June 2002 posts
There are a few things on the Trollop Board from the Emmy Event> -- Rufus, 02:35:27 06/19/02 Wed
Link above....
Also there are some lovely pictures at: wireimage.com
[> So what exactly WAS this event? -- Wizardman, 03:26:04 06/19/02 Wed
Was this an Emmy-promotion type event- ie. getting the word out to whomever does the nominating? If so, why were only James, Alexis, Alyson, Michelle, and Nicholas there? Or were their's the only pictures posted at this time?
[> [> Behind the Scenes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer...info inside -- Rufus, 03:37:44 06/19/02 Wed
http://www.emmys.org/activities/2002/buffy.htm
The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences Activities Committee,
co-chaired by Conrad Bachmann and Bryan Byrd,
Presents:
Behind the Scenes of
Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Tuesday, June 18, 2002 - 7:30 PM
Panel scheduled to include:
Joss Whedon, Creator/Executive Producer
Marti Noxon, Executive Producer
Alyson Hannigan, as "Willow"
Nicholas Brendon, as "Xander"
James Marsters, as "Spike"
Michelle Trachtenberg, as "Dawn"
Carey Meyer, Production Designer
Raymond Stella, Directory of Photography
Leonard H. Goldenson Theatre
5230 Lankershim Blvd.
North Hollywood, CA
*****************************************
Hopefully over the next while I will be able to find some more stuff, like a transcript of the event...if I'm lucky. There were a few spoilery things so I've left most of the stuff over at the Trollop Board aka ConverseBuffyverse. The link is above.
[> A potentially explosive question... -- Darby, 05:59:15 06/19/02 Wed
If I'm in the wrong here I apologize, apologize, apologize, but I don't expect this will filter back anyhow...
Does anyone know, is Marti Noxon pregnant? She certainly appears to be in the photos.
Are we about to see another power shift? Who takes over if she takes a leave? Who would we like to see take over, except for Joss?
[> [> Re: A potentially explosive question... -- Rendyl, 06:28:10 06/19/02 Wed
With telecommuting taking a leave doesn't have to mean being completely cut off from work. Unless there are complications most women can get back to some degree of work (if they wish) as soon as they are feeling up to it. She could certainly use email and conference calls to keep everything organized until she was ready to go back.
-Ren
[> [> I think she looks it too, D. -- neaux, 06:40:40 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> She's definitely pregnant -- Rahael, 06:48:58 06/19/02 Wed
I remember reading it in several places - and she's made some jokey comments about the difficulties of childbirth versus scriptwriting.
[> [> Re: A potentially explosive question... -- darrenK, 08:07:20 06/19/02 Wed
Well, she is the boss, the showrunner, and her workplace isn't the world's most conventional so I imagine there is probably space in her office for a crib and a playpen.
While some post-production duties might have to be parceled around to others, writing and story guidance duties only require she write and be at story meetings.
And she can write from anywhere.
dK
[> [> Clarification -- Darby, 10:09:06 06/19/02 Wed
I do realize that she can still do the job with an infant (you never know, though...priorities certainly change, sometimes in unpredictable ways), but the nature of ME creative staff, especially the exec, is very hands-on through production of the episodes (I think that's what's been missing with Joss elsewhere this season) - listening to writers' commentaries on the DVDs confirms that working upstairs from the studios encourages that. But parts of that full-immersion supervision will have to be passed to others - the cast often works through to sunrise - and having seen a change when Joss passed it to Marti, I wonder what another pass will do...
[> It's easy to forget how pretty all of these people are -- tomfool, 07:33:18 06/19/02 Wed
Great pictures of everyone. Alyson Hannigan, Michelle Trachtenberg, Nicholas Brendon, James Marsters - all very sexy and movie starish. I sometimes forget that at least a tiny part of the shows draw is the visual appeal of the actors. No, really, I'm not shallow. Really.
Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Off-kilter, 02:45:47 06/19/02 Wed
All right. I've been lurking here for months and only recently had the nerve to respond to a few threads. This board is really relatively free of trolls and errant flamers, but the clarity, power, and coherence of intellect from the regular posters leaves me quaking in awe.
I'm greatly a'feared of ya all.
But, you all have inspired me to put to print some of my shallow thoughts. So it's your own fault really. Here goes.
I haven't picked up a comic since I was about 14 but used to steal them from my brother. It's kind of funny, but quite a few of the themes common in comics mirror the dramatics of soaps. I doubt that pre-teen/teen boys would agree - perhaps they're just looking at the skin-tight outfits on the super heroines' heaving bosoms! If my memory serves me correct, in comics all the heroes have issues about being "special" and apart from the rest of the world. A lot of their stories deal with internal struggles to balance their humanity with the "other" within them.
Some of the characters are born with powers/destiny - Superman, Wonder Woman, the X-men. Some get them accidentally/fate -Spiderman, the Hulk. Occasionally, they CHOOSE their path. Of those, you have ones that get "super-powers" on purpose, like Flash (I'm almost certain) and Capt America; then there are those that fight using no "super-powers" like Batman and Ironman. *Although they do use "super-lots-o-money" and "super-advanced-technology" to help them out*
Guess what? The Big Bads of the comics get their power in EXACTLY THE SAME WAYS! The only difference is what the character does with this trait/power that sets them apart from the rest of the world. The fun part of comics is seeing the hero trying to stay heroic, even if they don't feel like it, and the villains thinking about being on the other side though they rebel. In Shadowkat's essay about Willow and Spike's Geek Within(part 3 I think) she talked about the Powers That Be (PTB=good) and the Forces of Darkness (FoD=evil) swapping knights. The comics I read (stole from brother) had this as a running theme. If you missed a few issues and got back later in the year you could be in for a big shock. The guy you were rooting for would have gone bad and a hated bad guy would be on "your" teams side. Both haunted by angst and suitably hated/distrusted by each side respectively.
It made for good stories. Are the heroes going to use their uniqueness to keep humanity safe, even when unappreciated or unacknowledged? How do you cope with being set apart from the group? Even when in a group of superheroes, the motivations and personality make-up separate each from the others. How much do you give of yourself before you begin to feel you *deserve* more than what has been given to you? A reader could understand the draw towards evil while supporting the character's fight for good.
The villains were also drawn 3-D with reasons for doing evil (not always sane, good reasons, but hey!). Many of them felt forced into their role by public rejection/fear of their "difference" (the Mutants in X-men), some savor a "payback" of the way they were treated pre-superpower (Catwoman), some feel that they really ARE above all others and therefore DO deserve whatever they want (Lex Luther). With all of these, a reader can feel the dangerous power of evil and see potential for redemption in the worst character.
The edgy balancing act is what makes the stories so compelling. Especially with the characters on the knife-edge. Superman is good, great, angsty and all, but he lacks the seductive appeal of Batman to me. Superman has his powers and is firmly on the side of the PTB. He may hate it at times, even despair, but you don't really doubt that he will always be good. Truth, justice, and the American way, and all that blather. Batman wasn't born with superpowers. Bruce Wayne made the persona to avenge the childhood trauma of losing his parents to crime. He is a force for good, but follows his own rules. Bruce is tormented by his past, by the violence that he craves. He assists the Mayor of Gothem city, but is often tempted to give in to his darker impulses. His vigilantism challenges his status as hero.
The seduction of good by evil (and vise versa) is shown very well by Batman and Catwoman's attraction for each other. The tension is palpable and HOT! Two very powerful people pulled toward each other. Each can see themselves in the other. By the grace of God go I. One would have to change sides for this to work, but which one? Do they want to change? And if they do, will the attraction be the same?
I think this is why Buffy/Spike sucked me in so much more than Buffy/Angel. B/A had the whole tragic star-crossed lover thing going for them, but it was circumstance that kept them apart. Like Romeo and Juliet, outside forces kept them separated, but they didn't question their love for each other.
I love you and you love me, but in order to keep this love we can't live it. B/A made it much more palatable than R&J. I am most likely an uncultured barbarian, but I HATED R&J. Other characters in the play were very cool, but the lovebirds were dopey and pathetic to me. All "fate's conspiring against us" and heartfelt sighs. B/A was tragic and touching, but more grief for the "might have beens" than for what actually was. They loved each other for what they could have had, instead of what they actually were. Does that make sense? It seemed that B & A both were in love with being in love. They looked at each other saw the sun; they looked at the future and saw nothing.
Buffy loved Angel, but not enough to accept what he could offer- she wanted more. She told him that she couldn't accept the limitations imposed on his "condition" when she told him about dating Scott (Revelations). In LW they say they're willing to just be friends and Spike scoffs. He hits a cord in Buffy who tells Angel, again, that their relationship must end since they can't have everything. Angel agrees and wants to leave so Buffy can find that "everything" with someone else (the Prom &Graduation). Of course, to twist those heartstrings even more, she backtracks and says she doesn't want him out of her life. Too late. Angel loves Buffy, but not enough to let her decide if what he could offer was enough. To them, there was no middle ground to meet.
The de-soulment, re-soulment, going to Hell and back (for both of them) kind of put their relationship in a holding pattern at the "this is the perfect love" stage. They put each other on a pedestal and hated the outwardly imposed restrictions. They never got to really know each other very well. I don't think they realized this till they had been apart a long time.
When she goes after Faith, Buffy is enraged and is disenchanted with Angel for taking Faith's side --the wrong side, in her view. He even hit her! How could her soul mate not back her? Faith is bad! He was faking being attracted to Faith before, wasn't he? Angel's armor is tarnished by this act in a way that him leaving (for her own good) and him being Angelus (not his fault) never did. Angel's image of "perfect" Buffy is shaken too. Why can't she forgive Faith? Did she really ever forgive him? She hit him first!How could she move on to someone else so quickly? She can't really love that Riley guy, can she?
When Buffy's mom dies, we see that he is there for her and all the feelings come back. But once again, she wants desperately what he can't, and won't, give to her.
Life goes on. Until it stops. Buffy doesn't try to get Angel to help her against Glory - it doesn't seem to occur to her to even tell him about Dawn's real origins. Angel is upset that he wasn't there for her, but seems to put her memory to rest and look at Fred then Cordy in a new light. Buffy comes back from the grave and doesn't call Angel. He calls her, but we don't know who told him. They meet, things happen; no one talks about it afterward. Methinks that the two were underwhelmed by their feelings toward one another. All they have now is the memory of a perfect love; it's probable that they looked at each other and weren't even sure if they knew this person staring back at them. Better to love the memory and let the person go. They were unable or unwilling to change to make it work.
B/S is much more dangerous. They don't have the fairytale, the pedestals, the "perfect" image of one another. Hell, they don't want this! They don't even like each other! Spike is hit first; he's always flirted with death and loved it. Now he loves the embodiment of a vampire's death- the Slayer. He hates it. It goes against the unlife that he has worked so hard for. Like shadowkat said, he uses the vampire to hide the geek within. It also lets him express his hedonistic sensual side. He loves the whole "fists and fangs" up against the odds, hot wings, alcohol, TV, sex, rock & roll, love and slayers. He likes to FEEL strongly and doesn't like things halfway. Hated the wheelchair, hated seeing Angelus with Dru and unable to do anything about it. Hated fighting the Slayer and not killing her or being killed. Hates loving Buffy just as much as he loves loving her because he can't fully do either. He means it when he begs, "please, no", in OoMM. He is a man (vamp) ruled by his passions first and foremost. And he knows it.
In FFL we see Spike's moment of empowerment- being vamped. We can sympathize with his previous incarnation, and be understanding of how he became what he is today. We see him not as unmitigated evil that should be eradiated, but as a misunderstood outcast that found love and purpose on the side of the FoD. His nature is not ruled by the FoD, it's just a way to indulge in his passions. Spurned and angry at the end of FFL he snatches up his shotgun and storms off to kill her. Finding her in tears, he hesitates and his first master -love- kicks in and he offers her comfort instead.
Sympathy from the Devil leads to sympathy for the Devil. Have we all not railed against the injustice of being outcast from heaven? Except we can sympathize with Spike more than any devil, because he was once more like us than any angel who might have fallen from grace. Spike's love, as involuntarily given as it is, draws him somewhat away from the FoD and more towards the light, which has always fascinated him. Like a very dangerous moth to a flame, he's not sure if he wants to put it out or let it burn him up.
Buffy certainly doesn't want this. Love is what she had with Angel- perfect, passionate and unattainable. Wait, no. Love is what she had with Riley; comfortable, reliable, and treated with kid gloves- it might break. No, that doesn't work either. Well, whatever love is, it most certainly
isn't what she feels for Spike! He's annoying, evil, unworthy. But she doesn't kill him when she can and probably should. Even goes so far as to protect him from the Initiative, other vamps, loan sharks and the like. First she sees him as a threat, then a necessary evil, then a bothersome annoyance, an uneasy/untrustworthy ally. Throughout season 5 she starts to see him as an entity outside of the vamp persona. She may not particularly LIKE this entity, but she acknowledges him. The knowledge that he loves her is fascinating and useful when she needs someone to help her, and by Intervention and The Gift, she is grudgingly grateful for his loyalty. It's something she didn't feel she got from Angel, Riley, or even Giles. Not enough to love him, but still, something. Enough for a chaste kiss, an invite into her home. She starts to SEE him.
Of course, dying has a way of interrupting even a tentative relationship. Buffy comes back and is at first drawn to Spike for comfort. He can't expect anything from her, because she never willingly gave anything of herself to him before. She can just be. Be the angry, confused, overwhelmed and numb person that she is now. She treats him like a puppy she can tell all her secrets to and he'll never judge, never tell. She can even kick him and he'll come back still loving her. Except she'd never treat a
dog the way she does him. For a while, he accepts this role without question, gives her room to be comfortable around him. She even lets her guard down to feel some physical attraction to him. She thinks that's OK, because he's not pushing, and she'd NEVER do anything about it. Then he does
push; she does do something.
She's powerfully attracted to him. And she hates it. She doesn't want to see him like that. She doesn't want to see herself like that. She doesn't want to question what this says about herself, or him. She is firmly in the PTB team, by destiny rather than choice, but her pockets of darkness frighten her. Angel turned to Angelus, Faith switched sides and back again, and "death" is her gift. What if this means she's evil? What if her friends, Dawn, Giles finds out? Unacceptable. She's really not that close to the edge - Bruce Wayne is much more gray than she'll ever be- but she's still afraid of what it means. For a while she indulges herself in secret, hating herself, him, and what they are doing - but it feels too good to stop. She finally ends what they are doing rather than change it.
Same song, different verse for all her lovers. Wanted perfect love with Angel. Couldn't have it all. Neither would change their expectations of love. Relationship over. He left, she grieved, the end. Wanted safe, normal, reliable love with Riley. She couldn't let herself need him too much. He needed to be needed, not just old reliable. Neither could accept what the other was offering. Relationship over. He left, she grieved, the end. Wanted to feel alive with Spike. She just wanted, well, sex and hated everything about it (except for the actual sex, I'm assuming). He wanted more. Neither budged in what they wanted from the equation. Relationship over. He left, . . . Ooops. What do you mean he didn't leave?!!
For the first time, Buffy has to deal with an ex on a semi-regular basis. Like most of us, they deal with the breakup unevenly. In HB they are mostly respectful, even wistful in acknowledging what they had. They could have tried to build on what they had before the sex, but it's just too easy to go back to old habits. She puts him down; he tries to seduce her. An old, familiar tune. You might despise it, but it's stuck in your head.
Finally, in SR, Buffy tells Spike one more time that she doesn't love him, and it really sinks in this time. Probably because they are somewhat calm and almost respectful in the bathroom scene. Both are letting their vulnerability show without a lot of bravado. This time, instead of a song, it's a dance. A new dance, neither knows the steps, but Spike feels like he's stumbling. In a panic, he tries to re-enact the old dance steps. Fight her or make love to her - I'm not sure he knows what response he's trying to get. Anything but this new . . . ending. When she slams him against the wall, he realizes she's right. This can't go on. Relationship over. He leaves; she doesn't know what to feel.
Instead of accepting that love with Buffy won't work like Angel and Riley did, Spike does what he has always done. He fights. He's willing to change if that is what it will take to make it work. Buffy can't accept a soulless vamp that she can't trust? Alright. He'll get a soul or die trying. Of
course, in a way, he dies when he gets the soul too. Possibly won't help him get Buffy, but their story is most definitely NOT over.
*Non sequitur- Angel with soul doesn't fight for the PTB until motivated by love/lust of Buffy. Spike without soul doesn't fight for the PTB until motivated by love/lust of Buffy. Now that he has voluntarily sought out a soul, if he continues on the PTB path, does that mean he is FURTHER on the path to redemption than Angel? Things that make me go "THIS SUMMER HAD BETTER BE OVER QUICK!"*
Catwoman didn't cross over to the side of the PTB, but I know other characters have successfully switched sides. Comics have really pushed the envelope on dynamic switches on the spectrum of light and dark. I know that Willow's transformation has been explored in them much better. Of course, comics don't have sweeps and seasonal structure to deal with- their timeline/framework is much more flexible.
There were several posts about Willow mirroring the Phoenix/Dark Phoenix storyline were a hero turns evil then back again. It's probably a valid comparison. I thought that Willow's turn to the dark was a lot like the Angel/Angelus story. Liam was kind of bad in a petty type of way until he stumbled into the Darla and became Angelus, an avatar for the FoD. He knew his place and reveled in it. Then SNAP!, he gets a soul and became Angel, who didn't have direction or purpose. Angel had potential to be an asset for the PTB, but it took Whistler to show him Buffy and give him a reason to be actively good. He was tormented by the darkness within, but was firmly over the fence line on the PTB side until losing his soul vaulted him SNAP! over to the FoD again. Then back over with reintroduction of previously mentioned soul. He doesn't get shades of gray until he goes away for his own series. Even then, he tends to react fully on PTB or FoD without too much wavering. Wesley seems to be doing a great job staying somewhere undefined on the borderline between the two.
Willow was like Liam, except neutral good rather than neutral evil. She was a goody-goody mostly because she was afraid to be anything else. Buffy came and Willow saw that she could use her talents to fight for the PTB. (Buffy is everyone's turning point) Willow, like Angel, has power that is rooted in darkness that she uses for good. Unlike Angel, she doesn't see the danger in her power. When she lets the power use her, it's like Anya says. She just goes, "kablooey". Not so much evil as irresponsible. Maybe it's the writing, maybe it's just me, but her story doesn't seem to be a slide into darkness so much as a very strong potential. Until SNAP! Tara's death knocks her to the FoD. She doesn't care anymore about the PTB. Her anger overwhelms her and she accepts the darkness. She vents, with spectacular results. Then a dose of "good" magic and Xander's love reminding her of her basic alignment towards good pull her back.
From all of this I get the feeling that Angel and Willow are more "set" in their alignment towards the PTB and the FoD. They feel the FoD in them, and when they give in, they go overboard. But, soul included, they are stamped PTB. Perhaps the writers meant their loyalty to be a bit more
questionable, but I didn't feel it. The Master, the Mayor, even Mr. Trick are loyal in the same way toward the FoD.
Spike, Anya and Faith are chaotic in their alliances. That's why I like them so much. They're the wild cards that need watching. The PTB and FoD may try to tempt the Buffy's and Mayor's of the world, but mostly they don't bother. It's the fluid ones they work to change.
It's kind of interesting that Spike, Anya, and Faith are all outcasts and let love/acceptance rule their lives. Spike becomes a vamp after being rejected by Cecily and accepted by Dru. He goes from being a non-player to being a force for the FoD. When he falls for Buffy, he fights it at first, but then switches teams (sort of). It doesn't really bother him if he's helping the PTB or the FoD as long as he serves his love. You can count on him being love's bitch, but not on how love will shape his behavior. It's what made the whole attempted rape and even the soul search seem realistic and yet shocking. Posters bitch that he's not characterized consistently, but they're wrong. He has always been consistent in two things. Love and being unpredictable.
Anya becomes a player after being cheated on and then becoming a vengeance demon. Reminds me of a Mother Goose rhyme. Instead of rings on her fingers/bells on her toes - she has a necklace of power. Instead of having music wherever she goes - she incites chaos and destruction. Even after losing her powers she creates havoc in Doppelgangers. She served the FoD, but only as a side effect. Falling in love with Xander, she easily stopped being on the FoD roster and served the PTB. But only as a side effect. Totally unpredictable what she was going to do after Xander dumped her. She tried to go back to vengeance, but kind of didn't do very well. She decides to help the SG for Willow's sake, and we're not sure why. We don't know
what's going on in that pretty little head even though she isn't shy about telling you whatever pops in there.
Faith gets dealt into the game by Destiny sticking a big honking "Slayer" stamp on her head. She works for the PTB, 'cause that's what slayers do, right? She's a Slayer; fine she'll kill vamps - it's kind of fun. But doing her job doesn't seem to give her the perks she thinks Buffy is getting. She's wild and cynical, but also vulnerable and needy. Unfortunately, no one sees that she's crying out for help. Then she kills someone. An accident, but still. Buffy is horrified; Faith tries to cover her own feelings with the "I don't care; it shouldn't matter" facade, because she doesn't want Buffy to reject her. But Buffy can't accept Faith's take on the matter and Giles agrees with Buffy. Faith killed. She is a killer; fine, she'll work for the FoD. They'll have to accept her. And the Mayor does that and more. He seems to care for her in a way she's never had anyone care. She goes with her heart and revels in the darkness. After coming out of her coma and switching bodies with Buffy, she doesn't actively work for the FoD; she's just playing. Then a person that she reluctantly saved from
a vampire thanks her. Acknowledges something good that she did. Awakens a dormant conscience. Still takes many wild swings back and forth in an internal struggle before she decides to finally choose the redemptive path. And she does that mostly because Angel believes in her.
All chaotic, all make for good stories. None labeled firmly "evil" or "good". Even Wesley gets caught up in this, though it takes longer than the others. He starts out as strongly Lawful Good - very narrow-minded and firmly in the PTB's side. Then he loses his job as a watcher, hooks up with a vamp with a soul, and has demons as companions. Humans like Faith and W&H company shake his beliefs on what equals good or evil. He becomes more chaotic, but stays on the side of good. He sees the struggle that Angel is having with redemption and tries to save Connor from Angel by taking the baby away. What does he get for his attempt at good? He is almost killed by the FoD and then almost killed by Angel. His comrades turn away from him and he is alone. Now the FoD are tempting him to their side, and it looks
like he is considering it. He went from straight arrow to wild card. And he is more interesting because of it.
That's it. Please tell me how crazy I am. It won't be the first time. You expected a point? Sorry, I'll try better next post.
Special thanks to shadowkat, who encouraged me to put my fears aside. You are my muse!
[> Awesome post ! (except for Willow) -- Etrangere, 03:25:21 06/19/02 Wed
Loved this writting, great comparasons and analysis of the evolution.
I don't agree for Willow because I think she was really driven to do good not only because that's how she was raised, but because she has a true compassion. When she went bad, it was with self-rightousness. I think her story was more about how Good can lead to Evil when there's too much hubris.
[> Re: Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Rufus, 03:27:30 06/19/02 Wed
I'm greatly a'feared of ya all.
This always surprises me, we are all so nice.....specially some of us who are Canadian.....oh well and a certain person who is addicted to Canadian Chocolate...:):):):)
All chaotic, all make for good stories. None labeled firmly "evil" or "good". Even Wesley gets caught up in this, though it takes longer than the others. He starts out as strongly Lawful Good - very narrow-minded and firmly in the PTB's side. Then he loses his job as a watcher, hooks up with a vamp with a soul, and has demons as companions. Humans like Faith and W&H company shake his beliefs on what equals good or evil. He becomes more chaotic, but stays on the side of good. He sees the struggle that Angel is having with redemption and tries to save Connor from Angel by taking the baby away. What does he get for his attempt at good? He is almost killed by the FoD and then almost killed by Angel. His comrades turn away from him and he is alone. Now the FoD are tempting him to their side, and it looks
like he is considering it. He went from straight arrow to wild card. And he is more interesting because of it.
May I take a moment to say Mmmmmm Wesley.....sigh...
The thing about good and evil, they are always recruiting, always on the lookout for a convert....that keeps the whole game going. The struggle is so much more fun when something happens to a character we have come to take for granted such as Willow....she was a disaster waiting for enough power to stir and cause a near apocalypse. Even Giles assumed that she was made of stronger stuff than he was so many years before...not one to be corrupted. But life is always throwing curve balls that we never factored into the gameplan......Angel is the one who opens the portal with Acathala.....Buffy has sex for the first time and the guy goes all evil.....Spike gets a chip......Willow becomes powerful enough to destroy the world (so much for the horsies she was so concerned about in Spiral). These heroes and villians reflect us, the inner conflicts we have through the metaphors of demons, portals, apocalypses (sp). Then there is the lovely Chaos element to the whole thing, of course chaos not being so nearly chaotic in the end. All systems tend towards chaos.....said by Giles in Band Candy.....it was part of Buffy's preperation for the SATs. There is chaos in the Buffyverse but not always of the entropic variety. In season six we saw the Scoobies fall apart, their fears leading them to "walk alone" like predicted in "Once more with Feeling". Just as Entropy proved how far apart the Scoobies were becoming, in the end a return to order happened in Grave.....a hope for a new beginning in season seven. BTW.....have you read Fray?
[> [> Fray'd not -- Off-kilter, and don't kill me, 03:37:59 06/19/02 Wed
Too much Robert Asprin and Piers Anthony in my upbringing. Love to read Fray, but I don't know where to get the dang things.
[> [> [> Re: Fray'd not, no more.......;) -- Rufus, 04:13:52 06/19/02 Wed
http://www2.tfaw.com/index.html?redir=t
That's where I got my copies....we are up to issue six out of eight......also for a synopsis of each issue go here. Fangirl does a wonderful writeup of each issue, doesn't replace the real thing but it outlines each issue with a few pictures.
[> [> [> [> I'll try to be less punny. -- Off-kilter, 23:42:21 06/19/02 Wed
Thanks for the link. Have you read any Spider Robinson? I'm a sucker for cool word play, even if many go zooming over my head.
[> [> [> [> [> less punny? why?? -- anom, also known as..., 00:02:33 06/20/02 Thu
...Master of Pun Fu! Please don't stop being punny, O-K? 'cause I'm a glutton for punnishment!
And Spider Robinson, yeah! See you at Callahan's!
[> [> [> [> [> [> If I'm going to punnish anyone . . . -- Off-kilter, 00:25:06 06/20/02 Thu
. . it'll be at Lady Sally's House. I've got my House name. Care to join me?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> haven't read that one yet... -- anom, 11:20:50 06/20/02 Thu
...just the jacket copy, or I wouldn't know what you were talking about! It said enough to give me the impression that Callahan's is more my kind of place, & nothing about this "House name" business, so that went right past me.
Thanks for the invite, but I don't know you that well yet! While that may not be necessary for most of the denizens of Lady Sally's, it is for me. But don't let that stop you from going & getting your kilt, er, off.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Read it! -- Off-kilter, 14:20:11 06/20/02 Thu
If you like Callahan's, you'll like Callahan's Lady! It's great fun. Just don't bother with the follow-up books. It's up to you, of course. Lady Sally has a strict "no push" policy. You can always stay down by the bar and listen to Fast Eddie when he visits.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> giving orders now? -- anom, 11:09:22 06/21/02 Fri
Is that your specialty at Lady Sally's? Sorry, but that's not what I'm into. Guess that "no push" policy applies to management, not...how you say...consenting customers, hmm? @>)
But if Fast Eddie is playing, maybe I'll stop by.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oops. Sorry. -- Off-kilter, cringing, 08:23:11 06/22/02 Sat
Didn't mean to be too feisty. Just loved the book. The cover and jacket blurb are misleading. Not more graphic than the Callahan or Mary's Place books. Will try to be less obnoxious in future. Just didn't want you to miss the Pun-festive best of Spider due to sensationalized cover.
By the way, your little, "get your kilt, er, off" is hysterical. I was just too slow to get it at the time.
Bowing to the Master Pun-Fu. May I learn from your skills.
[> Re: Comics, chaos, and other brain spill -- Wizardman, 03:36:51 06/19/02 Wed
Etrangere, don't knock yourself! This post was really good! I'd like to hear more of your analyses for the other characters, say Connor for example. Don't be a stranger!
[> [> can you say huh ? -- Ete, 03:41:42 06/19/02 Wed
Off-kilter wrote the post, not I, off-kilter. Yes ? :)
Besides I only compare Buffy character to Manga and SF fantasy books characters, I don't do comics :)
[> [> [> Manga? Isn't that ... -- shadowkat, 06:03:43 06/19/02 Wed
I thought manga were japanese comics? Very good by the
way. Of course you could describe them as more graphic novels but American comics have become graphic novels in the last few years.
(Yes, I read everything I can get my hands on, I admit it.)
[> [> [> [> Manga, comics, BD -- Ete, 06:32:30 06/19/02 Wed
Even in french I use different words to speak about american comics, francophone comics (BD, for Bandes Dessinées) and japanese ones. It's just different kind of stories, each ones has its pecularity (though there's a lot of influences between each others) in the drawing style and the type of stories.
So when I say "comics" I think, American comics with superheroes 'n all. Of course there's some (probably a lot) of american comics that are not about superheroes and suches...
[> [> [> [> [> Education in American Comics -- shadowkat, 07:15:15 06/19/02 Wed
For snobby literary types (I don't mean you Ete!) ;-) who frown on comics - a brief education.
American comics - since don't really know the others:
1. super-hero ones - have branched out and gotten a bit more complex in nature to compete with the japanese
and the movies and graphic novels. We ended up with the
complex: Dark Knight Returns series by Frank Miller which did a revisionist view of Batman in the future. Really intriguing. The Watchman. And Batman Year 1. The X-men
series has gotten more literary and thoughtful in last few years, but it tends to be sporadic. I stopped collecting
recently...my obsessions tend to fluctuate. Clearly ME's
writers read them - the nerd squad and SG reference
them all the time. "spider sense" is tingling in I Robot
You Jane, Xander reading the comic for Onslaught series
of the X-men where Prof X is joined with Magneto in Tough
Love. (Everyone - all heros join together to defeat him).
Dark Phoenix - references in Two to Go. And of course the anti-vigilante theme in Angel.
2. Real Life Angst Story/Non supernatural - these range from ordinary stories such
as the underground cult Ghost World - which recent movie
was based. Strangers in PAradise is similar.
This may be more in keeping with magna. Magna if memory serves hits all categories and does lots of real life
stories. Also the story about the Holocaust called MAUS
fits here.
3. Fantasy/Philosophical Works - Sandman by NEil Gaiman,
Swamp Thing (amazing comic), House of Secrets, These are well drawn and thought provoking works that reference myth, and religious views.
4. Graphic novels - Frank Miller and Alan Moore do a lot of these. Several are crime mystery novels. Violent, reads like a really good Dashielle Hammet -(The Maltese Falcon).
The art is dark and beautiful with dialogue that is crisp and often literary. There are not so great ones...but the good ones are worth a look.
5. PArodies or Graphic comics that make fun of hollywood or movies or other things. Sort of make me think of the French comic on Asterix (sp? last time I saw it was in France in 1981...) and Tin Tin (British comic saw in the 1970s)
6. Imported Japenes comics and magna
7. Comics based on tv shows, classic novels, and pop culture books: fray (pretty good, but only have second issue), the summer after Buffy died, only have one issue, but also not bad, Angel and Buffy comics, Ann Rice novels made into comics - the vampire series was cool, etc.
8. Standard fare cartoon collections.
See there are as many varieties of comics as there are books. IF you've never read a comic - you are really missing out on a fascinating art and literary form. Brave
the racks of that comic book store and take a peek!
(I did wayyy back in college and haven't regretted, although my pocket book did. ;- ))
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not snobism, lack of time/money -- Ete, 07:41:51 06/19/02 Wed
I would love to get into comics. I've read a few ones, and not only the Buffy ones, but I can't get into it like I do with SF, like I'm half doing with mangas because that would need some kind of dedication I can't allowed myself anymore.
Your first category was obviously the one I'm refering to when I say comics, though I would have put the third ones with it :) (I'm in love with Gaiman's writing, but the first time i tried to read his comics, I was horrified by the graphism. I've been told it goes better in latter books. Some day I'll try again. Quite enjoyed the one illustrated by Amano, though :) But then i'm in love with Amano's drawing) As I said, I never think that american comics were only about superheros. Actually I almost mentionned Maus there :)
Graphic novels, is that the big books a la From Hell ?
By the way you've got Asterix' spelling right, but, when you say Tin Tin, I hope you don't mean Tintin :)
I think one thing that's very different between all the three countries' comics is the way it's published. In France it's mostly into thin, big, coloured book, a bit expensive. Mangas usually makes small, black&white, cheap paper books. American comics as far as I'm aware are published in magazines and coloured. Though ofcourse for all of them there's lots of exceptions. Humm stopping the anthropologic mindframe now :)
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not snobism, lack of time/money -- shadowkat, 08:52:33 06/19/02 Wed
Well understand this difficulty - hence the reason I keep quitting the habit...lack of time and money. The piles
of comics I've bought but never read..sigh.
Actually the better comics in US come in book form, glossy, expensive, and thick. Sometimes they start out in thin
magazine form.
The superheros all start out in mag form.
Yeah I think I meant tintin - was very long time ago and a neighbor had it.
From Hell is one of the more gruesome ones. I've stayed
away from some of these - too graphic for my sensibilities, just like some of the japanese anime. I particularly have troubles with the rape graphics some of the more violent
ones depict, can't read them, can't buy them. So never
looked at From Hell. Watchman was more tame.
Stopped collecting again recently due to time/money thing.
2$ in the states for the mag form now. Used to be 75c in
college. Some are $4...getting too rich for my blood.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not snobism, lack of time/money -- Ete, 10:03:49 06/19/02 Wed
Then I've really got to say to you, Tintin is not Brittish, it's Belgian, like Hercule Poirot :)
I didn't think that From Hell was very graphic. Dark and disturbing, but more because of the story content than the images itself.
But then, I'm seldom chocked by those japanese anims either. so maybe that's just me
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Neil Gaiman -- Darby, 09:51:57 06/19/02 Wed
Love his stuff, have little time to read it beyond his online blogger journal, but my wife's going to read American Gods soon.
It was really interesting to watch Harry Potter with a knowledge of the Books of Magic - I wouldn't go so far as to see plagiarism, but Rowling had to have read Gaiman's stuff, there are just too many details that match.
Incidentlally, any Potterites currently in withdrawal, try The Books of Magic, especially the collections from the first series. It is slightly more adult in content than Harry, though.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> American Gods -- Vickie, 11:38:14 06/19/02 Wed
I read this on a mini-vacation recently. Classic Gaiman, and thoroughly enjoyable. Your spousal unit is in for a treat.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> So who's up to write. . . -- crazed SF geek Ete, 11:53:18 06/19/02 Wed
an essay comparing American Gods and BtVS intituled : "Through death and resurection"
come on ! you know you wanna do it !
If not it's going to be "Path of redemption for a vampire : Spike and Gerald Tarrant", and since they don't have anything in common apart the whole vamp, redemption bit, you're in for troubles.
Oh anyway I'm just bitter because no one answered by Spike / Sandor "the hound" Clegane comparason...
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sounds like Ete should do it... -- Vickie, 12:59:25 06/19/02 Wed
I'll beta review, if you like. I don't have cycles to write one just now.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> American Gods is only THE best book I've ever read! -- Rob, 09:12:31 06/20/02 Thu
I'd love to do an essay, comparing it to "Buffy." In fact, while reading it, I did notice a bunch of links that could be made to BtVS.
I was actually planning on rereading it this weekend, by coincidence! So as I go through, I'll take down some notes to write an essay.
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great ! You're hired ! :)) -- happy Ete, 13:05:23 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yay!! Although, since I'm the only applicant, I'm not surprised I got the job. ;o) -- Rob, 19:37:21 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Gerald Tarrant? From CS Friedman's books? -- Exegy, 09:30:24 06/21/02 Fri
Um ... that would be interesting. I'm reading the series right now in my spare time. There do seem to be a few parallels (I've only just begun the second book). Vampirism and redemption, as you say. You could pull off a decent comparison to Spike, I imagine.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Gerald Tarrant? From CS Friedman's books? -- fresne, 15:12:08 06/21/02 Fri
Yes, well wait till you get to the end of book 2. Although, Gerald comes off as a bit too controlled for Spike. Angel/us perhaps.
The Cold Fire trilogy is one of my litmus tests for what sort of things a good writer can make me forgive a character for doing. Right up there with the first book in Tanith Lee's Flat Earth Series. Or for that matter, given the thread's origins, the comic series Lucifer.
Does it make me morally unsound if I like a character because he speaks in a beautiful font.
Although, given Ete's Sandor complaint, all of a sudden I want to compare Spike to Cu Cuhulain, the hound of Ulster. There was a vampire in that story too.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, now I must finish the Cold Fire trilogy ... -- Exegy, 14:10:12 06/22/02 Sat
... as soon as I read these fifteen other books I've started. I'll check in later.
[> Great post - cut to print...will respond later! -- shadowkat, 06:06:46 06/19/02 Wed
And thanks for the compliment! See not so bad. ;- )
I may disagree with Ete on Willow, have to read through and see. But I think there was quite a bit of pride there.
Remember she wants to fight Giles not Buffy. Magic against
Magic. The student against the teacher. That is all about
pride. And it echoes the scene in Flooded.
But more later...keeping thread alive until then. ;-)
[> [> Awesome! -- shadowkat, 17:59:07 06/19/02 Wed
I loved your analysis of the B/A and B/S relationships and comparison to comics - which actually I think works with where these writers heads are. They refer to comics so often in their episodes.
On Willow - I sense the typical comic book explanation - the same one that btw was used for Jean Grey and cjl forgot to mention. Jean Grey ten years later was brought back and when she was we learned that Dark Phoenix wasn't really her, it was an entity that took her body and form. I forsee that they'll show that the power Willow unleashed came from the forces of darkness that possessed her as the hyena possessed Xander or Egyhorn possessed Jenny or Angel became Angelus and once the darkness/powers are drained, all will be forgiven. Buffy to Willow: "It wasn't you." We intellects may not like it - but it is a typical comic book
way out. sigh.
[> [> [> I didn't forget. I was hoping to avoid that part of the comics myth.... -- cjl, 18:45:04 06/19/02 Wed
Mainly because I thought it was a copout. The whole post-death, Jean Grey doppleganger plotline (with Maddy Pryor) obviously wasn't working, and Marvel wanted to bring back the original. The solution actually wasn't too bad (turns out The Phoenix REPLACED Jean in X-Men #100), but it took away from the power of the choice she made and the death scene in #137. I stopped collecting the X-Men shortly after Jean's return...
As for Willow, I hope they don't cop out.
But they probably will...
[> [> [> [> Re: I didn't forget. I was hoping to avoid that part of the comics myth.... -- aliera, 19:18:58 06/19/02 Wed
I hope they do it right also. I really would love to see Willow be able to use her magic for herself and good as a gift not an addiction. A tiny part of me whispers that the earth magic could be the catalyst.
[> [> [> [> Cop-out! Cop-out! -- Off-kilter, 20:43:30 06/19/02 Wed
I am hoping the same thing. Ever since the DF interview (think it was there) when they said that Willow "wasn't herself", I have been seething. This is a great story; don't back out of it now! After she goes through Slayer rehab in England, I bet they do back slooowly away. Booger.
[> Willow and Dark Phoenix -- cjl, 09:03:19 06/19/02 Wed
Off-kilter, this was exactly the right time for a comic book thread, mainly because we know Joss and his crew are major comic book geeks, and especially since one of the most in(famous) comic book characters of the past 30 years was specifically mentioned in "Two to Go":
Dark Phoenix.
Talk about a character who flips from light to dark and back again! For those of you out there without comic book knowledge, Dark Phoenix (Jean Grey) started out as "Marvel Girl," one of the founding members of the X-Men, a moderately powerful telekinetic and telepathic mutant under the tutelage of the world's most powerful telepath, Professor Charles Xavier. In Uncanny X-Men #100, Jean was apparently possessed by an elemental force called the Phoenix, escalating her powers to almost cosmic proportions. She fought along her team-mates in her new incarnation, but as time went on, the connection to human existence and sensual experience seemed to corrupt the Phoenix force, and Jean went bad. I mean REALLY bad. As in, destroying an entire alien civilization bad. Xavier had to place psychic barriers into Jean's mind to lock the Phoenix inside forever.
Eventually, though, Xavier's lady love--the ruler of an extra-galactic empire--declared that even a neutered Phoenix was too big a danger to ignore and ordered Jean (there's no other word for it) lobotomized. The X-Men fought a titanic battle on her behalf on the surface of the Moon, where Jean sacrificed herself to save the team and her true love. (OK, Jean Grey/Scott Summers superhero romantics in the audience can dab their eyes now...)
Jean's death in UXM #137 didn't end her story. (Joss and Chris Claremont won't let nuthin' stop their heroines.) But for purposes of discussion, we'll take this first phase of Jean's career as "the end."
When Willow was tearing down Sunnydale Prison, Andrew said she was going "all Dark Phoenix on us," and the annoying virgin had a point. Just like Jean Grey, Willow was slowly corrupted by an extraordinarily powerful energy source, subverting her usual good-guy tendencies, eventually unleashing a monstrous version of herself. Also, Jean--in trying to assimilate the cosmic power of the Phoenix--was continually pulled back to humanity by her love for Scott. This echoes the "addiction" plotline and how Willow stopped messing with the dark magicks in order to win back the love of Tara. Finally, during that battle on the moon, Xavier's psychic barriers holding back Phoenix dropped away when Scott was injured; we all know what happened when Warren killed Tara.
It's interesting to note that just as Buffy fans are debating how Willow should be punished for murdering Warren, X-Men fans and Marvel Comics staffers debated about the price for Dark Phoenix' genocidal actions. Author Claremont wanted to go for the psychic lobotomy, but Marvel Editor-in-Chief Jim Shooter put his extremely large foot down and said in no uncertain terms that Jean had to die. She had simply gone too far, and no amount of telepathic hoodoo was going to cut it.
Gee, this was fun! Like being in high school again, only without the social trauma....
Any other Buffy/Comix character comparison come to mind?
[> [> Buffy and Power Girl -- Darby, 10:01:34 06/19/02 Wed
At least, Buffy from the first two seasons - some of her outfits (white top with deep-cut squared neckline) were even reminiscent.
Power Girl was an alternative Supergirl (much less powerful, though) notable for her short blond hair and abnormal-for-comics-in-the-70s body type: short with cleavage. Buffy was even shown playing Power Girl as a kid in Killed by Death. I don't think that the character was ever intended to be a riff on Power Girl, I think it was just an acknowledgement by Joss the comics geek on the resemblance.
[> [> Dawn as Shadowkat (no, not OUR shadowkat...) -- cjl, 10:14:21 06/19/02 Wed
The one in the X-Men. Kitty Pryde, sweet, Jewish girl from Michigan who can walk through walls and knock out electronic equipment by phasing through the machinery. When Charles Xavier found her in UXM #130(?) she was in exactly the same position Dawnie was at the start of S5: a normal kid living in an extraordinary world (with superheroes, mutants, etc.), unaware of the power she possessed. She was the first of the next generation of mutants to be introduced into the series, just as Dawn was the first of a younger set of characters to be introduced to the Buffyverse (Sophie and Connor came later, with more undoubtedly to come).
I have no doubt that just as Kitty discovered her amazing mutant abilities and joined the grown-up team, Dawn will eventually uncover her talents as the Key and become a valuable member of the Scoobies
[> [> [> Willow as Kitty Pryde -- auroramama, 18:52:26 06/19/02 Wed
*That's* why that scene in "Halloween" is so familiar! And Willow is actually Jewish (unlike Dawn). Willow in those days is kinda young-looking and young-acting, too.
Otherwise, yeah, I like the analogies with Dawn.
auroramama
[> [> [> [> OMG, you're right. How could I have missed that?! -- cjl, 19:15:29 06/19/02 Wed
Once, when I was discussing Marvel Comics with OUR shadowkat, I remember describing Willow as a combination of Kitty Pryde and Jean Grey...
[> [> [> [> [> And guess who I based my online name on? -- shadowkat, 12:22:17 06/20/02 Thu
Not jewish. But I identified with Kitty and Willow,
so hence the name. Also seems to be less popular than
variations on my real one. sigh.
[> [> Xander as Matter-Eater Lad -- ponygirl, 10:27:52 06/19/02 Wed
Sorry, I can't really make any actual comparisons, but I couldn't resist throwing in my all time favourite stupidest super-hero name ever! And points for obscurity. Truly the geek within never dies...
[> [> [> lol, for a very, very long time! Lad - that word alone gets me! (imagining costume...) -- yuri, 10:34:46 06/19/02 Wed
[> [> [> Re: Spike/John Constantine -- Brian, 07:51:42 06/20/02 Thu
For attitude,looks, and dress, you can't beat the similarities of these two
[> [> [> [> Re: Spike/John Constantine - YES! Yes! -- ponygirl, 08:24:38 06/20/02 Thu
If there is any sort of justice in Hollywood (which of course there isn't), the ghastly idea of Nicolas Cage playing John Constantine will thrown onto a trash heap and Joss and co. will take over the project with JM in the title role.
(shudder Nicolas Cage)
Actually I can also imagine Giles in a more Ripper mode having a lot of similarities to Constantine. I haven't read the Hellblazer books in a long while, but he was a pretty fascinating character - on the side of good, but dark as can be, and more likely to get the people he was helping killed than anything else.
[> [> [> [> [> JM as John Constantine is box office gold...Nicolas who? -- cjl, 08:51:15 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> John Constantine -- fresne, 09:43:01 06/20/02 Thu
Okay, Nicholas Cage! Please tell me this isn't definite. That's just wrong. It's so wrong I'm driven to use poor English - It's wronger than casting him as Superman. Gagh.
I'm inclined a bit more towards ASH as John in as much I save JM in my head for the Corinthian (the second one, not the first), but they both could do an excellent job in the role.
Actually, Giles whole electric coolaid past, playing with demons and forces he wasn't prepared for, makes me think very much of John's teen years. Down to the disastrous event that changed the course of their lives. Although, happily Giles didn't go the insane asylum route.
[> [> [> [> [> [> JM as the Corinthian, and Eliza Dushku as Death -- cjl, 09:46:11 06/20/02 Thu
Who plays the Sandman?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> AH as Delirium -- ponygirl, 11:04:53 06/20/02 Thu
Mainly 'cause her hair would look nice with the funky colours. Though it'd be nice to see Juliet Landau as a very scary Delirium. Sandman is hard! If we're limiting ourselves to BtVS actors maybe 1st season DB when he was a lot skinnier and broodier. Or Ford from Lie to Me, good actor and there was that one Roswell episode where he had spiky hair!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Brain-sucked Tara-style AB could be a great Delirium...and Miss Kitty Fantastico could be Barnabus! -- Rob, 17:44:32 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: John Constantine -- Darby, 10:20:12 06/20/02 Thu
Okay, I couldn't be vaguer(?) here, but a last year PBS' Mystery ran a BBC series about a very flawed inspector whose specialty was serial killers. Don't remember the series, don't remember the actor, but it struck me at the time that he could easily play John Constantine. Marsters could do it (not sure if he could get the same measure of quiet danger), but I can't imagine Cage pulling it off. Maybe the crash-and-burn failure of his last two films will get the studios looking elsewhere - of course, they'd only look at our guys if they decided to go on the cheap.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: John Constantine -- Freki, 11:21:23 06/20/02 Thu
Would that be the Touching Evil series? If so, the actor was named Robson Green. It was an excellent series, very dark. Definitely worth catching if they show it again.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> That's it! Thanks - I'm getting senile, but fortunately I forget that a lot... -- Darby, 11:50:26 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> [> [> Absolutely agree! Give it JM and Joss! -- shadowkat, 12:43:36 06/20/02 Thu
JM would be amazing as Constatine. Also very good as
Preacher...not to mention the Vampire Lestate.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Absolutely agree! Give it JM and Joss! -- Tymen, 14:44:28 06/20/02 Thu
JM would be amazing as Constatine. Also very good as
Preacher...not to mention the Vampire Lestate.
-----------
James Marsters could definitely play Cassidy.
[> [> Re: Willow and Dark Phoenix -- Chris, 10:48:46 06/19/02 Wed
Thanks, cjl, for this explanation (lurker here). Not being a comics reader, the Dark Phoenix allusions just passed me by and I knew I was missing some important background. Much obliged.
[> [> "With great power comes great responsibility": Buffy, Xander and Spiderman -- cjl, 11:01:29 06/19/02 Wed
From Psyche's transcript of "Flooded":
ANYA: Um ... i-i-if you wanna pay every bill here, and every bill coming, and ... have enough to start a nice college fund for Dawn? (big smile) Start charging.
BUFFY: (irritated) For what?
ANYA: Slaying vampires! (Xander looks embarrassed) Well, you're providing a valuable service to the whole community. I say cash in.
Awkward pause. Xander still looks uncomfortable. Anya doesn't pick up on it.
BUFFY: (carefully) Well, that's an idea ... you would have. Any other suggestions?
ANYA: (softly) Well, I mean, it's, it's not *so* crazy.
DAWN: Yes it is! You can't charge innocent people for saving their lives.
ANYA: Spiderman does.
DAWN: He does not!
ANYA: Does too.
DAWN: Does no-
Dawn stops herself, calms down a little.
DAWN: Xander?
Anya looks at Xander. He continues looking uncomfortable.
XANDER: (reluctantly) Action is his reward.
____________________________________________________________
Saw "Flooded" again last night, and this sequence was even better than I remembered it. Not only did we get Anya at her money-mongering best (and battling with Dawnie like a pair of fourth-graders), we luxuriated in prime Xander geek-age, and some superb SMG reaction shots. (The girl is soooo good with comedy.)
But even more, we got a mini-dissertation on one of Buffy's role models as a superhero. Just like Peter Parker, Buffy was a teenager when imbued with superhuman abilities, and disruption of ordinary life at that tender age made both Peter and Buffy reluctant to embrace Destiny. Right after his empowerment, Peter went for the cash (just like Anya suggested), but the brutal murder of his Uncle Ben by a criminal Peter let slide by convinced him that he had these powers for greater reasons than getting rich. "With great power, comes great responsibility" is Spidey's credo, and to a certain extent, it's Buffy's as well. Frightened by her imminent death in "Prophecy Girl," Buffy wanted to ditch the Slayer calling and return to life as a 16 year-old. But the murders in the Student Lounge reminded her of her true purpose.
[> [> Willow and Dark Phoenix... responsibilty... drawing lines -- yuri, 11:16:05 06/19/02 Wed
The parallel you make is very interesting to me, because at first I think it really isn't accurate... I think (and excuse me if I just misinterpret the hell out of this X-Men thing because I've never picked up an issue... though I'd like to!) that there is a huge difference between Willow and Jean Gray's respective freak-outs because Jean Gray was actually posessed, an event that [i assume] she had no choice in, wheras one could argue that Willow's descent or ascent or whatever was entirely her own doing.
Now, where it gets really interesting is when I start thinking about where you draw the line between something someone brings upon themselves and something someone has done to them... like the question of responsibility, I guess. When is a person responsible for their own actions? The thing is, the way I see it is it's either all one way or all the other. Either a person is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens to them, or nothing at all. Except we can't live that way. We'd just implode or something, we couldn't function in society... right? So we have to draw these somewhat arbitrary lines, fighting to create for ourselves a set of guidelines that tell us when we need to take responsibility for our actions and when we do not. But let me back up for a sec because I'm not sure I made my point very clearly...
Going from the fantastical (comics) to the very, very, real, (and I can't say this doesn't throw me off-kilter (heehee) a little, but I suppose it illustrates how much the two are connected even though some people try desperately to prove they are not) I had a conversation with a coworker the other day who's half palestinean and just returned from a two-year stay in Palestine, and is basically totally shellshocked. (I apologize if I've mentioned this before here and am rehashing to a certain extent, it's just been on my mind a lot.) He was talking to me about how he couldn't handle just talking to people, listening to their problems, because they seemed so stupid, so trivial, so irrelevant compared to what he had been through. It was interesting, because the first thing that popped in to my head was the one other time I've heard someone describe so intensely that sensation of being alienated and disconnected by the triviality of people here (besides, of course, the extent to which everyone does feel that at many points in their lives - both these people felt it to a real extreme) - when a friend of mine was released from two months in the hospital where she was hospitalized for anorexia nervosa. While her friends worried about this and that, about grades and friends and what time the next rally was, she had to worry about rolling over in bed and her bones breaking.
(bear with me, I'm approaching my point.) I wanted to tell my coworker about this friend of mine, but I thought for a moment... would he think that her problem was trivial? Would it seem disrespectful to parallel a girl whos problem is generally had by the [relatively] wealthy and well-off, to a person who was actually starving because they had no food, and whos family and friends were being killed all around them? It made me think... my friend was about as near death as possible, but because her state seems so much more fixable, like there are so many ways out, it seems much more shameful to be her than to be, say, a palestinian in Jenin right now. It's more "her fault," isn't it? But to think this is, I think, to give less credit than is due to the constraints and opression that can happen in a person's mind. People constantly appreciate and take in to serious consideration all that is physical and visable before all that is not. I am reminded of dream's post below, that spoke of hating the sin and not the sinner, because really if a person has sinned it is because of the circumstances that person has withstood, biological or social or familial, have caused that person to sin.
So my point is, I don't think you can blame an anorexic any more for their condition than one can for a civilian prisoner of war. They are both the casualty of some force, physical guns and violence, or biological or social imbalances and imperfections. Willow is just as much a victim of external forces (because by this philosophy one would probably say there really is nothing that is solely internal) as Jean Gray, or Jean Gray is just as much the agent as Willow. It only makes sense to me to think about it either entirely one way or entirely the other. But we have to distinguish, right? We have to at least put on the facade that says there is a difference... or else... or else what? People may stop trying to fix things, just fall in to their traps? That only happens if one doesn't really understand the concept, but it will happen. Anyhow, I beg response. (And apologize for the probable inelegance of grammar and such due to my typing this very quickly.) This feels like it might be one of those cliche things that people think and worry about, (like "is this reality really reality?") and if it is, I'm even more eager to hear what someone else has decided about it.
[> [> [> Responsibilty and drawing lines -- cjl, 11:32:56 06/19/02 Wed
yuri, I'm going to chicken out on the more serious issues you commented on here, but thank you for bringing them up just the same.
I'd just like to point out that ME seems to have given Willow a small "out" regarding her near-genocidal behavior by having her "possessed" by Dark Magicks. When she absorbed the contents of those books, she started talking about "Willow" in the third person, as if the magicks were an outside force eclipsing Willow's own personality. When Giles interposed with "Good Magicks," it allowed Willow's original personality to assert itself under Xander's tender loving care.
I do agree with you that Willow voluntarily absorbed those dark magicks, but Willow may not have been in her right mind, as she was reeling from Tara's death. (In the same way, Jean Grey was supposedly given a choice by the Phoenix force whether or not she would join with it--but given that her "choice" was either absorb the Phoenix or the X-Men get splattered all over Long Island upon re-entry from space, it wasn't much of a choice at all....)
It's a tough one. To what degree is Willow culpable for her actions? As I said in the post above, X-Men writer Chris Claremont had one view about Jean's culpability but his boss had another. Jean had to die for her crimes.
Serious business for funny books.
[> [> [> [> Re: Responsibilty and drawing lines -- JM, 14:07:17 06/19/02 Wed
Actually, I thought it was the "white magics" that were responsible for the genocidal impulses. It seemed to me that Giles nearly precipitated an apocolypse through miscalculating the affect of dosing Willow. It was her supersensativity to human pain, and her genuine desire to stop all the suffering, that prompted her to end the world. Luckily it cut through the nasty numbing buzz of Rack's magic enough for to her to be able to hear and feel what Xander was saying. If not for that little bit of luck with Xander's timing, Anya's would have had a point with "maybe it would have been better if you hadn't come," though a moot one.
Giles seemed to think he would be able to get through to Willow right away. I don't think that he had any conception of how much of the destructiveness was purely Willow, not subtance imbued at all. The dark magic mostly stripped her inhibitions away. Some of those petty angers and frustrations with her friends had been there all along. And the desire to make pain stop because she says so. So I'm thinking that the lines of responsibility go something along the lines of Willow being responsible for Warren's death because she deliberately chose to juice herself up, knowing the effect of the magics and the moral issues of what she intended to do. (Temporary insanity probably not going to cut it here.) Still responsible for threatening/attacking Andrew, Jonathan, and the Scoobs, though it's more a distortion of her true personality. She chose to absorb Rack's magic, but it was pretty powerfully affecting. Still you get yourself drunk or high, you're morally and legally responsible for what you do under the influence.
On the other hand, I don't think you are responsible when someone slips you a drug -- what Giles did to Willow. So I think she is *slightly* less culpable for her choice to kill everybody else. Still got herself to blame for getting to that moment. Anyway, it's a bit of an out.
[> [> [> [> [> Agree with you about Giles' White Magic Mickey... -- cjl, 14:26:00 06/19/02 Wed
But not so sure that Willow was guilty of killing Warren while she was "drunk" or "high." After Tara was shot, she walked out of the Summers house frighteningly calm, almost as if she were in a state of shock. (She probably was.) That's when she absorbed the dark magic(k) books and went on Rampage #1. A good case could be made for Willow's legal insanity due to the combination of witnessing Tara's bloody, gruesome death and the mind-altering effects of the dark magicks.
Of course, that's assuming we could find a courtroom in the U.S. which would even consider a legal debate about the mind-altering effects of dark magick....
Perhaps she'll have to be judged by a court better suited for her particular crime. The coven in Devon? The PTB themselves?
Fan fic anyone?
[> [> [> [> Re: Responsibilty and drawing lines -- yuri, 16:33:13 06/19/02 Wed
ahh, thanks for clarifying about Jean Grey and all, I guess that part of the analogy didn't work so well. And I suppose in a way your points support mine - that there really is no uniform way to make the distinction, just grayness upon grayness and covered in fog.. It was a rather serious post, though, wasn't it? I feel like I do that a lot, and it might be a little groanworthy, like oh there she goes with the issues again, but I can't help it, it's just what I think about. Well, I don't think there's a rule that says we can't get too serious...
(off to check the FAQ!!)
[> [> [> [> [> Don't feel that way! -- Rahael, 16:38:23 06/19/02 Wed
I enjoy reading your posts.
Of course, I may be indulging in special pleading here. I'm hardly the poster girl for lightheartedness.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Second that thought -- Arethusa, 07:17:06 06/20/02 Thu
Of course, if I were a cartoon character, I'd be drawn with a little black cloud over my head all the time!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Third that thought...have you seen mine? -- shadowkat, 12:41:15 06/20/02 Thu
Certainly not the poster child for lightness myself.
My posts always tend to lean towards the serious side...sigh.
And yours are wonderful yuri!!
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Thanks so much, y'all. Reassurance from three wonderful posters is a great thing. -- yuri, who's declared her self-pity hour definitely over., 16:16:41 06/20/02 Thu
[> [> [> I wish I could accept this excuse for Willow -- Sophist, 16:27:58 06/19/02 Wed
I'd love to give her an out. The problem is, I can't see where to stop with your analogy. What about the killers of Matthew Shepherd? The church bombers in Birmingham? I could go on, but surely we can't just say these people were only products of forces beyond their control. And even if we could say that, don't we have to lock them up forever just to protect ourselves in case those forces get control of them again?
[> [> [> [> I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you're right, what the heck do we do with Angel? -- cjl, 16:58:22 06/19/02 Wed
You see, we've been dealing with this problem on Buffy ever since Angel came back in Season 3. This is the reason why a chunk of Buffy-dom Assembled hated "Amends," regardless of how much juicy back story it provided: a lot of fans couldn't swallow Joss' anvil-icious snowstorm. ("See, kids? He spent 100 years in Hell, and God says it's all right to forgive Angel!")
OK, Joss, OK--we forgive him. But what happens if Angel has a happy again, and Angelus comes out to play? (It almost happened in Angel S1's "Eternity.") Who's going to clean up the piles of bodies around Los Angeles? (I can't continue this paragraph. I have to eat dinner at some point...)
Think about this too much and you almost start to sympathize with Xander's point of view: "Soul. Right. So what? Still a vampire. Killed people and could kill people again. Where's my axe?" (Except in this case, Xander will be defending Willow to the rest of the group! Ah, Joss, you sneaky devil...)
The problem here is...this is a horror/fantasy series, and the fantasy elements don't fit into our regular system of jurisprudence. Our court system can judge the killers of Matthew Shepherd and the church bombers. But is Angel legally responsible for the crimes of Angelus, or did his soul-less state render him unfit for trial? Can a California District Court judge whether Willow's absorption of Dark Magick impaired her sense of right and wrong?
I'll say again that Willow MUST be judged, by a court able to deal with the loopier, metaphysical aspects of her crime. (No fluffy snowstorms and arm-in-arm walks through the town.) Maybe the coven or a tribunal of the PTB.
[But on a practical level, how do you punish Willow and keep AH in the series? 50 years in a mid-level hell dimension, equal to about three months Earth time? Any other suggestions?]
[> [> [> [> [> Re: I'm not disagreeing with you, but if you're right, what the heck do we do with Angel? -- Jane's Addiction, 18:08:36 06/19/02 Wed
I've always tried to stay away from drawing any corollaries between the mystical JossVerse and the legal system of OurVerse for this reason (well, and because I'm no lawyer). I guess I tend to see it in more of a psychological and emotional context.
But I imagine we'll see Willow's actions being dealt with (perhaps by the Devon Coven initially) in S7. Ultimately, though, I think it'll be about Willow (and the rest of the SG) coming to terms with not just her own actions, but the psychological issues and emotional frailty behind them. She may mete out the most severe punishment to herself.
Personally, I think the whole "Corruption of Our Will" story arc has been a pretty powerful way of examining the strengths and frailties of the human condition.
[> [> [> [> [> The Angel story arc gave us a way out -- Sophist, 19:10:11 06/19/02 Wed
And it isn't his time in hell (though that certainly helps). No, the "out" is that Angel and Angelus are 2 different creatures. One is not responsible for the other. They drove that point home time and again: The Harvest; the Pack; Lie to Me; Surprise; Innocence. It's not just the quotes, the whole story line requires that distinction.
Willow doesn't have that excuse. In fact, she doesn't have any excuse. I see no way we or the SG can forgive her, and if they go the Amends route, well, that's cheap even beyond your description.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Angel story arc gave us a way out -- Jane's Addiction, 20:00:27 06/19/02 Wed
So, as long as we're examining things in this light, just how clear are we regarding Giles' excuse in the murder of Ben?
The SG's former resident adult did knowingly murder a human being, because of what? A psychotic hellgod within that had a very limited window of time (rapidly expiring as Giles committed the murder of the human host) to pull off an apocalypse to go home to the hell she came from?
If we're looking at things through the lens of our realworld legal system, does it not seem that Giles' actions come into very great question themselves? It seems there was more than reasonable doubt that Glory could've come out to stage another serious attempt at apocalypse anytime soon. Yet Giles, with what would seem to untrained legal eyes to be little in the way of mitigating factors, suffocated the human man.
Was it really to stop Glory from any future evil scheme she might hatch, or in vengeance for Ben's cowardly betrayal or Dawn? Remember that Giles might have been battling his own inner demons at that point for his own betrayal of Dawn (and Buffy), though that betrayal was for far more altruistic purposes. The fact remains, he murdered a human being for reasons that could be seen as far less than clear. And (aside from Tara's "mind-sucked soothsayer" proclamation, "You're a killer,") not one peep has been made about it since.
How has Giles been judged? Well, he hasn't been judged, because it has yet to even be acknowledged by the SG that he murdered a human being, never mind deciding whether he will be forgiven.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Not vengeance. -- Off-kilter, 20:27:36 06/19/02 Wed
I might have missed it, but Giles never knows about Ben's betrayal of Dawn. So, for all he knew, Ben was as innocent as Dawn. What does that say about him?
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not vengeance. -- Jane's Addiction, 20:48:49 06/19/02 Wed
Hmm ... You may be right. I'll have to go back and watch the ep again (sure - twist my arm, why don't ya?)
I guess I was mostly surprised that the whole matter was basically ignored in S6, with Giles gatting off back to England. But since he is expected to be in a few more episodes next season and will likely be somewhat involved in the Willow storyline, it would be nice to see him have to deal honestly with his own actions as well.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Agree, loose threads galore- anyone got more? -- Off-kilter, 23:55:09 06/19/02 Wed
Yeah, it is kind of annoying that a great opportunity to explore the evil that happens in the pursuit of good. Unfortunetly, ME and Joss can't follow up all of the seeds they sow. After all, look at all of the other stuff they didn't address . . . yet.
Giles betrayal of Buffy in Helpless and Buffy's disillusionment. Buffy's attempt to kill Faith. Dawn stating that she's not sure she can be good. I know I had more things listed in my head, but the access code to my brain has failed.
Joss may be God in the Buffyverse, but I don't believe the oft used statement that he never lets anything go to waste. He does, however, do a brillent job of sowing seeds well in advance and also going back over his material and pulling out things to use for his new stories. Go Joss!
[> [> [> [> [> [> But the thing is, she's already been forgiven... -- Rob, 10:12:25 06/20/02 Thu
...and that is what got her to stop destroying the world, in the first place. Xander gave her unconditional love. He told her, flat-out, that no matter what she did, he loved her. Break-the-crayon Willow and Scary Veiny Willow are one and the same to him. It's this forgiveness that caused her to lose her will to off the world.
So I don't think it's a question of whether they forgive Willow, but whether Willow will be able to forgive herself. And, IMO, that makes it so much worse. Willow is surrounded by friends who want to help her and, I believe, will tell her it's okay, etc, but she will have a great deal more trouble convincing herself of that.
Re: Angel and Angelus. I never bought that they were two completely separate creatures. Each one is affected strongly by the other. For example, Angel's love of Buffy translated to Angelus' obsession with her. Also, when Angel first described to Buffy about psychologically torturing and then vamping Dru, he said "I did it," quite clearly. Not "Angelus did it." Angel assumes full responsibility for his actions as Angelus. If he didn't, then he wouldn't have gone through the over-100 years of guilt for his actions. He could have just said they were beyond his control.
But he didn't. Because Angel is merely Angelus + guilt/conscience.
If they weren't one and the same, why would Angelus have been so furious that Buffy had made him feel human, made him feel love? He could have written it off that Angel loved Buffy, not him, he had no control over it, etc. But I think the thing that scared him most was his memory of love and humanity, and the possibility that, as Angelus, he may still have had those feelings for Buffy.
Re: Your examples--
"The Harvest" example of "just a demon wearing your body with your memories, but with no human feelings, etc" was, I believe a bit of mythology the Watchers spread to make sure that Slayers would see vamps as only things to be killed. There was more evidence in other episodes that humans and their vamp-counterparts were closer than most people would like to think. The best example probably being VampWillow in "Doppelgangland," and Angel's ambiguous response to the statement that a vamp-personality has no bearing on the human's.
In "Lie to Me," it was still early on--Buffy still hadn't reached the point where she could accept that vamps were merely humans changed by demon physiology and minus their souls.
"The Pack" was a different case altogether--that was a demonic/animal "possession" where a completely external force was driving Xander and the pack's actions. With vamps, it's the exact opposite...it's the lack of an integral part of what makes someone human that creates the evil within them.
I have the exact opposite opinion as you. I think that the storyline requires the realization that Angel and Angelus are the same. If they were merely two completely different creatures occupying the same body, there would be no feelings of responsibility for actions done. Angelus wouldn't be mad that he, as Angel, had fallen in love with Buffy; Angel wouldn't be guilty for all the evil things Angelus had done over the years.
So I think Willow and Angel are in very similar boats. Willow, when she consumed the dark magic, lost her humanity, just as Angel had. And just like Angel, she will suffer internally for the pain she had caused. And just as Buffy forgave Angel, I think she will forgive Willow. It may be extremely hard, but let's think back to "I Only Have Eyes for You"...
BUFFY
He wants forgiveness.
GILES
Yes. I imagine he does. But when
James possesses people they act out
exactly what happened that night, so
instead he's experiencing a form of
purgatory. He's doomed to kill his
Miss Newman over and over again - and
forgiveness is impossible.
BUFFY
Good. He doesn't deserve it.
GILES
To forgive is an act of compassion,
Buffy. It's not done because people
deserve it. It's done because they
need it.
And I think that's the crux of the entire issue. The snow didn't come down on "Amends" because Angel deserved forgiveness, but because he needed it, to move on with his life, and to get over the past. Willow didn't deserve to be forgiven, but she was...that is what she needed to fight the evil within herself.
And I think that's a nice place to wrap up. :o)
Rob
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love and forgiveness aren't the same -- Sophist, 10:58:50 06/20/02 Thu
Xander offered her unconditional love. That's not the same as forgiving her. Among other things, Xander is not the one who needs to forgive her; it's cheap coming from him. Does Warren forgive her? Jonathan? Andrew? Does society at large? Do you? And if you do, why?
The point of IOHEFY was not that Buffy forgave Angelus, but that she forgave herself. She blamed herself for Angel's turn to Angelus. There was no reason for her to do that, so forgiveness was appropriate.
Lie to Me was not "early on", it preceeded Surprise/Innocence by just 5 episodes. It was part of a consistent line we were told from, literally, Day 1. Buffy expressly says to Ford "You die, and a demon sets up shop in your old house, and it walks, and it talks, and it remembers your life, but it's not you." This is identical in substance to what Giles told Xander about Jesse in The Harvest. It is identical to what Angel told Buffy in Angel and again in Innocence. It is identical to what happened to Xander in The Pack.
It's not just the dialogue, Rob. The whole storyline involving the Judge won't work if Angelus doesn't differ from Angel. If Angel could be burned, but Angelus couldn't, there was, and had to be, a difference between them.
Angel feels responsible because he shares the memories of what Angelus did. That's understandable psychologically, but we outsiders need not pass moral judgment on him on that basis. That's the difference between memory and conscience.
As for Amends, that was Angel's forgiveness for Liam, not Angelus. "It's not the demon in me that needs killing, it's the man." Angel had brooded for 100 years before Buffy. Meeting her gave him a purpose. The purpose was fulfilled with the defeat of Acathla. He couldn't understand why a worthless man like him would be brought back again (honing his brooding skills some more?). He needed that forgiveness to move on. It had nothing to do with Angelus.
Willow has none of these excuses. And what she did is not forgivable.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow, Angel/Angelus and Chances -- Ixchel, 21:20:20 06/20/02 Thu
If Willow can act in a constructive manner from now on and help Buffy in her work (protecting humans from predatory demons, stopping the occasional apocalypse), then I feel the same way about her as I do about Spike (and Angel, Anya, Faith). She can't ever "pay" for killing Warren (and Rack, also), that's impossible. But, she can help others (as previously) and make something positive from her life. Of course, just as any future positive acts won't negate her negative ones, so too her negative ones don't negate her previous positive ones. Who knows how Willow's heart would balance against Maat? If it is quantifiable, she _has_ saved more people than she has killed. And how does one attempted apocalypse weigh in against assisting in the aversion of two others (would Buffy have been able to perform her sacrifice without Willow weakening Glory)? As to Warren, he's, perhaps, past such things (in his afterlife)? And Jonathan and Andrew should look for their own forgiveness (whatever that may be), the question of them forgiving Willow doesn't seem relevant to me (JMHO). They both took willing part in treating Buffy like an object and callously manipulating her life (not to mention everything they did to SD). Jonathan seemed to have learned something and tried to be better (though fear got the better of him). Andrew didn't really seem to learn anything, I'm not sure he even knows what he did was wrong. As to society, well Willow did stop her attempted apocalypse (with intervention from Xander). Her situation is, somewhat, similar to a vampire's, though she knew more what the effect of the magic would be (and how it "changed" her) than Liam or William knew about the effect of being turned. However, there is the question of how much more, she wanted revenge and so absorbed the "dark" magic from the books, not caring it would destroy her. But, did she know how fully it would unleash her negative aspect, make her want more "dark" power (and take it from Rack), enable her to (presumably) ignore her soul (as, it seems, being a vengeance demon previously did for Anya), and change her so much that she'd _want_ to harm her loved ones? I don't know that I "forgive" her, but I still like the character (she is one of my, reluctantly admitted because I like all the characters, favorites still along with Buffy and Spike) and I have hope for her.
IMHO, the CoW party line on the difference between vampires and the humans they were is extremely suspect (no matter how many characters espouse it). There has been too much physical evidence (IMHO) that contradicts this (the similarity in negative aspects of humans and the behavior of their vampire "counterpart"). And if there's no cognitive break between human and vampire (Angel remembers Liam, Angelus and himself as "I"), then the schism between Angel and Angelus (I like dream of the consortium's term "Angel Doctrine" for this assumed split) and _all_ vampires tends to seem irrelevant (to me). The AtS Pylea episodes showed the nature of the demon portion of the vampire (nonsentient, no personality) and the soul appears to be simply the "moral compass" and doesn't contain anything else (for example, it wasn't necessarily Buffy's soul that was in "heaven", it could've been her awareness or personality, stripped from her body and suspended in another dimension), so (to me) the vampire, having the personality of the human (clearly, though mostly the negative aspects are expressed, enhanced by the predatory nature of the demon) _is_ that person. Changed by their circumstances, with a strong inclination to be violent, their positive aspect mostly suppressed (without support of the soul), but still _them_ (their quirks, desires). Also, those who advocate the CoW explanation have a vested interest in doing so (another reason it doesn't stand up under scrutiny for me). As to Xander in TP, one difference is that he didn't lose his soul, other than that I agree it was like a human being turned (keeping in mind my theory). His manifestion of the hyena violence seemed specific to his personality (IMHO), as if the possession amplified the negative aspect of him, supressed the positive and sort of "disabled" his soul (basically what I believe happens with vampires, only they lose the soul entirely). He was still Xander, desiring Buffy and dimissive of Willow, only he didn't have his positive aspect to counterbalance this, respecting Buffy and loving Willow. My point being that nothing expressed by Xander when possessed needed to come from without, the potentiality for negative behavior was there and only had to be unleashed (and, possibly, enhanced). IMHO, this applies in almost exactly the same way to vampires (and vengeance demons and, perhaps, "aware" werewolves like Veruca, except the soul is presumably ignored for these two rather than lost). The potentiality for the most vile "evil" and the most sublime "good" is within everyone. Certain demon/human combinations simply manifest (mostly) the "evil" of a person.
I believe the storyline of the Judge works because Angelus (Angel with his negative aspect fully expressed and his positive aspect fully suppressed) couldn't feel any positive emotion, it was an anathema to him. All his positive feelings as Angel were converted (by force of will, by strength of his negative aspect?) to their negative expression (he _is_ all about control, control of others, control of himself). I postulate that the Judge based his detection of "humanity" on detection of positive emotion, which Spike and Drusilla had as part of their beings (a small seepage of each one's positive aspect into the negative one) and Angel had (his positive aspect supported by his soul being dominant), but Angelus didn't have (all he had were negative ones, acceptable to the Judge, I think). There is a difference, certainly, just as there is a difference between me at my cruelest and me at my kindest, but I'm still me.
I would also point out, if the CoW party line applies, Angel _isn't_ a "man", he's the demon who took over Liam's body and memories, and then later was cursed with a soul. He's _still_ the demon, just with a different view on his existence and a "moral compass". So for him to think in Amends that it's the man who "needs killing" doesn't really make sense (IMHO), again according to CoW doctrine. I could offer a twist on his speech and say that the _demon_ doesn't deserve killing (the mindless creature shown in Pylea just has predatory tendancies and blood-hunger), but the _man_ whose personality contained the seeds of Angelus' penchant for torture, desire for control and capacity for cruelty. The man who hated his father and killed him once powerful enough to do so and freed from the bonds of conscience. Angelus was the expression of everything negative within Liam (amplified) and Angel is the expression (most times, not always) of everything positive within Liam (buried fairly deeply, I would think, and perhaps never given form because of his father's treatment of him, though I think he may of been kind to his sister). Also, if Angelus was irrelevant, why was it that all the people the First Evil manifested as to torment him were people he killed as Angelus, especially his most recent and fairly important (because of Buffy) kill, Jenny? Why not people he had wronged as a human? And I doubt whatever he did when Liam was worth 100 years of brooding but, what he did when Angelus certainly could be. I believe some part of Angel knows how Angelus is his negative aspect unleashed (he has even deliberately unleashed a controlled portion of it, I say "controlled" because he is, mostly, careful of his friends), this has been quite emphasized on AtS (IMHO). I would think that in Amends, he doesn't understand why a _being_ such as himself, containing such "evil" potential, should be allowed a chance to be better. Maybe, the reason is that he also contains such "good" potential and he has Willow (a "good" action on her part, not that she can take credit for everyone he's saved since the resouling, but she _did_ make it possible) to thank for that soul that enables this potential and the accompanying chance.
Perhaps, Willow can't be "excused", but, maybe, she can have a chance to be better (as the Willow of before)?
All the above, of course, is JMHO and mostly ramblings (obviously).
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I am a redemptionist -- Sophist, 10:08:16 06/21/02 Fri
I've said so many times in the Spike debate. Like you (and that's generally the case with your posts), I love Willow. It's because I like her so much that I'm searching so hard for an answer here.
Yes, Willow can be redeemed. Yes, we have to judge her life as a whole, not just for her murder of Warren (which bothers me much more than the attempted apocalypse). Redemption (or rehabilitation) can come even for such horror. But you got to pay your dues; you know it don't come easy.
Willow now is where Faith was the day she turned herself in. Absent a nearly Christ-like act on Willow's part, it's hard to see her as redeemed within the life of the show. Do I really want to spend S7 and beyond (?) seeing Willow like Faith is now? Hardly. That's not Willow. That Willow is gone, probably forever, and that's what saddens me so much.
As for the Angel/Angelus line, I see it this way. If the characters on BtVS tell us something about real life, we don't have to believe it. When Spike says, "Love isn't brains, children, it's blood...", I can assess for myself whether it's true. It's not doctrine. In fact, ME can even contradict Spike (as they did with the school psychologist in BatB) and play it both ways. That's fair because different people can believe different things. The only requirement is that Spike continue to behave like he believes this.
The situation is different when we get to facts uniquely within the Buffyverse. Those are facts I can't independently assess. When we're told such a fact by an authoritative source, the integrity of the show requires that we be entitled to believe it. When that fact is then re-stated on at least 4 subsequent occasions, forcefully, then it's Doctrine. When that doctrine then becomes an essential fact in the major story arc of S2, ME can't back away from it. Ever.
Look at it this way. If Angel and Angelus are not really that different, then Buffy should be able to love Angelus (or vice versa). If she can't (and I take it there's no dispute here), then Angelus must be missing something, something important, that Angel has. That missing "something" -- soul, or whatever -- is enough to make the two creatures "different" such that one is not responsible for the acts of the other.
The ironic thing is, ME reinforced this essential logic when they insisted on giving Spike a soul. If they hadn't done that, maybe we all could have conveniently forgotten S2. They didn't, and we can't.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Reinforcing the Doctrine (and the futile wish for heresy) -- cjl, 11:30:38 06/21/02 Fri
It wasn't ironic. Spike's re-souling was Mutant Enemy stomping its foot on possible heresy within its own ranks and re-establishing the soul as THE necessary component for redemption. If Joss and ME really had a set of orbs, they would gone the existential route and tried to redeem Spike without it and flip our collective feet out from under us. (Could you imagine the debates on this board?!)
But no, no heresy within the Church of Joss. Can't really blame him for that--it's his story, his rules, and if we don't like it, we don't have to watch. But I held out vain hopes for a truly revolutionary outcome for Spike's quest for redemption.
Sigh.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Frustrated heretic -- Off-kilter, 19:49:43 06/22/02 Sat
*sigh*
Me too. Was hoping that the Church of Fundies would have a coup and Spike would be the Martin Luther nailing up a new doctrine to the door. No insights to offer, just agreeing with the sentiment.
*going off to mourn my dead storyline*
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lost Willow, Doctrine and S2 -- Ixchel, 14:45:46 06/22/02 Sat
I just reread my post and I realized I might have seemed a little abrasive. I hope I didn't offend.
Regarding Willow, honestly (truly) I really don't completely understand what people mean when they say "redeemed". I don't think, for example, that Angel can _ever_ make up for what he's done (not just as Angelus, but there's also the "lawyer buffet"). Saving someone's life doesn't repay some other for the loss of his/hers. But he can _try_ to make up for what he's done and in doing this become a positive influence on the world. Maybe, this is the crux of your sadness about Willow? That she'll never be the same again? If so, I believe I understand. The innocent, "uncontaminated" Willow is gone, though I'm not sure she didn't begin leaving in TL. I still think, though, that the kind, gentle, empathetic, caring and loving Willow is still there. I believe, perhaps, this "contamination" of Willow is a reflection of Buffy's decision to kill Faith in S3? Only that Buffy was lucky that she didn't succeed and Willow wasn't, that Buffy had a clear chance of reversing what Faith did by killing her and Willow definitely didn't, that Buffy didn't seem interested in Faith suffering and Willow deliberately tortured Warren, and that Buffy seemed to regret immediately what she'd done and we don't know yet the extent of Willow's regret? As an aside, I wonder why Warren's death distressed people (including myself) much more than Rack's? Is it because of the torture (that may be it for me)? Do people assume that Rack doesn't count as a human? I don't see that Warren was any less "deserving" of death than Rack, but maybe others do? Regardless, I sympathize with your sadness over Willow.
As to the Angel/Angelus question, I suppose we're not going to agree on this. I believe that we have been given a mass of contradictory dialogue and "physical evidence", my theory is what I happen to extract from all this. It is, of course, JMHO, but I think it can be supported by events within the shows (along with many other interpretations, I'm certain). I believe that Angelus was incapable of positive emotion because, without the soul, his positive aspect (and I'm using a shorthand here, I suppose I really should say positive _aspects_, as I don't think they're so discrete as two distinct "entities") could not manifest in any way. This, however, could be seen as more particular to the personality of _Angel_ than a statement about vampires in general. For example, the Judge seemed able to burn Spike and Drusilla, and did burn the bookish minion. Maybe other vampires could have been burned as well, the Master had affection for Darla and the Annointed One, Harmony had affection for Cordelia, etc. That Angel so polarized his personality seems consistent with his _need_ for control and "religious" thought processes (with a soul I'm good, without a soul I must be evil). And that he must cling to this idea that there's an important difference between him and Angelus to protect his own idea of himself (and sanity, maybe) is apparent, IMHO (even if sometimes there seem to be hints that, on some level, he doubts the reality of the separation). As to the authoritativeness of Giles (I assume that's who you refer to), his views (that support doctrine) are based on the CoW's and the show has clearly shown how trustworthy they _aren't_. I don't see any subsequent seasons as backing away from S2, but rather we're being shown different facets of the situations present within the show from the beginning (just as later in life you might understand some event from earlier differently than you understood it at the time).
As to responsibility, I believe that both aspects of Angel are responsible for the actions of the other, in the sense that all these actions have their roots in the personality of Liam. However, the loss of his soul seems to completely incapacitate the positive aspect of Angel, so he is unable to struggle against his negative aspect. I think this is a difference of personality, like some human characters seem to have less trouble ignoring their souls than others. So, to me, the question of responsibility is very nebulous. I would postulate that it's _extremely_ difficult for a vampire (lacking a soul, having the predatory urges) to manifest anything other than the negative aspects of his/her personality. So much of a struggle, that most never try and, in fact, are completely unaware that they _can_ try. For example, Harmony is simple and acts the way she believes a vampire should act (as most do, I imagine, encouraged by their vampire "instincts"), but she's also so simple that she believed she could be different if she decided to. That she was later swayed back to a far easier path is understandable (she _is_ simple, a follower and it's _easier_).
I'm not sure that the "doctrine" was reinforced by Spike getting a soul. Spike, obviously (to me), had access to his positive aspect. He felt things that, according to doctrine, vampires shouldn't. He felt shame about the Buffybot (Intervention), guilt over failing Buffy (AL) and intense remorse over the incident in SR. The fact that he _wanted_ a soul (assuming that's true) is a subversion of the doctrine (IMHO). Also, we don't yet know how the soul will effect Spike. He could be more "Randyish", which would be acceptable to my theory, as I perceived "Randy" as being Spike basically without the negative aspects manifested. Or he could be even less different, to the point that he's annoyed that he went to all that trouble and doesn't feel _that_ different (just disinclined to act on negative emotions and able to extrapolate his feelings for, say, Dawn to random people like the girl in the alley, Smashed). I really believe that Spike wanting the soul is the important factor. That he now has one is, perhaps, better for him so his struggle won't be so overwhelming and it should increase his chances of controlling his (vampire amplified) negative aspects. As an aside, even if they had allowed Spike to be consistently "good" without a soul, I don't believe this would have required we forget S2. Angel is just one specific vampire, with his own particularities. He isn't _necessarily_ the "standard" upon which _all_ possible vampire behavior must be based (case in point, the "vamphos" show a remarkable restraint and, IMHO, sensibleness in their approach to being a vampire). Or Spike could be described as a truly exceptional vampire, able to do what others couldn't (even if they tried).
So, I really don't have any difficulty encompassing S2 within my theory (IMHO, I can draw support for it from that season). However, I don't mean to imply by any of the above that your viewpoint is invalid, or that my theory is correct and should be acceptable to you.
Thank you for your response, you've really caused me to formalize most of my thoughts on these issues (as this Board has about the shows in general). And, as always, I very much enjoy your posts.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Love your responses in this subthread, Ixchel! -- Exegy, 14:59:49 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> me too! Esp. on Angel -- Rahael, 16:23:06 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> "Here's me [sincerely] basking in the love." Thanks, Exegy and Rahael! -- Ixchel, 17:32:06 06/22/02 Sat
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Your original post -- Sophist, 16:36:46 06/22/02 Sat
was not abrasive at all. Must be my response that made you think so. Sorry.
I think there are valid ways of seeing the Angel/Angelus issue. I'm a traditionalist, I guess. :)
Rack didn't bother me as much for 2 reasons: I wasn't sure he was human, and he had the ability to fight back.
You've identified the heart of my problem with Willow. Willow was always, for lack of a better term, cute. Adorable. Big eyes, great smile. Babbled sweetly. It's hard for me to see how she can do any of this anymore and have it appear anything other than offensive. Faith was never cute or sweet, but imagine seeing her act that way now. Wouldn't you want to gag if she did? That's the problem.
I don't like the term "redemption". Too many Christian connotations that I don't intend. I've tried using "rehabilitation", but it doesn't quite work. Neither one requires undoing the past; that's not possible. Both, as you rightly note, look to the future. Whatever term we use, coming back from what Willow did requires either an enormous sacrifice on her part or a great deal of time (in a series that probably has just one more season). It's hard to see how they can pull off either one.
And thanks. I feel the same way about your posts.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Warren and Rack, Innocent Willow and Humpty-Dumpty -- Ixchel, 19:59:22 06/22/02 Sat
Please don't apologize, it wasn't you at all. I just reread it and thought, that seems kind of arrogant, you might want to explain yourself. :)
I agree about the validity of the various angles on the Angel/Angelus question (I doubt we'll ever have a definitive answer, though). I suppose I must be an iconoclast. ;)
The more I think about the difference in my feelings about the deaths of Warren and Rack, the more I think it was the torture. Also, we "knew" Warren more than Rack (I think this might be a factor for me as well). As to being not human, I'm not sure either. But, though he hurt people, we never saw him kill anyone (not that I'd believe him incapable, quite the opposite). This is an interesting question, at what point might he have stopped being human (assuming he was to begin with)? The Mayor was "safely" ascended (with the correct combination for justified slayage: a threat to humans and a demon) when Buffy killed him, so there was no moral problem. But, at what point did he change? When he made himself impervious to harm? When he halted his aging process? I agree that Rack was _able_ to defend himself, but it didn't seem difficult for Willow to overcome him (it seems he foolishly overestimated his power over her). I believe it took Willow longer to overcome Warren, discounting tracking and torturing time.
I think I understand better now about Willow. I suppose the "innocent" Willow _is_ gone (and _would_ be discordant with what she has done). And I did like that part of her personality, it was endearing (just as Anya's bluntness is, to me). Though, even if Willow hadn't gone "evil" I'm not sure that Tara's death wouldn't have destroyed "innocent" Willow anyway. Honestly, I don't know that I _can_ imagine Faith acting like Willow used to, it just wouldn't be Faith. However, she did joke a little with Angel in Judgement and it wasn't offensive (IMHO). Maybe, they can preserve some of Willow's charm, if they are very skilled in writing it?
I agree about "redemption" and "rehabilitation", neither seems completely appropriate. I'm not sure the word we need even exists (in English anyway). Maybe, we (here at the Board) should create our own word? I think it'd be helpful for these discussions. As to what Willow could do to move in the direction of "repairing" the damage, I don't know. I do remember feeling much more positive about Angel after he saved Willow in Revelations (perhaps, I was influenced by her feeling that way). It _does_ seem like time is needed for Willow and there's not much time left. Her situation is fairly Humpty-Dumpty post-wall and I'm clueless about how they'll continue with this. Something I wonder, were all the positive Willow moments (saving Buffy in DMP and Villains, curing Buffy in NA) before her rampage meant to cushion the blow for us? To remind us of how "good", helpful and loving Willow has been over the years, before showing us the extent of her negative aspect?
You're welcome. It's so pleasant to be able to come here and discuss BtVS with people who give it so much thought.
Ixchel
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Needing forgiveness -- Off-kilter, 15:09:14 06/20/02 Thu
GILES
To forgive is an act of compassion,
Buffy. It's not done because people
deserve it. **It's done because they
need it.**
I wonder if this statement can encompass the person doing the forgiving along with the person being forgiven. To forgive someone, not because they deserve it, or even because they're asking for it, but because YOU need it.
Not saying that you have to forgive all trespasses against you, just that it can be helpful in order to live in this world where people -intentionally or not- are constantly harming each other.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Lovely Point, Off-kilter -- Jane's Addiction, 19:55:26 06/20/02 Thu
Jeez, look at all the trouble you started with your very first thread!
I fear to think what you'll do with your next;) Good job.
[> [> [> [> Re: I wish I could accept this excuse for Willow -- yuri, 14:44:11 06/22/02 Sat
I totally though I"d responded to this, and I'm probably just going in circles and repeating myself, but I wanted to say that yes, I believe the church bombers and the killers of Matthew Shepherd were just incredibly unfortunate people, products of really incredibly terrible circumstances. Yes, something needed to be done about them, but doing something (rehablitation rather than punishment) doesn't mean that they are entirely responsible for what they've done, or that they should be told that. Rather, they should be educated on the reasons why what they did were wrong and what in their past has steered them in the wrong direction.
[> [> [> Re: Willow and Dark Phoenix... responsibilty... drawing lines -- Arethusa, 09:34:27 06/20/02 Thu
There is always a point where someone makes a decision. No matter how clouded or faulty their reasoning is, at some point they do decide to pick up that gun, or needle, or esoteric volumne on Black Majick. Unless that person is truly not responsible for biological and/or psychological reasons, they have to be accountable for their own actions. It's unfair and puts the burden on the victim, but "if a person has sinned it is because of the circumstances that person has withstood, biological or social or familial, have caused that person to sin" is an excuse, not a reason. Whether it's a victim killing me or an "evil" person, I'm just as dead. We are obligated, by society and the moral compass that is inside almost all of us, to deal with our issues in a way that doesn't harm others-or ourselves, if possible. One can't help being a victim, but one can refrain from becoming a professional victim. Willow is responsible for all her actions. The circumstances surrounding her crimes should be used to mitigate her punishment, not lesson her degree of culpability.
Does any of this make sense?
[> [> [> [> arbitrary-ness (is there even a noun for arbitrary?) -- yuri, 12:09:23 06/20/02 Thu
I completely understand what you're saying, but my point is that everyone has biological and/or psychological reasons for what they do... if you discount a dislecsic's mistake in calculating an equation because of their learning disorder, than you (IMHO) should just as easily discount the mistake of a kid who has been raised in a way that makes them disvalue mathematics and resist teaching. If you go easier on a legally "crazy" person who's beaten their spouse, I think you should go easier on a person who's been abused in their life and so knows no other way to have relationships. There are always external causes for our actions, if you look hard enough. I think to draw the line at the moment when a person picks up a gun or even the moment they pull the trigger is to draw an arbitrary one. It seems to me that one can either be responsible for where one was born, how and where one was raised, and every detail of everything that happened to them in their entire lives, or they can be responsible for nothing. We make distinctions to make life easier.
I choose to believe that everyone who has ever done terrible things is a victim of circumstance. People in jail are just unfortunate people. I feel sorry for them, not angry. I don't use this philosophy as an "out" for any wrong things that I do... I don't know. I don't think that this means people should never be punished or repremanded for their actions, but neither do I think that punishment or atonement is always the answer. It depends on the person, and what tactic will most effectively change them for the better. This is hard for me to convey, I hope you understand what I'm saying. And thank you for the comment above, I appreciate it.
[> [> [> [> [> Re: arbitrary-ness (is there even a noun for arbitrary?) -- Arethusa, 13:22:22 06/20/02 Thu
It's amazing-this issue is one I deal with almost every day....
My younger daughter is handicapped; she will need some special accommodations from the teacher to circumvent her limitations. She won't be counted wrong because she can't answer questions like the other kids. But she is still expected to do as much as she can, which is fortunately quite a lot, and not let her handicap be an excuse to not participate or succeed. It's unfair and painful, but she will be better for it in the end.
I had many students who were so needy emotionally that they couldn't concentrate in class, and constantly disrupted instruction. I couldn't let them halt instruction so I disciplined them, but I made sure the counselor knew the child needed additional help. Most of the time, there was little we could do, because what the kid really wanted was his parents' love, attention and approval, and we could never make up for that lack. I knew their behavior wasn't really their fault, and I tried very hard to explain to them that although it wasn't fair they had to deal with so many problems, if they didn't make the decision to change their behavior they would fail.
Some teachers excused all or most bad behavior in certain students because they felt sorry for the child-this didn't help anyone. (Not comparing you to this type of teacher.)The teacher felt good because she got to be the good guy, the student liked the teacher because he wasn't criticized or disciplined, but the child still failed.
We are all, at different times, victims of fate, circumstance, and the carelessness or malice of others. How we deal with the aftermath reveals what kind of person we are, or want to be. One person I know had to leave home at 15 to avoid her father's drunken beatings. She slept in her school's science lab. She's now a nurse, wife and mother-what made her successful, when so many other children of alcoholics I know became alcoholics themselves? Why do some child abuse victims become good parents, whild others become abusive to their own children?
I truly believe that sometime, somehow, they made the decision to look foreward instead of backward, to accept no excuses for failure, to want to better themselves instead of sink into depravity. And I've seen many of the latter-they wouldn't to school, or put down that drink, or keep their knees together because it was difficult and boring and hey, they were abused as a child. As Fred might say, who *hasn't* survived a demon dimension (or childhood)?
This is a very difficult, complicated issue, and I want to totally agree with you-partially, to be honest, because then I could excuse some of my own less attractive behaviors, since I grew up in a demon dimension, too. But sometimes we do have to draw that elusive, cruel line that punishes the victim, who never deserved to suffer so much, so that we can prevent future victims.
Pretentious rant done. Thank you so much for responding.
[> [> [> [> [> [> Not pretentious at all -- redcat, 13:35:27 06/20/02 Thu
It's a basic set of questions for so many of us, as we look at ourselves, at others, and even as we interpret fiction. I'm not sure that we should ever punish the victim, though. Being a victim, especially of the forces of the hell-dimension that many of our childhoods (apparently) were is bad enough without the concept of being "punished" for it. But I do think we have a responsibility to stop the victimization from becoming the grounds on which even more victimization is based. In doing that, maybe we can perhaps "prevent future victims."
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Not pretentious at all -- Arethusa, 13:58:02 06/20/02 Thu
I meant: punish a perpetrator of a crime even though they had been a victim themselves. Like, discipline the neglected student who disrupted class, or put the abused child abuser in jail. I spent forever writing and editing that post, and still managed to be unclear. :o(
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No, I actually agree with you on this point -- redcat, 14:38:59 06/20/02 Thu
Arethusa, I was merely trying to clarify what you were saying, not contradict you. I was in a rush and didn't do it carefully enough myself. Apologies extended. As you note above, it is not the victim-as-victim for whom you argue punishment is necessary, but the victim-as-criminal. I'm still not sure I agree with your use of the concept of "punishment," but we do agree on the difference between victims and perpetrators.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> pretentious mah foot. -- yuri, 16:09:41 06/20/02 Thu
I fully agree that punishment can be necessary, but I think "punishment" should only be used when it is going to better the recepient (I apologize if I"m repeating myself, I do it all the time). Two people can commit the same crime, and one will grow more from kindness and the other from repremanding. I think that while punishing someone, you aren't necessarily saying "this is your fault," and drawing a line of responsibility, it can just be a way to forcefully show them the "right" path (whatever that may be).
I do not think that this train of thought necessarily allows one to "excuse" all wrong that is done, even by oneself. Well it does in a way, but not in a way that says it's okay to do bad stuff. I think of excusing a wrong as releiving guilt for that wrong. I think that's okay. If you're excusing them, it means you know you did something wrong and you're unlikely to do it again. If you are in a place where excusing yourself allows you to do bad again, I think you're in need of some external help.I don't think that we should sit by the wayside and let bad things happen, like "oh, that's just so-and-so doing bad stuff because she had a bad childhood. Poor her. So - how about this weather?" You know? I believe in action, but I don't think it's necessary for people to take take the entire weight of the responsibility for whatever they've done. Sometimes it may be the most effective way to deal with things, like, I do think that what you choose to do with your "problem students" (isn't that a terrible way to put it?) is the best thing you could've done, it's what they need. I think it's very key that you told them that you understand it's not fair that they have to come from where they come from. I think the way you handle it is near perfect, but if a child doesn't respond to that, I still say that it's because of what they've been through... A good friend of the family works in program that helps out excons and their families, and she tells me the key to being a good counselor (or whatever she is called there) is to never give up on anyone. I think the only way to maintain that attitude is to accept that people's actions are totally shaped by their experiences.
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> great post...crime and punishement -- shadowkat, 19:11:42 06/20/02 Thu
yuri, areuthsa and redcat - your posts remind of the time I spent in defender project in Kansas, defending the rights of prisoners in Leavenworth Penitentiary.
While there I helped a 45 year old bank robber get parole. He should have been paroled ten years ago. He became a bank robber due to a drug problem. He had two kids he hadn't seen in 15 years. While in prison, he entered drug rehabilitation, wrote a book on why it was a bad idea to use drugs, and eventually became a drug counselor for other innmates. The day we had to appear before the parole board, the prison was locked down. There had been a knifing the day before, so every cell was locked and the lights were low. We were sitting upstairs in a dim rotunda awaiting our turn to go before the board. We had to wait twelve hours, during a thunderstorm, so we talked to pass the time.
I remember him asking me if I thought he had a chance in the outside world or if he would just revert back. I said I had no clue. I didn't feel qualified to judge him, b/c I did not know what I would become if I had his parents, his life. He was African-American, born in Ohio ghetto, and
very little education. He came across as very intelligent
and thoughtful. But his environment was a painful one. His friends got him into the drug and the bank robberies. No that didn't excuse it. But not being him - I didn't know what I'd do. He was scared. And I tried to rea