June 2002 posts

Previous June 2002 

More June 2002


Whither the Watchers? -- Darby, 07:11:23 06/04/02 Tue

A line from Grave:

GILES: The Council hasn't a clue. About much of anything, really.

What are they setting up?

[> Re: Whither the Watchers? -- O'Cailleagh, 07:23:43 06/04/02 Tue

Been pondering that very point...the line seemed so...throwaway that it really can't be! ...its...all.....too....much.....!

Roll on S7!

[> Re: Whither the Watchers? (spec S7) -- SpikeMom, 07:24:06 06/04/02 Tue

Perhaps that could be part of the Ripper storyline. Giles overhauls the Council.

[> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) -- John Burwood, 07:27:31 06/04/02 Tue

Maybe the old leadership (Travers?) is getting old and ill and losing its grip and rival factions are too busy jockeying for position to inherit the 'crown' to take much notice of anything else!

Or maybe that sounds too much like a fanfic?

[> [> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) -- ramses 2, 07:51:55 06/04/02 Tue

I'm hoping the council is the ultimate BB. That Buffy finally discovers the Slayer's background. Who she really is. And it is at odds with the watchers. Those shahmans have been manipulating the slayers.(Think of all the bad magic and dissappearing shaman anvils of this season) I'm wondering if next season we have more info on the Slayer, the Council and the Master's family. Just what were the ancients? Council told us they were evil. But were they?

[> [> [> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) -- Sophie, 08:04:25 06/04/02 Tue

That would be awesome! - and tie everything back to the begnnings of the show.

Soph

[> [> [> Re: Whither the Watchers? (wild speculation) -- LeeAnn, 08:42:07 06/04/02 Tue

I'm hoping the council is the ultimate BB.

Me too. I'm hoping that the highest levels of the council is made up of vampires who use the slayer to keep the numbers of vampires down so humans don't notice that they are prey.

[> [> [> [> Actually thinking -- ramses 2, 09:02:04 06/04/02 Tue

The council(original Shahmans)manipulated the slayers to eliminate a race.(the ancients) What I'd like to see, Buffy realize that the Slayer is very close to the ancients. And that the Master's bloodlines are close to the ancients. Thus, buffy sensing both Angel and Spike. They are meant(Buffy and this family) to rebuild the ancients. Then next season the ultimate showdown. Buffy versus the Council.

[> Re: Whither the Watchers? (SPOILERS for Fray) -- Robert, 14:11:54 06/04/02 Tue

>> "What are they setting up?"

I believe that this is leading into the final confrontation between the last slayer referred to in the Fray comic book and the decay of the watchers council. Since Joss Whedon wrote this comic book, I am assuming that he intended there to be continuity between the stories.

On the twelth page of the third issue of Fray;

URKONN: "They were trained. Sourght out and guided by watchers, descendants of the shamans who created the first slayer."

This gives the history of watchers and the slayers. The next page, I believe, sets up what we will see next season, or possibly the season after that.

FRAY: "Why don't you tell me what happened to the last one?"

URKONN: "Because I don't know."
"It was some hundreds of years ago, in the twenty-first century."

"What we know is this -- there was a battle."

"A slayer, possibly with some mystical allies, faced an apocalyptic army of demons."

"And when it was done ..."

"They were gone, all demons, all magicks, banished from this earthly deminsion."

FRAY: "and the slayer? Did she ..."

URKONN: "I do not know if she lived. But, the demons being gone, she was the last to be called"

Going back to the first and second pages of the first issue we see the following conversation between a monkey demon and an unseen/unnamed entity (possibly a god of some sort).

monkey demon: "She is discovered."

entity: "We're certain it's she?"

monkey demon: "We are."

entity: "No one has been called for two hundred years. The signs are dim -- "

monkey demon: "Never the less, the watchers have found her as well."

entity: "The watchers. Lunatics and fools."

monkey demon: "They mean to approach her, to begin the cycle anew."

entity: "That must not be."

Later in the first issue, Fray eventually meets her watcher who, in his ecstatic zeal, soaks himself in gasoline and lights it, and burns to death. Thus we know that the watchers council fell onto hard times. My theory is thus; as long as the watchers council had a clear purpose, they were strong. Once that purpose dissolved (starting with Buffy telling them to get lost) they began a descent into incompetence and, later, insanity.

Tim Minear posts on Angel Spoiler Board (Spoilers for next season re cast only) -- Rahael, 10:53:03 06/04/02 Tue

Re Wanda's comments that Cordelia may not be back and 'unfortunate circumstances', Tim Minear said:

"Okay, kids. Calm down, just calm down. I, for one, haven't the slightest idea where Wanda is getting her information. I don't know if she has some "source" that's feeding her this stuff, I don't know if CC is working out her deal with Fox, don't know if there's an Act Of God in play or what -- just don't know. Having until very recently been an executive producer on tv's "Angel," (and currently a consulting producer, and being very involved with the story breaking for season 4), what I can tell you is that we've been breaking stories for season 4 with Cordelia *in* them. That's what I know. Breaking. Stories. With. Cordelia. In. Them. That is not some "code," by the way -- so please don't try reading anymore into it than it says.

And each time I've been in the room with Joss and the writing staff -- Wanda hasn't been there. That's what *I* know.

So I wouldn't panic at the moment."

The link is here.

http://www.voy.com/14810/73706.html

I for one am reassured.

[> I for one had no doubt about it (spoilers for Angel s. 3 finale) -- Masq, 10:57:17 06/04/02 Tue

Based on interviews with CC herself.

Hence, my view that the "ascension" of Cordelia isn't what it seems to be.

[> [> Re: I for one had no doubt about it (spoilers for Angel s. 3 finale) -- Rahael, 11:01:05 06/04/02 Tue

Yes, I didn't either, until I read Wanda's cryptic comments. I wish she would stop stirring like this. A poor Cordelia fan's heart can only take so much!

[> [> [> And... (Cast spoiler for Buffy Season 7) -- Rob, 15:13:32 06/04/02 Tue

...now Wanda's starting to tease that Amber Benson might be back next season. If she's as wrong about that as she seems to be for Cordelia, I'll be out for blood! ;o)

Rob

[> [> [> [> Don't worry, Rob ... (Spoilers for cast) -- Exegy, 18:16:55 06/04/02 Tue

Although there is no confirmation that AB will return next year, I have heard too many rumblings from many reliable sources to discount the possibility. In fact, I consider it very likely that the actress will come back :) ... but she'll probably not reprise her role as Tara :(

I wouldn't be too worried about what Wanda ever says; she doesn't have a direct line to ME, and so she acts all cryptic in order to make it seem that she knows more than she does. Other spoiler sources have had far greater reliability, and those sources hinted at AB's return long before Wanda spread the news.

[> [> [> [> [> Yeah, well. -- Solitude1056, 20:03:43 06/04/02 Tue

Technically we could've said "Joyce will be back in Season 6!" and we'd've been right - only thing was, she cameo'd in one episode, playing part of Buffy's delusion. It's possible that "AB will be back in Season 7!" could be part of another Restless dream, Willow's guilty nightmares, some wiccan-spell thingie, a hallucination, or (worst of all) a ghost!

[> [> [> [> [> [> And it's all a game, too. -- Deeva, 20:37:12 06/04/02 Tue

The gossip and spoiler business is just a game. You take everything with a grain of salt and have some fun. Plain and simple. I would never take Wanda's chat tid-bits seriously because with as much stuff that she covers, pretty much all of tv-land and cable-dom, I get the impression that she might have maybe one assistant, if that, to try and verify all these "spoilers" that she doles out. And being cryptic is THE name of the game. She's just a lucky chic who reports on the goings-on in tv shows, meets and chats up the actors that she is paid to watch on a weekly basis.

[> [> [> [> [> Jane Espenson hinted... -- Tillow, 05:51:21 06/05/02 Wed

...in her interview with the succubus club that if people were boycotting over the loss of AB, the actress herself, then they might want to reconsider. I could easily see them bringing her back in spirit or dream form to Willow.

[> [> Re: I for one had no doubt about it (spoilers for Angel s. 3 finale) -- Arethusa, 13:15:59 06/04/02 Tue

That, and the fact that Cordelia only has visions of poeple in danger.

OMWF after season 6 -- abt, 14:03:43 06/04/02 Tue

How do you read the lineup in OMWF now the season is complete?
It goes:-

Buffy, Spike, Dawn, Giles, Anya, Xander, Tara, Willow.

So Willow is at the end, the link is broken when Tara is removed. The nearest available to grab her hand is Xander. Giles is central anchor, soon to be removed. Buffy is as far away from the four who brought her back as possible, in order of responsibility for that act too, with Willow furthest. Spike both blocks Buffy from the rest of the lineup, and is her lifeline to them, both a help and a hindrance. His other hand holds Dawn's.
Anya is between her husband-to-be and her 'father'. (Giles being her father in the sense it was his action that began her human life, or maybe Giles is Xander's rival for Anya's affections, considering Tabula Rasa!)

Anything else?

[> Nice take! -- Doriander, 14:39:26 06/04/02 Tue

So, Giles as Xander's rival huh? Normally not a shipper here, unless its Spike/Dru, but I find myself actually rooting for these two.

Also, Spike formed a wedge between Buffy and Dawn (BUFFY to Spike in AYW: Dawn. (looks toward the house) She's inside waiting for dinner, she's counting on me. I'm not letting her down by letting you in.) So with Giles gone, Dawn is lost; no anchor, left with a listless sister and the SG who were preoccuppied with their own lives.

Another thing, Spike broke off mid-chorus. Foreshadowing of of him taking off before the finale showdown perhaps?

[> [> My belief... -- GreatRewards, 15:56:12 06/04/02 Tue

is that you can read WAY too much into nothing. Like when some psychic says "I see someone close to you... his or her name starts with an M... or an N... or maybe a J...?" and you go "Julie!!! My roommate's name is Julie! WOW! How did you know that????"

As Spike said at the end of OMWF: "Bugger this!"

:-)

[> [> [> Re: My belief... -- Doriander, 16:36:58 06/04/02 Tue

Heh. True, with BtVS there's a tendency to put so much importance into something that is for all we know entirely inconsequential (e.g. the cheese man). I guess it says something about the insight of the viewer, if you come down to it. In this case, the line up does appear to have significance with regard to the events of S6. Amusing if it's a coincidence, genius if it's intentional. At this point really, whatever stirs the mind to wile away the summer doldrums is worthwhile. I'm speaking for myself, of course. ;)

[> [> [> [> Re: My belief... -- O'Cailleagh, 19:03:43 06/04/02 Tue

IMO, the musical was S6 in microcosm. As with the rest of the show, it was full of foreshadowy goodness.
A few OMWF examples off the top of my head....

Xander: 'What if Buffy can't defeat it?'
Anya: 'Beady Eyes is right, we're needed. Or we could just sit around and glare!' (pointedly, to Tara and Willow)

This refers to Ol' Beady Eyes saving the day ( walking through Willow's 'fire')

Anya interrupts other's verses three times, and three times she 'interferes'(The protection spell, teleporting into Andrew and Jonathon's cell, and releasing Willow from the binding spell).

And there are many others that I can't think of right now...

[> Re: OMWF after season 6 -- snuffynelson, 21:47:02 06/04/02 Tue

I'm glad to see that someone else is as obsessed w/ Hands Across the Bronze as I am...

Here are some of my thoughts (particularly in relation to the way things stand at the end of Grave):

I hadn't realized that Buffy was on the opposite end from the four who brought her back--I was just focussing on the fact that she and Willow were as far apart as possible and that w/ Tara's death, Willow was physically flung off. (I'm envisioning a game of crack the whip...)

I also think it's significant that the core four scoobies (Buffy, Giles, Xander, Willow-- our cast for the whole length of the series) are separated in the line-up. It feels vaguely like season four again--people drifting apart, not because they no longer like each other, but because they've found new people who are important to them.

At the end of the season, the original eight have been reduced. Tara is dead, of course--and Spike is either in Africa...or dead (or William in a can, etc). Pull these two out of the chain, and we have the three pairings that we end up w/ in Sunnydale. Buffy-Dawn, Giles-Anya, Xander-Willow.

Not certain what it means, but there are too many distinct patterns lying there for it to be random.

Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara -- abt, 15:09:16 06/04/02 Tue

Willow abuses Tara, Tara leaves.

Buffy abuses Spike, Spike doesn't leave.

Spike does leave eventually, but not because Buffy abuses him.

Spike doesn't leave until he finds his own behaviour towards Buffy unacceptable. Not Buffy's behaviour towards him. His behaviour towards her.

[> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara -- Dochawk, 16:21:18 06/04/02 Tue

How many times do we have to go through this? Spike has abused, lied to and manipulated Buffy to a great degree for long before the AR. There was nothing healthy about Spike's attachment to Buffy, nor the other way around (at least Buffy was honest about her using him and that he was a convenience). There is nothing comparable to Willow and Tara's relationship in Spike and Buffy. Willow made some major mistakes and Tara in a healthy move left. But, much of the relationship was wonderful and healthy, Buffy/Spike was never healthy.

[> [> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara (Spoilers to Grave) -- shadowkat, 16:46:47 06/04/02 Tue

True - much of Willow and Tara's relationship was healthy and much of it was unhealthy. The part that was unhealthy had to do with Willow's dependence on Tara for her self-esteem and her well-being. This was in no way Tara's fault. In fact - I think Willow would have problems in any relationship - she can't have a healthy relationship without severe co-dependency issues. This girl has 0 self-esteem and relies completely on someone else or something else to provide it as proven in her speech to Buffy in Two-to-Go. Part of the reason Tara died (the mother figure) was to push Willow past her dependency - Willow has to separate from Tara, her spirit guide, light, and mother figure, to grow into herself. Just as Joyce had to die to push Buffy to the next level.

I honestly don't think Buffy/Spike and Willow/Tara are the best comparison outside of the two violations that took place this year, one attempted and two actual. Willow's violation of Tara's mind was IMHO far worse, because that's what scares me most - someone taking away my memories, myself, so I have no self, my mind is the most important thing to me, that type of violation I would have major problems forgiving - but I won't argue it further with anyone - it's moot now. I should know this is a tough comparison to make since I've tried to compare the b/s and w/t relationships in five ways..and always run across one major problem. Spike is an insane vampire struggling with his identity, Tara is a mature, balanced human and wiccan. This does not in any way excuse Buffy's actions this year - she was a mucho bitca and pretty much reaped what she sowed - which she admmits to and took full responsibility for in Grave & SR. Just as Spike took responsibility for his actions in requesting a soul in Grave. The only one who hasn't yet is Willow. Enough said.

The better comparison which I'm working on now is between Spike/Drusilla and Willow/Tara. You'll have to wait for my post to see my take on it which will also be marginally compared to Angel/Buffy. Yes- I desperately need a life. ;-)

OT: does anyone remember the reference to Tara as Tanaara (sp?) - the Bodhistva (Buddhasitiva sp?) in Indian myth - someone posted on it and I can't find it in my own archives or in any myth books. Am I losing it? Did I dream it? Help! If you know please email me.
[> [> [> I did a post called "The Symbolic use of Tara" -- Rufus, 17:19:19 06/04/02 Tue

Tara
[> [> [> [> "Ah, and what a sublime post it was, Rufus!! I'd not read it before...much pleasure, " kitty purrs -- redcat, 18:49:59 06/04/02 Tue

[> [> [> [> Thank you! Thank you! This helps... -- shadowkat, 18:57:40 06/04/02 Tue

Was struggling on who the guide was for Tara. Totally see it for Dru.

Been really loving your posts, Rufus. Actually been quoting a few of them in my Spike/Willow essays - hope you don't mind, because of all the posters I've read, you have one of the best takes on what's going on inside the writer's minds and how the writers' view the characters. (Which let's face it - is what really matters here - at least when it comes to speculation.)

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Thank you! Thank you! This helps... -- Rufus, 19:46:07 06/04/02 Tue

I'm always surprised when someone quotes me it's an honour....thank you and no problem using any of my ramblings.

[> [> [> [> Wow, that was a great post! -- Belladonna, 20:20:32 06/04/02 Tue


[> [> [> Re: Spike/Drusilla and Willow/Tara - Interesting! Can't wait to see your thoughts. -- Traveler, 18:04:56 06/04/02 Tue


[> [> [> Re: shadowkat's question -- aliera, 18:26:40 06/04/02 Tue

OT: does anyone remember the reference to Tara as Tanaara

I'm sorry I missed the post here but there were a couple of threads at the cross & stake around this time last month. I also pulled it up on Google.

[> [> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara -- aliera, 16:50:28 06/04/02 Tue

Probably for as long as the characters are around...people have very strong feelings about Buffy Willow Xander Tara and Spike and we all bring our own experiences our own history to the viewing. I hope there's space for that.

The non-digital world is harsh enough.

[> [> Re: Spike, in relation to Buffy/Spike, Willow/Tara -- abt, 07:21:00 06/05/02 Wed

I think it is a point of interest that the reason Spike finally breaks off his pursuit is not because of something Buffy did to him, but because of something he did to her.

[> Breaking it down... -- Tillow, 06:28:02 06/05/02 Wed

You're missing a few crucial steps, abt. Try this.

Relationship 2:

1. Willow violates Tara.
2. Tara leaves.
3. Willow seemingly begins process of doing the work of gaining a firmer identity on her own.
4. willow actually trying to please Tara so she'll come back.
5. Tara comes back.
6. Tara dies.
7. Willow violates world.
8. Willow is redeemed through love.
9. Willow can now begin process of truly doing work of gaining firmer identity on own.

Relationship #2

1. Spike violates world. Buffy saves world.
2. Spike and Buffy have tenuous truce leading to quasi-trusting relationship/friendship.
3. Enters depression sex.
4. Buffy and Spike fall back on old roles from past relationships. (Buffy, scorned love who keeps evil man at bay. Spike, love's bitca who will do anything to get his woman.)
5. Ensues abusive relationship based on past pain and baggage culminating in end of relationship a la Buffy.
6. Spike violates Buffy. (AR in SR violation of trust and mind if not completely of body)
7. Spike leaves to get soul. (confirmed by Jane Espenson)
8. Now Spike can begin process of redemption with or without Buffy. I'm thinking with.

Season 5 Foreshadowing of Descent (Spoilers) -- AgnosticSorcerer, 18:18:48 06/04/02 Tue

FX played "Crush" today and a dialouge between Tara and Willow caught my eyes:

Cut to: exterior UC Sunnydale building, day.
WILLOW VOICEOVER: I just don't see why he couldn't end up with Esmerelda.

Cut to inside. Tara, Buffy, and Willow are walking along the hallways.

WILLOW: They could have the wedding right there. Beneath the very bell-tower where he labored thanklessly for all those years.
TARA: No, see, it can't, it can't end like that, 'cause all of Quasimodo's actions were selfishly motivated. He had no moral compass, no understanding of right. Everything he did, he did out of love for a woman who would never be able to love him back. (They come to a vending machine and stop walking. Tara digs in her purse. Willow looks in hers as well) Also, you can tell it's not gonna have a happy ending when the main guy's all bumpy.

Willow takes some money out of her purse and hands it to Tara, who smiles and turns to the vending machine.

And then some more foreshadowing:

BUFFY: I-it's just that ... Dawn ... said that...
XANDER: Yeah?
BUFFY: Forget it.
XANDER: Buffy! (walks toward her)
BUFFY: She thinks that ... she said that ... (Xander nods, waits for it) Spike's in love with me.

Xander frowns for a second, then bursts out laughing.

BUFFY: I'm not joking.
XANDER: (still laughing) Oh, I hope not. It's funnier if it's true.
BUFFY: I'm serious. Xander, this is serious!

He stops laughing with an effort, puts up a hand to show willing.

XANDER: (seriously) All right. (clears throat)

After a moment he snickers and begins laughing again. Buffy pouts, sits down on a seat, right inside the tape outline of a corpse.


Does ME fill each episode with great foreshadowing like this and we barely even know it?

[> Re: Season 5 Foreshadowing of Descent (Spoilers) -- Ronia, 18:27:57 06/04/02 Tue

You saw it too! You saw it too! Did you notice how Buffy is in the same position as the outline? Too funny. Love that ironic humor. How much longer 'till next season? Can someone more technically advanced than myself make one of those backwards counting down clocks?

The first time I saw this, I assumed it applied only to the B/S theme. After watching it tonight I thought it was interesting what position Tara took, compared to Willow. I may be over reaching....hindisight is a funny little monkey isn't it?

[> Re: Season 5 Foreshadowing of Descent (Spoilers) -- O'Cailleagh, 18:28:33 06/04/02 Tue

The short answer is yes!

Everytime I watch an old ep, I'm sat there being all 'You see! Grrrr! I knew it!' Which makes for plenty of odd looks from the people I watch it with!

You could view just about any old ep ( even all the way back in S1) and find veritable goldmines!

[> [> Re: Foreshadowing goldmines -- pr10n, 10:17:28 06/05/02 Wed

It happened to me last night -- in Earshot we get this Willow/Jonathan exchange:

starts -->

WILLOW Fantasies are fun, aren't they Jonathan?

JONATHAN I guess.

WILLOW We all have fantasies where we're powerful and respected. Where people pay attention to us.

JONATHAN Maybe.

WILLOW But sometimes the fantasy isn't enough, is it, Jonathan? Sometimes you have to make it so people don't ignore you. Make them pay attention. You know what I'm talking about, don't you?

JONATHAN You want me to pay attention?

<--ends

So, duh it's foreshadowing Superstar, and then wango! it's foreshadowing (wait for the coinage...) WillDOW (big thankees to Salon, and a breathmint).

Nothing beats the frisson of hind-sighted foreshadowing.

[> Re: Foreshadowing -- Dochawk, 10:44:34 06/05/02 Wed

Once Joss knows that he is renewed (or the possibility that he will be) he starts placing hints for teh seasons to come. Restless is the most obvious example. He uses dreams in otehr places as well.

In Graduation Day part II, Buffy encounters Faith in a dream, where Faith says "counting down from the big 730" (ok I didn't look up the exact quote). This was in fact the 730 days from the date of that episode (as origianlly scheduled) to Buffy's death. In an interview, SMG tells us she didn't undertand this reference (or the multiple Dawn references in the same scene "Little Miss Muffett")so being sworn to secrecy, he told her that Buffy was to die 2 years later toprotect her little sister (which was of course the first SMG heard that she had a little sister). I am constantly amazed at how much planning Joss must do in his brain to have this knowledge ready so much in advance and to place the seeds. It makes Buffy a so much richer and deeper environment than any other television show in my memory (I am not a Trekkie, did ST in any incantation do this? otherwise I am not sure any television show has ever done this before; X-files tries and fails).

[> [> One of the main reasons Eliza Dushku hasn't returned yet... -- Rob, 11:16:33 06/05/02 Wed

Eliza said in a recent interview that she would love to return to do "Buffy," but that, in order to do so, she has to give them notice months in advance, so the writers could start laying seeds of foreshadowing into the earlier episodes of the year, and she doesn't know if she wants to make that kind of commitment. Yet another clue as to how amazingly interconnected the "Buffy" episodes are.

And, although many people say that ME have a lot of continuity errors, I would counter that argument with the fact that, although sometimes some details change throughout the years, on the whole, the consistency has been amazing for a show now running on six years, that has a huge, constantly-expanding mythology. Look at the first season episodes and you can see the seeds for the events of the sixth season. It's quite incredible, actually.

Re: Star Trek...They do have great consistency, due to a bible they wrote out, which, on the whole, they rarely ever defy in any episodes, although they did make a few exceptions for "Enterprise," since it's a prequel. I am not aware of much foreshadowing, at least intentional, but the consistency is, for the most part, pretty close to perfect.

X-Files...I agree with you. The mythology is way too confusing, and shifts way too much. There have been great highs that show has had, but it also lets itself spin out of control. The problem with the show, mainly, was that most of the mythology was made up as they went along, and so consistency (or making any sense at all) is almost impossible.

The only other shows at the moment that I think has such great consistency, and even some foreshadowing, are "Farscape" and "Six Feet Under." While it isn't sci-fi, SFU has amazing continuity. In the first episode, for example, Ruth makes a throwaway comment about a cousin of hers whose husband left her for a man. And much later in the season, we meet the cousin. That remark in the first episode could have easily been ignored. I just noticed it myself, doing the transcripts for my Six Feet Under site. "Farscape," much like "Buffy," is sort of a novel for television. They plan everything out in advance, and there are little if any completely stand- alone episodes. In its three seasons, "Farscape" has one of the most complex mythologies arond, second only to "Buffy." It's not as good as "Buffy" but it's still a great show.

Ramble much? lol

Rob

[> [> [> Couldn't Joss pony up some money for Eliza's "down time"? -- cjl, 11:50:01 06/05/02 Wed

Put her on retainer for six to eight weeks. Would be worth it.

[> [> [> If Eliza Dushku were to return... -- Scroll, 12:14:44 06/05/02 Wed

...it would probably be to 'Angel' first, since Faith actually gets along with Angel and considers him a friend. Then she could mosey-on up to Sunnydale and compare notes with Willow on turning to the dark side. She could take on a few Slayer duties and give Buffy a much needed vacation. And maybe we could get some more synchronnised slaying, which is mucho fun to watch!

I love the fact that Faith's return from her coma in S4 was foreshadowed in a (shared?) dream, and since I love dream sequences, I want Buffy and Faith to have a shared dream where they lay down a foundation for becoming friends again when Faith really does get out of prison. That would be neat.

Grr, I miss Faith!

[> [> [> continuity of shows -- Robert, 12:16:04 06/05/02 Wed

>> "The only other shows at the moment that I think has such great consistency, and even some foreshadowing, are "Farscape" and "Six Feet Under." "

"Babylon 5" is the show with the tightest integration. J. Michael Straczynski wrote an entire 5 year story arc before filming started on the pilot episode. He also wrote many (or most) of the episode scripts. Consequently, every detail in every episode was likely to have some significance later on. It was almost a game with my wife and I to spot the details which we knew would be important later on.

Regarding "X- Files", I'm guessing what happened there is that Chris Carter started with maybe 5 years worth of material and subsequently attempted to stretch it out to keep the series going. I also wonder if maybe the movie didn't take too much out of the producers, writers and actors. The show really seemed to suffer after the movie, almost as if everyone was burned out. Joss Whedon has stated that he does not want to do any Buffy movies, at least until after the series has run its course. I believe this to be a good decision.

The continuity of the various Star Trek shows is fairly good internally, but weak externally. You mentioned "Enterprise", but each spin-off series has, to some extent, repudiated that which came before. The entire Star Trek franchise doesn't really hold up as a continuous mythology. Never the less, I have the highest respect for Gene Rodenberry. He gave us quality science fiction on TV back 1968, when the TV executives didn't even know what science fiction was. It was CBS who rejected Star Trek because they already had their own sci-fi show (Lost in Space). My complaint with the frachise is that the producers and writers haven't kept up with the changing times. "Enterprise" feels to me like more of the same and, while it was really good stuff in its day, it is tired and stale today.

The main reason that BtVS and AtS haven't had their continuity derailed is the fact that Joss Whedon has maintain an iron grip on both shows. If he were to ever lose control, I believe that the quality and contuity would not last very long.

[> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows -- Rob, 12:29:45 06/05/02 Wed

I've never seen "Babylon 5," although I've heard great things about it. I would very much like to see it (hopefully it will come out on DVD) because I am a huge continuity buff and love noticing links between episodes. I used to be a fan of "Xena," which, for the most part, had good continuity, until the last two seasons, which drove me insane, since all the continuity went out the window. Flashback episodes were added that didn't fit into the established "past history" timelines on the show, and even simple remarks that referenced other episodes were sometimes inaccurate. The worst offense was an episode entitled "Soul Possession." In one scene, we see Xena holding her weapon, the chakram. Only the problem is, we are seeing the new version of the chakram, which she did not get until 2 years after the story of this episode takes place.

Shows, like "Buffy" and "Farscape" and "Babylon 5," wherein episodes are like the chapters of one large book, are my favorites. I love when subtle references are made to other episodes, especially when they are left unexplained and we have to find the links ourselves. For example, Willow's "bored now" in "Villains" works well in the context of the scene, but other layers of meaning are added when we refer back to VampWillow from "The Wish" and "Doppelgangland." Another current example on "Angel" is in the recent episode Cordelia referred to it having snowed in Southern California once. That once was, of course, on the "Buffy" episode, "Amends."

I think it would be best if all shows were planned out in advance, although there are of course problems with that method, since a show could get cancelled, actors may have to leave, plots may not turn out as well as the writers had wanted, etc. At the very least, I respect shows that remember what has already been on in previous episodes. Even if the continuity was not planned out in advance, I think it's important to uphold it in later episodes. If a character is mentioned as having one sibling, in one episode, the character can't say he has 5 in another.

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows -- Robert, 14:25:18 06/05/02 Wed

Rob, I entirely agree with you that serial shows are the most fun. The continuing story lines also provide great encouragement to come back and watch next week's episode.

>> "I think it would be best if all shows were planned out in advance, although there are of course problems with that method, since a show could get cancelled, actors may have to leave, plots may not turn out as well as the writers had wanted, etc. "

You've identified the major flaw in a prime time TV serial. It could get cancelled, and possibly at a horrible time. I refer to the FOX network as the prime example. In an old discussion thread, we identified three science fiction shows which FOX cancelled in the middle of ongoing cliff-hangers. Except for "Alien Nation", FOX never gave us the courtesy of resolving the cliff-hangers. I consider FOX to be the most disrepectful of all the networks to the viewership. For this reason, having "Firefly" on FOX terrifies me.

Even worse though would be to lose a lead actor. If someone like Geller were to be seriously injured in the middle of production, how would Mr. Whedon handle it? He wouldn't be able to write her out. I suspect that the show would have to go on hiatus for the duration of recovery. It's a scary scenario which, no doubt, concerns him far more than it does us. Didn't UPN recently cancel a show because the lead actor became ill?

I think the main reason we don't see more prime time serials is because the networks and independent stations prefer shows which have no necessary order. For instance, a number of people here have mentioned "Farscape", which is a show that I haven't kept up with. I watched some of the episodes shown last weekend on Sci-Fi channels "essential Farscape". These were selected episodes from this current season. Unfortunately, they didn't make a lot of sense to me, since they rely so heavily on prior episodes which I didn't see. Regardless, I will make a effort to watch the show next season. Once in syndication, I'm sure the various TV stations would prefer to show the series' in whatever order they want.

Regarding Babylon 5, the Sci-Fi channel has this show in their day time line-up. You might want to check it out. Obviously, you will need to catch it when they re-start the series. In the early 90's, it was the best science fiction on television, better even than X-Files.

Xena was an interesting show. I only watched it for a season and then picked up a few episodes thereafter. I think its main problem was this it was the unplanned stepchild of the Hercules show. I have a lot of respect for Xena, if for no other reason than it helped pave the road for BtVS. Plus the writers were doing musical episodes on Xena long before "Once More With Feeling". Some of the comedic episodes were absolutely hilarious.

>> "If a character is mentioned as having one sibling, in one episode, the character can't say he has 5 in another."

... except of course for BtVS. In "Buffy vs. Dracula", in the same episode, Buffy was both an only child and had a sister. Only Joss could pull that one off.

There's another continuity based show we haven't mentioned here -- Witchblade. It is due to begin its second season on the 16th of this month. The finale from season one essentially negated nearly everthing that occured prior. It should be very interesting to see how the writers pick up the series from here.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Farscape -- Rob, 18:17:49 06/05/02 Wed

I watched the marathon, too...and I understand how it may have seemed a little...no, very VERY confusing to the uninitiated. "Farscape" is kind of like that. Sometimes even if you've seen every episode, you can start an episode going "Whaa----?!?"

It's a great show that is very fast-paced and gives almost no recap of past events before plowing on with the story arcs. It can leave you quite breathless, and required to watch each episode 3 or 4 times to get all the info right!

Anyway, if you do want to get caught up for the 4th season, which starts this Friday, I'd recommend going to http://www.farscapeweekly.com because they have an in-depth primer of every character, major situation, alien race, etc of the show. Another good place to catch up is http://www.farscapeworld.com

Rob

[> [> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows -- MaeveRigan, 14:27:57 06/05/02 Wed

"I've never seen "Babylon 5," although I've heard great things about it. I would very much like to see it (hopefully it will come out on DVD) because I am a huge continuity buff and love noticing links between episodes."

Reliable rumor has it that the first season of B5 will be available on DVD later this year. It truly is a marvel, and the first season isn't even the best.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Ooh, great! Thanks for the info. :o) -- Rob, 18:10:01 06/05/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> Revising Star Trek canon... -- Scroll, 12:41:21 06/05/02 Wed

I never watched Babylon 5 but I hear nothing but good stuff about it, especially its ability to maintain long arcs over years. Long arcs are the reason I find 'Buffy' and 'Angel' so appealing, the mythology is strong and coherent.

I'm quite fond of 'Enterprise', but I can understand how many Star Trek fans think this prequel is flying in the face of established canon, especially in its portrayal of Vulcans. I'm doing my best not be irritated by any inconsistencies I find because I'm too busy enjoying the show. The character development is phenomenal, and for someone who began her career as a model, Jolene Blalock is a surprisingly wonderful actor. 'Enterprise' is really much smarter and more savvy than people give it credit for, the season finale in particular. If you want a good example of a sci-fi show turning the tired cliche of a deus ex machina on its head, then watch "Shockwave", the Enterprise finale. I can't wait for Season 2!

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Revising Star Trek canon... -- AgnosticSorcerer, 13:39:36 06/05/02 Wed

On Star Trek: I think one of the major reasons that the Star Trek continuity faltered was that the shows no longer had Gene Rodenberry to guide it (he died during one of the ST:TNG episodes).

The Vulcans in "Enterprise" I think are purposefully being portrayed in such a way to note their infancy in that department. As early as ST:TOS to as late as ST:VGR we see Vulcans portrayed the same, but I suppose ST:ENT is showing the Vulcans in a period of their history where they have not mastered their emotions as much as they like to think. Again, I think it goes well with the storyline as the Federation has not even been formed yet. I'll have to check my Star Trek Omnipedia for dates of first contact between species and Vulcan/Romulan history. (Yes, I was a trekkie as well as an uberXena fan.)

The only loose end that bothered me which even Gene Rodenberry failed to explain was the transition from ST:TOS Klingons to the ST:TNG Klingons.

Personally, regarding ST:ENT, I would have liked for the next series after "Voyager" (by the by, the continuity in that series is very good also with the exception of the series finale) to follow in the foot-steps and go FORWARD in time as opposed to backwards.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Revising Star Trek canon... -- Robert, 14:56:27 06/05/02 Wed

>> "The only loose end that bothered me which even Gene Rodenberry failed to explain was the transition from ST:TOS Klingons to the ST:TNG Klingons."

I really appreciated the Deep Space 9 episode where the writers made fun of this contradiction. Actually, this contradiction never bothered me because it was obvious that the issue was technology and money. Remember that the original Star Trek series ran on a budget of about $200k per episode. They had to invent many of the special effects they used. The original "Planet of the Apes" movie came out about this time, and it showcased some of the expensive new make-up techniques and technologies which we now take for granted.

To put it in a different perspective, if you watch Star Wars episode 5 today, you will see scenes in it that I did not see in 1977 when it first came out. The issue was money and technology. In this case, Mr. Lucas had the opportunity, and took it, to go back and finish the movie he had envisioned. Mr. Roddenberry did not have the opportunity to do the same thing for the original Star Trek series, but that did not preclude him from making Star Trek:The Next Generation in the way he had envisioned it.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Revising Star Trek canon... worst sin (spoilers for "Journey to Babel" and the fifth movie) -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 20:45:52 06/05/02 Wed

I think the worst problem was the shift in Spock's family. In one of the great episodes, "Journey to Babel," they stressed that Spock was an only child -- it really fired up the tension between Spock & his father, Sarek.

Then c. 20 years later, in film 5, they invent a half-brother. Really weakened the concept and angered a lot of old Trek fans, including me. What was worse was that some semi-capable re-writing could have made the character very close to Spock but keep the "only child" point.

[> [> [> [> Re:Buffy the Movie (from darkhorizons.com) -- Dochawk, 13:39:34 06/05/02 Wed

Deeva had emailed me this earlier and it seems apropos. Doesn't sound like there will be a Buffy movie even after the series ends, though money changes everything.

Buffy: The Movie: Fans of the great Joss Whedon show have been holding out hope that after the series ends
next season, the tales of the slayer will go back to the big screen in the true form it deserves. However in an
interview to be published here tomorrow, Sarah Michelle Gellar gave a quite unexpected answer to the question
"Are you committed to doing a film version of Buffy". Gellar replied: "You know, I don't...I'm not in to it, and
I've got to be honest and say that I believe that, first of all, it was a movie, it didn't work as a film and we battled
for so long, just getting out from underneath was essentially a failed feature film and I feel that with the beauty of
the story, that the attachment you have and the ride that you take with these characters, and I feel like we make
a movie every week. So to take one episode to expand, it's kind of a waste. And I also feel it's kind of a
shocking thing for television. I feel like it's saying, well okay, now we move on to bigger things because your
moviegoers expect it, but I am the one who is actually, I've always said I don't think it's right to be out and I
don't think it's fair". Gellar also admitted there's no plans to do a follow-up 'musical' episode due to the sheer
amount of preparation involved.

[> [> [> [> [> Re:Buffy the Movie (from darkhorizons.com) -- AgnosticSorcerer, 13:42:56 06/05/02 Wed

I think I will place my trust in Joss and ME concerning this movie issue. If they and the actors feel that a movie will considerably ruin our perception and love for the show, then I wouldn't want one made.

[> [> [> [> Re: continuity of shows-A kind of OT Thanks -- Calluna, 18:05:57 06/05/02 Wed

This is going to sound weird, but bear with me.

I've spent the last 6 months writing a book (actually it will be a series of 6 books). I'm on Ch. 13 of Book one at the moment, but since about March I keep getting big hunks of book six floating around in my head (like 44 pgs worth). It's really been annoying me, because I should be working on the first book, but when I read this thread about the continuity of TV shows it suddenly hit me why this has been happening. There are things that happen in book six that have to be foreshadowed in the previous 5 books, so I kind of have to figure out what happens in the end to write the beginning.

Has Joss ever talked about whether he has/had everything figured out from the very beginning? I know Straczynski (Bab 5) did. Is this something that happens a lot (mostly to writers)? I have to admit I've always loved TV shows (and books for that matter) that were big epic stories with monumental arcs that were all interconnected. It's kind of fun to finally be writing something that tries to do the same thing:)

And no. Only four people (at the moment) get to know or read what I'm writing. I don't know if it's going to go anywhere, but it won't get out of my head. And it's not Buffy related. Influenced, yes, but not related.
Thanks for helping to finally explain what's been going on in my head.

Unapologetically OT: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Long, but, hey -- shorter than the book. -- Sophist, 09:04:39 06/05/02 Wed

When I bought this book in February, I rashly promised a review. I didn't stop to think that it might be impossible to write a standard "review" of "this interminable book" (Gould's own description). All I can really do is offer some general comments and hit the high points. Any errors regarding the details of evolution or biology are certainly mine, not Gould's.

The book is difficult to read. Gould's style has grown discursive, to the point where parentheticals pile on parentheticals. His non- technical vocabulary is highly sophisticated, and he intended the work to be technical. If you're not familiar with words like "anagenesis" or "plesiomorphy", be prepared to struggle. The book lacks a much- needed (by me, anyway) glossary, but there is enough explanation that I was able to follow everything but the most technical points of some of the evo-devo studies he describes.

Gould is, as we all know, widely read. The range of quotations from the humanities is impressive: Nietzsche and Milton, Byzantine mosaics, Civil War history all leaven the technical dough. Gould himself pulls off some sparkling phrases:

"Facts have no independent existence in science, or in any human endeavor; theories grant differing weights, values, and descriptions, even to the most empirical and undeniable of observations." (Page 758)

"...an analogy between speciation and gestation of an organism may not be ill-conceived." (Page 768).

Or how about these for our Board:

"...we so often allow our hopes for intrinsic meaning to obscure the realities of a natural order..." (Page 1232)

"... this debate between immanent vs. narrative styles of explanation contrasts different modes of factual knowing, and ... both alternatives stand firmly opposed to trendy and nonsensical claims about the relativity of empirical 'truth' in the light of social embeddedness for any transiently privileged intellectual procedure. When a champion of contingency ... argues that he can explain with rigor after the fact what he could not have predicted in principle before the fact, he presents his best judgment about the empirical structure of historical complexity. Moreover, he does not confess thereby either any limitation imposed by an inferior form of science, or any irreducible subjectivity engendered by the admittedly ineluctable interaction of human perception and mentality with external 'reality' in all efforts to understand nature's ways." (Page 1336)

The title of the book immediately brought to my mind the title of (IMHO) the greatest book published in the 20th Century, Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. I can still remember the profound impression Kuhn's book made on me. It obviously had a similar impact on Gould, who discusses it in several places. Though he never says so, I have no doubt Gould consciously chose his title both in imitation and in expectation.

The Introduction outlines - if you can call 89 pages an "outline" - the issues that take up the remainder of the book. In brief, Gould argues that the core of Darwin's theory remains valid and true, but that the Modern Synthesis froze the theory into a rigid structure that now requires important modifications. He identifies three claims by Darwin that he now sees as incomplete: that natural selection operates solely on organisms (you, me, the tiger in the jungle); that natural selection can generate changes in the function of an organism without significant input from structural constraints; and that the processes of geology we see today are essentially the same as those which occurred in the past, such that natural selection had the time to generate the diversity we see from small scale processes we can see for ourselves today.

Gould spends the first 7 chapters reviewing the history of different theories of evolution, contrasting Darwin (entirely favorably) with the various alternatives, and ending with the consolidation of Darwin and Mendel in the Modern Synthesis. These chapters serve more than an historical interest. Gould argues that the themes he emphasizes today have persisted in debates about evolution since the 18th Century. He then devotes 2 chapters each (2 books each would be more accurate; one "chapter" covers 279 pages) to the first two proposed modifications and the last chapter to uniformitarianism.

Gould focuses most of his attention on the issue of levels of selection. Darwin, of course, did not know about genes and based his argument for natural selection on the interaction between the organism and the environment. Modern reductionist theories (Williams, but Dawkins even more) claim that selection operates on the genes alone. Gould (surprise) rejects gene selectionist arguments. He gives several reasons for doing so, chief among them that selection can only operate on those "things" that interact with the environment, which genes cannot do in this sense; that organisms have emergent properties that can't be accounted for by their genes; and that genes are a bookkeeping device, not interactors with the environment on which natural selection can "cause" change.

Gould would modify Darwin from the opposite perspective. He asserts that selection operates at 6 different levels: gene, cell, organism, deme (this is what we might call a subspecies, i.e., a group that may differ from the species but can still interbreed with it), species, clade. At each level, the environment selects from the "individuals" which live in that environment. Thus, the gene is the relevant "individual" in the chemical environment it inhabits, while the species is the relevant individual in the ecology it inhabits, and so on.

The longest chapter in the book offers an extended defense of punctuated equilibrium and ties that to the issue of species selection. Most readers familiar with Gould will find this the easiest chapter to follow. He explains that the concept consists of 2 parts. The simplest is equilibrium, the fact that species, once they appear in the fossil record, remain virtually unchanged until they disappear. The more controversial aspect is punctuation. By this, he means that species appear "suddenly" in the geologic record. Sudden does not mean overnight, it means that our ability to measure time in geologic strata is not very good. We can't break a bedding plane into annual layers, so 40,000 years or more might be compressed into one "layer".

Darwin argued that speciation occurred anagenetically. This means that, for example, a species of snail would slowly but surely change over millions of years, so that at the end of that time a new species would exist. Gould says that punctuated equilibrium favors a different method of speciation known as allopatric speciation. This means that a deme somehow becomes isolated from the rest of the species (say, because a new river separates them from the rest). Eventually, those isolated animals undergo enough genetic change that they are different from the old species. The reason we don't see this change in the fossil record is that genetic change begins in a small, isolated population. He cites studies showing that both types occur, but claims that the studies indicate that allopatric speciation and punctuated equilibrium are much more common.

Gould argues that the pattern of punctuated equilibrium supports the concept of species selection. In essence, he says that the stability of species allows them to interact with the environment in a way that is analogous to the way individuals like people do. He also emphasizes that changes at a small scale, even if they operate over a long expanse of time, often cannot explain trends in groups (like increasing brain size in hominids) or the differences in diversity among groups (why there are 300,000 species of beetles and only 4,000 of mammals). We must, Gould says, look for explanations at a higher level than the gene or organism if we are to explain these, and species selection offers this.

Gould devotes a long appendix to the chapter on punctuated equilibrium to the various controversies that have followed the theory since he and Niles Eldridge first offered it. In one way, this is a very interesting, if admittedly partisan, account of the criticisms. On the other hand, I've always found much of the controversy distasteful, since it tends to bog down in petty and often personal terms (are you listening Daniel Dennett?). I would have omitted this section; historians of science will sort it all out if necessary.

The strongest internal challenge to Darwin has always come from structuralists. They have contended that natural selection cannot create new forms, but that only the basic chemistry and physics controlling the laws of development can do this. Gould rejects the more extreme arguments of the structuralists and favors natural selection as the agent for change in many or even most cases (the exact percentage to be determined empirically). However, he does contend that the laws of development do constrain natural selection in its ability to create new forms.

There are 2 types of constraints. Negative constraints simply prevent new forms from arising. These are not controversial - everyone agrees that elephants can't grow wings, and that they couldn't fly if they did. Positive constraints are the heart of the structuralist case. These "channel" the development of the organism into certain patterns of change. Gould asserts that recent developments in the study of evolutionary development ("evo-devo") require us to take seriously the possibility that some change occurs as a result of positive constraints rather than by natural selection.

The data of evo-devo demonstrate that there are homologies (common pathways of development) that reach far back in time. In particular, Gould's excitement about homeobox genes is palpable. These genes control the order in which body parts are generated. For example, they tell an arthropod to make the first segment a head, the second segment wings, the third segment legs, etc. It turns out that these genes exist in similar form in phyla separated by 550 million years of evolution.

This means that natural selection must operate in a context of far greater constraint, positive and negative, than would be expected if natural selection alone changed the function of an organ or other body part. Among other insights, this explains why we see such gaps in the various body forms that animals have, that is, why cats and dogs, for example, don't have intermediate forms. The pure selectionist would argue that this occurs because such intermediate forms are not well adapted for some reason. Gould suggests that it is the difficulty of making such forms through the developmental process which accounts for this fact.

The other half of the structuralist argument covers Gould's claim for the importance of spandrels. A spandrel is an architectural term for something that wasn't deliberately designed, but occurs in a building as a side consequence of something that was designed. Gould provides a visual metaphor for this concept with the Cathedral of San Marcos in Venice. This Cathedral has a dome in the shape of a hemisphere sitting on top of four rounded arches in the shape of a square. The natural result of this shape is that there are 4 triangular spaces that exist between the dome above at each corner where 2 arches come together below the dome (this is hard to visualize, easy to see with a picture; maybe someone more computer literate than I can link to a picture).

The point of this metaphor is that there are aspects of organisms which arise for similar reasons. They do not exist because of natural selection, but merely as a side effect of selection for something else. For example, the now-extinct Irish "elk" (actually a deer) grew huge antlers. A side consequence of these antlers was a hump on the neck for the extra neck muscles necessary to support the antlers. The hump was a spandrel; natural selection did not create it per se.

There are several consequences of spandrels in evolution. One is that it is a mistake to think of every characteristic of an animal as an adaptation. We have to be careful in saying, for example, that male nipples have some adaptive purpose; more likely, men have nipples because women need them (an adaptation for women) and both sexes follow a similar developmental pathway.

Another consequence is that we have to distinguish how something arose from how it is used now. In San Marcos Cathedral, the spandrels had no original purpose. However, they were later used by artists and decorated in themes consistent with those used in the dome itself. Similarly, a feature of a creature (sorry, couldn't resist) might arise as a spandrel, but later take over an adaptive function by the action of natural selection. Gould enlivens his discussion here with a lengthy description of Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals, in which Nietzsche makes a similar point to distinguish the origin of a rule of moral behavior from its current use.

The last, and shortest, section of the book challenges Darwin's assumption that natural selection has operated under essentially uniform conditions throughout the long history of the earth. Darwin needed such uniform conditions in order to make his argument that species could improve. Darwin identified 2 types of competition: between the animal and the environment, and between two animals. The first was unlikely to lead to improvement in the animal, but the second could (cheetahs generally could become faster by competition with other cheetahs and with gazelles because the slower cheetahs would not leave as many descendants).

The problem is that Darwin did not account for mass extinctions, especially those caused by events unrelated to the general survivability of a species. If an asteroid hits the earth, the fact that dinosaurs were well adapted for 140 million years before that is pretty much irrelevant. Mass extinctions are more frequent, more rapid, more intense, and more different in their effects than Darwin would permit. We cannot merely extrapolate from processes we see today in order to explain how life got to its current state. This means that the factual assumption Darwin made in order to accommodate his concept of "progress" is not true. The "progress" of the dinosaurs was completely undone by the impact that caused their extinction; it was the previously unsuccessful species which replaced them. This calls into question the entire vector of progress that Darwin built into his theory. At a broad scale, the history of life on earth is far more random than usually acknowledged.

As I read back over this summary, I'm greatly disappointed. A review like this cannot possibly state Gould's arguments in the detail they deserve. The biologists on the Board may see the omissions as holes in Gould's arguments. Those not familiar with the subject may be unable to follow his points because I left out an essential step. The book itself does not suffer from these flaws. Gould's argument is extraordinarily subtle and complex. He weaves together a tapestry of metaphor and erudition, logic and fact, that remains cohesive over 1343 pages. That's remarkable.

Darby commented a couple of times that Gould needs an editor. I was going to develop this at some length, but intervening events caused me to reflect on Mark Twains' famous postscript: "I apologize for the length of this letter. If I'd had more time, I'd have made it shorter." Stephen Jay Gould didn't have more time. Now that I'm able to look back with satisfaction on having read the book, as opposed to looking forward with trepidation on struggling through it, I'm glad to have his thoughts in such copious detail.

[> Tiny addendum, if I may -- Masq, 09:23:27 06/05/02 Wed

Just to keep the equilibrium on the board (*snerk*).

Sophist's post is part of a long-standing on-going discussion among biology enthusiasts on the board and is in no way a response to any of the issues raised by Ronia below.

As for the OT nature of the thread, I've enjoyed the biological discussion that has appeared on this board from time to time. Of course, I taught this stuff for eight years in my Philosophy of Biology course and would rather be an observer of it now!

[> 'As I read back over this summary, I'm greatly disappointed' - Please don't be! -- OnM, 09:54:53 06/05/02 Wed

As someone who over the last several years has managed to not finish many other books that were a mere few hundred pages, let alone over a thousand, your summary provided me with some additional enlightenment on a subject that interests me, but that is not one I have great time to pursue.

So, big time thanks for your 'succinctness'!

Learn somthin' new every day...

:-)

[> Thank you! -- Darby, 10:16:32 06/05/02 Wed

Part of what I've seen change in Gould over the last few years' Natural History columns has been length, true, but also unnecessary convolutions - I don't think any of the editors felt comfortable saying, "Steve, couldn't you make this point more clearly?" Comparing his early work to the later, I don't really think his prose got more dense on its own, I suspect it had always been that way in draft.

Sophist, this was an excellent review, which I appreciate because I just don't have the patience for a first-hand experience (I'm lazy, I'll admit it). I've always found Gould an excellent example of a great thinker, a reasonable and eloquent man, who became linked to an idea (punctuated equilibrium) so firmly that it became the huge blind spot in his life. I've never understood how the facts that a) evolution is driven by critical aspects of the environment and b) critical aspects of the environment change at different rates - sometimes slowly if at all, often rapidly between periods of stability, usually differently in different parts of the same "place" (there are a lot more mini-environments affecting beetles than mammals!) - have led to two camps who each feel that the pattern of evolution has to follow only one of those two paces.

But I now feel like I have some idea of the content of this book I'm not going to read. You've performed a great semi-public service!

[> I agree with OnM (and a few thoughts) -- matching mole, 11:27:46 06/05/02 Wed

First of all Sophist you have my gratitude and admiration for actually reading the entire book and for writing such a clear summary of it. I'm sure you did leave a lot out but how could you not? In fact when you quote Gould I found your straightforward writing much more enjoyable than his greater verbosity.

Unfortunately this is a very busy week for me and I'm leaving on vacation on the weekend so I don't have time to comment as much as I might like. My problem with Gould has always been that he seems to make mountains out of molehills (no pun intended). I think this is largely a matter of perspective.

I would, very roughly, divide biologists who study evolution into three groups, based not on philosophy but practical approach. One group I'll call the evolutionary ecologists. Their approach is to study evolutionary processes as they are happening, in wild populations of organisms. This sort of work can include anything from the adaptive story-telling criticized by Gould and others to enormously detailed studies of single populations that can go on for decades.

The second group are the evolutionary geneticists. They study the interaction between the genetic structure of organisms and evolutionary forces. Evolutionary genetics is largely an experimental, lab-based field but there is a fair amount of field work as well.

The third group are the comparative or pattern oriented evolutionists. They are interested in large-scale, long-term evolutionary patterns that cannot be easily be studied in real time. The processes that caused the patterns must be inferred rather than directly observed.

The distinction between these three groups is much less clear now than it was twenty years ago largely because technical advances in molecular biology have allowed biologists to ask questions they couldn't have dreamed of in the 1970s. But I think it is somewhat useful. Gould, as a paleontologist, is clearly primarily a pattern evolutionist. I was trained primarily in the ecological side of things but with a heavy emphasis on genetics.

What Gould sees as a revolutionary idea might seem only mildly interesting to a geneticist. Punctuated evolution is a good example. The pattern of stasis interupted by periods of rapid evolution in and of itself scarcely raises the geneticist's eyebrow. To her/him evolution is the change in frequency of genes in a population over time. The fact that it happens faster at some times than others because of external factors is interesting but doesn't really affect the structure of (their) evolutionary theory. However if you suggest that the rapid evolution is caused by macromutations (single changes in genes that have very large effects on the organisms bearing them) then the geneticists get upset. As I understand it Gould has largely or wholly abandoned the idea of macromutations.

The other issue is one of his ideas about natural selection which seem a bit odd to me. I really don't follow the argument that the hump of muscle in the Irish elk is any less of an adaptation (i.e. the product of natural selection) than the antlers. This is called correlative selection - selection favoured (presumably) elk with large antlers and large humps over any other combination. It is true that the hump is only useful in the context of having antlers - I don't think even the most naive of adaptationists would argue otherwise. But I would argue that the reverse is also true - the antlers are only useful in the context of having a strong enough hump to support them.

I am really behind at work now but I have one more thing to add which is a question to Sophist. Did you bring in the dog/cat intermediate form example yourself or did Gould? I wouldn't expect you to know this (but I would Gould) but within Carnivores dogs and cats are not particularly closely related (dogs are more closely related to bears, cats to hyaenas). The common ancestor of cats and dogs probably didn't look too much like either of them.

[> [> Thanks to you, Masq, OnM and Darby for your kind words -- Sophist, 12:36:40 06/05/02 Wed

Your distinction between types of evolutionists is new to me and interesting. Thanks. Gould divides them into population geneticists, paleontologists, and damn I've forgotten the third category.

To answer your question, Gould is the one who used the cats and dogs example (I can't find it right now, but I believe I got it right). He was discussing Dobzhansky's concept of peaks of adaptive fitness as explaining the clumping seen in morphospace. His point was not that the two species are closely related (of course they're not), but that here are two carnivores which vary widely in bodyplan, and there are no intermediates despite the fact that it seems easy to design an intermediate that would be well adapted to the same role.

Your point about the hump is fair. I chose this example (Gould did use it) because his other example involved snails and their chambers, and was a bit obscure even though it supported his point better. I'm sure Gould would agree with you; he only meant that the hump itself was not directly selected for. He went on to comment that the hump was then exapted (his term) for sexual selection, which we know from cave paintings showing its color.

Gould vehemently denies that he ever favored macromutations or saltation as part of punk eek. He does adopt the view that speciation is the method by which adaptations are preserved and fixed, but the rate of change is independent of this.

Enjoy your vacation.

[> Even more unapologetically OT: Green Eggs & Ham was the greatest book published in the 20th century! -- Caroline (hijacking the thread), 13:32:26 06/05/02 Wed

Wow, great work Sophist. Got a little lost but I know just enough about this to appreciate your efforts. And, I just felt like having some fun with Dr. Seuss!

[> Amazing post, Sopist!! & great response, matching mole -- redcat, 14:03:36 06/05/02 Wed

This is an incredible review essay!! Thanks so much for taking the time to write it. And thanks to matching mole for his(?) response, especially the discussion about Gould's example of the elk's hump, which also bothered me. But then I know almost nothing about any of this stuff, except about the ways Gould has been used by historians and cultural critics, which is a very different thing than understanding the ideas of Gould himself. And I very much appreciate the wonderful clarity of your writing, Sophist, both here and in other posts. You've given us much to think about.

[> Ahhhh, brain buzz. Thanks, Sophist! Great work on a subject I love. -- mundusmundi, 15:14:08 06/05/02 Wed


[> Thanks! -- d'Herblay, 15:33:05 06/05/02 Wed

I finally ordered the book on Tuesday. Should I promise my own review in, maybe, November?

[> Excellent review, Sophist, thank you. -- Ixchel, 18:26:07 06/05/02 Wed

You shouldn't be disappointed at all. I think you represented Gould's ideas (that I know from his non-specialist works) quite clearly (and these concepts can be very elusive to grasp fully).

Now, I know I must read this book eventually, daunting though it is.

I especially liked the "intrinsic" quote you chose for this Board. Very fitting!

Ixchel

Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- OnM, 09:22:28 06/05/02 Wed

I'm going to start off by quoting myself-- this is from the very first of my season 6 ep reviews, which I
wrote after viewing Bargaining Pt's I & II:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~

*******

It was so... clear... on this spot. I remember how... shiny... and clear... everything was. But now... now...

*******

I will make a prediction that this episode will cause a lot of division of opinion among the Buffyverse faithful, for in the entire five years that I have watched this series, I simply cannot recall a darker episode than Bargaining.

Make no mistake, I find myself-- as is usually the case with the writers and actors of the Buffyverse-- in awe of people who take what should be the most banal of cliches and turn them into something as powerful and disturbing as this is. I'm thinking of all the carping and bitching of those who, when the first (now obviously fairly accurate) spoilers were leaked in the early summer, were immediately presuming that 'it could never work', 'it's too trite', 'oh please, not a spell', 'oh please not more of the Buffybot', etc. etc. Well, they were wrong. The writers and actors did it, they made it work, and they kept it reasonably true to the mythology as it has so far been presented over the last five years.

Joss has stated on many occasions that he writes for the fans, and that he gives them what they need, not necessarily what they want. For sure, when I tuned in last evening, as anxious as any out there to see how the very non-trivial issue of death and rebirth/resurrection was going to be taken in hand, I really didn't want to see the results that I saw.

Not because it was done badly, but because there is only so much pain one cares to stand, and Bargaining is all about pain, and guilt, and loss, and how to deal with it. As one ATPo poster has already remarked, this is still a show that doesn't pull any punches, and I feel pretty safe in saying that there must be many out there like myself who were left reeling by what for all intents and purposes amounts to the pyschological rape of the heroine who, three short/long months ago, so willingly gave the ultimate gift of her life to save those that she loved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

OK, back to the present again, and some additional thoughts after watching the rebroadcast of Bargaining Pt. II last night, which I followed up by digging out my tape of the next ep, Afterlife, and then watching it again also.

You know, even after six full years of watching BtVS, I had always considered the most powerful, emotional moment of the series to be the one after Buffy 'kills' Angel and then worse yet, sends him to suffer in 'hell' in Becoming Part II. Yes, I agree that there are many other times that come very close, possibly even equal it, such as in The Body/Forever, or Spike's sudden change of heart after seeing Buffy steeped in sorrow over her inability to help her mother in Fool for Love.

None of these, in my current opinion, can equal what what transpired in this trilogy of episodes, once you look at them with the benefit of knowing what we didn't when Bargaining was first broadcast last fall. Again, quoting my review:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

A large part of the disquiet I feel so far towards this new season is directly a result of Sarah and her work.
She now completely inhabits this character, and all of the character's incarnations. Effortlessly (or so it
seems, of course we know it's anything but effortless in actual practice), she moves between the endearing perkiness and surprising warmth and presence of the Buffybot, into the haunted, soul-ravaged visage of the resurrected NeoBuffy, the latter portrayal in particular so heart-rending that I shudder to think from what part of her psyche she somehow pulled those emotions out of. The scene on the tower, where the positions have now reversed, and it becomes Dawn who must save her, and by extension the rest of humankind, is a flawless counterpoint to the way the previous season ended. Gellar's dead-on reading of the critical moment conveys to us a clear emotional understanding of that existential despair that NeoBuffy faces, and why she would consider leaping to her death not as an act of heroism, but only to seek the solace of unsensing, unfeeling oblivion. This would be an act that no one would ever associate with the original Buffy we all know and admire, the one who understood the nature of love, and whose soul both recognized and seized upon that one perfect moment of spiritual clarity and brightness, and did what needed to be done, to the saving of us all. No matter how skillfully this scene was written and directed, it required the actor to make us accept the unthinkable, and believe it to be real. Sarah came through. I bow down most humbly in appreciation.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~

... and why she would consider leaping to her death not as an act of heroism, but only to seek the solace of unsensing, unfeeling oblivion ...

Oh, but now we know why, don't we? It wasn't about 'unsensing, unfeeling oblivion', was it? The elemental horror is now multiplied several-fold. Things move from heartbreaking but earthly angst into 'My God, why have you abandoned me?' soul-rending territory. This new knowledge does make perfectly clear the why behind the character's motivations, which leads me to a subject for possible discussion:

How much sacrifice is enough?

Several times over the past year or so I've used the term 'grace' when referring to what I consider one of Buffy's most admirable qualities. Maybe the term comes readily to me because of a Catholic upbringing as a young child, and the regular repetition of the phrase 'Hail Mary, full of Grace' during prayers. Is Buffy Mary? Mary had to endure the sorrow of watching her son die on the cross, (as Buffy had to watch her lover drawn into hell) but on the other hand, one presumes that Mary has never been called back from heaven to suffer some more in the earthly plane. Even Jesus, who did reappear briefly as a mortal after his death, still ended up back in heaven in fairly short order.

In Afterlife, Buffy chooses to deceive her friends about the true horror of her plight in order to spare their feelings, because (being 'full of Grace') she understands that they meant well, that they were trying to help her, and also do a good deed for the world by returning a warrior for good to it.

It takes her the rest of the season to 'recover' and regain some perspective of 'moving on', and dealing with the 'fate' you have been dealt as best as humanly possible. She does so, ultimately, for the same reason that she initially lies to her friends-- because she loves them, and wants to see them happy. Her happiness is a reflection of theirs, surely a 'state of grace'.

Now granted, the whole point of the season would be lost if this arc had not been followed, but as a theoretical quandry to address, should Buffy have 'fessed up' right off the bat, and told her friends the truth? Would this have diminished her 'grace' to any degree to have done so?

In the 'real world', where practicality often tends to rule over spiritual goals, it would make sense for her to tell them, thus sparing her soul much personal anguish over the months to come. But Buffy is a 'hero', and heroes have an obligation to set an example.

Your thoughts?


*******

BTW, as an aside, an interesting experiment some of you may wish to try: You may have noticed that I referred to the first three eps of S6 as a 'trilogy'. I feel this to be the case, and that the airing of Bargaining in seperate parts, rather than a seamless two-hour show makes this organization significantly clearer.

If you have two VCRs, or ready access to a second one, try making a copy of the first three eps, filtering out all the commercials, and splicing the three eps together into one continuous 2 hr and a few minutes long 'movie'. Then, watch it that way, preferably with other friends/fans who have never seen it presented in this format.

Is it a 'movie', or still three eps? I vote 'movie'-- like the quasi-cliffhangers of previous season-enders, this trio of eps is, in a way, completely 'self-contained'. The story could have ended at the end of Afterlife, and Ingmar Bergman or one of those other gloomy, broody director-types would have been much pleased, methinks!

What say you?

*******

[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- Ete, 09:46:58 06/05/02 Wed

You says : "It takes her the rest of the season to 'recover' and regain some perspective of 'moving on', and dealing
with the 'fate' you have been dealt as best as humanly possible. She does so, ultimately, for the same
reason that she initially lies to her friends-- because she loves them, and wants to see them happy. Her
happiness is a reflection of theirs, surely a 'state of grace'."

I disagree. I took Buffy's final going back to life as the realisation that she has to enjoy life for herself, not by duty for her friends or the world. Ofcourse, her friends and family is also a big part of it, but the realisation comes when Dawn asks her if she wanted to see the world end... and Buffy says with vehemence of course not !

This is a season that showed how too much of rightousness could lead to darkness and evil.

Sometimes it's more healthy to be a little selfish.

There's no respect of the others without self-respect.

[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht- anguish, fer sure... -- Deeva, 10:30:23 06/05/02 Wed

The trilogy idea is an interesting idea. And now thinking about it, I think that you're right about the first 3 of S6 being a "movie". The feeling I get is that it all takes place in one looong night and then the day after, maybe roughly 24 hours. I just know, now that I've typed that, that I'll be corrected about the actual timeline.

[> [> Which ties in perfectly to the finale "Quartet"... -- Rob, 11:02:22 06/05/02 Wed

Just as the first three episodes of the year can be seen as one continuous movie, so can, I believe, the last four episodes. "Seeing Red" leads directly into "Villains," which leads directly into "Two to Go," which leads directly into "Grave." The story picks up in each episode exactly where the previous one left off. Further, just as the end of "Bargaining" through the early part of "After Life" are the same night, and then the day after, the end of "Villains" all the way through the middle of "Grave" take place in the same night, and then the morning after. There's nice symmetry to that.

Rob

[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht- anguish, fer sure... -- ponygirl, 13:23:44 06/05/02 Wed

Lovely post OnM! Hindsight is indeed a wonderful thing -- watching Bargaining 1 & 2 was so much easier to watch now that I can see it as part of the larger whole. Not that I didn't appreciate the ep. the first go around, but now I can enjoy the setup of the arcs. What really struck me in Bargaining 2 was the scene in the woods where Tara hands over the care of the unconscious Willow to Xander. He promises to look after her for Tara. So good! Foreshadowing that you can only appreciate now that it's all over! (or is that pretty much what foreshadowing is?)

[> [> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- maddog, 09:32:39 06/06/02 Thu

Its an interesting point that you make about appreciating the season so much more now...after you've seen how effective the arcs were in the end. It happens EVERY year and yet every year at the midway point there's one group of people that are ready to write the show off cause it just doesn't make sense to them. But by season's end 90% of them go, "Oh, I get it now". People have to learn patience. We don't always get what we want when we want it.

[> Tara as Tinker Bell (Season 6/Peter Pan Spoilage) -- Jon, 14:00:54 06/05/02 Wed

I was struck by the Tara as Tinker Bell bit - the light she sends flitting through the woods in search of Willow & Xander. Xander draws attention to it explicitly saying something like, "how long have you known your girlfriend is Tinker Bell?" to Willow.

Was this already discussed? Two things:

1)what's Peter Pan's motto? "I'll never grow up" - isn't that it? And the theme of Season 6? "Oh grow up." Hmm.

2)Does Tinker Bell nearly die in every production of Peter Pan - having to be coaxed back to life by the magic of audience participation? One of my co-workers says so. What is it that the audience has to say? "I do believe...in magic? in faeries?" Anyway, um, Tara dies at the end of season 6. What does the audience have to do to bring her back?

Jon

[> [> Clap if you believe in Tara -- cjl, 14:09:27 06/05/02 Wed

And it could also mean that Tara will be a sort of faerie or spirit presence in Season 7...

[> [> [> Clap, clap, clap, clap, clap (hehe) -- Scroll, 15:42:13 06/05/02 Wed


[> [> Speculations on S7- spoilers for late S6 & "Truly Madly Deeply" -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 14:56:32 06/05/02 Wed

Apparently Amber Benson is on retainer for S7; people have wondered why. The idea of a lost Tara as a ghost or spirit occasionally leaves me with "Oh, good God" as a reaction; hasn't it been done before?

Of course, some of the "doing-before" wasn't bad at all -- I'm rather partial to "Blithe Spirit" (played successfully for laughs), "The Ghost & Mrs. Muir" (both the 1940s version and (at times) the 1960s television show) and, of course, the 1992? '93? "Truly Madly Deeply," with Alan Rickman as a romantic lead and Juliet Stevenson as his bereaved lover.

I might see something of this in Tara's spectral return; she could have the job of Rickman's character in the film. For the protection of the world she may have to reconcile Willow to her own loss. Who knows?

Last word on "Truly Madly Deeply" -- the last scene is, was magnificent. In fifteen seconds and no words it said more than many films accomplish in two hours.

[> [> [> Re: Speculations on S7- spoilers for late S6 & "Truly Madly Deeply" -- Dochawk, 18:45:00 06/05/02 Wed

In Restless Tara's spirit was Buffy's guide to finding herself and her friends. Will she do so again (and be Buffy's guide not Willow's)? The alternate possibility is Ripper, which is supposedly about ghosts and Giles. Could Tara be a good ghost who helps Giles in whatever role the PTB demand of him? (Like Phantom Dennis, but more mobile and not so see through)

[> [> [> Re: Speculations on S7- spoilers for late S6 & "Truly Madly Deeply" -- cjc36, 09:17:03 06/06/02 Thu

Also, flashbacks and dreams would require AB's presence on set.

[> [> [> God, I love that movie -- dream of the consortium, 10:59:05 06/06/02 Thu

I'm not the type to cry at movies (except if I'm underslept, in which case I cry at anything), but that one reduces me to a quivering mass every time.

I would like to see Tara in the Rickman role, it could make sense. At the same time, I am very glad they didn't do that right away, as I rather expected. I felt that if Tara (as a ghost) had been the one to pull Willow back from the brink, the point that her death was real and unchangeable would have been lost. Willow had to start to recover from the death of her lover without the help of her lover, which is one of the worst aspects of that sort of loss - the horrible moments when you need someone to talk to and think first to call the very person you lost. I really felt that Xander was the more meaningful choice. But, Willow has a long haul in front of her and a ghost Tara might work at some point.

I think I would prefer, though, that Buffy sees Tara. Tara's role in Restless and the support she gave Buffy this year seem to make this a possibility. I am hoping that the "going back to the beginning" theme will mean investigating the roots of the Slayer, and Tara could serve as a spiritual guide for Buffy in this. And wouldn't the complications be delicious if Buffy could see Tara, or even a spirit who looked like Tara, and Willow couldn't? Would Buffy tell Willow? (Will Buffy actually start telling people things now?) How would Willow react? What if Tara sent Willow an occasional simple message - "Tell Willow I love her" - but only appeared at length to Buffy. Will Willow learn to speak her anger and resentment and jealousy, instead of hiding behind the innocent exterior until she is boiling with rage?

When does the next season start?

[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - (& spoilers for *Grave*) -- MaeveRigan, 14:19:14 06/05/02 Wed

"Several times over the past year or so I've used the term 'grace' when referring to what I consider one of
Buffy's most admirable qualities."

Enjoyed your whole re-review of "Bargaining," OnM. Thanks!

As for Buffy as instrument or means of grace, it occurs to me now that although "The Gift"/"Bargaining 1&2" reveal her as a type of Christ-figure--dying to save the world, being resurrected--she's much more of a "humanistic" version of this hero-type than is Xander of "Grave" (I'll get to that), simply because of her reluctance to be back in the world, her unwillingness or inability to resume her mission (the whole "going through the motions" thing), and the way that, well, let's face it--she's less than heroic throughout most of B6.

Before the anti-Xander crew's shouts bring down the site, here's my still somewhat- incoherent theory. Xander is usually presented to us as a total incompetent (although one can cite many times when he demonstrated surprising competence), as a foolish jokester (that's important), and as self- righteous and judgmental--in other words, a man of many flaws. Not saying those things aren't true. And yet, again and again, Xander is the heart of the gang, the one who can feel truly, make an acceptable offering. In "Grave," he's acting from another tradition: the Holy Fool, also a Christ archetype. We could also see him as King David--capable of the sublime and the ridiculous and the truly horrific, but always asking in the end, "What would Buffy do?" (Buffy being Xander's highest moral model; God, of course, was David's). In the Christian tradition, David, too is read as a type of Christ, for various reasons. In *Grave*, Xander acts not as the glorious, divine, heroic Christ-figure (Buffy in *The Gift*), but as the human, suffering, foolish Christ-figure, the one who talks funny ("parables" just a fancy word), the one who eats with outcasts (ex-demons?), the one who likes children (Dawn? Snoopy dance?), the one who gets beaten up, and just keeps saying (sometimes metaphorically), "I love you." Xander doesn't have to actually die, as Buffy did, for the parallel to be there.

Some people are outraged because Xander got to save the day because he's not "good enough." Flannery O'Connor would have understood. Grace is made perfect in weakness.

[> [> Meaning of Alexander -- Vickie, 22:55:59 06/05/02 Wed

Protector of mankind

I'd guess NOT an accident.

[> [> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - (& spoilers for *Grave*) -- maddog, 09:49:46 06/06/02 Thu

I'd like to take to task those that found his saving the day to be a bad thing...he wasn't good enough...don't you get it...that's the whole f'ing point. Xander is the screw up. The normal one. The soldier without powers or capabilities. Yet in the end it didn't take something like that. It took him being himself. It took his HUMANITY to save the world. The simplicity alone had me thinking about the show for days. That and the fact that in a show full of the supernatural they gave the big save to the one person who felt useless. To the one that shouldn't have been able to do it. To Xander, the regular guy. There's a certain uplifting feeling I got out of that. One of those, I can take on the world type feelings.

[> [> [> You got it! I get that. -- MaeveRigan, 10:23:07 06/06/02 Thu


[> I agree with Ete's above post. And I agree with you, OnM, ... -- Ixchel, 20:44:08 06/05/02 Wed

Regarding SMG's amazing performance. It must be difficult to express depression and then the overlay of false normality. BTW, I miss the Buffybot, she _was_ endearing.

"How much sacrifice is enough?" I'm not sure, maybe at the point you no longer wish to give? Then it changes from sacrifice to obligation or theft?

As to "grace", I understand why Buffy wished to spare her friends and this is an admirable part of her personality (her protective aspect). She wanted to protect them from their own guilt and her pain (which she continued to try to do even after they knew about "heaven"). But, she was only hurting them and herself by not being honest. I don't believe that her silent suffering benefited anyone, or set a good example. She distances herself from her friends by sparing them and denies them the primary chance to truly assist her in adjusting (as right after OMWF Willow's problems begin). I don't judge Buffy for behaving the way she did (also, Willow and Xander are somewhat willfully ignorant), she is so confused and lost, she follows her usual pattern (I believe that NA explained a great deal about this). I think it's a testament to her strength that she was able function (even poorly) given the depth of depression I perceived. OTOH, this strength enables her to maintain a facade (almost the entire season) of being mostly whole, when she is really so broken. IMHO, there is a certain embittering quality of too much selflessness that creates a convoluted arrogance (a martyrdom) that can be as corrosive to a personality as selfishness. I believe this is what was happening to Buffy. And any anger she felt toward her friends (IMHO, feelings aren't rational, they just are) she directed towards herself and Spike.

Ixchel

[> [> Great post, Ixchel -- Rahael, 01:47:14 06/06/02 Thu

and to go slightly off topic. Much is said about how difficult depressed people are to be around. Well, it was certainly hard to be depressed. But now with the perspective of not being so, and of being close to two really great human beings who are, I have to say that both of them share a common characteristic. A real sensitivity to others, and a degree of insight and awareness others don't have. Despite those who would argue otherwise, I would say that Buffy has shown the first characteristic this season, but not so much of the second.

[> [> [> Thank you, Rahael. You make an interesting point about depression. -- Ixchel, 17:38:40 06/06/02 Thu

I believe I know what you mean about sensitivity, people who are so despairing can, maybe, perceive sadness in others and aren't afraid of it, don't turn away from it, or dismiss it (as the less depressive may do). As to awareness, IIRC, there was a study that showed that depressed people perceive some situations more realisticaly than people who weren't depressed (so it seems a certain small amount of self delusion is beneficial). Of course the expression of these traits also depends on the severity and type of depression. A depressed person may understand and perceive another person's distress, but be in a sort of emotional paralysis and be unable to react at all. Or he/she may be so overwhelmed by emptiness that he/she can only see the abyss all around and others are just tiny specs on the horizon (IMHO, the earlier portion of Buffy's depression was of this type). Regarding Buffy's sensitivity to others, do you refer to her shielding her friends and Dawn from her hollowness? Or her reaction to Willow's problems (wanting to help, feeling guilt about not being there for her)? Or is it something I'm not thinking of? As to insight and awareness, I would suggest that these have never been Buffy's stronger points (not that she hasn't had her moments). Intelligent and intuitive, yes. But, insightful or (especially) self aware, not so much.

Ixchel

[> [> [> [> Interesting discussion... -- Tillow, 04:43:19 06/07/02 Fri

May I join in? :)

I absolutely agree with the point you make about selflessness/martyrdom above Ixchel. And I think that was even addressed on the show at the height of Buffy's mental shakedown (NA) with Spike's little bit about the hero trip.

Interesting that in alcoholic families, one of the coping mechanisms that emerges is the hero (Buffy). As with all coping mechanisms, if held onto too long (past the point they are needed) they become detrimental to the person's growth process. The 'hero' role is meant to be used as a tool rather than an identity. I digress.

About the sensitivity issue... I think it is interesting to note that often depressed people are the most sensitive people out there but depending on their level of depression, they simply may not have anything to give or they may not know when to stop. Either way ending up with depleted mental and emotional energies.

I think we saw that on the show this year with Buffy. She had given her all, her life and was done. She didn't have anything left to give when she returned yet was expected by her father figure to take point, if you will. Not only to fight the good fight, but to "hear the cries around her." Yeesh. It's nearly too much to expect of someone at their best, let alone someone in the midst of a major depression.

I also think it's interesting to note the different ways that Spike and Buffy deal with their depressed states. While Spike is an active depressed character (I say this because of his - until recently - arrested state of development), he is able be insightful to those around him. Even people he isn't around often. He's the truth teller.(I'm thinking of when he is tied up in the bathroom commenting on willow hanging on by a thread after Oz' departure).

He reminds me of someone with clinical depression. The kind that is so invasive and omnipresent that he doesn't even need to acknowledge it, instead focusing on the problems of others. It's like a second skin.

And of course Buffy would seek out another depressed character, someone who could understand.

Just had to chime in...

Tillow

[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting discussion... -- Rahael, 10:02:27 06/07/02 Fri

join away, Tillow!

Lots of nails on head moments in both posts.

I especially like the point you make Ixchel, about 'not being afraid of sadness'. That is very true. And the interesting point about Normal Again was that Buffy was presented with two different versions of reality - and like most depressed people the more depressing, and bleak world was the one that appeared more 'real'. Sunnydale has life and colour in a way that the asylum didn't have. Moreover, one of the key people in the asylum is someone who is dead, and therefore, can be said to personify death.

My impression of Buffy's sensitivity is not so much located in actual specific events (am I projecting?). It comes from her willingness to be there for Willow, the way she tries to do her best for Dawn, the way she tries to rally the troops in Hells Bells. I have to say that this has been more emphasised in her character in Season 6 than in any previous season. It's as if she lost some kind of protective emotional armour by dying and being called back.

As for insight? I'd say that she isn't into self analysis, or raking over the past. She's very much of the 'now' as Giles put it, and history is very much 'then'.

[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting discussion... -- Tillow, 10:22:54 06/07/02 Fri

My impression of Buffy's sensitivity is not so much located in actual specific events (am I projecting?). It comes from her willingness to be there for Willow, the way she tries to do her best for Dawn, the way she tries to rally the troops in Hells Bells.

Rahael, I wonder if this might have been more emphasized in S6 because it was a feeling of responsibility... one that she was having a hard time living up to. In Normal Again she wanted to give in to the desire to give up that responsibility. In Hells Bells, after she has taken up her Hero mantle more fully again, she more successfully bears her responsibilities again with the rallying the troops. And then there is the final moment of grave when she accepts her responsibility and also is finally actually sensitive to Dawn, seeing her for who she is, instead of as part of her duty to protect.

Don't get me wrong, I think in her normal state, Buffy is very sensitive to other people, I would just say that in a depressed state, that sensitivity can sometimes become a burden. It's a colored view of reality perhaps but that can be the extent of depression sometimes. (Uh oh. Am I projecting?) :)


Ah! I'm going away for the weekend but I will check the archives to see if anyone had any other comments...

Tillow

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Fabulous discussion, everyone - thank you! -- Caroline, 12:59:33 06/07/02 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Interesting discussion... -- yuri, 13:29:21 06/07/02 Fri

You mention the scene where Spike says what everyone is trying not believe, that Willow isn't getting any better, and I've actually, throughout this thread, been thinking of Willow and how the idea of the sympathetic depressed person doesn't fit her. When she was upset about OZ, I doubt she could have spotted sadness in anyone very easily or willingly. This fits entirely with what we've seen of her character since then, but also what I've always found slightly disturbing about that time was how unsympathetic Buffy and Xander were to her dispair. Was it because they were in stable places, and therefore unable to identify with her pain, or because the type of mourner she was (selfish, consuming) didn't inspire sympathy? To get sympathy, you need to show some awareness, I guess.

Anyhow, to Ixchel and Rahael and Tillow, it's rare when you get such kaboomage out of such brief paragraphs, so thanks. Also, I find interesting the line between the depressed who is able to use their enhanced ability to see other's pain and not be afraid of it and who acts upon it in a positive way, and the depressed who uses that awareness too much and leans on it to create unhealthy relationships in which they are the perpetual confidant, comforter, or hero. I think I've been the latter a few times (not so much the hero, but definitely the confidant), and it's really hard because I always wonder if I would prefer not to help out at all, or to create these imbalanced relationships with people. I worry that I don't know how to find the balance (intellectually, I do, but in practice it is much more diffucult) and so I feel I have to choose one extreme. I've realized that it doesn't help the person in pain any more than it helps me, and that it is selfish of me to set things up like that, so I have pretty much forced myself away from doing it. But this is probably why the topic so fascinates me. I'm beginning to really understand that, as Tillow says, you must only use it as a tool, and not an identity.

[> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht- anguish, fer sure... -- JBone, 21:11:13 06/05/02 Wed

Re-viewing these episodes along with your initial and updated thoughts takes me right back to watching these shows. I believe I was the poster you referred to when you quoted this is still a show that doesn't pull any punches. This is probably going to be one of my stranger posts (remarkably), so bear with me.

I felt like I just went through a sparring match after I watched Bargaining. I was slipping as many punches as I could, but I was still, ultimately, getting my ass kicked. Personally, I love getting challenged like that. It's like the writers said "You like dark? You think Buffy plays it safe? We'll give you dark and dangerous." It like going to see a hardcore rock band that tries to blow the crowd away from the stage, because they don't believe the crowd can hang. You wanna rock? Rock this.

Anyway, I believe one of things that hurt the season overall was the feeling you were getting your ass kicked every week. No one wants their ass kicked week in, week out. An occasional one isn't so bad since getting pummeled once in a while is better than never fighting at all.

[> [> Re: Afterlife Thoughts on *Bargaining* - Eine grosse nacht-anguish, fer sure... -- abt, 13:58:37 06/07/02 Fri

Yes, in the middle of the season, I felt like, do I really want to sit and watch another 45 minutes of misery, and people being unpleasant? Are these people even friends anymore? Why should I want to 'know' them? 612, 614, and 615 made me want to distance myself, I didn't look forward to the next episode after those eps, I wanted to delay it. It seemed like every time I thought things were getting better for Buffy, they weren't. Those are the only times I haven't looked forward to the next episode.

613 was great, 616 OK and made me like Buffy again, and 617 onwards great, so ultimately I'm glad I stuck it out, but I hope this doesn't happen next year. I usually look forward to each ep so much, whether it's comedy, drama, horror, tragedy etc.

Beneath the Stairs -- Arethusa, 12:17:41 06/05/02 Wed

This is probably been addressed before, but I don't have time to research today, so I'll ask you guys to be my whirly-eyed researchers for me.

Many, many times when Spike and Buffy met it was on, near, or under stairs-representing, no doubt, how they are from different worlds, and must meet in the middle. "Buffy" (Faith in B's body) first came on to Spike under the stairs, the FFL talk started at a table next to the stairs, the "I know I'm not a man..." speech, the first non-spell kiss, and others I can't think of now.

Would anyone care to discuss, enumerate or elaborate?

[> Re: Beneath the Stairs -- abt, 12:46:37 06/05/02 Wed

When they first had sex, they fell through a floor/ceiling, IIRC, thus bypassing the stairs entirely.

Stairs scenes in The Gift/Afterlife too, of course.

[> Re: Beneath the Stairs -- Doriander, 13:21:08 06/05/02 Wed

And I thought I was the only one. I've this nutty fixation on stair encounters/interaction between thses two, they just tend to be memorable. Kinda like the bed scenes between Willow and Spike. Actually, I've just this fixation on stairs in general. Sorry, nothing really insightful to contribute, so allow me the simple task of enumerating:

Lie To Me-during the stand-off, Dru in exchange for the wannabe vamps

Becoming 2-don't know if this counts, first tag team slayage on the steps to the Summers' front door.

Harsh light of Day-daytime fight culminates on steps down the sunken portion of the quad.

Goodbye Iowa-Spike sits on Giles stairway as he gives Buffy his own assessment of her tragic taste in men.

Who Are You- Oh you know the scene

Fool for Love-a)The Bronze- their table situated right next to it;b) final shot, backyard steps

The Gift-a) Spike sits on ladder leading up to the Magic shop balcony as he pontificates on blood; b) "I know you'll never love me....."

Afterlife-first encounter

Flooded-a) reprise of FFL final shot; b) Spike on stairs leading to the basement "Did you know this place is flooded?"

Tabula Rasa-correct me if I'm wrong, but the final shot here appears to be beneath the stair, same spot as the Who Are You scene perhaps?

Smashed- probably doesn't count, but they did some damage on the building's stairwell

That all of it?

[> [> Gah! forgot to add... -- Doriander, 13:26:42 06/05/02 Wed

OMWF- "The sun sets and she appears.." Buffy on threshold steps, Spike on ladder.

[> [> Re: Beneath the Stairs--one more -- Sulis, 13:46:24 06/05/02 Wed

Don't remember the name of the episode, but Spike helps Buffy fight a demon (Qweller? Cruller? the one that goes after crazy people) on the stairs at the Summers house in S5. He throws her the knife that she kills it with.

There's also the door scene in Dead Things on the steps of his crypt, not sure if that counts though.

[> [> [> Re: Beneath the Stairs--one more -- pr10n, 13:52:58 06/05/02 Wed

Does any of this add significance to Dawn's shadowy entrance to Spike's crypt in "Seeing Red"?

From the Not-Proving-Just-Thinking Department: How many correlations are there between Buffy/Spike and Dawn/Spike interactions?

[> [> [> Re: Beneath the Stairs--one more -- Doriander, 13:59:13 06/05/02 Wed

the ep is "Listening to Fear"

Oh yeah that scene in Dead Things. I suppose the door figured more prominently ( damn door outshining the steps!)

another one in Crush: Spike: "Seen anything interesting?" Buffy caught on the way up the crypt ladder.

[> [> [> [> 'The Ruffian on the Stairs' -- Rahael, 14:22:41 06/05/02 Wed

'The Ruffian on the Stairs' is a phrase (from late 19th, early 20th Lit which I can't remember where exactly from at all) which refers to Death. It's always struck me as a wonderfully apt description.

Since I rather like my theory that Spike and Buffy were attracted to each other by some morbid death wish (moths to the flame even) I'd like to suggest this. Not that I think that that's what the writers might have intended. But it's my perspective.

Now I'm waiting for someone to inform me who coined the phrase. I think it was the title of a novel.

[> [> [> [> [> Replying to myself -- Rahael, 14:28:09 06/05/02 Wed

Google informs me its the title of an Orton play. But did he originate it? I had the distinct impression it came from a novel written by a woman. hmmm. I could be totally wrong.

[> [> [> [> [> Re: 'The Ruffian on the Stairs' -- wina, 15:09:22 06/05/02 Wed

Madam Life's a piece in bloom
Death goes dogging everywhere:
She's the tennant of the room'
He's the ruffian on the stair

'echoes,9,'to W.R'
by W.E. Henley

like that!

[> [> [> [> [> [> Spike!!! -- Rahael, 15:18:38 06/05/02 Wed

How cool. dH's long running contention is that Spike was W.E Henley.

[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike!!!-for Rahael - - Arethusa, 08:24:36 06/06/02 Thu

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

Invictus

[> [> [> [> [> [> so entertained by this, I forgot to thank Wina. Thanks!! -- Rahael, 15:25:16 06/05/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> W.E. Henley rises again!!! ... and so cool to see d'H's theory validated! -- redcat, who also loves the poet's work, 16:57:13 06/05/02 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> death is from ruffia? -- anom, 20:45:13 06/05/02 Wed

(old George of the Jungle reference)

[> [> [> [> [> [> skidmarks ;) -- Soph, 21:59:38 06/05/02 Wed


[> Thanks, Everyone -- Arethusa, 14:30:04 06/05/02 Wed

Just what I wanted-mind munchies for idle moments.

Doriander-your post reminded me of something. Reading Jenoff's reviews of Buffy Season 4, it seemed (s)he thought a romance might spring up between Spike and Willow, based on Spike's fuzzy sweater comments and one or two other things. Another tangent to hunt down. How might Buffyverse history have changed if Spike fell for Willow instead of Buffy?

[> [> Re: Thanks, Everyone -- Doriander, 15:18:43 06/05/02 Wed

How might Buffyverse history have changed if Spike fell for Willow instead of Buffy?

Well for one thing, we probably wouldn't have the Willow/Tara story. No actually, they could've forged ahead with that, but I imagine it'd be doubly controversial. Recall the uproar from Oz fans back then, the Tara/Willow/Oz triangle was loaded enough, it'd be really tangled if Spike were to insinuate himself into Willow's love life.

In the S4 commentries, I think Doug mentioned the chemistry bet. Willow/Riley as well as Willow/Spike. He said something to the effect that they had to be careful with Willow/Riley because the two had so much chemistry, the fans might opt for that pairing over Buffy/Riley. As for Willow/Spike, he said the two actors can generate amazing chemistry with anyone/anything, and together they're shoo-in for really great scenes. I believe they played with the idea of Willow/Spike, as they did with Spike/Anya in WtWTa (according to Jane E.). The Spike/Anya thing paid off in "Entropy." Who knows what ME plans for Willow/Spike in S7? I doubt they'd be involved romantically, but as things stand, they're kindred souls (heh), so there's a great potential for friendship there.

[> Well, if we're going to consider stairs metaphors... -- Kitt, 14:35:30 06/05/02 Wed

then it occurs to me that a very interesting point is that he left his duster (second skin and trophy from the slain Slayer) at the BOTTOM of the stairs before he {ahem}
ascended them to find Buffy and talk to her... an encounter which led to him seeking out his soul and, by extension, redemption. (shedding his walls/defenses, his history of evil to go to talk to Buffy in an emotionally naked/vulnerable state)

Now THAT's a metaphor I can get behind.

[> [> Spoileage for SR above... and he=Spike... I need caffine{sigh}... -- Kitt, 14:41:21 06/05/02 Wed


[> [> Good one! -- ponygirl, 14:49:03 06/05/02 Wed

Had a similar thought when I saw the duster left behind. His entire outfit in that scene-- an abandonment of the adolescent jeans and t-shirt-- seemed to point to a new direction for Spike. I've been wanting to do an essay type thing on the symbolism of Spike's clothing (or lack of) over the years. If I can avoid this pesky job stuff I might just do it.

[> [> [> Re: Good one! -- Sophie, 19:53:42 06/05/02 Wed

Somebody posted a thread about clothes, specifically leather clothes, as body armor for protection this past winter of spring. Very interesting post, I will never be the same walking down thte street as now when I see people wearing leather, instead of thinking - "ooh! how sexy", now I think, "why do you need armor?"

Soph

[> [> [> [> Leather armor -- Fred, the obvious pseudonym, 20:33:26 06/05/02 Wed

Leaving out the pre-modern era, leather garments have been "armor" for over fifty years -- gang members liked them as they protected (slightly) against knife cuts. Bikers, of course, have liked them since c. 1910 as they protected your hide against high-speed spills. Your basic Levis aren't going to cut it if you slide 89 feet down the highway.
Most people now who wear leather are trying to "buy into" the image of the "tough guy" -- either gang member or biker.

They should be harmless.

[> [> The Symbolic meaning of Stairs -- Rufus, 00:35:28 06/06/02 Thu

Gee, this symbol dictionary is getting well worn...from Herders dictionary of symbols....

Stairs: A symbol of emotional and spiritual development and of incremental gains in wisdom and knowledge, it has essentially the same symbolic meaning as the LADDER, which was generally understood to lead from the bottom up (and thus in the direction of the sky or of heaven), the stairs sometimes also descend under the earth and into dark realms. Thus they can symbolize either descent into the realm of the dead or the approach to occult knowledge or to the unconscious.

-While stairs point symbolically to clarity and wisdom; black stairs to black magic.

-In the Egyptian solar religion, stepped pyramids represented the stairs on which the soul ascends to heaven; there are also pictures of boats in the middle of which stairs are erected on which the soul ascends toward the light. The Babylonian ziggurat (stepped tower) probably can be understood in a similar sense.

-The spiral stairs share the symbolism of the spiral.

[> Symbolic Positioning (Longish, Spoilers) -- Exegy, 15:00:33 06/05/02 Wed

The stairs also signify the respective stations of Buffy and Spike. We see that Spike is almost always placed lower than Buffy; his literal positioning indicates that he is figuratively "beneath" Buffy. She's his moral and social superior (much like the noble lady of the courtly romances). As with the romantic knights, Spike's love for Buffy ennobles him; his attempts to reach her raise him to a higher level. But he can never quite attain her station; he is limited by his nature.

In The Gift, both Buffy and Spike reach their highest standings. Buffy's ascent up the stairs will eventually lead to her moment of transcendence, but for the time she remains earthbound. She looks back at Spike, still heading upward, and she seems to recognize his love for her. Yet at this point she is under no compulsion to return his feelings; Spike realizes that she is his superior, someone who has never loved him, and he is content that she should just treat him like a man. This acceptance is more than he could ever expect from her, especially after the debacle of Crush. The fact that she can see him means so much.

So Buffy climbs up those stairs, and then she climbs right up to Glory's tower. Spike was there before, raised up to exquisite heights for love of Buffy, but he failed in the end. He could never maintain such a standing. But Buffy can. She throws Doc aside as if he were a twig; she saves Dawn by giving up herself. She dies while airborne; her spirit departs before her physical body crashes to the earth. The real Buffy's gone, leaving the remains to be buried.

When Willow resurrects Buffy, the Slayer must dig her way out of the grave. This is the lowest Buffy has ever been brought, and in many ways she remains lowered until the end of the season. It's as if that sacrifice of The Gift depleted all her energy reserves, leaving her utterly exhausted. She thought her time was over; it felt right. But now the moment of perfect clarity has been taken away from her, and all this season is a struggle to dig herself out of the grave, to return to the woman she once was (and still is, if she could only realize this). Buffy's still an angel, if an earthbound one. She just can't believe it, and so she lowers herself all the more.

As Buffy descends from the stairs in After Life (coming down from that tower), it's almost as if Spike can see her descending to his level. Here he has been all along, waiting for her on the ground floor, and now she is ready to meet him. She's dug herself out of a grave, just as he has; she's died and been raised again, just as he has. Maybe the distance that separates them is not so great at all. Buffy has suddenly become reachable, and she seems to know it. She sees Spike's eyes upon her, and she buttons up her blouse. Then she hides her bloodied hands, clearly uncomfortable with this new association with the vampire.

But Spike is still in awe of Buffy; she has come back to him, after all. He bandages her hands and treats her tenderly, able to understand some of what she's gone through. Buffy appears to respond to this care, and we later see her descending into Spike's crypt, perhaps identifying more with the dark now than with the harsh light. She's come down to join Spike.

And she continues to see Spike. Buffy meets him in the shadows, the place between their worlds. She admits that she may have been pulled from heaven; she tells him what she cannot tell her friends. They'd be concerned for her, or hurt themselves, and she doesn't what that. She wants someone who will accept her as she is, no matter how far she has fallen. Spike will accept her no matter her condition, and telling him secrets is like whispering in a dead man's ear anyway. Nothing Buffy can say about herself will hurt him. Spike wants so little for himself, because he knows his status in comparison to the Scoobs. He'll desire Buffy no matter how she comes (echoing his words to Xander in After Life and his comments to Buffy in AYW).

Now that Buffy has come within his reach, Spike feels a stronger need to possess her. His love seeks its end in physical union, the solace of the bedchamber. Now this end is a possibility, and Spike cannot keep his passion hidden. He sings of his deepest feelings in OMWF (coming up to meet her from the lower depths of his crypt, still somewhat ennobled). Buffy, of course, does the patented eye roll ... until she senses the vehemence of his emotions. Then she appears to react a bit, edging away as if she wants to deny the reality of his passion. But she's brought herself to his place; she's dangled herself within his reach. That was her choice.

Buffy and Spike emerge from the crypt. When Spike vamps out, the Slayer pushes him into an open coffin, landing atop him (she is still dominant, still superior). The two pause, caught in the moment, and then Buffy rips herself away, running as if the legions of hell were in pursuit. Spike elevates himself out of the crypt, wondering why Buffy doesn't want to stay. The entire sequence of "Rest in Peace" pretty