram, 15:27:30 07/15/01 Sun

This is probably the only logical answer because I really doubt Buffy, in her slayer state could have a "normal" relationship. Spike would be a great match for her in equality and passion, but only if he was human because of a number of reasons which we all know.

I read an interesting fic somewhere that allowed her to "retire and pass the mantle" if she survived to age 31. Sounds good to me. You would think there would be some reward for sacrificing most of her life (or all of it in the case of past slayers.)

I couldn't even image her wanting to have children as long as she still was the Slayer. They would be constant targets along with a normal, human husband (which comes back to why Angel refused to remain human.)


[> [> [> Re: The Slayer -- darrenK, 09:28:44 07/16/01 Mon

There is the possibility that Buffy will no longer be the Slayer when she's brought back. I don't think this is what they'll do, but you never know...

After all, when Darla was brought back she was no longer a Vampire.

And the Slayer mantle really passed to Kendra then Faith after Buffy's first death.

I'm not sure how I feel about this whole "Hunter" business. It would amount to a major reworking of the Slayer myth. And I can't help feeling that it's a little late to be doing that.

Joss and company were able to turn the "new relative" TV cliche on its head, but I'm not sure they could rewrite the Slayer myth equally adroitly.


[> What about William? -- Wilder, 21:57:42 07/15/01 Sun

That's if, or course, the prophecies are really about Spike and he was the one rewarded with humanity.


[> [> Why do I think that would really p*ss him off? -- Liquidram, 13:44:20 07/16/01 Mon
the dumbest question ever! -- vampire hunter D, 12:56:15 07/15/01 Sun

All right, I'm kind of bored here. So to liven things up, I will now ask the dumbest question ever posted on this board. And that question is:

Is having sex with a vampire considered necrophilia?

Well, there it is. I now stand ready to take your abuse and ridicule.


[> Re: the *so not the* dumbest question ever! -- Wiccagrrl, 13:05:04 07/15/01 Sun

I don't think so. Although, I laugh everytime I hear Faith's line to Buffy about "boinking the undead" Vampires, while technically "dead" or at least "undead" are animate. They're responsive. I'd imagine (oh,this conversation is gonna go some strange places) that part of the turn-on with necrophilia is the fact that you're having sex with something sorta-human, but totally at your control- an object, but not. Does that make *any* sense?


[> Re: the dumbest question ever! -- Liquidram, 16:13:43 07/15/01 Sun

Sheesh, good question. I'm sure that just about everyone on this board would consider sex with a vampire somewhat distasteful, but enough of the political commentary.

In Buffyverse, our vamps are written as passionate beings quite capable of strong feelings of love. Even, in Spike's case, of causing the catalyst of changed behavior that is strongly against their demonic nature. In these circumstances, we have that gray area again. True love vs. Ewwww factor.


[> [> Re: the dumbest question ever! -- Nina, 18:05:40 07/15/01 Sun

Dumb question? Where? Have you ever read mines? ;)

Sincerely it's a really interesting issue. I've been thinking about that lately after having read all the fanfiction I could take (I made an overdose and have to go in rehab!). I think that in the Buffyverse the vamps are portrayed as human with a demon inside more than like zombies or dead people. Everytime Xander hit Spike with a "undead" comment it always seems weird to me. Not that he insults him, but the choice of his insult. He's trying to put him back to where he belongs, wih the undeads, but we've never seen Spike as an undead character. It was never written that way.

So technically through a certain point of view it is not necrophilia, as they are not dead, but "undead". They walk, they talk, they look alive. Still, the lack of bodyheat and heartbeat gravitates much towards the necrophilia side. I talked a bit about fanfiction, it was for a reason. Usually fanfiction writers don't consider that aspect repulsive at all. They go on about it. They describe it like the ultimate fantasy. Does that make the writers necrophiles?

Buffy never got to talk about her night with Angel to give us some hints about how she felt about that issue. Well, the fact that Angel turned bad kinda threw the subject away, but it would be interesting for ME to explore that area.


[> [> [> Errr....Liquidram..(sticking my neck out here) re: sex with a vampire -- AK-UK, 18:20:03 07/15/01 Sun

Errr....would you guys consider it distasteful to sleep with a vampire? I mean, I'm speaking for myself here, but I'd sleep with VampWillow....I mean, as long as she didn't put her vamp face on.........and even then I think....no, I'm not going there.

Are vampires a different species? If they are, I think you'd probably class sex with them as beastiality.......which makes me feel so not better.


[> [> [> [> Sex w/ a Vampire -- Bestiality vs Necrophilia -- Simplicity, 18:53:09 07/15/01 Sun

Sex with a Vampire?

***I sound like Jerry Springer!

Hmmm. . .could be bestiality (there territorial, possessive, good sense of smell, etc. . .could be necrophilia (cool -- room temperature, and technically dead.)

For the bestiality part, it has some merit.

Accept that they are not all animal. They have a human face and have the ability to think for themselves (versus acting on instinct). I'd say that sleeping with Oz (a werewolf) would be closer to bestiality.

Necrophilia? No, I don't think so. Because they are not just reanimated corpses. I think of them as cold humans with a really nasty bad side (FANGS!). They are capable of complex thoughts and emotions (unlike a corpse).


[> [> [> [> My first Errr ... cool -- Liquidram, 18:54:28 07/15/01 Sun

Hmmm, I guess it wouldn't be too hard to figure out which one I'd go for.

Didn't even consider the beastialty aspect .... *ish* (although me thinks it would be fairly difficult to remember that aspect should one actually be in a clinch with one of the ones we know. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> vamp fever -- cknight, 19:10:46 07/15/01 Sun

"I got vamp fever, I got vamp fever, She's got vamp fever, he's got vamp fever"

Come-on everyone sing. ;)

If vamps were real. I would love to spend some time with Vamp Willow. Hmmm..that face, the red hair, those fangs..... I have to go now :)


[> [> [> [> hey now -- Solitude1056, 19:40:20 07/15/01 Sun

(tried to post this twice already, and it didn't appear - at all. bizarre. I am NOT taking the hint, people, so you can cut it out!)


As I was saying, I gots da first dibs on Evil Willow. The rest of y'll are just gonna hafta wait yer turn. Bwahahaha!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: hey now -- Slayrunt, 20:55:22 07/15/01 Sun

Where's the line start? I gotta get in it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> right behind ME! ;-) -- Solitude1056, 05:47:58 07/16/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> Sol, let me get this straight, you only want Evil Willow, facinating......:):):) -- Rufus, 23:11:43 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I'm not hard to please. -- Solitude1056, 05:53:59 07/16/01 Mon

I just like the leather pants. Except SMG in leather - she still looks good-girl-ish, even in black leather. She tries, and gets points for that, but she just can't smoulder like DB, ED, NB, or AH. Come to think of it, AD cut a fine figure in the riding leathers (though I've always wondered: if he was fired, how did he swing the BMW R90, anyway? or did he have it hidden the whole time he was in Sunnydale & still wearing suits with little bowties?) ..


[> [> [> [> [> Re: hey now -- Shaglio, 06:40:14 07/16/01 Mon

Dammit! I don't read the message board over the weekend (only when I'm at work) and now I'm so far down on the VampWillow waiting list! This isn't fair.

I think the women of this posting board are going to tear me to shreds for that last paragraph.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: hey now -- Slayrunt, 15:48:37 07/16/01 Mon

I don't know, just tell them Spike is over there and they will leave us alone.


[> [> [> [> [> ME FIRST! -- vampire hunter D, 13:22:48 07/16/01 Mon

I started this post. I get first dibs on VampWillow. You can have my seconds. BTW, since Willow's a lesbian, any of you girls can feel free to get in line too.

And one more thing. While I'd sleep with Evil Willow, I don't think it's a good idea to fall asleep next to her.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Who said anything about *sleeping*??? -- Solitude1056, 15:35:08 07/16/01 Mon

And btw, I'd count Willow as bisexual - but probably quite monogamous. So if she were available, it's probably fair game for anyone who could entertain her mind & capture her heart. But she's not available...


[> [> [> Sex, Vampires....chants magic clause here.......:):):) -- Rufus, 23:09:17 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> Sex with Spike can't really be wrong. Can it? Anyone? -- rowan, 20:15:09 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> [> To paraphrase, "If loving him is wrong, then I don't wanna be right!" ;o) -- Wisewoman, 20:22:43 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> [> Only if he promises not to bite. In a bad way, not the *good* way. Heh-heh.;o) -- Deeva (feelin' a little frisky), 20:48:23 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> So would the chip zap him then? (NT) -- Rattletrap, 05:29:09 07/16/01 Mon


[> [> [> Re: Sex with Spike can't really be wrong. Can it? Anyone? -- Dariel, 21:28:38 07/15/01 Sun

Of course not. Someone's got to console him about Buffy.


[> [> [> Consult Action Spike and see what he has to say.......:):):) -- Rufus, 23:13:05 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> [> Re: Sex with Spike can't really be wrong. Can it? Anyone? -- Who cares? I wouldn't be able to help myself!, 07:01:07 07/16/01 Mon

Speaking of songs, he brings to mind the NIN song "Closer"!


[> which prompts the story of... -- Solitude1056, 18:42:35 07/15/01 Sun

.. the time my sister got "necrophilia" and "narcolepsy" confused. Which resulted in "necrolepsy" being a serious illness in which you fall dead for minutes at a time, and "narcolepsy" being a fascination for having sex with sleeping people. Which begs the (equally stupid) question, do you tell the person when s/he wakes up?

(hah, just couldn't resist.)


[> [> I'm starting to get a very clear picture of this sister...rofl!! -- Wisewoman, 19:35:19 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> ack. I meant "narcophilia..." oh, you get the idea. -- Solitude1056, 19:43:29 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> You sure you're not part Canadian??? -- Rufus, 23:15:26 07/15/01 Sun

You have the sick and twisted down, what are your feelings about cats?


[> [> [> What is it with you canadians & cats? -- Solitude1056, 11:44:48 07/16/01 Mon

I prefer my lean mouser wannabe-barn-cat over a fluffy pampered sofa cat, anyday. Then again, I also prefer my (retired) hunting dawgs over poodles or scotties. Real dogs, and real cats, don't do the bow-tie around the neck routine. No sirree!


[> Boy, am I gonna regret posting this -- not Wilder, really, 21:53:00 07/15/01 Sun

Um, then does that make human women extremely appealing to randy vampires, esp. every 28 days or so???

I guess that would bring cunninglingus to a whole new level!


(sorry, had to be noted)


[> [> Ok, Eww!!!! (LOL) -- Wiccagrrl, 22:00:17 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> La la la la la, magic clause again, can't hear you..naughty thing...:):) -- Rufus, 23:16:54 07/15/01 Sun


[> [> ROFLMAO!! -- Solitude1056, 05:49:12 07/16/01 Mon

ok, we need a new episode, STAT! I don't know if I can handle another two months of us trapped in rerun land!


[> [> [> Surely we can entertain ourselves, as that non-Wilder person just proved... -- Masq, 06:42:25 07/16/01 Mon

"not Wilder" ...you sure about that?


[> [> Re: Boy, am I gonna regret posting this -- Morgane, 09:54:24 07/16/01 Mon

Ever red "Memnock, the demon" by Anne Rice?

coz Lestat went quite deep on this particular subject, and suprisingly it didn't sound as discusting as it appears. Anne Rice has really a particular talent to explain discusting things in a sexy way, it always amazes me, and it's probably why I believe that vamps are so deeply sexy... Even if they're supposed to be brutal killer and that I'm not quite sadistic.


[> [> [> Re: Boy, am I gonna regret posting this -- anom, 10:39:09 07/16/01 Mon

I had a story idea once about a vampire who gathered 4 women each of whose periods ended just as the next one's began, to cover the whole month...but since they all lived together, eventually, due to hormonal influence, the periods synchronized & it didn't work out! I don't remember if the vamp's motivation was to feed without killing or to avoid turning the women into vampires (or why he wanted to avoid either of these outcomes). I think this idea was triggered by a story I'd read, but I don't remember which one.


[> [> [> [> Not really wishing to get too graphic..... -- AK-UK, 12:42:04 07/16/01 Mon

...but surely the amount of blood that is lost during menstruation is negligible (in terms of the amount needed for a vampire)? I mean, most of the fluid lost during menstruation isn't blood.

Unless the vampire developed a taste for menstruated blood?

"All together now: EWWWWWWWWWWW".


[> [> [> Anne Rice -- Liquidram, 13:40:33 07/16/01 Mon

Anne Rice also writes her vampires as having a deep love for each other, regardless of gender. Witness the feelings of both Lestat and Armand for Louis.


[> [> Undoubtedly the COW employs at least one cunning linguist. Sorry, lame pun. -- Fainting in Coils, 17:48:17 07/16/01 Mon
2nd dumbest question -- Liquidram, 15:13:48 07/15/01 Sun

You may have addressed this one before my time, but seeing AtS Epiphany made me think of it again.

How did Angel get into Kate's apartment to save her without an invite?

If memory serves me, she kinda disappeared soon afterwards without an explanation (since her alter-ego is taking Angie Harmon's place on Law and Order next season.)


[> Re: 2nd dumbest question -- Masq, 15:20:00 07/15/01 Sun

Kate and Angel discussed this at the end of the ep, and Kate mentioned that it gave her renewed faith (in contrast to Angel's "no big picture" existentialism) because he was able to enter and save her without an invite.

So, if she's right? The PTB's dun it.


[> [> Re: 2nd dumbest question -- Liquidram, 15:48:12 07/15/01 Sun

I got that and I guess we need to be satisfied with that answer.... however ..... why? Meaning, why was she that important to save unless it was all part of his epiphany to strengthen his understanding of his true purpose - that it wasn't the big picture, but the one-person-at-a-time goodness.

I can live with that. :)


[> [> [> It may have to do with the nature of a 'selfless act'. -- OnM, 16:33:08 07/15/01 Sun

The PTB explanation is the standard, accepted and even fairly logical one, but I have also wondered if the requirement for an invite could be metaphysically countered by the vamp performing a truly selfless act, and also not be thinking of the need for the invite at the time.

After all, who or whatever created these 'rules' and made them apply to vampires probably never figured on any vamp ever going good just for the sake of it-- not to further their own interests, that is, even if those interests involved the doing of good as a byproduct.

Angel was no longer thinking of his eventual reward (to be made alive again) when he went to rescue Kate, and it could be argued that before his 'epiphany', that thought was always present, even if it was subconscious. Therefore, the conventional metaphysical 'program code' is still active, and an invite would be required.

Recall that in Pylea, another dimension, the normal vamp limitations did not apply at all. This means the code isn't absolute, but is linked to certain other conditions.


[> [> [> [> Re: It may have to do with the nature of a 'selfless act'. -- Liquidram, 16:37:45 07/15/01 Sun

Good theory which fit with the fact that he couldn't save Kate's dad, or get into Buffy's house to "save" Joyce when he thought she was being threatened.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: It may have to do with the nature of a 'selfless act'. -- OnM, 16:55:53 07/15/01 Sun

Just to head off one possible objection that just occurred to me, even before Angel knew about his possible 'Shanshu', he primarily did good as an act of atonement for his previous evil acts as a vampire. Now atonement is a good thing, and is desireable, but it also isn't a completely 'selfless' act. The one doing the atonement will inevitably get at least some personal sense of pleasure or relief at their attempt to balance the cosmic scale.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Not sure I like that this theory... -- AK-UK, 18:03:59 07/15/01 Sun

Although I hate TPTB and their "Cosmic chess game" interventions, I prefer it to the idea that Angel can circumvent the invite law by having selfless motivations. If that's the case, will he be able to walk in direct sunlight without burning, or negate the effects of holy water and crosses? I just think it's more fun if he is bound by fundamental laws due to his vampiric nature, laws which can only be circumvented by beings even more powerful than that.

And I really hope that Kate's rescue was more than just a way for Angel to learn an important lesson.

And when are the woman on AtS going to start kicking ass? Can we have a few less episodes that involve Angel, Gunn and Wesley being all butch and rescuing poor damsels in distress???? Huh, Joss???? Can we???

Sorry. Just finished watching "Glengarry Glenross" and I'm feeling all testosterone-y and argumentative.
Amy the Rat -- Marie, 02:18:18 07/16/01 Mon

Hello, all! Glad to see you're back! I've developed a healthy (?) addiction to you all, and you scared me, disappearing like that! Naughty!

Anyway, to cure my depression over the weekend, I was re-watching S5 tapes, and was reminded of something I noticed when I first saw 'Triangle':

Cut to: magic shop.

WILLOW: Good, and, and hellebore. It's up and to the right. TARA: Hellebore, one of my favorites. WILLOW: It's powerful stuff. I tried to use it to de-rat Amy, and it didn't work. But I think it might have made her really smart. She keeps giving me these looks like she's planning something. Rubbing her paws together.

Knowing Joss' penchant for giving his readers clues to what's coming up, don't you find this little throwaway exchange curious? Could Amy, de-ratted, be the next season's Big Bad? There has been some rumour that a friend could be the next Villain-with-a-capital-V - some think this could be Willow or Anya, but I disagree, unless it's for just a few episodes.

I just know you'll have thoughts on this!



[> Re: Amy the Rat -- William the Bloody, 02:49:30 07/16/01 Mon

I doubt that. All clues are pointing to Willow right now. Her powers have been growing dangerously fast and powerful and they've been leaning dangerously towards the "dark side". I think if anything, it was just a nice little reference to season 3.


[> Re: Amy the Rat Queen -- Brian, 03:26:17 07/16/01 Mon

After all those years as a rat, Amy not identifies with them, and becomes their Queen, since she can now talk "rat." This gives Joss a chance to do his take on "Willard" & "Ben." Thousands of rats move to Sunnydale which causes all the Vamps to move out since they don't like rats either. Buffy has to figure out a way to stop the rats, and get Amy back to being just human. In the spirit of ongoing cooperation Willow and Anya get together (Anya used to use rats in several of her wish fulfillment episodes) and they creat a "Pied Piper" alter ego for Buffy, and in the season finale, she leads the rats to the Pacific Ocean by singing a really bad version of the "Creature Feature theme song." and they drowned. Meanwhile, Willow really derats Amy, and she goes back to being just a witch.


[> [> Re: Amy the Rat Queen -- Millan, 03:49:00 07/16/01 Mon

"Meanwhile, Willow really derats Amy, and she goes back to being just a witch."

What I wonder, since Amy-the-rat is male, will she have some gender issues when deratted or will "she" become a "he"? :)



[> [> [> Amy the Rat is male? -- Greta, 06:38:39 07/16/01 Mon

How did I miss this?


[> [> [> [> Re: Amy the Rat is male? -- Millan, 23:22:00 07/16/01 Mon

Yes. I think you can see it best in the beginning of "Doomed". When the earthquake hits, Amy is squeking in her cage and if I remember correctly you can see some "male parts" below the tail. :)



[> [> [> Re: Amy the Rat Queen -- anom, 08:47:54 07/16/01 Mon

Another question is, since rats normally have a lifespan of 2-3 years, is Amy a rat w/a human lifespan? If she's deratted, will she be the age she would've been if she'd never been ratted in the 1st place, or will she have aged in rat years & be on her last legs (at least there'd only be 2 of them)?

BTW, one of my favorite moments in the series is when Willow, w/the power of the "my will be done" spell, unknowingly changes Amy back to human & then back to rat again, just by saying it. Beautiful bit of acting as Amy changes, looks at herself, realizes she's human, smiles with excitement & joy, begins to open her mouth...and is changed back before she has a chance to say anything & let them know what's happened.


[> [> [> [> With Willow's extraordinary power now, you'd think she could do this deliberately at this point -- Masq, 16:19:32 07/16/01 Mon
Random Thoughts on Willow/VampWillow -- Simplicity, 11:58:37 07/16/01 Mon

After looking at the first few episodes of Season Five, I can see that the writers have been setting us up for Willow either embracing/coming to terms with/exploring (not really sure yet!) her darker side. Yes, the infamous Vamp Willow. . .

In "The Replacement", Xander is discussing his "evil twin". XANDER Hey, wait 'til you have an evil twin, see how you handle it

WILLOW I handled it fine.

Looking into Season Three. Willow did, indeed, handle it "fine." Maybe even a bit too well. She refused to let Buffy kill her "evil twin". Willow hugged her vamp self before she left "our" Sunnydale in "Doppelgangland".

Back to Season Five. . .

In "Tough Love" Willow goes into vegeance mode after Tara has been brainsucked. She pulls out DARKEST MAGIC from Giles hidden collection. And I really hope they let us know what she had to do in order to use this stuff. Because Willow got much more powerful and a has a bizzarre black eye thing happening when she's casting. This obviously means that Willow has let some of the darker aspects of herself have more influence over her actions.

Another thing that struck me is the wording. . .

In "WOTW", she fixes Spike with a glare and says. .

WILLOW ". . . and Spike -- you find Glory. Check her apartment, first, see if she's still there. Try anything stupid like payback and I will get very cranky.

In "Doppelgangland", VampWillow is speaking to her soon-to be minions. . .

Vampwillow You made me cranky...


[> Yes Willow! Embrace the tight fitting leather corset.....I mean: embrace the dark side! -- AK-UK, 12:25:13 07/16/01 Mon


[> [> Stop right there -- vampire hunter D, 14:16:33 07/16/01 Mon

I think we need to stop this line nowbefore it turns into another "I've got first dibs on Evil Willow" post like that other one did.

btw. I call first dibs on Willow!


[> VampWillow will rise again -- Wisewoman, 13:06:06 07/16/01 Mon

She's just too good a character to let go. I think we'll see more of VampWillow leaking into Willow next season. For instance, the shift in Willow's sexuality that the first and second appearances of VampWillow presaged came to pass in short order. Now we have crankiness. Will face-licking be next??!! Be still, my heart...!!



[> Re: Random Thoughts on Willow/VampWillow -- Cactus Watcher, 21:39:15 07/16/01 Mon

Didn't Willow's eyes also turn black in "Becoming part II" (season 2), when she was caught up by some unknown power that helped her restore Angel's soul? Her own strength was just about gone, and something took over and kept her going.


[> [> I thought so too...but -- Slayrunt, 15:09:23 07/17/01 Tue

no, I rewatched it and they don't.


[> [> [> Thanks for checking -- Cactus Watcher, 17:35:26 07/17/01 Tue

I'd still like to know what got hold of her.
Philosophically speaking, JM should not wear tank tops. Link inside. -- voyageofbeagle, 15:35:38 07/16/01 Mon



[> maybe, maybe not ;) 'nother link inside -- tanks unite, 15:49:09 07/16/01 Mon



[> [> Ok, now we have something to discuss... -- Liquidram, 17:10:33 07/16/01 Mon

We have two image links here. One taken today and one snapped Saturday night after he performed music on stage for a good hour or so.


Multiple choice:

a) James never went home. b) James spent all day Sunday doing laundry c) James is a guy and don't care.

Now, I guess you have all figured that I'm not a guy, but my everyday uniform (much to my hubby's chagrine) is black or blue jeans and a black t-shirt. I have one of the largest collections of black t-shirts (with images, not plain) on the west coast. Some are sentimental, some are customer gifts, some are, well, stolen from my son.

I have been known on many an occasion to wear the same shirt for 2 days and then sleep in it. (Now before you all give me a collective Ewwww, let me add that there are baths and showers in the equation also.) Sometimes, before the shirt can land in the washer, it gets snapped up and worn to bed yet one more time by my daughter who likes that it smells like mommy.

Now, let's all chant: "hurry up new season... hurry up new season ... hurry UP"


[> [> [> but if you start telling us -- Solitude1056, 17:25:27 07/16/01 Mon

that you just turn your underwear inside out so you can wear it a few more days & postpone doing laundry that way... I'm outta here!


[> [> [> [> What if I told you .... -- Liquidram, 17:55:36 07/16/01 Mon

that I don't *hiccup* (I think that's enough personal info about ole Liq.)


[> [> [> Smells like mommy -- Scout, 02:44:23 07/17/01 Tue

My kids do that too! Don't you just *love it? It makes me happy to know that they find comfort in something as simple as my scent.

Black t-shirts? You can never, ever have too many black t-shirts. Or black shoes. Or skirts. Or trousers. I took the crow road a long time ago and never looked back.


[> [> [> [> This is just too much like me... never have to worry about what to wear -- Liquidram, 16:39:04 07/17/01 Tue


[> And, lest we forget...(Link inside). -- Wisewoman, 16:26:11 07/16/01 Mon

What about





[> [> Ooops, slip of the fingers...That should be... -- Wisewoman, 16:28:15 07/16/01 Mon



[> [> [> philosophically speaking, i have a new found respect for black tanks... -- pocky, 16:48:10 07/16/01 Mon


[> [> Re: And, lest we forget...(Link inside). -- LadyStarlight, 19:14:42 07/16/01 Mon

Mmmm, drool, naughty thoughts...Oops, was I posting out loud? ;)


[> The brilliant insight and clear logic -- voyageofbeagle, 17:17:45 07/16/01 Mon

of fellow posters has changed my mind ;-) JM should wear tank tops, as much as possible.


[> [> Re: The brilliant insight and clear logic -- dan, 18:17:20 07/16/01 Mon

as all the chilluns say, "true dat." Mmmm.


[> why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- JBone, 19:37:31 07/16/01 Mon

I guess you could also include B/A shippers also, they are also mostly chicks. It must be some kind of estrogen that forces one to lust after the undead. I may sound smart-assy, but it's still a somewhat serious query.


[> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Solitude1056, 19:55:29 07/16/01 Mon

Not every chick I know is that big on the whole undead thing. It doesn't hurt that Joss has cast some good looking men as the bad guys, I suppose. Then again, I think both shows are overdue for another Lindsey - someone who's human but distinctly dark and broody in his own right.


[> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Wisewoman, 19:57:32 07/16/01 Mon

Is it all B/S shippers, or B/S and B/A shippers, or just *all* shippers? From a guy's perspective, what's the ship to watch? Do guys even look at things that way?

I'm not trying to be smart-assy either, I'm curious.


[> [> [> Ok, I'm a "chick", but seems to me that B/X is mostly a guy's ship -- Wiccagrrl, 20:52:57 07/16/01 Mon

Also, to some extent W/O. (maybe it has to do with Mr. Joe Normal getting the girl?) Seems to me W/T is pretty evenly split between men and women, interestingly enough.


[> [> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- JBone, 21:06:34 07/16/01 Mon

Oh boy, I guess I have a topic I had a hand in starting I need to help along. First of all I don't believe all women viewers are B/A or B/S shippers. A slight exaggeration on my part. Now onto the more perplexing questions. Why are women more likely to be shippers than men? As far as Buffyverse goes, I'm not sure what women fans of the show think when they watch, but I believe that manly fans like to watch Buffy and see themselves in characters around her. From the first time I watched I saw myself in Xander. Master smart-ass with little success with women. More men than you can imagine can identify with that. Later on, in lesser extent I could identify with Oz, except he spoke even less than I do, and I consider myself closed-mouth. And even Riley even with his para-military booster shots. Mostly because he was as flawed as the average guy in his insecurities. Hell, I have more in common with Willy the snitch than Angel. Even if it was a relationship that I approved of, it would be like cheering for a homecoming couple or something. Not freaking bloody likely.

All this brings me around to Angel and Spike, and what doesn't make me love to see them with the Buffster. Mostly, I see it as a rich, frat boy type attitude I get from them. I realize that neither are college boys, but they have this privileged vibe about them. Even though it doesn't come from their parents, it's like they were favored from on high, and I HATE nepotism. Earn your shit.

And finally, I liked Lindsay. I want to see him back on one show or the other. Not necessarily with Buffy, but if it was handled in a certain way, I would enjoy seeing it. Buffy is one kick ass hero not to be wasted on frat boy types. Hopefully, I have not abbreviated this too much.

I may have drank a little too much to make myself clear. I'll be back tomorrow to clear anything else up.


[> [> [> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Wiccagrrl, 21:18:02 07/16/01 Mon

Oh, I SO disagree with you, especially on Angel. The last think I would describe him as is privilaged, lucky, entitled. I think he's a deeply damaged, at times vulnerable, yes sexy but also at times VERY dangerous individual with a lot of guilt and some serious demons to deal with. He's not Xander's "everyman", that's true. He and Buffy were in a lot of ways completely wrong for each other, and yet there was also something very right about this couple. They just...fit, IMO. They met needs that no one else possibly could. Now, that doesn't mean I don't see the major issues they face, or that I want to see them together now. I think they both (and Angel especially) have a lot of growing and healing to do. But I do think they could be good for each other at some point in the future.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Wisewoman, 21:34:05 07/16/01 Mon

Y'know, I think both Angel and Spike are more vulnerable in relationships than Xander is. Xander had a HUGE crush on Buffy to begin with, but he bounced back and kept right on going, through Cordelia to Anya, with a slight Faith-y detour.

It's as if Xander, everyman-bowling-carpenter that he is, has more grassroots self-esteem than either of the fanged fellows. He has more respect for himself than to spend months mooning after someone who is basically unattainable. Spike's whole existence was thrown into disarray when Drusilla dumped him, and now he's tranferred his obsession to Buffy. There's still a lot of William's insecurity operating there. And Angel, well, he was born to brood... hehehe



[> [> [> [> Hmmmm, interesting... -- Wisewoman, 21:22:57 07/16/01 Mon

From what you and Wiccagrrl are saying I get the impression that, to be interested in a ship, a guy identifies with the male half of the ship, and that guys may find it easier to identify with Xander or Oz than with Spike or Angel.

I certainly can't speak for "chicks" in general, but I don't think I identify with Buffy when I think about the B/S ship, for instance. I'm basically concerned with Spike, with his motivation and character, rather than with Buffy. So it's sorta, if Spike is in love with Buffy, and that's what he wants, then that's what I want him to have.

I haven't had anything to drink in years, and I don't think I'm being much clearer on this than you are! There does seem to be some basic difference here in the way we're looking at relationships, but I can't quite put my finger on it...maybe it'll be clearer in the morning...



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm, interesting... -- Wiccagrrl, 21:40:38 07/16/01 Mon

Humm...suggestion. Maybe many women respond to Angel and Spike, the "tragic" characters (heroes?) out of a sort of protective instinct? Aww, poor baby, mama kiss and make it better...

Also could have to do with the whole "Billowy coat, King of Pain" thing.

Now, to be honest, I never really got the B/S attraction, but then he never really arose my sympathies.

I know, these are all terrible generalizations. But...there seems to be a grain of truth to the fact that men and women do react to the different ships differently.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm, interesting... -- Liquidram, 23:13:42 07/16/01 Mon

I certainly do not associate myself with Buffy.... we have several years, a different lifestyle and a few other major differences. At the risk of being kicked off the board, aside from SMG's amazing acting, I don't care half as much for Buffy as I do most of the other characters.

I am not a B/S shipper. However, I am in favor of her cutting him some slack and them becoming friends and partners because I think he is her equal in strength and passion. He can still love her, but that love can evolve once he gets over the lust into a love for a friend. I've posted before that I believe platonic love is far more powerful and everlasting.

I think she has definitely acknowledged his worth, her trust, and his unselfish love for her. In Spiral when Dawn mentioned that Spike was hurt, Buffy immediately searched him out to check on him. There was no "oh well, he was a help while he lasted." She also elaborated on her new-found trust of him with her comment to he and Xander when she stated she was not going to lose anyone. He was very much a part of that equation.

I am very intrigued with the Spike storyline (duh) and am unashamed. Where next year takes us is anyone's guess.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm, interesting... -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 09:26:00 07/17/01 Tue

I agree with Liquidram about not being as interested in (dodgy phrase - you know what I mean) Buffy - I would say that I simply care about the other characters more because the writers go to such great lengths to establish their individuality and make them more rounded (not that Buffy isn't...).

I also agree with what was said earlier about guys identifying with the male characters in various 'ships. However, I personally find it much easier to identify with Spike and Angel than with Xander. Don't know why - the most obvious difference I can see between the Spikes and Angels and the Xanders and Rileys (and, boy, are there a few) is between the everyman and the outsider.

Oh, dear - too many generalisations again.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm, interesting... -- Andy, 10:01:39 07/17/01 Tue

It's definitely identification. I think that from a guy's perspective, it's all about the fact that Angel and Spike seem specifically designed to arouse women more with their particular characteristics (dark, brooding, dangerous, stylish, commanding, etc.). To the usual normal guy, this makes them a THREAT. We can't measure up to these guys so we mostly long to see them get the crap knocked out of them more than to see them end up with the heroine. I think that's what JBone meant about them seeming "privileged" (just like many women have problems with female leads looking like models, I imagine. It just doesn't seem to square with mediocre reality). Xander, OTOH, is just too goofy to be threatening, but (season 4 notwithstanding) nor is he so pathetic that we feel that doesn't deserve a good woman. And since the woman he wanted most of the time was Buffy, guys could pull for him.

"Don't know why - the most obvious difference I can see between the Spikes and Angels and the Xanders and Rileys (and, boy, are there a few) is between the everyman and the outsider."

Well, I wouldn't really lump Riley in with Xander. In my personal pecking order of the guys on the show I relate to the order would go: Xander, Oz, Giles, Spike, Angel, Riley. Riley goes last because he's a square-jawed, heroic, "captain of the football team" type, so he doesn't even have Angel and Spike's outsider appeal, which is at least something small to relate to :)

Of course, I should say that I don't even care about shipping. But that's my take on it :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm, interesting... -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 14:37:18 07/17/01 Tue

Yeah, sorry - Riley and Xander are very different. I was just putting them together in opposition to Angel and Spike. I think it would probably be true to say that Xander and Riley are just as threatened by these two as anyone else. Interestingly, though, Giles and Oz never seem to be.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm, interesting... -- Wiccagrrl, 18:29:02 07/17/01 Tue

Well, maybe Oz and Giles never felt particularly "threatened" by them because they weren't ever really in competition with Spike or Angel for the affections of the girl they liked. Who Buffy was interested in was never really a reflection on them.

I do think that part of why Xander was more accepting of Riley, though, is that he did identify with him. Riley was the kind of guy Xander thought Buffy *should* want- because I think, in some ways, he saw a bit of himself in Riley.

Also, since we're talking about identification in dealing with a character or couple, how does that affect acceptance of W/T? The W/T shippers I've seen have really spanned the spectrum (as have the detractors) with regards to age, gender, sexual orientation...Does this couple throw some of the traditional 'shipper dynamics out the window?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hitting the Nail on the Head -- Wisewoman, 19:14:31 07/17/01 Tue

Willow and Tara are different (and I'm not being facetious, here). Now, I know there are people out there who are just appalled by the whole lesbian thing, but c'mon, they are surely not the "norm" for Buffy fans. I'd like to think that the reactions of true fans to the W/T relationship is much like the varied reactions of the SG. Lots of us, like Buffy and Giles, just think the relationship is healthy and beautiful, and are happy that these two people have found each other. My experience has been that gay women are quite pleased with the fact that the relationship exists, but wish there was more physicality in evidence (which is probably the way Willow and Tara would feel, as well--hehehe.)

There are probably hetero male fans out there who lust after Willow and/or Tara, and I imagine they may feel a bit about the relationship as Oz does, i.e. not threatened by the fact that it's a lesbian relationship, but upset by the fact that Willow's in any relationship with anyone but him!

And then there are probably some out there like Xander, who are fascinated by the whole thing and really just wish they could watch now and then... ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hitting the Nail on the Head -- Liquidram, 19:54:06 07/17/01 Tue

I think we would have some serious conflict and a very interesting topic of conversation should Oz return for good. Willow was so vunerable with Oz leaving, that I doubt her impending relationship with Tara was based on blatant lesbian tendencies waiting to erupt. More like a burgeoning friendship for this very sweet woman who had a lot in common with her. The friendship which blossoms into love after Willow being so devestated by Oz leaving is not an unusual occurance.

I personally have a couple of friends (one of each sex) who chose a homosexual relationship after being hurt for many years with the opposite sex. One of these friends (the woman) stayed with her lover for 9 years. After their breakup, she began dating men again and eventually got married 5 years ago and is still very happy.

My other friend, who is male, never went back. He has continued to have relationships with men and is happy with his decision.

Were Oz to return, with Willow probably still loving him, who knows what kind of complex emotions she would experience. Especially if Tara starts tearing into her about the direction of her magick.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hitting the Nail on the Head -- Wiccagrrl, 20:39:19 07/17/01 Tue

Humm...don't really see Willow and Oz getting back together at this point (or there being any serious angst on this point) Willow made her choice. Water, bridge, y'know what I'm sayin'? Also, Willow cheated on Oz, Oz cheated on Willow...isn't it sorta retreading old territory to have Willow cheating ON Tara WITH Oz? Now, if they used it to kinda deal with Tara's insecurities, I guess that could be interesting. But I guess I kinda think if issues are gonna come up for W/T (and I think they will and should) that maybe it'd be good to have them be other issues than infidelity/jealousy.

I don't rule out the possibility that if and when Tara and Willow broke up (I actually think they'll outlast the series, but that's another subject) Willow's next serious relationship would be with a man. Or, it could very easily, and I think more likely, be with another woman. For now, she's in a long-term, committed, and very loving relationship with another woman and self-identifies as gay. So, I'm not really expecting her to "return to Boystown" anytime soon.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't necessarily agree.... -- Liquidram, 21:17:04 07/17/01 Tue

I don't believe that Willow cheated on Oz or that he technically cheated on her.

She kissed Xander under extreme circumstances (being kidnapped by Spike), and Oz "cheated" while in his wolf state which he cannot control, thus the cage.

Oz made his choice and left for a second time because he felt he was still a great danger to Willow and someone she cared about. All I am saying is that things might have been different had he stayed and that Willow could have had mixed emotions regarding the two people she loved.

Who has that not happened to here in the real world?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't necessarily agree.... -- Wiccagrrl, 21:37:39 07/17/01 Tue

Mixed feelings? I guess. Personally, I just don't see them going there. Or maybe it's just that I don't want them to go there. I can imagine the shipper wars that would explode. It'd get ugly. It could be handled well, I suppose, but I would be concerned about it coming off like Willow's relationship with Tara and her discovering she's attracted to women was "just a phase". I think she (and the writer's through her) made it pretty clear in Tough Love that this wasn't how she saw it.

And as for cheating, I'd consider both situations cheating. Xander and Willow didn't just kiss once. That arc continued over the course of several eps, with discussions between the two about how wrong it was and them trying to hide it from their friends/S.O's. If they hadn't gotten caught in Lovers Walk, it would almost certainly have continued and likely progressed to the next logical step.

As for Oz/Veruca, again I saw it as cheating, not just because of the particular acts, but because Oz seemed to be hiding his feelings/acts from Willow, and made some choices while not Wolf-Oz that were, shall we say, questionable?

Not trying to get into the blame game here, I just do think that they have touched on those types of issues with Willow's relationships in the past.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't necessarily agree.... -- Liquidram, 22:07:16 07/17/01 Tue

You have some good points here. I started watching in Season 3 at the tail end and missed alot of eps that didn't immediately rerun, so I didn't know about the other kissage between X/W. That would definitely indicate some going behind the back of the SO's.

As far as Oz, I think he was more ashamed than anything of his actions.

I personally would prefer that Willow and Tara's relationship continue especially since I believe Tara will be the one to "save" Willow when she loses control of her powers which I think is going to happen. I would also like to see Oz again for the grounding persona he offers the rest of the Scoobies.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I don't necessarily agree.... -- Wiccagrrl, 23:02:42 07/17/01 Tue

I actually would like to see Oz back as a part of the Scooby gang, just not necessarilly Willow's boyfriend at this point. We actually have never seen a couple on Buffy or Angel who really made the transition from couple to exes to friends. It'd be nice. Also, Oz was a little concerned about Willow's magick, too, so she might not find an ally in him. (Wouldn't it be interesting to see Tara and Oz actually become friends and bond over their mutual concern/love of Tara?)Besides, Xander could really use some (or at least) guy friend.

Just giving a little history cause it's kinda interesting...the W/X "fling" actually went the entire November Sweeps Buffy's third year. They first kissed during the ep "Homecoming"- They were trying on their outfits (Xander his tux and Willow her dress) and were wowed. Willow's concerned she can't dance in the dress, W/X dance, and kiss. And feel very guilty. But start to do it again. Over the next few eps, they continue to have their stolen moments, worry about getting caught, Willow almost tells Buffy. In Lover's Walk, they've just about decided to call it off, that they won't ever kiss (or do anything else) again. Except they find themselves in a near-death situation, and that resolution goes right out the window. Unfortunately, they get caught this time. Oz and Cordy, trying to save them, walk in and find them making out. It's the end of X/C and nearly the end of W/O but Oz eventually decides to give it another chance.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks! -- Liquidram, 23:21:09 07/17/01 Tue

I appreciate the history. (It's time to buy those Watcher's Guides -- can't wait til syndication rolls around.)

I like your idea about the transition from relationship to just friends, and I love the idea of Tara/Oz bonding to protect Willow. Hopefully Seth's schedule allows a couple guest appearances.

Hopefully Xander will have a friend in Spike also this upcoming season after the minor, but significant bonding they began to share at the end of season 5.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lesbian after being hurt (O/T) -- verdantheart, 13:53:21 07/18/01 Wed

When in college I was interested to see that the bulk of the Lesbian graffiti I saw in the ladies' room sounded more anti-man than pro-Lesbian. Perhaps it's just that the more vocal Lesbians are the angry ones.


[> [> [> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Rufus, 23:32:37 07/16/01 Mon

JBone, don't make me bitch slap you.....jk.....sorry had to say it, too good to pass up.;):):):) I don't know why more "chicks" like ships cause I see many men get just as wrapped up in them. As for Angel and Spike, I have problems with both characters getting the girl, but doesn't mean I'll get to riled up if either guy earns her love. If the relationship is well written, makes some sense, people will like it. I understand that ships can sink or sail, so I don't get too wrapped up in that aspect.


[> [> [> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Scout, 02:59:56 07/17/01 Tue

When I was in high school surrounded by jocks and preppies, I'd have thought I'd died and gone to heaven if I'd ever found a Xander (Master Smart-Ass) or an Oz. I imagine a lot of girls (and women) find those types far more yummy than the frat boys.

Also, I'll take a man who can make me laugh and make me think over an angst-ridden broody one any day.


[> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- verdantheart, 07:36:59 07/17/01 Tue

This is an interesting question that has gotten some interesting answers. I don't know that all (or most) B/S shippers are chicks, but I can give you some speculation on why they might be.

There's a real difference between B/S or even B/A and B/R. That is that for B/R, the relationship is very acceptable and "safe." Buffy was certain that Riley would never betray her (though she split with him when she felt he had). She could be sure that he was a good man. Any relationship with Spike or Angel is fraught with uncertainty and the potential for doom. Setting aside what would happen to Angel upon consummation of their relationship, Angel still has a demon aspect along with his human soul. Spike is even more of a bad boy. He has no human soul, so the potential for his "going bad" is pretty good (sorry, couldn't resist this wording). This uncertainty heightens tension and therefore romance.

Then the notion of an evil creature transformed by love is an extremely compelling and romantic notion. There are still a lot of women around these days who hook up with guys they know have negative characteristics saying to themselves, "I'll change him." It doesn't matter how unrealistic this notion is, it is still compelling. And here we have Spike, risking his life without a hint of soul about him because he made a promise to a lady -- because his love for Buffy made fundamental changes in him. Definitely the stuff fantasies are made of. Riley doing the same thing is not as extremely romantic, because his circumstances are different. He is a hero and is not merely doing good for love's sake, and, further, he can expect more from Buffy (even if this may not include love).

And as mentioned, there is the suffering aspect. I have noted in my own reactions to characters that I am more attracted to characters who are tormented. There is a certainly a maternal aspect to this, but there is a romantic one as well. Obviously Spike suffers because of his unrequited love. Buffy has the power to wound him terribly with merely a few unkind words (perhaps there is an element of empowerment here, as well). The pain of love is what we seek out in fiction. We don't see many movies about happy married couples, after all. Do we feel the same about Riley's suffering, though (that Buffy doesn't really love him)? What's the difference here, really? The performances? Or is it that Riley is more "deserving" of Buffy's love, and therefore a less romantic figure?

A lot of romance has to do with the barriers that stand in the way of it. If B/A could be a happy relationship, the tension would have gone slack (Moonlighting, anyone? (That was the name of the series, right?)) and B/A would suddenly seem a lot less romantic and compelling to most of us. The road has to remain rocky. B/S will have to keep running into impediments, internal or external, for it to keep steaming along. And perhaps this is what the real problem with B/R was. Although they had problems simmering underneath, Buffy was in many ways quite content with the relationship. All the tension was on Riley's side as he struggled with the notion that Buffy didn't love him (whether this notion was justified or not). With B/S we have strong tension on both sides. Spike has his weight of love and desire, while Buffy resists, perhaps masking similar feelings.

Like a couple of other females on this board, and as I've mentioned before, I tend to identify strongly with Spike (God knows why; we have little enough in common; must be Mr Marsters' skill; drat his sinister talent...). This tends to lessen my attraction TO the character, but only serves to intensify my involvement in the romance, if this makes any sense. I just can't put myself in Buffy's place. OK, that was confessional, sorry. But it serves to illustrate my next point, which is that the whole thing is very complex. Good guys like Riley just aren't complex and fascinating like that, so B/R isn't really, either. His vamp-addiction threw a wrinkle in, but it didn't add up to much in the end.

Finally, I have to note that the "chemistry" between Buffy and Spike is pretty strong. But my contention is that this is part of what makes the romance believeable, not what makes it tick.

I don't know whether men see romance in the same way as women do, but there are certainly enough male scribes who seem to. Perhaps they are the exception to the rule. Guess I didn't even get into the whole sexy vampire thing. Maybe that's because for me it's part of the transformed-by-love thing or bad-boy thing rather than it's own thing. I'll have to save that one for later.

Didn't mean for this to be so long. Gotta go. I hope it made some kind of sense.

- vh


[> [> [> What she said... -- Wisewoman, 08:23:26 07/17/01 Tue

is what I woulda said if I'd been more coherent last night, (or ever?).

Thanks, verdantheart, very perceptive.



[> [> [> [> Thanks! -- verdantheart, 13:03:42 07/17/01 Tue


[> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Rahael, 16:40:33 07/17/01 Tue

I'm not a shipper - I'm just happy to see which way the show goes. I just always liked Buffy as a character and identified with the choices she had to make and the dilemmas she had to face. Any choices she makes re relationships was just more grist to the mill.

I have to say that more people seem to identify with Angel/Spike and Xander than with Buffy.


[> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- voyageofbeagle, 21:30:45 07/17/01 Tue

Hrrmm- this didn't post the first time. Apologies if it shows up twice!

I think the fans who truly want a B/S relationship may be expressing a little wish fulfillment. I mean, a tough guy, who underneath is passionate, sensitive and loves with his whole heart; that's the stuff dreams (and, from my forays onto fanfic.net, many, many fanfics) are made of. Many women, at one time or another, have fallen for a "bad boy" and, in the real world, it usually doesn't end too pretty. In the real world bad boys, are often just bad, and kind of lame, when all is said and done.

I think Joss & Co have been rather brilliant in their exploration of relationships via Buffy and the Scoobies. From Angel (I love him, but can't have him) to Riley (awesome boyfriend, but something just wasn't there for Buffy), Xander and Anya (lust turns to love) to Oz and Willow (was anything more heartbreaking than her speech in New Moon Rising) - "I was waiting. I feel like some part of me will always be waiting for you. Like, if I'm old and blue-haired and I turn a corner in Istanbul and there you are - I won't be surprised. Because you're there with me - you know?."

Great stuff, all of it.


[> [> [> Re: why are all B/S shippers chicks? -- Nina, 10:05:41 07/18/01 Wed

Well, things can change too. I wanted Buffy to go with Spike. Now I wouldn't mind if it never happened. The reason is that I used to identify with Spike a lot. His struggle to get better. To be loved. I wanted him to be loved back (as I want to be loved back too). It's just heartbreaking to see unrequited love. But now, the more I am studying Buffy (for that thread I'll do about her), the more I identify with her. And I must say that I am very happy that the writers wrote Buffy the way they did this year. It was true to herself, but also it was a lesson for women. It's not because a guy is cute and is madly in love with you that you have to open your arms to him. You have to be true to yourself first.

If Spike gets the girl, great for him. But I want Buffy to stay strong with herself. I still want to look up to her. Hey she doesn't have the weigh of the world on her shoulders for nothing! ;) She's a hero and somehow I expect her to inspire me. To help me better myself.


[> [> [> [> Excellent points! -- verdantheart, 13:45:56 07/18/01 Wed

I don't think you'll have to worry about Buffy staying true to herself! She's may be human, but she's a heroine, and she'll stay that way.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- Nina, 18:02:41 07/18/01 Wed

I think that's what ME has been saying all along this year, no? :) Even David Fury (though he is never very diplomatic). Buffy in order to remain a hero, a model couldn't just jump in Spike's arm and say: "You're cute, let's do it and I don't care about the consequences".

Even though vampires are fascinating to us women (let's just see the lenght of this thread!) I don't think that many of us would actually engage in a relationship with one without any thinking. Fantasy are free though and less dangerous! ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- Isabel, 20:51:59 07/18/01 Wed

"Even though vampires are fascinating to us women (let's just see the lenght of this thread!) I don't think that many of us would actually engage in a relationship with one without any thinking. Fantasy are free though and less dangerous! ;)"

I completely agree. I realized several months ago that in real life I'd love a boyfriend like Riley, strong, intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, honest, dependable... minus the whole addiction/hooker part. Buffy was not wrong when she called him the god of boyfriends. However, in my fantasies, I'm lusting after the peroxide blond vampire.

"Beauty and the Beast" is a very popular and enduring fairy tale and one I'm a complete sucker for. (I can't be the only one to see the parallels.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- dream of the consortium, 12:57:20 07/19/01 Thu

Oh, I might as well just throw myself to the lions here, but I have to say it - I could never date Riley. Not for a minute. He's a soldier. I like poets - because they look for beauty in the world, because they are idealistic. I tend to group Riley with Angel, and Spike with Giles. Both Riley and Liam were capital-g Guys. Of course, very different in character, one upstanding and the other far from it, but still practical sorts, masculine in all the stereotypical ways. I see Angel as an image of what Riley could have become if he had let himself go further down the vampire-hooker road, and I don't mean as a vampire. I mean that if Riley made some truly terrible mistakes, I could imagine him becoming someone like Angel. Now Giles and Spike seem to have both started out as sensitive, gentle types, and then gone through a period of rejecting that part of themselves. Ultimately, the larger perspective their artistic spirit gives them seems to allows them to move on from what they've done (though Giles can have difficulty here). They both seem to have a love for this world that is palpable, though it takes different forms - Giles' love for his books, and, on a slightly silly level, his car. Spike's love for onion blossoms, the Sex Pistols, a good fight. They are the only two characters who have shown an attachment to particular music. It seems to me significant that they bond over Shakespeare in The Gift - could you imagine Riley and Angel doing the same? Not that I think a Buffy/Spike relationship makes sense - I don't really think it could work for the show for all sorts of reasons, including that Buffy is more action-oriented herself. The female "poets" on the show have been, I think, Tara and Drusilla.

Well, I have been typing without thinking, and that's very dangerous, but I can say without hesitation that the two Brits have something I find much more appealing than the other male characters, and it's not just the accents.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- Wiccagrrl, 14:32:31 07/19/01 Thu

Humm...not sure if I get what you're saying here. If I understand it right, I get the feeling that you're saying Angel and Riley are "doers" and Spike and Giles are "thinkers" And that may be true to some extent. But, especially in Angel's case I think that's an oversimplification. Because, as Angel himself said, he spent 100 years honing his brooding skills :) And, I think, has spent much of that time trying to puzzle out his role in this world, what makes up the human condition. He's become something of a real philosopher. Angel's not Liam, who was definitely your classic "guy" Also, I remember at least one ep where he seemed to be quite familiar with the art at a local museum, and he sketches rather than writes poetry, but I think he does have something of a romantic soul.

Riley, too, is something of a contradiction (as least in my view) Ok, yeah, he started out kinda GI Joe. But he was also a Psychology Major, very interested in people and what makes them tick. Also, I think he may, in his own way, been as big a romantic, if not more of a romantic, than Spike.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- FanMan, 19:26:55 07/19/01 Thu

My take on Riley

Rileys love for Buffy was just as strong as Spikes, however he suffers from social aukwardness. He had the love, but not as much passion becuase he is more intillectual than Spike. Spike is insightfull wich can seem intillictual, however he has a "feel for people"(intuition) not the abstract definitions and catagorising of personality that a psych grad would have...


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- Wiccagrrl, 20:17:34 07/19/01 Thu

Don't know if I'd describe Riley as socially awkward. In fact, I always got the sense that he was pretty much the all-american boy. In his element, he seemed to have great leadership skill and friends he could relate to and confide in. Problem is, in entering Buffy's life and world, he became distinctly out of his element. Whereas, in a strange way, Spike actually fit in better. Maybe because the Scoobs have all been societal outsiders in some way. Strange- in some ways Riley was the outsider in the Scooby Gang because he wasn't an outsider by nature. (Does that make sense?)

At least in the B/R relationship, I felt that Riley was the romantic. I think he did feel the passion, and was totally, completely, passionately in love with Buffy. I thought Buffy was the one who was having trouble giving into her passion, letting go.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- FanMan, 22:33:08 07/19/01 Thu

B/R relationship and Riley as the Romantic? Yes. Buffy wanted to be normal when not in "Slayer Mode", her life with the supernatural was very stressfull and it was a DUTY that she felt obligated(by her consiance/morals) to carry out. Riley was "conveniant" as Xander said; Buffy did love Riley, but it more a love of a freind than being IN LOVE.

You are right; Riley was confident and outgoing in familiar situations, I should have said he was aukward in his aproach to Buffy. That is understandable as he seemed to not have much experiance dating...normal nervousness of anyone(except NASTY Parker!) in approaching a beutifull woman.

Riley was an outsider in the Scooby Gang becuase he wasn't an outsider by nature? No, that does not make sense.

Riley did not fit in the SG because he was NORMAL and ignorant of the supernatural. He did start fitting in AFTER HUSH a few eps when he accepted the reality that the creatures caught by the initiative were demons not mutants, and of course magic.

Last; yes Riley was passionately in love with Buffy, however he was also normal emotionally and I still think he was less romantic than Spike....romance is idealism and not realistic, also Spike is more romantic than most men and probably about equal to the average woman. Riley was completely in love with Buffy, but it was not romantic love as much as a love of her the way she was. I'm having trouble here explaining my veiws.

Spike was more of a romantic than Riley, by romantic I mean Idealism again. SO his love for Buffy was for the "ideal of Buffy in his heart" VS Rily loved the "reality of Buffy that he perceived"

BTW I am in love with Buffy... I think Sarah is cool too.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Excellent points! -- Wiccagrrl, 22:54:20 07/19/01 Thu

Riley was an outsider in the Scooby Gang becuase he wasn't an outsider by nature? No, that does not make sense.

I guess all I was trying to say was, most of the scoobs are, to some extent, misfits. Riley wasn't, IMO. (I guess Cordy wasn't really, either) I think he was used to fitting in. I agree that he ended up being accepted by the gang, but I think as far as what he brought to the mix, he was a very different type of character from the type we usually saw in the Buffyverse.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Wiccagrrl...we see eye to eye, no more misunderstanding from me...:-) -- FanMan, 21:30:36 07/20/01 Fri
Angel at Home -- PerrFection, 18:04:18 07/16/01 Mon

Canadian Lurker with some thoughts. I have a question. What is the symbolism behind the old hotel that Angel has made his home?

I see is as his soul. The old building itself represent the age of Angel. When it was new it was full of people just as Angelus was when he was Liam and his soul was whole.

As the Hotel aged less and less people would have stayed at the hotel and in the final days there was the demon. Angelus slowly lost his soul through hatred of his family until he was turned.

After that there was no one to stay at the hotel. Angel's soul was as empty.

Now that Angel has his soul again he has taken up residence as the only person in the hotel. A faint spark in a dark soul.


[> Re: Angel at Home -- Little One, 18:46:35 07/17/01 Tue

That's interesting, PurrFection (btw, love your name). This symbolism can also be taken one step further with Wolfram & Hart's attempts to repossess the hotel: they are actually trying to repossess Angel's soul (which is pretty clear by their actions). I just never caught on to the symbolism of the hotel before. Good show and welcome to the board. Delurk, Delurk (doing the Delurking dance a.k.a. the wildly flailing dance). Don't you dare go back into lurking now that you've shown yourself! ;-D


[> Re: Angel at Home -- OnM, 20:06:49 07/17/01 Tue

Another spin could be to see the hotel as a 'home', even though the gang uses it as a workplace, to Angel it is where he lives.

Angel was migratory for most of this life, certainly since he was vamped. While we haven't seen enough of Angel's history yet to absolutely confirm this, I suspect that most of his years were spent fleeing from those who pursued him (and any other vamps he hung out with). Later, when his soul was returned, he became a loner, and wandered about even more rootless, now rejected by both vamps and humans.

I think he sees the hotel as a metaphorical way to 'settle down' and 'start a family', the family of course being Cordy, Wesley, Gunn, and now Fred or even possibly Anne. Since Angel isn't in a position to have a 'real' family, this is the substitute, and that family needs a place to be together in, even if in practical terms it is mostly a workplace.


[> [> Why a Hotel? -- PurrFection, 10:34:32 07/18/01 Wed

I agree with you OnM and Little One. I think there is something deeper though. Why a Hotel that was one of the finest at its height. Why not a brothel or factory or maybe even castle or fort.

What is the reasoning behind the hotel? Other than the fact that he used to live there and fell in love with the soul that was tormented for so long.

What would need all that space for. I know that I already said that it represented the emptyness of his own soul, but any building with a couple of extra rooms could be used the same way. Why would they need a building with tons of empty rooms?

I would welcome any thoughts.


[> [> [> Re: Why a Hotel? -- Humanitas, 11:53:36 07/18/01 Wed

Maybe it's because a hotel is normally full of people, a "home-away-from-home." People live there, but the normal vampire barrier is not in effect. That would mirror Angel's feeling of being stuck with one foot in each of the two worlds, vampire and human. Also, a hotel is where people life while they're in transition from one place to another. Similarly, Angel (at least when he moves in) thinks of himself as in transition between his "vampire with a soul" state and the state of shanshu.

That's my take on it. Any other ideas?


[> [> [> [> Re: Why a Hotel? -- Little One, 12:33:34 07/18/01 Wed

That makes sense. It's his attempt at normalcy. Though personally I would think a hotel would show his loneliness. All those rooms and no one to live in them. No pitter-patter of little feet or click-clack of high heels. He started living there trying to redeem himself, but now I think he's stuck there. He had a permanent home and it blew up. Now he's renting a huge transitional boarding room. No committment.

As they say, home is where the heart is. Where these characters call home is quite meaningful. Buffy will most likely continue to live in her mother's huge house, Cordy lives in a possessed house so that she is never alone, and Angel abides in an abandoned hotel where no one would know if he was there or not. It took Anya's influence to get Xander to move out from his parents influence and into his own space. And Spike's crypt is his stubborn clinging to his vampire ways.

This is a very interesting topic so far down the board!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why a Hotel? -- Humanitas, 12:43:34 07/18/01 Wed

I think you're right - it does show his loneliness. That may not be what he intended, but that sure is the effect.

Of course, if he really needs the "click-clack of high heels," he can always listen to Cordy walk around!

Hmm, that might be an interesting thread - "The Philosophy of Living Quarters." We've got a great start here. Anyone want to flesh it out?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Why a Hotel? -- verdantheart, 14:00:31 07/18/01 Wed

That would be an interesting topic.

I further note that Lorne apparently lives in the Karaoke bar that he founded on the spot he appeared in this dimension. I'd say it tends to show that he lives for show business and he has great gratitude for his escape to LA.

(Just another sign I'm studying Lorne ...)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Why a Hotel? -- PurrFection, 13:58:42 07/18/01 Wed

Insead of lonliness, what about a need. The rooms themselve represent the need to be filled. Angel has a need to bring back more of his soul, and with each redeming act he brings back one more peice of his soul.

But there will always be more rooms for him to fill. Angel lost some of his soul once again when he fired the crew. Now he truely knows what it means to earn redemption.

The hotel as a temporary home may be right, but Angel has gotten stuck. A soul in limbo, as the hotel is without its guests. Standing strong, but slowly weakening from the lack of use and care.

Our own love of our home is one of the aspects missing from Angel's life. Maybe that is what has brought Angel back to the Hotel. Hope to find a home, a connection to the past. Isn' that what most of us think of when we think of home. Memories of home.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Or maybe he is just punishing himself. -- Anthony8, 16:52:57 07/18/01 Wed

After all, that hotel was where he allowed all those people to be "consumed" by their own fear and anger and, consequently by the resident demon. So he was responsible ultimately for its remaining 99.9% vacant (one tenant remained). Not to mention the torment he allowed the woman who betrayed him to inflict on herself for 50 (40?) years. So maybe living in the hotel is a form a self flagellation.

The Cosmic Chess Game Part ??? - Have the PTB set Cordelia up to have a greater destiny ? -- OnM, 07:56:42 07/17/01 Tue

Watching last night's ep of Angel, I was struck again by the fact that it was mentioned at least twice during the last season that the individual that carries the 'visions' is normally at least half-demon, and that Cordelia is of course fully human. There is also the whole 'princess' arc in Pylea, which seemed almost to pop up out of nowhere.

So, consider the following:

1. Is Cordelia destined for a greater purpose in the total scheme of things, beyond just her gradual personality transformation into a decent, caring person from the shallow, self-absorbed creature she once was?

2. If so, is it significant that she had extensive contact with Buffy, i.e., is Buffy the 'trigger' who somehow initiates these gradual transformations in people she interacts with?

3. Are the visions just the 'opening act' to what will eventually become greater abilities or powers?


[> Buffy the Trigger -- Wisewoman, 08:53:46 07/17/01 Tue

Interesting premise in point #2, OnM. It reminds me of a plot point in the interminable Robert Jordan fantasy series "The Wheel of Time." (I think I'm up to book 9 or 10 now, and he shows no sign of stopping soon...)

In the series, some of the main characters are considered to be *T'averen* (sp?). What it means is that, while the wheel of time is weaving destinies for everyone, those who are t'averen have an effect on others they come into contact with--they sort of interrupt the weave, or pull it to one side or the other. The t'averen and the people whose lives they influence are often not even aware that this is happening.

I can definitely see that as being part of the Slayer mythos. Okay, Sunnydale is on a Hellmouth but still, Buffy's best friends, who apparently started out as fairly normal high-schoolers, have become a very powerful witch and a man engaged to an ex-vengeance demon! And the witch was previously in love with a werewolf, but now she's in love with another witch. Buffy attracts vampire boyfriends, or those involved in secret government projects, who happen to be implanted with chips and/or modified by steroid injections. And, to top it off, her "sister" is actually a glowing green ball of immense raw energy that might be the Key to everything...

If Buffy isn't t'averen, I don't know who is!

Wouldn't be surprised if we find out all kinds of juicy things about Cordy in the next season.


[> Re: The Cosmic Chess Game Part ??? - Have the PTB set Cordelia up to have a greater destiny ? -- darrenK, 08:56:31 07/17/01 Tue

Cordelia's growth has been extraordinary and Buffy has been the "trigger," but-IMO-not the way I think you mean.

Buffy was Cordelia's "Call to Destiny."

The shallow, flippant Cordelia could have easily chosen to reject the strange, dangerous magical world Buffy represented. She could have gone on believing that there was nothing more important than fashion and beauty, but she didn't. She chose to join the Scooby gang and to let "magic" into her life.

When she did she both widened her worldview and became a soldier in a greater cause.

Cordelia is easily one of the more interesting complicated characters in the Buffyverse. dK


[> the trigger effect -- mundusmundi, 10:54:28 07/17/01 Tue

"1. Is Cordelia destined for a greater purpose in the total scheme of things, beyond just her gradual personality transformation into a decent, caring person from the shallow, self-absorbed creature she once was?"

Hope so. One of the things that got me hooked on BtVS was Cordelia's humanizing (humanization?) in B2. Never saw it done with that kind of character on another show before (or since).

"2. If so, is it significant that she had extensive contact with Buffy, i.e., is Buffy the 'trigger' who somehow initiates these gradual transformations in people she interacts with?"

Cordy blamed Buffy for everything that happened to her in "The Wish." So yes, Buffy does have an effect on people (one post I read when I first started lurking here compared Cordy's situation in Sunnydale to the Allegory of the Cave). But, I wouldn't say that there's anything "mystical" going on there. (Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure.) Lord knows, Faith had excessive contact with Buffy and she hit bottom. It was really Angel who initiated her transformation, and she's still a work in progress, of course.

If I misunderstood your point, feel free to set me straight. Good questions all around, though. :)


[> [> Faith's redemption -- vampire hunter D, 13:03:02 07/17/01 Tue

Actually, Faith was started on the road back to the light side by her experiences in Buffy's body. However, her total redemptiopn at the time was impeded by her belief that she couldn't be good by being herself (she thought she needed to be Buffy). So, imho, it was Buffy who showed Faith the way back from the Dark Side, but Angel was needed to finish the job.


[> [> [> Re: Faith's redemption -- Cactus Watcher, 08:00:05 07/18/01 Wed

I think it was not Buffy, or any one other person, but the cummulative effect of experiencing the love that all of Buffy's friends and her mother had for Buffy. Faith came to realize what she could have had. It was her own conscience in answering 'the call for help' at the church that actually set her on the right path. Angel showed her that she could be forgiven, if she was sincere in her remorse.


[> [> Re: the trigger effect -- OnM, 20:26:53 07/17/01 Tue

***One of the things that got me hooked on BtVS was Cordelia's humanizing (humanization?) in B2. Never saw it done with that kind of character on another show before (or since)***.

You are quite right, usually the shallow, self-absorbed person is always left that way indefinitely, to serve as an irritant to the other characters (thus creating 'drama', or so some writers think) or as a comic foil. I have always found this technique boring and unimaginative, so seeing the alternate take Joss did on Cordy was a real delight.

***Cordy blamed Buffy for everything that happened to her in "The Wish." So yes, Buffy does have an effect on people. But, I wouldn't say that there's anything "mystical" going on there. (Is that what you're saying? I'm not sure.) Lord knows, Faith had excessive contact with Buffy and she hit bottom. It was really Angel who initiated her transformation, and she's still a work in progress, of course***.

That is exactly what I was wondering, do viewers think this connection is mystical in nature, or just because of normal human interaction with someone as extraordinary as Buffy? I could go either way, but since as you may know, since I tend to lean into the 'Buffy as Messiah' concept, I mostly accept the mystical explanation.

I disagree that Angel initiated Faith's transformation. As I stated in my Riley post, I feel Riley began the process by proving to Faith that true and honorable love was possible, which destroyed her tightly held certainty that all people, especially men, were always users or abusers. That transfer of power was only possible because of Buffy, who loved Riley (though he didn't think so towards the end). Thus, indirectly, Buffy saved Faith. Also thus, I get to savor the irony that the two people whom Faith seemed to hate the most, Buffy and Angel, were the ones who saved her despite herself. Buffy initiated the process (through Riley) and Angel finished it.

Lastly, I cannot set you straight, since you give no appearance of being crooked or even tilted.

Perhaps perpendicular?



[> [> [> Re: the trigger effect -- gds, 21:24:56 07/17/01 Tue

"As I stated in my Riley post, I feel Riley began the process by proving to Faith that true and honorable love was possible, which destroyed her tightly held certainty that all people, especially men, were always users or abusers"

OnM, I was pleased to read that in your essay on Riley. It seemed so obvious to me, but was overlooked in a wave of Riley bashing sometime back. With the exception of the Sandy incident I liked the guy - despite being a B/A person.

As to Cordelia, I was surprised that she was given the option to do what she had said whe wanted over & over again - to get rid of the visions. They had progressed from agonizing to overwhelmingly agonizing and - perhaps more important than the physical pain - the psychic trauma of all the horrors she has seen would be haunting her. Soldiers and others have gotten "shell shock" from far less, yet she is coping & growing. When she had the option she refused to give them up. This would seem like an unbelievable action - but the surprising thing is that I wasn't that surprised. If she could make this decision I think there will indeed be new avenues opened to her.


[> [> [> Re: only 6"3 perpendicular :) -- mundusmundi, 13:27:46 07/18/01 Wed

"I disagree that Angel initiated Faith's transformation. As I stated in my Riley post, I feel Riley began the process by proving to Faith that true and honorable love was possible, which destroyed her tightly held certainty that all people, especially men, were always users or abusers. That transfer of power was only possible because of Buffy, who loved Riley (though he didn't think so towards the end). Thus, indirectly, Buffy saved Faith. Also thus, I get to savor the irony that the two people whom Faith seemed to hate the most, Buffy and Angel, were the ones who saved her despite herself. Buffy initiated the process (through Riley) and Angel finished it."

Let me also add a kudo in your assessment of Riley in "Who Are You" (very powerful scene). I guess my point about Faith was about who deliberately set out to help her, in which case I gotta go to...Angel, again, first and last. For me, her rehab began way back in "Consequences," when Angel first struck a chord with her as the only person who could understand what she was going through -- which was working before overzealous Wesley and the Watchers (sounds like a British rock band) intervened. I see "Five by Five" and "Sanctuary" as picking up where "Bad Girls/Consequences" left off, following a looooooooong dark respite in between.

True, Buffy initially also tried to help Faith, and approved of Angel's assistance, before the events of "Enemies," "Graduation Day," and "This Year's Girl/Who Are You" turned her understandably sour on the prospect. I don't blame Buffy for what happened to Faith (though I've read compelling arguments that do), but as you've probably gathered, I just don't see Buffy as being a mystical-positive influence on everybody and everything. (You could even use Wesley as an example for this, but that's another thread.) Take this in half-jest, but isn't AtS, in a way, a refuge for Buffy rejects? ;)


[> Cordelia needs a greater destiny. Re: pains in her head -- AK-UK, 12:40:01 07/17/01 Tue

I mean, the visions were getting ridiculously painful, beyond her ability to tolerate (due to her lack of demoness), so unless Joss and Co. let it slide (which I wouldn't put past them) she will have to gain some more abilities.

I think Buffy showed various characters that a) something very weird was happening in Sunnydale (although how the majority of residents can be blind to that fact is beyond me) and b) the evil can be fought. So, her immediate friends join the fight, who then draw their boyfriends and girlfriends into the fight.

And, as is obligitory in any post concerning TPTB, can I once again state my hatred of cosmic chess games. Blah I say, and pah-fooey.


[> [> Re: Cordelia needs a greater destiny. Re: pains in her head -- mundusmundi, 13:00:20 07/17/01 Tue

"I mean, the visions were getting ridiculously painful, beyond her ability to tolerate (due to her lack of demoness), so unless Joss and Co. let it slide (which I wouldn't put past them) she will have to gain some more abilities"

A few months ago, when the (bogus) Spike-moving-to-Angel rumors were being bandied about, someone at another board posted a theory that maybe Cordy was going to pass the visions to him. (Still not exactly sure how that's done. Any kiss will do?) It is an amusing idea: Spike finally gets his chip out, only to get saddled with a brand new headache. But, since that theory seems kaboshed, I don't see how she can continue to live with the visions -- one can learn to "live" with a disease, for example, but sooner or later it's going to take its toll.

"And, as is obligitory in any post concerning TPTB, can I once again state my hatred of cosmic chess games. Blah I say, and pah-fooey."

Gods playing games. Hate 'em.


[> [> [> Re: Cordelia needs a greater destiny. Re: pains in her head -- Liquidram, 15:10:13 07/17/01 Tue

This interaction between Wesley and Angel explains alot about what is happening with Cordelia:

ANGEL So? We are talking about the same Cordelia Chase, right?

WESLEY That's correct.

ANGEL Well, knowing her...

WESLEY But you don't.

You don't know her at all. For months now you haven't cared to. Otherwise you might have realized that our Cordelia has become a very solitary girl. She is not the vain and carefree creature she once was. Well... certainly not carefree.

WESLEY It's the visions, you see. The visions that were meant to guide you. You could turn away from them. She didn't have that luxury. She knows and experiences the pain in this city -- and, because of who she is, she feels compelled to do something about it. It's left her little time for anything else.

The comment "and, because of who she is" explains the greatest change in Cordelia because we remember "who" Cordelia was in the early BtVS eps. In "Dead End", Cordelia shrugs aside the guy's concern with this comment:

"It's just, they're starting to take a toll. (off the guys' looks) Hey, it's part of the job. Could be worse, I could be a lawyer."

A very basic explanation is that Cordelia is finally growing up and becoming her own woman. The old Cordy is still there, buried -- just witness her telling Angel that "we are not friends" to the shrieking, hugging girl she becomes that same ep when he buys her clothes and then the "I love you" when he brings multiple sandwiches because he doesn't want to invade her personal space.

I like the idea that she is maturing, yet still retains some of her original traits. She was definitely a little embarrassed that her ole pal Harmony saw her looking somewhat bedraggled. The conflict of emotions as changes take place is always the most interesting to me in a character. As mentioned in a post above, she obviously cannot continue to tolerate increasingly painful visions and something will have to give. Again, we'll see.


[> [> Question-- do you hate 'cosmic chess games' as a literary device... -- OnM, 20:31:25 07/17/01 Tue

..or as a theological implication, i.e. that we are all destined to be puppets (for good or ill) of godlike beings?


[> [> [> Re: 'cosmic chess games' -- Malandanza, 21:04:39 07/17/01 Tue

"Do you hate 'cosmic chess games' as a literary device...or as a theological implication, i.e. that we are all destined to be puppets (for good or ill) of godlike beings?"

A little of both. In the latter case, I am afraid I have an inveterate hatred of any philosophy that denies free will. In the former... well, I am a fan of Greek Mythology so it's hard to say I truly hate 'cosmic chess games as a literary device.' I think the main problem is that in recent times this device has been used inexpertly. One exception -- Babylon 5 -- I liked the Shadow/Borlon war especially when it was revealed that it was not a good/evil conflict but one of order/chaos.

But I don't think any chess is being played in the Buffyverse. TPTB strike me as largely indifferent to the suffering of the world. If the Oracles and the Butler from Angel's trial are typical good guys, it's no wonder so many people choose evil. We have not truly seen any examples of TPTB intervening when the fate of the world was at stake -- it was up to Buffy to save existence at the last minute. Best cases for TPTB interventions:

1) Amends -- the snowstorm did not seem to be a natural phenomenon. It is, however, possible that some force other than TPTB wanted Angel to remain alive. Perhaps the force that returned him from hell, or the force (I hate to say fate) that is responsible for the prophesies of Aberjian .

2) Cordelia's visions -- Cordelia, like Doyle before her, gets wracking pain when the visions hit. Furthermore, Cordelia remians troubled until the situation is resolved. She has changed as a result of seeing and feeling the pain of those around her -- it seems like the visions were intended more as a punishment than as a measure to assist Angel Investigations. Think of Doyle (and now Cordelia) as a sort of Jonah figure being forced to do God's work. The visions argue more in favor of punishing a particular person to improve their spirituality rather than an effort to undermine the forces of darkness.

3) Kate's non-invitation -- I don't have a problem with this "intervention" -- to me it is no different than the Master visiting Darla without an explicit invitation. Kate's rambling suicide message was a cry for help -- she wanted Angel to be there, just as Darla's despair sung the Master to her side. I don't think either TPTB or the evil guys bent any rules -- the invitations were implied in both cases.


[> [> [> [> invitations -- spotjon, 12:40:07 07/18/01 Wed

Kate's non-invitation .... I don't think either TPTB or the evil guys bent any rules -- the invitations were implied in both cases.

I disagree. The blatant (to me, anyway) implication was that a higher power had intervened to let Angel in Kate's apartment. In Darla's case, I think that the Master did have an explicit invitation, but she gave it while she was half-unconscious. Kate may have wanted Angel to come and save her, but the desire has never been enough to let a vampire into a dwelling. I'm pretty sure Kate's dad wanted Angel to come in and save him, but that wasn't enough.


[> [> [> Re: Question-- do you hate 'cosmic chess games' as a literary device... -- verdantheart, 12:51:20 07/18/01 Wed

The way I see it is that in the Buffyverse beings do have free will. That said, the PTB seem also to have plans (destinies) for various people and occasionally help things along by acting more overtly, if not directly (Cordy's visions, Angel's return from Hell, etc.). That does not mean that characters necessarily do what the PTB want, as illustrated by this exchange (Epiphany):

HOST: Yes, you have. But you didn't kill those lawyers, Angel.

Angel looks at him. The Host looks back.

HOST: That was slated to happen with or without you. The Powers were just trying to work it so it'd be without you, that's all. You just... well. You weren't much help in that department, were ya, sparky?

A beat as Angel takes that in, anger bubbling up now...

ANGEL: I wasn't much help? If they wanted me to stay away, why didn't they just tell me?

HOST: Would you have listened? Besides, what makes you think they didn't? Over and over and, as for example, over?

ANGEL: They could have been more specific.

HOST: (clears throat) Er... isn't this just the sort of 'tude that got you where you are now?

I'm perfectly happy with this compromise. Further, I see "destiny" as it appears in the Buffyverse as sort of a flexible thing, just as the future is. Lorne saw a lack of future in "Happy Anniversary" but was able to do something about it with Angel's help. Your destiny changes as you embrace or deny it, as Angel's became murky during his recent dark period. This makes for a complex tapestry.

To go back to the question. Depends on the rules of the chess game. If this is a chess game, I'm happy with the rules.

(I guess you can tell by this I'm in the process of researching Lorne ...)

Evil Hand Ethics -- Humanitas, 08:44:43 07/17/01 Tue

Watching last night's ep of "Angel" (the "Evil Hand" ep) got me thinking about the ethics of Lindsey's decision to kill the "donor" of his new hand. The fellow clearly wanted to die, to be put out of his misery, so in this instance the choice is less complicated than it might otherwise be, but still -- we are talking about taking a human life, and a relatively innocent one, at that.

Even more disturbing is the whole notion of using people for "spare parts," especially since it is now actually possible to do things like transplant hands (there are two or three people on the streets today with fingerprints other than those they were born with). It brings to mind a story I heard on the news a few weeks ago, about organs being harvested from freshly-executed Chinese prisoners. Scary stuff.

Now, I'm all in favor of being able to replace body parts that no longer work (anyone got a spare knee? Mine's gonna go, one of these days), but it really does raise a whole host of ethical questions. The transplanted hands I mentioned above came from a donor system similar to the one already in place for internal organs. Still, the existance of these technologies means there's a market for body parts out there. That market is pretty heavily regulated in the West, but it's well known that some other parts of the world are not so well-controlled. I have to wonder how long before we see rooms like the one W&H maintained (minus the demon banners and vampire guards, of course).

Sorry if I'm ranting or rambling, but isn't it cool when a fictional show can resonate so strongly with current events?


[> Don't worry -- vampire hunter D, 13:09:46 07/17/01 Tue

I wouldn't worry about the market for human body parts. The way medicine and genetics are going, you'll be able to grow new organs in the lab pretty soon. I've even heard it suggested that by the end of the century, it will be possible to grow new limbs to replace lost ones.


[> [> Bio-ethics, etc. O/T -- Wisewoman, 16:35:50 07/17/01 Tue

Earlier this year I read an absolutely amazing story on CNN, I think. It was called "Immortal Flesh," and had to do with research into the possibility of growing human flesh under lab conditions for the use of burn victims, etc.

One researcher in the States was routinely using flesh harvested from infant circumcisions. The skin cells would survive in a petrie dish for about 2 to 4 weeks, and she'd record her data, and go on to the next one. One day one of her colleagues pointed out that one of her samples appeared to be not only surviving, but reproducing cells and growing. He asked her what she'd done differently, and there wasn't anything--she'd treated that sample exactly the same as all the others.

Well, that was four years ago and that particular sample of human flesh is still alive and growing. And no one seems to know why...

Of course, all the samples were donated anonymously so there is no way to trace which particular little boy that foreskin came from...and that is probably a very good thing.

Can you imagine what an organization like Wolfram and Hart would do with a find like that? It makes my blood run cold...

Willow the Engineer -- Malandanza, 09:35:44 07/17/01 Tue

I have been thinking that Willow's use of magic resembles an engineer's use of mathematics...

First, an anecdote related to me by one of my former professors:

We were studying how to solve differential equations numerically (i.e., on a computer) and discussing the problems associated with these techniques. Finding the exact solution by hand would be best -- but some of these equations are so tricky that it can take hours or days (and some cannot be solved) to get the exact solution -- and then there is always the possibility that you made a simple mistake somewhere along the way. The computer can get the answer quickly, but approximately. The trick is knowing when the computer is wrong. We learned various methods and our professor told us that Backwards Euler was the favorite of the engineers -- it always gives the correct solution when a system is convergent and sometimes gives the incorrect solution when the system is divergent (thus, it says the system is convergent when it is not). He told us of a consulting job where he worked with a team nuclear engineers on their reactor. Divergent meant that the reactor was melting down, convergent meant everything was fine -- numerical methods were essential since solving the equations by hand would have taken so long that they would not have known the reactor was in danger until several days after it had melted down. They were using Backwards Euler. Our professor explained that they might want to use a method that always told them when the reactor was melting down and sometimes made a mistake when things were fine instead of vice versa. The lead engineer became upset and explained that they had run thousands of tests using random data and never once had their program made a mistake. Our professor asked to see the code that produced the random test data (computers use pseudorandom numbers -- depending upon where you start, you get a different sequence)-- the engineers had not initialized the random numbers properly, so instead of running thousands of tests that had run exactly the same test thousands of times. After fixing the code, they quickly discovered that in simulations the reactor was melting down when the computer said it was fine.

The problem was that the engineers were using techniques that they did not fully understand. I believe that Willow has been doing the same thing with her magic. Tara has spent her life studying magic yet does not attempt the spells that Willow does. Willow casually plays with forces beyond her ken and experiments recklessly with new spells (like the ball of sunlight) or modifies existing spells (like the tinkerbell light). Tara knows that raising the dead is bad; Willow wonders if it is possible. There is a little too much Maggie Walsh in the girl.


[> Re: Willow the Engineer -- Humanitas, 10:02:54 07/17/01 Tue

I agree that Willow is playing with forces she does not fully comprehend, and that it will turn around and bite her, probably pretty hard.

I don't think that the comparison with Maggie Walsh is entirely fair, though. True, both see knowledge as an object, neither good nor evil in and of itself. There is one important difference, though: Walsh didn't care who got hurt in her pursuit of knowledge, and Willow would never deliberately hurt a fly, unless it was a brain-sucking fly who attacked Tara. Willow's errors and mishaps with magic seem to be accidents, the result of immaturity, more than anything else. That doesn't mean that she shouldn't be more careful, of course, but it does have a very different moral feel than Walsh's impersonal science.


[> [> Re: Willow / Maggie -- Malandanza, 16:52:04 07/17/01 Tue

"I don't think that the comparison with Maggie Walsh is entirely fair, though. True, both see knowledge as an object, neither good nor evil in and of itself. There is one important difference, though: Walsh didn't care who got hurt in her pursuit of knowledge, and Willow would never deliberately hurt a fly, unless it was a brain-sucking fly who attacked Tara. Willow's errors and mishaps with magic seem to be accidents, the result of immaturity, more than anything else."

Yet Willow has hurt people with her spells (think of the troll's rampage) and we have seen neither show of remorse for the subsequent havoc nor any intent in curbing her magical experimentation. I also think you are being a bit unfair to Maggie -- I think she began with the best of intentions. She spent her life trying to harness the power of the demons so that that they could be used in battle for the cause of good -- much as Willow attempts to harness magical powers to assist Buffy. I would also compare Maggie's attempt to kill a Buffy (who Maggie perceived as a threat to the Initiative in general and Riley specifically) with Willow's ill-fated attack on Glory. In both cases, Willow and Maggie ended up bringing their respective organizations into danger. Remember, Maggie didn't build Adam to rampage through Tokyo, she built him to aid mankind (at least that portion of mankind loyal to the U.S. government). I think Maggie believed in the greatest good for the greatest number of people -- and if that meant Buffy's death, she was willing to kill Buffy. I doubt she had become so cynical overnight -- I think that Mundusmundi is right is suggesting that a young Maggie Walsh would have resembled Willow.

"That doesn't mean that she shouldn't be more careful, of course, but it does have a very different moral feel than Walsh's impersonal science."

For me, Willow's experimentation with black magic has more strongly negative associations than did Maggie Walsh's science projects. We have seen examples of magicians & lawyers willing to sacrifice their children to gain power. We have had glimpses of what happened to Giles as a young man. We have seen Willow possessed during a ritual and offered power by the lower beings for the pain she had inflicted on her closest friends. I prefer cold and impersonal science to the corrupting influence of "Darkest Majicks".


[> [> [> Is there a little bit of Willow and Maggie in every scientist or witch? -- Rufus, 01:56:37 07/18/01 Wed

I can understand why many would be thrown by the comparison of Maggie and Willow. But there is one thing we don't know, and that is what Maggie was at Willows age. What made Maggie more than a scientist out to help the world with her discoveries to the mad woman that wanted to remake the world to fit her image of perfection? Willow is travelling down that same road with her magic. Her reaction to anger is what is scary, she was able to stop herself from getting revenge on Oz, but I think her reaction to rage is going to weaken her ethics in regards to magic.

From Something Blue

D'Hoffryn: "You have much anger and pain. Your magic is strong, but your pain.....it's like a scream that pierces dimensional walls. We heard your call."

D'Hoffryn: "Our intention is not to quash your potential...Quite the contrary."

D'Hoffryn: "The pain and suffering you brought upon those you love has been inspired. You are ready to join us, here in Arashmaharr."

Willow: "Pain? What pain."

Willow: "Oh God. But I didn't mean to...."

D'Hoffryn: "But you did. This is the result of your power. You will make a fine vengeance demon."

Willow doesn't mean to hurt anyone, but simply put....she has, all when she lets her feelings of anger, pain, and rage get the better of her. If a major league demon was our recruiting...he had to sense a potential ready to be used. I don't see Willow becoming a vengeance demon, but I do see her making a big mistake when she lets her anger power her spells.


[> [> [> [> Re: Is there a little bit of Willow and Maggie in every scientist or witch? -- Humanitas, 06:36:36 07/18/01 Wed

So we're back to the old Frankenstein Dilemma: At What Price Knowledge? Adam was an obvious re-working of Frankenstein's Monster. The big difference is that Joss & co. presented the problem as one that has a solution. That's not clear (coffee hasn't kicked in yet). Better back up and explain a bit.

Shelly presented Frankenstein as a problem of scientific ability out-stripping our moral ability to deal with the consequences. Her take on the matter was that the problem was insoluble. The only possible resolution is that our creations will inevitably destroy us.

Walsh, like Frankenstein, works with forces she does not understand. She creates a creature that ultimately destroys her. However, unlike Shelly's Creature, Adam can be defeated. The problem with Adam is that his existance is based on a one-sided understanding of the universe. He is created by analytical science, without any comprehension of the mystical. He is therefore soulless and destructive, no more than the sum of his parts. The existance of the mystical in the realverse may be subject to debate, but it definitely is an important part of the Buffyverse. It is what makes magic possible, what gives the Slayer her power. It stands in this case in opposition to science, a case of physics vs. metaphyisics, if you will. Adam, the creation of science, can only be defeated by application of magic. The implication is that the Frankenstein Problem can be solved by balancing the physical with the mystical.

Willow represents the other side of the problem. Her understanding of the physical consequences of her actions is far exceded by her magical ability. I suppose that Mal is correct in saying that Willow is every bit as unbalanced in her own way as Maggie Walsh. I think that where we differ is that I'm more comfortable with Willow's imbalance than with Walsh's. I think that part of that is simply personality, but there is also this: there is yet hope for Willow. By the time we met Maggie, she was so far down that dark road that there was no hope of, or interest in, redemption (there's that word again). True, we didn't see Maggie at Willow's age, so it is certainly possible that something could have been done to 'save' her at that time. That may not be fair (ok, it's flat out not fair), but it's how she was presented to us. She is a cautionary tale, much like Victor Frankenstein was. Willow, on the other hand, is still very much a work in progress. She'll make some mistakes, and probably some really big ones with serious consequences, but she can be saved in the end. The over-arching theme of this series is "With a Little Help from My Friends." This has been shown clearly in every season, but it was particularly evident in Season 4. No doubt Willow will come through her coming trials with the guidance and help of the rest of the SG, and perhaps especially Tara.

I figure this stuff out as I type, can you tell? :)


[> Willow and Maggie -- mundusmundi, 10:45:45 07/17/01 Tue

"Willow casually plays with forces beyond her ken and experiments recklessly with new spells (like the ball of sunlight) or modifies existing spells (like the tinkerbell light). Tara knows that raising the dead is bad; Willow wonders if it is possible. There is a little too much Maggie Walsh in the girl."

Never woulda thought to compare them, but that's very interesting. Maybe Maggie wasn't unlike Willow at a younger age. And maybe Willow's rise to power, coupled with the void in leadership Buffy left and anything Wil may have to do with bringing her back, could turn her into a control freak not unlike Ms. Walsh. Scary thought.

And, thank you for learnin' me a new word: ken, which my dictionary defines as "perception or understanding." No more associations with Barbie. :)


[> [> Re: Willow and Maggie -- Rahael, 16:23:26 07/17/01 Tue

"For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds"

In contrast to Maggie, Willow is almost too emotional and sensitive. This was at the root at most of her questionable decisions, nearly putting that curse on Oz, and the whole veangence thing in Something Blue.

I don't know I'm the only one on this, but I was disturbed by the way that Willow treated Buffy in "Anne" because of hurt feelings.


[> [> [> Re: Willow and Maggie -- Wiccagrrl, 18:40:45 07/17/01 Tue

you mean Dead Man's Party? The one where the gang actually got to see Buffy for the first time? I don't think Willow was any harsher with Buffy than Xander or Joyce were. Actually, of all of them, I was most mad at Joyce, because, y'know, she did tell her 17 year old daughter to never come home again in Becoming 2. She seemed to conveniently forget that fact.

Back to the question- I don't know that I'd go so far as to compare Willow to Maggie. Maybe part of Willow's issue is that she does treat magic like a big science experiment, though. She seems to always ask "Can I?" and "How?" rather than "Should I?" or "Why" And I think that can lead to a lack of perspective and also a lack of respect for the forces she's dealing with/calling on. Now, I for one don't think Willow's gonna become the BIG BAD this year (or next) but I do think there will be consequences, and that she's going to have to start being more responsible. I do think that Magick, in and of itself, is basically neutral- it's how it's used that makes it "good" or "bad" But it's a form of power, and like any power can corrupt.


[> [> [> [> Re: Willow and Maggie -- Rahael, 16:06:07 07/18/01 Wed

Oh, yes, I meant dead man's party. For some reason I found Willow's reaction more terrible than anyone elses - after all Xander had all the issues with Angel and was on some self righteous trip. I mean Willow's complaint was that Buffy wasn't around to help her through her exploration of witchcraft and going out with her new boyfriend. When you think of what Buffy went through and where she was.....

She was supposed to be Buffy's best friend - as for Joyce,mother - daughter relationships are often difficult.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Willow and Maggie -- Wiccagrrl, 17:13:26 07/18/01 Wed

I can understand your point, but I don't think that Willow issues were just "you weren't there for me." But...I do think that was part of it, and I think that Willow was just being honest in saying that she needs Buffy too, and that she felt kind of abandoned (as well as concerned) when Buffy took off. I don't think anyone handled the situation in Dead Man's Party very well, but I don't see Willow's reaction as much better or worse than anyone else.


[> Re: Willow the Engineer -- Cactus Watcher, 11:03:58 07/17/01 Tue

There are two types of engineers; 1, real engineers or people who can make things work, and 2, glorified clerks hired to do busy work, whether they have engineering degrees or not. Most of the bad things people associate with engineers have more to do with second group. An engineer without a feeling for his work and without experience is a disaster waiting to happen. Some people are born type 1. Whether a type 2 engineer can develop into a type 1 may be a matter of determination and personality. Corporate and governmental policies tend to promote type 2 engineers because they get along in the system. Type 1 engineers often become outside consultants, because they don't like working in the system and things get done only very slowly without them. Willow is very much like a type 2 engineer. She thinks she understands a lot more than she really does. A type 2 engineer can design an airplane, but you might not want to fly in it till the kinks are worked out. Willow can cast some mighty powerful spells, but you might not want to stand next to her while she's doing it. Tara is more of a type 1 engineer. She studies magic more methodically, and has a better feel (perhaps through experience) for what could go seriously sour.


[> [> Re: Willow 's magic vs Tara's -- Jessica, 13:50:59 07/17/01 Tue

I think that sometimes Willow can be a little reckless with magic, but she does it for good. She doesn't want to hurt anybody she just want to help and sometimes she doesn't think about the consequences or the danger that the powers she's using could be. I always tought that Tara is more cautious because she experienced herself or she knows someone who experienced bad consequences from using magic. Maybe Tara tried to use magic to help her mom when she was sick or her mom tried magic and died as a consequence ( Tara told Buffy in the Body that her mother died suddenly than she said it wasn't sudden), maybe that's why she's so careful. I think Tara might be more powerful than Willow because her powers were given to her by her mother; Amy was a powerful witch and she got her powers by her mother; so Tara's powers come naturally to her and she as been studying magic for a long time, I think she doesn't want to use her powers because she's afraid of the consequences, I hope next season Tara's character will be more developped and will learn more about her because I think she's a fascinathing character.


[> [> [> Re: Willow 's magic vs Tara's -- anom, 15:34:16 07/17/01 Tue

"I always tought that Tara is more cautious because she experienced herself or she knows someone who experienced bad consequences from using magic."

I figured it was (at least partly) because of the way her family treated her & made her think her magic had demonic origins & was evil.

"Maybe Tara tried to use magic to help her mom when she was sick or her mom tried magic and died as a consequence ( Tara told Buffy in the Body that her mother died suddenly than she said it wasn't sudden), maybe that's why she's so careful."

I think it was the other way around--first she said it wasn't sudden, then she said it was, "it's always sudden." I think she meant even when a death is expected, like from a disease, it always seems sudden when it actually happens.


[> [> Which reminds me of a joke... -- Anthony8, 16:56:42 07/17/01 Tue

A man seeking wisdom consults the great guru on the Mountain of Knowledge. He asks the old man how to understand the true meaning of life. The old man instructs him that the true meaning, ultimately, is an illusion. However, there is still wisdom to be found by better understanding the ways of the people in the world in which he lives. To do this, he should pose a simple question to three people from different walks of life and that should help him in his pursuit of wisdom.

The wisdom seeker decides to ask a mathematician, an engineer and a lawyer the simple question "what is one and (as in plus) one."

The mathematician leads him to a table upon which sits a box containing apples. He carefully pulls one apple out of the box and places it on the table stating, "if you have one unit of something, for example, this apple, and then you add to it another unit of that same something (produces another apple from the box and places it alongside the first), you have two units of that item. Consequently, one (points to first apple) and one (points to second apple) equals Two (holding two fingers in the air)." The young man thanked the math man and went on his way.

Next, the wisdom seeker consulted the engineer. When confronted with the same question, the engineer tersely answered, "one and one are two. Don't ask me why, don't ask me how. It's just two. Memorize it. Accept it. Be on your way, I have more work to do than you could ever possibly imagine." The young man attempted to thank the engineer for his time, but before the second word passed his lips, the engineer was gone.

Finally, the wisdom seeker consulted the lawyer, who was a partner, by the way, of the firm Dewey, Cheatum and Howe. In the lobby of the DCH offices, he asked the lawyer "What is one and one?" The lawyer grabbed the young man by the arm and shuttled him quickly to a small conference room down the hall. After taking one last look up and down the hallway to make certain prying ears were not present, the lawyer closed the door and, motioning to the wisdom seeker to move in closer, asked: "How much do you want it to be?"



[> [> [> Re: Which reminds me of a joke... -- FanMan, 18:50:57 07/17/01 Tue

He He

Lawyar jokes are allways good!

I like the name of the law firm!

Do we cheat them, and how? Wolf, Ram, and Heart...


[> [> [> [> Welcome back..have you been gone for a while or just in lurking mode? -- Anthony8, 18:55:22 07/17/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Welcome back..have you been gone for a while or just in lurking mode? -- FanMan, 20:42:12 07/17/01 Tue

Been posting on a couple of other sites not related to the Buffy or Angel shows...

Man it is taking a long time to catch up with 2.5 months that I have not been on this site!

The last post I read was on page seven of the archives, I am on page four now.

Thanks for the welcome back!

BTW I will NOT mention the other sites I posted on; I did mention them in a thread that Masquerade deleted a few weeks ago...


[> [> [> [> Re: Which reminds me of a joke... -- Rahael, 16:12:52 07/18/01 Wed

There's this law firm in Britain whose name always makes me laugh when I pass by their London offices "Slaughter and May" - Nice juxtoposition of the macabre and pretty.....


[> [> [> [> Re: Which reminds me of a joke... -- anom, 22:53:06 07/18/01 Wed

"I like the name of the law firm! Do we cheat them, and how? Wolf, Ram, and Heart..."

I like to think of it as "Do we cheat 'em? And how!" Dewey, Cheatham & Howe is the law firm in the credits of Car Talk, which for those not in the know or not in the US is a very funny call-in radio show about cars that originates in Cambridge (Massachusetts, not England). Their credit list at the end of each show is full of puns, like DC&H and "wardrobe by Natalie Attired."

BTW, remember it's Hart the animal not Heart the organ...although if it were freshly cut out of someone's chest I suppose the latter would be quite appropriate....
Doc's "mistaken" recognition of Spike -- Non-rat Amy, 15:48:22 07/17/01 Tue

Perhaps this has already been discussed to death, but did anyone else think Doc's recognition of Spike might *not* have been just a mistake? In "Forever" when we first are introduced to Doc, he says to Spike "I know you," and something along the lines that he's a guy that hangs out on the corner (playing chess? couldn't find the script online) except for the hair and the being a vampire. Could he be alluding to William perhaps? Joss doesn't usually "waste" dialogue, so I'm wondering if this may have been a seed planted for next season. Anyone?


[> Re: Doc's "mistaken" recognition of Spike -- FanMan, 18:34:02 07/17/01 Tue

Yes this has been discussed before... Probably about six to ten threads in the archives go into oppinions and theories about the Doc.

Consensis is; we want Doc to be a big bad for next season, or at least a servant of THE big bad.

Feel free to add your veiws regarding Doc because the actor and the character are both very popular on this board.


[> [> Re: Doc's "mistaken" recognition of Spike -- Non-rat Amy, 18:59:47 07/17/01 Tue

As soon as I saw Joel Gray I knew Doc was significant, but could someone direct me to the archives on the discussion of what he said to Spike?


[> Re: Doc's "mistaken" recognition of Spike -- voyageofbeagle, 20:45:09 07/17/01 Tue

I think most Joel Grey fans are hoping that his unexplained comments mean that he'll be back in S6 to explain them!

BTW, Doc says to Spike:

"No, you're that guy. That guy always hangs around down at the corner mart. Big into dominos, aren't you?"

quote from this site: http://www.mustreadtv.com/buffyscripts/

The refernce to dominos is what intrigues me. Makes me think of dominos lined up- as son as you knock over the first one, you start a chain reaction that isn't easily stopped.

Oh, hurry up, Season 6!!!


[> [> Dominos -- Non-rat Amy, 08:52:29 07/18/01 Wed

Thanks for the clarification...very interesting! What about the part about the hair color being different and the being a vampire(is different)? A non-vamp Spike? I hope this figures into S6...
More to Tara then there's seems -- Jessica, 18:42:01 07/17/01 Tue

Am I the only one that thinks that there's more to Tara, that there's more secret behind her peaceful exterior. I think that Tara was a great addition to Buffy because she's peaceful and really smart and she as insights that the others don't have. I said it before but I think that Tara could be a more powerful witch than Willow because she was born with powers and she as studied witchcraft for years. I think the only thing that's stopping her is that she is affraid of the consequences of using magic too much. I hope next year Tara will play a bigger part in the Buffy universe and that will learn more about that wonderful character. It would be cool if Tara was the one who found a way to bring Buffy back or if she saved the day in an episode. Will just have to wait and see.


[> Re: More to Tara then there's seems -- Rufus, 01:25:09 07/18/01 Wed

Tara certainly has the ethics of being a witch down pat. But one thing that got me thinking was when she mentioned what she did when her mother died, like lying to her relatives(with them no wonder)staying out late, could she have travelled some of the same road Willow is now going down only to catch herself in time?


[> [> Re: More to Tara then there's seems -- FanMan, 02:41:51 07/18/01 Wed

Greif(sp?) can cause a form of temperary insanity(actually several forms, but I'm not going there)and can lead to reckless or selfdestructive behavior; drowning in sorrow with alchohol, feeling guilty and depressed from the guilt, Dawns reaction of denial of reality(sort of in Dawns case...) etc.

Tara is a quiet person about stuff she is NOT embarrased about; think how difficult it would be for her to discuss disasterous mistakes she made... Cool to have another character with an open ended mysterious past, good for plot twists next season!

Side note; Rufus, however dark Willow becomes from use of Darkest Magic she will have the redeeming quality of loving her cat. :-)
1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Drusilla -- Marie, 01:24:25 07/18/01 Wed

All quotations used are either jotted down as I watched the tapes, or taken from Psyche's Transcripts - with many thanks, Psyche!

Well. Drusilla. Hmmmm. I mean, where do you start? Vampire. Female. Insane. 'Nuff said. That's what I thought when I sat down and started writing this. And then of course I started thinking about her. Really thinking about her. What made her tick, what kind of creature was she, really? Did I like her? Did I loathe her? Or does she just plain irritate me? The answer is, I don't know. I'm hoping I will by the time I come to the end of my perambulations.

I was going to begin at the beginning, when we first met Dru and Spike, with School Hard, but when I really thought about it, I realised that, for me, Dru's story begins when we meet her in the Confessional Box of a London church, as, unbeknownst to her, Angelus is dining on her priest.

It's 1860, she's a young Victorian girl, not beautiful in the conventional sense, but striking and rather frail looking. She also very frightened, and we find out why as she starts to confess to the priest-who-is-really-Angelus that she's 'been seeing again'. She has seen a cave-in in a mine, and men killed. Her talk is childlike, and her speech -pattern uneducated:

'My stomach all tied up, and I saw this horrible crash....My mummy said to keep my peace, it didn't mean nothing....Me mum says I'm cursed. My seeing things is an affront to the Lord, that only he's supposed to see anything before it happens. But I don't mean to, Father, I swear, I try to be pure in his sight. I don't want to be an evil thing'.

So we see immediately that this is a good Catholic girl, poor but virtuous, who has the gift - or curse - of second sight. Think of the prejudices and superstitions of her times. I get the impression that she loved and was loved by her family, but surely she must have also frightened them. Not too many years before, she may have been burnt, or - perhaps worse - committed to Bedlam. People are frightened, and can be made vicious, by something they don't understand. To Angelus, however, things were a great deal different. He immediately decided to make her a vampire, but he wanted to play a little game with her first - to torment her, and kill her friends and family, in that cat-and-mouse way of his we've come to know so well.

(There is some argument for saying that Angelus actually saw Drusilla first when she was walking down the street with her mother and sisters in Dear Boy, when Darla pointed her out, but I feel that at this point he'd already met her, and his stalking had started).

From Angel:

Angel: I did a lot of unconscionable things when I became a vampire. Drusilla was the worst. She was...an obsession of mine. She was pure and sweet and chaste...

Buffy: And you made her a vampire.

Angel: First, I made her insane. Killed everybody she loved. Visited every mental torture on her I could devise. She eventually fled to a convent, and on the day she took her holy orders, I turned her into a demon.

Take a moment here to think of your own family, and what you'd do or think about some monster stalking them, killing them, feeding off of them, one by one, and doing it 'with a song in his heart'.

In Dear Boy: we are shown the aftermath of the cookout in the convent, when Drusilla is cowering away from Angelus and Darla, muttering insanely - he's driven her mad, but he's not going to finish her off, as Darla would like him to - 'So are we going to kill her during or after?' 'Neither. We turn her into one of us - killing is so merciful at the end, isn't it? The pain has ended.' 'But to make her one of us? She's a lunatic.' 'Eternal torment. Am I learning?'

In the same episode, we can flash foward to 1880 and the girl who wanted to be a nun has been a vampire for twenty years. She travels with Angelus and Darla, but they are a couple, and she's lonely:

Drusilla: I'm full and warm, yet all alone.

Angelus: That's not true, precious, you've got us.

Drusilla: Not in the least. You won't even have me just a little bit.

Darla: All you have to do is ask.

Dru: No. His head's too full of you, grandmother.

(Side comment - Angel thinks that's funny - Darla doesn't!).

Angelus: Well, if you're lonely, Dru, why don't you make yourself a playmate?

Dru: I could. I could pick the wisest and bravest knight in all the land and make him mine forever with a kiss.

And then, of course, a bit of Buffyverse legend is born, as along comes William, a.k.a. William the Bloody, a.k.a. Spike...

From Fool for Love:

Drusilla has followed the distressed William into an alley...

Dru: And I wonder...what possible catastrophe came crashing down from heaven and brought this dashing stranger to tears?

William: Nothing. I wish to be alone.

Drusilla: Oh, I see you. A man surrounded by fools who cannot see his strength, his vision, his glory. That, and burning baby fish swimming all around your head.

William thinks she's a pickpocket (and from the last remark, obviously a mad one!), and she makes him nervous, but then she adds:

Don't need a purse. (Pointing to his heart and his head) Your wealth lies here... and here. In the spirit and...imagination. You walk in worlds the others can't begin to imagine.

William: Oh, yes! I mean, no. I mean... mother's expecting me.

Dru: I see what you want. Something glowing and glistening. Something... effulgent.

It needs only that. Spike is born.

In the same episode, with more flashbacks, we see Spike kill his first Slayer in China, and Drusilla reaping the benefits of his high with some pretty raunchy sex. A long way from the Convent, then!

So...I now come to twentieth century Sunnydale. School Hard. The Master is dead, the Anointed One's in charge, and Spike and Dru are in town.

She seems to have become more fey and frail, and this is accentuated by her floating white Regency-style dress. She may have sired Spike, but he is the strong one - or is he?

Drusilla (stares at Colin): This one has power. I could feel it from the outside.

Spike: Yeah. He's the big noise in these parts. Anointed, and all that.

Drusilla: (to Colin) Do you like daisies? Hmm? I plant them, but they always die. Everything I put in the ground withers and dies. (Looks off into space) Spike, I'm cold.

Spike (putting his coat around her): I've got you.

Drusilla: I'm a princess.

Spike: That's what you are.

Spike then offers to kill the Slayer, if the Anointed One will keep his flunkies from trying anything behind his back. Then

Drusilla (head bowed and hands to her temples): I can't see her. The Slayer. I can't see. (Looks back up) It's dark where she is. Kill her. Kill her, Spike. Kill her for me?

Spike: It's done, baby

This, of course, is our first glimpse of Spike and Dru, and this scene immediately establishes several things:

Dru, though a vampire, is not physically strong. She can see things others can't. Spike loves her and wants to protect her.

From this episode onwards, we see Drusilla in this light. She gets more and more frail and weak, though it is never really established what is making her ill. She can be very childlike, and this is emphasised by her collection of dolls, and her interactions with them - she turns one to face away "Miss Edith speaks out of turn. She's a bad example, and will have no cakes today. Shh." A memory of her Victorian childhood, perhaps? In the same scene, we see Sheila, a classmate of Buffy's, tied up and gagged, and later Drusilla is persuaded by Spike to "Eat something".

Although frail, we see in Lie to Me that Drusilla is still capable of making forays to hunt for food on her own, as she comes across the child in the park, and is prevented from feeding by Angel. She's delighted to see him, but soon senses that he's still Angel, and not Angelus:

Dru: My dear boy's gone all away, hasn't he? To her.

Angel: Who?

Dru: The girl. The Slayer. Your heart stinks of her. Poor little thing. She has no idea what's in store.

As we can see, Buffy watches from a roof-top, and later, in the Library:

Giles takes an open book from on top of another and exposes an old picture of Drusilla.

Buffy (telling them of Ford killing a vampire): Gotta give him credit for... (notices the picture) that.

Jenny: Something wrong?

Buffy: (picks up the picture) Who's this?

Giles: Um, she's called Drusilla, a sometime paramour of Spike's. She was killed by an angry mob in Prague.

Buffy: Well, they don't make angry mobs like they used to, 'cause this girl's alive. I saw her with Angel.

Giles: (taken aback) With Angel?

Jenny: Isn't he supposed to be a good guy?

Buffy: (puts the picture back down) Yeah. He is.

Later, as Drusilla is asking her dead bird why it won't sing for her anymore, we see Spike's jealousy of Angel:

Spike: Darling, I heard a funny thing just now. Lucius tells me that you went out on a hunt the other night.

Dru: My tummy was growly. And you were out...

Spike: You, um, meet anyone? Anyone interesting? Like Angel?

Dru: Angel.

Spike: Yeah...so...what might you guys have talked about then? Old times? Childhood pranks? It's a little off, you two being so friendly, him being the enemy and all that.

Drusilla (to the bird): I'll give you a seed if you sing.

Spike (impatiently): The bird's dead, Dru. You left it in a cage, and you didn't feed it, and now it's all dead, just like the last one.

At his tone, Dru cowers and whines, and Spike is immediately contrite:

Oh, I'm sorry baby. I'm a bad, rude man. I just don't like you goin' out, that's all. You are weak. (Takes her hand) Would you like a new bird? One that's not dead?

Just then, Ford comes in, and when Spike would have killed him, Dru stops him. When Ford annoys Spike some more, he looks to Drusilla "Can I eat him now, love?".

This is an important scene, in that it shows first Drusilla depending on Spike, then Spike looking to Drusilla for permission to eat. They are partners, equal, and it shows. Though physically stronger, he relies on her for direction. Later, when Spike has the opportunity to kill his third Slayer along with the Ford and his friends, he chooses to let them go rather than risk Drusilla.

As time passes, and Spike gets more desperate to find a cure for Drusilla, we arrive at What's My Line, Part 1, where we are introduced to the Order of Teraka, via Dru's Tarot cards, and are shown that Drusilla certainly retains memories of her former life, and enough of her human personality to want to avenge her family by torturing Angel before he has to die to make her well. And, very woman-like, I think, she's not above enjoying Spike's jealousy as Angel taunts him, yet is sane enough to prevent Spike staking Angel.

And what a scene at the end of the second of this two-parter, as Dru lifts the unconscious Spike up from the charred wreckage of the church organ - "Don't worry, dear heart...I'll see that you get strong again, like me!"

Of course, given the nature of the beast, it's not so surprising that Drusilla is used occasionally to further the plot, so to speak. In Halloween, for instance, it is Drusilla who tells Spike "Someone's come to change it all. Someone new." The 'someone', of course, turns out to be Ethan Rayne.

And then, along comes Angelus....

In the 'teaser' of Surpise, Buffy dreams of Angel, and it is Drusilla in the dream who stakes Angel. This is the first intimation that Drusilla (and Spike) may have survived the wreckage in the church.

Later, we see Dru and Spike - wheelchair-bound - in their warehouse, and it seems they're having a party, and the main present, all for Dru, is the Judge! In pieces at the moment, but wait 'til they finish the jigsaw! And here we see that, while in the past Dru might've been the weak, fragile member of the Vamp Clan, now that she's stronger, she can be pretty nasty:

Dalton (having lost part of the Judge to Buffy): The Slayer. She came out of nowhere, I didn't even see her.

Drusilla cuts him off by putting her finger to his lips. She stares into his eyes. She lifts off his glasses and drops them to the floor. She stomps on them and grinds them into the concrete. She lifts her head with her eyes closed.

Drusilla: Make a wish.

Dalton: What?

She holds two fingers up to his eyes -

Drusilla: I'm going to blow out the candles.

Spike stops her, but Dalton later gets his come-uppance via the Judge, who burns him up (Drusilla: Do it again! Do it again!).

It's made pretty clear in this episode that the pecking order has changed - it's Drusilla giving the orders now. That doesn't last long, however - in the very next episode, Innocence, Angel has enjoyed his moment of bliss, and Angelus returns to the fold. To Drusilla's delight and Spike's dismay!

In the teaser, Drusilla falls to floor with one of her visions, moaning "Angel", and then suddenly gives one of her evil smiles - she knows! After the credits, we see Dru on her back on the big table, and one of my own favourite little exchanges follows:

Spike: Are we feeling better, then?

Drusilla: (sighs) I'm naming all the stars.

Spike: You can't see the stars, love, that's the ceiling. Also, it's day.

Drusilla: I can see them. But I've named them all the same name. And there's terrible confusion.

Then Angelus turns up, and when the Judge can't burn him:

Judge: There's no humanity in him.

Angelus: I couldn't have said it better myself.

Drusilla: Angel.

Angelus: Yeah, baby, I'm back.

Much mayhem and anguish follows for Buffy and the Gang, and a lot of jealousy for Spike, as he realises that Dru is turning more and more to Angelus, who loses no opportunity to taunt Spike.

In the middle of all the angst, we are allowed some comic relief - Dru's face in Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered when she couldn't follow the other love-struck girls into Buffy's house is a picture I'll cherish (not to mention Angel's, when Dru saves Xander from him!).

Earlier in the same episode, one of Angelus's best lines:

Angelus (as he lays a fresh and bloody human heart on the table): Happy Valentine's Day, Dru.

Dru: Oh! Angel! It's still warm.

Angelus: I knew you'd like it. I found it in a quaint little ...shopgirl.

In the next episode, I Only Have Eyes For You, the threesome move to the mansion on Crawford Street, Spike's jealousy and hatred of Angelus grows in proportion to Angelus's taunting (in fact, I suppose you could argue that Drusilla indirectly saves the world, for if it wasn't for her, Spike wouldn't have gone to Buffy! Of course, if Dru hadn't had the vision about Acathla in the first place, the necessity wouldn't have arisen - ah, well!).

She certainly was the indirect cause of Jenny Calendar's death, for it's in the next episode, Passion, that she tells Angelus and Spike "...an old enemy is seeking help...help to destroy our happy home...".

So we come to Becoming 1 and 2. Dru has the vision of Acathla, and starts the ball rolling...and in the first part of the season's finale, "bags" (to quote Spike) "a Slayer". Poor Kendra finds she's no match for our Queen Vamp, and Buffy loses a friend.

In Part 2, poor Giles is captured and tortured, and we see that while he can bear the physical torture, Dru becomes Jenny, and Giles gives away the secret that it's Angelus's blood that is the key to freeing the sword. A little comic touch is added:

Angelus and Spike both look over at Drusilla, still kissing Giles:

Spike: Uh, Drusilla...

She keeps on a-kissin'..

Angelus: Honey...

Spike: We are finished here, ducks.

Drusilla stops, looks up at them sheepishly: Sorry. I was in the moment.

So, we come to the moment when Spike makes his move. He waits for Buffy to arrive, hits Angelus with an andiron, and Dru freaks out. She jumps on Spike to try and stop him, and he breaks free:

Spike: I don't want to hurt you, baby.

Dru grabs him by the throat and shoves him into the wall. He slaps her arm aside and punches her in the face.

Spike: Doesn't mean I won't. (After choking her to unconsciousness) Sorry, baby. Wish there was another way.

As Angelus and Buffy are left to fight it out, we see Spike driving away from Sunnydale, one hand on the wheel, the other arm firmly anchored around his lady, never to be seen again...

..As Cordy would say - As If!! Spike, of course, turns up again in Lover's Walk, drunkenly bemoaning the fact that Dru has left him for a chaos demon, and in Fool For Love we see the actual scene.

Spike: I haven't said a word about the bloody Slayer since we left California. She's on the other side of the planet, Dru!

Drusilla: But you're lying! I can still see her floating all around you, laughing. Why? Why won't you push her away?

Spike: But I did, pet. I did it for you. You keep punishing me. Carrying on with creatures like this.

Pull back to reveal a Chaos Demon standing nearby, holding a beer. He's tall with antlers that drip and ooze.

Chaos Demon: Okay, you guys obviously have a thing going on here.

Drusilla: I have to find my pleasures, Spike. You taste like ashes.

Spike (re: demon): So this is my fault now?

Chaos Demon (to Spike): I didn't know she was seeing somebody. (off Spike's look) I should take off.

Spike: Yeah, why don't you do that?

The demon blows a kiss to Drusilla, then walks off.

Drusilla: You can't blame the ghoul, Spike. You're all covered with her. I look at you... all I see is the Slayer.

Here, I have to say, is one of the few times the writers of this great series have disappointed me. I feel that this was included simply to point out that Spike felt something other than hate for Buffy, and cheapened his love for Drusilla, which I think was a true, deep, love (you only have to go back and listen to his wonderful 'I may be love's bitch' speech to know that).

Anyway, Dru can't forgive Spike for saving the world, when she'd looked forward to its end with such glee, and goes to LA for a little shopping, a little food, a little fun with Darla, gets a little burned by Angel, and comes looking for Spike in Crush. She's dumbfounded when Spike chooses the Slayer over her. I feel that here, too, Dru is used simply to illustrate Spike's new-found love for Buffy, and that the writers are taking this opportunity to re-write Buffyverse history a little:

Buffy: What's going on?

Spike: Simple. I'm gonna prove something. (moves up close to her) I love you.

Buffy closes her eyes and grimaces in disgust.

Buffy: Oh my god.

Spike: No, look at me! (grabs her chin and forces her to look at him) I ... love you. (Buffy jerks her chin out of his hand) You're all I bloody think about. Dream about. You're in my gut .. my throat ... I'm drowning in you, Summers, I'm drowning in you.

Dru begins to laugh. Spike turns.

Spike: I can do without the laugh track, Dru.

Drusilla: But it's so funny. I knew ... before you did. I knew you loved the Slayer. The pixies in my head whispered it to me.

Spike turns back to Buffy as Dru continues talking.

Spike: You can't tell me that there isn't anything there between you and me. I know you feel something.

Buffy: It's called revulsion. And whatever you think you're feeling, it's not love. You can't love without a soul.

Drusilla: Oh, we can, you know. We can love quite well. If not wisely.

So - vampires can love, Dru said so!

There's also a nice little scene with Dru, Spike and Harmony, as Dru mouths "Boo-boo?" over Harmony's shoulder, much to Spike's chagrin!

I've finally reached the end of my ramblings. I hope I haven't bored you rigid along the way! As to what conclusions I've come to over the maddest vampire? Well, there can be no doubt she's a couple of slates short of a full roof, she has no conscience whatsoever, and seems to have a predilection for children as well as a taste for torture. She certainly isn't your typical vamp - and, hey! no Dru = no Spike, so thanks, Dru, for that at least! Do I feel sorry for her? I don't pity the vampire, no, but the poor fey child she once was? Absolutely. Do I like Drusilla any more than I did before I started? Well, I wouldn't invite her in to meet the family, but, yeah, I guess I do a little. Do you?


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Drusilla -- FanMan, 03:08:28 07/18/01 Wed


I can't wait for FX to start airing the older eps; I started watching in season four.

I would not want to meet Dru in a dark alley! As long as she is not near me I can think about her impartialy. Dru is facinating, and has some intriqueing facets to her personality. The psychic thing...hmmm Dru could be a very dangerous big bad with that ability IF she were sane enough to plan rationally!

I would MUCH rather be tormented and killed by Dru than Glory! Glory was not quite as off her rockers as Dru, but she was boring and arrogent,Dru is interesting.

Hey this is a subject; if a villian of either show was going to kill you, wich would be the least unpleasant way/villian to do the evil deed?


[> "a couple of slates short of a full roof" - LOL! great analysis! :-) -- Solitude1056, 06:26:33 07/18/01 Wed


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party: Drusilla -- Cactus Watcher, 07:27:36 07/18/01 Wed

It's interesting to me that Dru seems in someways the model of the old-fashioned stereotype of women. When we first met her, she was delicate and weak (for a vampire.) She is even now naive, sensitive and in her own way overcaring. Perhaps it was her Victorian upbringing, because as time has past, we've found that she doesn't fit the old mold very well at all. She's quite strong. While her insanity makes her act strangely, she has flashes of shrewd intelligence. As we've seen insane people in the Buffy universe can see a part of reality sane people can't. Drew sees much, but can only relate a piece of it to those around her.(I think it would be interesting to analyze the events of last season in terms of Buffy being, though not completely insane, mentally ill much of the year, particularly after her mother died.) Dru's sensitivity otherwise has a ghoullish quality. Her caring tends to degenerate quickly into raw passion. Finally Dru is nowhere near as naive as Harmony.


[> Does Spike's love for Buffy undercut his romance with Dru? -- verdantheart, 07:37:11 07/18/01 Wed

Very interesting!

Actually, I didn't think that the scene in "Fool for Love" undercut the Drusilla/Spike romance. While there was some rewriting of history going on there, I believe that it works. In "Lover's Walk" Spike says Dru accused him of having gone soft. It makes sense that Spike would not mention the Slayer in this (to Willow), and it makes sense that Dru would interpret the Slayer connection in this light (Spike helped the Slayer, putting himself on the side of good) rather than as an unrealized shift in affection.

Spike did love Drusilla, and put up with a lot from her, including her apparent preference for Angelus. Dru definitely had affection for Spike, perhaps loved him, she chose him, and he was what she needed, if not all she wanted.

The scenes in "Crush" were dramatically necessary as a plot point to show Spike's choice, but I feel that they stand up well as a natural progression of the storyline. Spike has now changed and, although Dru still is important to him, Buffy is paramount. I found it interesting that you didn't quote Spike's summary of his and Dru's relationship:

This is the face of my salvation. Before Dru, I was nothing. A speck. But when she bit me, she delivered me from mediocrity. For over a century - we cut a swath through the continents, shared a bed, drank from the same vein... (Now both Spike and Dru are getting a little lost in this reverie. He moves closer - starts to touch her, caress her...) A hundred years, and she never stopped surprising me... Never stopped taking me to new depths. I was a lucky bloke, to touch such a black beauty. Lucky just to stand in her light...

Spike knows that Dru is the one that's "right" for him, but he's too far gone. Later on he tells Buffy:

Because this-- this thing with you -- it's wrong! I know it! Not a complete idiot! (gesturing to his heart) You think I like having you here?! Destroying everything that was me until all that's left is you in a dead shell. ...

As much as Spike wanted to believe their love was eternal, things change. It's a romantic notion to believe that you have one great love, a soul mate, if you will, to which no other love can compare. Spike, a definite romantic, believed this (did William feel this way about Cecily?). It took him a long time and his subconscious telling him straight out for him to realize how he felt about Buffy. But it does tend to explain why he kept returning to the Hellmouth.

Compare this with Angel's obsession with Darla this last season. Does he love her, or is this just a twisted obsession, a relic of his time as Angelus? Is it the demon or the human part that is obsessed? Does his emotion for Darla undercut what he feels for Buffy?

When love ends, eventually you must move on or rot from the inside out. (Plus, it'd be pretty boring if all we saw was Buffy mourning her lost, hopeless love.) The song changes.

(Actually, I can see Spike having trouble moving on right now, drinking heavily, prostrating himself on Buffy's grave like a true Victorian romantic. He had an awful lot of trouble moving on after Dru ...)

- vh


[> [> Re: Does Spike's love for Buffy undercut his romance with Dru? -- Marie, 07:54:15 07/18/01 Wed

Mmmm. I take your points, but reserve the right to be a little disappointed at the writers here. Certainly love can change, be lost, die, just fizzle out, even, but Spike was wanted to be kept in the series by the writers, and I think this was a way they saw of doing it, so decided to write in a scene which would 'explain' why this was happening.

Also, I didn't want to go on about Spike too much in Dru's post, because it'll soon be time for Aquitaine's Spike posting. (I could've gone on a lot more about my boy, believe you me!).


[> [> [> I see that FFL love scene as self-fulfilling prophecy -- Greta, 08:30:40 07/18/01 Wed

IMHO, Dru's vision of Spike in love with the Slayer was of the future, but, already sensing an attraction on his part, she interpreted it as Spike in love with her at the present. So she drove him away (sounds more Victorian than 'dumped him'), which eventually landed him back in Sunnydale and in Buffy's life on a more permanent basis. THEN he really fell in love with her.


[> [> [> Re: Does Spike's love for Buffy undercut his romance with Dru? -- verdantheart, 10:26:35 07/18/01 Wed

Your point is quite valid, and you're justified to be disappointed in the writers from that point of view. However, I like the way that things are working out, and don't think it's inconsistent with the characters as previously drawn. Which is to say, I think both our points of view are reasonable.

(I'm sure that the upcoming Spikathon will be a megathread...)


[> Transylvanian Concubine -- Morgane, 10:46:22 07/18/01 Wed

The scene I preferred with Dru is the one in Surprise, when she's planing the party and well.. enjoying it! Everytime I see this scene when she's all dress with a superb red dress and the song Transylvanian Concubine (by Rapustina I think) starts. I think this scene mean a lot to understand Dru's personnality. I think her deal is that the only thing that's interesting her is to have fun, which is not quite a bad philosophy, but the only problem is that she's a vamp so her kind of fun can be quite dangerous for humanity. She's childish, not because she play with dolls, but because she has a childlike philosophy. Children don't care about serious stuff or responsability and she doesn't either.

While I think a little bit more about her I start to think that she and Spike are actually my two favorite characters. World is full of innocent, good and sane people so I guess that when I watch Buffy I just need a little wildness, evilness and insanity. The only thing that I found sad about all this Spike loving Buffy and leaving Drusilla apart is that he lost his insanity and grew up. He's still my favorite character but is not delirious anymore. I think that if Dru would be in Sunnydale, she would bring some crazyness to the mix.

By the way, remember the scene when she wants to sleep in the ground and Spike told her that she would get her pretty dress dirty and she answer that she will remove it, then Angel says that it getting interesting? That was so funny! and representative of Dru and also of the Dru-Spike-Angelus relationship!!


[> [> Transylvanian Concubine; Dru/Angel -- Simplicity, 13:22:31 07/18/01 Wed

So, what's up with changing the Buffyverse to center around small, blond women? Drusilla's appearances on "Angel" this year seemed to indicate that Angelus was in "love/lust/or 'something' with Darla. Drusilla was presented as a challenge or a diversion for Angelus. Originally, we were lead to believe that he was obsessed with her. To me, that meant shades of Spike's stalking -- only Angelus wouldn't moon over you while sitting under your window, he'd kill your friends and artfully arrange them for you to find. It was merely a mockery of a love relationship (one would assume to underscore the difference between Buffy's relationship with Angel vs. Drusilla's with her sire, Angelus.)

Drusilla is also in a child role with Angelus which I think is even more disturbing than the obsession scenario. It's almost like an abused child who still seeks the love and devotion of a twisted parent. In Holland's wine cellar, Drusilla looked up at Angel hopefully and said "Daddy?" She also went on and said it was the "Angel Beast, it's NEVER Daddy." That was poignant but, again, disturbing.


[> Very well done Marie - Bravo!! -- Liquidram, 16:22:03 07/18/01 Wed
A little off season debate -- Shaglio, 07:39:01 07/18/01 Wed

I was thinking yesterday as to whether Buffy The Vampire Slayer would be considerred Science Fiction or Fantasy. My definitions (which could be incorrect) are as follows:

Science Fiction - Set in a futuristic world; often involves space flight of some sort; has space ships, space suits, and/or laser guns.

Fantasy - Set in a less technilogically advanced world than our own; usually has knights and wizards; usually has otherworldly creatures such as dragons, trolls, gnomes, elves, and dwarves; fighting involves spells, swords, axes, suits of armor, shields, etc.

By my definitions, BtVS would fit more into the Fantasy realm, but for some reason I always think of it as Sci-Fi. What do you people think?


[> Re: A little off season debate -- verdantheart, 07:49:08 07/18/01 Wed

Well, if you include the horror genre, I'd say Buffy fits there. Otherwise, I put it into fantasy because science fiction is (classically) explainable by scientific theory.


[> [> Yeah, it really belongs with horror -- Catcus Watcher, 08:08:15 07/18/01 Wed


[> [> [> Re: Yeah, it really belongs with horror -- Nina, 09:27:00 07/18/01 Wed

I would agree for the first three seasons. Season four and five (mostly five) have explored other territories. My mother watched "When she was bad" and got scared to death by the Master (maybe a bad choice for a first episode!:) I am pretty sure that if she got to see some episodes of season five she would have fit in perfectly. Unless season six goes back to the pure horror genre I wouldn't classify Buffy as being a horror show anymore. It's about something else. There's still some horror, but the fantasy (with the witchcraft) has taken a lot of space lately.


[> [> [> [> Missing the point, everyone -- John Burwood, 11:46:31 07/18/01 Wed

Big mistake, everyone. You are all looking to classify BTVS & that is a no-way. Buffy is Great Original drama, & the essence of great originality is that it defies classification. Sure, Buffy does have horror, & fantasy, & occasional sci-fi such as robots & the Initiative, but it also has tragedy & comedy (sometimes both in the same scene), ithas romantic drama, action adventure, occasional withering satire, & a personal epic hero's journey mythos, while viewing each season as asingle story arc puts it in the tradition of the great classic novels. It even has elementsof soap opera and teen drama. It is the show that has everything - that is what makes it so special. I have watched Tv for 45 years, & Buffy IMO takes the medium to a new level because of this. BTW - does this qualify as a rant? Hope so, never managed one before.


[> [> [> [> [> There are some advantages to categorizing even good things -- Cactus Watcher, 12:26:58 07/18/01 Wed

Most of my local bookstores put Buffy/Angel material in the fantasy/sci-fi section which is fine with me. But, one of them puts it in the junevile girls' section beside the Nancy Drew books, which ought to be insulting to us adults of both sexes.


[> [> [> [> [> Congrats, John! You ranted!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 14:23:06 07/18/01 Wed


[> Re: A little off season debate -- Andy, 09:41:30 07/18/01 Wed

I've only ever considered it to be fantasy. It's not "high fantasy", like Tolkien, or swords and sorcery like Robert E. Howard, but it's clearly a universe where magic and spirituality reign supreme over science (I think the Initiative arc made that pretty clear) and that's fantasy, IMO. I think Buffy is a dark fantasy, like Grimm fairy tales or HP Lovecraft's works (which are a heavy influence on the Buffy mythology), in that its fantasy elements are usually bent towards the horror genre.


[> Re: A little off season debate -- Rattletrap, 11:19:36 07/18/01 Wed

I've always considered it fantasy. It has never seemed to me to be horror, at least with the way the world is used now. BtVS is much closer to Lord of the Rings than to Friday the 13th or any of those bad slasher flicks that make up the horror genre at your average video store.

Part of the genius of the show, though, is that it is almost impossible to categorize. Is it drama or comedy, realistic or fantastic, suspense, where does it fit? Joss & Co have, IMO, figured out how to blur the lines between all of these convenient genres and come up with something genuinely original.


[> [> Re: the outsiders -- mundusmundi, 12:55:07 07/18/01 Wed

"Part of the genius of the show, though, is that it is almost impossible to categorize. Is it drama or comedy, realistic or fantastic, suspense, where does it fit? Joss & Co have, IMO, figured out how to blur the lines between all of these convenient genres and come up with something genuinely original."

You can go even further and say that the show deliberately takes put-upon genres (horror, soap opera, chop-socky, etc.) as a means of reflecting its put-upon characters. Particularly at Sunnydale High, they were the outsiders, the ones who didn't fit in, and the sudden tone-shifts reflect the emotional rollercoaster that is adolescence.

But if I had to choose, I'd define it as fantasy too.


[> Re: A little off season debate -- chuk_38, 14:41:14 07/18/01 Wed

i think that it is really hard to classify a programme like Buffy, because it uses basically every genre under the sun(horror,fantasy). But I have allways viewed the show as a science fiction show.(but this is coming from a star trek fan(sorry))


[> Re: A little off season debate -- Sam Gamgee, 18:28:31 07/18/01 Wed

Well, BtVS is definitely not science fiction--there is very little in the way of science in the show at all. Even a movie like Alien, set in space and the future, is not science fiction, but horror.

And horror is actually a subgenre of fantasy. So if I had to classify, it would definitely be fantasy.

By the way, I saw in another post talking about BtVS not being like Friday the 13th, a horror film. Let me get a little nitpicky here. Friday the 13th is not horror. It's a slasher flick, a gore-fest, a drive-in movie. This is my own little classification, but horror has to evoke just that--horror--which means the characters have to reach you somehow so you can be "horrified" by what happens to them. And, really, can anybody say, "that was so horrible when that guy. . .what was that guy's name. . .".

I know, nitpicking, but still. . .


[> [> Re: A little off season debate -- Rattletrap, 06:20:51 07/19/01 Thu

point well taken . . . Buffy is much closer to the classic horror flicks with Vincent Price or Bela Lugosi, though horror and slasher flicks are more or less conflated into one category any more.


[> [> [> Re: A little off season debate (getting O/T) -- Andy, 07:45:46 07/19/01 Thu

I agree with something I read once which is that horror films have become so overrun with bad slasher films and an emphasis on gore that critics and marketing people just gave up on the term "horror" and started applying the term "thriller" to films that in the past would have qualified as horror. The Silence of the Lambs is a good example. It really is a horror film but virtually no one thinks of it that way because that would have implied stuff like Friday the 13th or Nightmare on Elm Street. Instead it's called a "thriller".

I think Buffy's take on the genre is interesting and fun because it really does use all aspects of the genre. Whedon has said on many occasions that the inspiration for Buffy was seeing good-looking blondes like PJ Soles in Halloween get knifed in slasher films, so there's obviously that influence, but then again a character like Giles is a throwback to the classic monster hunters from the old Universal and Hammer horror films, like the characters that Peter Cushing used to play (man, I miss Cushing. How cool would it have been if he was still alive and could guest-star as Giles' dad or uncle or something? :)) It's a true pastiche of a show.


[> [> [> [> Difference between book trade and the movies -- Cactus Watcher, 08:10:43 07/19/01 Thu

You're right, Andy. The movies use the term 'thriller.' I can remember when the original "Psycho" came out. The ads all called it a thriller, when obviously it's horror. Thriller seems to be the term for horror films for adults, and horror/slasher the term for horror films for kids, teens and others who go in for watching gore more than watching a good story. In the book trade, thriller seems to be a term for any pile of bullstuff with action in it.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Difference between book trade and the movies -- dream of the consortium, 11:59:40 07/19/01 Thu

Hmmm...I have always assumed, rather simplistically, that a thriller was basically a mystery with an emphasis on action, suspense and possibly gore, while horror implied some sort of supernatural phenomenon. In thrillers (Psycho, Silence of the Lambs, and so forth), the monsters are human; in horror films/books (Dracula, Frankenstein, etc.), they're actually monsters. I can see the alternate view, however; if only because an emphasis on the macabre does seem to be enough to move a story from thriller to horror in my book. Some of the stories of Poe, of course, and Robert Bloch and others are clearly horror, but hold no supernatural elements. So the categories fall apart, as they tend to do. I also tend to feel too much action pulls a borderline story (no supernatural elements, but heavily macabre) from the realm of horror into the realm of thriller, that there is something inwardly directed about horror and something outward about thrillers. Hence, Psycho would make horror, but Silence of the Lambs remains a thriller. That is a highly personal distinction, however, and one I would be hard-pressed to defend.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Difference between book trade and the movies -- FanMan, 19:10:19 07/19/01 Thu

Dream of the Consortium Love your name!

Everything in your post...I agree.:-)

This sight specialises in nitpicking the details of WHAT something means, and motivation/morality. I do that all the time anyway, it is nice to have some feedback.

FanMan sighs in happiness.
the trend of warrior women - slightly OT -- purplegrrl, 07:52:07 07/18/01 Wed

The following quote came from a critique of TNT's "The Mists of Avalon" (although I'm not sure why the critic was comparing the women of the Arthurian legend to Buffy) in the Austin American-Statesman on Sunday, July 15, 2001:

"On television, a medium built on cloning concepts, the latest program to be replicated en masse is "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Even at the close of its fifth and thinnest season, "Buffy" remains one of television's most engaging hours, a compelling mix of emotional verisimilitude, comic book aesthetics, Douglas Sirk-quality melodrama and the roaming undead. But just because this particular girl kicks butt doesn't automatically mean that similarly styled gals can keep up. Fox's "Dark Angel," for example, remains a haven for fans of James Cameron-style sci-fi camp, but Jessica Alba's genetically enhanced Max isn't fit to hold Buffy's stake. As a fellow pro-Buffy TV critic told me recently, "I thought I would never get tired of teen-age girls in leather beating people up. I find that I have.""

Which I guess proves the adage, "Often imitated, never duplicated."


[> Re: the trend of warrior women - slightly OT -- Humanitas, 11:08:47 07/18/01 Wed

Amen to that! I for one have no problem with more strong women on TV. It's about time! I have to agree that Buffy is the best of the lot, though. I've watched a few episodes of "Dark Angel," and while it certainly has it's points, it often seems to me to be trying too hard to imitate Whedon and Co. In a larger sense, it's nice that we have so many choices that some of them can be bad.


[> [> Re: the trend of warrior women - slightly OT -- Rattletrap, 11:23:56 07/18/01 Wed

I seem to remember an interview with Joss where he was pretty unhappy about 20thCF deciding to air Dark Angel opposite Angel on Tuesday nights--sabotaging one of their own shows with one targeted at the same audience.

I'm kind of with you though, Dark Angel had its points and was ok for a few episodes, but it was too much like someone trying to do another Buffy with only half the talent or something.


[> Re: the trend of warrior women - slightly OT -- Wisewoman, 13:05:05 07/18/01 Wed

Actually, Buffy may owe a bit to cinematic warrior women who came before...I'm thinking Ripley in the Alien series, and Sarah Conner in the Terminator movies.

I think they really got the ball rollin'...



[> [> Yes, and along the way, Xena -- Cactus Watcher, 14:24:27 07/18/01 Wed


[> [> [> What about that other Summers blonde? -- Cactus Watcher, 07:31:46 07/19/01 Thu

I'm kicking myself for forgetting the first member of the Summers' clan who got drafted into the superhero business, Jamie from Ojai. "Bionic Woman" was the first show I can remember which dealt with a woman with superpowers trying to lead a normal life. It was a better show than it's male counterpart had been, but the writers seemed uncomfortable with the concept and the show soon got stale.


[> [> [> [> funnily enough -- Mike, 08:08:51 07/19/01 Thu

I have just named my lil' puppy Jamie after this character...
Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Aquitaine, 13:14:29 07/18/01 Wed

Disclaimer: This is not an exhaustive analysis of Spike's character. I am hoping that the very eloquent ATPoBtVS posters will add their insights to the comments I provide here, particularly as relates to Spike's contribution to Season 2 and, particularly, Season 4. As much as possible, I have tried to be objective and not devolve into pathetic fangirl gushing, but I'm only human. Also, because most everything Spike says is eminently quotable, I have chosen not to quote extensively.

- Aquitaine (who doesn't post much these days but is still alive and well)

Part 1 - The Confused Monster and the 'Fool for Love'

At this point in time, it seems as though everything that could be said about our favorite bleached-blond vamp has already been said. It really *has* been a banner year for Spike, the vampire with a chip but no soul. Every scene in which he participated this last season has been parsed and analysed. Viewers have asked: Has Spike lost his edge? Does Spike's chip function as an artificial soul? Is Spike on the path to redemption? If Spike only does 'good' because he is in love with Buffy, is he being good or self-serving? And so on 'ad vitam eternam'. Of course, at the outset of Season 5 of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer", it wasn't immediately obvious that the season would turn out to be 'All About Spike' or depend so much on his actions to move the plot and story arcs along. Even more than he was in Season 4 - where he seemed to function as the comic-relief gnat in the ointment more than anything else - he was shown as ineffectual, impotent and... small, but thankfully 'well muscled and compact'! In fact, the first time we see Spike in "Buffy vs Dracula", he barely manages to secure his self-defence:

SPIKE: Well, well. Spike emerges from the shadows holding a crossbow. SPIKE: You can take the boy out of the Initiative, but you can't take the Initiative out of the boy. RILEY: I'd put that down, unless you're bucking for one hell of a headache. Spike hesitates, puts the bow down. SPIKE: I can't be too careful. I got quite a few demons after me these days.

Spike has incurred the wrath of his own kind - vampires and, to a lesser extent, other demons - as well as the Scooby Gang and is now a solitary figure, beaten and pathetic, who, here, must step down, in typical snarky style, from a confrontation with 'Captain Cardboard' as the large man hulks over him menacingly.

SPIKE: No. (stands) I'm saying ... you should go home to your superhoney. Have a nice, safe snog. You're out of your depth on this one, boy. (Turns his back on Riley) RILEY: You've helped Buffy before, so she has a problem with killing you now that you're helpless. (Spike still turned away) RILEY: I don't. Spike turns to face him, walks up to him. SPIKE: I'd like to see you try. Riley stands, gets in Spike's face. RILEY: Would you? They stare each other down. Finally Spike looks away. SPIKE: Pfft.

Here, as in many other instances, Spike's body language - the exaggerated sprawl - is a clue to feigned nonchalance and vulnerability. This 'sprawl' is seen later on in the season in the crypt scene in "Into the Woods" and at the beginning of "Crush", at the Bronze. But, of course, Season 5 Grey!Spike is almost always sprawled in his battered wing chair, revealing that the big bad demon has been domesticated and neutered to a large extent.

Relegated to his spectator's wing chair, it would seem that Spike only has manipulation left at his disposal to achieve his goals: continued survival and entertainment. However, while he used manipulation as a weapon quite effectively in Season 4, particularly in "The Yoko Factor", he does not really use it in Season 5. Instead, as he does with Riley in "Buffy vs Dracula", he plays along with the humans who pose questions to him and enlist his help. Naturally, he uses money as a bargaining tool. Consider how the episode "Out of my Mind" might have turned out if Buffy had been just a bit less strident in enlisting Spike's help in finding Riley and therefore hadn't pushed Spike into forcing the 'money' issue - and subsequently into trying to kill her. In many ways, the money itself isn't all that important to Spike but it represents that little bit of power and control he needs to maintain his self-respect. In "Checkpoint", Spike almost automatically demands money to protect Dawn and Joyce but what really wins him over is Buffy's flattery ("You're the only one who's strong enough to protect them.") and sincere plea for help. And so, given a like incentive, Spike rather willingly humours his human 'friends', his only contact with the world.

RILEY: I'm looking for some information. Might pay a little. SPIKE: (shrugs) I'll play. (Goes over to a couple of chairs)

The indifference he displays here will gradually, systematically be stripped from him as the season progresses. In this instance, he seems a tad depressed and lonely, truth be told, and he uses Riley's visit as a diversion and a distraction. Thirteen episodes later, in Crush, 'playing' has lost its appeal and perhaps money has as well. Spike's secret love for Buffy has been outed and he is finally free to give up the pretence, the game:

DRUSILLA: Shall we tie her up? (licks her finger) Play with her a teensy bit first. SPIKE: (pensively, looking at Buffy) I'm through playing. DRUSILLA: (delighted) Oooh. I like it when you're all dour and straight to business-like. Spike looks at her. She gives him the taser. Spike reaches out and tasers Dru. She gives a cry of pain and falls down. SPIKE: (quietly) Bloody well through playing.

There's a new game afoot but it isn't a game at all. It's about life and death and the discovery of one's true identity. In short, it's all about choices:

DRUSILLA: Not nice to change the game in mid-play, Spike. You've taken my chair and the music hasn't stopped. SPIKE: Sorry, pet. My house, my rules.

In many ways, Spike's unfulfilling relationship with Harmony (an echo of Buffy and Riley's doomed relationship) has made this change, this choice, possible for Spike. That is why Harmony's presence is necessary in this scene where Spike has both Dru and Buffy tied up. In his dealings with Harmony, Spike was relatively sympathetic to her delusions of grandeur (in "The Real Me", for example) and he was able to project his feeling for Buffy onto and into her body, which allowed him, or, rather, caused him to see himself and his own ambitions more clearly. Of course, the relationship between Spike and Harmony is set up to fail from the very beginning and it serves to show both Spike's strengths (intelligence, wit and... tolerance - hey, you've got to be tolerant if you lived with Drusilla for 120 years and then with Harmony!) and his weaknesses (arrogance, disrespect and opportunism).

Interestingly enough, Harmony is but another objectified version of Buffy for Spike. This objectification begins in "The Replacement". We begin to see how his 'idée fixe' of killing the Slayer might in fact be something completely different at heart when Spike caresses the Buffyquin before attacking it. It is not a coincidence that Spike's world becomes fractured at the same time Xander is split into two entities. The fact that Spike's infatuation was explored in tandem with the live, not-so-pleasant Buffy (via verbal and physical sparring, sexual tension and sincere revelations), the Buffyquin (via practice apologies, dismemberment and enshrinement), Harmony (via displays of intellectual superiority, control and fetishism) and the Buffybot (via staged love scenarios that showed Spike's vulnerability and idealism) allowed the audience to glimpse both sides of Spike's character: the 'fool for love' and the 'confused monster'.


Part 2 - He Had a Plan, But He Got Bored

Spike was never the strongest of vampires. Even back in "School Hard", the first episode in which he appears, he is more about bluster, sprinkled with a bit of psychology and showmanship. He has little taste for inflicting drawn out torture. As he says himself in "What's My Line, Part 2": Spike: Pft! I'll see him die soon enough. I've never been much for the pre-show. And, although he doesn't exactly regret making Angel suffer at Marcus' hands in "In the Dark", Spike knows full well he couldn't have done it himself. Sometimes, it seems Spike's heart really isn't into killing as much as it is into fighting and sparring. When it comes to Buffy, the fighting and sparring are both physical and psychological. Over the years, it has become apparent that Spike feels a certain reluctance to kill Buffy. Both times Spike had a clear chance to kill Buffy one-on-one, in "The Harsh Light of Day" and "Fool for Love", he chose to engage her on a psychological and emotional level. Once again, Spike's choice sets him apart from his fellow vampires. He's quirky and unpredictable. Therefore, while he may not be a very strong vampire, what has kept him alive when going up against Angelus and Buffy are his wits and his capacity to adapt.

From the beginning, Spike is shown first as a lover and, second, as a volatile and impulsive creature. He pushes up the date of his ambush of the High School and hoists the 'Annoying One' into the sunlight (how could we not be forever grateful to this vamp!) in the same episode. Of course, very soon the rug is pulled out from under Spike. After he nearly kills a defenceless Buffy in "Halloween", his 'fall' begins. First he shows 'weakness' in that his feelings for Dru are more important than any ambition in "Lie to Me" and then, in "What's my Line, Part 2", he is paralysed when a church organ falls on him. What follows are months of... hmmm... impotence (déjà vu anyone?) and seeming helplessness from which Spike moves out of the typical vampire mold. In truth, when he initiates and forges an alliance with his enemy, he is displaying a measure of self-awareness and creativity quite unlike any vampire that the Buffyverse had offered hitherto, including the frightening literal, broody and soul-burdened Angel.

The growth that Spike undergoes during Season 2 is paralleled by Buffy's own maturation in the aftermath of the events of "Innocence". Her humiliation and pain is echoed in Spike's anger, pain and powerlessness in the face of Angelus and Dru's 'in-your-face' petting. Who can ever forget the look on Buffy's face when Angelus tells her she's as good as a pro or Spike's face in "Bewitched, Bothered and Bewildered" when Angelus one-ups him in the gift-giving department, outshining the heart pendant Spike gives Dru with a real human heart. In many ways, then, while Spike and Buffy barely survive the events of Season 2, when they team up in "Becoming Part 2" - perhaps the best BtVS episode ever - they not only save themselves but somehow alter the definitions of 'Slayer' and 'Vampire'. As a demon seeking to help a human, for all intents and purposes his biggest enemy, in hopes of saving a world he enjoys and getting his girlfriend back, Spike is a true dichotomy.


Part 3 - A Different Kind of 'Carpe Diem'

DAWN: I'm not a child. (goes to lean against a pillar) I'm not even human. Not originally. SPIKE: (sighs) Yeah, well, originally I was. I got over it. (Sits on the edge of a coffin) Doesn't seem to me it matters very much how you start out.

Here, as with most of the things he says, Spike is both incredibly insightful and incredibly deluded. As we found out in "Fool for Love", the fact that Spike 'started out' as William, the Bloody Awful Poet, still shapes his un-life as a vampire. The fact that Spike states that his life and death as a human do not really matter when all is said and done is also true. Nothing can be done to change the facts. Unlike Angel, Spike can switch gears, from besotted lover to pragmatic man of action, as needed, and human behavior does not baffle him. It amuses, entertains and, literally, feeds him. Spike understands the conventions, the rules of the human world, which, more so than the chip in his head, are what sets him apart from other vampires.

In "Crush", Spike still claims that Dru rescued him (note that Spike refers to William as 'me') from a life of mediocrity. It is only after his disastrous run-in with Buffy and the Scooby Gang in "I Was Made to Love You" and after Joyce's death that Spike seems to sense that his 'uniqueness', his 'freakishness' is undesirable. In fact, in the last few of episodes of Season 5, starting with "Intervention", Spike seems to be re-evaluating his place in the world. By the time the Buffybot shenanigans are exposed, the persona he has affected for 120 years has almost been completely stripped away, which is why he can tell Xander in "Intervention" that he isn't a monster and Dawn in "Tough Love" that he isn't good but he's OK.

Though he has never broached the topic of his own 'crimes', Spike seems to recognise that any attempts at restitution for past actions would be absurd. In "Pangs", however, he does address the issue of 'hindsight amends'. SPIKE: You exterminated his race. What could you possibly say that would make him feel better? It's kill or be killed here. Take your bloody pick. Spike's impulsive actions and unique logic sometimes lead him in novel directions. In "Intervention", having endured torture at Glory's hand, Spike discovers that 'what a guy has to do' (his question to Buffy in "Triangle" when he boasts of not sampling the bleeding victims at the Bronze) is to act without the expectation of reward. Spike also learns a surprising lesson: that being his real self - completely bare, vulnerable and honest - may be the key to becoming a real part of Buffy's life. Hitherto, Spike had thought that the only possible thing Buffy *might* have related to was his attitude, his big-badness, his monster. In this instance, both the audience and Spike (and perhaps even Buffy) discovered that this wasn't the case at all. Truth be told, while not all viewers enjoyed seeing this new, broken, Spike, many began to wonder if Spike at his most pathetic and weak might not be Spike at his most heroic. The more Spike relinquishes his hold on his Big Bad persona, the more he gains in his relationships with humans he cares about.

Haunted by his love for Buffy and even by his own philosophical ghost, 'Poor Spike' never seems to get a break. Even Drusilla sees him as a lost cause:

DRUSILLA: Poor Spike... (shot of Spike and Buffy staring at her) so lost. (tearfully) Even I can't help you now.

Drusilla can't help Spike... how? The ambiguity of her statement is beautiful, more so because she is infamous for her cryptic psychic quips. Regardless of whether or not Spike has a chance at redemption, it seems clear that the deepening connection between Spike, Buffy and Dawn stems from his new vulnerability. Because Spike doesn't see Dawn as a threat, he acts more like himself with her, almost parental after a fashion. He definitely feels an instinctive need to protect her for some reason. As for Spike being vulnerable with Buffy, clearly this is true in "Intervention". But Buffy has also seen Spike be humiliated and fail before just as Spike has seen Buffy during many of her worst moments. However, before "Intervention", it was their shared defeats and victories that bound them together and fed their repartee. In the final moments of "Intervention" - the infamous Buffybot-sex episode in which Spike has created his 'displacement toy' - Spike and Buffy's relationship shifts irrevocably. Now they share the 'real' responsibility of ensuring Dawn's safety.

In an oblique way, we have the Buffybot to thank for bringing Buffy and Spike together as Dawn's protectors because it shows just how benign, albeit twisted, Spike's intentions are. In his interactions with the Buffybot, Spike is actually following Giles' warning to 'get over' his 'thing', his infatuation with Buffy. He does not use the Buffybot as a weapon. Like Warren, Spike uses the robot for emotional and, yes, physical, catharsis. He does not, however, set out to destroy Buffy or the Scoobies with it. It is entirely possible that he could have asked Warren to program her to be hostile to her friends and the outside world. But, quite tellingly, Spike has her made to be dutifully and loving... oh and compliant. Must not forget that. Mwahahaha. The much-reviled Bot sex was not as tawdry as it seemed it would be on paper. It revealed a great deal about how Spike's values have been shaped by popular culture and soaps and it also revealed how profoundly Spike himself has changed, needing the Bot to reinforce the idea that he is still evil and bad. What is interesting in the Spike/BuffyBot non-sexual interaction is just how nice and natural Spike acts around her. This is why the final scene is so powerful because not only is Spike incredibly weak and beaten up, all his defences and his persona are missing. He hasn't put on his Slayer-Attitude. This allows Buffy to glimpse his true heart, his true devotion to her in a manner she wouldn't have otherwise. Neither Buffy nor Spike can come out of that moment unchanged. At the very least, they can no longer see each other the same way.

One of the funniest and most telling episodes comes early on, in "Becoming Part 2", where Spike, unchipped and determined to get Dru back, disapproves of Buffy not telling her mother she is the slayer. Spike's rapport with Joyce (and later Dawn) seems related to, but also independent from, his dealings with Buffy. They immediately have common ground. Spike appreciates both Joyce and Dawn, despite the fact that they are mere mortals. His connection to Joyce had many unexplored facets, though "Fool for Love" seemed to indicate that he had a certain amount of respect for his own mother. His dealings with Dawn, however, are among the most complex the show has ever explored. To label the Spike/Dawn interaction as romantic is not as crazy as has been claimed. However, it is not romantic in a sexual way. That is where the confusion arises. The affection, the love that they share is peculiar but visceral. They are two outsiders who have bonded over painful experiences, who have seen each other at their worst but still accept each other. Spike cannot be a poseur with Dawn.

SPIKE: (leans closer to her, speaks menacingly) Shouldn't you be tucked away in your beddy-bye? All warm and safe where nothing can eat you? DAWN: (giggles) Is that supposed to scare me? SPIKE: (sighs, leans back) Little tremble wouldn't hurt. DAWN: Sorry, it's just ... come on. *I'm* badder than you. SPIKE: (insulted) Are not! DAWN: Am too...

She just laughs at the Big Bad persona. So Spike is just himself when he's with her. Neutral. Neither good nor bad. Just OK. He is almost a better authority figure for Dawn than either Joyce or Buffy because he doesn't try to control her behaviour as much. And then there's the fact that Dawn instinctively trusts Spike and has never found him threatening in the least:

DAWN: I feel safe with you. Spike chokes on his cigarette smoke in horror. He begins to cough and jumps down from the casket. Dawn moves forward from the pillar in alarm. SPIKE: Take that back!

Starting with "Checkpoint", Buffy makes the startling choice to trust Spike with the safety of her family. In "Blood Ties", Spike is cast as Dawn's protector, accomplice and friend. In many ways, Spike's bond with Dawn, though born of the love he bears for Buffy, is stronger than the one he has with anyone else simply because it is so multifaceted. They are equals in freakdom; they can talk to each other, forgive each other, care for each other. Spike (even as William) has never really met anyone who is his equal in a sense. With Dawn, there is no conflict, no 'fists and fangs', merely understanding and support. By the end of Season 5, Buffy appoints Spike as Dawn's protector. It is an appointment he takes very seriously. And while there were many heartbreaking moments for Spike during the season, none was more so then the look of horror he and Dawn shared just before Doc threw him off the tower in "The Gift".


Part 4 - The Good Man Behind the Big Bad Vampire

Ultimately, Spike is a lover and a fighter. A lover of life and Manchester United, of Buffy, of irony. A fighter for fighting's sake but mostly a fighter for love's sake. Unlike Glory who cannot understand why humans behave as they do, Spike understands, comments on, and revels in humanity. Spike is passionate. He wants things and hungers for approval, though he would be loathe to admit it. His appetite is diverted into a hunger for human food, drink and socialisation. Because he relates and equates human motivation with his own hunger, his own appetites, he has a unique, unselfconscious insight into the human animal. Spike tells it as he sees it. Blood makes one hard he claims, with a sexual implication. Blood is power but blood is love as well. So blood is the be-all and end-all. Blood *is* life. Spike's vision and version is often true but also a bit destructive. He is most perceptive then when he is indifferent to a situation, a casual observer without a vested interest as he is in "Something Blue" when he says that Willow is only 'hanging on by a thread'. The fact that Spike is the only one who remembers that Ben and Glory are one is a lovely metaphor for Spike's ability to 'see' things as they truly are and his reaction, humorous as it is, reveals his alien status and his desire to be understood and accepted.

Spike knows his paradigms. "It's what you hero types do", he tells Buffy in "Blood Ties" and in "Spiral" he tells her: "Now would be a good time for something heroic". It is ironic that Spike, of all characters, is a bit awed by, and serves to reinforce, Buffy's heroic persona. He is the voice of reason and provides moral support 'malgré lui'. Spike lives by a strangely chivalrous, piecemeal code of honour/dishonour. He has no soul but promises to protect Dawn with his life. And he tells Doc that he is fighting him because he made a promise to a lady.

Spike's character has become more and more complex over time. In tandem with this new complexity, Spike has begun to address the SG with respect beginning with IWMTLY, when he is brutally rejected by them all in the Magic Box. Willow is no longer 'the Witch' or 'Red' but 'Will'. Whether by coincidence, or not, Will is a short form of his own human name, William, and for some reason Spike has great insight into Willow. Xander is no longer 'the Whelp' or 'the boy', but 'Harris'. And, of course, 'the Slayer' is now 'Buffy'. He is particularizing humans. Even if he were to have the chip removed, it would be difficult to kill that which has become particular to his existence.

Spike's character is in constant evolution. His story is always surprising, always entertaining. He is so compelling that it almost seems that Buffy the Vampire Slayer is *really* 'all about Spike'. But it is important to remember that the chiaroscuro of Spike's character could not exist without the greater structure provided by the lights and darks of the Buffyverse, its title character and its stock villains. Conversely, it is also true that the Buffyverse could not exist without the ambiguities, passions and humour of Spike. No, Spike isn't at the center of the Buffyverse. That's where Buffy belongs. However, Spike's connection and commitment to Buffy and Dawn draws him inexorably into their circle of known. And so Spike straddles the two worlds that encompass the Buffyverse sphere of influence.

"As long as it's still Chips Ahoy in Spike's head, there's nothing to worry about" Buffy says in Crush. Neither she nor the viewers - nor Spike himself - can say what effects the chip has had on his demon and his philosophical ghost. How can Spike's growing 'humanity' and his tender feelings for Dawn be explained or reconciled with what is known about vampires. The nature of the soul and the existence and the purpose of the chip have been discussed ad nauseum over the course of the last season. But, it would seem that Spike is intended to live in his altered state indefinitely. This, in the end, may be the most interesting development of all.

Perhaps, then, we had better defer to Spike's wisdom when he says:

SPIKE: Like it or not, I'm in your life, you can't just shut me out.

Because, when Spike was shut out of Buffy's home and life, so too were we in the audience. We were made to sympathise with Spike. When Buffy threw money in Spike's face and claimed that he was 'beneath her', we sympathised with Spike. When Buffy died, we felt almost as bad about Spike weeping as we felt about Buffy's death. What is this reversal phenomenon all about? It's... All. About. Spike.

- Aquitaine

"I came to you in friendship. (Buffy gives him a look.) Well, all right, seething hatred, but I've got useful information, and I feel I'm being mistreated." - Spike in "Pangs"


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- mundusmundi, 14:00:02 07/18/01 Wed

Really valuable insights. You had a lot of info to distill, and the little things you picked up on -- e.g., Spike's mother, the William/Willow parallel -- are just as interesting as your larger themes. A few comments:

The first time Spike caught my interest was in "Passion," when he scolds Angelus for the Jenny Carpetenter tragedy. "You're supposed to kill the bitch, not leave gag gifts!" He's still a killer, but he seems genuinely appalled by what Angelus did. You pick up on this aspect of his personality well: He doesn't "play games," in a manner of speaking. And when he does, as with having Harmony pretend to be the Slayer, he's usually unsatisfied.

Some have commented about Spike's affection for Joyce. Do you think, in a way, she became his surrogate mother? That might explain the flowers he left for her, and his willingness to help Dawn raise her...since he likely missed out on his own mother's death (and never returned to her back in "Fool for Love.")

I like your observation about his nicknames. He is treating the SG in more human terms (though Xander was still "lamebrain" in "The Gift"). Since I have a vested interest in Dawn (my character post), what do you think of his names for her: "niblet," "little bit," etc.? Are they slightly ominous pet names (as jenoff mentions on his/her site), or just a vampire's version of "honey" or "sugar?"

It'll be interesting to see what the future holds for Spike -- namely, if he has one. Some have hope that he may be redeemed. I too share that hope. But realistically, does he have shot? Wouldn't it be tragic if he continues to grow, does everything he's promised to do and more...and still gets staked in the end? And, in a way, wouldn't that be a romantic way to go out, a way Spike himself might appreciate, a grand gesture?


[> [> Yikes!! That'd be a bit too much tragic romance for me...;o) -- Wisewoman, 14:04:36 07/18/01 Wed


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Liquidram, 15:12:23 07/18/01 Wed

Him getting staked while in the role of friend and cohort would put a crimp in the ratings, but alas, that is what I believe will happen.

Remember Joss' comment: (as I remember it) "I'll give [the viewers] what they need, not necessarily what they want."


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Aquitaine, 15:14:01 07/18/01 Wed

Joyce as surrogate mother? Hmm. I don't know. That may be attributing a bit too much power to the notion of transference. But I think that he felt immediate respect for her because she defended Buffy so single-mindedly in "School Hard". On a lighter note, the first time Joyce saw him, she hit him over the head with an axe and we all know that getting beaten on seems to flip Spike's switch. LOL.

It seems to me that the, deceptively, meek and mild Joyce and Willow are the people who have been able to affect the biggest changes in Spike's behaviour. In hindsight, it really shouldn't have come as a surprise that Spike reacted with compassion vis-à-vis a helpless Buffy in FFL. Faced with aggression, Spike responds with aggression. Faced with vulnerability, Spike responds in kind.

As for Spike's nicknames for Dawn, I think that they are a sign of his affection for her. They aren't impersonal as were his names for the SG. In fact, they make her into little packets of comestible products. LOL. So, no, I don't think they are a sign that Spike wants to 'eat' his Little Red Platelet. If anything, they are a sign of his diminishing appetite.

Can Spike be redeemed? Sigh. I'm really starting to think that full-blown redemption is beside the point. I don't think Spike would become an 'Angelus' if he were dechipped, that's for sure. Mostly, I don't think that the chip is the only thing that has happened to change Spike's unlife. It's his contact with, dependence on, love for humans that is to 'blame'. IMO, Spike/William will never be the same now that someone has really *seen* him (Buffy in "Intervention") and proclaimed that something he did was *real*.

So Spike hasn't been and won't be redeemed; but he is and will remain real. Oh dear. I'm making him sound like Pinocchio or... The Velveteen Rabbit!!! LOL.

Finally, I think that Spike himself would love to go out staked by Buffy - it's the romantic in him, you see!. However, my little finger tells me we won't need to buy stock in Electrolux *just* yet...

- Aquitaine


[> [> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- gds, 17:24:49 07/18/01 Wed

Good post Aquitaine. I wonder if Spike has changed enough to refuse the offer to remove the chip if it came. That would be an intersting parallel between him & Cordy.


[> [> [> [> dechipping & other stuff -- anom, 21:37:45 07/18/01 Wed

"I wonder if Spike has changed enough to refuse the offer to remove the chip if it came."

I started wondering this a few episodes after The Crush. Can't say exactly what triggered the thought. I also wonder whether & to what extent the changes in his personality would remain if he ever did get the chip removed. That could be interesting, but maybe a little too much like Angel's dilemma.

A few other thoughts:

I think even before the chip Spike wouldn't have bitten Joyce, maybe even as early as Lovers' Walk, or at least the end of it. He genuinely liked her for herself, not just because she was Buffy's mother. His statement to Buffy at her house in The Gift, "I know I'm a monster [not denying it as he did to Xander in Intervention]. But you treat me like a man," is in a way more true of Joyce, and something he never had the chance to tell her.

Buffy actually treats Spike not so much "like a man" as like an ally she needs more than wants; if it weren't necessary, she'd never turn to him. Not that she doesn't appreciate him, beginning w/Intervention. But it's only when he accepts the reality that she doesn't return his feelings that she lets him back into her house & lets him know she relies on him. He savors "that" (in his unfinished sentence) the way he used to savor hurting Willow & Xander's feelings as a pathetic substitute for hurting them physically. Knowing how much it meant to him to hurt people (or anyone he could--finding out he could hurt demons gave him back the will to live [unlive? undie?]) tells us just how far he has come since then.

His human life as a poet, albeit a bad one, explains how he knows so much about human feelings--not just Willow's "hanging on by a thread" but that Buffy & Angel could never be "just friends." And it seems to me Fool for Love (I think it was) explained his horror on waking up from the "I-love-you-Buffy" dream--he knows what he's like when he's in love, & it's completely at odds w/everything it means to him to be a vampire. With Drusilla he was able to have it both ways. One of my favorite moments is after Buffy re[ahem]buffs him & he comes after her w/a shotgun & finds her crying on her front porch. He really wants to want to kill her, & he can't, instead asking her what's wrong. The thoroughness of his defeat shows in the utter sincerity with which he asks, "Is there something I can do?"


[> [> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- rowan, 17:10:48 07/19/01 Thu

Yes, it would appeal to Spike on some level to die for love. I think he would believe it was a well worth it to sacrifice his unlife in battle with Buffy.

I like your point that redemption may be besides the point. Spike may never really be able to feel or express sorrow for his past actions. He seems to somewhat believe that those actions are a natural outgrowth of his status as vampire. His natural prey is humanity. He doesn't see the point in trying to feel the remorse. This may preclude him from actual redemption. As someone on this board once put it, he's into atonement, perhaps, not redemption.

However, he does "see" himself as a monster by The Gift -- which means he is seeing himself through human eyes (specifically Buffy's eyes). Whether Buffy actually still thinks of him as a monster is another point to debate at another time. I think that Buffy "seeing" him has made his identity "real" as you say -- and there's also the interesting point as to whether Dawn "sees" him in a way that might actually be truer than Buffy.

Dawn clearly loves Spike (as a friend everyone, so back down please) -- she tends to him in Spiral like a little mother hen, she loves hanging out with him, and then there's that agonized look on the tower. If she loves Spike and he eventually except that she sees him as lovable rather than monstrous, that might be a further step in his understanding what is real about his own nature.


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Nina, 15:24:42 07/18/01 Wed

Welcome back Aquitaine! I Miss you! And you come back in force with a Spike thread! More gooddies! :) Wonderful job, really.

Here are just a few little things I'd like to add:

One of the things that is most fascinating about Spike is his love for life. I said earlier in the season that Spike really has a life wish. That's really what sets him out from the other vamps. There's a little moment in "Intervention" when Spike does the weirdest thing I have seen him doing. He has eaten human food, drink cocoa and bear. Those things have a taste. It may be a little tasteless for a vampire, but still there's a taste. When Glory makes Spike drinks from a glass of water, that simple image evokes a lot to me. First it's totally weird. Water has no taste. What's the use? Yet he seems happy and relieved to drink it, as if the water was helping him to stop the burning in his chest. This single action makes him look so much as a human. The choice of the water was deliberate. Another way to bring Spike a little more to life. As human beings we have a few ways to get energy: Food, water, sun, air...those are all things that are unavailable to a vamp. Spike can't get energy from these sources, yet he eats food, drinks water, takes a lot of unneeded inspirations. He even braves the sun in "Spiral", protecting his eyes with black goggle glasses. His need to act human is becomming more and more evident. His little speech in "The gift" when he talks about blood was said with sorrow. "Blood is life" he says. That's what makes him other than dead. At that moment he finally admits that he is not only love's bitch, but life's bitch as well.

In Season 4, Spike is mostly opportunistic. He uses the SG when he needs them and squashes them away when he doesn't need them anymore. "We're dumb!" says Xander in "This year's girl". Spike really is able to charm his way and seduce the people he needs help from. He knows exactly what to say to get what he wants. In IWMtLY, Spike gets to taste a little bit of his medicine when he is thrown away from the Magic Box once and for all. It's the first time ever that the SG draws the line. Spike went too far with Buffy and nothing he will say will bring the SG to forgive him this time. Considering all his latter actions with the SG, Spike had it coming. He learns right there that there's a line somewhere. He can't always charms his way out of trouble. This very moment is very important in Spike's unlife. He finally gets to be totally alone and rejected. It can be seen as a karmic price to pay for his former actions, but also like a gate opened for a new way to interact with the only humans he knows. From now on, whatever he does he'll know that there are things that just can't be done.

Okay sounds a little preachy for me! :) Maybe I'll have something else to add later!


[> [> [> Miss you too! Neat observation re: the water -- Aquitaine, 09:23:51 07/20/01 Fri


[> [> Nicknames -- Humanitas, 05:58:18 07/19/01 Thu

'Since I have a vested interest in Dawn (my character post), what do you think of his names for her: "niblet," "little bit," etc.? Are they slightly ominous pet names (as jenoff mentions on his/her site), or just a vampire's version of "honey" or "sugar?"'

My impression is the latter, that these are just pet names, filtered through an odd vampiric perspective.

Now that I think about it, I even know a couple (not Buffy fans) who refer to their toddler as "little bit." Maybe not so odd, after all!


[> [> [> Re: Nicknames -- rowan, 17:19:44 07/19/01 Thu

It's really hard to find strong evidence on this point one way or another. The feeling I've always gotten is that these names are affectionate, not ominous, but that's colored by my view of Spike. It seems clear that Spike does use words like "pet","luv", "lackbrain", etc. instead of names to depersonalize his interactions. The "Slayer" title when referring to Buffy seems to have a similar effect, by noting her role rather than her humanity.

However, Dawn's names belong to Dawn alone, as far as I can tell. Although they are food related (commenting on the fact that she's not full grown enough to be a full meal), they never seem to be said in a threatening way. They seem to be the names a guy would have for a beloved younger sister, for example (ah! how many little pet names I had to ensure from my brother over the years!). Because he's a vampire, the names take a form of something dear to him (it's always about the blood).


[> I'll say it again -- Incredible! Why can't I write like this?????? -- Liquidram, 14:08:43 07/18/01 Wed


[> Thank you -- Sam Gamgee, 18:39:04 07/18/01 Wed

Thank you for pointing out things about Spike I felt, but was not quite able to articulate.

I am unable, like many people, to think of Spike without thinking of Angel. Unlike with others, this usually makes Spike look better for me. The scene where Spike bops Xander on the head for not remembering that Ben was Glory made me think of some of the buddy relationships I have had in my life, and then I think of when Angel clocked Xander when Angel was trying to make Faith think he had turned. I can understand why he did it in a way, but I always what would have happened if it had been Willow or Cordelia or even Oz, and not Xander.

I have not quite always bought into the whole "vampire=no soul=evil" canon, and I think it will be interesting if they continue to take Spike down this path. True, it might upset some long-time fans, but I would rather Joss and company risk that than play it safe.


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Wisewoman, 19:21:59 07/18/01 Wed

Nice job, Aquitaine. Good to see you back.

Obviously the lives of all the Scoobies will be altered by Buffy's recent demise, and perhaps Spike's most of all. Two of his lines from last season make me wonder where the relationship would have headed had Buffy not died.

In Crush he says, "Because this, with you, is wrong. I know it. I'm not a complete idiot."

And in The Gift almost the last thing he says to Buffy is, "I know you'll never love me. I know I'm a monster..."

It occurs to me that he may actually have been coming to terms with Buffy's unattainability, just at the point where the significance of that realization became moot.

I think Spike's obsession may have taken a very different turn, had Buffy lived. Now that she's dead, it's easy for him to slip into mourning the actual loss of her, and forget the fact that she was probably lost to him anyway.

I know I'm not exactly making sense here, but what I'm trying to say is that Buffy's *rebirth* means that all previous bets are off. Any progress Spike might have made toward getting over her and getting on with his unlife will be wiped out when she returns.

I had a stormy relationship with a fellow university student when I was in my twenties. He was brilliant and funny and self-destructive. I had just about reached the point of putting an end to the relationship when he was murdered. For years I grieved over his loss, until I finally realized that what I was actually grieving over was not having been able to make that final break with him; with having that choice taken away from me. Had he lived, I probably would have gotten over him much more quickly and gone on with my life much more easily than I was able to because of the sudden tragedy of his death. I can't help but feel that Spike may feel the same way over Buffy's death, but maybe I'm personalizing too much...it just seems that it's fairly common to idealize *lost* love, when the actual nitty-gritty of day-to-day relationships gets tough to take.

And we know that one day soon, Spike's idealized lost love is going to return...and I'm really wondering what his reaction will be?


[> names combination -- anom, 21:42:32 07/18/01 Wed

First, great job! More comments further down in this thread.

"Whether by coincidence, or not, Will is a short form of his own human name, William,..."

How about this: William is a combination of Wil & Liam, Angel's original name.

Whether it means anything is another question. In the Buffyverse, ya never know.


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Millan, 01:28:45 07/19/01 Thu

Wonderful and insightful, all of it!

"Ultimately, Spike is a lover and a fighter. A lover of life and Manchester United, of Buffy, of irony. A fighter for fighting's sake but mostly a fighter for love's sake."

This sort of sums up much about what I've felt about Spike from the beginning, but couldn't put my finger on until the end of season 2. I remember after having watched Becoming 2 I finally found the word I've been searching for to describe him. Of course, one word can never say everything about the complexity that is a character, and there are many levels and facets about this particular character, but if I have to choose one word to explain Spike, it would be a Hedonist .


'Now, I know you haven't been in the game for a while, mate, but we still do kill people. Sort of our raison d'etre, you know.' - Spike, Innocence


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- bess, 05:52:12 07/19/01 Thu

great post !!! almost couldn't think of anything else to say.... i liked your take on the buffybot. with this arc (which a lot of people hated, fearing spike would prove himself to be just another lusting wanker that wanted a blonde play toy) we got to see something really important - what spike wants with buffy. what spike wants with buffy - once, it was to kill her. then, it was to shag her. now, it's- be her slaying partner ? seriously. the bot was programmed, not to be simply a turn it on/play with it/turn it off sex toy, but a living, functioning human being - scratch that- a living functioning slayer. the bot doesn't just talk dirty to him (please make the big bad scene go away please please) but indulges his need for romantic (i didn't say sexual) behavior. he wishes her to love him, every part of him, as he loves every part of her. he programmed the friggin' thing to care about willow, for heaven's sake. it seems spike longs for a woman who will share his bed, talk to him, and, strangely enough, fight beside him, despite the fact that it's against evil. it was, to me, a much less damaging storyline than i initially thought. at first, it was 'oh, great, a walking talking version of the mannequin', but in the end, spike showed more grace than we gave him credit for....


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- sollig, 15:13:26 07/19/01 Thu

I agree. One of Spike's interactions with the Buffybot in particular illustrates this. After they've engaged in some presumably wild and acrobatic sex, they begin again the roleplaying that seems to be an aphrodisiac for Spike, with Buffybot begging "Devour me!" When that gets him revved up again the bot says, "Should I start this program over?" Spike replies, "Shh. No programs. Don't use that word. Just be Buffy," looking slightly deflated at the reminder that indeed, this is not really Buffy. IMO, even before he nearly allows Glory to kill him to protect Dawn (and Buffy), this little exchange indicated that there was more to his love for Buffy than animal attraction, otherwise it wouldn't be so important for the bot to "just be Buffy."

And later, when Buffy visits him, posing as the bot, he already seems to have lost a bit of interest in the fake Buffy (even beyond what I'd attribute to his being in no shape to shag). He didn't even play up his wounded hero status to gain some measure of comfort from the bot. He just quietly and stated what he had done, as though this trauma helped him realize, really realize, how important Buffy is to him. He is not just in lust, or infatuated with her (as has been suggested), but loves her enough to give up his potentially unending "life" to spare her any pain. And that, being a totally unselfish, unevil act, is not something a Big Bad would do (as he sees it). This act, above all others, must have shaken his sense of self to the core.


[> The Lover and the Fighter -- Humanitas, 06:45:11 07/19/01 Thu

Great post! I wanted to run with something you touched on briefly:

"Ultimately, Spike is a lover and a fighter. A lover of life and Manchester United, of Buffy, of irony. A fighter for fighting's sake but mostly a fighter for love's sake."

I think this dichotomy is the key to understanding how Spike sees himself. As William, he was strictly a lover, but he was a miserable failure at it. He says to Cecily: "I know I'm a bad poet but I'm a good man and all I ask is that... that you try to see me..." She cuts him off brutally and crushes him pretty hard.

Then, at this emotional nadir, along comes Dru, who "rescues him from mediocrity" by making him a fighter. His early life as a vampire is characterised by sheer shachtenfreude, love of battle. So much so, that he not only dares to fight the Slayer, but he actually seeks her out - twice! He's not an artist, the way Angel is. He's direct and to the point. In fact, he rejects traditional esthetics entirely, as symbolized by his punk stylings in the '70's. He doesn't seek the grand, "end-of-the-world" statement, his statements are more personal. He needs the world to be in awe of the Vampire Who Killed Two Slayers. As a fighter, he is a huge success.

Then comes the Initiative and their pesky chip. Spike's concept of himself as a fighter is immediately shattered by his inability to kill Willow. This scene, by the way, is one of the highpoints of Season 4, as her understanding tone just makes things worse! Spike is now forced to go through a period of re-definition. He discovers that he can still fight demons, and that keeps him going, but as Season 5 progresses, he finds himself turning more amd more to the 'lover' aspect of his personality. He hates it, because he associates being the lover with failure (both with Cecily and with Dru), but ultimately he cannot deny it. The tansition is painful (FFL), scary (Crush), and hilariously funny (Intervention), but ultimately it is real. In one sense, Spike has already found redemption, not for his deeds as a fighter, but for his previous failures as a lover. His words to Buffy echo his words to Cecily: "I know that I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man. And that's..."

Perhaps William has at last found something truly effulgent.


[> [> Re: The Lover and the Fighter -- rowan, 17:03:06 07/19/01 Thu

You know, this post made me think about an interesting comparision between Riley and Spike (which has probably occurred to all of you but just dawned on me).

Both Riley and Spike had to deal with the issue of "losing their identity" as a fighter over the course of S4 & S5. It's interesting that Riley's method of dealing with the implications caused him to lose his relationship to Buffy, to sink to the depths of visiting vamp tramps, and to redefine himself as mega-super-secret military mission guy. Spike's response has been to improve his relationship with Buffy, become Dawn's protector, and to redefine himself to some extent as a fighter for good/love.


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- vampire hunter D, 12:18:14 07/19/01 Thu

It's insightful posts like this which is why I'm not taking part in this posting party (because I know I can't write like this).

btw, in IWMTLY, Am I the only one who thinks Spike was hurt by Dawn telling him to stay away from her?


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- rowan, 17:25:56 07/19/01 Thu

Yes, I too had the impression that Spike was really hurt by Dawn (not that he didn't deserve it, mind you). He singled her out, and seemed to expect that they had a relationship that would be unaffected by whatever happened with Buffy. This is of course interesting, since Spike's original motivation was to spend time with Dawn to either a:) do something nice for Buffy and score points, b:) save Buffy worry/angst, or c:) hear Buffy's private thoughts about him. This shows IMO that Spike clearly views that he has a relationship with Dawn that is independent from Buffy.


[> Spike/Willow relationship (a bit long) -- Morgane, 12:30:18 07/19/01 Thu

Thanks for the analysis, espacially to have put all this information in the same text, it gave me a better general idea of Spike after speaking of every single thing he has done. A thing that would worth exploring a little though is his relationship with Willow.

Willow has always been very open-minded and never treated Spike (nor Angel) as a monster, even when she had plenty of reason to do so. They had very few alone chat, but they have been meaningful. So they're first real "chat" was a little intense, I have to agree, but still, he showed quite clearly how he sees her.

"Spike: A spell. For me. You're gonna do a spell for me. Willow: Uh, what kind of spell? Spike: A *love* spell! Are you brain dead? (goes to the dresser) I'm gonna get what's mine. (grabs a bottle) What's mine. (uncorks it) Teach her to walk out on me. He takes several good swallows, then looks over at Willow. Spike: What are you staring at? Willow: (averts her eyes) Nothing. Spike: You can do it, right? You can make Dru love me again? Make her crawl! Willow: I-I can try. Spike: (grabs her neck) What are you talking about, trying? You'll do it! Willow: Yes, I'll do it!" (Lover's Walk)

In this scene he really shows that Willow is first of all a witch and a talented one for him. Maybe we wasn't right to think so by that time but still, he was in deep pain with Dru leaving him, and he was searching for help, "Just a crumb ... a barest smidgen"(Crush). And for that matter he turn to Willow, he thought she was his only chance. Okay, he changed his mind by the end of the episode but still he trusted her to get him Dru back.

Then the second time they meet alone is a year later "Willow : Come in. (Spike walks in. Willow is immediatly alarmed and gets up.) Spike! Wh-what do you want? Uh, a spell? I can do that. She goes to run past him, but he grabs her and and throws her against her dresser. Spike : I'll give you a choice. (He walks over to her.) Now I'm gonna kill you. No choice in that. But... I can let you stay dead... Or... Bring you back, to be like me. Willow : I--I'll scream. Spike : Bonus. Willow screams." (The Initiative)

Then, at first, Willow thought she was only good to do spell for Spike but he had something else in mind. Tell me if I'm wrong but I really think it's the only single time we heard him propose to someone to change him in vampire. The only other time he talked about it, was in Lie To me and Ford had to beg him for it. He should have liked Willow really much to propose her to live eternally (and possibly with him!).

"Spike : I don't understand. This sort of thing's never happened to me before. (He's sitting on Willow's bed.) Willow : Maybe you were nervous. Spike : I felt all right when I started. Let's try again. (He leaps on her and draws back immediatly. He tries again and the same thing happens.) Ow! Oh! Ow! Damn it! (He gets up and kicks the dresser. He starts to pace around the room.) Willow : Maybe you're trying too hard. Doesn't this happen to every vampire? Spike : Not to me, it doesn't! Willow : It's me, isn't it? Spike : What are you talking about? Willow : Well, you came looking for Buffy, then settled. I--I... You didn't want to bite me. I just happened to be around. Spike : Piffle! Willow : I know I'm not the kind of girl vamps like to sink their teeth into. It's always like, "ooh, you're like a sister to me," or, "oh, you're such a good friend." Spike : Don't be ridiculous. I'd bite you in a heartbeat. Willow : Really? Spike sits on her bed again. Spike : Thought about it. Willow : When? Spike : Remember last year, you had on that... Fuzzy pink number with the lilac underneath? Willow : I never would have guessed. You played the blood-lust kinda cool. Spike : Mmm. I hate being obvious. All fang-y and "rrrr!" Takes the mystery out. Willow : But if you could... Spike : If I could, yeah. Willow : You know, this doesn't make you any less terrifying. Spike : Don't patronize me." (The Initiative)

The role are really exchanged. In Lover's Walk Spike was the heartbroken one and in The Initiative it was Willow. At first, we asked her for a spell, then she proposed. At first she was helpless, then he was. I believe it shows how the two characters has change and live different things each one on their side, but they still understand each other very well. They had never been very close to each other but when they do, it's always insightful...in both way. They tried, both times, to make the other fealing better about their love lost.

And as he said: "What, are you people blind? She's hangin' on by a thread. Any ninny can see that." (Something Blue) and that was only after hearing her make few comments and not even seeing her.

"Willow: Xander! Xander: What? He wants to die, I want to help. Willow: It's ooky. We know him, we can't just let him poof himself!" (Doomed)

Then he was the one who help her keeping Tara in Family when he punched Tara's nose.

And finally, she she's worried about him loving Buffy:

"WILLOW: Buffy, um ... I'm really worried. JOYCE: So am I. He could become dangerous. BUFFY: Not really. As long as it's still chips ahoy in Spike's head he can't hurt me, or any of us. You know, besides, this'll probably just blow over. You know? It's just some weird Spike thing. He'll have the hots for some gak demon before we know it. WILLOW: I don't know. Uh, these things can, can become pretty twisted. JOYCE: (comes back to sit down again) Yeah, and Spike, I mean, he's... BUFFY: Pretty twisted. JOYCE: Yeah. WILLOW: Well, well, you made it clear, right? That it could never happen. That there's no possible way. Ever. BUFFY: Yeah! (looks at them) I, I think so. I don't know, I, I was just so thrown. WILLOW: Well, Buffy, you have to talk to him again. BUFFY: What? No. No, no, no, I have to avoid him again. WILLOW: Not until you shut him down completely. If he thinks there's even a little chance with you, there's no telling what he'll do. " (Crush)

Of course, she wonders about her friend, but also about Spike having false expectation. Still I think her reaction is quite weird on this one as for the rest of the gang. They were beginning to accept him as a scoobie oe at least to minimally trust him, and then, just because he said he loves Buffy, they're all against him! Why? When I learn that someone loves one of my friend I don't jump on him like that, okay it never happenned with an ex-dangerous vamp who used to put all of his energy to kill me but still...


[> [> Re: Spike/Willow relationship (a bit shorter) -- d'Herblay, 13:33:29 07/19/01 Thu

Something that Willow and Spike share is that not only do they both have pasts they are ashamed of but they attribute their overcoming of these pasts to how and who they have loved.

Willow in "Doomed": . . . And I haven't been a nerd for a very long time. Hello! Dating a guitarist . . . or I was.

Spike in "Crush": This is Drusilla, girl! Do you have the slightest idea what she means to me? It's the face of my salvation; delivered me from mediocrity.


[> [> [> Re: Spike/Willow relationship (a bit shorter) -- Nina, 15:55:15 07/19/01 Thu

"Something that Willow and Spike share is that not only do they both have pasts they are ashamed of but they attribute their overcoming of these pasts to how and who they have loved."

Very good point! Willow and Spike share a lot in common. As for why Wilow was so eager to not trust Spike in Crush I think it makes perfect sense. We saw Spike all season. Saw how he felt, how he hurt. No one else did. Considering all he did to the SG over the years it's absolutely no surprise if no one trusts his love right on the spot. "We're dumb" Xander said to sumarize the way the SG always trusts Spike (only to get stabbed in the back afterwards). It's sad for Spike, but he really had to work his way up to get a little recognition. And as soon as Spike acts from his heart (in Forever) Willow is ready to "see" him and acknowledge that there may be something more to Spike than meets the eyes.


[> Wonderful post, I enjoyed it ........ -- Rufus, 15:42:22 07/19/01 Thu

I just don't have time to comment on it to the extent it deserves. Lot's on my plate right now and I'm really busy with it. Loved the post.


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Cynthia, 18:09:09 07/19/01 Thu

Spike has made a big deal about being the Big Bad and more importantly being recognized for it. Which he is to a degree. I mean, didn't the lady watcher from Checkpoint do her thesis on him? But having is not the same as wanting.

Being the Big Bad sounded great but its one of the major blocks he has convincing the person he wants to impress the most.

After all, as it has been pointed out before, although Angelus was just as bad if not worse than Spike, the fact that Buffy got to know Angel first left her with a strong mental and emotional impression of the good that Angel has.

Whereas Sprike presented just as strong an impression but just the opposite presentation. And we all know how hard it is to get rid of a bad impression when first introduced to people.

I do have a question? Did Angel ever mention the specifics of the curse (i.e. perfect happiness bit) with Buffy before she had sex with him? If not, this seems to me to be a major negative facter, the lack of honesty.


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Isabel, 19:00:41 07/19/01 Thu

As far as I understand it, Angel didn't even know about the 'Happiness Clause' in his curse. He just thought he got saddled with a soul and a conscience. It was after he and Buffy 'gave each other a happy' and Angelus returned that Jenny Calendar (or her uncle) told everyone about the Gypsies' rider to the original curse.

As for not being truthful, in "Angel," Angel tells Buffy about killing his family and everyone he ever knew, ending up with getting cursed by the Gypsies. He tells Buffy that he hadn't fed on a human since that night. Which we have since seen on AtS, in flashbacks, isn't exactly true. In "Darla," Darla accuses Angel of killing only 'evil-doers' when he goes to her two years after the curse to try to be the Angelus he was.

Even though he refused to eat the baby Darla handed him, the 'evil-doers' were, technically, human so he did white wash the truth for Buffy. But a lot of guys will try to make themselves look better for a girl. Let's face it, "I haven't fed on anyone since that night," sounds a lot better than, "It took me a few years to get used to the idea that I couldn't be the evil vampire I was and I felt guilty killing people every time I tried to feed so, proportionately, I've only killed a few people since then." ;)


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Lynn, 20:34:23 07/19/01 Thu

I haven't been around much myself, Aquitaine, but it is good to see you back :) And I love your post, wonderful and insightful as always.

I love the case you have made for Intervention, the episode many of us dreaded, but it was one of the hightlights of the season for me, for what it showed about Spike, and the fact that he really does love Buffy, and committed an unselfish act to protect Dawn for her. Now, developing an affection for Dawn was I'm sure quite unexpected for him, and it's an important relationship because while it is romantic in the broad sense, it is more of a familial relationship, at least that's how I see it. Spike has never loved anyone in a non-romantic/sexual way, and that is a different love than the one he feels about Buffy, but it is equal in its intensity. He would die for either one of them, it is plain to see.

It will be interesting to see how Spike takes Buffy's death - Xander and Anya have each other, as do Willow and Tara, and one could say that Giles will do his best to look after Dawn. But Spike only has Buffy's memory and the promise he made her to protect Dawn. I can see him visiting her grave and talking to her as if she was able to answer him, telling her about Dawn and how she is coping, and how he is. And it makes me wonder how Buffy will see him when she comes back. I would imagine being dead changes your perspective on things a bit.

Glad to see you back, Aquitaine :)



[> [> Glad to see you too, Lynn! Let's hear it for new perspectives:) -- Aquitaine, 09:21:34 07/20/01 Fri


[> [> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- rowan, 12:19:45 07/20/01 Fri

Lynn, I totally agree with you about the Dawn thing (see above in this post, for example). I think that the Buffy relationship is not new for Spike, since he was quite capable of sexual/romantic love for Dru. Granted, this time he's picked an object of affection on the other end of the spectrum, but it doesn't really show growth on his part. It's his nonsexual relationship with Dawn (familial or friend, however you characterize it) that seems entirely new in his undead life.


[> Re: Spike: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rendyl, 09:54:54 07/20/01 Fri

Heya Aquitaine,

Great post. Sorry to chime in so late. You did a wonderful job with Spike especially considering how much discussion there has been about him this season and summer.

Good point about Spike in that he (unlike most vampires) is able to adapt and to change himself to fit the situation. He was able to do this before he got chip. I keep wondering if all vamps can do this or of there is something more needed, either from an outside source or from within the vampire him/her self.

(My only disappointment is that not once did you or anyone else I can recall mention his cheekbones. -grin)

Ren -


[> Chips, souls, and demons who love -- verdantheart, 11:49:34 07/20/01 Fri

Thanks for the great post, Aquitaine!

Does Spike's chip function as an artificial soul? I say it's more of an artificial conscience. It, like the human conscience, guides Spike to do good, not evil. In the case of the chip, this guidance is in the form of punishment and incapacity, but the result is the same.

In this sense, Buffy's serial-killer-in-jail analogy is apt. The desire is there, but the ability is not. Spike starts out unable to do evil. Then he attempts to extend this lack of evil (not licking the shed blood of victims) and to do good (assist Buffy's efforts) to impress Buffy (I note that his initial Demon-killing is mostly to release pent up violent tension). But something happens to him along the way. He begins to see things from Buffy's point of view. For example, his embarrassment and shame over the Buffybot is clearly sincere. Is it merely that Buffy caught him? I don't think so (and am bourne out by the script notation).

Back to the soul notion. Spike has a soul, albeit a demon one. "No hint of a soul" really presupposes a human one. I don't think that I would go so far as to say that souls are unchanging, but I believe that they are less changeable than life and circumstance. A soul encompasses a lot more than the guiding principle that makes you seek good or evil. For example, Spike has an overwhelming need to seek love. He was horrified to find that he loved Buffy, but knowing that, he could not even begin to struggle against it. We saw only momentary hesitation before he aided her against such things as invisible demons when he could potentially solve his dilemma through inaction. But right away we saw expressions of love, albeit twisted ones.

Which brings me to a point I have been mulling over. William and Spike share this need to love and be loved. They are both "love's bitch." Since Spike is all demon and William's soul departed, it's valid to ask whether Spike's love-need comes out of William's personality or there is indeed an aspect of this to Spike's demon soul? It's hard to believe that a demon would be so incapable of overcoming the ghost of William's memories, which leads us to ask why? Is it possible that a demon pure as that of Angelus would be incompatible with a William-vamp? That a demon with a defect such as the ability or even need to love was necessary for this vampire to exist? What does Dru's choice of William as her playmate say about Dru? About William/Spike? How can Spike's inability to triumph over the higher aspects William's nature be best explained?

Thoughts, anyone?

- vh


[> [> Re: Chips, souls, and demons who love -- Rufus, 15:38:42 07/20/01 Fri

From JWs last description of the soul, it's purpose seems to be to influence the direction naturally towards good behavior. You feel good by doing good. The infection of the vampire makes the soul take a permanent walk, and influences the vampire to naturally prefer evil. They feel good creating chaos. But one thing has to be questioned. The vampire needs the memories and personality of the host to function at all. So, if the person was not evil in life can that ability to prefer good and to love influence the vampire? I say to an extent, yes. The vampire is prefers evil, murder, consuming human blood. I think that is to remove them from the humanity that still haunts the form they are in. If you consider the Judge and his ability to destroy anything that had any humanity in them, you have to remember the fact he immediately detected the love and humanity still in Dru and Spike. Angelus was humanity free, I think because he had no ability to love in life so he was easier to corrupt. So, what is the chip doing to Spike. It certainly has stopped him from directly killing people, but he has always had the option to kill by proxy. The longer Spike doesn't kill people the more connected to humanity he seems to get. I have to wonder if the chip was a catalyst that allowed Spike a holiday from chaos, a long enough holiday for him to relearn his preferences. Doc asked Spike why did he even care? Yes, why does Spike care. With the chip, is Spike a sheep in wolves clothing?


[> That was a wonderful post -- JodithGrace, 15:00:49 07/20/01 Fri
Poll about Buffy and Angel shows. -- FanMan, 20:58:41 07/18/01 Wed

My poll is on what tv genres Buffy and Angel fall into...

Buffy; horror, soap opera, drama, comedy(fairly intilectual humor for mmmm...half of the humor), fantasy,"people growing up and living thier lives" common people! is there a genre that means that?(think so, but can't think of it now)

Question time! 1. Any other genres that Buffy falls into? 2. Why doesn't the show get much respect as an ADULT show? It is dismissed as a kids show TOO often! 3. What genres are the MAIN themes of the show? 4. All the regulars will agree that Buffy will be recognised as a tv classic sometime(probably five or ten years after the last episode of the show IMO), my question is how long before/will it become a mainstream hit like Star Trek?

Same questions about Angel. Feel free to add more questions that are similar, or even very disimilar(I'll probably enjoy reading ALL of your answers....:-)


[> Re: Poll about Buffy and Angel shows. -- FanMan, 21:36:44 07/18/01 Wed

I had not read the thread below called "A little offseason debate" when I posted this. Similar questions and discussion on that thread. Consesus(including me) is that Buffy is primarily fantasy/horror.

I do have questions that are not being addressed in that thread.


[> Classic/mainstream -- Millan, 02:00:28 07/19/01 Thu

"4. All the regulars will agree that Buffy will be recognised as a tv classic sometime(probably five or ten years after the last episode of the show IMO), my question is how long before/will it become a mainstream hit like Star Trek?"

As much as I love BtVS I actually hope there will be a last episode not too far in the future (say, in the end of season 7 or possibly 8). This is because no matter how well written and acted the show continues to be, with time even the best series will deteriate, thus making it into the mainstream show you talk about. I sincerely hope this will not be the case with BtVS, but in my heart I don't truly believe it .

Just taking two SF-series as an example, Star Trek and Babylon 5: ST to me is an endless stream of episodes, some good, some bad, most enjoyable but only a few truly memorable. Babylon 5 with its pre-thought-out story-line and limited number of episodes is (again, to me) much better. It's something I can watch again and enjoy, both for the acting and the story. Not something I will tend to do with most ST-episodes.



[> [> Re: Classic/mainstream -- Andy, 10:40:37 07/19/01 Thu

"As much as I love BtVS I actually hope there will be a last episode not too far in the future (say, in the end of season 7 or possibly 8). This is because no matter how well written and acted the show continues to be, with time even the best series will deteriate, thus making it into the mainstream show you talk about. I sincerely hope this will not be the case with BtVS, but in my heart I don't truly believe it."

Definitely. Even the best series fall apart eventually. I can't really watch The Simpsons or The X-Files anymore, and those used to be such incredible shows that it was almost impossible to imagine them going downhill so much. I tuned in to see the last Seinfeld episode and was shocked at how bad that was too. As far as Buffy goes, I'm thinking seven seasons will be it. UPN has ordered two more seasons, but they've admitted that Buffy will be a loss-leader for them considering the cost of the show. Then there's the fact that ratings have been declining for the past two seasons, and they'll almost certainly fall more since UPN is still not available in as many markets as WB. Put those two things together and I have a hard time imagining any networks putting up the money for more seasons after #7. Not to mention that I've never seen Joss mention anything beyond season 7 in interviews. Since season 4 I've seen him vaguely mention stuff that he had in mind for up to season 7, but he's never gone beyond that (although if the show did continue I'm sure he would come up with more stuff). I think he's aware that the show is running up to its limit and that Buffy will wrap up completely when the UPN deal runs out.

Then it's on to the movies... :)


[> Re: Poll about Buffy and Angel shows. -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 07:02:40 07/19/01 Thu

My replies (for Buffy):

1. In some ways it is a gothic exploration of fear in the classic sense (monsters=problems) and it has taken on some of the qualities of myth in season five. BTW, I don't think it is science fiction because that suggests to me that it is concerned with how things happen - it has much more in common with magic realism where things can happen with no explanation and the importance lies in the meaning and emotion that surrounds them.

2. Very new things are difficult for any establishment to cope with - the values are extremely modern (youthful?) and the show focuses on making people rethink their ideas (lame reasoning, I know, but I can't think of anything else).

3. The thing that impresses me most is the way that many of the show's themes combine a very emotional, irrational romanticism and a critical, self-aware postmodernism without allowing the latter to take over and turn everything into a meaningless, cynical mess.

4. I don't think it will ever become mainstream (is Star Trek?) but I don't know if that is necessarily a bad thing. Massive popularity can lead to complacency...


[> [> Well said! -- Cactus Watcher, 07:07:54 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Well said! -- FanMan, 19:00:23 07/19/01 Thu

Lurker Becoming Restless I will second that "Well said!"

When are you going to switch from lurker to regular? You have been "quite resless" lately! he he

2. Your reasoning made perfect sense, not lame to me.(grin) 4. On the subject of Buffy becoming mainstream; Joss has said that if he had a larger budget he might get lazy and substitute special effects for story/plots...horrors(that is genuinely a BAD idea!) I agree on the seven season limit, also a thread before mentioned that studios try for the "magic 150 episodes" Supposedly 150 EPs is enough for sindication where you do not get any repeats for a while and thus the audiance stays interested. More than 150 EPs and the salaries of the actors start getting outragious because any show that lasts that long will have some very famous people...

I would like alternative shows in the Buffyverse; we have Angel and the Giles show is coming sometime. As long as any other shows in the Buffyverse ONLY use the mythology of the show and do not try to copy Buffy they could pull it off without degenerating into the equivilent of the Star Trek franchise wich is VERY mainstream!

Other shows...wiccan focus(Charmed, but Buffyverse style anyone?), Paranormal investigators(X-Files investigates the Buffyverse!...BTW I would LOVE to hear Fox Moulder rambling on without a clue about demons and vampires in Sunnydayle!)

Other shows that MIGHT work if converted to Buffyverse style?


[> [> [> [> Other shows that MIGHT work if converted to Buffyverse style? -- d'Herblay, 21:34:50 07/19/01 Thu

I'm not sure what is entailed by "Buffyverse style," but in the wake of Buffy (and "X-Files" and "Men in Black") we're getting a lot of shows that are traditional genre-shows with supernatural elements. Especially on bottom-feeding networks--I'm thinking primarily of UPN's "Special Unit 2," which is "Dragnet" with werewolves and Sci-Fi's "The Chronicle," an occult "Lou Grant."

So, cops and newspapermen are taken. That leaves doctors and lawyers. And while "Sunnydale General" leaves me cold, I think I'd actually enjoy watching "Ally McWolfram."


[> [> [> [> [> AllyMcWolfram?....LOL -- FanMan, 22:46:07 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> Maybe Lilah McWolfram . . has potential dontcha think? -- Rattletrap, 12:04:23 07/21/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> Doctors taken too -- Marya, 00:32:40 07/21/01 Sat

Checked out All Souls on UPN? It's returning soon.

BTW hi all. I know I've been missing in action. Am alive but sadly not too well, hence I lurk.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Doctors taken too -- FanMan, 01:48:33 07/21/01 Sat

Lurk away!

Hi ho lurk today! Feeling down? lurk and laugh tomorow! Cheerio and well wishes...:-)


[> Re: Poll about Buffy and Angel shows. -- Sarah, 22:43:29 07/20/01 Fri

Buffy is very GOTHIC... it utilizes heavy character development, the use of anti hero's (such as spike to oppose buffy's true hero), dark imagry and dark humor. It goes far deeper than mere horror and actually gives the villian's personality.


[> [> Re: Poll about Buffy and Angel shows. -- FanMan, 01:56:56 07/21/01 Sat

Buffy is Gothic?

IF your examples define the genra of Gothic...cccooooolll!

Could you post examples of other shows/movies that have a large Gothic elemant?

I am ignorant of most aspects of Gothic lifestyle besides neat/weird clothes and dark or macabra worldveiws.(was even this ignorant?)

I do know there are several different types of "Gothic"

Allways learning, so I wellcome some/any clarification...:-)


[> [> [> Re: Poll about Buffy and Angel shows. -- Sarah(verry long), 09:11:42 07/22/01 Sun

Gothic is a style of writing/entertainment that took place during the romantic movement of the early 1800's. Books such as Wuthering Hights, the Castle Otranto, Dracula, Mary Shelly's Frankenstine, and even Jane Eyre have gothic components. Early gothic styles involve an innocent heroin to be corrupted intentionaly or unintentionaly by a villian. Usualy the villian is a normal man, or an attractive monster that forces his will on the heroin eventually breaking her. This literary movement faded out eventually. In the late 70's the gothic music revolution formed out of the punk movement. It had the same sence of freedome as punk but more of a dark and smooth tone. Along with this movement clothing and literature returned. Such books as INterview with the vampire and the Lost Boys became standard gothic. In the late 80's David Lynch experimented with Gothic realism as in Twin Peaks. As well as American Gothic in the mid 90's. In the 90's it was clear that the feminist revolution made the innocent victim in gothic obsolete. Women were often treated as strong as men in the battle against black and gray. And the vampire gained main status in gothic literature and movies. In the mid 90's forever Knight became a cult favorite. Like Anne Rice the Vampires felt love and hate and the battle of gray that exist in all humans. Vampires are human in excellerated form. Buffy and Angle are links to this chain. Buffy started out as old goth.. the villain attempting to corrupt the heroin. but after time villians became more gray and human.. becoming more new goth. Also the use of the antihero spike(heathcliff) the everyman Xander, Willow the wicch compelled by corruptive power but remaining good.. Tara.. who I belive took Dru's place as forsight. Also the use of dark humor.. madness and beauty make buffy a verry good gothic tale of the 21'st centuary


[> [> [> [> Gothic info. -- FanMan, 21:05:43 07/22/01 Sun


History and "flavor" of what Goth is...

I am wiser now, or at least have more knowladge:-)
Our Amy speculations confirmed *S6 Spoiler* -- Little One, 10:57:31 07/19/01 Thu

Well, our speculations that Amy will return to her human form in S6 have just been confirmed. According to the Sci-Fi Wire,

Buffy the Vampire Slayer fans have been waiting for one plot development for nearly two years: resolution of the fate of witch Amy Madison, played by Elizabeth Anne Allen, who was turned into a rat in season three. This week, Buffy creator Joss Whedon revealed this spoiler to SCI FI Wire for the show's upcoming sixth season: "Amy will be de-ratted. She will be de-ratted, I promise."

So now all that remains to be seen is whether Amy will be a force for good or evil. Personally, I feel that she will feel isolated from the human race because of her experience and will feel no compuction towards turning to dark magic, thereby becoming one of S6's minor big bads.


[> Re: Our Amy speculations confirmed *S6 Spoiler* -- Wiccagrrl, 14:38:46 07/19/01 Thu

Speculation. Of all the characters in the Buffyverse, I think Willow could most easily bond with Amy with regards to her use of magick and her approach to it. More so than even Tara, who seems to treat Wicca more as a belief system and religion and not just a means to an end. If Willow does start dealing with her new magical powers, adding Amy back into the mix could be VERY interesting.


[> [> Re: Our Amy speculations confirmed *S6 Spoiler* -- FanMan, 19:38:34 07/19/01 Thu

I do not want Amy to be part of the Scoobies. Gender ratio problems; need one or two more males on the good side!

Amy as a minor villian? Would be a waste; much more interesting if she is a grey character like Spike in season 4 and the first half of season five.(We'll have to wait for the next season to find out if he is still grey, hope so!)

Life is not black and white, good and evil, right and wrong etc. Morally ambiguas(grey and sp?) characters are good for debate and easier to empathise with than a perfect hero(wich we do not have) or an unredeamable ultimate evil...
Musings on trinities in the Jossverse or "Overthinking on Overdrive" -- Anthony8, 12:49:11 07/19/01 Thu

Just a few thoughts I figured I would throw out for discussion, if it so pleases the tribe...

Got to thinking how Buffy, Faith and Dawn form a little slayer/slayer/key trinity and how we might view this combo from a psychoanalytical as well as Eastern religion perspective.

It seems to me that, in psychoanalytical terms, Faith represents the id. She acts from animal instinct ("Want, take, have") without regard to consequences (at least until she turns herself in). She is all sex, all hunger, all instant gratification--living "in the now" in its most physical aspect. In a way, she is fulfilling the role of the Slayer as characterized by the First in 'Restless' ("We are alone! No friends! Only to kill!").

Buffy represents the ego. She's self-conscious, concerned with how she appears to others, and desires recognition for making certain sacrifices in the faithful execution of her duties. She is concerned with the consequences of her actions, but rationalizes some of her choices (love interests, protection of family) in terms of reward and/or entitlement. She's in limbo (at least, as far as we know, until her death), caught between the pull of Earth and Heaven.

Dawn is the superego. She represents the potential for higher consciousness, the product of creative energy and spiritual rebirth, and a return to innocence and the source of creation. She should be the new and improved form of what came before. It may be stretching it here, but maybe we should not think of Dawn as The Key, but as one of many possible manifestations of The Key (The Key, as filtered through, the Buffy-slayer template).

Okay, now my musings on the parallels with Eastern (I should say Hindu) mythology.

From this perspective Faith and Buffy would be seen as a Faith/Buffy combo portion of the trinity much in the way of the Brahma/Vishnu combo of Hindu mythology. Brahma/Vishnu are the Creator/Preserver aspects of Brahman, the source of everything. Brahma, after all, sits on a lotus that springs from the naval of Vishnu (Faith as Slayer is a descendant of Buffy in the Slayer line). Brahma breathes life into each new universe with the opening and closing of his eyes, but it is Vishnu floating on the Sea of Time, whose dream is "the Dream of the Universe."

Now Dawn. She is Shiva, the Destroyer. Shiva destroys to renew. While destruction is often construed as an evil force, Shiva represents the destruction that is necessary for the universe to progress. In a smaller sense this force is like that of a forest fire or volanic disaster that wipes the natural slate clean, but also replenishes the earth.

Am I overthinking? What do you think? Or does anyone out there even care?



[> Re: Musings on trinities in the Jossverse or "Overthinking on Overdrive" -- Rahael, 16:21:03 07/19/01 Thu

I have been discussing, reading stuff on another board re the stamp of Hindu mythology in Buffy, but principally in terms of the Slayer perhaps being cast in the mold of Shiva's wife Parvati/Kali.

Kali is the goddess of death and love.

I hadn't thought about it in the way that you suggest - I shall have to go away and think!

I could suggest another way that eastern religions have influenced Buffy - its view of evil does not come from an external satanic figure, but seems to emanate from the choices of ordinary and extraordinary people. Even the first evil could only suggest and goad, work upon the dark thoughts already present. Therefore, though Buffy is heavily loaded with Christian symbolism and ideas, it is different in this way.

Hinduism with its capricious GOds, the workings of destiny, its demons etc could present an alternate model. Giles used to keep a model of Shiva doing the dance of life and death in his office.


[> Re: Musings on trinities in the Jossverse or "Overthinking on Overdrive" -- Wisewoman, 16:37:30 07/19/01 Thu

Interesting. If Dawn represents Shiva then was she prevented from her destructive mission by Buffy's closing of the portal? And, if her mission is to wipe the slate clean was that accomplished with Buffy's death, or is it still to come?

I think these three fall rather more neatly into the id, ego, superego trinity, which is very perceptive. It's interesting too, that by sacrificing herself Buffy "became" Dawn in order to close the portal. Her rebirth or return then may show us Buffy as the "new and improved version of what came before."

We'd be left then Faith, struggling to overcome the id and moving toward the ego, and with Buffy and Dawn both as representations of superego.

And remember, you can never overthink on this Board!



[> Re: Musings on trinities in the Jossverse or "Overthinking on Overdrive" -- Cleanthes, 19:15:23 07/19/01 Thu

Ooh, I'll play this game!

An oft overlooked trinity scheme, these days anyways, is old Plato's. The Platonic trinity consists of Nous, Agathon & Psyche. Nous = the intellect able to apprehend the mystical forms. Agathon = the greater good. Psyche = the soul, interpreted Platonically, which is to say, a yearning for the eternal.

The beauty of this scheme is that there's no "evil" or wrong aspect. (and I think the Hindu division matches up with this quite a bit)

Anyway, I see Buffy as Nous, Faith as Agathon and Dawn as Psyche. My first thought was to switch Faith and Dawn, but I don't see it on further consideration.

Faith represents the greater good largely by counter-example, yet all her feelings of despair are colored by her feeling of *wrongness*. That's why she's so insistent to Angel that she's BAD.

Buffy's Nous status grows stronger every season. And NOW, we have death and transfiguration. Zarathustra and Osiris and Christ learn about the transcendental mysteries through death and rebirth. Good to see a woman breaking into that interior castle.

Dawn as psyche troubles me. We haven't seen her enough. I'm encouraged by the debate over whether she even has a soul -- if she debates this matter, I think she DOES, eo ipso. Still, doesn't she WANT to make sense of the universe and her place? She's the reverse of the Platonic concept (I'm thinking of the myth of Er) -- she WAS some eternal key but now is a finite being wondering about mystery.

OT Hey, a new webpage as of today (just getting started): http://hometown.aol.com/brule31x63/myhomepage/index.html

No Buffy stuff yet, but a bit of philosophy.
Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Squonk's Tears, 17:30:19 07/19/01 Thu

I know, this is completely O/T, but I'm curious (Not Curious the past poster), so here goes! Post yours and explain, if you wish to, why.

My favorite Canadian exports:

1.) Moosehead Beer (great college memories, involving a particularly special female friend)

2.) Rush (the band, not the physical sensation!). Why? Why not! Okay, Neil Peart's lyrics and beat wrapped themselves around my brain 20 yrs. ago and never really left.

3.) SCTV and Kids In The Hall. (Provided the perfect 2 am nightcap, at least in re-runs here in California, after a fun night out with friends)

4.) Nicole deBoer (She's simply cute and reminds me of every female I've ever fallen in love with).

Okay your turn.



[> Oops! I forgot... -- Squonk's Tears, 17:32:34 07/19/01 Thu

5.) Smarties-the world's most perfect Halloween treat!


[> [> Packaging with everything repeated in French? -- Cactus Watcher, 18:53:21 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> Re: Oops! I forgot... -- Tiny Snapdragon (formerly KendratVS), 20:28:53 07/19/01 Thu

Smarties are Canadian!?!?!? I love those things and never once realized :) They are a great treat any time, not just Halloween...Ok, I need to seek help for my sugar addiction now...


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Anthony8, 20:29:22 07/19/01 Thu

Okay I'll chime in.

1.) Joni Mitchell (the ultimate soul bandit).

2.) Man Servant Hecubus and Count Floyd (giving evil a bad name for two decades, and counting).

3.) Jeff Garcia (Okay, not a Canadian, but a darn good quarterback for my home team 49ers and an import by way of the CFL).

4.) San Francisco, my home town (these days, whenever a TV show or lower budget film takes place in SF, it's usually filmed in BC, i.e., 'Charmed').

5.) I have dibs on Nicole deBoer (Trill spots and all!).

Okay, that was sad. I was bored-what the Hell!



[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Shaglio, 20:35:26 07/19/01 Thu

1) Rush (I absolutely have to agree with you here)

2) Colin Mochrie (and add Ryan Stiles if he's Canadian too).

3) Our Lady Peace (an odd little band, but I can't resist their music).


[> [> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Shaglio, 07:25:07 07/21/01 Sat

OH MY GOD!!! How can I be so stupid as to forget THE greatest Canadian export of all time!?!?!?! HOCKEY!

P.S. Go Bruins!


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- voyageofbeagle, 20:41:18 07/19/01 Thu

-LaBatt Blue

-Moose Tracks ice cream (maybe not offically from Canada, but I always associate moose with Canada!)

On a side note, I went to college in Michigan, and love the fact that Canadian money (change at least) is totally accepted there- no one in stores questions it, and it is frequently given as change. I smiled yesterday when I reached into the change container in my car and came up with a Canadian quarter.


[> [> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Methodica, 22:30:59 07/19/01 Thu

Your happy you have our money. Hahaha I will trade you 10,000 of your Yanky money for 10,000 of ours ;-)


[> [> [> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- voyageofbeagle, 22:51:26 07/19/01 Thu

Well...no, seeing the Canadian quarter was more nostalgia for me. Anything bigger than a buck, and I'd have to pass;-)


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- OnM, 20:50:27 07/19/01 Thu

Not surprisingly, these are mostly musicians and actors and such, 'cos that's my thang, but Moosehead beer is OK too!


Joni Mitchell Bruce Cockburn Loreena McKennitt Kate and Anna McGarrigle

Genevieve Bujold Donald Sutherland

Margaret Atwood

PSB loudspeakers Plateau speaker stands and equipment racks

All of the CDCW members (meow!)

Cool Northern Air wafting southward into the US in the Summertime.

The movie Journey, by Canadian director Paul Almond (also released in Canada as Detour), one of my personal top 3 films of all time and which I cannot find either a VHS or DVD of anywhere, even by checking some Canadian video websites. Ultra-mega-el-extremoso-bummerific!!) I have an old and crumbling copy on Beta tape, and a S-VHS copy of the Beta tape for backup.

All the rest that I'm blanking out on at the moment, but will dutifully research and post later on sometime!



[> [> OnM at least remembers the CDCW's....and who could forget Smarties???? -- Rufus, 21:24:33 07/19/01 Thu

Our Canadian fur remains unruffled......:):):)


[> [> Loreena McKennitt (o/t) -- Wisewoman, 22:01:12 07/19/01 Thu

Absolutely my favourite all-time musician...I saw her perform in Vancouver several times, the last being one of her final performances. I found out recently that her fiancee and his brother had been drowned a couple of years ago in a boating accident, and she subsequently stopped performing and composing. I think she's getting back into some composing now, but it may be some time (if ever) before she performs in public. Sad... :o(


[> [> [> Re: Loreena McKennitt (o/t) -- Little One, 09:12:08 07/20/01 Fri

Really? I didn't know that was why she stopped performing. How tragic! I am moving Aug. 1 to a small town by Stratford, where she has her recording studio. I'm hoping to saunter casually by a few times, hoping for a glimpse. If I see her, I'll let you know since it would mean she is back recording!


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Slayrunt, 21:51:42 07/19/01 Thu

Here goes

1. Rush (best progressive band in the land)

2. Nicole deBoer (I didn't know she was Canadian)

3. Pam Anderson (thank you, thank you, thank you)

4.Triumph (hey, let's not forget the other power trio from the north)


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- d'Herblay, 22:02:32 07/19/01 Thu

(Discounting a Quebecois girl I had a crush on in college.)

When I was growing up in Cleveland, Ohio, before the days of cable television, we could pick up the CBC out of London, Ontario. On Sunday mornings, when Cleveland stations were showing religious programming or "Meet the Press," the CBC would show a half-hour of Porky Pig cartoons. For a five-year-old with no religious identification and a Warner Bros. jones, this was manna.

Cartoons on the Sabbath! My favorite Canadian export.


[> [> Why do you think they call us "Godless" Canadians? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 22:13:35 07/19/01 Thu


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Deeva, 23:11:07 07/19/01 Thu

Here's my paltry contribution:

-Scott Speedman -Nelly Furtado -I like Labatt Blue but Molson's commercials are kick ass! -And a Chinese sausage that is sold here that is the best. (I'd jot the name down but it probably wouldn't matter)


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Fainting In Coils, 01:37:25 07/20/01 Fri

-Doug And Bob Mackenzie ("Take off! Hey?!) -The Shmenge Brothers (Aside from Weird Al, the best accordion on this side of the planet!) -Ed Grimley ("I'm going absolutely mental, I must say") -"Limelight" ("All the world's indeed a stage and we are merely players, performers and portrayers, each another's audience outside the gilded cage.") -"Freewill" ("You can choose from phantom fear and kindness that can kill, I will choose a path that's clear--I will choose freewill!")


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Cynthia, 04:30:50 07/20/01 Fri

Gordon Lightfoot, Anne Murray, Michael J. Fox, Donald Sutherland, William Shatner and Peter Jennings (although he's been on my television on the nightly news for so long I consider him adopted :.)


[> [> If you're going to mention Shatner -- Cactus Watcher, 09:03:22 07/20/01 Fri

Scotty will be mad if you don't include James Doohan.


[> [> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Rattletrap, 07:05:19 07/21/01 Sat

Ditto on Lightfoot and Murray.


[> Smarties - Just our way of conquering the world in delightful tiny candy-coated bites -- LO/Canadianificus Terribilis, 09:08:19 07/20/01 Fri

And don't even get me started on Alan Thicke-our Canadian superspy!

hmm...to many Tim Horton's iced cappuccinos chilling my brain...


[> [> Mini-ode to Smarties--Uh-oh, possibly the start of a new round robin? -- Talking Drum, 09:22:43 07/20/01 Fri

Oh Smarties, Oh Smarties! Your subtle concavity satiates my tongue's depravity!



[> [> And from the famous work "Lord of the Smarties"... -- Talking Drum, 09:29:41 07/20/01 Fri

As sugar shock, oh that wonderful, familiar friend sugar shock set in, to his chest he clutched his treasured sack of Smarties, purring, "my precious, my precious."


[> [> Smarties plus green M & M's--the secret ingredient in Band Candy! -- Anthony8, 09:34:09 07/20/01 Fri


[> [> How about a song? -- LO/Canadianificus Terribilis, 09:58:42 07/20/01 Fri

Ode To Red Dye #6 (sung to "You Are My Sunshine)

You are my Smarties My Canadian Smarties You make me hyper When I am bummed If you ever know, dear How I'm addicted You would take my sugar high away.

ok, so I'm not Gershwin! I'm actually swamped at work, can't imagine why I'm so fixated on this Smarties sub-thread! Ahhh...Smarties. As a child I used to actually think they made me smarter and I would gobble them when my brainiac sister wasn't watching. Must have worked, now she's a brilliant lawyer at the top law firm in Canada and I'm a soon-to-be unemployed novelist..hmm.. something's wrong with this picture!

I like the blue ones Since they are new dear And the red ones They stain my hands But those brown ones What's up with those ones They can please go away.

Absorbic acid Canola oil And that sugar It can't be good How much artificial flavours do we need, dear please just let the natural tastes shine through


[> [> 'Nother poem -- LO/Canadificus Terribilis, 10:15:24 07/20/01 Fri

How 'bout a poem? In the theme of Lord Byron's ditty

She savours smarties like a night Of coloured clouds and sugared skies And all that's best in this delight Melt on her palate so divine Thus hyped up to that magic place Where candied colours swirl sublime.


[> Re: Name your favorite Canadian exports! -- Aquitaine, 09:36:16 07/20/01 Fri

1) Celine Dion (Mwahahahahahaha - Sorry, just checking to see if you are awake!)

2) Sarah McLachlan

3) Leonard Cohen

4) Michael Ondaatje

5) Michael J. Fox

6) Montréal masquerading as every city under the sun (Baltimore, NYC, Rome etc) in a myriad Hollywood movies

7) The film "The Red Violin"

8) Jacques Villeneuve

And... CDCW Smarties are good too :p



[> Okay, I can't stand it anymore...WHAT is CDCW???? -- Dumbwoman, the Godless Canadian, 11:39:33 07/20/01 Fri


[> [> OnM created us....Canadian Demon Cat Worshippers.....:):):) -- Rufus, 14:22:32 07/20/01 Fri


[> Rufus and Wisewoman ;) -- rowan, 12:28:45 07/20/01 Fri


[> [> Ooops! Yeesh, it's me!! How dumb can I get??!! lol ;o) -- Former Wisewoman, 15:45:02 07/20/01 Fri

does it really matter? Just a thought -- cknight, 20:01:46 07/19/01 Thu

I was thinking. If people who become vamps in Buffys world actually die...with the demon taking over the body. what does matter showing the past of these characters....Spike, Dru, Angel when they were human.

Why would...lets use Angel, why would Angel want to be human or care about feeling the sun on his face if he never really was human to begin with.

Just some stuff I thought of.


[> Re: does it really matter? Just a thought -- Wiccagrrl, 20:21:45 07/19/01 Thu

I think it matters because, in the Buffyverse, it's been established that the vamp does remember the human life, that the personality of the vamp is based, in large part, of the person they once were. It gives us insight into what drives them. Now, the soul is gone, and the demon is there and feeding the darker impulses, so that original personality gets twisted and is totally uninhibited. But there does seem to be some remnant of the original person there.


[> yes: "what we were, informs all that we are and will become" etc -- Solitude1056, 21:16:46 07/19/01 Thu


[> Have you noticed? -- Cactus Watcher, 22:10:35 07/19/01 Thu

All of our favorite vampires seem to have been total losers in life. Angel a drunken sot. Spike a pathetic fop. Darla a whore. Drusilla a half-crazed future old maid, who didn't notice there was something a little strange about the fellow on the other side of the confessional. Harmony one step down the food chain from Cordelia at her worst...


[> [> Re: Have you noticed? -- voyageofbeagle, 22:28:00 07/19/01 Thu

Yup. It seems as though self-loathing is a pre-req for the vamp life. It's sad, and damn if it doesn't make me feel sorry for every single one of them.


[> [> [> Re: Have you noticed? -- d'Herblay, 22:56:18 07/19/01 Thu

And the SG member who came the closest to becoming a vampire was Xander in "Buffy vs. Dracula" ("There's this whole thing where I get to be immortal"). And he was then at the nadir of his "butt-monkey" phase.

Becoming a vampire seems an act of submission. Dracula says, "You must be near death to become one of us. And that comes only when you plead for it." Those who have less to live for are closer to accepting death than others. This may be why Riley staked Sandy . . he wanted a taste of the dark side, but had enough going for him on the light side not to leave it.

In the vampings we have evidence of (other than those of Harmony and Sandy, which don't appear to fit the established ritual and mystify me), there is an element of volition. Ford in "Lie to Me" actively seeks the change. Spike, in "The Initiative," makes it clear that the choice is Willow's, not his. Those that have given up fighting in general will give up fighting in specific. And while Liam's only thought when Darla vamped him seemed to be "Bosoms!", William appeared to be thinking "This is no worse than life itself."


[> [> [> [> Reminds me -- Cactus Watcher, 08:49:10 07/20/01 Fri

During "The Wish" (season 3) both Willow and Xander had been vamped. Nothing earthshaking, but we remember what they were like when they met Buffy. I think Tara was pretty much a victim waiting to happen when she met Willow. Maybe Tara had enough inner strength not to agree to be vamped, but she concertainly was the Queen of Lack of Self-esteem. On the otherhand I don't think Buffy being vamped in "Nightmares" (season 1) means anything except that the concept scared her.

I think maybe Riley staked Sandy because he was so disgusted with himself for enjoying what she was doing to him. I doubt he ever would have agreed to be vamped. (Now watch Joss say, 'Oh yeah, buddy? I'll show you!')


[> [> [> [> did i miss this one? -- anom, 12:42:44 07/20/01 Fri

"In the vampings we have evidence of (other than those of Harmony and Sandy, which don't appear to fit the established ritual and mystify me), there is an element of volition."

I don't remember Sandy appearing before she was vamped, or any reference to how she became a vampire. Who was she before?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: did i miss this one? -- d'Herblay, 12:56:49 07/20/01 Fri

She was "Sandy" before. Vamp Willow took a large chunk out of her neck in "Doppelgangland."
The minions of Glory and the battered body of Bob Barker... -- Tiny Snapdragon (formerly KendratVS), 20:24:47 07/19/01 Thu

Let me preface my post with two off topic comments - I'm loving the recent postings - I don't know what I would do without this board! All of you keep me sane and reasonably literate (but I still can't properly punctuate to save my life)...Secondly - Intervention was on last night and I laughed just as hard with Spike telling Glory the Key was Bob Barker...very funny stuff...

OK, gushing aside - here is my question (which as usual, results from my fascination with the groovetastic one) - Glory's minions seemed to know her from her hell-god days, yet somehow, they too made it to the mortal coil of the Buffyverse. We never really learned much about the "hobbits with leprosy" aside from their sycophantic need to please Glory, so what I am wondering about Buffyverse metaphysics is; do lower demons and sundry baddies have an ability to get transplanted into alternate realities or somehow recognize heavyweight baddies that are transplanted into theirs? In essence, do they get some kind of demonic memo or a communique from Evil PTB HQ (Like the watchers were supposed to about Gwendolyn Post LOL)?

The Lei Ach demons obviously recognized Glory as an entity to be revered, even in her weakened state, and could maintain a bilateral conversation with her despite her speaking to them in English and they to her in Lei Ach, so I am just wondering if this sort of reverence and adoption of fealty to a major evil dignitary is part of the whole mythos Joss has created or if we are in for more backstory with ideas of the greater cohesion of evil forces. Good (as in Good with a capital G) has the PTB, and from minor allusions and encounters such as Willow's with D'Hoffryn, etc., I think it is evident that Evil has a comparable hierarchy. It just struck me that the creatures which served Glory certainly seemed to function in the capacity of retainers to a larger dark purpose - I may be veering way off the path of where Joss and Co. are going next season, but I find some of the premises that aren't explained intriguing and just hope that as part of the larger unfolding canvas we get a bit of insight into these type of things. Anyone care to enlighten my adled brain with theorizing, insight, criticism or just general speculation?


[> You gotta love the minions' goofy hand gestures when they present Spike as the Key. -- Talking Drum, 20:40:56 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> Re: You gotta love the minions' goofy hand gestures when they present Spike as the Key. -- Tiny Snapdragon (formerly KendratVS), 20:43:42 07/19/01 Thu

I was laughing so hard I was crying when they were guessing Spike was talking about The Price is Right !


[> [> [> Not to mention when one minion ran out of platitudes and could only come up with "oh...Thou." -- Anthony8, 20:46:50 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Re: Or the ever-so-famous "Oh good one..." LOL (NT) -- Tiny Snapdragon (formerly KendratVS), 20:50:14 07/19/01 Thu


[> [> [> Re: You gotta love the minions' goofy hand gestures when they present Spike as the Key. -- anom, 22:23:23 07/19/01 Thu

"I was laughing so hard I was crying when they were guessing Spike was talking about The Price is Right !"

I think I see a connection here...the hand gestures were very like those of any game show prize-indicating fancy-dress-wearing model you might care to name (but let's not)--no wonder they got the show right on the 1st guess! How much TV do ya s'pose minions watch anyway? (probably while Glory's out clothes shopping)


[> Tiny Snapdragon? I think you're turning Japanese, I think you're turning Japanese... -- OnM, 21:04:52 07/19/01 Thu

..I really think so!

(Sorry, semi-obscure song reference. I like the name though, good choice! ;)

Interesting thought, have to ponder it a bit, but off the top o' the cranium I'd say that there may be more interconnectedness between the various (Anya said 'thousands') demon dimensions than between our dimension and theirs, having to do with all the 'old ones' leaving/being ejected from Earth so many aeons ago.

Also, demons seem to have a pretty good knowledge of a lot of other demon species. So, even if the Hw/L* weren't from Glory's dimension, they may know of her and so she gets the auto-fealty thang automatically when she shows up. Doc knew of her too, of course.

*Note-- Nwly. crtd. abbrev. fr. 'Hobbits with Leprosy'.



[> Re: The minions of Glory and the battered body of Bob Barker... -- Deeva, 21:58:55 07/19/01 Thu

I think that the "demonic memo", or something like it, is how most demons know of each other. Anya mentions the other thousands of dimensions that there are and seems to know quite a bit about them. Of course, she's had something like 1100 years to find this all out, but none the less I'd say that most demons are pretty knowledgable about the others.

I'm not sure that the "hobbits with leprosy" followed Glory over more than existed in this dimension and just gravitated to her, moths to a candle you know. I have to say in watching "Intervention" again it made me realize how amazing it is that in one ep. you get amazing comedy, drama, action & romance. I just love the last bit of dialogue that Spike unleashes onto Glory that sets her off.

"Mark my words, the Slayer is going to kick your skanky lop-sided ass back to whatever place would take a cheap,whorish, fashion victim ex-God like you."

Fantabulous! As one ex-god said.

BTW, if it weren't for this site I don't what I would do myself. The wait is excrutiating. Ever since I came across you guys I've been hooked!


[> [> Re: The minions of Glory and the battered body of Bob Barker... -- Tiny Snapdragon (formerly KendratVS), 22:15:33 07/19/01 Thu

Hooked for life here as well...


[> Re: The minions of Glory and the battered body of Bob Barker... -- gds, 19:25:11 07/20/01 Fri

Every time I see it, I hear in my mind their voices doing a trumpet's "TA-DAA".
Into the Woods & Stephen Sondheim -- voyageofbeagle, 21:10:27 07/19/01 Thu

Not sure if this had been addressed as I found this site after the episode aired, but have you guys discussed the implications of naming an episode "Into the Woods"? I've read that Joss is a Stephen Sondheim fan, and there is a Sondheim musical called "Into the Woods". One of my college roommates was a musical theatre major, and this was the musical theatre department's final show senior year. So...I got to hear the music over and over and over and over (ahhh! flashbacks!) for months. The "show stopper" tune for "Into the Woods" is called "No One is Alone"

(Lyrics cut for repetition)

No one here to guide you Now you're on your own Only me beside you Still you're not alone No one is alone Truly, no one is alone

Sometimes people leave you Half-way thru the woods Others may deceive you You decide what's good You decide alone But no one is alone

People make mistakes Fathers, mothers, people make mistakes Holding to their own Thinking they're alone Honor their mistakes Everybody makes One another's terrible mistakes Witches can be right Giants can be good You decide what's right You decide what's good

Just remember someone is on your side Someone else is not While you're seeing your side Maybe you forgot No one is alone Truly, no one is alone

Maybe I'm reaching, but sheesh, so many lyrics jump out at me...any thoughts?


[> Re: Into the Woods & Stephen Sondheim -- OnM, 21:56:20 07/19/01 Thu

I think you may be the first to ever mention this connection, voyage, and no, I don't think you are reaching. 'Into the Woods' has a lot of connotations, Sondheim could certainly be a very valid one.

I knew that there was a Sondheim creation of this title, but I never brought it up before because I knew nothing besides that tiny fact.

Don't worry, someone here will know, so expect some clever thoughts anytime now, just not from me!


[> [> Re: Into the Woods & Stephen Sondheim -- Wisewoman, 22:11:28 07/19/01 Thu

The video of the Broadway production, starring Bernadette Peters (among many others) aired on PBS several years ago. It's absolutely wonderful...and I'm going to have to try and dig it out now so I can see what other analogies there are to the Buffyverse...



[> [> [> Re: Into the Woods & Stephen Sondheim -- voyageofbeagle, 23:20:22 07/19/01 Thu

Just had to post a further "Into the Woods" quote, from the wolf, who is so bad, but so damn charming...

"There's no possible way to describe what you feel when you're talking to your meal."


[> [> Re: Into the Woods & Stephen Sondheim -- purplegrrl, 08:34:57 07/20/01 Fri

Sondheim's "Into the Woods" is a musical retelling of Little Red Riding Hood.

Several connections in BtVS: * Oz as the wolf in the woods * Buffy dressing as Little Red Riding Hood for Halloween * that whole going-into-the-primal-unknown thing


[> Re: Into the Woods & Stephen Sondheim -- dan, 15:58:44 07/20/01 Fri

i'd be very surprised if the reference *wasn't* intentional. Joss has said that he's a big fan of good musicals, and Into the Woods is one of the truly classic '80s musicals.

For me, the reference revolves around the loss of innocence portrayed in the musical. The first act of the play is a bunch of fairy tales all woven together, with a big happy ending. then the second act hits, and it all goes to heck, as their mistakes and bits of hazy moral decision making come back to haunt the characters; many of the characters die at the hands of a vengeful giant (jack had killed her husband, you see) before she's stopped.

it reminds me of buffy and riley's relationship, because it looked so sweet and wonderful on the surface... but small, subtle mistakes that the two of them made led to a very dark and hurtful end of the relationship.

just some thoughts.

What does The Host have in common with Pee-Wee Herman? -- Wilder, 22:38:43 07/19/01 Thu

And, no, Caritas isn't that kind of hang-out.

Actually, I was just reading about Paul Rubens (who of course also cameoed in the original BtVS movie) newest venture as host of You Don't Know Jack. The article went on about his vanguard show Pee-Wee's Playhouse and how it had Laurence Fishburne and Phil Hartman in it and I suddenly realized why The Host seems so familar - he has that same kind of Je'ne se kwa (french word I can't spell but is a cross between mojo and style) of the floating bodiless Genie.

Wow, and that kinda connects back to the beheading in Pylea. Amazing! Brillant1 It all connects!

I think I need to go home and watch the Wizard of Oz and listen to Pink Floyd now.


[> Uh, yeah. It all connects. BTW, is it smokey in there, where you're at? ;o) -- Deeva, 23:13:55 07/19/01 Thu


[> I wouldn't call his role in the movie a cameo. -- vampire hunter D, 11:52:46 07/20/01 Fri
On the nature of spoilage -- d'Herblay, 23:27:14 07/19/01 Thu

I've tried to avoid spoilers ever since I logged on to boobtoob.net early this past season and saw that Carly Milne was running a "Riley Leaves the Show" countdown. But as info trickles out about S6, I'm becoming tempted. All I've seen so far is the sort of stuff Entertainment Weekly runs in its Fall TV preview issue, which is never that informative. But I understand there's more out there . . .

I can actually think of one instance where being spoiled enhanced my viewing experience. On the day of the season finale, Janet Millman (in Salon) wrote, "Word is, someone dies tonight, but producers are tight-lipped as to who." So I watched with the expectation that someone would die. And when Doc jammed the knife into Spike, I gasped and let James Marsters's life flash before my eyes. Then I said, "But that's no way to kill a vampire." It was a shocking, scary moment, and I don't think it would have had half the effect if I hadn't been keyed up for death.

On the other hand, in the promos for "Through the Looking Glass," for which I knew nothing in advance, the WB showed very clearly Cordelia aghast at the head of the Host on a platter. So when the episode ends on that very image, what should have been a shocking, scary moment was, instead, for me, a case of "Yeah, yeah, I knew that 55 minutes ago."

So how much spoilage is too much spoilage? (Please, in your answers, don't give away too much.)


[> I avoid them at all costs -- Masq, 11:27:15 07/20/01 Fri

After season 3 was ruined for me by "peeking" for exactly the same reason you were spoiled for the Host's disembodied head.

Not to mention getting ruined for Dru's return in "Dear Boy"! I would have loved to have been totally shocked and "yeah!" I unsubscribed to all my BtVS and Angel mailing lists on the spot.

Getting spoiled is tempting if it creates only anticipation. Mostly, it ruins the experience literature is supposed to make you feel.

I also don't read the last page of a book first.


[> [> Re: I avoid them at all costs -- Malandanza, 16:22:58 07/21/01 Sat

"Getting spoiled is tempting if it creates only anticipation. Mostly, it ruins the experience literature is supposed to make you feel."

I was not web-literate during the first two seasons of Buffy, so Angel's (albeit temporary) demise was a great shock to me -- I really did believe they were going to save him at the last second -- right up until Buffy put the sword through him.

On the other hand, I remember a (Greek) Mythology professor tell our class that the stories of the great plays were all known by heart before the plays were ever written -- so the people who went to see them knew the plot, the ending, the characters, etc., but they wanted to see how these familiar stories were portrayed. I think this is often true of Shakespearean adaptations -- we know the plot, but we still are interested in seeing how it unfolds. In particular, I am very familiar with Macbeth, yet when I saw Akira Kurasawa's "Throne of Blood," I was amazed. "Rosencrantz and Guildenstren are Dead" is another variation on a familiar play -- yet proves to be extremely interesting in spite of our foreknowledge of its ending.

Being spoiled this last season has, ironically, increased my interest in seeing the episodes. Instead of taking a more passive wait and see attitude about what will happen, I can speculate on how these events will take place.

I often read the last page of a novel when I am somewhere in the middle of the story :)


[> How Much is Too Much? -- Wisewoman, 11:43:31 07/20/01 Fri

I figure it's an *all-or-nothing* proposition. Being a little bit spoiled is like being a little bit pregnant...



[> [> OT Complaint -- FanMan, 21:27:07 07/20/01 Fri

I don't like movie comercials that give away the ENTIRE plot or all the good action/funny scenes.

Sometimes I see an ad and go "hey that looks cool! I want to see the rest" very disapointed when there is NOTHING besides the scenes in the comercial that I like.



[> [> [> Re: OT Complaint -- Nina, 09:49:13 07/21/01 Sat

It is interesting to see how much they give away in movie previews. Last time I went to the movies, I saw about (no jocking) 12 previews before being allowed to see the movie I wanted to see. Each preview lasted about 3 minutes. And all previews showed the entire story, including scenes that must be part of the ending. Sometimes I could say "hmm that looks interesting"..but after three minutes I had seen the condensed version of the movie and didn't need to see the all thing.

We can be happy that BtVS gives little away in its previews (they are often misguiding). I am even more happy that where I live I don't get to see them! :)

I have read many threads where people explain why they like to be spoiled, so I can understand their point of view, but personally I don't want to know anything from now on. I already know too much from previous Joss' interviews. I try to keep away from all information available. This board is great for that!


[> [> [> [> I like the wild ones. -- Solitude1056, 23:00:32 07/22/01 Sun

Back when Thelma & Louise came out, all the previews seemed to show you a happy-go-lucky pair of women out on a vacation. No big deal... and it was nothing like that.

Joss does the same thing when he spreads false rumors - all that talk about Melissa Gilbert, or whatever her name is. And Hank showing up, a huge custody battle, Faith surviving, Angel dying (again), Spike turning Buffy into a vampire... yup. I like the silly ones, the crazy ones, the ones where you gotta laugh at the total hilarity they must be having at Jossverse Headquarters. "How about this one, guys? Oh, man, just watch the fans fall over themselves when they hear this one!"

hehe. :-)
Lyle & Tector Gorch -- d'Herblay, 00:44:57 07/20/01 Fri

If you've ever seen Sam Peckinpaugh's 1969 movie The Wild Bunch, then you know that Lyle and Tector Gorch died south of the border in about 1913 with twenty or twenty-five gaping bullet wounds each. Yet, watch "Bad Eggs" and there they are, occasionally bumpy, prowling SoCal malls. Is this a case of vampire self-reinvention? (As Buffy said, "And you're sure this isn't just some fanboy thing? 'Cause I've fought more than a couple pimply, overweight vamps that called themselves Lestat.") Or are these the real deal?

I suppose that the Gorch brothers could have hung onto life until nightfall, when some scavenging vamp delivered them unto eternal unlife. But I've been wondering about the cases of Sandy and Harmony, both of whom were killed under circumstances that did not lend themselves to the time-consuming rituals of vamping. Is there another process of becoming a vampire that we don't yet know about?

speculation on why the monks protected instead of destroyed the key -- gds, 19:49:34 07/20/01 Fri

This is one of the unanswered questions. The only clue we have been given is from the General. He said they wanted to harness its power for good, but that they failed. Of course he couldn't know they failed because he didn't know what good they intended to do. Assuming that it wasn't just the perfectly good principle of not destroying anything unless absolutely necessary, we do have one specific very real possibility: they were saving it throughout the generations until they could give it to a very special person. A slayer who had a great destiny (I am a believer in OnM's QH theory). In other words protecting the key was not the major reason Buffy received the key. Dawn has & will play an important role in Buffy achieving her destiny.


[> Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- Liquidram, 23:02:26 07/20/01 Fri

The captured general explained to Buffy that the monks tried to use the Key for light, failed and paid with their blood. Buffy asked why the monks did not destroy the Key and the general responded "Because they were fools."


[> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- FanMan, 01:12:45 07/21/01 Sat

The General was DEFINATELY biased; I would not take his oppinions as the whole story of the KEY and the Monks...

My speculation(wich has disapeared off the discussion archives hopefully into Masquerades hard drive) is that Dawn will start experimenting with magic with or without permision next season. At the end of season seven Dawn will be VERY powerfull and will banish all demons from the Buffyverse...until a few decades before the Fray comic.

Went into more detail in those previous posts...


[> [> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- darrenK, 22:31:56 07/21/01 Sat

The whole "Dawn closes HellMouth and banishes demons" thing would be cool and a great way to end the show, but it doesn't leave much room for Buffy movies or spin-off's.

I'm sure the Powers that Write will figure out something.


[> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- gds, 07:04:00 07/21/01 Sat

The general's response was not a statement of objective fact - but of his own biased ignorance. He was blinded to any reality that conflicted with his one track obsession. Anyone who disagreed with him would be considered a fool. Typical of obssesed power types.


[> [> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- Sponge, 07:28:27 07/21/01 Sat

Er... Is it me, or does the general remind anyone of the Initiative colonel from last season?


[> [> [> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- gds, 15:57:11 07/21/01 Sat

The general was much worse he was absolutely convinced he knew everything. You can't learn anything if you think you already know it all. The Initiative colonel was full of bluster because he was afraid to publicly admit it, but he knew he didn't knew everything. If fate had given him time, he might have grown wiser. He didn't like the SG, but he was aware they knew things he didn't - and then he discovered they knew things about the 314 that he didn't. If there had been a few hours to discuss things, there is a chance he might have grudgingly cooperated. Unfortunately for him & most of the Initiative, he wasn't given that time.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- Rufus, 17:12:48 07/21/01 Sat

The General had one purpose in life and that was to fulfil his duty to destroy the key. That doesn't mean trying to figure out anything more than where it is and destroy it. When he found out that the key was a girl he decided that it had been pressed into a form. He was out to do his job no questions asked. The knights have been on the same quest for centuries the key may change form the quest to destroy it remains the same. The pity of it all is that what the General sought to destroy has a potential that he is uninterested in finding the answer to. If Gregor had been successful in killing Dawn would he have been a hero who had done his job, or would he be a criminal who used the chain of command to excuse murder?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- FanMan, 20:58:43 07/21/01 Sat

If the General had killed Dawn would he be a hero who had done his job or a murderer who used the chain of command as an exuse?

Both. Analogy is "horrible terrorists" from our perspective are heros for their cause...except for McVeigh! Minor point; the chain of command would not be his justification, it is a holy mission for the knights. For the greater good...

I would have been upset if Dawn were killed by anyone besides herself from a moral standpoint, Buffy's death was heroic. IF Dawn had succesfully killed herself that would also be heroic. If anyone else killed her it would be murder.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually it was explained in "Spiral" -- Andy, 21:18:08 07/21/01 Sat

I agree. I always figured that the monks and the Knights represented opposite extremes of religious stereotypes. The monks were the compassionate group who seemed to try and see the good in things; the Knights were more of the "slaughter the innocent if it be the will of God" mentality. I'm sure the general believed that what he was doing was the correct thing according to his faith, but it's easy to see Buffy's problem that if that's what's demanded of people then that's not a god worth following. (Hope this makes sense. I'm tired :))


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: foreshadowing of the Knights -- mundusmundi, 11:31:53 07/22/01 Sun

Interesting, looking back, how all this was foreshadowed ever-so-subtly in The Replacement, in the first scene with Buffy engrossed reading a book on the Crusades.


[> Re: speculation on why the monks protected instead of destroyed the key -- anom, 21:56:13 07/21/01 Sat

"This is one of the unanswered questions. The only clue we have been given is from the General. He said they wanted to harness its power for good, but that they failed."

Maybe, instead, they've already succeeded, simply by making the Key into a person who *is* good. Put like that, it sounds too simple, especially given the earlier discussion on whether Dawn has a soul (is the Key-energy her soul? or does it take the place of the soul?). But people who have souls also have the potential for either good or evil. By giving the Key a retroactive life with a family that loves her & has brought her up to be a good person, even with the conflicts brought on by divorce & adolescence, the monks may have predisposed it to good purposes. You could say this has been achieved not only by making the Key into Dawn but also through Dawn's relationships. Her existence has already led to the defeat of Glory & prevented interdimensional spillage from going any further than it did. If the Key had remained in its original form, Glory might have found & used it, & the world might have ended without Buffy et al. ever having known about her.


[> [> Re: speculation on why the monks protected instead of destroyed the key -- darrenK, 22:44:20 07/21/01 Sat

I suspect that over the next two seasons we're going to find out if the monks failed. Somehow, I think it would be quite a disappointment for both the monks and the fans if Dawn turned out to JUST be a clever young girl.



[> [> Re: speculation on why the monks protected instead of destroyed the key -- Rufus, 23:19:44 07/21/01 Sat

Is the soul a requirement for a being to be able to choose good? With the vampires we know that they prefer evil but that doesn't mean that they aren't capable of good. JW said that souls are amorphous, they have no substance that we can see, measure. A soul isn't a guarantee that a person can't decide to become as evil as the worst demon. With respect to Dawn I have always said how smart to send her to Buffy, in a home where she would be loved and protected. They used part of the Summers genes to form Dawn. They put her in a place where she could see what was at stake in the struggle with demons, and why humanity is worth fighting for. When Dawn was faced with the destruction of the world her first instinct was to jump into the portal to save the world. As a neutral mass of energy she could have been used without considering the consequences. Dawn was considered a Key, a tool to use. As a person Dawn got to connect with humanity and see it the good and the bad. I don't care if Dawn has a soul, her actions I can see, a soul I can only wonder about what it is.

Question, is the key composed of energy that can be formed not only into a person but a soul?
Classic Movie of the Week - July 20th 2001 -- OnM, 22:02:14 07/20/01 Fri

There are limits to reality.

OK, you knew that, and you probably knew that I know that, which I do, having just said it and all. I am only reiterating this rather obvious dictum because I need to establish a baseline for what I want to discuss tonight, which is (drumroll, por favor...) finding a way around those limits, because they're such a drag at times.

For example, it is a pretty much accepted principle of modern, largely Einsteinian-based physics that nothing in the universe having the characteristic of mass goes faster than light. This may be true, but if we (the collective human we) really want to explore the vastness of space as it beckons us with it's mind-expanding display of distant suns that speckle the night sky, the speed-of-light thing is going to be a major problem.

Light moves pretty fast, about 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, but that's still interstellar chicken feed when you consider that the nearest star to Earth is about four-plus light-years away, so even if we could somehow build a vessel that could travel at lightspeed, it would still be a nearly 9 year long trip, and that's a *looooonng* time to be away from home! What's worse yet is that most of the stars are dozens, hundreds, even thousands of light-years away-- megabummer for the sub-light-impared species we currently are.

But to quote the immortal Firesign Theater, "What is Reality?" Like all great existential questions, there is no simple answer. One can say this about it, though, and be reasonably accurate-- reality is sometimes something we discover, and sometimes something we intuit, and sometimes again, something we create. No, I'm not going to go into the 'subjective reality' concept again, although this week's Classic Movie seems to perceive it's particular macrocosm just a little bit in that manner. I am talking about the 'realities' we create in our imagination, both individually and collectively, and how we use them to metaphorically go faster than light. I'm talking about worlds that are created so well and so fully through the gift of an artist and/or philosopher that they leave us thinking that they do exist, somewhere, sometime, even though in our normal spacetime they are 'merely' works of fiction. Such worlds don't accept the limits of normal physics, or normal imaginations, and draw us in both despite and because of that transendence.

Joss's Buffyverse is, from our perspective as fans, one patently obvious example of this. It doesn't *really* exist in the sense that you have writers writing the words and actors acting the parts, and so 'in reality' it is only an entertaining fiction told by clever and imaginative people. But I think I can safely say that to most of us here at ATPo, a part of our mind somehow treats the Buffyverse as real. It involves us, we feel passionate about it, invest our intelligence and emotions in dissecting it's every nuance and detail, much in the way a physicist dissects the mathematics of creation and comes up with things like the 'speed of light in a vacuum'.

The Buffyverse has limitations, too. We gripe about 'plotholes' when something doesn't add up, or whether or not the use of a given magick should be discredited because it could theoretically be used to 'fix' anything. These are eminently valid points because this particular universe, unreal though it be, still involves flesh and blood humans, who interact in ways that must be reasonably delineated as human-like. Even when 'monsters' appear, they tend to have certain humanistic qualities. It is one of the limits of the form.

For some artists, these limits are simply too restrictive. They want to tell stories that either give humans far more flexibility than they really enjoy, or perhaps not even involve humans at all. How to do this? Well, you can bypass the need for human actors by taking your imagination directly to film via the technique of animation. If you can draw, or paint, or sculpt, or program, you can bring a story to life that moves and lives and (seems to) breathe but doesn't involve any actual-- living things. This can be very liberating for some artists, and while humans have been drawing and painting and sculpting for millenia, only in the last hundred years have we had the technology to animate the classically static artforms and place them up on our movie or TV screens.

Now, although a hundred years is but a grain of sand in the hourglass of the Earth, we have a tendency to assimilate every new technology and shortly thereafter degrade it by taking it for granted. Such has been the case with animation, in my humble opin, but lately there has been a rather pleasant reversal of that unfortunate trend. Humanity is coming to rediscover just how unique and different animation is, how it is like no other artform we are traditionally familiar with, and most of all how the 'realities' it creates can be those that we could otherwise never experience.

What brings all this up in my mind was when earlier this week, I managed to grab a few free hours and go see *Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within* at my local multiplex. Now, this film isn't going to go down in cinematic history for it's dazzling display of crafty scriptwriting, because it's just barely passable in that regard. It's also chock full of new-agey babblespeak with Gaia here and Eight Spirits there and yadda yadda and so on and so forth. None of this matters, though, and I do recommend that you check it out posthaste because of what it *does* successfully rewrite the book on, which is in managing to make computer animation look pretty darn close to what typically passes for photographic reality. You can believe the hype in this instance-- this is a groundbreaking film, and despite its weaknesses I enjoyed it a good bit more than the other video-game-derived flick of the summer, *Tomb Raider*, which I personally found somewhat disappointing.

So anyway, I am a serious fan of the art of animation, always have been. In recent years, I have been giving my youthful epoch a hearty old pat-on-the-back for correctly envisioning that someday, the rest of the world would come to see the staggering level of artistry and craftsmanship that goes into creating these reality-undoing flights of fancy. In animation we have the ability to create universes that otherwise simply could not exist, and could not be enacted with living thespians no matter how talented they might be. Up until now, far too many people, for whom the word 'Disney' expresses theier total knowledge of the animator's domain, have been unaware of just how far along this medium has come, or have seen where it is going to next. *Final Fantasy* is one such forward-reaching vision, the other is this week's Classic Movie, *Princess Mononoke*.

Just to make my own internal biases perfectly clear, I have not been very generous to Japanese animation in the past . I know that there are quite a few persons whose opinions I respect that are very into 'Anime' as it has become popularly known. Perhaps it was too many inadvertent exposures to 'Speed Racer' that did it-- I could never really tell whether the mind-numbing cheapness and cheesiness of that series was intended to be some kind of animated 'camp', a la the Batman TV show, or if they were all just graduates of the let's-not draw-any-more-cells-than-absolutely-necessary school of cartooning. Whatever, but I pretty much tuned out this species of cellmanship for a long time, but no longer, if *Princess Mononoke* is where Japanese tooning is in the 21st century.

The story takes place around the dawn of the iron age in Japan, and things begin when a warrior, Prince Ashitaka (voiced by Billy Crudup in this English dubbed version), meets and defeats a terrifying 'Curse Demon' but in doing so is 'poisoned' by it, thereby virtually ensuring his eventual demise. His only hope is to seek out the 'Forest Spirit' and be cured by it's touch. Thus, an epic journey begins, one which takes Ashitaka to an astounding variety of exotic places that are often beautiful, terrifying, or more commonly both at once.

One of those places is 'Irontown', ruled over by the Lady Eboshi (Minnie Driver), who is trying to carve a niche of what she sees as social advancement and progress out of the neighboring forests. The forest is none too happy about this state of affairs, and it's resident gods, depicted as Wolves and Boars and of course the Forest Spirit itself, are fighting a war with Eboshi to drive her and Irontown away, but they are not doing all that well.

An intriguing take on this conflict is that despite the obvious conservationist message contained in the story, Eboshi is not painted as a villian, but as someone with a valid point of view who defends that view. Were this film a standard issue from the Magic Kingdom, there would be little doubt left who is good and who is evil, but *Mononoke* isn't directed towards children, and so strives for a grayer-- and more honest-- depiction of it's primary protagionists.

The princess of the title is known as San (Claire Danes), and she is the 'daughter' of the Wolf God, Moro (Gillian Anderson). She is engaged in a well meaning but foolish attack on Eboshi and Irontown when she meets with Ashitaki, whom she wrongly believes is is league with Eboshi, but who actually is trying not to take sides. A skirmish ensues whereby Ashitaka is wounded, knocks out San in order to save her, and flees into the forest. Later, when the Forest Spirit appears and heals Ashitaka's wound, San decides that his life is not hers to take.

And this is only the beginning! It is hard to adequately describe the depth and detail of this movie, or the visual splendors it contains. Unlike 'Final Fantasy', the script *is* well done, the dialog by turns clever, funny, dark, and thought-provoking. The translation into English seems to have not harmed anything, which of course is always a risk with any dubbed film, and so we get to dispense with the possible distraction of subtitles. Be aware that just because this is a 'cartoon', it isn't automatically suitable for young children, the PG-13 rating is appropriate, largely because of some moderately graphic violent elements and the overall adult themes of the screenplay.

So, here we are, back after a visit to a fantastical world made only of ink and paint and imagination that somehow still manages to speak to us in ways that the Realverse can not, and will never do. The tools of this trade may change and adapt, and in future a time may come when microprocessors and hi-res monitors take the place of ink and paint, but right now we are privileged to live in the one time in history when both are alive and well and leaving us in wonder. Please seek out *Princess Mononoke*, and savor the wonder of traveling faster than light.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



The Animated Technological Universe per se:

*Princess Mononoke* is available on DVD. The film was originally released in 1997 in Japan and 1999 in the US. Running time is 2 hours & 14 minutes. The original theatrical aspect ratio is 1.85:1, which is the same on the DVD, and the video format is enhanced for 16x9 televisions (anamorphic). The film was directed by the Japanese 'God of Anime', Hayao Miyazaki, who also wrote the original Japanese screenplay. The English version screenplay was written by Neil Gaiman. Music is by Jo Hisaishi. The sound mix is Dolby Digital 5.1, with an alternate soundtrack in French. Disc 'extras' include a featurette and the theatrical trailer.

Character Voices are performed by the following Realverse humans:

Billy Crudup .... Prince Ashitaka Claire Danes .... San, The Princess Mononoke Gillian Anderson .... Moro Keith David .... Okkoto John DeMita .... Kohroku John Di Maggio .... Gonza Minnie Driver .... Lady Eboshi Jada Pinkett .... Toki Billy Bob Thornton .... Jigo


Final notes & whatnot & The Question of the Week:

In last week's Sunday Philadelphia Inquirer, film critic Steven Rea makes the following very interesting comments and observations:

Final "Fantasy"? Not likely. Hironobu Sakaguchi and Chris Lee have big plans for Aki Ross, the beautiful heroine of... 'The Spirits Within'. So what if she's just a bunch of pixels? There's a movie careeer here, they're sure.

"Sakaguchi wants to take the Aki persona and put her in another film, and in different genres of film, as if she was a real actress," says Lee, who produced... 'Final Fantasy'... with game designer/filmmaker Sakaguchi.

To that end, the brainy Aki has already appeared on the cover of Maxim magazine, and scripts are in the works with the idea of bringing her back-- with real human actress Ming-Na supplying the voice-- in another photorealistic CGI feature.

"Are we ever going to get to the point where real actors will be supplanted by synthespians?" Lee asks. "I don't think so, because for one thing, it is real actors who provide the voices" for the digitally spawned characters, he says.

"For another thing, there are many types of pictures-- from initimate dramas to romantic comedies-- that a digitally rendered actor just wouldn't be suited for. You need your Harrison Fords and Julia Roberts, and real flesh-and-blood movie stars are not going to go away."

(Above excerpts copyright 2001 / The Philadelphia Inquirer/Steven Rea)


First off, I gotta admit, I absolutely *love* the word 'synthespian'. It's just so-- neat!

Question(s) of the Week:

Are these guys for real? Could it happen? Should it? What do you think?

Post 'em if you got 'em... Bye!



[> OT to Sol1056 or Liq or other HTML geeks... -- OnM, 22:21:21 07/20/01 Fri

Is there a way to indent or set margins in HTML that I could use to keep my movie posts from cramming against the left side of the screen? They look nice and properly marginalized in my word processor and/or on my printouts, but after I cut and paste 'em to post here the text is way off-center on the screen.

Can I fix this? Thanks in advance for any help you can provide!



[> [> Here are two ways -- Liquidram, 22:54:44 07/20/01 Fri

You can either use no-break spaces (as many as you require for your indent. They are a single pixel each. the code is:

[ ] = 3 spaces (you wouldn't use the []'s - they are only here so this message doesn't see them as html code.

for each blank space you want.

The other is to use my handy little dot.gif which you can identify as many pixels as you want.... for example: [IMG SRC="http://ivyweb.com/dot.gif" width="10" height="1"] Of course, the []'s should be <>'s. (If you are terribly confused, and at this point I am too :) you can email me and I'll walk you thru it with examples.


[> [> ok, the msg saw it as code; lemme try again here -- Liquidram, 22:57:14 07/20/01 Fri

You can either use no-break spaces (as many as you require for your indent. They are a single pixel each. the code is:

& n b sp ; The true code would be with no spaces between the symbols and letters. Five in a row would give you 5 pixels of blank space which can fake a good indent.

I know you're confused now... maybe it would be best to email me. :)


[> [> Re: OT to Sol1056 or Liq or other HTML geeks... -- Solitude1056, 07:13:23 07/21/01 Sat

to indent everything, put this at the beginning of your post:

and at the very end of your post, put:

if you want to put spaces at the beginning of each line, it's a little funky. I honestly don't know anyway to do it other than to use the following code to "add" a space:


this put an extra space in there... if you want five of them, then just copy that five times & put that string at the beginning of each line. awkward, but it does the trick.


[> [> [> thanks Sol... I didn't remember the quote code so my instructions could actually be seen.... duh -- Liquidram, 14:09:09 07/21/01 Sat


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 20th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 22:28:53 07/20/01 Fri

Are we ever going to get to the point where real actors will be supplanted by synthespians?" Lee asks. "I don't think so, because for one thing, it is real actors who provide the voices" for the digitally spawned characters, he says.

"For another thing, there are many types of pictures-- from initimate dramas to romantic comedies-- that a digitally rendered actor just wouldn't be suited for. You need your Harrison Fords and Julia Roberts, and real flesh-and-blood movie stars are not going to go away.

"Could it happen? Should it?"

From what I've seen of the promos for Final Fantasy and interviews with Ming Na, it already has. Aki Ross does not just make use of Ming Na's voice, but her entire physicality. The animation here is so good it begs the question of whether we'll still need human actors. These characters are human, only better.

How old is Harrison Ford now? With this technology he could still be playing adventure heroes like Indiana Jones in 20, 50, or 100 years. There's so much of his voice recorded now that synthesizing it, even after he's dead, is not going to prove much of a problem. We've entered the world of William Gibson's Idoru...

It occurs to me that, someday, the wheel will turn again, and the novelty of living, human actors on screen will become a major sensation. (I probably won't be around to see it, though.)



[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 20th 2001 -- FanMan, 01:41:46 07/21/01 Sat

OnM Your eloquence fills my heart...thank you.

Regarding your question; some company did try to create a digital character(actually several to varying degrees...) however it will take AI(real thing, not the movie) before we have a real continuation of personality for a digital personality. To rephrase; what we have now is 2-d or 3-d modeling and bitmapping graphics programs, amazing yes, but the personality is still provided by external sources of human voices and animation teams.

The day will come...and I hope both of us see the wonders of the future.



[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - July 20th 2001 -- Nina, 09:24:52 07/21/01 Sat

OnM, Thank you!!! The column is not only wonderful, but the movie you picked is a work of art! What is reality? That's such a good question. You talked about stars. Yesterday for the first time in many months the sky was very dark and bright. I could actually see about 50 stars (not much, but better from the 10 or so I can see usually!). That exact question came to my mind. I was looking at some stars and I was looking at the past. Many of these stars have disappeared. Reality is all a question of perspective.

As for "Princess Mononoke" this is one of the best movies I have ever seen. A friend of mine recommended it to me and I first said "no way!". I am not a fan of action, violence and Japanese animation. Yet, that movie answered a lot of questions. It changed my perspective on life. The moral is so profound at the end that it is mindboggling. Not to say that the art department did a wonderful job. The lighting in this movie is a work of art. I was savoring each image as if I were in a museum looking at some masterpiece works.

I bet that on a movie screen it must have been even better! :)

Thanks for reminding me of that one...I'll rent it again!


[> [> [> [> Now that you have a small taste for Japanese anime... -- Anthony8, 12:34:27 07/21/01 Sat

may I recommend that you get a hold of a copy of 'Akira'? It's epic, futuristic, and well, a bit hallucinatory. Try it, you'll like it. C'mon, you know you wanna!



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Now that you have a small taste for Japanese anime... -- Nina, 13:00:16 07/21/01 Sat

Okay...I'll try it! My local video store is not wonderful though. I hope they'll carry it! :) Thanks!


[> [> [> [> [> [> They should have it, I think it is considered a "classic" of the genre. -- Anthony8, 13:27:29 07/21/01 Sat

Even though it was only produced in 1988 (89? I'm not sure, I rented it about five years ago). I'll probably get the DVD when it comes out in a few months (or so I've heard).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Anime's that all others should be measured by... -- AngelVSAngelus, 00:45:02 07/22/01 Sun

May I suggest everyone check out the following:

The aforementioned Princess Mononoke is my current FAV anime, my second being Perfect Blue. Akira comes in third, and Ghost In The Shell after it. As for those that had previously stated they weren't into action and violence and associated it with anime, keep in mind that a) anime is like any other forum of entertainment, there is the trite and derivative and there is the wonderfully innovative, and b) Buffy happens to be quite action packed and violent.


[> Should've known you were a fellow Fireside Theater freak. -- Solitude1056, 12:35:59 07/21/01 Sat


[> [> err... Firesign. Sheesh. Braincore dump. -- Solitude1056, 13:26:15 07/22/01 Sun

Video clip of JM on Spike in love -- Liquidram, 15:01:22 07/21/01 Sat


Wait thru the MickyD's commercial and there it is.


[> Re: Video clip of JM on Spike in love -- Nina, 16:11:54 07/21/01 Sat

My computer can't read it and I can't seem to get the plug required to play the video. Would you mind telling us about it? (it can be the gist of it really!)


[> [> Can't view clip? Try... -- Anthony8, 16:24:26 07/21/01 Sat

If you have a Windows-based computer, click on the windows media choice. If that still doesn't work, you can download the Windows Media Player for free at http://www.microsoft.com under downloads or possibly, updates. Unfortunately, I think it's a fair sized download over a standard 56k connection. I'm not sure how this all works if you have a mac. Maybe someone else can chime in to help you if that's the case.



[> [> [> Here's the transcript -- Liquidram, 17:27:07 07/21/01 Sat

"I think unconsummated love is inherently more dramatic than consummated love. I think that a lot of series have fallen down when *they* have gotten together and there's a real danger in bringing those characters together and I think there's a big upside in keeping them apart. I enjoy the fact that my character is in love again because when we met him he was in love. That was the primary interesting thing about Spike, for me, that he was a psychopathic killer but at the same time he was the most gentle lover and the most gentlemanly lover that you could get...and how the hell is that? We haven't seen him like that. He didn't like Harmony very much, he was taking revenge out on all women by the way he treated Harmony. But to see him truly in love again, I think, we're getting back to what was originally interesting, for me anyway. And I think that it can motivate him towards acts of heroism or villainy. Love will do that to you."


[> [> [> [> Re: Here's the transcript -- Nina, 20:03:01 07/21/01 Sat

Thanks Liquidram! :) Chocolates for your kindness!

A8, I have a mac, so maybe that's why it's not working!


[> [> [> [> [> Don't blame Macs -- Masq, 09:37:07 07/25/01 Wed

It's more likely you simply don't have the necessary software on your computer, but the software certainly is available for Macs


[> [> [> [> [> [> The software you'd need is RealPlayer -- Masq, 09:52:43 07/25/01 Wed

There is a free down-loadable version (not sure of the URL) www.realplayer.com??? It's simpler than the for-purchase version.


[> Nice Clip! -- Cactus Watcher, 16:50:49 07/21/01 Sat


[> Re: Video clip of JM. Guys, he's wearing that same tank top! -- Deeva, 23:17:09 07/21/01 Sat


[> *sigh* -- be still my beating heart! -- rowan, 06:33:37 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> Speaking of your beating heart....why aren't you writing for us?? -- Liquidram, 19:06:32 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> By the time I saw what was going on, it was too late -- everything was already planned out! :( -- rowan, 14:34:19 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Not true... we have a few holes that we would love for you to fill with your excellent prose -- Liquidram, 15:29:06 07/24/01 Tue
Spike/Willow similarities -- Simplicity, 19:49:10 07/21/01 Sat

Weird similarites (cue Twilight Zone theme). . .

In Graduation Day, prt 2. . .

Willow (re: battle with demon mayor)

What about the part where we kicked demon ass? I didn't hate that. ************************************************************ In Doomed :

Spike (to Willow and Xander, after finding out he can kill demons):

What's this? Just sitting about watching the telly when there's evil afoot? Not very industrious of you. I say we get out there and kick a little demon ass! *********************************************************** In WOTW. . .

Spike (confused by the scoobies inability to recall the Ben/Glory change) You do remember?

Is everyone here very stoned?

Willow (confused by scoobies reactions)in Doppelgangland. . . It's nice that you guys missed me. Say, you didn't all happen to do a bunch of drugs, did you? ***********************************************************

Vampire Willow in The Wish . . . This is the part that's less fun, when there isn't any screaming.

Spike and Willow in The Initiative . ..

Willow: I'll scream!

Spike (grinning) Bonus.

Not to mention. . .

1. Both have a crazy girlfriend 2. Willow/Willam 3. Willow/William are bookish 4. Unrequited love Spike (Buffy, Cecily) Willow (Xander --which was briefly requited) 5. Wicked need for chocolate. (Spike with hot chocolate, Willow for mochas) 6. Both have been cheated on (Drusilla/Angelus, Oz/Veruca)

I can't help but wonder if Spike will help Willow explore her darker side this season.


[> Re: Spike/Willow similarities -- voyageofbeagle, 20:38:04 07/21/01 Sat

There was an awesome post by "sassette" over at Cross and Stake a few days ago about this same topic. Unfortunately, it got drowned out by "Spike is evil. Buffy + Angel 4ever" posts.

She delved more into their motivations- both trying to overcome extremely insecure pasts with their current power.

One of the things that did come out of the thread is an idea, which I found very interesting, is a kind of parallel story line next season- Spike, by nature evil, choosing to do good, while Willow, by nature good, choosing to do evil.

I will go and try to find the post. I like this idea!
Question in NPLH -- Kerri, 10:28:17 07/22/01 Sun

Hey everyone! I haven't posted for a while-I recently got back from vacation. So, I'm back and I hvae a question for you all:

In NPLH the night watchman who Glory brainsucked tells Buffy, "They're coming at you. Don't think you're above it, missy. They come through the family! They get to your family!"

Buffy takes this to mean that Joyce's illness is supernatrally cause but we find out later that that isn't the case.

We also know that there often is some truth and insight in what the crazy people say. So then what is the significance of this statement?

My only theory(and I'm probably way off here) is that its a reference to the slayer's death wish. That death takes a hold by taking away the people who are important to Buffy.

Ok-so what did you all take that statement to mean?


[> Re: Question in NPLH -- mundusmundi, 11:25:26 07/22/01 Sun

In NPLH the night watchman who Glory brainsucked tells Buffy, "They're coming at you. Don't think you're above it, missy. They come through the family! They get to your family!"

At the time, I took it to mean a threat too...and I do think Joss was leaving that possibility open, in case MT and her chemistry with the other characters didn't pan out. Now, though, if you read those lines without the crazy/hostile tone, it could be a way of telling Buffy that Dawn is special. "They're coming at you. Don't think you're above it. They come through the family." If the monks are they, then it changes from a threat to a reminder to Buffy that her family comes first, over even her slaying.


[> Re: Question in NPLH -- Wisewoman, 11:26:13 07/22/01 Sun

Well, my initial reaction, since Joyce's illness wasn't related to Glory, is that the Watchman is referring to Buffy's other family member, Dawn...which is, indeed, the way Glory got to Buffy.
Parallel between Angel and Buffy and Buffy and Dawn -- Kerri, 10:39:28 07/22/01 Sun

Compensating for the fact that I haven't been able to post for a while here's another one.

Buffy seems to mean to Angel the same thing that Dawn means to Buffy.

Buffy was the reason that Angel began to do good. He saw in her the goodness there can be in people and was inspired to make something of himself. Buffy taught Angel that there is good in the world and that there is a reason to try and save humanity. Buffy also showed Angel that you need to fight to live-that eventhough its a struggle there is a reason to go on. Angel opened up to Buffy like he had never opened up to anyone before and became more human because of it.

The same pretty much is true of Dawn's impact on Buffy. Dawn allowed Buffy to reconect with humanity and the people she saves. Because of Dawn Buffy realized why being the slayer was so important. She realized that people are good and worth saving. Dawn also taught Buffy that there is a reason to keep living, a message that Buffy tells Dawn before she jumps into the portal. Buffy is able to embrace her humanity because of Dawn, much like the way Buffy makes Angel more human.

So-with that said here's a question for you: How do you think Angel will handle Buffy's death?

Will he see no reason to live and no good in the world much like Buffy felt at the prospect of losing Dawn.

Or will Angel be inspired by Buffy's message and her sacrafice to do good?


[> Re: Parallel between Angel and Buffy and Buffy and Dawn -- Wiccagrrl, 11:05:13 07/22/01 Sun

I've been wondering this for a while now- just how will Angel react to Buffy's death? And, to be honest, I just don't know. I can't really see him going over-the-top po'ed like with Darla. I wanna say serious depression, back into brood mode (maybe even near-suicidal). And then, maybe at some point a renewed determination to do good- to honor Buffy's life and sacrifice by fighting the good fight. The one scene that's been kinda playing in my head is a scene between Spike and Angel- maybe at Buffy's grave- where Spike gives Angel a metaphorical kick-in-the-arse to get him back on track.


[> Awkward situation -- Cactus Watcher, 13:52:07 07/22/01 Sun

With "Buffy" moving to a new network, we have a situation like a divorce with the Angel show. We expect that the Angel show will atleast mention Buffy again, but we can't expect too much. The two networks are in competition for viewers and won't take kindly to pluging the show that belongs to the other guys. I have the feeling, just a feeling, that on the Angel show, Buffy the Slayer may stay dead. I doubt the Scoobies will even mention Angel again after the first new episode or two. To answer your question due to business issues Angel will grieve and move on. If Angel does good or evil from now on, it will have little to do with Buffy.
Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- Solitude1056, 18:27:24 07/22/01 Sun

So, there's a crew of folks working on this strange little keep-ourselves-occupied summertime activity (aka the strange adventure into fanfic, a term I truly detest)... and for those of you keeping up with it, you may have noticed that it's set sometime after Buffy returns. Why? Simple: we have no idea how she'd return, and some of us don't even want to try to guess. That said...

One of the major things in the Jossverse, as many have noted, is that Joss moves his plots via characters, and not the other way around. For instance, let's all be God - err, Joss - for a second and say for the purposes of the plot development that we need to have Willow in the same location as the bad guy, so they can cross paths. Well, the bad guy's from England, and so far we've seen him drinking hot tea like the world's ending tomorrow (which, knowing Joss, it just might). And Willow, as everyone knows, lives for mocha. Hmm. If this were second-rate TV - which is 90% of TV, IMO - then we'd just have Willow decide that today she's hankering for some Earl Grey. And then she goes to the tea store, meets the bad guy, hijinks ensue, etc. Only problem: it wasn't in her character, any more than it'd be in the bad guy's character to trot down and pick up a cappachino.

This makes for some difficult plot developments if you have characters who, like Tara and Anya, would rather just stay the hell out of the way. Such as in Intervention, when Anya would have willingly stayed home rather than patrol - but it's Xander's character to go for the honorable "holding up his end" routine in Buffy's absence. The variety and complexity of characters is the only thing that saves Joss, in some ways, but relying solely on the characters creates an inherent integrity within the Buffyverse.

Ok, all that said... I don't grok about 90% of the Buffy-comes-back theories so far, which is why I personally opted out of "how Buffy gets back" in spoilers, just as much as I avoid them elsewhere. Why? Let's see what the big theories are right now, and everyone else tell me if I'm totally off-base or if there's something I'm forgetting.

1. Willow brings Buffy back.

No. I just don't see it happening - not without a LOT of machinations on Joss' part, and I don't think he would sink that low when there's got to be other options. For starters, Willow opting to try Buffy's return would be jeopardizing her relationship with Tara, if not ending it completely. That's crossing a line Tara may not be willing to forgive. And there's Dawn, who's already played with that fire and proven herself above it, and she's Buffy's sister. I doubt she'd take kindly to having her sister's sacrifice so quickly tossed aside.

There may be overwhelming reasons for wanting a Slayer around, such as the continued existence of the Hellmouth. But the Scoobies proved themselves capable under pressure during Weight of the World, and I can't see anything but selfishness driving the wish to have Buffy back. The cost of doing so would simply be way too high, and I don't think Willow would risk her relationships with everyone else just to have her best friend back. However, I can see her grappling with it extensively and suffering a great many sleepless nights while she grieves - and helplessness and a wish to do something are part of grieving.

2. Doc (or another bad guy) brings Buffy back.

Here, we might not have the ethical or emotional quandries about bringing someone back... but we got something bigger. You wanna have a bad guy bring back the one person that kicked his ass, along with the Master, the Mayor, Adam, and Angelus? Hello? Moronic much? It just doesn't make sense - I'd expect every bad guy in a hundred miles to be dancing on Buffy's grave, not making plans to bring her back. First, why? Second, uh, why? Assuming you could bring her back as a puppet, wouldn't she then be lacking the very energy that made her such a strong opponent, the same energy that you might be intending to turn to your own purposes? It's too much of a two-edged blade, and Doc didn't strike me as that stupid. Adam, maybe. Doc? No, I don't think so. I'd expect him to go after Dawn, now that Buffy's out of the way... and that brings us to:

3. Buffy comes back on her own.

Angel came back thanks to the First Evil, and I don't think it's impossible to have Buffy reborn thanks to the First Good, or whatever passes for that in the Buffyverse. Frankly, she's got a character that would not be willing to head on into that dark night if her sister - the main reason she jumped - were in some sort of danger. If any character would be willing to reverse the sacrifice, it would be Buffy herself. It's also the only way that the rest of the Scoobies could accept her return without some violent infighting and serious emotional fallout.

So... what do you guys think?


[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- Cactus Watcher, 19:41:46 07/22/01 Sun

Whether you like what happened or not, reality was so badly twisted last season, that it may not make sense to worry about what is the most logical way for Buffy to return. But, if I were called upon to choose the definitive way for Buffy to comeback, it would have to be similar to the way that Angel was brought back. I completely disagree that Angel was brought back by a First Evil. I don't care where you read it. I don't care whether Joss Wheadon swears up and down that was the way it was supposed to play out. That is n-o-t what happened on the screen. Who brought back Angel? Probably The Powers That Be. Why did they wait till the moment they did to bring him back? Because that was the moment Buffy gave him up. Remember the ring? It was the moment we all should have realized that Angel and Buffy could NEVER be a permanent couple again. The return of Buffy hopefully will be that kind of dramatic turning point. If it's a matter of 'Gee, we missed you! Now back to the old routine!', then the whole business of Buffy dying was a cheap trick. I don't think we're going to get a cheap trick. If it's going to be well done I don't want to know the details till I see the final product.


[> [> Sorry about the tirade, but... -- Cactus Watcher, 20:09:53 07/22/01 Sun

even Angel's return 'to himself' this season was not the plan of Evil. He was supposed to see he couldn't defeat evil and to despair. Wolfram & Hart tried to show him what he was doing was futile. Instead he decided very fact that he fought was in itself important.


[> [> Heh, it's like terrorists. -- Solitude1056, 21:02:25 07/22/01 Sun

You're right that we don't specifically know who or what brought Angel back... we only know that a) he did return, and that b) soon afterwards something calling itself the First Evil claimed responsibility. Maybe they wanted the extra press or something. But it boils down to the same thing: when Angel came back, it wasn't because the good guys *or* the (local) bad guys were jonesing for him. It was due to the involvement of an otherwise invisible or previously non-acting force.

I dunno how it'll happen. I trust in Joss! I just wanted to point out some of the issues I have with the current spoilers, and was wondering if anyone else felt the same way.


[> [> Re: Angel's Return -- Brian, 05:12:24 07/28/01 Sat

Maybe it's the Romantic in me, but I always thought that Angel was brought back by Buffy's love. When she placed the ring on the floor, it became the focal point of a lot of energy that reached across the dimensions and pulled Angel back to this one.

When Buffy was talking to Giles about if anyone had every come back from hell, he replied that it had never happened to his knowledge.

For me, this just showed how special their relationship was. Again, the Romantic in me believes that eventually Angel and Buffy will be back together and find some happiness.


[> [> [> Re: Angel's Return -- Rosenberg, 21:38:14 07/28/01 Sat

It's a very romantic/interesting notion, and while when I first read it I instantly wanted to argue but now that I think about your theory adds a great mythic element to Joss's universe. You know, where the love is the strongest ever and the enemy the most powerful, etc etc etc. It doesn't have to be real as long as it has a deeper meaning.

But since I do like to argue, and what's a philosophical debate without somebody being purposefully contrary, here's my instant contradiction. Why would Angel and Buffy's relationship be powerful enough to bring him back from hell, a place where supposedly nobody ever returns? I mean, come on. A 250-year-old vampire with a soul, who has seen and done things Buffy couldn't have imagined at the time they met, and a 16-year-old high school girl. Granted, she is the Slayer, but still, she's a 16-year-old high school girl. Basically, I never understood the logic in their relationship at all. Tell me I'm not the only who didn't like that couple? Anyone? Er, I shall return to the little lurker's room now . .


[> [> [> [> Re: Well, Love is the greatest power in the Universe! -- Brian, 21:49:25 07/28/01 Sat

I always thought the love between Buffy and Angel was really special. It had never happened in the Slayer world before. So pulling Angel back from Hell just seemed like a natural occurance in the Buffyverse, demonstrating just how different and powerful Buffy really is. And if she comes back from the dead - Just wow!


[> [> [> [> Well, Love is the greatest power in the Universe! -- Brian, 21:51:16 07/28/01 Sat

I always thought the love between Buffy and Angel was really special. It had never happened in the Slayer world before. So pulling Angel back from Hell just seemed like a natural occurance in the Buffyverse, demonstrating just how different and powerful Buffy really is. And if she comes back from the dead - Just wow!


[> [> [> [> Well, Love is the greatest power in the Universe! -- Brian, 21:54:13 07/28/01 Sat

I always thought the love between Buffy and Angel was really special. It had never happened in the Slayer world before. So pulling Angel back from Hell just seemed like a natural occurance in the Buffyverse, demonstrating just how different and powerful Buffy really is. And if she comes back from the dead - Just wow!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sorry about triple posting, my machine has gone mad! -- Brian, 21:56:02 07/28/01 Sat


[> [> [> The Ring -- Cactus Watcher, 08:49:03 07/29/01 Sun

Think about the ring. When one person gives another a ring in a marriage or engagement, or a even a ring or some other piece of jewel to wear all the time when going-steady, it's a symbol of the commitment and promises the two make to each other. When that person stops wearing the ring in a divorce or a breakup, it means sysmbolically that one or both of the people have decided that the promises can no longer be kept. Buffy didn't bring back Angel by clutching the ring and weeping, "I love you! I love you! Come back to me!" Instead Buffy got as close as she could to returning the ring to Angel. She put it down, turned her back, and walked away. Angel did not appear instantly. Buffy had time to go back and get the ring to keep it. But, she didn't. After Angel returned their relationship was never about finding a way to make it work. It was (as it turned out) about finding a way to break it off, even though they knew they would always love each other.


[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- Liquidram, 20:30:28 07/22/01 Sun

My theory was always that somehow Willow and Tara would turn back time with the SG retaining their memories of that night and doing things differently. I won't reiterate the details, because now, after working on our story and reading some of Joss's summer interviews, I know it's not the way.

I think Angel would have had a major part in her return had the WB demons not destroyed the crossover potentials... oh well... wonder how much that messed up Joss' plan considering he said he had this story arc worked out at the end of Season 3.

I like the idea of her return staying ambiguous in our story, unless it becomes absolutely necessary to bring it into the plot.

As far as the fanfic term, I consider fanfic mostly to be stories of one ship or another. Our story, although there maybe a bit of shippiness somewhere, somehow, is more than fanfic.


[> [> digression on the definition of "Fanfic" -- d'Herblay, 21:06:10 07/22/01 Sun

Did I miss a memo on the redefinition of fan terms? I thought that fanfic referred to any fiction by a fan. I thought that fanfics which emphasized shippiness were called slash fiction (though I think of them as K/S stories, which shows my age). Or is slash fiction only shippy stories that are semi-pornographic?


[> [> [> Ooh, I dunno. -- Solitude1056, 21:20:38 07/22/01 Sun

I thought slash was, uh, R-rated fanfic, but I've read stories that were considered "slash" by some but no sex occurred. I think excessive shippiness gets labelled slash. I dunno. I dislike fanfic, because I tend more towards folkloric traditions in storytelling, so "the continuing adventures of..." doesn't bother me. I mean, hell, you think all the Robin Hood legends were thought up by the same bored guy? Naw.

I'd rather play with the notions of Campbellian hero archetypes in our summer of discontent... and consider our ongoing dialog to be "storytelling" instead of "fiction"... but I doubt even these talented writers doing the stuff are gonna be able to stretch that far. That's just too big an notion to cram into an otherwise small story. But hey, I can dream.


[> [> [> [> Re: Ooh, I dunno. -- Liquidram, 01:38:55 07/23/01 Mon

I've usually seen slash warnings when the sex was between the guys. Not my cup of tea reading NC-17 (I'm a romantic and prefer the tender love scenes to the graphic sex.)


[> [> [> Re: digression on the definition of "Fanfic" -- Cynthia, 04:22:54 07/23/01 Mon

As I understand it:

Shipper - relationship stories. Pairing of characters. From romantic to sexual depending on taste.

Slash - same sex relationships, either sex. As explicit as author decides.


[> [> it's been done already -- vampire hunter D, 12:02:07 07/23/01 Mon

Sorry to dump on your theory, Liq, but that turning back time idea sounds way too much like the season finale of Charmed. And when they did it it sucked. Actually, the whole show sucks. And I expect more out of Joss than to rip off another (and clearly inferior)show.


[> [> [> Dump away! -- Liquidram, 15:27:06 07/23/01 Mon

I have never seen Charmed, but if I had, I would have had to sit down to control my shuddering at the idea of imitating they do on that show... :)


[> Re:Rebirth, and Consistency (Be afraid! Be very afraid! it's long) -- d'Herblay, 20:49:47 07/22/01 Sun

Agree fully with your Willow assessment. I posted similar sentiments at Above The Law (but no one responded to them so I started coming here instead).

You bring up three possibilities for Buffy's return:

A) It's an act of good, which you and I both dismiss.

B) It's an act of evil, which I supported in my ATL post but begin to doubt when I look at your argument.

C) It just sort of happens, which you would attribute to Buffy's own volition. "Frankly, she's got a character that would not be willing to head on into that dark night if her sister - the main reason she jumped - were in some sort of danger. If any character would be willing to reverse the sacrifice, it would be Buffy herself." Can Buffy bring herself back to life? The characters in the Buffyverse we've seen who did not go gently into the night became ghosts. I don't see Sarah Michelle Gellar playing a ghost for two seasons. I wouldn't use Angel's return as an analogy. While he was sucked into hell, he never actually died. But mostly, I'm dismissive of this possibility because I always found Angel's return dissatisfactory. It was a terribly wrenching experience to watch Angel die and to see Buffy punish herself for it, and then, splat!, he falls out of the sky and it's business as usually, only with celibacy. Buffy's death was hard on me. I don't want her return to be easy.

Let me proffer some other possibilities:

D) It's a morally ambiguous act. Which could mean anything from it being an act by morally ambiguous agents (the Watchers' Council, being motivated, are favorites here) to it being an evil act by a good person (Willow again) (or vice versa--work that chippy goodness, Spike!).

E) It's a complicated act that defies moral analysis. When I think about Buffy, I think about the great heroes of literature who returned from the dead: Spock, Superman, Sherlock Holmes, Sledge Hammer. We know that two things will happen in October: 1) Buffy will return from the dead; 2) Sarah Michelle Geller will play the lead role on the show. We cannot assume from these facts that Buffy will be played by SMG, or only by SMG. (I'm thinking Superman's death here.) Perhaps there will be multiple resurrections resulting in multiple Buffy-avatars each representing a different facet of Buffyness. Perhaps there will (now I'm thinking of Spock) have to be a combining of some mysticality to return to us the Buffy we know and love.

But what I mostly ask of the resurrection is that the manner it occurs come as a complete surprise to me, and, when it happens, I say, "Of course! That's the only logically and emotionally satisfying possibility!"

I don't think that's asking too much.


[> [> Re:Rebirth, and Consistency (Be afraid! Be very afraid! it's long) -- Nina, 21:04:05 07/22/01 Sun

"But what I mostly ask of the resurrection is that the manner it occurs come as a complete surprise to me, and, when it happens, I say, "Of course! That's the only logically and emotionally satisfying possibility!"

I don't think that's asking too much."

Be confident! Our imagination never seems to imagine what Joss can. Personally I absolutely don't buy any SG member bringing Buffy back. Even though Doc seems a stupid choice I still like the idea. He could have a way to control the new Buffy, to make her his "slave" or something. Okay sounds bad. What can I say I just love the guy! I personally expect anything but the obvious. I mostly expect that we won't get an answer for about 6 or 7 episodes. Buffy will probably just come back without any explanation and fans will scream on all the boards "what the hell is that??????" until finally a crumb of an explanation will be thrown to us. People will scream again "season six sucks!!!!!!!" and then by some miracle a better explanation will come again and fans will stare at their screen saying "Joss is god".

That would be pure Joss fashion, no? ;)


[> [> [> I repeat after Nina: I have faith. Joss is God. Joss will not lead us wrong... !! -- Solitude1056, 21:21:54 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> I guess my issue is that we're working backwards. -- Solitude1056, 21:16:18 07/22/01 Sun

First: your post was SHORT. Yes, SHORT. You wanna read some long posts, I could name ya some doozies... but it's okay, I won't mention any names... OnM. *cough*

Second: I agree about the wanting-a-surprise. And I think Joss is up to the challenge, if I can just not THINK about it. Problem is that we know those two things: Buffy's coming back, and SMG is playing Buffy. (You're right, we don't know if she's the *only* one playing Buffy, though. Hm, weird notion but kinda cool.) So that's why I brought up the example I did: we have a plot point, but we just have to figure out how to get the characters to that point so our plot can move forward. And right now I don't see any of the characters willingly moving towards the goal (of Buffy's return) other than Buffy herself.

I was just wondering if I'm missing something in any of the characters, or perhaps there's someone out there who can convince me that Willow's got reason to want Buffy back... and bad enough that she'd cross Dawn, Giles, Tara, and possibly the rest of the gang.

Btw, that's the other reason I'm uncomfortable with the "hey! let's use the Buffybot!" plotline. Thinking about it, I tried to put it into terms nearer to me. Let's say my own sister is the one who died on my behalf. Even with the most pressing issues possible, I don't think I could handle having anything to do with an exact, machine, duplicate. A part of me would have to deal, all over again, with my sister's death, every time I saw the machine duplicate. And another part of me would be longing to make the machine into my sister somehow, the same way Spike wanted the Bot to be Buffy, so he could momentarily forget that he wasn't dealing with the real thing. It's one thing to do that with someone you love who exists elsewhere... it's another thing to do that about someone that you know is never coming back. Talk about emotional masochism. In Dawn's place, no matter how much Willow argued, I'd be dead-set against the Buffybot having anything to do with me. I just don't know if any loving grieving sibling could handle it without significant repeated trauma.

(If you're not convinced that it does cause emotional chasms when a person interacts with a duplicate of a dead loved one... watch someone's face when they hear a voicemail message they'd not listened to, only to discover it's someone who'd died recently. Or, like a friend of mine, was listening to a tape made by his mother, about a year after she died. Halfway through the tape, she spoke aloud near the machine, and it recorded her voice. He about jumped out of his skin - and then promptly burst into tears. It can be that painful, and entirely unexpected.)

So I guess that part of the spoilers - the buffybot - is my biggest issue. If the Buffybot is part of the plotline, then Dawn had better be looking like death warmed over, so to speak, when the cameras start rolling. If she isn't, I'm not gonna be believing much about the start of the season. I just can't see a sister handling that well, at any age.

Of course, I could just be a little bonkers myself, being very close to my own sister. But that's also part of the reason I can relate to Dawn, however vicariously (since, thank the gawdz, my sister's alive).


[> [> [> Please use Spoiler tags!!!!! (*Spoiler*) -- Nina, 21:29:20 07/22/01 Sun

I know it was hidden in your thread but I didn't know a thing about a possible Buffybot spoiler!!!!!!! I still want this board to be friendly to me!!!! Please! :) :) :)


[> [> [> [> Ooops... my bad. Sorry! -- Solitude1056, 21:32:14 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> Yes, Sol is very, very , very ...naughty......:):):) -- Rufus, 21:45:52 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> waiting for it... "you must now spank me!" "And me!" "Oh, and me too!" "Yes, spankings for all!" -- Solitude1056, 23:03:20 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tell the truth...you've been into the catnip.......:):):) -- Rufus, 23:14:18 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Naahhh.. it's just that damn Grail Beacon again... -- OnM, 05:33:20 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> yeah man... the colors... :-) -- Solitude1056, 08:54:31 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't spank yourself Sol! :) I just... -- Nina, 09:27:48 07/23/01 Mon

pointed it out because at this time of the season peole tend to be less "formal" with spoilers tags and I still don't want to know anything! :) It's not that bad though as I don't believe that particular spoiler for anything in the world!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, where's Camelot when you need it. -- Solitude1056, 11:08:42 07/23/01 Mon

Crazy thing is, Nina - like I mentioned below - some spoilers just seem too silly to even consider. And some just, well, don't seem like Joss. They're too crass, or obvious, or go against the characters somehow. Frankly, I don't consider anything we're getting so far to be anything but wild speculation, so I'm not sure how much are "spoilers" and how much are someone's personal fantasy that they've put on a webpage. Since if it's on the Internet, gee, it must be true. But anyway...

For some reason, your comment caused a minor brain spark in my head and suddenly I must wonder... hm, will complete this comment in another post, responding to one of the speculation responses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't want to spoil the party here!!!!! -- Nina, 15:13:50 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spank me, Spike....I've been a bad, bad girl. -- rowan, 15:03:20 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't think Sol had Spike in mind when the request went out for a spanking.....:):):):) -- Rufus, 15:25:20 07/23/01 Mon

rowan, you tellin me that Action Spike isn't up to the job??????....:):):) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's between me and Action!Spike; I'll loan my Action!Buffy to Sol :) -- rowan, 16:49:21 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think Sol would prefer an Action(evil)Willow...:):):) -- Rufus, 17:15:16 07/23/01 Mon

If you can't find evil Willow, a regular one will do, just spread some blood of the innocent on her face and she will be ready to make Sol her puppy.....:):):)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We're a sick, sick crew. ;) -- rowan, 17:17:34 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And the problem with that is??????:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:19:04 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, I think it's "we're sick," but Rufus 'n Rowan are the Glitter Twins of Sickoness! :-) -- Solitude1056, 06:29:53 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, I resemble...er...resent that remark! (Evil!Willow pervert) ;) -- rowan, 09:20:25 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nope, too late. You're the Glitter Twins o' Evilness now... bwahahahaha! -- The Second Evil, 10:42:03 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bwahahahaha yourself, tell it to the grabby chocolate hand......:):):) -- Rufus, 13:23:33 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> And yet another defintion of "evil hand" -- Evil Hand O'Chocolate :) -- rowan, 14:27:31 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Isn't that Grabby evil hand of chocolate......can't forget the grabby.....:):):) -- Rufus, 17:17:30 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Seems to me Lindsey had a grabby evil hand when he goosed Lilah -- Masq, 12:22:11 07/26/01 Thu


[> [> [> Regarding the spoilage regarding the buffybot -- d'Herblay, 21:29:23 07/22/01 Sun

If two clicks back was a short post, this one will be miniscule.

The only spoiler I read about the Buffybot was on this board, but I got the impression that it would be used only to convince the powers that be (not TPTB, but less supernaturally ones such as Family Services) that Dawn is in a home with a legal guardian and does not need to be placed in foster care. I think that Dawn would suppress any adverse feelings under those circumstances. It would be tough, but it would be necessary.


[> [> [> [> Disregard! There never was and never will be a Buffybot spoiler -- d'Herblay, 21:32:44 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> Um....a small correction (spoilers for S6) -- rowan, 15:01:53 07/23/01 Mon

There are Buffybot spoilers running around (do spoilers run? or do they just kind of infect? or bleed? It's.Always.About.The.Blood.). Casting sheets have been purportedly discovered which reference the Buffybot impersonating Buffy as Slayer under Willow's direction. See Herc's spoilers on AICN.

Now, speaking of the Buffybot, this is where I find the whole thing unbelievable. I can see the SG trying to hide Buffy's death so that the Hellmouth doesn't get all hellmouthy again, but how in hell could any of them stand to be around the Buffybot? Especially Dawn and Spike? I mean really. How could a young girl who had lost both her mother and sister, plus discovered she was an ancient Key thingy, survive being around a facsimile of the sister who sacrificed her life to save her? And Spike....my God, the poor monster sobbed his heart out when she died. How could he stand to be around the BuffyBot, especially if it kept coming on to him? The road to redemption is paved with alot of hard cement...and Giles? Wouldn't this send him into an alcoholic binge?

Sorry, I'm ranting, but the whole thing is incomprehensive to me from the standpoint of character (although plotwise, it is a fit).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Um....a small correction (spoilers for S6) -- mundusmundi, 15:54:36 07/23/01 Mon

Yes, I toyed briefly with the idea of the Buffybot, before filing it under vampire hunter D's bluntly accurate opinion a couple weeks ago: "It's just too stupid." In theory it could work, but in practice I just can't see how it couldn't look bloody ridiculous. Buffy's dead, there is no Slayer. Bite the bullet, Scoobies, and honor her memory.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Um....a small correction (spoilers for S6) -- Solitude1056, 06:31:44 07/24/01 Tue

Sorry, I'm ranting, but the whole thing is incomprehensive to me from the standpoint of character (although plotwise, it is a fit).

That's exactly the point of my original post - that sure, spoilers are interesting... but I've yet to hear any that fit the characters. Without spoilers, IOW, I never would've thought: "gee, we could use the Buffybot!"


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, Sol, I usually am one to repeat the obvious! :) -- rowan, 18:47:07 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Bored with the 'bot -- darrenK, 21:19:07 07/28/01 Sat

Yeah, and among the 50 things that are annoying about the Buffybot is that it has become like the swiss army knife of plot tricks eg "We need to find out what Spike's thinking, why not impersonate the 'bot?; "We need to distract Glory? Why not have the 'bot impersonate Buffy?

To be honest, one more round of the 'bot will be too many. The 'bot is no longer fresh, it's a way-too-simple, leftover hamhanded plot, um, device.

The other issue is that Joss has very pointedly said that Buffy's death is real and bringing her back is going to be difficult and strange. The buffybot would be a Buffy placeholder, something to keep the legal and emotional reality of Buffy Summers alive. It keeps her death from being complete. It also limits the complications that would come from her rebirth/resurrection/reanimation/whatever, therefore limiting the plot options of the whole situation e.g. if Dawn is being cared for by the Buffybot, then Buffy can slip right into the 'bot's place without anyone but the scoobs noticing. No custody battles. No bureaucratic snafu's. Convenient, but boring and unrealistic. Very unBuffy.

The same spoilers that indicated Season 6 beginning with Willow, Tara and the 'bot caring for Dawn, indicated that Gile's will have gone back to England after Buffy's death. I can't see Giles having left Dawn, even if it was to the care of Willow and Tara. He was too close to Buffy and too close to Joyce. He might even be holding himself responsible for Buffy's death. I can't see him just packing his bags as if there were no more responsibilities for him. I think he'll wait until Buffy is back for that.

If I turn on my TV on Oct. 9 only to see that darn robot I'm going to be awfully disappointed.


[> [> [> With regards to the Willow part of my "prolog" -- Talking Drum, 21:42:18 07/22/01 Sun

Take a look at Anthony8's post below. I'm in agreement with him. In terms of our collective work, and my "prolog," in particular, which implies that Willow was responsible for Buffy's return, what if we amend it to create a small backstory subplot in which Willow tried in secret to bring Buffy back, but her efforts failed and backfired, nearly killing her? Having never fessed up to her earlier aid to Dawn, she keeps this secret as well, but is also intoxicated by the knowledge of her own growing power (inasmuch as she convinced herself that she was actually very close to achieving the task)? Okay, maybe that's just way too much backstory. In any event, I vote for Buffy to come back mysteriously.



[> [> [> [> Blame this on Nina. -- Solitude1056, 11:12:06 07/23/01 Mon

Between this, and Nina, and other random thoughts, it suddenly occurred to me: what if Willow, realizing she couldn't - or wouldn't - bring Buffy back, put her magical studies away, supposedly permanently? What if that was a part of her grieving? I don't know what that would do to the story, but I could see it as conceivable: "I was powerful but not powerful enough - I couldn't help Spike, couldn't stop Doc, couldn't save Buffy" etc, etc. One chance is that Willow will go to the extreme of learning as much as possible to prevent a recurrance. But it never occured to me that perhaps the other and equally likely extreme is that she'd go overboard to blame herself and throw magic away (at least temporarily) as a result of her apparent failure.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Blame this on Nina. -- Nina, 15:16:14 07/23/01 Mon

Do I finally share something with Spike? They used to blame Spike for everything.....now it's me! Boo hoo....hidding in some corner with lots of chocolate!!!!! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> I have this rule about sharing....keep Spike toss over the chocolate...:):):) -- Rufus, 15:27:39 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> Unhand Spike and back away from him very slowly.... -- rowan, 16:50:45 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> rowan, I think you have forgotten your lessons on sharing.....:):):) -- Rufus, 17:17:26 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Look who's talking, grabby chocolate hands. :) -- rowan, 17:19:35 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You sure you two weren't separated at birth? -- Solitude1056, 06:33:25 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, you've offended my grabby chocolate hands.......:):):) -- Rufus, 13:20:21 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> Buffybot in season six...speculation not spoiler -- FanMan, 22:19:28 07/22/01 Sun

Legal issues of who has responsibility and authority for Dawn. As it stands at the end of The Gift only Dawns'father has legal famillial(sp) authority.

The Watchers Council has a lot of influence as Giles mentioned in Checkpoint. Giles could ask for thier help in adopting Dawn.

AFTER Xander and Anya are married they would have a good chance of adopting her(being married is a VERY BIG plus for adoption services)

Willow and Tara? Not likely, and not because of their lesbian relationship(minor issue actually). Neither has a known source of income or job; that is an important criteria, and another good point in Xanders favor is his "crew manager" status and income.

Scenerio of Buffybot going to the school or wherever to talk about Dawn? Several problems. Unless Dawn continues to skip classes, there is no reason why Buffy would nead to talk to the school counseler or family services. Another issue is the Gravestone at the end of The Gift, the only way that would exist in a graveyard is if there is an official death certificate for Buffy. If Buffy is officially dead having the Buffybot do ANYTHING in public would be very suspicious! Weirdness factor of Buffy dead and a robot that looks like Buffy, but acts much different...oooohhhh boy was the Buffybot perky!:)

Final point regarding Dawn; even if it takes a while to establish OFFICIAL guardianship, any of the SG could have her stay with them indefinately being "freinds of the family" The mission of familly services and adoption services is to make sure the child is happy and safe...


[> [> [> [> Oh Hank, where are you? -- Liquidram, 01:49:44 07/23/01 Mon

We have shared alot of speculation with Hank's apparent disappearance. Even if he and Joyce had an acrimonious relationship it would stand to reason that he would he around for his daughter(s) when she died. The fact that he did not show up for Buffy's birthday, nor was there anyway to reach him when Joyce died indicates some possible foulplay.

We do not know if Hank is reachable after Buffy's death because we haven't gotten that far. We do know that Dawn has memories of Hank, but since he hasn't been around this year, we do not know if he actually has any memories of her.

As I said before, if he does have memories of her, a spell to erase those memories would take care of the Hank has legal guardianship issues.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh Hank, where are you? -- anom, 15:32:10 07/23/01 Mon

"We do know that Dawn has memories of Hank, but since he hasn't been around this year, we do not know if he actually has any memories of her."

Being the one who questioned whether Hank & Angel remember Dawn, I suppose I should be the one to point out that at least Angel does. No sooner did I raise that question than the episode w/the funeral (Forever?) was rerun, in which Angel shows up after dark, & he & Buffy talk about Dawn. So if Angel remembers her, it figures Hank does too.

Seems to me as long as the family services people think Dawn's father will be located soon, they'll be willing to allow some kind of temporary arrangement. Dawn might even be able to stay at her house, as long as one of the adults (or near-adults) is around to take care of her. But the gov't. types wouldn't let that last long. Hank would either have to show up pretty soon or some explanation would have to be provided for his continued absence. It'd be just too much if he ended up dead too, & on the other hand, it'd be too disruptive of the show if he took Dawn to LA to live w/him, esp. since Joss has said all the regulars will be back next season. I think erasing memories would be a little too pat, & besides, we don't know if it's within Willow & Tara's capabilities. Can't wait to see how the writers will work all this out.


[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- Anthony8, 21:27:16 07/22/01 Sun

My take on this is that Buffy's rebirth should be mystical and without explanation. This may dissatisfy some people, but at the point she died, notwithstanding the rules of the Jossverse as we accept them to date, Buffy crossed into the realm of pure mystery. If she is to complete the Hero Cycle, she has to be reborn one way or another (not in a lesser form, like I imagine was the case with the Joyce "zombie" that came a knockin'), and concentrating too heavily on the how of it would undermine its miraculous quality.

In most mythologies that I'm aware of, the rebirth is simply accepted since it is, by definition, a supernatural event. In fact, the more ridiculous in terms of real world experience the better. To followers of any particular religious practice, resurrections are generally accepted based on faith alone. Some religions concentrate exclusively on the faith aspect. That is, a resurrection proves the faith. In secular mythological analyses, however,the important thing is how our Hero will be transformed and the boon that she brings to her community as the result of her sacrifice and rebirth. If she comes back as same old Buffy, with merely an afterlife experience to show for her troubles, than what was the point of the whole exercise in the first place other than to jerk our chains? If JW remains true to the Hero Cycle, Buffy will come back better (though that will not necessarily be apparent at first, or at all, to the viewer or other mortal characters in the show). The reactions of those who are unable to handle the overwhelming mystery of such events may surprise us. Some may even treat her as if she is evil. So I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody to be happy about her return (the thought of her return yes, but an actual rebirth, that's scary in any "Verse") or its ramifications.

Just throwing more gasoline on the fire. Damn, now that David Bowie song's gonna start up in my head again. Yes, there it is...and with it, that crappy remake of that classic Noir film is starting to chase me...Gotta leave now! Damn that Nastassia Kinsky!



[> [> Mystery -- Cactus Watcher, 22:00:58 07/22/01 Sun

Well though out, Anthony. But, I don't think it can stay a mystery forever. Giles continued to pry and pry until Buffy told him why she ran away at the end of season 2. Don't you think as a watcher, it would be his solemn duty to figure out how she came back from the dead (and in the process blab it to all of us)?


[> [> [> Re: Mystery -- Anthony8, 22:07:14 07/22/01 Sun

To quote Willow,"Giles can be an idiot sometimes." He can try to figure it out, but does that mean he ever has to find out (maybe that revelation shouldn't come out until the very end of the series itself). I always wondered why he never bothered to spend too much effort investigating the means of Angel's return.



[> [> [> [> He's not Angel's watcher, maybe? Lazy, maybe? -- Cactus Watcher, 22:14:14 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> Well you'd think he'd be interested in anything that impacts Slayer's effectiveness. -- Anthony8, 22:16:32 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (warning: spoilage, or just speculation?) -- anom, 22:56:45 07/22/01 Sun

"The reactions of those who are unable to handle the overwhelming mystery of such events may surprise us. Some may even treat her as if she is evil. So I wouldn't necessarily expect everybody to be happy about her return (the thought of her return yes, but an actual rebirth, that's scary in any "Verse") or its ramifications."

Once I caught a partial view of someone who looked like a friend of mine who had died maybe 6 months or a year earlier, in a setting he'd have been likely to be in. Of course, I would have wanted him to really be there, or at least I'd have been "happy about the thought"...but as the man I saw started to lift his head, I felt this awful clutching in my gut, & a fear that built until I could see for sure that it was someone else. I knew my friend really was dead, & if it had turned out to be him something would have had to be seriously wrong w/the universe. (Either that or he had an identical twin I didn't know about.) It was, as A8 said, scary for a moment there, & would have been scarier if my friend had really been there.

Now for the promised spoilage/speculation. Yes, we saw Buffy's body & her grave. Yes, Joss said she wasn't in another dimension. But she jumped into an interdimensional rift, so maybe her soul/spirit is trapped *between* dimensions. There was no sign of blood or burns on her body, so maybe it wasn't the fall or the "lightning" that killed her. The energy that played around her as she fell might not have been lightning (which, after all, doesn't usually open up the earth or peel back the walls of buildings as we saw in the ep) but some kind of interdimensional energy. Her expression looked like it hurt her but not like she was in mortal agony.

So her spirit might be somewhere it could get back from. Then she'd have to find a way to contact her friends, & they'd have to find a way to get her a body to inhabit. If they could find the monks' spell that created Dawn from the Key, maybe they could use it to do the same for Buffy, complete w/memory alterations so no one but those present when the spell was done would remember that she'd died. That'd certainly take care of any complications w/the child welfare authorities trying to put Dawn into foster care, as well as prevent her other friends from getting awful clutchings in their guts. But Buffy & the core group would still have all the weirdness & seriously-wrong-ness of it to deal with.


[> [> [> That actually makes a lot of sense -- d'Herblay, 22:59:28 07/22/01 Sun


[> [> [> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (warning: spoilage, or just speculation?) -- Malandanza, 05:11:20 07/23/01 Mon

"So her spirit might be somewhere it could get back from. Then she'd have to find a way to contact her friends, & they'd have to find a way to get her a body to inhabit."

In "Who Are You?" Tara revealed that souls and bodies have a certain affinity for each other -- Faith's soul did not mesh well with Buffy's body. In fact, Tara can pick up on the Faith/Buffy bodyswitch without casting any spells. So if Buffy's disembodied spiriti id hovering about, are there any of the Scoobies' bodies that her spirit might have a natural affintiy for? Willow, Xander & Giles all participated in the Super Slayer merger -- but the best choice would be Dawn -- afetr all, she was made from Buffy. Perhaps Buffy could possess her little sister at times (when Dawn was in trouble). Once the gang found out, there would be a reason to try to restore her body (without resorting to morally ambiguous resurrection rituals) -- and in the meantime plenty of hijinks in a body sharing arrangement (imagine how having her older sister watching and commenting on everything she's doing would cramp Dawn's teenage lifestyle). The other option would be to exorcize Buffy -- and I don't think any of the gang would be able to do that.


[> [> [> [> Re: Start a collection of non-cheesey BRB scenarios, maybe post at Liq's site? -- OnM, 06:56:10 07/23/01 Mon

Malandanza's idea brings up another interesting, and potentially non-cheesey BRB (Buffy ReBirth) idea. Perhaps we should collect these and put them on Liq's site until sometime after S6 starts, then we can all point out how wrong we all were, thus ensuring significant jocularity? Or of course, present hearty pats-on-the-back to the more prescient among us!

If we could agree on who first suggested a given scenario, it could be noted as such for easy future reference, since naturally others might either agree with, or pick apart the logic/implications of the concept. So, for example, the above would become the 'Malandanza scenario'.

This might also help those visiting this board who wish to be unspoiled to remain so, since the whole section of the site could be clearly labeled as to 'Serious Spoiler/Speculation Content'.

Sol? Liq? Other boarders? Whaddaya think?


[> [> [> [> [> non-cheesey BRB scenarios, maybe post at Liq's site? -- Solitude1056, 07:40:45 07/23/01 Mon

Sure, you code it, she'll post it. Just follow the directions! Ok, but seriously... does that make my suggestions the Solitude Anti-scenario? :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Ok by me! -- Liquidram, 02:17:37 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Analytical speculation, fanficish speculation, or either? -- OnM, 07:18:06 07/24/01 Tue

The S6 spec I'm currently staying with was actually originally composed by taking real world comments by the writers and past trends of the series, and postulating on that basis, rather than creating an idea in a totally fictional manner. Of course, an analytical spec could be rewritten into a fic.

Would you (or other posters) have a preference as to what the collection would be, all of one type or a mixture of both?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> no preference, I always read what you write. -- Solitude1056, 12:07:58 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great! But... -- vampire hunter D, 13:50:23 07/24/01 Tue

Do we post our ideas here or send them somewhere else?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> send them to me at solitude1056@yahoo.com, unless... -- Solitude1056, 07:45:25 07/27/01 Fri

..you're writing your own independent stuff, in which case do yer thang, and send to me if you need it coded. (If you can do that, write me & I'll send you the basic code and you can mangle it yourself without mah mangling help.) if you're talking about joining the effort for Relations, jump right in by writing me directly - the writer's crew now exchanges drafts and plot line ideas in email, and then I post a draft version on a different server for the writers to track and the other editors to, well, edit. ;)


[> [> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- darrenK, 12:29:19 07/23/01 Mon

I hope you're right. It should be miraculous and way far beyond explanation.

This business of Willow and the Buffybot (which has done it's duty and should be retired) has me expecting disappointment.



[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- Rufus, 22:14:34 07/22/01 Sun

From Restless:

Tara:"You think you know....What's to come, what you are.....You haven't even begun."

In Xanders dream Giles says the following:

Giles:"I have to say, I really feel that "Apocalypse Now" is overrated."

Xander: "No, no. It gets better."

TV soldier: "Oh my god. What's happened to my men? Ahh!"

Buffy: "Want some corn? (Holds out bowl to Xander)"

Xander: "Butter flavor?"

Buffy: "New car smell."

Xander: "Cool. (Leans across Willow to take a handfull) What's her deal? (indicating Willow)"

Buffy: "Big faker."

Giles: "Oh, I'm beginning to understand this now. It's all about the journey, isn't it?"

Buffy is on a journey, she was told she didn't know what she was, what's to come, she hadn't even begun. I think the journey from death to life is all part of the journey that Giles referred to. What is happening is the progression through the journey, Buffy's Hero's journey. We may not understand why she comes back, but I suspect that the answer may be more simple than we think. We may not understand the how, just like when Willow returned Angels soul (she got help), we don't know why Angel returned from hell (a token of love had been dropped on the floor where he fell to), it will happen because we knew it would happen. Buffy has earned the right to return, to become what she is supposed to and was hinted at in Restless. Buffy will return because she listens to her heart....that led her to her gift....that will bring her back. I wonder if any of the Scoobies has read Campbell??..:):):)


[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency -- OnM, 07:12:38 07/23/01 Mon

I go along with d'Herblay's E) It's a complicated act that defies moral analysis.

I think that any attempt by Willow to bring Buffy back, should she even attempt it, will fail. At this point, the SG will abandon hope and give up, then Buffy will mysteriously return.

For any who have not already read it, my spec on what could transpire is still in the archives, currently about the 4th or 5th thread down in Archive #9. The thread title is Detour from 'In Retrospect'... (etc).

Note that this scenario generally supports the morally ambiguous nature of the 'rebirth', since we really don't know anything about Jo's daughter except that she 'has some great future importance'.

I welcome any additional thoughts the newer folks here at ATPo might have on this idea, should you have any comments/deconstructions to contribute.


[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency (never fear, Rufus, it's not that long) -- Cleanthes, 09:17:54 07/23/01 Mon

A couple of notions that I've not seen:

1) perhaps Buffy is not brought back so much as kicked out of the afterlife. She did a truly heroic act and is now a spirit in the interdimensional plenum. TPTB or Wolfram & Hart's main client, either or both, do not want Buffy's spirit in this place.

2) in line with the "great mystery" concept - perhaps Buffy's death sets up a paradox or contradiction in the dimensions, so she's spat back out. (Angel's return did kinda use this concept)

3) Doc (if he's dead) or Glory or, heck, the Mayor or even the Master will be brought back to life via some token or magic substance. The scoobies prevent this resurrection but cannot destroy the token (perhaps's it involves Dawn's key-status). Instead, they must bring *someone* back to use up this dangerous capability. They bring back Buffy.

4) Buffy in the afterlife fights a battle with some postmortum power or devil and loses, but instead of oblivion, manages to return to the mortal coil. [This could have tied into the dimensional shifting on Angel and the death of the glitter twins if only the great rift between networks hadn't opened. :-( ]


[> Boy, everybody's still incredibly fixated on the mechanics of a Buffy rebirth... -- Anthony8, 10:05:55 07/23/01 Mon

..as if it were the end all of everything. Like I said above, it doesn't matter to me because we know that she will be back. What's important IMHO is that we get back on the journey unless we intend to include the mechanics of the rebirth as essential to that journey. Otherwise, what we've been obssessing over, this intense focus on the logic of what is considered in any universe a miraculous event is what Joseph Campbell used to characterize as "standing on a whale fishing for minnows."



[> [> Re: Boy, everybody's still incredibly fixated on the mechanics of a Buffy rebirth... -- dream of the consortium, 11:09:02 07/23/01 Mon

I understand your point, but Joss has created a remarkably coherent universe, and something simply "miraculous" wouldn't make any sense. A miracle suggests a different order of universe than the one we've seen created so far - either one in which supernatural occurs regularly without need for any explanation, or one with a God (or gods) who can circumvent certain rules. The Buffyverse has set its rules - spells can alter the normal physical rules, but a price must be paid, in direct proportional to the degree of the alteration; raising the dead is unethical and quite probably won't work the way you hope it will. And so on. Joss is notorious for including hints of what will come in future seasons in the texts of earlier shows. Who could resist trying to work out the mechanics, trying to guess out how something satisfying could occur that would make sense both logistically and thematically? You can't unlock the mechanics from the theme - the mechanics of the rebirth are ESSENTIAL to the journey. I think there are two reasons why this is at the heart of so much discussion. One is the puzzle, of course, the joy of trying to make all the pieces fit. The other is that questions of life and death tie into the largest questions of what life is all about. How did this world (or worlds) start, is a soul immortal, how is it tied to a body, is there someone in charge, was the someone in charge once? Killing off Buffy is not like killing off Sherlock Holmes. Holmes lived in our world. Buffy doesn't. When she dies and is reborn, we start asking these questions, our expectations of the themes that Joss will explore are taken up a notch. Eventually, we will need to know the answers to those questions as they relate to her death. The whole season's focus on what a Slayer is was the first step in investigating these questions. But where Joss will go with them from here is anyone's guess. Realistically, we can only begin to speculate on the next step - getting Buffy back to life.


[> [> [> Not really. -- Solitude1056, 11:14:48 07/23/01 Mon

Well, I suppose it's important to some. I just get cranky reading such silly spoilers and thinking, no, Joss hasn't messed his characters this badly before - why would he start now? It's the characters themselves that I was wanting to discuss, and how they'd act/react in the circumstances (both to Buffy's absence and to her return), and discuss the Scoobies as well as any known/unknown bad guys. Buffy's coming back - how, when, why, I don't know. But I do have a basic grasp on the other characters, and I'm curious how (especially after these character analysis funtimes) others on this board would guess that each character would react.


[> [> [> [> Re: Not really. -- dream of the consortium, 11:41:44 07/23/01 Mon

Fair enough - but I still think it's going to be rather difficult to discuss how they will react to her return without discussing how she comes back. For a not-very-well-thought-out example, if she is trapped in some sort of other dimension and one or more Scoobies have to go there to bring her back, I think her experience will be more understandable to them, because they will have experienced it to some degree. If she is brought back by Willow, obviously Willow will feel differently about it (maybe even a little "I gave you life" mother-possessive/controlling)than if she is brought back by some agent of the bad like Doc, which would presumably create some sort of suspicion. Of course, there will be elements of the Scoobie's reactions that will there no matter how she comes back - happiness mixed with weirdness, some of the same things we say in Dead Man's Party, as well as a feeling of being left behind, of fear perhaps, of distance from Buffy.(Think of Willow in Earshot "She's hardly even human any more. How can I be her friend now?") But I think those aspects of the character's reactions will be the least-character-specific. Tara and Willow, for example, may be expected to have slightly different reactions under any circumstances, but wildly different reactions if Willow is the agent of Buffy's return. I understand the frustration with the intense focus on the question of how she comes back, but it seems unavoidable.


[> [> [> But some of the Jossverse "rules" have been circumvented or undisclosed. -- Anthony8, 13:37:32 07/23/01 Mon

For example, the total solar eclipse (talk about a flimsy way to enable vampires to move in the daylight!) in 'Graduation Day, Part 2' and the snowstorm in 'Amends.' Neither were explained, as far as I can remember, they just happened.



[> [> [> [> Re: But some of the Jossverse "rules" have been circumvented or undisclosed. -- mundusmundi, 14:59:09 07/23/01 Mon

For example, the total solar eclipse (talk about a flimsy way to enable vampires to move in the daylight!) in 'Graduation Day, Part 2' and the snowstorm in 'Amends.' Neither were explained, as far as I can remember, they just happened.

True. But neither is as big an event or had as big a buildup as Buffy's demise. I don't recall much excited talk along the lines of, "Wow, there's going to be a big snowstorm in Amends! How're they gonna pull that off?!" Death is special. Particularly since The Body and Forever made such a big deal about its finality and the no-nos of resurrection, it's only natural curiosity -- and fun -- to imagine how Joss'll get it done.

Having said that, I think you have a good point about the necessity of a little mystery. No solution is going to satisfy everyone, and though some kind of explanation would be nice, the less convoluted the better.

And, I think another reason we're all talking about it so much is it's the middle of summer, with no end to reruns in sight. Too bad The Gift wasn't more controversial, or maybe they'd have pushed it back a few months like Graduation Day! (Funny, but the solar eclipse never bothered me. Though I have wondered why all the parents fled, leaving their children for snake food ;)


[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, I suppose realigning the solar system isn't quite as impossible as resurrection ;) -- Anthony8, 17:33:50 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, I suppose realigning the solar system isn't quite as impossible as resurrection ;) -- rowan, 20:31:00 07/23/01 Mon

Judging by the meteor that just fell out of the sky and attempted to level the state of PA in the USA, you might be right!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yeah, I suppose realigning the solar system isn't quite as impossible as resurrection ;) -- FanMan, 22:57:42 07/23/01 Mon

The Q continuam could realign the solar system, but they could not do a ressurection. Also why would they bother?

Sorry, very off topic...


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Meteor?! Huh? -- Humanitas, 08:59:14 07/24/01 Tue

What meteor? I'm about to head home to Central PA. Do I need to drive around craters?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Meteor?! Huh? -- rowan, 14:28:53 07/24/01 Tue

A fragment did land somewhere in northwest PA, but I'm not sure exactly where.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Meteor. Huh. -- Humanitas, 21:16:57 07/24/01 Tue

I'll have to ask my relatives. See you all in a couple of weeks! ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[> [> [> [> [> [> Both about equally impossible, IMB :) -- mundusmundi, 10:04:03 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Meteors falling, universe expanding, relativity...nah, resurrection lot tougher! :) -- mundusmundi, 10:33:51 07/24/01 Tue


[> [> PS - Though I must admit.... -- dream of the consortium, 11:20:12 07/23/01 Mon

I keep thinking of that scene in Misery,(*spoiler*) where the Kathy Bates character yells at the writer (paraphrase) that at the end of his last novel he left Misery dead, buried, in a coffin in the ground and that's where he has to start!


[> [> Re: Boy, everybody's still incredibly fixated on the mechanics of a Buffy rebirth... -- Cynthia, 12:33:32 07/23/01 Mon

Well, I would like a few questions answered and I certainly hope at least some of them are.

1. Why did Dawn steal the earrings? Was she wearing them during the bleeding ritual? If so, does it change anything which would influence Buffy's return?

2. Doc battled Spike twice. If Doc is as old a demon? as he seems, he must certainly know how to kill a vampire. He certainly had the opportunity but he didn't. Doc knew that Spike's fall, as horrible as it was physically and emotionally, wouldn't kill him. It was as though he wanted Spike out of the way but not killed.

Plus, the knife bit. Spike's blood undead though it is was on the knife when he cut Dawn. Once again, does this influence Buffy's comeback?

3. I'm not sure Doc's dead. Heck, if a deathblow to the major organs doesn't kill him, why would a fall?

I'm just hoping that Buffy's "rebirth" will begin to answer all the open-ended questions.


[> [> [> the answer to your first question -- vampire hunter D, 12:48:57 07/23/01 Mon

I don't know why Dawn stole the earings, but I can tell you that no, she wasn't wearing them during the bleeding ritual. In fact, she wasn't wearing any earrings.


[> [> [> [> Didn't she place them on top of her folded clothes as she prepared to go to the tower? -- Anthony8, 13:47:55 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> She put something there, but I can't tell what for sure. -- Cactus Watcher, 15:40:07 07/23/01 Mon

When I heard Glory rant about the Key being pure, I wondered if Dawn's klepto act affected that. I guess not.


[> [> [> [> [> It's her necklace -- Cactus Watcher, 16:36:31 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> & speaking of Dawn folding her clothes... -- anom, 21:49:39 07/23/01 Mon

..didn't that seem a little strange? So neat, not the kind of thing you'd bother with if you thought you were about to die. & the way she looked around before putting her shoes under the chair...like she was totally sure Buffy would come through & she'd be putting them on again.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: & speaking of Dawn folding her clothes... -- rowan, 14:31:48 07/24/01 Tue

Actually, I read somewhere that alot of people will do this type of thing before committing suicide -- as if they want everything in "order" before they go.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: & speaking of Dawn folding her clothes... -- dan, 13:17:07 07/29/01 Sun

I think this is exactly right. personally, i found that moment very moving - i could see MT doing it as a gesture of hope in an admittedly hopeless situation.



[> [> [> he just hadn't come equipped for it -- anom, 15:14:08 07/26/01 Thu

"Doc battled Spike twice. If Doc is as old a demon? as he seems, he must certainly know how to kill a vampire."

Yeah, but he wasn't expecting one, so he didn't bring a stake. Plus, once the Key was used & Glory was back in her home dimension, why would he care if Spike was alive?


[> [> [> [> Re: he just hadn't come equipped for it -- Cynthia, 15:44:22 07/26/01 Thu

There is more than one way to kill a vampire, plus why wouldn't a knife work if aimed at the right place? I always thought it was being pieced in the heart that killed not the shape or material of the weapon.

Plus, it I get the feeling that Doc could have easily come up with a stake if he wanted to. He is obviously a demon of considerable powers.

Just my take. Personally I want Doc to come back, having more than one big nasty might be fun. :.)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: he just hadn't come equipped for it -- anom, 21:11:12 07/26/01 Thu

"There is more than one way to kill a vampire, plus why wouldn't a knife work if aimed at the right place?"

'Cause it's not wood. Gotta be a wooden stake. In the heart. But yes, there are other ways: beheading, fire, & sunlight. The knife Doc had wasn't big enough for a quick beheading, & there wasn't time for a slow one; the other 2 weren't options.

"Plus, it I get the feeling that Doc could have easily come up with a stake if he wanted to."

It's unclear whether the knife appeared in his hand (he did call it a trick) or whether he already had it on him (we also did hear a noise like a knife being pulled from somewhere physical). In any case, he had a limited time to defeat Spike in, & even if he could have come up w/a stake, or even a fireball, it might have taken too long. He used the weapon that was already in his hand. Anyway, he didn't need to kill Spike, just to get him out of the way so he could start the ritual on time.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: he just hadn't come equipped for it -- Cynthia, 03:06:47 07/27/01 Fri

So, it has to be wood? Didn't know that. Must remember that if I very go to Sunnydale LOL.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Riley staked Spike through the heart with wood-grained plastic; nothing happened. ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:38:30 07/27/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...except it hurt like (bloody) hell! -- anom, 15:03:30 07/27/01 Fri

Gotta wonder about him going to the trouble to get hold of the fakestake. Not to mention where would he get it from? Does this tie in with his vamp hooker thing? cuz when you think about it, it's a really strange thing to do.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> IMO he just wanted to prove to Spike that he could best him -- Lium_aust, 21:53:04 07/27/01 Fri


[> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency -- Rattletrap, 11:53:37 07/23/01 Mon

I think we need to run with Solitude's 3rd possibility a little more: Buffy comes back on her own. We have, for the most part, been considering death as an end. Typically in mythology or hero epics (read: Campbell), the journey through death is one part of the journey, a stage through which the hero must past, and must be victorious. In the Christian tradition, there is the idea of the harrowing of hell that takes place between the crucifixion and the resurrection. In the Odyssey our hero journeys through hell and emerges on his own. In The Lord of the Rings, Gandalf seems to die in the mines of Moria, but defeats his enemy, barely, and emerges stronger than when he went in.

Taking all of this into account, along with Whedon's fairly consistent adherence to the hero's journey, I would suggest that our slayer will find her own way back and will experience some sort of apotheosis. Thoughts??


[> [> Re: Reincarnation, Rebirth, and Consistency -- Juliette, 16:13:22 07/23/01 Mon

Hi, I'm new, never post, always lurk, but I just thought I'd throw something into the mix.

Joss has mentined (I think) parallels between Buffy's death and return and Spock's in Star Trek 2 and 3. In Spock's case, his soul had been separated from the body (Buffy's soul trapped between dimensions/a ghost?). His freinds intended to send the soul on its way, but Spock's body was accidentally regenerated, so instead they reunited the soul with the body. Could something similar happen to Buffy? I this case, the SG would be responsible for reuniting the soul with the body, while the regeneration of the body would be a separate act, perhaps by a bad guy.

Spock's soul was called a katra. Tara's spell to replace Buffy and Faith's souls was a katra-spell (or something similar.) My guess is, Joss is a closet Trekkie and may take inspiration from there (though with his own unique and probably angst-ridden twist!) ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[> [> [> Welcome, Julie, the more the merrier! -- Rattletrap, 19:51:02 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> Thanx for the welcome! -- Juliette, 07:05:51 07/25/01 Wed


[> Spike wakes up, sees Buffy in the shower, Whew! It was only a dream....;) (long, spoilers, etc.) -- mundusmundi, 15:42:27 07/23/01 Mon

Thanks for starting a great thread, Sol. (Also, kudos to those working on the fanfic. Liked what I've read so far.) Bravo 'specially to Cleanthes and dream of the consortium for their thoughtful posts.

Okay, enough gush-boy. Here's a few half-arsed thoughts:

I agree with your point that the Buffyverse is typically charo-centric, with plots revolving around the characters and not the reverse. And I certainly agree with the possibility that many, if not all spoilers so far are bogus. However, I personally never rule out a potential development just because it may make a character look bad or go against what we know about him/her so far. Joss has never shied from pushing any of the SG to the edge of unlikability to outright evil, nor is he against change, so long as that evolution has been carefully established. On that note....

1. Willow brings Buffy back. It's not impossible. In Forever, it was established that she's not totally adverse to the idea of resurrection, and in the eps since we've seen her powers grow to the point where she rivals if not exceeds Buffy in superstrength. It may well jeopardize her relationship with Tara -- maybe Joss wants that to happen. The seeds for that have been planted too.

2. Doc (or another bad guy) brings Buffy back. I like your argument against this one. But again, it depends on the circumstances. Some have argued that Doc really wanted Buffy to die all along ("This should be interesting"), that he took a drop on the platform, and that maybe he has some nefarious, far-reaching game plan. Or, maybe he's got issues with his daughter (see, I did read it!) and wants a new one. Unlikely perhaps, but Joss likes to humanize his baddies, so who knows?

3. Buffy comes back on her own. It wouldn't surprise me if this were the case. I could see, once her absence has been established, her just showing up, maybe hitching a ride into Sunnydale, or popping up in the woods as Nekkid Buffy to Spike's neverending shock and joy. Of course if she initiates the return, there may be some rather irked Scoobies saying, "Four months! What took you so long?" I actually like Cleanthes' idea that she's just spat out. That the hellgods grow tired of getting whupped, and toss her back.

That brings us back to our charocentric Buffyverse, and I've a hunch, like everything else, her return will build organically out of the situation. (My own nutty idea...nah, not gonna go there. Must resist! :)


[> *sigh* Speculation on S6 (spoilers) -- rowan, 16:35:51 07/23/01 Mon

Joss is really killing me with this whole thing. I'm really annoyed with myself that I can't figure it out. I mean, I figured out the blood thing early on last season and that Buffy would substitute for Dawn, so why can't I figure this out?

Spoilers aside, Joss has said four things (that I can remember):

*Buffy is dead *Buffy is rotting in her grave *Buffy will be back *Buffy will still be Buffy, but a little "off"

So I try to interpret any theories in light of these comments, plus what Sol has referred to as keeping theories consistent with character. Of course, since any novice with a Darkest Magick book and a Ghora egg can do a resurrection spell, the usual suspects list is quite long.

Theory #1: Resurrection Spell (aka Willow Brings Buffy Back)

Is this consistent with character? I would say "yes." Willow is always clearly willing to stretch her powers to the next level, whether she's ready for it or not. The most recent examples were in Tough Love, WOTW, and The Gift. Willow also knows about resurrection spells. She pointed that notorious book out to Dawn. I definitely think Willow would take a crack at resurrecting Buffy.

But would the rest of the SG? I'm betting no. I think Dawn learned her lesson in Forever. She repented her actions in bringing Joyce back. I think she also would respect Buffy's last words to her. I also think that Spike would not try to resurrect Buffy. He has a healthy respect for everything that can go wrong with a resurrection spell; although he helped Dawn with Joyce, I always had the sneaking suspicion he knew she wouldn't go through with it. I don't see him going against Buffy's final choice. I don't see Tara participating given her words to Dawn in Forever. Nor do I see Giles wanting to circumvent history given his respect for it. I have less of a read on Xander and Anya.

The problem with this theory is that a decision has to be made immediately not to report Buffy's death to the authorities. Perhaps the SG go along with Willow's idea to hide Buffy's death in order to "fool" the demon population. But this leads right into the...Buffybot impersonating Buffy. As I said earlier in this thread, it seems entirely outside of what we know about Dawn, Spike, and Giles's characters (at the very least) that they would go along with this.

Also, how does this theory deal with the issue of the body? In Forever, Joyce hadn't been dead very long and the spell resurrected her body (presumably summoning her soul back to it). But clearly, Buffy is dead for several months and her corpse is rotting. If Willow calls her soul back, how does she deal with the body? I don't recall seeing too many situations where someone creates a new body -- the monks are the clearest example, and they had Buffy to work with as a base. Perhaps Willow finds and uses the knife with Spike and Dawn's blood on it to somehow recreate Buffy? If Willow doesn't realize it has Spike's blood and only thinks it has Dawn's, that could lead to the "Buffy being a little bit off" since she'll have that hint of demony freshness upon her return.

However, Willow bringing Buffy back and having to re-engineer a body does somewhat explain the idea that it's Buffy, but different. The soul is just the moral compass. We've seen that the personality, the memory, is somehow associated with the physical body (most notably, vamps retain an imprint of the human personality). So if Willow restores Buffy's soul to a different body, there may have to be additional mojo to bring back memories, etc. and Buffy's personality may never be exactly the same.

This theory, BTW, can also be extended to include Doc bringing Buffy back, or any one of a number of others try to bring her back via some sort of resurrection spell.

Theory #2: Someone/Something Reverses Time

If the Oracles, PtB, re-appearing monks, Willow, etc. manage to turn back time, this would be consistent both with character and previous history (we've already had one forgotten day thanks to the Oracles). It would explain why a body was handy, since it would reverse the death & subsequent event, but of course, it wouldn't explain why Buffy is a "little bit off", unless she retains the imprint of the time she spent dead.

This method seems a little too much like Patrick Ewing in Dallas for Joss to use it. He's been a little critical of this approach.

Theory #3: PtB or Something Spits Buffy Back

This is Angel redux. Is this consistent with character? I would say yes, insofar as Buffy is a mythic character prime for rebirth into a higher life. If something/someone can spit Angel back, surely s/he/it can spit Buffy back. She lost her life, BTW, in the portal, not as a result of the fall. We can assume that her soul and her essence (whatever constitutes life) were separated from her physical body. Her soul could even be languishing in a demon dimension, waiting for someone/something to call her back or spit her out.

What's the problem with this theory? Well, when Buffy sent Angel to Hell, all of him went -- not just his soul/essence, but his whole big body. Again, in this case, Buffy's body is still hanging around in a grave. So if she gets spit back, where is she going to live, so to speak?

Theory #4: It's A Mystery

I like this idea. Buffy just reappears and we have no idea how or why. She was rewarded for her sacrifice, her work was unfinished, etc. This one, while it's deus ex machina, will hold up later until the scrutiny of the plotholers, since there is no plot to find a hole in.

Hmmm...so what do I think (and do you care?). Well, here goes. I think Willow will try to resurrect Buffy. I think it won't work, but it may interfere with the plans of the PtB. To some, it may look like Willow's spell worked because Buffy will mysteriously reappear. It will turn out that she has reached another plateau in the Slayer evolution. She will no longer be fully human. She will have Buffy's soul, but a new body. The new body will be very resistent to injury or physical harm. Her memories will be implanted in the new body, but she will have a slightly different personality (perhaps with more of a Slayer imprint on it) since it's not quite the same Buffy (different body, brain, etc.). This will cause her to have to re-establish some of her relationships and will cause some confusion with the SG. Perhaps this all will somehow be linked with the fact that Buffy died in S1. She can't "die" twice without screwing up the natural order. The "calling" of another Slayer does happen because of her death, but because the line is screwed up, it results in Buffy being "recalled."

So much for theories! Bring on S6.


[> [> "Results in Buffy being recalled" would cover the bases well. -- Anthony8, 17:38:20 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> [> lol -- rowan, 18:24:03 07/23/01 Mon


[> [> Re: *sigh* Speculation on S6 (spoilers)...for X-Files, too! -- Wisewoman, 19:25:42 07/23/01 Mon

"But clearly, Buffy is dead for several months and her corpse is rotting. If Willow calls her soul back, how does she deal with the body?"

This whole thread has just reconfirmed for me how much I love this show. I can't help comparing our various scenario discussions with Chris Carter's solution in the X Files last season...he just brought Mulder back, had them dig up his rotting corpse after weeks (months?) and then he wore bandaids and things for a while until he was back to normal. Not only that, but no one in the medical profession who treated him seemed to take any particular interest in the so-called "miracle" of his resurrection--no major research grants to study him, no publications, etc. He just felt better one day, left the hospital, and went back to work!

I have every confidence that, whatever Joss comes up with, it'll be better than that!



[> [> Re: Oh, oh, oh! Spoiler Inspiration! VERY Spoilery... -- Wisewoman, 19:33:44 07/23/01 Mon

Re Rowan's point 2

"Theory #2: Someone/Something Reverses Time

If the Oracles, PtB, re-appearing monks, Willow, etc. manage to turn back time, this would be consistent both with character and previous history (we've already had one forgotten day thanks to the Oracles). It would explain why a body was handy, since it would reverse the death & subsequent event, but of course, it wouldn't explain why Buffy is a "little bit off", unless she retains the imprint of the time she spent dead."

At the risk of bringing in another element of spoilery, I have read that Emma Caulfield has said she'll be having to wear the Anyanka Demon make-up again in Season 6, but nothing about how, when, or why. Then I remembered this little bit of dialogue from Doppelgangland:

Anya: (dramatically) For a thousand years I wielded the powers of The Wish. I brought ruin to the heads of unfaithful men. I brought forth destruction and chaos for the pleasure of the lower beings. I was feared and worshipped across the mortal globe. (disgustedly) And now I'm stuck at Sunnydale High. (despondently) Mortal. Child. And I'm flunking math.

D'Hoffryn: (dismissingly) This is no concern of ours. You will live out your mortal life and die.

Anya: (pleadingly) Give me another chance. You can fold the fabric of time. Send me back to that place and I'll change it. I won't fail again.

Whaddaya think? Possible?



[> [> [> Re: Oh, oh, oh! Spoiler Inspiration! VERY Spoilery... -- rowan, 20:27:15 07/23/01 Mon

I don't know. Joss has been very anti-Dallas where events are just wiped out. Of course, this could be an attempt to divert our attention. Joss is eeevvvilll.

Of course, I could be focusing too much on that body rotting thing, too. But I don't think so. It's the idea of a new body that has no imprint of Buffy's old personality that I think is going to make her "a bit off." Someone mentioned Spock and how his body regenerated. Maybe someone creates a new Buffy body, and Willow plunks Buffy's soul into it, and later Willow has to retrieve some Buffy memories to plunk into it as well before they get something approximately the "old" Buffy.


[> [> [> Re: Oh, oh, oh! Spoiler Inspiration! VERY Spoilery... -- FanMan, 23:32:27 07/23/01 Mon

In "Something Blue" D'Hoffryn offered Willow the power of a vengance demon(Anyas old "job") Willow is exploring her dark side, at least in the magic area. This could be a different take on Willows story arc regarding the consiquences of Darkest Magic, also could be a repeat of Triangle but with "vengance duties" instead of Xander as the point of contention.

Regarding Dawn; she IS the KEY. The Monks did not use anything besides the energy of the KEY to alter reality and create the corperal body and memories of Dawn. Dawn is functionally an avatar or aspect of the KEY, or maby a better analogy is incarnation. In the concept of reincarnation is the beleif that there are many lives that each soul goes through, and while mortal the soul does not remember preveous incarnations.

The above regarding Dawn were only analogies to her situation. My point is that Dawn could use the reality altering aspects of the KEY/herself if she can contemplate her subconsious and gain consious awareness of how to use those aspects. Ressurection with an old semireliable spell?

NAW The KEY could ressurect Buffy! I like the scenerio where Buffys soul posseses Dawn; good for hijinks and silliness:-)

PS Dawn exploring her KEYness in some way is a definate likelihood, and it would be a different journey with parallels to Buffys meditation and exploration of SLAYERness in this and next season.

PS Again! My take is Buffy OR Dawn will become a demigod by the end of season seven.


[> [> [> What if Willow whores herself... -- pocky, 18:50:53 07/26/01 Thu

okay, continuing with the above theory--using D'Hoffryn to bring Buffy back--their way of getting to D'Hoffryn would be Willow. Since his offer for Willow to be the next vengeance demon remains open, she could trade herself to bring Buffy back. Although that would be very unlikely, because they can't just get rid of Willow like that! Right...? I mean...maybe they *could* get rid of Willow just like that...they did to some of the characters. Ms. Calendar, Doyle... argh.



[> [> But is she actually in the grave? -- Marie, 04:28:41 07/24/01 Tue

"Buffy's body is still hanging around in a grave. So if she gets spit back, where is she going to live, so to speak?"

I know Joss has said she is rotting in her grave, but Joss can be a naughty boy spoiler-wise, as we all know, so maybe she's actually frozen somewhere, courtesy of the CoW, just in case she can be brought back sometime?


[> [> [> Re: But is she actually in the grave? -- Cynthia, 04:39:38 07/24/01 Tue

I'm still bothered by Buffy's non-injured body after a great fall. Joss has stated that they wanted a pretty body for the scene but I think there more to it than that.

I too think that the key will be the lynchpin for the events of Buffy's return. It's the who, what, where, when and how's that I can't decide on.


[> [> [> [> Re: Scenario for Buffy's Return (Season 6 Spoilery) -- Brian, 12:47:53 07/28/01 Sat

Four months have passed, the Scoobies are having a Council of War at the Magic Shop about the vamp, etc situation on the Hellmouth. They've been patroling ever since Buffy died. Spike even in his grief has been a big help, and he is now a vital part of the group. As they are talking, the door opens and Buffy walks in:

"Hi, Guys, Having a meeting without me? What's happening"

Everyone reacts with shock, except Spike who smiles a big grin and states:

"I knew you'd be back, Slayer. You're too tough to let a hell portal best you!

And, Buffy, with a cold look on her face, says,

"What the hell are you doing here, Spike?" and turning to Dawn, she asks, "Who's the kid?"


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenario for Buffy's Return (Season 6 Spoilery) -- Pansy, 13:09:36 07/28/01 Sat

Anyone think Buffy's coming back as a vampire? She did ingest Dracula's blood after all. I remember thinking at the time that someone would have to be standing by with a stake when Buffy died. Also, the Drac episode, while entertaining, never seemed intrinsic to the season story arc. Why else have it in there if not as a means to bring Buffy back? I know about Buffy being dead and rotting but maybe we're talking misquote here - could she be dead and rotten? The possibilities are endless - Willow could spell Buffy's soul back, Angel could get another one of those demon's (forget the name) blood and turn her back to human. And what about the Spike/Buffy possiblities... Has everyone else considered this and dismissed it in horror?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenario for Buffy's Return (Season 6 Spoilery) -- Cynthia, 14:32:28 07/28/01 Sat

As I recall, one has to be extremely close to death in order for the turning to be effective. Plus,(and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I'm wrong)I believe Buffy would have had to have drank alot more of Drac's blood than the, what seem to me, small taste she had. And, on this I'm fussy not being a Buffy veteran, but I think one also had to just be drank from as part of the process. And while Drac did take a drink it wasn't immediately prior to Buffy's. ------------------------------------------------------------------------

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenario for Buffy's Return (Season 6 Spoilery) -- John Burwood, 00:54:54 07/29/01 Sun

How about this? Doc is the resurrection expert, but why would he want to resurrect Buffy? Answer, he would not, but he would wantto resurrect Glory. The only resurrection spell apart from Joyce we have seen was for the Master. It required sacrifice of those present at death. What if a spell to resurrect Glory required sacrifice of the one who killed her? Doc must assume it was Buffy who killed Glory - he would not know it was Giles. If he steals Buffy's body & performs a ritual it would not restore Glory, but maybe it would restore the only person Buffy did kill in 'the Gift' - namely Buffy! Does this make sense?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenario for Buffy's Return (Season 6 Spoilery) -- Cynthia, 04:23:45 07/29/01 Sun

Might be interesting. And Doc would have to face off a mightly pissed-off Slayer, since she wouldn't have had to dive and die if he hadn't sliced Nibbit in the first place LOL.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Scenario for Buffy's Return (Season 6 Spoilery) -- Dariel, 20:49:57 07/29/01 Sun

Hmm. Much better than the stuff we've been reading on spoiler sites. Only problem: In what sense is Buffy being sacrificed, her being already dead?

Current board | More July 2001