June 2001 posts

Previous June 2001  

More June 2001

New Slayer -- vampire hunter D, 13:38:42 06/09/01 Sat

Alright, I know I've been accused of beating a dead horse with this, because everone knows that Joss has said that there will be no new slayer. But has it occured to anyone that Joss can, and does, change his mind? All this no new slayer stuff comes from an interview he did over a year ago. Well, a year ago, Joss was still panning on making Tara part demon. But as we all saw, he canged his mind and did something else with her. Wesley was supposed to die after only two episodes, and yet he's still here. So why does everybody think that this prohibition on a new slayer is set in stone? (and by the way, stone can be smashed, so don't ever think anything is permanent)

If anyoneone is wondering why I'm seemingly obsessed with this subject, it's because I've spent some time thinking who the new slayer should be (I have a very boring job that gives me lots of time to think of stuff like this). I've even come up with a specific girl (by this, I mean we've already seen her). If anyone's interested, I'll post who I came up with on a future thread.


[> Re: New Slayer -- Andy, 05:38:55 06/10/01 Sun

Obviously Whedon can change his mind, being the boss and all :) However, one of the staff writers, Steven DeKnight was online a couple of weeks ago saying that there would be no new slayers called by Buffy's death, which would seem to indicate that Joss hasn't changed his mind. I think that the writers probably feel that they shouldn't bring up another slayer because it would dilute the concept too much. "One girl in all the world..." They've bent that as far as they can with the second slayer being called by Buffy's flukish flatline experience, but you bring in a third slayer and you may risk things getting out of hand. Kind of like in Marvel comics, when they kept having people come along and lift Thor's hammer over the years, becoming Thors in their own right, until it reached the ultimate in self parody when they did a comic called Thor Corps in the late 80's :)


[> [> Re: New Slayer -- Liam, 10:04:48 06/11/01 Mon

Regarding whether a new slayer has been called now that Buffy's really (as opposed to mostly in 'Prophecy Girl') dead, I recall a reference in the third season episode 'Enemies', where Angel made Faith and the Mayor believe that he was Angelus again. The Mayor endorsed 'Angelus's' desire to kill Buffy, but told him not to be too quick, due to the fact that another slayer would be called. This is something the writers have to get around.

This issue on whether there will or won't be a new slayer reminds me of the debates over Angel and what a moment of true happiness exactly was. We only found out by 'Epiphany'.

Where to from here? -- Robin, 16:29:45 06/09/01 Sat

To be honest this is my first visit to this sight and I'm really in search of alittle info. I hope my questions don't come across as too stupid, I'm alittle behind in the info department.

Where do I find the show next fall, if not on the WB?

Is SMG for sure, back next year? Though you all might have answered that in some of your discussions.

What do you all think is the best bet for the future of the gang?

How does this affect Angel, if at all?

I don't think resurrection is their best bet, but what other options are there?


[> Re: Where to from here? -- Wisewoman, 16:52:26 06/09/01 Sat

Hey, Robin:

I can't speak for the whole gang, but I'll try to get you up to speed with as much as I know, right now.

Buffy will be on UPN next year.

Yes, SMG is back, for SURE, next year.

For speculations on the future of the gang, check out the various threads below that deal with the Scoobies.

As far as I can tell, the way that this will affect Angel is that the two shows will be on different networks so there may not be any more crossover episodes (although it's not impossible.)

We're all speculating on what the options are for bringing Buffy back: resurrection, rebirth, etc. Let us know what your thoughts are!

Cheers, Wisewoman

Repentance -- Malandanza, 22:28:06 06/09/01 Sat

I picked up a copy of Mark Twain's "Letters From Earth" a few days ago (OnM recommended it several months ago) and came upon an essay on repentance:

"It is curious -- the misassociation of certain words. For instance, the word Repentance. Through want of reflection we associate it exclusively with Sin. We get the notion early, and keep it always, that we repent of bad deeds only; whereas we do a formidably large business in repenting of good deeds which we have done. Often when we repent of a sin, we do it perfunctorily, from principle, coldly and from the head; but when we repent of a good deed, the repentance comes hot and bitter and straight from the heart. Often when we repent of a sin, we can forgive ourselves and drop the matter out of mind; but when we repent of a good deed, we seldom get peace -- we go on repenting to the end. And the repentance is perennially young and strong and vivid and vigorous! A great benefaction conferred with your whole heart upon an ungrateful man -- with what immortal persistence and never-cooling energy do you repent that! Repentance of a sin is a pale, poor, perishable thing compared with it...In my time I have committed several millions of sins. Many of them I probably repented of -- I do not remember now; others I was partly minded to repent of, but it did not seem worthwhile; all of them but the recent ones and a few scattering former ones I have forgotten, In my time I have done eleven good deeds. I remember all of them, four of them with crystal clearness. These four I repent of whenever I think of them -- and it is not seldomer than fifty-two times a year. I repent of them in the same old original furious way, undiminished, always. If I wake up away in the night, they are there, waiting and ready; and they keep me company till the morning. I have not committed any sin that has lasted me like this save one; and have not repented of any sin with the unmodifying earnestness and sincerity with which I have repented of these four gracious beautiful good deeds."

On BtVS and AtS, Angel is the charcter who best personifies Repentance. He sits home and "alphabetizes his sins." Yet, there is part of him that has not completely abandoned the past -- the part that intimidates his adversaries, the part that emerged as Noir Angel, the part that became uncomfortable when Harmony began discussing drinking blood. Compare his repentance of evil with Angelus' repentance of good -- remember when Buffy and Angelus were possessed by ghosts? Afterward, Angelus is scrubbing himself to be freed from the goodness he had endured (Spike's comment: "They say once you've drawn blood, you've exfoliated.") He ends up trying to destroy the world rather than endure the constant toment of his "conscience" from the good deeds he had done as Angel. Brooding, unhappy Angel's repentance of evil is, indeed, a "pale, poor, perishable thing compared with" Angelus' repentance of good.

Other characters have committed horrible acts (like Buffy knifing Faith in the hope that she could feed Faith's blood to Angel) and have easily repented. But Buffy's anger toward Faith was because she had been on Faith's side, she had stood up for Faith when no one else would, even after Faith had proven herself unworthy -- and this noble deed is what Buffy deeply repented of during her trip to L.A.

Is evil a stronger force in the Buffyverse? Are the evil creatures more dedicated, more devoted to their cause than the forces of good? Or are our heroes just poor examples -- compared with groups like the KoB and creatures like Angelus?


[> Re: Repentance - No good deed goes unpunished, indeed? -- OnM, 20:10:36 06/11/01 Mon

*** "But Buffy's anger toward Faith was because she had been on Faith's side, she had stood up for Faith when no one else would, even after Faith had proven herself unworthy -- and this noble deed is what Buffy deeply repented of during her trip to L.A." ***

Mal, I can't figure why nobody's posted anything yet, this is such an excellent observation.

I don't think the issue comes up with evil people, because when you target someone with a negative action, you pretty much expect that the recipient isn't going to like it.

On the other hand, while we give plenty of lip service to the idea of giving without expectation of reward, I think that very, very few humans are truly that enlightened (certainly not me!), to give and simply accept if the favor is ignored or even dissed.

From a purely self-serving standpoint, there is no reason why we should give anything to anyone else, unless it is something that serves our own self interest. Many posters have made this point about Spike, at least before events of the last few eps of S5.

Buffy stuck her neck out to support Faith, even when everyone else was set against her. Whether her motivations were entirely pure, or contained an element of self-interest is a subject for debate all on it's own, but Faith essentially spitting back her thoughtfulness in her face was certainly reason to 'repent' of her kind action.

Guys, this is a good topic, methinks. Comments from ya'all?


[> [> Re: Repentance - No good deed goes unpunished, indeed? -- Rufus, 20:54:57 06/11/01 Mon

I have been thinking about this post since I first saw it. I have experience in people regretting a good deed as it blew up in their face. No deed goes unpunished good or bad, we just may not like the punishment.


[> [> [> Re: Forshadowing Faith -- Brian, 03:40:29 06/12/01 Tue

Your thoughts reflect some of my own ideas about Faith. Her actions towards Buffy were more than jealousy. Faith was trying to become Buffy, and through the Mayor's help, she succeeded. But then, she had to pay a price. (More when I get to a full character analysis.)


[> [> [> [> Re: Forshadowing Faith -- Rufus, 15:53:02 06/12/01 Tue

Oh, good I hope you liked when Faith actually got to be Buffy....first it was a nice game then she actually understood what it was to be a slayer. She got to walk a mile in Buffys shoes and she became a different person for it. I await your examination of Faith.


[> [> Re: Repentance - No good deed goes unpunished, indeed? -- JoRus, 07:27:59 06/12/01 Tue

Ah, anyone who quotes Oscar Wilde is all right by me, OnM...: ) It is a nasty surprise to do a "good deed" and have it detonate in your face. Whether or not you expectsomething like gratitude, getting a negative back from someone you have extended a positive to is sort of unnerving, to the burns in the gut and mind that Twain is describing. Yes, I think that's part of the anger Buffy had toward Faith, and that the scoobies had toward Angelus.


[> [> [> Re: Repentance - No good deed goes unpunished, indeed? -- Halcyon, 01:13:51 06/13/01 Wed

I think you mean Xander and Giles, they are the only ones who seem to display any anger towards Angel after he came back from Hell. Xander because in his mind he had been proven right about Angel and Giles because Angel/Angelus had killed Jenny.


[> Re: Repentance -- Vickie, 13:11:31 06/13/01 Wed

(Delurking here.) I think that a second sense of Twain's words is that we often repent the unforeseen consequences of our good intentions. Not that (necessarily) we are returned evil for good (though that certainly happens), but that we do good (or what is intended for good) and our flawed human inability to see all possible outcomes (or to do whatever we intend perfectly) sandbags us and the final effect is not what we intend.

For example, when Angel takes Cordy's left-behind clothes to Anne, he has at least three good intentions:

1. Clear out some stuff that's bugging him by being around. 2. Get on Anne's good side, and continue his research into the badness that is Wolfram and Hart. 3. Contribute something to the teen center.

But, because he has an imperfect understanding (and inability to predict the future), he doesn't realize the really bad consequences this act will have on his reconciliation with Cordelia.

This feels like a really lame example. I'm sure one of you can think of something better. Thoughts?


[> [> Thanks for de-lurking! Good post! -- OnM, 15:33:41 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> The Law of Unintended Consequences -- Humanitas, 09:05:44 06/14/01 Thu

Your example is excellent. In fact, a lot of historians consider this to be a major force driving all of history. One of my professors back in college called it The Law of Unintended Consequenses, and used it to explain most of Roman history. The other expression of this principle comes from Harlan Ellison, who claims the "the only reason anything ever happens in history is because It Seemed Like a Good Idea at the Time."


[> [> Re: Repentance -- Malandanza, 17:42:01 06/15/01 Fri

"I think that a second sense of Twain's words is that we often repent the unforeseen consequences of our good intentions. Not that (necessarily) we are returned evil for good (though that certainly happens), but that we do good (or what is intended for good) and our flawed human inability to see all possible outcomes (or to do whatever we intend perfectly) sandbags us and the final effect is not what we intend."

I don't think Mark Twain meant that he had repented of the unforeseen consequences -- in fact, there is no mention of any consequences, good or bad. He was talking about "repenting" his good deeds because the person he had helped had been ungrateful -- and comparing this all-consuming regret with the repentance we typically associate with sin. Granted, my view may be slightly darker since I read the repentance essay in the context of "Letters From Earth" -- a very cynical collection of short stories (which were published posthumously and after many year's delay because of the objections of Twain's daughter).

But I think he brings up a valid point -- that repentance is too easy in today's world. Looking back at the literature of the dark ages (and the early accounts of the martyrdom of the Catholic saints), we see repentance of evil in a far more serious light. Penitents would undergo all manner of self-abuse and forego all luxuries in an attempt to scourge themselves of their sins. I remember some of the 13th century Arthurian legends ending with Lancelot joining a monastery and Guinevere entering a convent to spend their remaining years in penance. Of the BtVS characters, Faith is the only person who has done any real penance (beyond mental self-flagellation).

In Hamlet, King Claudius attempts to repent of the murder of his brother -- shortly after the "mousetrap" scene. Ultimately, he recognizes that he cannot truly repent while still enjoying the rewards that his sins have brought him. Unwilling to renounce his position, his wife and his wealth, he says: "My words fly up, my thoughts remain below. / Words without thoughts never to heaven go." He dies unrepentant. In Dante's Inferno, there is also an interesting comment on repentance -- Guido da Montefeltro had been a great tactician and warrior while alive. Toward the end of his life, he repented of his bloody life, renounced his worldly possessions and entered a monastery. Pope Boniface VIII came to him and asked him to help him in his military campaigns -- Guido was reluctant as he had sincerely repented of his former life, but the Pope offered him absolution (and made a veiled threat regarding excommunication) so Guido agreed. He helped the Pope, then returned to his monastic life. Upon his death, both an angel and a demon showed up to take possession of his soul -- the demon won, arguing:"One can't absolve a man who's not repented, / and no one can repent and will at once; / the law of contradiction won't allow it. / ..Perhaps / you did not think that I was a logician!"

In the Buffyverse, we have seen morally ambiguous deeds performed by virtually every member of the Scoobies, with very few consequences. The lack of consequences, particularly of punishment, results in an inability for the characters to feel absolved of their sins -- and results in inner conflicts which manifest themselves on occasion.

For example: Look at Xander's behavior toward Buffy at the start of Season 3. In Dead Man's Party, he is ruthless. And why? He betrayed Buffy in B2 by failing to give her Willow's message and had this betrayal eating away at him for the duration of the summer. Also consider Buffy's knifing of Faith. When Faith returned, Buffy went out of her way to give Faith the benefit of the doubt -- because of unresolved feelings of guilt. Willow and Xander's betrayal of Oz and Cordelia was also never satisfactorily resolved. Oz proved that he was still bothered by it when he brought up the situation when Willow was reviling him about Veruca. Willow continues to flirt with Xander and fight with Anya, so she has not really repented of the deed -- furthermore, she was too willing to have sex with Oz by way of reparation (a virgin sacrifice to atone for her past sins :). Giles, of course, is especially problematic -- will he ever repent of killing Ben? There was a smirking superiority about him when he spent Ben's last few moments of life gloating over Ben's upcoming demise.


[> Re: Repentance -- rowan, 17:15:37 06/15/01 Fri

I missed this post my first time around and I'm sorry I did, because it's very thought-provoking.

The most chilling line in your post, Mal, is: "Are the evil creatures more dedicated, more devoted to their cause than the forces of good?" Yes, I'm afraid they are. And not just in the Buffyverse, but in our world, too. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." What is evil, after all, but the attempt of one to deny liberty to another: the liberty of life, health, happiness, love, choice. If good is not to fall to evil, all must be eternally vigilant. But it sometimes seems as if evil brings more energy to the battle.

And speaking to the Law of Unintended Consequences (as I think it was called below), I recall Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

"Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make ware rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came."

Those four words (and the war came) are another chilling comment on the nature of evil.


[> [> Re: Repentance -- Malandanza, 21:08:33 06/15/01 Fri

"The most chilling line in your post, Mal, is: "Are the evil creatures more dedicated, more devoted to their cause than the forces of good?" Yes, I'm afraid they are. And not just in the Buffyverse, but in our world, too. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." What is evil, after all, but the attempt of one to deny liberty to another: the liberty of life, health, happiness, love, choice. If good is not to fall to evil, all must be eternally vigilant. But it sometimes seems as if evil brings more energy to the battle."

I have been considering why evil seems to be more sincere in their cause than does good. Consider (in the real world) where the fanatics come from: generally they are an oppressed minority (religious or ethnic) like the Basques in Spain or the Catholics in Northern Ireland. They have been denied any legitimate means of redressing their grievances and their response is fanaticism. It seem that the more a group is persecuted, the stronger it becomes (early Christians are a prime example -- willingly suffering any manner of torture -- compared with modern Christians who have difficulty making it to church more than twice a year). The apocalyptic cults and suicide bombers are not drawn from mainstream America.

We all know that in the Buffyverse the demons were the original inhabitants and were driven out to make room for man. The evil that remains is an oppressed minority in a basically good world. Evil in any form is destroyed when it becomes too prominant. Long persecution breeds fanaticism. Good, on the other hand, has become complacent. Centuries of dominance has led to people who enjoy the status quo and would rather not be bothered by those lunatics who wish to change things -- which gives the fanatics an edge. Like Ford Prefect said in "Life, the Universe and Everything,"

"people like you and me, Slartibartfast, and Arthur -- particularly and especially Arthur -- are just dilettantes, eccentrics, and layabouts, if you like...We're not obsessed by anything, you see...And that's the deciding factor. We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."

(Douglas Adams is my favorite philosopher)

So what about the monks and the KoB? There has been a debate over whether they are local fanatics or whether they came from Glory's dimension. I have favored the former theory based on the word "Byzantium." I can accept the existence of other dimensions with humans who speak perfect English, but when you ask me to believe that they also had a "Byzantium," my credulity becomes strained. I suggest an alternative -- that the knights and monks were originally from the Buffyverse, but some time during the 12th or 13th century were dragged into Glory's dimension. Once there, they would have been the oppressed minority and their fanaticism would have blossomed and grown under an evil sun.


[> [> [> But... -- Solitude1056, 14:38:23 06/16/01 Sat

"So what about the monks and the KoB? There has been a debate over whether they are local fanatics or whether they came from Glory's dimension. I have favored the former theory based on the word "Byzantium." I can accept the existence of other dimensions with humans who speak perfect English, but when you ask me to believe that they also had a "Byzantium," my credulity becomes strained. I suggest an alternative -- that the knights and monks were originally from the Buffyverse, but some time during the 12th or 13th century were dragged into Glory's dimension. Once there, they would have been the oppressed minority and their fanaticism would have blossomed and grown under an evil sun."

Ok... but then how did they get back here without a Key of their own? And if they could use some other Portal, why couldn't Glory? What's the point of the Key, then?


[> [> [> [> Re: Good points... -- Malandanza, 17:05:01 06/16/01 Sat

"Ok... but then how did they get back here without a Key of their own? And if they could use some other Portal, why couldn't Glory? What's the point of the Key, then?"

The KoB seemed to have a history with Glory beyond the few years that Glory had been manifesting herself. She was "the beast" -- they had legends and prophecies about her. If the first time they heard about Glory was when she was banished (or perhaps much later, when Ben/Glory had become physically mature), where does this antagonism come from?

There is an inconsistency -- on AtS, gateways are easy -- say a few magic words and one opens up for you. Not just to Pylea, W&H have opened a few gates in their time. On BtVS, there is only one Key. Perhaps Glory's banishment was special -- and she was barred from the usual methods of interdimensional travel. Maybe the Key was the only way home for Glory.

Anyway, I have less difficulty believing that the Knights gated to Sunnydale than that they raised the funds to transport an army (by conventional means) from the Middle East to Sunnydale. Teleportation? We saw how much a small teleport spell drained Willow -- now multiply the distance and number of people to be transported by several orders of magnitude.

I have felt that Dawn (as the Key) was tied to Glory -- with Glory dead, there is nothing left to unlock.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Good points... -- rowan, 17:34:12 06/16/01 Sat

"I have felt that Dawn (as the Key) was tied to Glory -- with Glory dead, there is nothing left to unlock."

Hmmm. I've been thinking the opposite. I think because of two things. First, the Key is almost as old as the beast & is of unknown origin (per Gregor). Second, the monks believed the Key might be turned to good purpose. I felt there was some unexplored territory there regarding Dawn's origins. Somewhere in my head, I was busy spinning this web that has Dawn theoretically in peril as long as she lives, in the event that some other Big Baddie might attempt to use her as well. My web also includes Dawn learning to harness her powers in a way that might be for good (like closing the Hellmouth).

On another note, if Dawn was made from Buffy (and therefore as a result, Buffy's sacrifice could close the portal), then Dawn potentially shares Slayer qualities. Someone in a post above commented on whether Dawn will be called as a Slayer. I'm not sure that she even needs to be called. Joss has been pretty clear that the Slayer line now goes through Faith (from Kendra). But Dawn might have these abilities without the call, since she is from Buffy. Also, she is at the age where these abilities may manifest themselves.

So Dawn becomes an unofficial Slayer and Spike her unofficial Watcher (fulfilling the dream in Restless?). This gives both characters somewhere to go that isn't totally Buffy-dependent. Heh, heh, heh...I probably need to stop taking that prescription allergy medication.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Allergy medication......LOL.........:):) -- Rufus, 20:36:25 06/16/01 Sat

I do think that the Knights are our own homegrown zealots. They probobly come from a remote part the country of their origin.

rowan....I'd love to see what favortie character would be on your t'shirt.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike, of course! (if my poor heart could stand it) -- rowan, 10:47:26 06/17/01 Sun

What can I say? I just can't resist the temptation of these bad boys trying to go good. Plus, I honestly like the way Spike treats Buffy. He treats her like an adult who is capable of handling the truth about things. That is a big point in his favor. Overly protective males put me off.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Spike, of course! (if my poor heart could stand it) -- Rufus, 19:37:37 06/17/01 Sun

See, we'd never argue you, would get along with the bad boy, and I have a weakness for nice guys. Of course they have to be good.
Is innocence a good thing? -- Helen, 23:30:23 06/10/01 Sun

For the longest time there has been those who have tried to call Dawn "innocent". This has bothered me for I guess that I equate "innocence" with naïve, and I have found Dawn anything but naïve. She in fact knows more than Buffy ever did at her age about Vampires, magic, and the other dark things that other people pretend don't exist.

Perhaps, this is a debate in semantics here, but would we even want Dawn to be innocent? Buffy seemed to at least try to keep her from knowing things (like magic) and the Scooby gang respected her wishes (like when they made up the story about the buffy-bot).

Is "innocence" in the sense of not knowing about evil a good thing? Why is it a quality we so admire when it merely means that one hasn't experienced life? As Dawn grows (she is going on 15 now) will she have to struggle against friends determined to keep her "innocent", (not realizing of course that she wasn't that "innocent' to begin with).

I understand people calling Dawn innocent when they mean it in the sense of being caught up in a situation not her fault. But I am talking about the other kind of "innocence". I don't see that as such a good quality, and certainly doesn't describe hellmouth wise Dawn. In fact it belittles her.


[> I think there's a difference between "an innocent" and "innocent" -- Wiccagrrl, 00:10:00 06/11/01 Mon

In the Buffyverse, they've always referred to regular people, especially those who get caught in the crossfire, as innocents or an innocent. It's almost like saying they're civilians. They aren't asking for this fight, they've done nothing to bring what is happenning upon themselves and are basically good people. Anyway, that's how I've always understood them to use the term.


[> Innocent until your actions prove you are not...... -- Rufus, 02:02:49 06/11/01 Mon

Dawn is an innocent in that she had no control over what happened to her. The monks made her human she was an innocent because of the circumstances of her creation. Ben was an innocent when he was created to contain the beast(Glory). Dawn kept her innocence because she never acted in a way that made her a part of Glorys plan. Ben changed sides he was no longer an innocent he was a participant. It's interesting to see how these two people came to the actions they have done. Ben sold out humanity so he could live. Dawn was willing to die what she had come to value. Both parties knew what evil was, understood their options one chose to become evil, the other was willing to sacrifice their life to prevent evil.


[> [> Re: Innocent until your actions prove you are not...... -- Virgill Reality, 07:25:17 06/11/01 Mon

***It's interesting to see how these two people came to the actions they have done. Ben sold out humanity so he could live. Dawn was willing to die what she had come to value. Both parties knew what evil was, understood their options one chose to become evil, the other was willing to sacrifice their life to prevent evil.***

I don't know about everyone else, but I had a really big problem with the way Ben's character arc was played out. I mean, all through the series this guy has been portrayed as a good doctor, someone who is always willing to help people and refuses at any provocation to sell out to the dark side for his own sake. He could have done so at any point, and on several occasions during S6 he did all that he could to protect Dawn, to the extent that at one point he tried to kill one of Glory's minions to stop her from finding out. Ben was a good guy, everyone knew it, he was so hell-bent on making sure Glory didn't achieve her selfish plan, and yet when it came down to the crunch Ben sold himself out and made the sacrifice of humanity for his own skin. Any idiot knows that's not a twist, but a contradiction in terms.

Ben was anything but stupid, as well. He knew full well what Glory planned to do, and that there was no way he would survive after she made the transition back to hell.

I prefer to think that Ben was trying to buy some time, or lull Glory into a false sense of security long enough for him or someone else to make a counter-attack. To me, anything else just doesn't make sense.



[> [> [> why Ben became "less" innocent -- Manoon, 08:40:41 06/11/01 Mon

Just as Ben's morality seeped into Glory to stop her delivering the killing blows to our beloved scoobies, then equally that could be explained by bits of Glory's personality merging into Ben's own.

Or even that once Glory had the key, Ben faced the reality of what might happen (ie he would die), rather than the idealogy, which is what he had faced all his life. Easier to be moral when dealing with idealogy, less so when things become real. That's just plain human nature.

I'd probably say the reason he changed is a mixture of the two?


[> [> [> [> Re: why Ben became "less" innocent -- Rosenberg, 09:34:00 06/11/01 Mon

I agree with Virgill, when Ben decided to turn Dawn over, the first thing I thought was, "Oh, he has a plan of some sort". However, it is also true that Glory's and Ben's personalities where merging together, and so it does seem that even if Ben did have a stalling scheme, his actions could still have been motivated by selfishness stemming from Glory's personality. I'm not sure if we ever really knew enough about Ben to be sure whether he would abandon his morals if his life depended on it, though. Anyways, in the case of Glory and Ben mixing together there, you can hardly blame Ben for contracting some of Glory's traits. I never really cared much for his character, but I thought it was a bit harsh for Ben to be called evil if he was being affected by things he couldn't control.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: why Ben became "less" innocent -- Rufus, 13:34:26 06/11/01 Mon

It is clear that the barrier between Glory and Ben was dissolving and they were sharing personality traits. Ben may have based his final choice upon the feelings he shared with Glory but it was clear that self-preservation was his chief motivation as he believed that Glory would win. Buffy had a moment like that and recovered. Ben couldn't get away from Glory so he had to live and die with his choice. Once he participated in the preperation for Dawns sacrifice he was doomed.


[> [> [> [> Re: why Ben became "less" innocent -- Terry, 22:22:12 06/11/01 Mon

Ben wasn't evil.

He just wasn't good.

All too many of us would have made the same decision.

I honestly can't say what decision I would have made given the situation. For I haven't been tested, and am afraid to find out what I would decide if I was.

I hope I would be Buffy though, willing to sacrifice the whole world for her sister. For the one.

Buffy was not like us. She was so full of love, that love radiated out of her. Just being around her one got the sense of the devine. She wasn't perfect. No human is. But she was certainly as close as a human can get. She was, in the most noble sense of the word a saint.

Ben, on the other hand, was just an ordinary person. Can't fault him for his decision, even though that decision was wrong.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: why Ben became "less" innocent -- Manoon, 01:59:49 06/12/01 Tue

he wasn't exactly ordinary though, was he. He had a hell god living inside him. Can't really expect him to make ordinary, rational decisions when having had to live with the enormity of that.. without realising it, even before the personalities started to merge, i think ben on the whole (ie if he had been able to live a normal life) would have been a person of pretty good moral standing, but the very fact the glory lived inside him tainted him.

anyway, he's dead now :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why Ben became "less" innocent -- Terry, 23:07:06 06/12/01 Tue

"i think ben on the whole (ie if he had been able to live a normal life) would have been a person of pretty good moral standing, but the very fact the glory lived inside him tainted him."

I don't know. Again he wasn't a bad man. But Giles said it:

"She isn't like US."

(I loved the look in Ben's face when Giles said that. He knew that was the end.)

What decision would most otherwise morally upstanding people make if faced with such a situation. Either it's you or a teenage girl.

Again, I hope I would be like Buffy, but I fear I might be like Ben.

Ben might have been "good". A normal sense of "good". But he was no Unicorn. Most people can't be that good.

There are really good people in the world, and then there are really evil. But most of us are in between. Not that we aren't capable of doing great good (or for that matter great evil) but goodness doesn't exude from us, as it does some. Those types are people are rare, perhaps understandably so, as if they weren't so rare, they wouldn't be quite so special.

It is ashame though, that there aren't more people like that, for they bring hope and happiness to those they come in contact with by their mere presence. But fortunately really evil people are rare as well.

For the rest of us, we just have to live with being ordinary.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: why Ben became "less" innocent -- Halcyon, 01:05:24 06/13/01 Wed

Ben was not totally innocent, remember he did summon the Queller demon to kill all the crazies in Listening To Fear and he almost got Buffy, Dawn and Joyce killed.


[> Re: Is innocence a good thing? -- vulpes, 20:59:10 06/11/01 Mon

I think innocence is not experiences the effects of doing evil.


[> [> Re: Is innocence a good thing? -- Helen, 22:38:41 06/11/01 Mon

"think innocence is not experiences the effects of doing evil."

Then Buffy would be innocent as well. For she has never done evil.

I guess what I was trying to get at in this discussion was the "ideal" of innocence vs the need for one to experence life unshielded as one grows up.

As parents we feel the need to protect our children from pain, and that is a good thing to do. But at the same time growing up is about experencing things like pain. I guess it's a balancing act.

As we grow up we seem a yearning to rid ourselves of our "innocence" as we attempt to explore the world around us. We want to think "we can handle it", "I'm not a baby", "you don't need to whisper around me", "I can take it".

But as soon as we lose this "innocence" we so wanted to rid ourselves of, we want it back. We yearn for it to return. But of course it's too late. "I wish I didn't know", "I want to be a baby","I really can't handle it."

Dawn was never this ideal of "innocence" that Buffy had of her. Buffy would have fought like anything to insure that she didn't grow up. The scene that showed me that the most was when she brought up something Dawn did when she was five. Will her friends be the same way?

I see one of the greatest challenges for Dawn will be overcoming her sister's friends who want her to "stay innocent" as she struggles with trying to find her way in this world.

what comes next? -- Manoon, 07:56:16 06/11/01 Mon

I'm going to avoid the issue of when and how Buffy will return, as I can't answer it concisely and don't really mind.. I'm content to leave that for the moment..

..so what I was wondering instead, is what is to come in the following season(s), based on the previous 5. (Can we assume there are two seasons left based on SMG's contract?). I don't think I'm lateral enough for that, I'll stick to season 6 for now - see, i know my limitations!! :)

I was just wondering, who the main villain is going to be next season. From the Master of series 1, to Dark Angel (pun intended!), to the bad slayer and mayor of 3, number 4 Adam the Technodemon, and lastly, series 5, the God.

What can follow on from that? A God isn't the ultimate?

People talk of Doc, but he was more or less a Glory lackey, so I dont really see the potential there. He might be part of a greater whole, but isn't big enough to be on his own (in my opinion).

I would be thrilled to see Willow consumed by dark magic, and think the ensuing battles of former best friends is something which COULD definitely follow on from Glory, but then I don't see it taking up an entire 22 episode story-arc.. she wouldn't be THE big bad, only big and bad beneath a bigger bad (oh no, I'm playing word games again!). SO i see that happening, but more as a secondary storyline.

Spike i feel will probably become bad.. something happen beyond his control to restore his true nature. Again though, after the recent season, I dont see that being able to maintain 22 episodes. Possibly i base that on him not being my favourite character, admittedly, but a simple vampire having faced off against a god, no.

Dawn has possibility... the enormity of the power she holds could be unleashed in some way with devastating effects? I don't know, I dont see that either. Don't know what power she has, apart from her fluids being able to open portals.. maybe we will find out, but then that just is an extension of the recent season story, which we kinda have had resolution on. i know there is more to tell with this story, and think Dawn is the key to the end of vampires and demons until the next slayer is called in however many centuries the comic Fray states (haven't seen it yet).. so I see Dawn playing a central part in next season, but not as big bad

Buffy.. coming back different, darker.. again, a possibility but I don't think the SMG loving public would be very happy with that! If sustained over an entire season. No, the development with her has to be profound and positive, i really feel that

do we have to HAVE one single big bad villain? i guess not? but each season up until now has had one big villain, presiding more or less over a series of smaller. my question then, is what is going to come next? I don't see any of the current characters being bearers of the apocalypse... so it is going to be someone new?

I'm guessing that many of you will already have various opinions of what is to come next. I'd like to hear some of them - because I like to have an idea of what is going to happen, before i watch it. Then you can look back to this posting and say "hey, i TOLD you all so..."


[> Re: what comes next? -- LadyStarlight, 09:16:44 06/11/01 Mon

Those are all really good points, but, (not to rely too much on netnews) I did read somewhere on a fairly reliable web site that the Buffy team wants to keep Spike's chip in for a while to explore the obsession. They seem to have been leading up to this for a while (didn't Dru say "You're covered in ashes. Your head is full of her."?) I can't see them abandoning the story line if it's been building for a while. Besides, I like Spike! and I want to keep him around for a while.


[> Re: what comes next? -- Wisewoman, 09:48:20 06/11/01 Mon

"What can follow on from that? A God isn't the ultimate?"

In some cosmologies "a" god wouldn't be the ultimate. There could be much more powerful gods, both good and evil. And then there's the monotheistic, capital "g" God, who, presumably, would not be playing the Big Bad. But we've had demons galore, and they're not that tough. What about the big G God's nemesis, the big D Devil? Y'know, Satan, Lucifer? Any chance that Buffy will come up against him? If the Hellmouths lead to Hell, who's running the place?

Just a thought ;o) Cleaning up Hell and putting a kink in Satan's plans might logically lead to 2 or 3 hundred years of "peace on earth."


[> [> Re: what comes next? -- Virgill Reality, 10:42:19 06/11/01 Mon

***What about the big G God's nemesis, the big D Devil? Y'know, Satan, Lucifer? Any chance that Buffy will come up against him? If the Hellmouths lead to Hell, who's running the place?***

I actually think a storyline involving satan the devil would be closer to home in Angel than it would be in Buffy. The whole Wolfram and Hart thing is the devil's army on earth if ever there was one, and I feel Joss kept as guessing with episodes like I've Got You Under My Skin in S1, but even more so with S2's Reprise:


FIRST WORSHIPPER Look, man, we just get paid to do the slaughtering and say the prayer!

ANGEL What are you praying to?


ANGEL (eyes narrowing) How can you "not know?"

First Worshipper waves a hand at a nearby open prayer book.

FIRST WORSHIPPER The ritual, it's all in Latin! They said we should just sort of, you know, sound it out!

ANGEL "They?"

FIRST WORSHIPPER Like you said... Wolfram and Hart.

--------------------------------------------------------- And again:

LILAH The Review's in two days.

LINDSEY I'm aware of that.

LILAH (off the tense hustle bustle around them) Yeah, so is everyone else. Look at them. Like they've had the fear of... well, "God" would probably be the wrong word... ----------------------------------------------------------

Although this is only how I see it, I think that as Angel's series progresses we'll get to know the full nature of W&H, Hell, and the devil (the Chairman, as opposed to the Senior Partners?).



[> [> Re: what comes next? -- Halcyon, 01:25:16 06/13/01 Wed

We have seen a kind of pure evil figure remember, in Season 3- Amends the First was described as being absolute evil.


[> Re: what comes next? -- Andy, 10:37:51 06/11/01 Mon

> What can follow on from that? A God isn't the ultimate?

Well, I would designate her as "a god", as opposed to "God" :) The two possibilities that immediately spring to my mind are to get more personal (Glory and Adam were just jerks that didn't have any intimate connection to Buffy, the way Angel and Faith did), or to actually elevate Buffy herself, make her stronger so that the threats will likewise have to be more powerful to present a physical challenge. Or it could be a mixture of the two approaches. Or there's another approach that I'm completely overlooking.

> People talk of Doc, but he was more or less a Glory lackey, so I dont really see the potential there. He might be part of a greater whole, but isn't big enough to be on his own (in my opinion).

He might work because he seemed to be intelligent, which is good. I'd like to see him come back because Joel Grey is pretty cool :)

> I would be thrilled to see Willow consumed by dark magic, and think the ensuing battles of former best friends is something which COULD definitely follow on from Glory, but then I don't see it taking up an entire 22 episode story-arc.. she wouldn't be THE big bad, only big and bad beneath a bigger bad (oh no, I'm playing word games again!). SO i see that happening, but more as a secondary storyline.

Willow would be a more personal threat, which would make it harder for Buffy to beat her up. I've had suspicions that her increasing powers are somehow related to an external force that is subtly manipulating her. I just watched Becoming again this weekend, and one line stands out: "You could open a door that you won't be able to close", said in reference to Willow's attempt to re-soul Angel. Seemed like nothing came of it at the time, but maybe...

> Spike i feel will probably become bad.. something happen beyond his control to restore his true nature. Again though, after the recent season, I dont see that being able to maintain 22 episodes.

I think they're going to explore his chipped nature more.

> Dawn has possibility... the enormity of the power she holds could be unleashed in some way with devastating effects? I don't know, I dont see that either. Don't know what power she has, apart from her fluids being able to open portals.. maybe we will find out, but then that just is an extension of the recent season story, which we kinda have had resolution on. i know there is more to tell with this story, and think Dawn is the key to the end of vampires and demons until the next slayer is called in however many centuries the comic Fray states (haven't seen it yet).. so I see Dawn playing a central part in next season, but not as big bad

Yeah, I would think if anything they would hint more at Dawn's potential for good, rather than her destructive potential.

> Buffy.. coming back different, darker.. again, a possibility but I don't think the SMG loving public would be very happy with that! If sustained over an entire season. No, the development with her has to be profound and positive, i really feel that

True, but being bad for a little bit might constitute "growing pains" after her rebirth. You know Gellar would love to play a villainous role, at least for a little while :) But no...I don't think this would really amount to anything more than an episode or two.

> do we have to HAVE one single big bad villain? i guess not?

Smaller arcs would be a nice change of pace, definitely.

My money's on something related to Willow. Either Willow herself, or something else that's using her.


[> [> Re: what comes next? -- mundusmundi, 11:13:04 06/11/01 Mon

>>My money's on something related to Willow. Either Willow herself, or something else that's using her.<<

There's that uberdemon, D'Whatshisface? He has ties to both Wil and Anya, which would certainly make things more personal (I agree w/ you the show needs to raise the stakes, erm, metaphorically speaking.) True, he didn't seem too big evily when Willow turned down his last offer, but then the Mayor was all smileyface too, so who knows.

>> People talk of Doc, but he was more or less a Glory lackey, so I dont really see the potential there. He might be part of a greater whole, but isn't big enough to be on his own (in my opinion).<<

Doc seems more of a freelance bad guy, scarier and more fun when he's in the shadows. Less is more with Doc, I think. More might be less effective.

Somebody else mentioned the devil. While it would be interesting to explore what lurks deeper in the Hellmouth...as I think Ebert may have said, Satan has always made a weak villain. He's most effective when depicted in an abstract way, a la The Exorcist, than anthropomorphized on screen. And about the only time that ever happens is when it's played for laughs (George Burns, Liz Hurley, etc.)

>> Buffy.. coming back different, darker.. again, a possibility but I don't think the SMG loving public would be very happy with that!<<

Actually, I think this will happen eventually, but they're saving it for the final season, when there's nothing to lose. Could be foreshadowed a bit this year, though.

>>(Glory and Adam were just jerks that didn't have any intimate connection to Buffy, the way Angel and Faith did),<<

I thought they did an ok job making the Glory arc personal, thru Dawn, but you're right that there was no deep connection with Buffy like Angel/Faith, and that was lacking. Adam was a missed opportunity. I remember thinking they were going to go "Bride of Frankenstein" and have him try to make Buffy his "Eve"...which may have been too weird, granted. But ithe show has always been at its best when it has a kinky edge (which Angel, Faith, and to a degree Spike supply).

What I'd really like to see for next year's Big Bad is something fresh. Something different, yet also able to penetrate into the Scoobies'(and viewers') psyches.


[> [> [> Re: what comes next? -- Andy, 14:08:28 06/11/01 Mon

> There's that uberdemon, D'Whatshisface? He has ties to both Wil and Anya, which would certainly make things more personal (I agree w/ you the show needs to raise the stakes, erm, metaphorically speaking.) True, he didn't seem too big evily when Willow turned down his last offer, but then the Mayor was all smileyface too, so who knows.

D'Hoffryn? It could be interesting, although I think whatever the big bad is, it'll probably be something that we haven't actually seen before :)

> I thought they did an ok job making the Glory arc personal, thru Dawn, but you're right that there was no deep connection with Buffy like Angel/Faith, and that was lacking.

Yeah, it's just that with Angel and Faith, Buffy knew these people, and had to have been confused as to how to deal with them since they seemed more like good people gone tragically wrong, instead of being rotten to the core. With Glory, the goal was never in doubt: kick her ass :)

> What I'd really like to see for next year's Big Bad is something fresh. Something different, yet also able to penetrate into the Scoobies'(and viewers') psyches.

Exactly. The writers have been saying that the main theme next year is "Oh, grow up". However, I can't really figure out what that might mean insofar as Big Bads are concerned...


[> [> [> [> Re: what comes next? -- mundusmundi, 15:22:35 06/11/01 Mon

>>The writers have been saying that the main theme next year is "Oh, grow up". However, I can't really figure out what that might mean insofar as Big Bads are concerned...<<

Much as I'd hate to see the obvious, Hank Summers seems a likely candidate. They've been foreshadowing him as they foreshadowed the mayor in B2, with his appearance in Buffy's "memory" in WOTW pretty much a red flag. He probably wouldn't be the Big-Big Bad, but maybe a morally conflicted link between Buffy, Dawn and the evil they'll be facing. Maybe his new mistress or something. (Again, rather obvious, but it would bring the fight directly inside the Summers household. And, instead of the Evil Father/Stepmother stereotypes, why not make 'em charming, in order to divide Buffy and Dawn, forcing them to choose sides.)

"Oh, grow up"....Hmmmm. What would the potential threat be there, I wonder? Not wanting to grow up, or growing up before you're ready? Searchin' for metaphors! :)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: what comes next? -- cjc36, 20:27:51 06/11/01 Mon

Someone in a writer's book/article I read once said you put your character up a tree, then throw rocks at them.

ALL of the possibilities listed in this tread could happen. 22 episodes is big enough.

But my personal feelings about Big Bads: Personal is Better! Willow as a BB would rock Buffy's world like nothing has since Angel lost his soul.

Q: Would Willow become so obviously bad she would be estranged from the Scoobies and have a lair/hideout like all the big bads? Or would she work from the *inside* re: Spike in "The Yoko Factor"? What would badWillow want? What would motivate her arc (and thus the season)? Would good Willow be in there, just blinded by the darkness?

I can see Doc being a part of this.

Oooo! Just remembered something for any Babylon 5er's here. When Sheridan came back from the dead, Garabaldi, his most trusted friend, betrayed him (okay, The Shadows mind-screwed him). But the reasons for Garabaldi's mistrust was *because* of Sheridan's return from the Beyond and the Messianic overtones of said return. Garabaldi didn't go with any of that.

The fact Buffy's supposed to be dead, but isn't anymore, might very well lead to the seeds of mistrust and hard-heartedness needed to split B/W's friendship, thus setting the seasonal arc in motion for a BB Willow.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: what comes next? -- LadyStarlight, 06:09:17 06/12/01 Tue

Also, wouldn't the Scoobies become tired of dealing with the practical aspects of a return? I mean, she's dead, complete with death certificate & headstone. How would they help her deal with "not existing", ie, no driver's license, etc.? "Buffy, no that's not Buffy. That's her identical cousin from Schenectady."


[> Re: what comes next? -- vampire hunter D, 13:19:52 06/11/01 Mon

Why should next year's big bad be someone we've already seen? The Master, the Mayor, adam and Glory were all new when they first appeared. So why should the next big bad be any different? In fact, if the pattern set by the last three seasons hods, Big Bad won't put in an appearence till several episodes into the season (although his/her/its influence could be seen as early as episode one).

As for Willow turning bad, I tyhink it is a possibility, but would only work for about one or two episodes. However, it occurs to me that we have already seen Willow turn to evil, in the form of the VampWillow form the mirror,mirror world (Oh No, I'm making Star Trek references again), so in a way, it's been done before.


[> 'We have met the Enemy, and he is Us...' -- OnM, 20:30:45 06/11/01 Mon

*** "The writers have been saying that the main theme next year is "Oh, grow up". However, I can't really figure out what that might mean insofar as Big Bads are concerned..." ***

The seasonal story arcs usually introduce someone or something that appears to be the 'Big Bad', then the real Bigger Badder shows up later.

What would I like to see? I am assuming that Buffy will *not* come back 'darker'. This just doesn't seem to follow from the end of S5-- her sacrifice seems to merit moving on to the next higher plane of spiritual evolution. Maybe she isn't up to Bodhisatva (sp?) yet, but this should be a step, else why the 'rebirth'?

What would be the next, more difficult step of villiany for Buffy to deal with-- after first moving from vamps to demons to human-demon hybrids to gods to-- us? Humanity? Evil beings with souls?

Ben was a harbinger of this, if you think about it-- he was a test case. Buffy let him live, because in her mind he was an innocent, even though he was a vessal for the evil god Glory. She also didn't know the 'full story', as we viewers did.

Would she have killed him if she knew he sold out humanity (and Dawn) to save his own skin?

Will this be the kind of choices she is now expected to face in S6?


[> [> Re: 'We have met the Enemy, and he is Us...' -- Brian, 03:33:19 06/12/01 Tue

Great concept, OnM. Didn't Buffy kill several of the Knights during Spiral. So the seeds of her dealing with evil people are there. Plus this fits in with Angel's battles with Wolfram & Hart.


[> [> [> Exactly... -- OnM, 08:50:49 06/13/01 Wed

As Angel already knows, dealing with the souled is a lot trickier than just offing evil demon types. It just seems to me to be a logical progression for Buffy and her role as Slayer. Also, there are the hints of Willow getting darker due to her increasing usage of powerful witchcraft. This would be a useful method for making the dealings more personal-- Willow begins to stand in for the rest of humanity and their darker impulses, just as Lindsey on A:tS does/did. After seeing this season's Angel in it's entirity, I have come to wonder if Lindsey started out as an evil person, or did he just take one little step at a time and get progressively sucked in? Power corrupts, as we know all too well. It seems unthinkable that Willow could go that far, but... ?

How about our own Fanfic site? -- Liquidram, 15:06:31 06/11/01 Mon

I own a web development firm in Silicon Valley and have my own servers, etc., plus I am a designer.

My idea is to have a fanfic site for our exclusive use at this point. I also strongly suggest password-protecting any NC-17 fic to protect the under-18'ers out there. Being a mom, that is important to me.

I think liability-wise, we would be okay as long as we posted disclaimers and copyright notices.

We could have menus set up for the various arcs (B/A, B/S, Z/A, etc.)

This site would also be moderated by 2 or more of our board so that quality fic was posted vs a vast majority of the junk out there.

Also, because of the quality-control I insist on from my company, the site would be one of the classiest out there design-wise.

Anyone interested? You can respond on the board here for general discussion, or email me directly if you would prefer.


[> What a fan-tastic idea! -- Wisewoman, 16:11:54 06/11/01 Mon

Given the quality of the writing of the people on this board, that's one fanfic site I'd *definitely* read.

I only wish I could offer to write some myself, but, alas, my talent does not seem to extend to fiction.

If there's any other way I can help to get this site off the ground, just let me know.


[> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- Vickie, 17:35:16 06/11/01 Mon

Yes, please!


[> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- LadyStarlight, 17:42:30 06/11/01 Mon

Having talked about this already with LiquidRam, perhaps I'm biased. I'd like to see this, as perhaps then I could upload the fanfics that I've written (2 so far). There's a lot of s**t out there (I've trolled through at least 150-200 pages, not including checking out fanfiction.net regularily) and this board could probably put out top-quality fics with one hand tied behind it's back.


[> [> Re: How about our own Fanfic site?--OOPS -- LadyStarlight, 18:49:39 06/11/01 Mon

ahem, the sentence SHOULD have read "then perhaps I could post my own fics, as I've tried to post them to fanfiction.net without success"


[> [> That's a very generous offer - I would certainly be interested in reading... -- OnM, 20:43:43 06/11/01 Mon

..some good, thought-provoking specs and alternate-universe BtVS concepts. Have you contacted Masq yet? She certainly should be one of the moderators.

The fics could be humorous or dramatic (just like the show), but what I look for is for there to be some additional level or levels of thought going on, just like any other exceptional story.

'All Things Philofictional on Buffy the Vampire Slayer' ?



[> [> [> Darlin, the way you butter bread, you should be writing fan fic yourself...:):):) -- Rufus, 21:08:55 06/11/01 Mon

It would be another way to keep you busy over the rerun hell of summer. And I'd like to see what you'd come up with.


[> [> [> [> Kinda like that electronic traffic sign at the end of 'L.A. Story'? -- OnM, 21:30:22 06/11/01 Mon

Wasn't that one of the great movie parting shots of all time? ;)

I have been writing bits and pieces of Buffyfic in my head for several years now. Sometimes, as you have certainly noticed, it spills out in my posts.

Problem is, I'm my own worst critic. I've grown up reading the best literary SF works out there, and so I inevitably hold myself up to those standards. Naturally, I rarely get close! I have to settle for a short moment or so. It's gettin' those moments all strung together, now that's the tricky part.



[> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- Aquitaine, 20:44:36 06/11/01 Mon

Could be very interesting. There *is* alot of **** to wade through out there. Question is, wouldn't the fics have to have philosophical leanings or 'special'/inherent aesthetic value? And who would feel up to the task of 'approving' and 'rejecting' fics that are 'lovingly' submitted. Trust me, this is a very tricky job; I do it for the BAPS site.

I'd love to know what the other ATPoBtVS posters think about this idea. Not everyone is fond of fanfic...

If this does pan out, I'd love to be involved at the editing level or in some other non-technical capacity.

- Aquitaine/Larissa


[> [> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- OnM, 21:17:30 06/11/01 Mon

*** "Not everyone is fond of fanfic...


There *is* alot of **** to wade through out there." ***

You are asking and answering your own question, Aquitaine! ;)

How many people have posted at this board, something to the effect of 'At last! Some intelligent people to discuss Buffy/Angel with!'

At the very minimum, this could be a great project for the summer to help keep us all occupied.

How about a group of editors? That way, you could have a fic accepted if a majority likes it. Would also even out any personal biases, since people are often looking for different things in their fiction.


[> [> [> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- Liquidram, 22:37:55 06/11/01 Mon

Alright then... sounds like we have some interest and I agree that this can be a very fun summer project. I have alot of story ideas, but no talent in actually writing them, but being a pretty darn good designer (ahem)I can promise you it will look great.

Here are the chores I see in front of us:

1. The NAME! I will register the domain name as soon as we agree on one... suggestions everybody?

2. Our team of editors. Since you all know each other better than I do (yet), I will take your suggestions as to who the editorial team should be. Lady Starlight has already sent in a couple of very short and sweet stories that are a good start. Anyone else who has stories they've been hiding, now is the time to forward them to me and I will then distribute them out to our editorial team. I suggest that in the extremely *rare* case that we find a story that is not up to our impecable standards, that we offer suggestions and allow the author to modify the story for another go.

3. Anyone interested in submitting fan art or other images are free to do so.

4. Is anyone interested in taking on the storyboard task? All we need is a very skeletal outline of the different arcs we are going to cover. I can take this job myself if no one else is interested.

That's all I can think of for right now.... keep those cards and letters coming and we will get this site up as soon as possible.


[> [> [> [> Re: Someone has to say this & I guess it's me -- Brian, 08:49:37 06/12/01 Tue

I've read lots of Buffy Fan Fiction, some good, some bad. Surprisingly, most of what I read was good. The bad stuff I just ignored. The good stuff I shared with friends. If anyone wants to write Fan Fiction, that person should be allowed to post it, even if it has problems with structure, grammar, whatever. To have editors seems to me to imply an elitist nature.

When it comes to creative efforts, I'm against censorship in any shape, for any reason. It's bad. It's wrong. It makes us weak - as a person, as a group, as a nation. If we end up self-censoring ourselves, it'e even worse.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Someone has to say this & I guess it's me -- Aquitaine, 09:23:45 06/12/01 Tue

Brian, I agree with you on principle. I actually have never turned down a fic for the site for which I am the editor. However, I did and do end up having to spend *hours* editing, mostly for punctuation, because... well because my name is associated with the project.

I disagree with your statement that anyone who writes fic should be allowed to post to a Web site. There's a great self-posting site at www.fanfiction.net to meet those needs. In terms of a site that would be officially(?) related to this board, I think that all we need to do is clearly describe what we are looking for in fics. Actually, the best way to get the best writers to submit fic is to post some good fics up front as examples.

OTOH, we could have a more casual, experimental site where experienced fanfic writers as well as novices could submit stuff. We could initiate challenges, for example. Write a 1000 word fic that mentions Sartre, cheese and the Bezoar. LOL.

One of the great things about ATPoBtVS is that it's smart without being elitist. I think we can manage to carry that over onto any fanfic site that is set up. (LOL - I do think we should get Masquerade's opinion on all this first though)

- Aquitaine


[> [> [> [> [> [> With you 100% Aquitaine. -- Wisewoman, 10:43:55 06/12/01 Tue

And, umm, there's something I might be able to do as well, as I often work as a copy editor and a proofreader on academic journals, I would never attempt to actually edit fiction, but I'm a darn good proof reader (despite what some of my OWN messages may look like, lol) and I'd be happy and willing to do that.

Cheers, Wisewoman


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Someone has to say this & I guess it's me -- fresne, 10:45:54 06/12/01 Tue

"Write a 1000 word fic that mentions Sartre, cheese and the Bezoar. LOL. "

The sad thing here is my brain almost immediately went, hmm...So, Buffy comes into the room, makes a funny about being sick of Sartre because of her French Literature class. Buffy is eating some cheddar, 'cause she loves cheese. Meanwhile Willow is reading up on using Bezoars (in this instance a ball of hair in a woman's stomach) for use in various alchemaic spells. Dialog about the high ick factor involved ensues. Buffy and Willow vow to never chew on their hair. Then I realized what I was doing.

So, yeah, an associated fiction site could be fun. Although admittedly my only foray into fanfic has been the Buffy Pride and Prejudice (for which Jane Austen and Joss Whedon deserve most of the writing credit), so I'm not sure how much I could contribute. But I can read. ;>

I'd have to agree that some editing is a good idea. Not concept wise, because a person's story ideas should be their own, but help in execution is always useful. Editing (in the book publisher editor sense) can help a writer clarify ideas. Although, this board does not lack for interesting and clear ideas. If I can help out with the editing, (many editors, make light work, etc.) let me know.

So, what are looking for in terms of fiction? Perhaps, a list of fanfic trops to avoid (Mary Sue, etc.) And yeah, before we go any further Masquerade's opinion would be, under the circumstances, good.


[> [> [> [> [> [> AToBtVS fan fic site -- Masquerade, 09:27:33 06/13/01 Wed

I'm all for a fan fic site associated with this board.

I'm not a fan-fic reader, but I think it's just because I'm such a BtVS purist--it bugs me when people write things that interpret the show and characters in ways that are radically different from what the writers have established. I guess it's because I'm a fiction writer myself. *My issues*

That said, I think that a fan fic/fan non-fic site should pay some attention to editing for punctuation and spelling. I didn't used to do this with the fan blurbs I put on my site, and then it just started to bug me. A clear, well-thought out, well-argued opinion can be so easily dismissed when the author spells like a twelve-year old. Again, *my issues*, I used to be a college professor!

However, the site should not be big on editing for content. I think showing a wide range of differing interpretations through fic gives people a chance to experience the Buffyverse from a number of fresh (often contradictory) perspectives. (I know that contradicts my *personal issues* as stated above, but I know when my issues are *my issues*)

Um... one question. I'm assuming some of this fan fic will be of an "adult" nature? Or at least relationshippy? I'd just like to put in my .02 cents on advocating that relationships of all kinds be fair game. Many people "eww" at Giles/Buffy or Xander/Angel or what not, but they don't have to read the stuff they might find offensive.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> What types of fic accepted -- Liquidram, 14:30:09 06/13/01 Wed

"Um... one question. I'm assuming some of this fan fic will be of an "adult" nature? Or at least relationshippy? I'd just like to put in my .02 cents on advocating that relationships of all kinds be fair game. Many people "eww" at Giles/Buffy or Xander/Angel or what not, but they don't have to read the stuff they might find offensive."

I personally do not like the slash or super graphic fic, but hey, different strokes for different folks (plus, who didn't think that the "almost kiss" between Brad Pitt and Antonio Banderas in IWTV was one of the hottest screen moments of all time??)

We can accept whatever the board sees fit, and as previously mentioned, there will be some password structure for the under-18 bunch (based mainly on trust, I know)if we can logistically work it out. I can technically do it... putting it into action may be less easy in practice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ATPoBtVS fan fic site -- Malandanza, 09:30:57 06/16/01 Sat

"However, the site should not be big on editing for content. I think showing a wide range of differing interpretations through fic gives people a chance to experience the Buffyverse from a number of fresh (often contradictory) perspectives. (I know that contradicts my *personal issues* as stated above, but I know when my issues are *my issues*)"

I agree with Aquitaine that some editing is a must. Not necessarily editing for grammar and spelling (the most egregious examples of bad grammar and spelling can be cleaned up by running grammar-check and spell-check) -- particularly since most fanfic is written in dialogue so substandard English is realistic (except when Giles is talking, of course:). Editing for content and style might sound elitist, but for a website associated with ATPoBtVS, I don't think setting minimal standards is inappropriate. It is Natural enough for people to have their feelings hurt by rejection, but even professional writers often have their works rejected the first few times they send it to a publisher -- this does not mean that their work is garbage, or that the editor is a philistine incapable of appreciating the work's true aesthetic value -- rather, that the work could be improved. Perhaps a pool of Beta-readers could be created and Beta-reading established as a prerequisite to posting -- or a "works in progress" page might be set up for general comment on unfinished (or unpolished) fiction.

"Um... one question. I'm assuming some of this fan fic will be of an "adult" nature? Or at least relationshippy? I'd just like to put in my .02 cents on advocating that relationships of all kinds be fair game. Many people "eww" at Giles/Buffy or Xander/Angel or what not, but they don't have to read the stuff they might find offensive."

Will their be some limitation? Like Dawn/Spike (eww)? If not, I'd like to see fairly comprehensive warnings with each piece of fiction (perhaps a Decameron style preview).


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Someone has to say this & I guess it's me -- LadyStarlight, 12:04:36 06/12/01 Tue

So if I wrote a novel with an over-done concept, spelling and grammar errors all through it, submitted it to publishers & they chose not to publish it without editing, that's elitist? I know a website is not a publishing house but what's wrong with having standards? I've read stories where a little bit of editing would have helped the story a lot.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Someone has to say this & I guess it's me -- OnM, 07:54:14 06/13/01 Wed

Brian, it might seem like we're all jumping on you here, but such isn't the case. There is a great difference between editing and censorship. When you are an established and respected writer, you may have the clout to go to a publisher and demand that your work be printed as is, word for word, etc. But even some of the very best writers out there will admit that having input from another can be helpful. We all tend to see things from our own persepective, and sometimes that gets too single-minded.

This also doesn't mean that you have to come to doubt yourself, just that you need to gain some insights from the experience of others. This is a growth process. Of course, I am assuming that the editing involved is being done by experienced persons, who have a lot of practice in reading both fiction and non-fictions in a wide variety of genres.

The net, in particular, has such a wide variety of sites that if you want to 'publish' a story, you can get it done, and someone will read it. Speaking for myself, I have no interest in writing a story if people whose opinions I respect think I'm not doing an adequate job, or missing the point, or whatever. After all, who am I writing for? Joss and Co. make their creations for *us*. If there is no audience, there is no play. (If a tree falls in the forest, and no one hears it, there is still going to be an environmental impact statement, right? ;)

Also, item last-- as others have already mentioned, if there is to be any association with this site, which I would very much like there to be, we need to hear Masquerade's thoughts on this idea.

BTW, where is that Masq'd lady, anyway? She's been awfully quiet so far. Some vacation-time jet lag, perhaps?


[> [> [> [> [> [> matchmaking -- Manoon, 08:53:05 06/13/01 Wed

Sol's been unnervingly quiet too... maybe they've gone away together!!!



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, yeah, what's going on here? -- OnM, 09:32:35 06/13/01 Wed

Sol! Where are you? Come back to us!!



[> [> [> [> [> [> I'm here, see directly above... -- Masq'd lady, 13:15:17 06/13/01 Wed


[> Re: My probably stupid suggestion -- Dedalus, 12:28:53 06/12/01 Tue

Okay, this is just a thought, so no fruit of any kind is to be hurled in my general direction ...

I'm not THAT huge on fanfiction. For one thing, I read so much, I rarely get the time. For another, some of it isn't very good, and pales next to the show. For another, I have never had much interest in writing it. I prefer my own stuff, and that keeps me occupied. And plus with Buffy, I have doubts I am talented enough to pull it off.

However, the Sunnydale Slayers has got some very good stuff and talented writers. I guess because they keep it exclusive to a certain degree.

Anyway ... since I am one of the myriad posters to come on here and trip over myself raving about how brilliant everyone is ... what about having, maybe a part or a section that is devoted to ... well, nonfiction?

I just got done reading some of Age's interpretations of season five, and good god ... I know this site already has some philosophical musings, but how about a part on this proposed site where we can submit professionally styled and organized essays on Buffy? It would be mind-blowing to see what some of you could come up with.

Alas, my motives aren't entirely selfless. As I've commented before, I do write for some sites myself, usually something sci-fi related. But they often don't take Buffy stuff because it's not really scifish. I know we have got some professional writers on here, and I guess I can claim that, because fresh out of college last year I was writing and being paid for it, and actually got to put down "freelance writer" on my income tax forms. Yes, it was quite a thrill. Of course, that was before the internet recession, and now I'm broke and will either have to get a "real job" (shudder) or go back to graduate school. Anyway, I have done a really nifty article on symbolism in The Gift, and would like a place to send it.

And it would be really cool if we could figure out how to get paid for our efforts ...


[> [> How could you call this eloquent post stupid? -- Liquidram, 14:44:00 06/12/01 Tue

Good points. It had already occured to me that there should be a section for the non-fiction essays that some members of this board are so excellent at. We could add a feedback link to the authors or post threads on the board to discuss these essays.

I also believe that any editing done would have to meet with the author of an original piece before it was posted. As far as a story not being accepted, I think we will know those when we see them, and it will not even be a question. Since the plan is to keep the site exclusive to this board at this point, there will not be alot of outside influence unless we decide to allow it.

Getting paid? I own a business, therefore do not understand the concept of actually getting paid.... hehe


[> [> [> Re: How could you call this eloquent post stupid? -- Dedalus, 15:19:12 06/12/01 Tue


I agree on the editing thing.

And keeping it exclusive would probably be a logistical necessity.

So are we going to have like a title or something?

And yes, getting paid is indeed a pipe dream.



[> [> Re: Your very much extremely NOT stupid suggestion -- OnM, 08:02:51 06/13/01 Wed

Oh, definitely this should be a part of the site. I've always hoped that Masq has been archiving some of the very best philosophical-oriented posts since her site went up, for sure there should be someplace to make them available to all who are interested in reading them.

Yes, one can peruse the archives here, but that's very time-consuming and you don't really have a very good index to do searches with.

If this would come together, I would be quite willing to do some of that digging through the dusty shelves and see if I can rescue some truly great stuff for re-posting.


[> [> Parabola -- Solitude1056, 18:43:15 06/14/01 Thu

I wonder if Parabola ever does pop-culture philosophy - I know they've done just about everything else. We could practically take over the magazine with one big swamping of philosophically related articles about the Hero myth, ethical issues as reflected in pop-culture retellings, etc.

Ok, so I dream... :)


[> [> [> Re: What's Parabola? Clue me, please! -- OnM, 21:40:47 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Re: What's Parabola? Clue me, please! -- Solitude1056, 18:16:48 06/15/01 Fri

I'm stunned, man. If you're reading anything, I would've guessed Parabola would be at the top of your list. It's a fascinating & intelligentlly edited quarterly of collected essays on philosophical, mythical, mythological, folklore, topics - each quarter usually has a theme of some sort. You can find it at the magazine section of any good bookstore, or failing that, at Borders or Barnes & Noble. (I think Parabola also has a webpage, but I don't know the URL.) It's been around for years now, and it's well worth the effort of finding it.


[> [> [> [> [> I don't get out much! Thanks, it sounds interesting, I'll check it out. -- OnM, 19:11:33 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> I looked over your shoulder to get that bookmark as well...... -- Rufus, 15:15:37 06/16/01 Sat


[> Re: The Name Game -- Dedalus, 16:50:49 06/12/01 Tue

Okay, I'll open a side post down here so we can commence with the naming process.

It would be cool if it could be something that reflects both the show and our own eccentric crowd.

The only thing I can come up with is "The Existential Scoobies."

Sigh. I'm sure we can do better than that.


[> [> Better??!! I'd love to be an "Existential Scoobie!" -- Wisewoman, 17:38:01 06/12/01 Tue


[> [> Re: The Name Game -- OnM, 08:27:15 06/13/01 Wed

Some ideas:

'The Masq'd Philosophers Guild'

Always liked the word 'guild', dunno why. Maybe a 'Dune' thing again, they had a lotta guilds. Some of them involved spice and bending space. We certainly do our share of space-bending, do we not? ;)

'MetaPhilosophies of the Buffyverse'

I like the 'meta' word too. This might be a little too stuffy, though. Maybe 'Buffyverse MetaPhilosophy Guild'? Humm, still kinda stuffy. Giles would like it, though...;)


Well, we do! ;)

'Tales of Brave Ulysses'

Not obvious, and maybe there's a copyright issue as to the song. Not to mention the gender issue, but maybe that's not the point. Hey, just throwin' 'em out here...

'The Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom'

I know, used this one before, but I like it, what can I say. Has that slight (OK, more than slight) irreverent touch that the series has. This might make it non-obvious choice for a literary site, but think about it-- just what do we do here? Why, we collectively offer actual proof that BtVS is not just some silly show for kids, but work of serious social/literary merit. If that ain't 'avenging', I don't know what is! (Well, Diana Rigg knows, but she isn't here for me to ask-- (~sighs~)).

'Into The Woods'

Relates to thinking too much, I think...

Well, all for now. I'll keep at it. Looking forward to what the rest of you come up with. If anyone sees what they think is the absolute, perfect name, just go oooo! oooo!



[> [> [> I kind of like the self-deprecating humor of "We have too many thoughts!" -- Masq, 13:18:20 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> How about "Fictionary Corner"? -- Leah, 08:44:32 06/13/01 Wed


[> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? - editing -- purplegrrl, 10:35:12 06/13/01 Wed

I like the idea of a fanfiction attachment to this site.

I'd like to offer my services as an editor - at least on a part-time basis. [Sorry, I really like you all, but I need to have my own life, too! ;-) ] I am a technical writer/editor in real life, so I am fairly qualified to attempt this (although at the moment I am, like Aquitaine, "employment-challenged" (a very recent development)).

Hopefully, any of us who edit won't "censor" but will make helpful suggestions to the author. As a fiction and nonfiction writer, I know it is sometimes difficult to accept suggestions/criticism about your own work. Editors would need to make suggestions that improve the story, not suggest their own bias. Authors would need to remember that the editors' suggestions are just that, suggestions, and are meant to improve the piece of fiction.

This sounds like fun! I look forward to reading fanfic from some of my favorite posters.


[> [> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- Nina, 12:07:56 06/13/01 Wed

I love the idea of a fanfiction site too! I am too much impressed by the Buffyverse to try to write anything myself. But if I decide to do it, it will be in script form (what can I tell you, that's how I think, in scenes and acts! I hope it wouldn't bother too many of you). With all those wonderful people who are ready to help with editing, I might try to come up with something (big maybe!).

So how many authors would we have so far?


[> [> [> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- Dedalus, 13:00:50 06/13/01 Wed

Hmm, Nina. Script form. I hadn't thought about that. That would be an interesting experiment. I have copies of the two script books, and Hush, Restless, and The Gift printed off the Buffy script place. I don't know if I would be daring enough to try it, but coming up with mock episodes would be cool.

As for Editing, guys, it is not censorship. I abhor censorship like most people here, but, after working with two editors in the past year, they can be a tremendous asset. Especially those of us who suffer from Shelley-syndrome - we tend to go on until we're stopped. Editing can give you a lot of perspective you might have previously lacked.


[> [> [> [> Re: How about our own Fanfic site? -- Nina, 14:57:00 06/13/01 Wed

Script form is often disliked by a lot of fans. I even read somewhere that it was easy and that it was for people who can't write! :) Gee, they never tried to write a real script for sure!!! :) The problem I have when I start a script is that I am so perfectionist that I will count the words, read the scenes, make sure everything fits into a 40 to 43 minutes episode. But building the emotional arc of an episode is very hard. Know where you are at every moment. How the character feels, even when you don't actually see that emotion. Once you try to write a script you really appreciate the work you see on your screen. It's damn hard, and the writer at BtVS are all very talented to come with something in so little time. I'm always so impressed! :) ( I am but a pale reflection of their talent when I try to write something!)

Dedalus, I really encourage you to try! It's so much fun! A parody would be wonderful too!


[> The Pulse? -- Little One, 12:02:40 06/13/01 Wed

I know I'm new to this board, but thought I would chime in with my opinion that a fanfic addition would be a fantastic idea. I don't usually read fanfic simply because I don't have the time nor energy to wade through the sheer multitude of sites devoted to Buffy fanfic. However, I would not only eagerly read fanfic associated with this site, but I would also, being a writer myself, be tempted to contribute to it. I also feel, judging by the quality of postings, that fanfic produced by members of this board would be of an extremely high caliber, thought-provoking and entertaining. I look forward to reading it.

Now on to the editor issue. As a journalist, I both welcome and loathe the touch of an editor. The editor is basically a mechanic whose mere tune-up can have a Jag purring or shrieking alike. If done correctly, the result is noticed only by absence of noticeable complaints about the essay. However, if it is not handled with a light touch, tweaking and toning, the result can be horrendous. In my opinion, it is the quality of editorship that determines whether the concept is a helpful or hurtful idea. If allowed absolute power to paint one's masterpiece with broad sweeping strokes, producing a work that is completely unfamiliar to the artist, the editor is repugnant. However, if done correctly with sensitivity, it is a godsend. With that said, I want to add that I have come to trust the abilities of this board's members both in your abilities and in your respect for the thoughts of opinions of others. I'm certain that the quality of editors from this board will be of the same high caliber that I've come to expect from the postings.

In short, I'd be honoured to be an editor, a writer and a reader of a fanfic site associated with this board.

I would also like to humbly submit a suggestion for the name. How about The Pulse? It reflects both the vampiric element and that we, the fans, are the lifeblood of the show. They couldn't do it without us tuning in every week. It's all about the blood, afterall...as Spike would say. ;-)


[> [> Re: The Pulse? -- Dedalus, 13:03:50 06/13/01 Wed

Well said about editors.

And I like The Pulse idea. Maybe not as good as The Existential Scoobies, but it's still nifty. :-)


[> Okay now, is there anybody on this board who is *not* a writer or an editor??!! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 13:27:50 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> Re: Okay now, is there anybody on this board who is *not* a writer or an editor??!! ;o) -- Little One, 14:21:51 06/13/01 Wed

That raises an interesting topic, Wisewoman. Why does Buffy attract such literary-inclined people? Or is it just this board which gathers us together? I could be wrong, and this isn't a dig against other fan groups, but I bet Dawson's Creek fans are not as profoundly hooked on phonics as we seem to be!


[> [> [> Uhh, I'm not. I just fake it. Has anyone noticed? No, don't tell me... ;) -- OnM, 15:19:57 06/13/01 Wed

*** "and this isn't a dig against other fan groups, but I bet Dawson's Creek fans are not as profoundly hooked on phonics as we seem to be!" ***

No, it's Buffy, or more accurately the entire BtVS gestalt. The classic themes, the superb writing, the marvelous ensemble acting work. The whole is so much greater than the sum of all the parts.

Give you an example, and please, I'm not trying to be negative, I watch *ST:Voyager* myself. As noted in a post above, Jeri Ryan (Seven of Nine) won a Saturn Award for best supporting actress, beating out, among others, Juliet Landau (Drusilla) for her work on Buffy/Angel.

Do I think Landau is the better overall actress? That's hard to say, because I haven't seen enough of her overall work, the same with Jeri Ryan. What I will say, again JMHO, is that *Jeri Ryan saved ST:Voyager from cancellation*. Her portrayal of the 'Seven' character is so perfect, and involving, that it overcomes the show's weakest point-- it's mediocre writing. So I certainly don't begrudge her this or any other recognition.

Now, can you imagine her show if they had the caliber of writing that Buffy has? I suspect I might be hanging out on those discussion boards also, be that the case.


[> [> [> [> Re: Damn it, I AM a Dawson's Creek fan! :-) j/k -- Dedalus, 15:54:54 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> But you fake it as well as Meg Ryan in "When Harry Met Sally"... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 17:54:46 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> Interesting question, Little One... -- Wisewoman, 17:43:06 06/13/01 Wed

My best guess is that, by-and-large, the *mature* (lol) people who are watching BtVS are doing so because of the quality of the writing, as opposed to simply seeking mind-numbing entertainment. Now, anyone who watches anything for the quality of the writing is bound to be literary-minded.

I guess there are a lot of Buffy fans who watch solely because they have a crush on Buffy, or think Willow or Xander are hot, etc, etc. but those fans probably aren't going to be intrigued by a link to something called All Things Philosophical on Buffy the Vampire Slayer. And if they do end up here, they're going to realize that we're not speaking the same language. I'm struggling not to sound elitist here, all I mean is that people's tastes and interests differ, and there are so many internet sites devoted to Buffy you can easily pick and choose the "flavour" that most appeals to you. Those of us here have obviously been attracted by Masquerade's amazing philosophical take on things, and are willing to look deeper into the show, to consider not only philosophy, but analogy, mythology, literary merit, etc., (while still, of course, wanting desperately to see what Spike looks like naked!!!!! ;o))

What makes me sad sometimes is the number of people out there who, I know, would absolutely adore BtVS if they'd ever loosened up enough to give it a shot. So, for those of us who managed, five years ago, to get past the title...a round of applause!


[> [> [> [> Re: Interesting question, Little One... -- Scout, 10:00:03 06/15/01 Fri

You are indeed a wise woman, Wisewoman, and I totally agree with you. One of the things I love most about this board is that it goes so far beyond the various "ships" that run through so many of the other BtVS boards (e.g. the "Buffy and Angel are soulmates meant to be together forever and if you disagree, then you're just stupid" kind of stuff). This show is so much deeper and works on so many more levels other than simply who Buffy is or isn't in love with. It's that rarest of television programs: one that's entertaining as well as mentally challenging, clever and humorous but also dramatic and deeply moving. While there are things that bother me from time to time (and who among us doesn't say that), mostly I just watch and marvel. I find myself thinking about it possibly far too much - which is how I ended up here with like-minded people (and every day now I find myself feeling absurdly pleased that I've finally found others like me).

Sadly, in my little corner of Britain, I have to say that I don't know one other adult (or "proper grown-up" as my 9-year old son says) among my circle of friends and acquaintances who watches BtVS. Not one. When I ask (and believe me, I have), the response is usually along the lines of "Oh, that's a show for kids" (not helped by the timeslot the BBC puts it in - 6:45 p.m.). It's true, definitely, that many people aren't open-minded enough to get past the title to get to the wonderfulness within.

I must also say that I'm a red-blooded woman, a downright lusty wench, and while I like having my brain tickled by Joss & Co., I'd still desperately love to see Spike naked!


[> [> [> [> [> LOL........Scout -- Rufus, 14:21:39 06/15/01 Fri

The fact that you love BVS proves you have wonderful taste and can see past the "just a show for kids" label. When you admit you would like to see Spike naked...we know you are human.......at least you have deep thoughts before you enter the gutter.


[> [> Does being a Former Tech Writer count? ... RTFM, after all. -- Solitude1056, 06:53:40 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> Re: Does being a Former Tech Writer count? -- Manoon, 08:41:06 06/14/01 Thu

And what about being a CURRENT technical writer.. that's me!


[> [> [> [> Run away, run away! -- Solitude1056, 18:17:56 06/14/01 Thu

Heh. Noooo, I just moonlighted as a Tech Writer while taking a break from Business Process Analysis. Man, that sounds quite the fancy title. Sheesh. My credetials? I used to read Piers Anthony books in college for the express purpose of editing his mediocre prose til the books looked like they'd been used to sop a bloody nose.

(Ok, so that's not all, but it's where I got my humble start. Better than saying, "When I censor all the fun but mildly illegal things I did in college, there's not much else I did that I can mention in mixed company other than my Piers Anthony Mutilation Obsession...")


[> [> [> [> [> Awwwwww I wanna hear about the illegal stuff.......:):):):):) -- Rufus, 19:17:52 06/14/01 Thu

I'll never tell a soul.......:):)


[> [> Re: Okay now, is there anybody on this board who is *not* a writer or an editor??!! ;o) -- fresne, 10:45:29 06/14/01 Thu

Okay, now that I've seen how many responses were not only yes, but just how many tech writers we have (myself included), gotta say in a professional writer sorta way, "huh, go figure."


[> [> [> Me, me, me!!!!!!!!! -- Rufus, 14:12:25 06/14/01 Thu

No way am I a writer but the 12 year old that can't spell or use any grammar.......are I intimidated......hell yes.....but I post anyway.....


[> [> [> [> Awww. -- Solitude1056, 19:26:10 06/14/01 Thu

It's okay. I can write, but I don't always think so good. And I post anyway! :)


[> [> [> [> [> Thinking....it's just so hard...can we get someone else to do it????? -- Rufus, 21:26:12 06/14/01 Thu

I have to admit that it can be scary posting with people who know their way around the written word....but what's a little fear?


[> [> [> [> [> [> There's a job title for you: "Token Thinking Person." -- Solitude1056, 06:32:05 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> I tain't no writer! -- Anthony8, 18:52:25 06/15/01 Fri

Writing has always been a painful chore for me. I dreaded it in high school and I was Lord-King Procratinator when it came to term papers in college. Consequently, I have held such day jobs as a Congressional correspondent (writing letters for my local congressman), judicial intern (writing memorandum opinions for a federal judge), and corporate law clerk (writing legal opinions for bank executives to disregard). Go figure. There must be some kind of karmic payback happening.

Since I do enjoy talking (a lot), I have learned to approach my writing here as a form of written talking. This would explain why my posts really ramble on and disobey all grammatical rules commonly used in polite circles. The great thing about this board is that the advanced skill level and thoughtfulness of the writing here encourages me to overcome my writing dread and make some attempt to improve my own skills. I don't think there is a slouch among us.



[> [> [> Um, don't look now, but I think you've become one... -- Wisewoman, 19:05:46 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> Uh-oh! Do I have to learn a secret handshake or something? -- Anthony8, 19:49:13 06/15/01 Fri


[> ALRIGHT!! Let's sum up and get going! -- Liquidram, 14:40:56 06/13/01 Wed

Great responses everyone and I am anxious to get started!!

We have several names on the board and several volunteers for the editing positions.

I think we are all in agreement that editing means editing and not censorship.

You can all help me out now with submitting your "votes" for the name. Please submit a post to this thread named "NAME" and we can see which one we choose. The name can be more elaborate, but let's remember to keep something that can be well translated into a domain name. I loved the ThinkToMuch.com :0)

As for you editors out there, please submit your choices for editors under the subject "EDITOR". There is no reason why we can't have several to split the tasks.

I am really looking forward to this and have already started on some graphics ideas which I will show you as soon as it is in some order in the next couple of days.

Thanks for the great response! We are going to have a great time with this one.


[> [> Re: List of Choices -- Dedalus, 15:49:53 06/13/01 Wed

First off, I should so be looking for employment right now.

Second off, since I'm already distracted, I thought a comprehensive list of our candidates is in order, provided Liquidram does not mind. Apologies if I forgot anyone, or spelled anything wrong.


Aquitaine Wisewoman fresne Masq'd Lady purplegrrl (we could probably use all of them)

NAMES - (and feel free to come up with any others)

The Existential Scoobies (ha-ha, that's mine) The Masq'd Philosophers Guild (I too like the word "guild") MetaPhilosophies of the Buffyverse (love the phrase Buffyverse) ThinksTooMuch.org (hilarious) Tales of Brave Ulysses The Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom (could work) Into the Woods Fictionary Corner (a very nice, homey site - the kind you want to kick off your shoes, pull up by the fire, and read some first rate fanfic at) The Pulse (I very much like the double meaning)

I'll have to come back and vote when I decide. Maybe we should list ourselves as "anonymous" for that!


[> [> [> Not only do I not mind; I thank you! (NT) -- Liquidram, 19:30:10 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> I not only don't mind, I thank you! (NT) -- Liquidram, 19:35:44 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> hmmmm repeat that one more time ?!? (NT) -- Liquidram, 19:36:49 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> Re: Exactly what are you trying to say? :-) -- Dedalus, 20:45:33 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> Editor & Name - Some suggestions -- Aquitaine, 20:34:54 06/13/01 Wed


OK. Since I'm pretty busy editing for BAPS (also a very academic and literary bunch btw), could I come on board as a QC and Editing Consultant? LOL. I still plan to continue writing fanfic for Buffy, although Buffy's death has somewhat muddied the waters of my creative juices. This is of the good since I have been able to start work on writing that Great Canadian Novel I always tell my relatives I'm writing when they ask whether I'm still single.

BTW, if any of you are looking for some really high-quality fanfic, you should look up Annie Sewell-Jennings' fics on fanfiction.net She's a notch above the rest IMO. There's also a very well executed new fic called 'The Education of Zebras' that you can find at the same site. But I digress...


How about "The Chosen Few"? LOL. Too elitist? "The Vein Slayer" or "VeinGlory"? Ohhhh, for the naughtier fiction, "Stakes and Stones"!?!

OK. Resolve face. Hmmmmmm.

How about "Fang Fiction" or "Filosofical Fang Fiction"?

******** Question: If we are so darn clever, how come so many of us are unemployed? ROFL!

- Aquitaine/Larissa


[> [> [> [> Re: Editor & Name - Some suggestions -- Dedalus, 20:56:34 06/13/01 Wed

Not wanting to sound uncultured, but what exactly is BAPs? It sounds like something I should know, but I don't.

There's a Great Canadian Novel?

Is there something between this site and our northern friends, the Canadians? The proliferation of Canadian posters is pretty unexpected.

I like Stakes and Stones. Nice ring. Of course, you can never go wrong with Fang Fiction, too.

As to why all of us are unemployed, I think being even marginally intelligent makes one unfit for what passes as human society. And I'm being serious. I've been so bummed out all day. The kind of things we do have no value ... literature, philosophy, art, etc. Unless of course, someone gets pushed up against the wall and is asked how to measure human value. Then they're all for literature, philosophy, art, etc ... funny how that works.

And get this - I was thinking about going back for the masters degree, a four year college is finally opening in my county, but the graduate studies do not include ENGLISH. That really, really annoys me.

I'm sorry. We're suppose to be talking about names and editors, aren't we?


[> [> [> [> [> Wha'??? Unexpected???!!! Us Godless Canadians ... -- Wisewoman, 21:20:19 06/13/01 Wed

are crushed! We love BtVS. We love AtS. We love philosophy...and...and...cats! And chocolate!! And Spike!!! (oops, sorry, that's probably just me).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Love Spike, too! -- rowan, 17:02:16 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> Dedalus, would you accept an amendment? -- Wisewoman, 21:26:25 06/13/01 Wed

Personally, I still love Existential Scoobies. Would you consider adding "Notes from ES" or "Dispatches from ES?"

Sorta brings in the whole writer-ing aspect...just a thought.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dedalus, would you accept an amendment? -- Dedalus, 10:07:58 06/14/01 Thu

Well thank you for your support, WiseWoman.

I suppose we could stand to add something ...

"Dispatches from the Existential Scoobies"

"Notes from the Existential Scoobies"

I like Notes better. Dispatches conjures up images of Xander on horseback delivering mail in colonial America.

Or maybe that's just me.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I was thinking more WWI trenches (LOL) but you're right... -- Wisewoman, 10:53:18 06/14/01 Thu

...and so my vote is, solidly,

"Notes from Existential Scoobies"


[> [> [> [> [> Dedalus - Suggest you rent/view 'Shakespeare in Love' immediately. -- OnM, 21:40:07 06/13/01 Wed

Art is the most valuable of all human pursuits. The fact that it doesn't always pay is just the nature of things in the practical realverse. Granted, you can't eat it when you're hungry, but to fill the belly and leave the soul famished is starvation of a more insidious and destructive sort.

Things change.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dedalus - Suggest you rent/view 'Shakespeare in Love' immediately. -- Dedalus, 10:05:31 06/14/01 Thu

Things change? Sometimes I wonder. I have an associates in history (another relatively useless field), and I'm not so sure.

Still, maybe the fact that there is so much struggle behind creativity is what makes it what it is.

And yes, art is the most valuable of all human pursuits. I would go farther than that. It is practically the only human pursuit worth anything. And a step farther. It's what makes us human. Romanticism is practically my theology. I have a dog named Lord Byron. Preaching to the choir here.

I doubt I'm renting Shakespeare in Love - I can't stand the way Gwynneth enunciates the word "poetry."


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Editor & Name - Some suggestions -- Aquitaine, 22:09:12 06/13/01 Wed

*** Not wanting to sound uncultured, but what exactly is BAPs? It sounds like something I should know, but I don't.***

Uncultured? Is that like bad brie? ROFL! BAPS stands for the Bloody Awful Poet Society. You can find us at www.bloodyawfulpoet.com and at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Bloody_Awful/

*** There's a Great Canadian Novel? ***

There are *many* great Canadian novels. Grrr argh! Can you tell I have an MA with a specialisation in Can Lit? LOL.

*** Is there something between this site and our northern friends, the Canadians? The proliferation of Canadian posters is pretty unexpected.***

No, it's just that Canadians have supremely good taste.

*** As to why all of us are unemployed, I think being even marginally intelligent makes one unfit for what passes as human society. And I'm being serious. I've been so bummed out all day. The kind of things we do have no value ... literature, philosophy, art, etc. Unless of course, someone gets pushed up against the wall and is asked how to measure human value. Then they're all for literature, philosophy, art, etc ... funny how that works. ***

Big sigh. Well, I was working as a technical writer for a high-tech company and I must say I am rather relieved that the fiber-optic Gold Rush pettered out. Technical writing nearly wiped my creative slate clean. Now I am unemployed but happy, very very happy.

- Aquitaine


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Editor & Name - Some suggestions -- Dedalus, 10:00:37 06/14/01 Thu

Bloodly Awful Poets, huh? I'll have to check that out.

And yes, I know there are many great Canadian novels, I just didn't know there was an archetypal Great Canadian Novel like here in the US.

Canadians do have good taste.

I could never get into technical writing. I'm sure I need to, or at least I needed to a few years ago, but I've always been more on the creative side.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Creativity quashers -- verdantheart, 13:52:31 06/14/01 Thu

I know I'm a little off-topic, but had to say, technical writing pales in comparison to attending UCSD as a creativity drain! (I know from experience!)

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Editor & Name - Some suggestions -- Nina, 19:06:18 06/14/01 Thu

"Now I am unemployed but happy, very very happy."

Well one more thing we have in common then! :) I'm trying to get rid of my net obsession to go hunt for work...and where to you find me? Here, lurking again! Ah la la! Better be happy about it! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> requiem for the unemployed -- purplegrrl, 08:54:34 06/15/01 Fri

I guess we'd all rather hang out here in ATPoBtVS pseudo-Buffyverse among our fellow Buffy-philes than to do something as prosaic as look for a job that will continue to put food on our table and a roof over our head.

I've decided that my current bout of unemployment gives me a chance to watch "Passions" (should I invite Spike over?) and work on my novel. Hopefully I'll find fulfilling employment before the money runs out!


[> [> [> [> Re: Editor & Name - Some suggestions -- bess, 10:50:02 06/15/01 Fri

heh. how about "time to kill" ? or strike that, reverse... "killing time"..... on second thought, what awful puns ! bad me. i'll find a soap that's on, watch it as punishment....

hee hee... ;)


[> [> [> Re: List of Choices -- fresne, 10:49:41 06/14/01 Thu

Hmmm...problematic. I like them all. In a top three kind of way, I'd say:

The Existential Scoobies Fictionary Corner The Pulse


[> [> [> [> thepulse.com/net/org/tv is not available -- Liquidram, 12:14:01 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Re: For what it's worth at this point I like "Existential Scoobies"! -- Nina, 19:08:07 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Re: NAMES - Some additional suggestions -- OnM, 19:29:01 06/14/01 Thu

Been puttin' the l'il ol' grey cells to work some more, and have come up with the following suitably ironic and or quasi-profound appellations for you to ponder. Mucho, many thanks to jenoff and his collection of brilliant episode reviews and classic Buffyquotes for inspiring most of these:

(HPT = Home page title STL = Subtitle)

URL:___firebadtreepretty.org HPT:___Fire Bad / Tree Pretty - The Existential Scoobyverse STL:___'A Collection of Essays and Fanfic Exploring the Outer Limits of Buffydom - Or Not'

URL:___godsdon'tpay.org HPT:___Gods Don't Pay - Essays and Fanfic from Underworld Bottom Feeders STL:___Literate Thoughts and Speculation on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

URL:___tasteofheart.org HPT:___The Taste of Your Heart STL:___Literate Fanfic and Philosophical Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

URL:___weightoftheworld.org HPT:___The Weight of the World STL:___Literate Fanfic and Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

URL:___petrifiedhamsters.org HPT:___A Collection of Essays and Fanfic Exploring the Outer Limits of Buffydom - Or Not STL:___'Everyone wants petrified hamsters, and they're never happy with them' --Rupert Giles

URL:___drowninginyou.org HPT:___A collection of Essays and Philosophical Fanfic on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

URL:___scoffatgravity.org HPT:___Watchers Scoff at Gravity STL:___Literate Fanfic and Essays on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

URL:___oneeyedchicklet.org HPT:___The Existential Scoobies - In the Land of the Blind, the Camera Never Blinks STL:___Thinking Too Much on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

URL:___moebius.spiral.org HPT:___The Moebius Spiral STL:___Thinking Outside the Hypercube on BtVS - Literate Essays & Fanfic


OK, getting far out now, but, hey, that's how it works sometimes! The choosing of names is a serious business. I mean, if I signed these things with, say, E. Fudd, you'd never take me seriously, right?

Hope these are suitably inspirational.



[> [> [> [> [> Re: I love Fire Bad, Tree Pretty! LOL -- Dedalus, 07:52:08 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I love Fire Bad, Tree Pretty! LOL -- purplegrrl, 08:58:32 06/15/01 Fri

I like Fire Bad, Tree Pretty, too.

Also petrified hamsters!

***'Everyone wants petrified hamsters, and they're never happy with them' --Rupert Giles***



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> How about "The Land of Shrimp and Bunny"? -- rowan, 19:27:28 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Did someone say "Shrimp"? Interesting. -- Anthony8, 19:52:29 06/15/01 Fri
The demon from outer space (long) -- Slayrunt, 21:28:36 06/11/01 Mon

This is my first attempt, been lurking awhile, but here goes.

I've enjoyed your discussions on the many topics of Buffy, and I thought I would ask a little question that the Ben and innocence thread made me think about.

In the ep with the demon that killed the crazys and attacked Joyce, who called the demon? I assumed it was Ben. If it was, would he been an innocent?

What caused the mass of insanity in history that Willow discovered? I assumed it was Glory, but she was only here for 25 years.

Ok, two questions, I guess. Waiting to here your responses.


[> Killer snot monster from outer space aka Queller demon...... -- Rufus, 21:49:11 06/11/01 Mon

Ben did call the Queller demon. I did question his actions then as it was murder. He may not have done the killing himself but the people died as a result of what Ben did. I found that a bit cold. That is why he wasn't an innocent any more, he participated in the covering up of and the plan to destroy the world to get home of Glory. I do feel bad as Ben never really had a chance, his influences were that of minions and when he finally caved he was acting on the promise of a god he thought was going to win. I don't know what made the people insane in the research that the SG did. The Quellor demon just may be a kind of messy solution to the problem of dealing with the insane.


[> [> Re: Killer snot monster from outer space aka Queller demon...... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:32:11 06/13/01 Wed

Gee, looking back, the Queller demon could almost be seen as foreshadowing of Ben selling out Dawn. I mean, he showed with that act that he was willing to do pretty horrible things to save his own @$$, didn't he?

I guess anyone could have called the Queller demon in past times- it didn't necesssarilly have to be connected to Glory. Waves of madness strike, someone summons what they see as the "solution". (feels really creepy putting it that way, but I imagine that's how they saw it...sad) The minion who approaches Ben at the end asking why he did it is obviously surprised- which kinda does indicate that it wasn't something Ben had ever done before.


[> [> [> Re: Killer snot monster from outer space aka Queller demon...... -- Rufus, 22:57:43 06/13/01 Wed

Not only that but Ben knew his way around a spell and he knew all about the Knights so he may not have been on Glorys side, but he was willing to indirectly kill to cover up for her. And beat the minions.


[> [> [> Re: Killer snot monster from outer space aka Queller demon...... -- fresne, 23:47:27 06/14/01 Thu

Oh, absolutely. Note: Ben refers to summoning the demon as cleaning up Glory's mess. No mention of those who it will kill. Not just the insane, but clearly any of their families or random bystanders who get in the way. And it doesn't stop at just Glory's victims. Think of all the people who go to the hospital to be treated for depression, mood swings, etc. who are potential targets.

It's an excellent example of how Ben can disassociate action from guilt. Its not his fault. Its Glory's fault.

Also, he doesn't directly act. He summons something that will do the deed for him.

Age has already done some brilliant exposition on Ben as herd animal, so I won't even try to match such prose. However, I am intrigued by the idea that the Queller demon is something summoned by people throughout history to eliminate the marginal, the unfit, the ones they don't want. Because not only does the Queller potentially quell a plague of madness, but it eliminates all those mad people that otherwise the community would have to feed, cloth and support. It makes me think of that societal impulse that has the Spartans or the Vikings leaving children with disabilities on the hillside to die. An impulse that washes its hands of guilt, because they "could", they "might" be found. An impulse that generates stories in which such children are found and cared for like Moses, Oedipus, or ahem Fresne(the Lais of Marie de France).

Ben, like those who summoned the Queller in the past, assumes the right to decide who has the right to live based on his own convenience. I wonder if he felt some suppressed guilt about it. Perhaps, that would be part of the appeal of Glory's offer. Then again, after Glory killed the Knights of B, he seemed mostly concerned with how she had ruined his life. Poor boy.

And since the minion seemed surprised, perhaps the Queller was the first of choices which led him to his final choice. He ultimately gives into Glory. But he does it with lies to himself. Dawn's death won't be a painful death. No one will be hurt of course while Dawn is bleeding with the doors between the worlds wide open. Of course, he has no choice.

He wants Dawn to like him even as he's choosing his own life over hers, that way his hands will be clean.
How I want Buffy to be -- Manoon, 02:44:24 06/12/01 Tue

When Buffy comes back, and after the initial period when she has gone through whatever it is she and the scoobs need to go through to adjust to her return, I want to see the "Slayer" develop.

This season has been alot about her getting in touch with her 'slayerness', but for me, she could have done it a lot more (and she probably would if she hadn't had so many distractions like a magical kid sister, dead mom, and crazy hell god bent on destruction.. I understand Buffy, is ok!)

For me, this kind of show is better when someone gets in touch with their powers, and is best when those powers become stronger and more diverse. That's probably why Willow is my current favourite character development.

There has always been so much more to the Slayer than her fighting abilities. It is indeed very cool to watch her kick ass, and more cool when she uses her brain to work out fighting plans - she's a good all rounder, there is no doubt of that.

But what else can the Slayer be, or do?

I am thinking along the lines of mental abilities. heightened senses, which we don't see enough of. we have seen some vague elements of psychic awareness, and I always felt it was something the slayer could learn to tune in to, to use. etc.

Of course, this is just my opinion, and for many of you the slayer is more about the physical, fighting side - which I enjoy too, i really do. But I just feel that there could be so much more to the power of the slayer.

i am hoping that when buffy comes back, she IS elevated, as people have suggested elsewhere, in as many senses as possible, be that spiritually, physically, and that the power of the Slayer is released.


[> Re: How I want Buffy to be -- AK-UK, 06:58:00 06/12/01 Tue

In practical terms I think Buffy will have to become more powerful. The show is named after her, and I don't think Joss Whedon will allow his heroine to be overshadowed by Willow.

And I find it shocking that a slayer is supposed to be able to sense the presence of vampires, yet Buffy failed to develop this talent. It seems clear that there is an untapped reservoir of psychic ability in Buffy, yet for five years now we haven't seen anyone teaching her how to exploit it. Very strange, and a little stupid considering how useful her abilities could prove to be.


[> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be -- Manoon, 07:34:06 06/12/01 Tue

One way of looking at it, I suppose, is that actually BEING the Slayer has necessitated that Buffy be pulled in every direction simultaneously, she has never had time to develop further any additional abilities a Slayer might have. This could be true of all Slayers up until now. And of course, Slayers don't historically live that long..

..maybe there is therefore a LOT about the power of the Slayer that we don't really know about. Maybe in her "death", Buffy now does have the spritual time to focus and develop more. That's part of the gift?

This could be the first time the Slayer has been able to BECOME more than the fighting machine who fights her way to death, so the future could hold anything for her - in terms of power, I mean

I think I agree with what you say about Willow.. I am just hoping that she isn't brought down to earth with too big a bump, because i LIKE her being powerful.

whatever happens, the development of Buffy as the Slayer is going to be very interesting.


[> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Marie, 08:05:02 06/12/01 Tue

To me, although with Joss you never know, it is inconceivable that Buffy will come back 'dark' or 'bad', as some earlier threads have suggested lately. Surely, someone who is capable of giving her life to safe, not only her sister, but the world, must go on to something higher - the Buffyverse version of Valhalla?

I think that Dawn would be inconsolable at the loss of her sister so soon after the loss of her mother, and that she would do anything she could to try and get her back - and I also think that Willow would not be averse at a little spelling in order to aid this - after all, she caused that book to slide over the shelf to catch Dawn's attention when she wanted to bring Joyce back - how much more willingly would she try to bring her best friend back?

I think that if she somehow knew that Dawn were in danger - and we don't know that the Key isn't wanted by others than Glory - Buffy would try her damndest to get back to this world if she only could, and she'd be back certainly spiritually stronger.

She was just starting to research her Slayerdom when her life ended - she has a lot more to learn. I see her coming back as akin to the legends that tell of Arthur's second coming - when the world has need of his strength, he'll awaken from his long sleep and return. Buffy has always ended up 'doing her duty', whether she wanted to or not.

Also, I just don't buy Willow as the Big Bad of S6 - she's just so grounded in goodness. The only times she has tried to use the Dark Arts to harm were against Glory, or to fight the good fight. I don't think people intrinsically good can be made to do bad, just as (they say) hypnotised people cannot be made to murder. (Though I guess Joss could know better - I bow to his greatness!). Maybe she could be 'bad' if she was charmed into thinking she was doing good and the Scoobies were bad - did that sentence make sense?

This turned into a bit of a ramble, sorry!

Can I just add, that, for me, almost the whole key to Spike came when I heard him say 'A promise to a lady' to Doc. This smacks so much of the poetic chivalry so much adored by Byron et al - and what was Spike but a failed poet? To me, Spike has really always just wanted to be loved by, and to defend to the death, 'his lady'. And that's what he'll now do for her sister.

I'll stop waffling now. If you've actually read this, thank you for your patience.



[> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Manoon, 08:25:44 06/12/01 Tue

of course i read this, you list some good points

you're completely right that Buffy had only just really started to get into what it meant to be the Slayer, when all the distractions came along. the whole debate that she thought she was losing her humanity becos of being the slayer, took her away from the focus, as did the illness of her mother, the death, the fear at losing dawn, the menace of Glory... i just hope that even if only for a couple of episodes next season, we are shown Buffy with no distractions. I think she was ready, right at the very end when she gave her life for Dawn, to take that step further and become more, as a Slayer, than she had been, because she was finally taking her humanity with her, rather than the two aspects of her conflicting all the time. she became whole, she died - typical!

that's why i want part of next season to be about Buffy becoming more. more powerful, as well as more happy. i think she has had her defining moment. I hope that she is nt going to hold herself back anymore, but rather become/go further, than any slayer has gone before. And i feel that this needs to be represented in POWER as well as in personality. that's my hope, anyway

I disagree a little about willow though. i think the darkness may consume her for a while, so she won''t be the willow we know, who wouldn't hurt a fly (though she would hurt a Glory!). she deserves a time to vamp it up, she did it so well that one time, don't you think?


[> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Marie, 08:44:27 06/12/01 Tue

Actually I thought vamp Willow was superb! But that's been done - and although I wouldn't mind her being under a 'bad spell' for a couple of episodes, I'd hate to see her bad in the way of Angelus, say, it just wouldn't ring true for me. However, I'll trust in the Joss, as ever, and hope all's Will that ends Will! (Sorry!)


[> [> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Manoon, 09:08:36 06/12/01 Tue

willows darkness might be longer term than just a couple of episodes.. the strength of her dark magic towards the end of season 5 kinda deserves that, i think. but she wont be THE big bad. worry not.

on a lighter note, i had a dream a few nights ago... I was on a train, and Glory was coming after me. She was ripping the train apart, and I was running away from her, along the train.. it was quite chilling. Many times, she got too close and I only just escaped. I can't remember how it ended. It wasn't lucid at all, all I could do was run, not fight back, cos I knew she would kill me. I know how scared Buffy was now, and why she chose to run..

(can't believe I just admitted I had such a dream in public!!!!!!!)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Morgane, 10:28:13 06/12/01 Tue

About Willow being bad for awhile... I believe that could be a nice turn, you said that willow can't be bad because she's deeply good... well that's true when she's not in pain. remember when Oz left what she did, when Joyce died, when Tara lost her sanity...she can get quite upset and loses control. but especially when Oz left... remember when Ta'hoffren gave her his talisman in Something Blue? They didn't came back with this. I believe there's something to do with it that could get quite interesting. I had watch a lot of previous taped Buffy (especially season 2) and I realize how much clues were in previous episode about what's to come. Usually just a shot or a quote... exemple: in What's my line? whe saw Buffy sleeping in Angel's bed alone when she was frightened, and everything turn mad in the same bed two episodes later. In this same episode we saw, in Buffy's dream, Drusilla killing Angel and Buffy being helpless, well, the look in their eyes was quite the same as in Becoming part 2, ... and these are only few exemple.

Then Willow, just the scene with Glory appears to me as some clue. They could have shown her in pain trying to do something desesperate, but they showed her very powerful, and more interesting, with black eyes, like Doc actually. I don't see her as the big bad of the season either but I believe they're really something to do with it.

Just a thought that has nothing to do with all this. What about the look between Spike and Dawn when he was about to fall down the tower? I don't know what was the meaning of such a powerful look but I believe that it can lead to some very powerful link between them. As we discuss many time before I don't see them ending together, not because of the age or anything of that matter but because of the attitude of Spike toward Dawn. He acted very much like a father or a brother with her, that's the exact opposite of romance in my sense. it's another level of love that cannot lead to romance at all. But anyway I can't wait to see what's to come.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Dedalus, 12:03:17 06/12/01 Tue

Well, I would like to see something along that direction myself. About Buffy, I mean. There has been some speculation about whether or not Buffy will come back a god in her own right ...

I myself doubt it. Buffy is meant to be an everyman, and taking it to that level would just sort of derail any kind of audience identification we are suppose to share with her. Also, making Buffy MORE powerful like that ... I don't know. In combat, she was damn near invincible in season five. I just watched Into the Woods, where she dusted half a dozen vamps in like five seconds - that's one of the reasons we can never have a big bad being a vampire again. She's outgrown them as an enemy. And after The Gift, they're going to have a hard enough time finding Big Bads, unless of course they are humans or something. I mean, where do you go after you put down a god, for god's sake?

And as nifty as it would be to see Buffy diving around Crouching Tiger-style, I doubt that would be practical. Wire work is very difficult to pull off, and even with the budget increase, I doubt Whedon could afford Yuen Woo Ping. Maybe for the Buffy movie series ...

I see Buffy as coming back and somehow growing or becoming more enlightened, but I doubt it will ever be implicitly stated. It will make for interesting subtext fodder, though. Then again, think out of the box as I may, I can't really imagine where they will go with all this. As I've stated several times, Marti Noxon has said that there may be an even greater range to the role Buffy is to play than we have ever, ever thought. It is my contention she is pushing foward the evolution of the line of Slayers to a new level. Preparing her for cosmic battle with The First, perhaps?

And, as fundamentally good as she is, I can see Willow as a badass villian. Remember The Wish? And being a vamp does have something to do with the person's personality. And Noxon also has said that Willow will be seeing some consequences from her magic. I guess that's where everyone is getting this stuff. But just look at how POWERFUL she is now, and then remember that Power Corrupts.



[> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Halcyon, 01:19:29 06/13/01 Wed

But think of all the times Willow's magics had gone awright from Fear Itself to Something Blue. Also despite her pretence of being all sweetness and light she does have a hidden streak of bitchness in her particularly in her attitude towards Anya, Cordelia, Faith and Veruca. She was going to curse Oz and Veruca in Wild At Heart using Black magic remember.


[> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be...and a thought on Spike -- Wiccagrrl, 09:22:02 06/13/01 Wed

When Willow's hurt, or someone she loves is hurt, she gets mad- really mad. I don't think that makes her necessarilly a bad person. And I think people missed the point of the spell in Wild at Heart- she couldn't- *wouldn't*- do it. She was in a lot of pain, she was tempted to lash out. But when push came to shove she pulled back.

I think there may be some consequences due to Willow's power. Power can corrupt, and Willow has gained a lot of power very quickly and has never seemed very respectful or careful in how she used that power. That's a dangerous combination. I'm hoping Tara will be very much the voice of reason in this, helping Willow stay somewhat grounded.


[> Re: How I want Buffy to be -- Andy, 11:16:57 06/12/01 Tue

> I am thinking along the lines of mental abilities. heightened senses, which we don't see enough of. we have seen some vague elements of psychic awareness, and I always felt it was something the slayer could learn to tune in to, to use. etc.

I like the idea of heightened senses/awareness. It makes sense to me. I also like the suggestion I read somewhere of Buffy becoming physically able to perform Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon style "weightless leaps". It would be cool because not only would it simply look cool but, much like in the film, it would help reflect a greater enlightenment in Buffy after her rebirth.


[> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be -- Manoon, 01:50:02 06/13/01 Wed

here in the Uk I have seen a phone line advertised saying call for news on the first 6 episodes of Buffy, and hear how she comes back more powerful.

The only thing is, it costs £1 a minute to call this line. I resent that, so I'm not gonna succumb. I'd rather find out through this discussion board, among friends!

Do you guys have the same kinda thing in the States/Canada? I find it hard to believe, as it would have been mentioned, I would have thought, already on this board...


[> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be -- Rufus, 02:42:03 06/13/01 Wed

This is the first I've heard on a phone line. You're right...don't waste your money.


[> [> [> [> Re: How I want Buffy to be -- Wiccagrrl, 20:24:51 06/13/01 Wed

I have heard of this phone line (I think it's called SkyTel, right?) and I still say don't waste your money. If it's the one I think it is, they usually have info that is wrong or is already common knowledge.

The Scoobies as a military unit -- Liam, 11:29:25 06/12/01 Tue

Many of us have compared the Scoobies to a family; but I would also like to compare them to a military unit, comrades in arms who have fought against evil, in a war that has gone on for thousands of years.

Buffy, due to being the Slayer, has a sacred duty to fight evil. Such a duty is something she can't retire from, or even go on furlough after having served a tour of duty. She fights until she dies, and the new slayer is called.

The young Scoobies, however, don't have this sacred duty. Due to being 20, with their lives ahead of them, it's only fair that they would think of retiring, particularly if they want to hold down 'normal' jobs and raise families. Dealing with the conflicting demands of work and children is difficult at the best of times. How would the Scoobies deal with people who might get at them through their children? What do people think?


[> Re: The Scoobies as a military unit -- cjc36, 18:05:24 06/12/01 Tue

I think "Family" is stronger in this case. Since 'military' training involves depersonalization followed by the bonding with fellow soldiers. The Scoobies are 'civilian insurrectionists,' as described by one of the secret government I-team overseers.

A family fights out of *some* duty, but I think it is more out of love for each other in the Scoobies's case.

And they don't follow orders, not really. Buffy/Giles may be in 'command,' true, but it is more patriarch/big sister 'command' rather than officer/junior officer.

Can the Scoobies quit? Sure. And a threat to their kids might make them. But I think they think the fight they've joined *is* sacred: "It's a good fight, and I want in." Willow to Buffy, toward the end of Season 3.

Could this change as they get older? I guess so, but I think childeren and other concerns might make them want to partake in the 'good fight' even more: their homes and loved ones are at risk.


[> [> Re: The Scoobies as a military unit -- Liam, 11:30:08 06/13/01 Wed


I take your point. I'm just wondering about the practicalities of how the Scoobies are going to be able to fight the good fight while being good parents. What do they tell their children, for example?


[> [> [> Scoobie Parents -- Little One, 12:13:19 06/13/01 Wed

"We're out to kill the evil Tooth Fairy. Go to bed. And remember, the Boogie Man IS real, and don't, under any circumstance, open your door to Santa Clause!"

Can we say traumatized Scoobie kids? ;-)


[> [> [> [> Bet they won't ask Spike to babysit -- think of the bedtime stories -- LadyStarlight, 12:19:12 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> Re: Scoobie Parents -- cjc36, 16:51:11 06/13/01 Wed

Little one, funny! Got a great laugh picturing early-30s Xander and Anya saying above to the munchkins! Thanks!


[> Re: It's not our world -- darrenK, 16:23:40 06/13/01 Wed

The important point here is: Can they quit?

The Scoobie's world isn't like ours. It is a world beset by demons, vampires, and other horrid monsters. The Scoobies might be fighting out of love for Buffy, but if they didn't fight, had never fought, had never known Buffy then they all would have died at the Mayor's ascension.

You see, there is no retiring in Sunnydale. Evil won't give up so you can raise your kids. To be honest, I'm always surprised that everyone in Sunnydale doesn't live in a bunker.

Evil fighting isn't the Scoobies hobby. They see a clear choice: fight or end up dead in an alley somewhere.

A good example is the first episode of Angel. Cordelia thinks she's got a job opportunity,but she's really just going to be killed. She can choose to constantly face that choice or to fight. She's a Scooby, she fights.

So will the others.


[> [> Re: It's not our world -- Liam, 11:46:11 06/14/01 Thu


There is another option for the Scoobies: go to another town, somewhere less hellmouthy.

I recall someone who used this to explain why so many residents of Sunnydale were Caucasian, with few if any blacks and Hispanics. His explanation was that those two groups were smart, and got out once they realised that the town was on a hellmouth. :)


[> [> [> It is our world -- Max, 12:51:19 06/14/01 Thu

You can run from evil, but when you run evil seems to have a way of finding you.

Buffy ran, became "Anne", evil found her.

Cordelia ran, moved to LA. Didn't think she would have anything to do with all the evil things again. Wrong.

(I loved when she realized that that guy who she though might give her a job was a Vampire. You are a vampire. I am from Sunnydale. I know Vampires.)

Evil might be concentrated in Sunnydale, but its everywhere.

Perhaps it would be a good episode to have one of the Scoobies move (perhaps to a "planned community") only to find that they liked it better in Sunnydale and move back.

I think if one of the Scoobies decided to "give it up" the same thing would happen to them that happened to Buffy. Evil will find them and they would be forced to run back to their friends for help.

By the way one of Dawn's friends is an African American, not that should matter any. It is too bad how people keep focusing on race.


[> Re: The Scoobies as a military unit -- Max, 12:38:10 06/14/01 Thu

"Dealing with the conflicting demands of work and children is difficult at the best of times. How would the Scoobies deal with people who might get at them through their children? What do people think?"

I have often thought about this.

In Star Trek, parents who have their kids on the Enterprise with them (where anything could happen).

A more real world example would be Military Brats. Or missionaries who have kids and bring them out along into the jungles or wherever.

Is it right for them to put their kids in harms way like that? Sure they might feel a duty to their country, their religion, the federation, but isn't their first duty to their children.

And here is even a darker example. People who harbored Jewish families during Nazi Germany. If they were caught, it wouldn't only be they who suffer, but if they had children, they would suffer as well.

It is one thing for me to do something noble and put my life and my safety at risk, but do I have the right to put my children's lives and safety at risk in our to do what in My opinion I think is right? Should they have to pay for my crusade? Even for the most noblest of causes, should I put that ahead of the safety of my children? Or should the lives and safety of my children be first and foremost, which therefore prevents me from taking the risks for "the good fight" that I would otherwise sacifice myself for.


[> [> Re: The Scoobies as a military unit -- Max, 12:40:36 06/14/01 Thu

It is one thing for me to do something noble and put my life and my safety at risk, but do I have the right to put my children's lives and safety at risk in order to do what in My opinion I think is right?

(sorry for the typo)
Knights of Byzantium--origins? -- SingedCat, 18:52:43 06/12/01 Tue

OK, this may have been dealt with on the list, but if so I haven't seen it. Did we decide just who the h*ll the Knights of Byzantium are? I ask because up til now everything Joss has created has had the most beautifully worked out logic to it, and this seems like an anomaly to me. In the middle of California come these Knight guys, apparent throwbacks from time, who take the trouble to wear armour (not only antiquated but dangerously hot for this clime), and have the resources to transport trained horses in large numbers to ride, but apparently have no knowledge of firearms, explosives, Kevlar--or cars, all of which are cheaper, easier, more effective for their purposes-- and attract much less attention. Whatsupwitdat?

Help me out here, people-- Demons I can see getting into all this armour-wearing, no-car thing; they are very hand-to-hand, no-tech, essence -oriented, and have the societies of different dimensions backing them up, not to mention a handicap when it comes to walking into a sporting goods store and buying stuff. But who are these Byzantium guys? They are human, as much Spike head-clutching attests to, but where do they come from? My only clue is they seemed to know the monks who created Dawn pretty well. I've seen all the episodes, and they never tell where these guys are from.

Theory-- They are from the past? They were sent hundreds of years forward in time, a few at a time (Which accounts for their cumulative appearance throughout the season)to fulfil a prophecy about the Beast and her rising. That's all I got, and it feels pretty thin. Please help-- this makes no sense to me and now my head is all spinny.


[> Re: Knights of Byzantium--origins? -- Wisewoman, 19:08:29 06/12/01 Tue

I think we did discuss this a while back...my theory was that these guys are human, but from a different dimension, perhaps Glory's hellgod dimension. We know from Fred's situation on Angel that it's possible for humans to exist in other dimensions, and my take on it was that the KoB had leaked through a long time ago, and stayed at that level of technology.

Okay, we can probably shoot holes all through that theory, but it's a start...


[> Re: Knights of Byzantium--origins? -- AK-UK, 19:23:26 06/12/01 Tue

Welcome to the weird and wonderful world of "Doing Joss Whedon's work for him", but beware; this way madness lies.

The brutally simple answer to your question is that nobody in the buffyverse likes to use a gun if they can possibly avoid it. I believe this is because the powers that be are playing some warped game with their evil counterparts, based on an old scoring system. The more ancient the weapon you use to kill with, the better your score. Thus, using an uzi to kill Buffy and the SG would get you nil points, using a crossbow gets you forty points, and using the ten thousand year old sword of Arhigan gets you five hundred points and a health pack.

That's my theory and I'm sticking with it.


[> [> Hey! .....I have this neat magic clause.....:):):):):) -- Rufus, 19:54:00 06/12/01 Tue

Anything I can't explain in the world by Joss falls into my magic clause.......


[> [> [> Re: Magic Claws? Where can I get a set? -- Anthony8, 18:43:40 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> I have magic claws, you can't have them, but I also have a magic clause...........:):):):) -- Rufus, 19:15:30 06/14/01 Thu

The magic clause you may use to your hearts content, it explains the unexplainable.


[> [> [> [> [> Okay...So what do your magic claws do, and why can't I have some too? -- Anthony8, 17:40:28 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> Like Angel, I have to preserve my special nature........... -- Rufus, 23:55:29 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> Re: LOL AK-UK! -- Dedalus, 07:20:22 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> Re: Knights of Byzantium--origins? -- Liam, 11:27:07 06/13/01 Wed


Your theory about why hardly anyone in the Buffyverse uses conventional weaponry is as good a one as I've come across. My view is that it started because it wouldn't have done to have a 16 year old girl walking around with firearms, although people in Sunnydale seem to have no problems with her carrying an ax or a crossbow, also lethal weapons.

Looking at the series, I've felt like Scott Evil offering to shoot Austin Powers and Vanessa Kensington. It would have been _so easy_ for the bad guys to shoot Buffy and her friends. They don't even need to kill her; they could turn her into a vegetable on a life support machine, all the Scoobies then torn between the desire to keep her alive and the need for Buffy to die so that another slayer can be called.


[> [> [> Re: Knights of Byzantium--origins? -- darrenK, 16:11:49 06/13/01 Wed

I think the KoB will be explained in a future season. After all, THE KEY LIVES!



[> Re: Knights of Byzantium--origins? -- Cern, 08:00:25 06/13/01 Wed

I figured the Knights were like the Rangers on Babylon 5-an ancient order devoted to stopping a powerful evil force.

As for swords as opposed to guns, most Demons dont seem to die from gunshots, and its easier and more efficient to decapitate someone with a sword than an AK47. (trust me on that...)

as for the horses, i have no idea. But at least we got to hear Tara say "Horsies!!!"


[> [> Conventional Weaponry and Demon Psychology -- Singed Cat, 12:12:22 06/13/01 Wed

I have a really good theory having to do with the guns vs knives thing, and why Buffy's enemies don't use them --much.

It has to do with Essence.

In sacred combat (According to the stuff I've read in Shamanism), especially with supernatural creatures, it's not a test of flat strength against strength. It's your Essence verses theirs.. The part of yourself that goes out of your body. The withered little guy in the woods doesn't look like he can hurt a fly-- meet him on the astral plane and he's a vital force, rippling with power. You fight like that, and you may use a magical weapon to do a little damage in a special case, but ideally you get the **most** force by using your own hands--your own powerful essence. The Slayer uses her powerful essence to fight, but that's not the point-- supernatural creatures are essence-based-- they're savage, and their instincts tell them to use their claws, their teeth-- it's the prevaling custom among them, born of raw impulse. Human things are distant to them, a shadow--unimportant. What in the world should you shoot a guy for when you can tear him apart and drink his life?

My point is that creatures go where their natures direct them.

Now Mr. Trick was something of an anomaly-- perhaps the most human-oriented vampire we've seen since Spike. He used guns--he liked them. He understood corporate culture, and retained much of his knowledge from his life. Had he lived he could have been a big shot with Wolfram & Hart, who could have used someone just like him. But in the clinches even he couldn't resist throwing away his gun and seeing what the Slayer had in her-- and see if maybe he could taste it.

My next point is that these supernatural creatures don't just fight hand-to-hand because they haven't got a gun-- there's something in their natures that *appreciates* it, *likes* it-- tells them *this* is the way to do it every time they fight, the way to the enemy's essence. I could see where that would be hard to resist.

Corrollary point: Your essence is your confidence, your inner strength, your conviction and your will to live. These things are all greatly reduced by psychological and spiritual warfare -- which may explain its use by the more thoughtful demons. Looked at from this perspective, I'd say it all makes a lot of sense.


[> [> Also got to hear Buffy say "Aim for the Horsies"............ -- Rufus, 14:42:39 06/13/01 Wed

Which we all know is just....so....wrong....:):):):)
If Vampires do not breathe how did Angel blow that powder into the demon's face in Blind Date? -- Halcyon, 03:12:29 06/13/01 Wed


[> Re: If Vampires do not breathe how did Angel blow that powder into the demon's face in Blind Date? -- Humanitas, 08:27:07 06/13/01 Wed

It's not so much that vampires Don't breathe, but that they don't need to breathe to stay alive. Clearly the lungs and such still work, or they wouldn't be able to speak. At least, that's the impression I have gotten.


[> [> Re: If Vampires do not breathe how did Angel blow that powder into the demon's face in Blind Date? -- vampire hunter D, 11:17:46 06/13/01 Wed

Well, if that's true, then why couldn't Angel have performed mouth-to-mouth resuccitation on Buffy when she drowned?


[> [> [> Re: If Vampires do not breathe how did Angel blow that powder into the demon's face in Blind Date? -- Dedalus, 13:08:18 06/13/01 Wed

Well, it has always seemed to me that vamps can mimic all the functions of a human body. They just can't ... well, use them to any affect.

It's like when Angel told Buffy he couldn't produce children ... he can have sex, he just can't ... his ... you know what I mean - wouldn't work. It wasn't functional.

A vamp can mimic breathing without actually breathing.


[> [> [> voyeurism or something else? -- pocky, 18:15:25 06/13/01 Wed

I agree. If vampires can *really* breathe--which they can, it's been shown many times--why didn't Angel try reviving buffy?

Okie, so it's either Angel got a little horny and wanted to see Xander's mouth on Buffy.

Or--and I think this one is more plausible. lol OR Angel didn't want Buffy to live. From what i remember, Angel didn't even plan on going after Buffy to help her defeat the Master. So basically, he was waiting for Buffy to die. But how can he do that--he loves her! True, true, but we all know that the love between Angel and Buffy causes both of them a large amount of pain. Since it was just early in their relationship, maybe Angel wanted to sever the bond before things got deeper--more intense.

And I'm babbling. Feel free to continue my fragmented train of thought ^_^'.



[> [> [> [> Something else! -- Rob, 06:45:44 06/15/01 Fri

These "breathing" questions are all answered in "The Monster Book" by Christopher Golden, which is one of the official Buffy books. It explains all of Joss' vampire rules. One of them is that a vampire's body can mimic human bodily functions (breathing, having sex, etc). A vampire does not actually breathe oxygen though. Therefore, Angel's breath could not have saved Buffy's life, because there's no oxygen in it. That's why he could not revive her. That's also why things can happen in the Buffyverse like Spike smoking cigarettes, etc. If you wanna read where I got that from, it's the first page in the "Vampires" chapter in "The Monster Book". I think these rules are also listed in "The Watcher's Guide" in the "Buffyverse Mythology" section also.


[> Does Spike get nicotine from his cigarettes? -- Cleanthes, 13:49:15 06/13/01 Wed


[> [> Can Harmony use sunless tanners? -- Greta, 13:58:11 06/13/01 Wed
Saturn Awards for JM and BtVS! -- Little One, 08:58:50 06/13/01 Wed

FYI, On Tuesday night, BtVS won the Saturn Award for Best Network Television Series. It beat out Voyager among others. Alyson Hannigan and Michelle Trachtenberg were both nominated for Best Supporting Actress in a Television Series as well as Juliet Landau from Angel, however, they lost to Jerri Ryan from Voyager.

James Marsters was named best supporting actor.

More info can be found at either http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/bpihw/20010612/en/rated_xmen_film_leads_with_6_saturn_nods_1.html Or http://www.trektoday.com/news/130601_01.shtml

Join me in congratulating JM and the entire cast and crew (not to mention Joss!) for their win! YEEHAA!


[> Re: Saturn Awards for JM and BtVS! -- Dedalus, 13:11:10 06/13/01 Wed

Now, we must all lock arms and do the victory dance of joy! Anybody know any cheers?

(Too bad Michelle or Alyson didn't get it though - Michelle in particular has been a welcome asset this season)


[> [> Re: Saturn Awards for JM and BtVS! -- AK-UK, 09:55:36 06/14/01 Thu

Michelle T could have wrecked the show (all the ingredients for disaster were there) but instead she has, along with James Marsters, been the best thing about this season.

I see a lot of awards in that girls future.

Amy the Rat -- vampire hunter D, 11:53:14 06/13/01 Wed

Am I the only one who thinks it's about time they turned Amy back into a girl? It has been over two years now, and there is no way you can convince me that Willow still isn't powerful enough to undo whatever Amy did. Something had to have happened to the actress, that's the only reason I can think of to her a rodent.


[> Re: Amy the Rat -- thisbe, 23:29:13 06/13/01 Wed

Good point about Willow. It is a bit improbable to have Amy still stuck, but it is a great running gag. I was telling my mom just today about it - Amy's habi-trail and bliping back to humanity for 20 seconds during that one episode. Maybe they're holding her in reserve, we're lousy with witches right now, and out one werewolf. Can we get a ghost, or maybe a ghoul? A zombie would be nice.

Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Wiccagrrl, 23:05:20 06/13/01 Wed

Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party

Well, guess I get to go first :) Hope this is what people had in mind, I had fun working on it.

To save a bit of time, I'm gonna start with a Bio I wrote for the BC& S Board Book of Tara. A bit of background, some of my feelings about her at the time. This was written after Family, but well before the Body and the events at the end of the season which really give us a lot more insight into Tara, her backstory, and the strength of the W/T relationship.

We first see Tara, an incredibly shy yet endearing witch, and fellow student at UC Sunnydale, in the episode Hush. She is at an on-campus Wicca meeting that Willow is attending. Even though it's obvious that Willow is dissatisfied with the group as a whole, there seems to be a connection between the two. When the Gentlemen come to town, Tara seeks Willow out, hoping they can do a spell to help the situation. They aren't the ones to stop the Gentlemen, but they do manage, by working together, to magically send a vending machine flying across the room to block a door, keeping them safe and showing just how powerful they can be when working together.

From that point on, the two start spending a lot of time together, working on their magic and developing a very strong bond. Just how strong is put to the test in New Moon Rising, when Oz returns, hoping to try and reunite with Willow. Not only does this force Willow to make a very difficult choice between her old flame and her current girlfriend, but the circumstances also lead her to clarify to Buffy the nature of Willow's relationship with Tara. In the end, while still obviously caring very much for Oz, she makes it clear that the one she loves and wants to be with is Tara. If there was any doubt before this ep that Willow and Tara were involved romantically, there is none after.

Once the Scooby Gang becomes aware that they are involved, they seem to (after a little awkwardness) accept Tara into the group. But she still seems to feel a bit like an outsider, and at least Buffy and Xander. Until her Father, brother, and cousin come to Sunnydale. In one of the earlier eps where we see Tara, she sabotages a spell that is intended to disclose any demons in Sunnydale. In this episode, we discover why. Her father had told her that, when she turned 20, her demon side would emerge. On her 20th birthday, they come to town, intending to persuade her to come back home, and force her to if she will not. She is frightened, and does a spell to hide her demon side from the Scoobies. It backfires, leaving them unable to see some demons who have come to attack them. It was unintentional, but does put everyone in great danger. She says she'll leave with her family, figuring she's probably destroyed any chance of acceptance with Willow and her friends- and is amazed when they stand up for her. Eventually it's disclosed that she isn't a demon at all. It was, as Spike put it, a family legend to keep the womenfolk in line.

After this, her place in the group seems assured and she seems much more comfortable with them. Her relationship with Willow has remained strong and she has been developing friendships with the rest of the gang, especially Giles who she seems to honestly like and admire. She has also been helping out more and more with the magic and with researching the occult, and with helping Willow's growing interest in magic. She's come a long way, managing to overcome a home environment that was at least verbally and very possibly physically abusive, she's regained her self confidence, is apparently putting herself through school, and has found a place in this world where she can be loved and accepted.

Since then, we've learned that Tara's mother died when she was young (17) and it can be inferred that it was a long illness (her saying so firmly at first to Buffy that it wasn't sudden, the look on her face when Xander is ranting about the evil doctors) We've seen her really act as a supportive/comforting force in the scoobs, being there for Willow, Buffy, and Dawn as they deal with Joyce's death. And we saw a real act of heroism in refusing to tell Glory who the Key was, knowing the consequences. We also got to see Willow and Tara's first fight, where both women, IMO, allowed their insecurities to get the better of them. And we got to see just how much Willow loves Tara, taking care of her, knowing she may never get better- putting everything on the line in going up against Glory not once, but twice, and eventually bringing "her girl" back.

I love the W/T relationship, but I have come to really like and admire Tara in her own right. She's not particularly flashy or self-assured. She's awkward at times. But I think she's beautiful and courageous and strong in her own way. And she's really been blossoming as a person. She's come so far from the frightened, painfully shy girl in Hush. And for me it's been fun to watch.

Tara hasn't always been an easy sell, for a variety of reasons. She's quiet, and shy, we've had glimpses of "who she really is", but she's a secondary character and therefore not always very well developed. And she was coming in as the same-sex love interest to a well-established character whose previous love interest was very, very popular. I happen to think that Amber and Aly have both done a fabulous job with these characters and the storyline, and I think that, while not always being on the front burner, Tara and the W/T relationship have been progressing very nicely.

I'm also anxious to see where the relationship is headed. I think that there may be some strife, and it's likely that some of the issues brought up in their first fight will come up again (most likely, IMO, the issue of their very different approaches to magick) I also think Tara's probably going to be key to helping Willow from going over the edge when it comes to her magick, to keeping her grounded. Willow's gotten very, very powerful, and at times seems rather reckless and/or unfocused when it comes to using that power. Tara seems to have a slightly better grasp on why certain rules and boundaries are in place, and the consequences for misusing these gifts. There's a lot of story left to tell with Tara.

Many of you have probably seen this, but I just felt it showed so much grace under fire, that I wanted to add the post Amber made to the Bronze after NMR (This was posted May 4th, 2000)

Amber Benson says: (Thu May 4 00:00:30 2000 I've been thinking a lot about what people said about Tara on the internet after the last episode aired. At first, I was very hurt. I tried to disassociate myself from feeling bad by saying: This is Tara that they are talking about, not me. But I couldn't. I guess it hurts when someone calls you ugly or makes nasty comments about your weight whether or not it is really YOU they are referring to. I am just a human being and I feel like I deserve to be treated as such. I also feel that Tara deserves to be treated with a little more kindness and compassion. Yes, I am not a STICK. I am a NORMAL, HEALTHY (I was gonna say Girl, but...) WOMAN. I have breasts and hips and I am very happy that they are part of me. I weigh 118 and I am 5'4". If you saw me in real life, you would think I was on the thin side. But on tv, next to my very petite costars, I do like heavier. I am PROUD to be NORMAL. A body is a beautiful thing to waste. Believe me, I have seen enough of my friends and peers waste away to NOTHING so that they could work in this industry. So that they could perpetuate the LIE that ANOREXIA is Beautiful. IT IS NOT. YOU ARE BEAUTIFUL. ALL OF YOU. Just for being. You all can judge me and Tara for being 'fat', 'gay' and 'shy'. I suppose that my being on tv gives you that right. But I DO NOT have to read what you say. I have enjoyed being a lurker. But my feelings just can't take the criticism. Those of you (you know who you are) with sensitivity will understand. Thank you for sticking up for us. Tara and I both appreciate it. I think that being a beautiful, heavy, lesbian witch rocks! No matter what happens I'm glad I get the chance to walk in Tara's shoes. All you girls and guys out there who think that starving, binging and purging and exercising yourself to DEATh is gonna change how you feel inside-- It's NOT. Don't buy inot all the media crap. Love yourself for who you are, not what others THINK you should look like. It's DEFINITELY more important in this life to love each other despite our imperfections. I hope this works. Still not sure how to do this whole posting thing...


[> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Morgane, 07:47:24 06/14/01 Thu

Nice posts and great analysis.

There is one thing that I'd notice about Tara that you didn't speak of, though. Her idealism and her maturity.

Being shy is a thing, a lot of people are shy and with what she appeared to have gone through, it appears to me quite normal actually. But anyone noticed how much she's the more mature of the scoobies. Even more than Giles sometimes. A lot of exemple come to my mind : in Yoko Factor, when scoobies start to have a fight, she just take Anya to the bathroom because she knew that they had to deal with their issues by their own at first. In the Body, she really is the only one who knows how to deal with death, and how to comfort people. Not only because she didn't knew Joyce for a very long time but because she had learn from her life experiences. Then in Forever, when she did her little speach about witches responsabilities, and about what can be done and what cannot, and how to deal with death, that was quite mature, even more if we compare to Willow's reaction. "You make a place for her in your heart. It's sort of like she becomes a part of you. " "Magic can't be used to alter the natural order of things." "Because witches can't be allowed to alter the fabric of life for selfish reasons. Wiccans took an oath a long time ago to honor that." She always wonders about consequences of acts, so I believe that, if Willow has to get a little darker next season, she will be the one who'll help her to get back. Ok, I agree that in Family she didn't act very maturily but everyone has a dark side and can lose control about one specific thing.

Then her idealism. Well, I'll come back with some of the same scene because these were quite her strongest moments but I'll had some others.

She appears to really believe that respecting rules and morality will make the world a better one. The first scene that comes to my mind is in Forever. The exact same speach about witches is very very idealistic. She has the power to do things that could lower Dawn's pain but she believes that if witches doesn't follow rules, the world would get upside down. she's against sellfishness which is idealist too, because everyone are sellfish, at least a little. She prooved what whe said in Tough Love. Everybody would have understand if she would have give up Dawn under torture. I mean Giles did in Becoming part 2. I believe that at a point, a human body cannot stand torture without giving up. But she didn't.

I know there is a lot more things to say about it, but I'll maybe come back later coz I really don't have anymore time now.


[> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Marie, 08:10:31 06/14/01 Thu

" in Family she didn't act very maturily but everyone has a dark side and can lose control about one specific thing. "

May I disagree slightly with this? I don't think this was a question of maturity, but a result of her desire not to lose her 'new' family. Obviously, the way she was brought up was the influence here - she desperately didn't want the Scoobies, and especially Willow, to find out that she (as she mistakenly thought) was a demon, and, once again, we are shown that magic is not something to be used hastily. The spell Tara used could have had fatal consequences, and she didn't think it through, any more than Willow did in Something Blue'. I don't think it was her 'dark' side, but her frightened side which came to the fore.

Wiccagirl - loved the first 'Anniversary Post'!



[> [> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Morgane, 08:22:16 06/15/01 Fri

Well, that's exactly what I meant by maturity, she didn't think about consequences. She just lost control. I don't say that it isn't normal, but still she should have know that having a demon side isn't a reason for rejection in the scoobie gang and especially for Willow! She knew about Oz, but still, she was afraid. I just believe that was her weakest moment, as Willow in Something Blue actually.


[> [> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Victor Infante, 08:36:27 06/17/01 Sun

Tara only messes up when she can't give herself a little distance from a situation. With Joyce dying, she had the ability to step back a second, and allow herself to be there for everyone who needed her (which, I guess, was almost everybody.) Understandably, she was a little less objective when it came to Wllow or her family, causing her to react poorly. She can understand what's going on in other people's hearts a lot better than what's going on inn her own. (Not uncommon for basically empathic people.)


[> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- AK-UK, 08:15:50 06/14/01 Thu

Thank you Wiccagrrl. You obviously have a great deal of affection for Tara, and it is nice to hear a well thought out post which promotes her positive aspects. I'd like to throw in a few more points to consider.

Tara is, in many ways, a conservative character. She operates in the existing framework, not wishing to disturb the status quo. When we first see her, she is in the Sunnydale University Wicca group. Even though the group are obviously not interested in magic, Tara sticks with them. She would rather conserve her postion (however lowly it might be) than risk losing it by speaking out, even though she is learning nothing from them. We can see the same dynamics when we look at her approach to the scooby gang. She does not like to talk about her feelings of isolation, (broaching the subject to Willow makes her feel very uncomfortable), and prefers to stand on the sidelines thumb-wrestling with Dawn whilst the gang investigate the murder scene (she actually refers to herself as a non-scooby in "The Real Me"). This need to follow existing rules and perceived group norms is also present in her view of magic. In "Forever" she tells Dawn that ressurecting the dead isn't possible, and when conradicted by Willow explains that it isn't possible because Wiccans took an oath not to perform such spells. To Tara the oath is a tie that binds her options. She can only work within the given parameters established hundreds of years ago (contrast her attitude with Willow's who, whilst agreeing with Tara vocally, surreptitiously helps Dawn).

The crucial episode to look at when dealing with Tara is "Family". We can clearly see how Tara became the woman she was. Imagine what it must have been like to be told that you aren't human. That you have a demon inside you, that you are, to some extent, evil from birth. That, at some point, that demon will come forth and that you will not be able to prevent it by yourself......you will need your family. What do you do? You hide, you draw back and avoid attention. You try to learn about magic. You seek out groups, try to make yourself a new family, people who wont be shocked and disgusted by what you are. You don't get angry, you don't raise your voice because there is an evil demon in you just waiting to burst out.

So, when her blood family come looking for her, she acts true to her form. She allows her arguments to be beaten down, she accepts the prevailing group view, and is prepared to go home with her family, no matter how unhappy it makes her feel, until Willow and the rest of the SG's show her that she has a new family, a new group she can be part of.

We can see the change in her attitude in "Shadow" where she is able to interact with the rest of the group as an equal, giving her views on the Magic Box yellow pages advert ("Catchy in a hard to say type way"), and contradicting Giles' view on Glory (telling him she thinks Glory is something very old, rather than something new). She does call Giles "Mr Giles" (shades of Joyce there), but whether this is because she doesn't feel entirely comfortable, or whether she is just being over-ly polite is debatable.

We see her compassion and willingness to listen in "The Body" and "Forever" offering emotional support to both Buffy and Dawn (maybe deserving the title "comfortador" more than Xander).

Then, in "Tough Love" we are reminded of how fragile Tara's new found confidence is. In her argument with Willow we see a number of her fears laid bare. She is scared of being abandoned by Willow, afraid that Willow is just going through a phase, and that Willow doesn't feel what Tara feels. More worringly she fears where Willow's powers are leading her. Her first fear, fear of rejection, is answered quite beautifully in "The Gift" (who amongst us didn't feel a warm glow when Willow told Tara that she would always find her?), but her second fear might yet prove to be a valid one. **Little bit more to follow**


[> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party **little bit more** -- AK-UK, 09:27:28 06/14/01 Thu

And lets not overlook the fact that Tara FACED DOWN A GOD in "Tough Love", even when she was in incredible pain and knew that she would lose her sanity if she didn't cooperate. Brave woman.

Tara, like Oz, provides support for Willow, and is able to help her grow as a magic user in ways that Oz couldn't. She can help Willow use her natural talents, and prevent her from going too far down paths best avoided, as long as she doesn't allow herself to be ignored.

If we step outside the box for a moment we can also appreciate the other qualities Tara brings to the show. She is different. Her body shape and her sexuality are rarely seen on American TV, and the writers of BtVS should be applauded for bringing her onto the show.

And yet........

Well, it's when I step outside the box that I begin to have problems with Tara. I truly believe that the character has been let down by pedastrian acting and awful writing. It really annoys me to see a character with such great potential used in such a sloppy, cliche-ridden way.


Tara does seem to operate as an empowerer; someone who strengthens others (augmenting Willows telekenetic abilities in "Hush" and "The Gift"), avoids conflcts (refusing to get involved in the Anya/Willow argument in "Triangle"), and helps to heal wounds (giving comfort to Buffy in "The Body"). An Earth Mother to Willow's Sky Father, perhaps?

Once again, thanks to Wiccagrrl for kicking off the 1st anniversary celebrations with such a nice first post.

But where's the birthday cake? And the balloons? And the party poppers, and the pressies, huh?




[> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Malandanza, 22:05:56 06/16/01 Sat

"The crucial episode to look at when dealing with Tara is "Family"...So, when her blood family come looking for her, she acts true to her form. She allows her arguments to be beaten down, she accepts the prevailing group view, and is prepared to go home with her family, no matter how unhappy it makes her feel...Then, in "Tough Love" we are reminded of how fragile Tara's new found confidence is. In her argument with Willow we see a number of her fears laid bare. She is scared of being abandoned by Willow, afraid that Willow is just going through a phase, and that Willow doesn't feel what Tara feels. More worryingly she fears where Willow's powers are leading her...Well, it's when I step outside the box that I begin to have problems with Tara. I truly believe that the character has been let down by pedastrian acting and awful writing. It really annoys me to see a character with such great potential used in such a sloppy, cliche-ridden way. "

I also believe that Tara's most important episodes are "Family" and "Tough Love;" however, I disagree that Amber's acting is "pedestrian." The fight in "Tough Love" between the women was more intense because of Tara's subdued, meek response -- a stark contrast to the accusations, innuendoes, and final melodramatic storming out by Willow. To me, this scene demonstrated that Tara has a long way to go before she escapes from her upbringing -- I see little difference between the way Willow treated Tara and the way Tara's family treated her. Tara escaped from one abusive situation to find herself in another.

Am I reading too much into the exchange? Well, there are other times when I question whether Willow was as dedicated to the relationship as Tara was -- in "Triangle", for example, Willow and Anya are fighting over Xander. In IWMTLY, we saw this exchange (regarding April -- Taken from Pyche's Transcripts):

XANDER: Somehow I don't think a girl that looks like that's gonna be lonely for too long. WILLOW: Definitely not. (Willow grins and nods, then notices Tara, who frowns and folds her arms.) WILLOW: Oh, not me, I, I was just saying, a pretty girl like that, there's always someone lurking around, looking for some action.

And in "The Gift":

XANDER: Smart chicks are soooo hot. (looking fondly at Anya) WILLOW: You couldn't have figured that out in tenth grade? Willow and Xander exchange a smile.

(Xander is flirting with Anya, but Willow is flirting with Xander) I would say that even without knowing the Xander/Willow history (Clothes Fluke era) that Tara has plenty to be apprehensive about in her relationship with Willow. Furthermore, a Willow/Tara break-up would cut Tara off from all her friends (as happened with Cordelia and Oz). She has severed ties with her own family and has no visible means of support -- she is dependent upon Willow in many respects.

Perhaps the ordeal that Tara and Willow have just gone through will bring them closer together and the conflicts will melt away. But perhaps Willow triumphing over Glory by bringing Tara back to reality will eliminate whatever parity was left in the relationship.

I have like Amber's acting. She is a beautiful person, but manages to convey the impression that Tara is awkward and ungainly in many instances. In "Who Am I," especially, I felt bad for her when eerily perceptive Faith (in Buffy's body) reduced her to quivering wreck. Sure, her acting isn't Olivier, but Olivier was always a bit over the top for my tastes.


[> Still waters run deep -- Little One, 09:36:06 06/14/01 Thu

I also feel that a key component to Tara's character is her yearning for acceptance.

In her family, females are told that they are part demon. Growing up, surrounded by that stigma surely affected how she was treated by others, both her own age and older. She was surely taunted and teased by brothers and cousins while older family members treated her like a second-class citizen. She felt worthless. Her mother was most likely the only shining light in her life, offering her understanding and attention and when her mother died, Tara was once again beaten down. If we had seen her character while her mother was alive perhaps she would be vastly different. But a few years of no one to turn to for a kind word or even a physical touch of acceptance taught her that she wasn't one of the worthy members of society and that her lot was simply to stand on the outside looking in. As we saw in Family, even the female members of her family treated her with jibes because she would continue to try to have people love her. She had hope that one day someone would look at her with love and acceptance and her female family members resented it. They tore with rapacious claws at the shaky walls surrounding her hope not only because such hope had long since been beat out of them, but also because it was kinder to destroy it instead of allowing her to continue in servitude with the vain hope that she mattered.

Suppose one day her brother or father smiled at her and said thank you for some small act that she did, perhaps a cake that she made. She could have opened herself up, started talking, trying to suggest other recipes that she could try, other occasions, and so on. They would look at her first with amusement, allowing her to continue for a few minutes, then they would put her back in her place. She would learn not to offer her opinion. Not to open herself up. But she is simply not the sort of person who can harden herself against family and so she would continue to hope. She would be the dog who's been kicked repeatedly but still fawns, desperate and pathetic, over her master.

We see all of this in her character when she thinks Willow has chosen Oz over her. A grim acceptance that once again she tried to fool herself into thinking she was worth something, that she could be loved. And she was so desperate not to let the stigma she grew up with to destroy this love that she screwed up that demon-finding spell.

Family was a turning point for Tara because it showed her that she is accepted as who she is. And that there is no secret that her friends would not accept. They are most likely the first and only friends she has ever had and this shows in her physical uncomfortableness around them. She fidgets, doesn't know where to stand, sit, always wants to help, but doesn't want to offer her opinion because surely the great Scoobies know much more than she could offer. And some part of her feels like their pet, not like truly one of them. Before Family, she dressed in drab, oversized clothing and it is only recently that she has started to personalize herself. Her confidence is improving.

Willow's love helps her overcome her feelings of worthlessness but she feels that it is not permanent. One day Willow will wake up and realize that she could do better. And Tara is happy for every moment she has with Willow until then. Haven't any of us been in a relationship that we felt was out of our league? We don't want to argue, differ in opinion or even wear any clothes that might not be liked. Basically we don't want to rock the boat in case that one small act is what brings the other person back to the reality that we are basically losers. I know I've felt like that. It is only the love of a great man (and don't anybody dare to tell him that or there'll be no living with him!) that's given me the freedom to live beyond the confines I've set for myself. I see a lot of myself in Tara and hope that Willow's love allows her to become more than herself, to touch that inner core of limitless potential that she had blocked off for fear of failure and rejection.

Tara is a deceptively quiet character. But, as my father says, silent waters run deep. She has the complex nuances that tug and wind themselves into your affection.

I also find it interesting the choice of name. Tara is home. It was the ancient hall of high kings in Ireland, their mecca, where wisdom and grandness lived. It is also, spelled Terra, Earth. She is the earth mother, pure and deep, simple yet beautiful. I hope that is a sign of what her character will become.

Sorry for rambling, I'm sure most of this has already been said and better than I could of (see, told you there was a lot of Tara in me ;-).


[> [> Re: Still waters run deep -- Wiccagrrl, 10:02:40 06/14/01 Thu

I also find it interesting the choice of name. Tara is home. It was the ancient hall of high kings in Ireland, their mecca, where wisdom and grandness lived. It is also, spelled Terra, Earth. She is the earth mother, pure and deep, simple yet beautiful. I hope that is a sign of what her character will become.

Kinda reminds me of a very nice quote from a W/T fanfic that was posted at he Kittenboard. (Sorry, I don't remember who the author was, but I do remember the quote, especially because a couple of people were using it as a sig line.)

It was set after Tough Love but before Tara's been restored. And Willow's crying. And Tara says:

"A Willow is a tree that weeps, but Tara is firmer and will hold."


[> [> [> Re: Still waters run deep -- Solitude1056, 17:03:15 06/14/01 Thu

Hm, I thought of a different Tara.

So, to save energy *cough*cough*, I'm skipping the formalities & quoting from the online Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Tara Tibetan Sgrol-ma, Buddhist saviour-goddess with numerous forms, widely popular in Nepal, Tibet, and Mongolia. She is the feminine counterpart of the bodhisattva ("Buddha-to-be") Avalokiteshvara. According to popular belief, she came into existence from a tear of Avalokiteshvara, which fell to the ground and formed a lake. Out of its waters rose up a lotus, which, on opening, revealed the goddess. Like Avalokiteshvara, she is a compassionate, succouring deity who helps men "cross to the other shore." She is the protectress of navigation and earthly travel, as well as of spiritual travel along the path to Enlightenment.

In Tibet she is believed to be incarnate in every pious woman, and the two wives--a Chinese princess and a Nepali princess--of the first Buddhist king of Tibet, Srong-brtsan-sgam-po, were identified with the two major forms of Tara. The White Tara (Sanskrit: Sitatara; Tibetan: Sgrol-dkar) was incarnated as the Chinese princess. She symbolizes purity and is often represented standing at the right hand of her consort, Avalokiteshvara, or seated with legs crossed, holding a full-blown lotus. She is generally shown with a third eye. Tara is also sometimes shown with eyes on the soles of her feet and the palms of her hands (then she is called "Tara of the Seven Eyes," a form of the goddess popular in Mongolia).

The Green Tara (Sanskrit: Shyamatara; Tibetan: Sgrol-ljang) was believed to be incarnated as the Nepali princess. She is considered by some to be the original Tara and is the female consort or sexual partner of Avalokiteshvara. She is generally shown seated on a lotus throne with right leg hanging down, wearing the ornaments of a bodhisattva and holding the closed blue lotus (utpala).

The white and green Taras, with their contrasting symbols of the full-blown and closed lotus, are said to symbolize between them the unending compassion of the deity who labours both day and night to relieve suffering. Under the influence of Tibetan Lamaism the different forms of Tara multiplied to a traditional 108. Tibetan temple banners frequently show 21 different Taras, coloured white, red, and yellow, grouped around a central green Tara. The figure of the "self-born" Buddha, Amitabha, is often shown in her headdress, as she, like Avalokiteshvara, is considered to be an emanation of Amitabha.

In her ferocious, blue form, invoked to destroy enemies, she is known as Ugra-Tara, or Ekajata; as a red goddess of love, Kurukulla; and as a protectress against snake bite, Janguli. The yellow Bhrkuti is an angry Tara, with frowning brows.


[> [> [> [> Re: Still waters run deep -- verdantheart, 09:25:59 06/15/01 Fri

That's interesting! And it looks like Willow might need a little protection along her path, too.


[> [> [> [> Re: Still waters run deep -- Vickie, 14:23:47 06/15/01 Fri

I don't have your scholarship, but I have heard another variant of this story. That Tara was an earnest spiritual student, who was told that if she persevered, she might earn rebirth as a male and eventually achieve enlightenment.

According to the tale I was told, the young woman immediately took two vows. First, to seek enlightenment and still return to the world, until all sentient beings could join her in bliss (thus becoming a Bhodissatva). Second, to incarnate only in female bodies forever.

This Tara rocks!

Look back on Amber's quote for a moment (Wiccagrrl's initial posting). Any connection?


[> [> [> [> [> Before we run out of time on Tara... :) -- Solitude1056, 13:46:31 06/19/01 Tue

I'm not sure what you mean by tying the Buddhist Tara in with Amber's posting on the Buffy boards. What connection do you see? How do you think it links up with the Colorful Taras? I need a better idea of what you mean before I can keep running with the thread. :)


[> [> Re: Still waters run deep -- cknight, 19:44:53 06/14/01 Thu

Willow could do better? You take one look at Tara's family and you see why she is the type of person she is. I think she didn't want to rock the boat because they are still in the early stages of their relationship. It takes a while before that first fight, and you saw how broken up both of them were after their first fight right before the Glory Brain Suck on Tara.

I don't think Tara is a loser and I don't think your a loser. Also remember Willow really was a lot like Tara is now. maybe Tara just needs the time to grow like Willow did.


[> [> [> Re: Still waters run deep -- Little One, 06:44:53 06/15/01 Fri

I completely agree with you about Tara not being a loser and about Willow not being able to do any better. Though I loved Oz, what Tara and Willow have is tangibly tender and complete. I know I am not a loser and Tara is not one either, I was just trying to use that word to show our negative feelings about ourselves and how they can outweigh the positive, making us feel, well, like losers. And no matter how successful we are in life and love, it's overcoming that perception of ourselves that is paramount. I see in her an inner uncertainty that perhaps her family was right about her (though we know they were not). It's a big albatross to carry around with her and it's really nice to see her overcoming her own perception of herself. She is immensely brave. I'm not sure that I would have the strength of character to keep getting up after being beaten back down by the ones I treasure most, my family. Not to mention, having the strength to not let staying in the closet be an option.

Tara's upbringing surely molded the woman she would become, though I think that without the presence of her mother sheltering and guiding her, she would be hardened and not as open to love. Not to mention, most likely not be as brave as she is. It really is too bad that we never got to meet this woman who instilled such morals and values in Tara.

Basically, I was just trying to show how the character portrays herself. What is her center of gravity and the thoughts and emotions that make her the Tara we know and love. I used to act and direct theatre and so that is my habit of deconstrucing a character - to climb right on in and see how that person sees herself, then analyze how that affects the way she sees the world. Analyzing how others see her is infinitely more difficult for me and I am in awe of the wonderful posts in this discussion. My little grey cells are working overtime trying to keep up!

Solitude, I love that text about the Buddhist saviour-goddess meaning of Tara. I'm sure there's a reason why Joss chose that name and you might have hit the nail on the metaphorical head!


[> [> [> [> Meaning of Tara -- rowan, 16:41:41 06/15/01 Fri

One meaning I saw in Tara's name was...believe it or not...Gone with the Wind. In GWTW, Tara as a plantation symbolizes the eternal strength of the earth. Gaia can survive any hurt, heal any injury, always provide sustenance to the weary, even in her own pain. It is teh home that is always there for us, that lives in our imagination and in our hearts. Tara was the source of Scarlett's inner power. That is, if you buy into the idea that Scarlett was an empowered woman.

Is our Tara perhaps the source of Willow's power and her true home as Tara was for Scarlett?


[> Tara's insecurities -- Wisewoman, 10:43:57 06/14/01 Thu

Thanks, Wiccagrrl, loved your Tara post.

Just want to make sure we don't overlook the obvious: Tara's lesbianism. Sure, the Scoobies accept her, we would expect no less of them, even though they may have been initially *surprised* by Willow's revelation, but that kind of acceptance of sexual preference is probably not the norm in Tara's world. I think you guys must have discussed this before I found ATPoBtVS, the whole Wicca/lesbian analogy thing...the point being, Tara, shy as she is, has been very, very brave in refusing to hide neither her spiritual practice nor her sexuality. She may seem awkward, and stammer and stutter with insecurity, but, boy howdy, she walks her talk!

Just my $.02 ;o)


[> After reading your points I shall skip to my rant........... -- Rufus, 14:04:09 06/14/01 Thu

You tell young women in your family that they are demon in nature so you can have unlimited maid service????? I can't print the rest of my rant because of tender ears and eyes, but the men in Taras family should learn how to "do" for themselves....it is 2001....oh and they can just...bite me.


[> [> Re: After reading your points I shall skip to my rant........... -- Wiccagrrl, 20:38:44 06/14/01 Thu

Well, like most abuse (and I do see her as being abused, at least emotionally- possibly physically) It's all about the control. Tear her down so she's pliable and won't feel she can fight back or say no.


[> Where I'd like to see Tara's character go -- Wisewoman, 18:28:56 06/14/01 Thu

Y,know, I've been thinking about Tara all day at work (obsess, much?) and I know fans often criticize her because her character seems whiney and clingy, and sorta wishy-washy at times (I think someone even said "cardboard" a while back) and I love Tara, but I would really, really like to see her get angry...not just a tiff or a snit type anger, but an I-OWE-YOU-PAIN, all out, no-holds-barred, take-no-prisoners type angry. I imagine it would have to be a similar situation, some kind of immediate threat to Willow, that would cause it. I just think that there's so much under the surface with Tara that's being withheld, and at some point we're going to see her crack, and that moment will be all the more stunning because of how well we will have come to accept her placid character.

Well, I'm hoping, and I'll be thrilled if and when it happens...


[> [> Re: Where I'd like to see Tara's character go -- AK-UK, 18:58:21 06/14/01 Thu

Someone on another board suggested that the show would have been a lot more interesting if Willow had been brain sucked and Tara had gone into bad ass Wicca mode. And you know, they were soooo right! I'd have loved to have seen that. It would have been such a shock to the system....no-one would have seen it coming!

Like I said in my first two posts on this subject, Tara has so much potential, but the writers seem happy to waste it.


[> [> [> Re: Where I'd like to see Tara's character go -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 06:45:54 06/19/01 Tue

I think it was really important that Tara got brainsucked. In 'The Gift' Buffy commented that 'everything was just stripped away'. Tara, having acted as a comforter a lot this season would have been an obvious source of support (if not for Buffy, for Willow, on whom Buffy relies in turn).

I was reminded of this when I thought about 'The Body' and the way Tara just seemed to appear next to Buffy when she was losing hope - it was important that later on, as Buffy got more and more stressed out that there was no comfort / that everything was on the line.

I agree that it is frustrating sometimes when a character seems to remain underdeveloped for a while, but the story has to come first and I think that's what happened here.


[> Yea! The first post for the party....and it's fantastic! :) -- rowan, 19:38:09 06/14/01 Thu


[> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- rowan, 20:53:29 06/14/01 Thu

I really loved reading everyone's posts on Tara. She is one of the characters I really struggle to understand, because it's not really immediately obvious to me what her role in the Buffyverse actually is. She's like an enigma to me.

In some ways, I think she's almost completely defined by her relationship to Willow. Now, I love that relationship. It portrays the the softer and sweeter side of love (which counterbalances Xander/Anya's relationship of earthy sexuality, and Buffy/Angel's relationship of love as pain). But it's hard for me to get a read on her as an individual. The ep that reveals the most about her as an individual is, of course, Family.

Now, this is an ep which takes a direction different than Joss's original plan. At first, Tara was actually to be a demon (or part demon) and this ep would define her history. But Joss made a change, and the ep, instead of defining her in terms of what she is (demonic), defines her in terms of what she's isn't (demonic). So I'm still left with the sense: 'Okay, I know who she isn't. But who is she? Is her only function to serve as Willow's love interest?'

Now I'm wondering if Tara is Joyce's spiritual/symbolic replacement. Joyce functioned IMHO as a grounding maternal force within the Buffyverse. Tara has now begun to articulate some of that same earthly, maternal wisdom. I can see Tara making cocoa for everyone, can't you? Is Tara the Gaia or Demeter of the Buffyverse? And will we eventually see the darker side of her?


[> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Liquidram, 22:45:37 06/14/01 Thu

"I also think Tara's probably going to be key to helping Willow from going over the edge when it comes to her magick, to keeping her grounded."

You basically hit my comment right on here. I think Tara is going to be very instrumental in keeping Willow on the light side. Willow has already proven that she is willing to take chances that could have serious repercussions to protect the people she loves. In doing so, she is becoming far stronger and may reach a point where she can no longer control what she has become. Hopefully, Tara will be able to keep her on the right path.

My only issue with the relationship between the two gals is the sing-song, dippy attitude that became more pronounced in Season 5. Sometimes, I just wanted to knock their heads together and scream "College Girls?? GROW UP ALREADY!" (They especially made me insane in the interview in Checkpoint. I am not convinced they were that naive.)

I love Seth Green. I loved the Oz character, but the sweetness of Willow and Tara's relationship seems more real and the love they have for each other is obvious. However, I still believe that Willow's one-liners, covert looks and side comments to Xander in just about every episode exhibit far more chemistry and love than with either Tara or Oz. First love doesn't always die and I would love to see some conflict in the future between the three of them. (Anya and Xander don't work for me, but that's for another time :0)


[> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rob, 11:28:19 06/15/01 Fri

Yes, I have read all the posts and comments on this thread (took me a good long time lol)...and I don't have any responses to anything in particular written so far, but just some added thoughts. From the very beginning, I never understood why people called Tara a "cardboard" character. Actually, let me change that remark. I do. She is a very low-key character, and a shy one. She has a remarkable inner strength and quiet dignity, but she is not the type of person used to being the center of attention or being in crowds. From childhood, she was made to feel as if she was different, unworthy, which definitely added to her present personality. For a great deal of my childhood, I was the same way. In public, I would very rarely raise my voice above a murmer and always doubted my ability to interact with other people. Most other kids in school do not understand how to deal with a child like this, and so brand them "weird," "loser," etc. as usual because they are different. I think that this non-understanding of shy people extends into adulthood. Many people think someone is being rude, cold, or distant, when in fact the person is just painfully shy. They do not choose to be so. I luckilly have outgrown this and have worked to battle my shyness, as it seems Tara does now. But the fact remains is that I remember clearly how it feels. A character who does not talk a lot does not necessarily make them "cardboard." I find every character on "Buffy" to be extremely multifaceted, and real people to boot. I think a lot of the viewers who react to Tara negatively is a reaction to the same way they feel about shy people they meet in life: they don't understand them and so think they have no personality or depth. As we have seen with Tara, when she is alone with Willow, or once she became more comfortable with the Scooby Gang, she opened up more, has shown her sense of humor and bright personality. She's just more guarded with it. I give the script writers great credit in understanding how to write a quiet character, and Amber Benson even more for being able to convey so much about this character through her eyes and facial reactions. Her face says so much that words do not need to express. That's why I think it was so fitting that she first appeared in "Hush." I believe the character of Tara is very important to the spiritual center of the entire show. She is a calm, loving, maternal figure, whose benevolence has touched all of the characters. And she and Willow's relationship is one of the most touching and healthy ones we are likely to see on television or in the movies for a long time. Rarely do we see people with such unabashed love for each other: the fact that she's a lesbian matters little. Rarely do we see straight people with such passion. The most beautiful moment in the show's history was not, I believe, any of Buffy and Angel's passionate embraces and kisses, but that quietly beautiful scene at the end of "Family," where Tara and Willow danced in the middle of the party and slowly began to rise into mid-air, subtly hovering over the crowd. And Willow's promise to Tara in "The Gift" that she would always find her broke my heart into a million pieces as well.


[> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- darrenK, 19:26:49 06/15/01 Fri

It's a sick world when a woman that attractive has to defend herself that way.

Amber is truly beautiful.



[> [> Re: Tara: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Lazarus, 10:17:01 06/16/01 Sat

Darren, I am in hearty, 100%, wholehearted agreement with you on this! I think Amber (and by extension, Tara) Is a stunningly beautiful womsn. SHE HAS CURVES!! I'm not running down Aly, Sarah, Emma, or Charisma, but I think the Hollywood 'petite' stereotype is long overdue for being tossed into the rubbish pile... LET'S SEE MORE REAL WOMEN IN THE MEDIA!!!

There... End of Rant.. Feel better now... ;)


[> [> [> The crazy thing is... -- Solitude1056, 18:08:08 06/16/01 Sat

...that 5'4" and 118 lbs is actually quite slender, by most measurements. I recall many years ago, reading an interview with a male actor who commented that he had to stay much skinnier than he'd be comfortable with since TV puts 15 lbs on a person. It's true, and it has something to do with the way the camera distorts, and the TV screen additionally distorts. So Amber looks like the average sized woman to my eyes, and I've liked that all along. Then again, it makes me wonder just how tiny the other women on the show must be! (Until I watched the finale again last night, and realized that Alyson and Emma appear to be a good several inches taller than most of the rest of the women, and I'm aware that the taller a person is, the less likely people will notice if they've put on weight. The shorter you are, the less places for weight to hide.)

But to sum, yes, I agree, it's horrible that Amber felt she had to defend herself. Personally, I think she's one of the sexiest on the cast, though Willow is a close second. (But sorry, Evil Willow beats 'em all, hands-down.)


[> [> [> [> Re: The crazy thing is... -- rowan, 18:26:04 06/16/01 Sat

I greatly admire Amber's remarks. Christina Ricci has been in a similar situation (identified as chubby, with comparable measurements to Amber that indicate she is very slender indeed) and has fought back as well.

We've got to stop living in this world where women need to be a size 0 to retain their attractiveness on TV. I'm sure to a certain extent that male actors suffer from this as well.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The crazy thing is... -- Lazarus, 19:36:08 06/16/01 Sat

Not just male actors, Rowan... I think guys in general have as much of a problem in this area as women seem to... I've often wondered why very few of us (the men and women who claim to feel this way) ever seem to find each other... There seem to be enough of us around... Perhaps we're all suffering a bit from the Tara syndrome of not putting ourselves forward... (I knew I could tie this in again somehow!) Oh, well... C'est la vie, I guess...


[> [> [> [> Hmmmmm you like evil Willow............ -- Rufus, 20:12:55 06/16/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> What, and you don't? "You made me cranky." -- Solitude1056, 09:00:46 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> Call me perverse I still like Riley.............in only a milk and cookies way.... -- Rufus, 18:17:03 06/17/01 Sun

Dracula -- Rober001, 03:32:11 06/14/01 Thu

I've got a small question about Dracula. If Dracula was the first Vampire, I think, then why wasn't his features deformed or whatever like The Master from series 1 or Kakistos from series 3 who were pretty old, Kakistos probably older than the Master.


[> Re: Dracula -- Morgane, 06:45:58 06/14/01 Thu

I had never heard them say that Dracula was the first vampire! not in the Buffyverse at least! I know that in Bram Stoker's novel he is, but our vamps are quite different. Plus Dracula had a lot more power in the novel than in Buffy. He was able to walk under the sunlight(his powers were just less.. well... powerful I would say) for exemple. So I believe he was just a not-so-old regular vamp who had done his lesson. I mean, he had probably just practice magic a little and study books a lot in his far Transylvania (before using Spike's money I mean! ;o)).


[> [> Re: Dracula -- Nina, 11:50:32 06/14/01 Thu

The way I see it, Dracula was there as a big metaphor. He was there to show that vamps can be different from the black and white vamp were used to. The fact that Joss incorporated Dracula in the Buffyverse was really gutsy, but I see it as a way to forshawdow the changes in Spike. Not all vampires are the same. They are not equal. Dracula can evaporate, change into a bat, not change his deatures while feeding...

Dracula opened the way for Spike's redemption. Not only that but he opened the way for Glory herself. Dracula lived in a luxuary estate with bug eater who worsphip him (Xander said to him "your excellent spookiness"). He also can't be killed. Glory lives in a luxuary estate with minions who worship her and she can't be killed either (not by usual means anyway).

I absolutely loved BvsD for the metaphorical level in the episode. Dracula was a wonderful choice!


[> [> [> Re: Dracula -- Little One, 12:03:32 06/14/01 Thu

That was very insightful about Dracula being a portend of Spike's changes.

Not to mention when I first read it I thought you had said Dracula "does not change his dentures while feeding" and I got this silly image of Dracula misplacing his dentures and having to gum his food. My bosses must think I'm wacko, busting into laughter while sitting at my computer. Hmm...this could be a good thing!

Thanks for that laugh!


[> [> [> [> "Showy gypsy stuff" -- Rufus, 13:44:26 06/14/01 Thu

Dracula may not be the oldest vampire, but he is the guy who got all the best press. He of the dark penetrating eyes.....


[> [> [> [> [> And sinister attraction -- or is that someone else? ;) -- verdantheart, 14:12:54 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> No, there was no penetration....... -- Rufus, 14:29:19 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> I'm not sure abou that...... -- AK-UK, 14:15:54 06/14/01 Thu

I don't think Dracula's appearance made Spike's changes any more believable. I think the writers had been working on Spike for ages, softening him up, making his inclusion into the SG more acceptable, and his physical attraction to Buffy was noted in "School Hard" (lustful glance at her when she's dancing).

Hated BvD......love the theory that it was a by-product of the monks messing around with peoples peceptions to make way for Dawn.

Happy Anniversary, and a Great Big THANK YOU! -- Marie, 06:05:29 06/14/01 Thu

I don't post to this board very often, for the simple reason that by the time I get to read the posts, some superbly intelligent individual or other has already posted exactly what I'm thinking of saying!

However, I felt I couldn't let the anniversary pass without saying the following:

1. You brighten my days, all of you, whether I agree with your posts or not, and I just can't wait to click on each day to see what new gems there are to read!

2. A huge big "Thanks" and lots of hugs and kisses to Masquerade for starting it all off in the first place.

3. A huge big "Thanks" and lots of hugs and kisses to the awesome Mr. Whedon, for making all things possible in the first place!

Great big chocolate cake (with fresh cream and candles) and pizzas should be enjoyed by all (though not on the same plate, and with Weetabix added, just for Spike!).

Thank you.



[> Your welcome, and please feel free to post even if it's to add your agreement to others -- Masquerade, 08:52:06 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> As you wish, Masq! -- Humanitas, 10:17:26 06/14/01 Thu

Happy Anniversary to the finest collection of minds in all of Buffy Fandom!

I second all that Marie said above, and would like to add that it is consistently a pleasure to be challenged by all the different viewpoints represented here. I haven't looked at texts this closely since college, and I've missed it quite a bit.

Thanks, everyone, and especially to Masquerade, who makes it all possible!


[> Re: Happy Anniversary, and a Great Big THANK YOU! -- Dedalus, 10:10:45 06/14/01 Thu

Well Marie, I've only been around a few weeks, and I feel the same way.

And listen to Masquerade. I frequently post just to agree with people!


[> Woo Hoo, Happy Anniversary and let's Party!!! -- Wiccagrrl (grabbing a piece of cake and some punch), 10:38:28 06/14/01 Thu

Ok, so since Rowan seems to be MIA, I say put up some balloons and streamers and such. Marie seems to have brought the cake, I've brough some some snacks and drinks (alcoholic and non-alcoholic :)). Somebody warm up the hot tub, put on some tunes, and let's get this shindig started.


[> [> Good idea....may I suggest some Canadian chocolate?????? -- Rufus, 14:26:28 06/14/01 Thu

I think it would be fun to see Masquerade tipsy and let her hair down....then we can ask her questions. On the whole we should just get silly and have fun.....this is a Philosophy posting board not a funeral parlour.


[> [> [> Of course you the know the definition of a philosopher... -- Masquerade, 14:34:11 06/14/01 Thu

Philosopher: someone who talks about the same things sober as they do when they're drunk.



[> [> Sorry, didn't mean to be MIA -- emergency business trip to ME got in the way! -- rowan, 20:00:39 06/14/01 Thu

Happy Anniversary! Thank you to everyone in this community for the stimulating intellectual conversation and the warm, welcoming atmosphere.

And last but not least, let's raise our mugs of hot cocoa high in salute to her most shiny magnificence, Masquerade, our patroness of the boards.


[> [> [> Business trip to Mutant Enemy? -- OnM, 20:20:44 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Yes, had to go to emergency planning meeting for S6 two-part kickoff! ;) -- rowan, 20:39:21 06/14/01 Thu


[> GO US! It's our birthday!!! -- Wisewoman, 10:48:29 06/14/01 Thu


[> Re: Happy Anniversary, and a Great Big THANK YOU! -- AngstMorpork, 10:49:42 06/14/01 Thu

Well, normally I just lurk. Hopefully, if my new name starts its own little mini-thread, this time it will be about a series by an author I can stand. :-)

I love this site. It's one of the few places I can come where obsessive Buffy talk & intellegence collide. Thank you all, even the ones I don't always agree with. Especially them.

And, Masq, I don't just mean the posting board. The site itself is a work of wonder. I always stand in awe of all the cool cross-referencing.

Go ATPoBTVS! It's your birthday!


[> [> Thanks! This is way-cool -- Masquerade, 11:18:12 06/14/01 Thu

Thanks all for the congrats! (although ATPoBtVS itself is 2 1/2)


Giles: "I'll have you know that I have very, uh, many relaxing hobbies." Buffy: "Such as?" Giles: "Well, um... I enjoy cross-referencing."


[> [> Great name AngstMorpork -- Little One, 11:23:03 06/14/01 Thu

Yeehaa, a fellow Pratchett lover on board.

I joined the board only a week or so ago, but am thoroughly hooked. HAPPY BIRTHDAY!! *raising a frothy beer...flavoured beverage (in case of minors present) and merrily, albeit staggeringly, saluting*


[> Happy anniversary!! And can I just say "ditto" to everything Marie said -- Zus, 11:55:13 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> Re: Happy Anniversary! ATPoBtVS RULES -- Brian, 12:21:10 06/14/01 Thu

And what party would be complete without some dark chocolate malts with sprinkles on top!

Thanks, folks, for a great intellectual and emotional ride. I look forward to more years of discussion and debate


[> Re: Happy Anniversary, and a Great Big THANK YOU! -- Rendyl, 15:08:11 06/14/01 Thu


(Just stopping by to listen to a song or two, drink some punch and drop off a chocolate swirl cheesecake my hubby was kind enough to cyber-bake for our festivities.)

Everyone has said it but I will say it again. This is such a great gathering place for all of us who scour the net looking for a board that consists of more than just "Angelus is hot in leather pants" and "Spike is sooo kewl". (not that the above are not true, just that I need more to talk about-grin)

I like the board, Masq and her hard work, the site, the people, and the chocolate. :)

Now where are Spike, Brian or OnM? I want a quick dance before I have to go.

-Ren -who brought cheesecake and more ice.


[> Ditto, ditto, ditto - many kudos to Masq for the brainchild known as ATPoBtVS! -- Solitude1056, 16:45:18 06/14/01 Thu


[> Delurking to say - Yeah Team ATPoBtVS! -- Ophelia, 16:54:50 06/14/01 Thu

I don't post, I just lurk, 'cause ya'll are way smarter than me! But I wanted to say thanks to both Masquerade and all of the wonderfully intelligent posters on this site. You've created such a great and thought-provoking community.

So thanks guys, you make thinking (or is it obessing!?) about the Buffyverse fun - even if you occasionally melt my brain *g*. I'm glad to know I've got a couple more years of your awesome posts ahead of me...

Cheers- Ophelia


[> [> Re: Please feel free to contribute Ophelia!!! -- Nina, 18:50:52 06/14/01 Thu

I am so late on so many threads, but I just wanted to say a big thank you to Masquerade! I've spent a wonderful 6 months in your company (and in the company of everyone!!! ;) May it last forever and ever! Halleluia :) :)


[> Re: Happy Anniversary, and a Great Big THANK YOU! -- Umbriel (with bag of Violet Crumbles for all), 19:52:29 06/14/01 Thu

(Umbriel rushes in, hoping she hasn't missed the party...)

I don't post much either (at least not yet!) but I've been reading the board for maybe 6 months now and thoroughly enjoy it! Thanks to all who do post, and especially to Masquerade for creating such a nifty meeting spot. I had no idea it was only a year old!


[> [> I don't know what Violet Crumbles are, but they sound delicious ;o) -- Wisewoman, 20:16:10 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> Re: Happy Anniversary, and a Great Big THANK YOU! -- fresne, 09:46:12 06/15/01 Fri

Mmmmm...Violet Crumbles yum. Thanks.

How about some champagne for the of age or sparkling cider for the so inclined.

Time to dance about and huzah. Anyone care for a psychotic waltz to Danse Macabre. I can't express how cool it was when they used it in Hush.

Just as I can't really express how much I enjoy reading, posting, and thinking in this community. Thanks to everyone for being the posters that they are. And thanks to Masquerade for making this place possible.

Now, back to eating and dancing.


[> Re: Happy Happy Joy Joy! -- OnM, 21:05:37 06/14/01 Thu

I've already said this on so many prior occasions, but I still feel the same way, so it's worth saying again:

You are never better than the company you keep, and this site and this board have been the one place where I've spent more happy brain time than anywhere else in recent memory.

Thanks to all of you, and know ye that even the Evil Clone bows down in most humble respect for the Magnificent Masquerade and her wonderful labor of love, that is our ATPoBtVS.

Five cheers!


[> [> To show your true appreciation you could always do the Snoopy Dance.... -- Rufus, 21:38:46 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> Would you settle for viewing 'A Charlie Brown Christmas' on laserdisc? :) -- OnM, 22:03:47 06/14/01 Thu

Say g'nite, Rufus!


[> [> [> [> I see that Ethan isn't the only box of farm fresh chicken....:):):):):) -- Rufus, 22:44:57 06/14/01 Thu

I do watch A Charlie Brown Christmas every year......


[> Numfar, perform the Dance of Joy! -- verdantheart, 08:49:17 06/15/01 Fri


[> Re: Happy Anniversary! Count Floyd and Man-Servant Hecubus Thank Masquerade... -- Anthony8, 18:00:37 06/15/01 Fri

And so do I, of course. This site has been a sanctuary of sorts for me. I never much thought about participating in the cyber community before I came across ATPoBtVS. It has opened my eyes to quite a few new ideas and has connected me to a community of people the like of which I haven't encountered since college. Thanks again.

Cross -- Kimberly, 10:36:37 06/14/01 Thu

Happy anniversary to the board.

This is my first post on this board and I hope I'm not repeating an old discussion. However, in reading Masquerade's Metaphysics, I found an omission that keeps bothering me.

The Buffyverse assumes most of the traditional defenses against vampires work; however, the reason they work is not explained. In the case of the cross, it is assumed that it works because it is a symbol of Christ, the ultimate Good. In and of itself, there is nothing wrong with this theory; however, it leaves open the question of other religions. It may be that these symbols would work, and we've just never seen them tried. It may be that since society, both ours and in the Buffyverse, is overwhelmingly Christian, only Christian symbols would work. I have another theory I would like to propose.

The cross is an ancient, pre-Christian symbol of the sun. And Jesus, as he is understood today, is a solar deity. He was born on the winter solstice, he is worshipped on Sunday, and he is surrounded by a group of twelve (for the months of the year and/or the zodiac symbols). And, since the cross is a symbol and not the real thing, that may explain why it only harms, but doesn't kill. (Unless ingested? Hot cross buns fired from a crossbow, anyone?)

Now that that's off my chest, I can go back to trying to figure out how Joss is going to bring Buffy back in OCTOBER.


[> Welcome! -- Wisewoman, 11:02:55 06/14/01 Thu

Great first post! Maybe we have discussed this, but it would be before I came onboard about two months ago...

I find the efficacy of the cross as a symbol of the Sun much more palatable than its use as a strictly Christian symbol. It's something that's always bothered me, as well (I have Christian/Pagan issues!)



[> [> Re: Welcome! -- AK-UK, 11:48:02 06/14/01 Thu

I'm sure the cross debate is covered somewhere on the site (in fact I'd swear I read something about it yesterday). I also seem to remember that other religious symbols (like the star of David) do work, just not as effectively as the cross. I'd guess the extra oomph that the cross has is due to it's dual symbolic power (as a christian and druidic/wiccan symbol).

We're all familiar with an "oomph" aren't we? It's not an exclusively UK expression is it?


[> [> [> We oomph in Canada, not sure about the Yanks... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 11:57:20 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Re: We oomph in Canada, not sure about the Yanks... ;o) -- Shaglio, 12:32:57 06/14/01 Thu

Yeah, my Dad uses that term all the time. However, I do object to the term "Yanks." I'm from Massachusetts and, therefore, a Boston Red Sox fan. We don't like to be associated with the Yankees.

As for the cross/sun reference, I do believe that the astrological symbol for the sun is a plus sign (or cross) in a circle. It's been a while since I've delved into the Astrological realms, but if memory serves me correctly (which is about 50% of the time), my facts are correct. I usually don't do research and cross-referencing (no pun intended), but rather write off the top of my head.


[> [> [> [> [> Cross Yanks -- AK-UK, 12:58:22 06/14/01 Thu

Yeah, the cross within the circle is used to represent the sun. It's an old Druid symbol (those druids loved a bit of sun worshipping) which was happily co-opted by the Christians when they first came to ancient Briton ("Don't worry guys, you can still worship the sun. You just have to call him Jesus now"). Hence the Celtic cross.

I'm a Mets fan, so I guess I wouldn't like being called a Yank if I was American. Unfortunately I don't know many slang terms for Americans (I don't suppose "Our uppity cousins from across the pond" is more acceptable, is it? :).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cross Yanks -- verdantheart, 14:42:19 06/14/01 Thu

I don't mind being called a Yank (there do seem to be many Canadian posters here ...) as we were when we visited England -- although my aunts, uncles, and cousins in Alabama would probably disagree; to them Yanks are northerners ("What's the difference between a Yankee and a damn Yankee? A damn Yankee doesn't leave [moves to the south]."). We tend to call ourselves "Americans," which really should apply to anyone in North or South America! Should I go with my state? I'm currently a "Utahn."

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Utahns and Yanks -- Scout, 01:42:24 06/15/01 Fri

I used to be a "Utahn" too, for two years (some mighty fine skiing out there!), but I was born and raised in Georgia and have lived in the UK for 15 years - and I still haven't got used to being called a Yank because to me the only Yanks are those folks born on the upper side of the Mason-Dixon Line (and I'm a Braves fan myself).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cross Yanks -- shaglio, 05:54:04 06/15/01 Fri

As long as we are going by states, I am a Masshole. I don't think "our uppity cousins from across the pond" would apply anymore since there is such a large percentage of Americans who don't have English heritage and are ,therefore, not "cousins" to the English. I for one have Irish, Scotish, and Italian heritage. I think United Statians is a very smooth-flowing term that could be used. Feel how well it rolls off the tongue - United Statians - just make sure you pronounce the first A as a long one.

The buffy characters are all United Statians as far as I can remember (just thought I'd throw that in there to give the post some BTVS-related content).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cross Yanks -- Morgane, 08:47:46 06/15/01 Fri

Good try to make Buffy content, but actually, almost half the characters are british, aren't they? (Giles, Spike and formely Drusilla, Angel, Wesley, Ethan, the council, Darla, probably the master, ...)

but good point for the United Statians, nice word, plus I'm from Quebec and I had always found United Statians a little pretentious when they say that they're American, like we're not as much as them!

I like this little conversation even though it's not quite Buffy related. It remind me how much Buffy and particulary this board is international. And how much, countries don't mean the same thing as they used to, there's shows, and other things that totally drop the barriers.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pretty sure Anyanka was originally European... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:35:48 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cross Yanks -- rowan, 16:51:52 06/15/01 Fri

Hey, if Benedict Arnold had done his job at the Battle of Quebec during the American (!) Revolution, Canada would be annexed to the United States the way God intended. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sure rowan..........:):):) -- Rufus, 17:30:35 06/15/01 Fri

You and God can come and get us........:):):):):)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We're too frightened to even try...;) -- rowan, 19:16:39 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> It's not too late to amalgamate! O/T -- Wisewoman, 18:53:39 06/15/01 Fri

Y'know, I've never been much of a nationalist, but I came across a news article last week that said almost 50% of Canadians believe that Canada will merge with the United States in the next 10 years. I was shocked! Who are these people? I feel like I've been left out of the loop...I didn't even know it was an option!

I'm not horrified by the prospect (*much* better TV in the us of A), just really surprised that it's, like, a fait accompli and no one told me!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's not too late to amalgamate! O/T -- rowan, 19:18:21 06/15/01 Fri

I agree with you! Who are these Canadian/United Statesian merge advocates? The US can't even manage to make Puerto Rico a state -- how are we supposed to accomplish this merging with Canada? Does Mexico get in on this too?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: It's not too late to amalgamate! O/T -- verdantheart, 06:17:53 06/18/01 Mon

I understand that when Quebec was looking at secession, many residents were in favor of petitioning the US for admission into the union. I found this a little strange in light of the official-English movements here.

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Weird statehood is better than no statehood?! ;) -- rowan, 15:05:18 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> I can never keep the colours of the sox's straight... -- Wisewoman, 13:02:08 06/14/01 Thu

If Boston is Red Sox, where are the White Sox from? Or is that a different sport? And, actually, what sport is this, no wait, I'm pretty sure it's baseball, because didn't Stephen King write about it in "The Girl Who Loved Tom Somebody"...?

And, hmmm, I'm pretty sure Yankees are baseball too, so aside from the fact that I know (obviously) nothing of American sports, I hear you, Shaglio. No more Yankee references from me!


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I can never keep the colours of the sox's straight... -- Andy, 13:43:35 06/14/01 Thu

The White Sox are from Chicago :)

Regarding the power of crosses, I don't recall it being covered in the show, but I do know that Whedon has mentioned that "there's particularly bad blood between vampires and Christianity". I've always been curious to know exactly what that means...


[> [> [> Re: Welcome! -- Malandanza, 21:26:10 06/15/01 Fri

"I'm sure the cross debate is covered somewhere on the site (in fact I'd swear I read something about it yesterday). I also seem to remember that other religious symbols (like the star of David) do work, just not as effectively as the cross."

I think it is just the cross that repels vampires. Remember in season 2 when Willow nailed up crosses on her wall to keep Angelus away? If Stars of David worked, she would have used those. Furthermore, I think the Watcher's Council would have, at some point, tested the efficacy of other symbols -- and we have never seen anyone use a symbol other than a cross. It's not just crosses, though -- also holy water and the Master's bones buried on hallowed grounds (that burned the hands of the vampire who dug him up). I don't believe, however, that Joss is promoting Christianity in general, or Catholicism specifically; rather, the cross, holy water and hallowed ground are part of the vampire mythology (which has been greatly influenced by Christianity) and there was no reason to depart from tradition.


[> Re: Cross -- Anthony8, 17:23:57 06/14/01 Thu

Just a few additions to your theories regarding the cross and vampires. The cross ultimately (whether associated with the sun or as the primary symbol of Christianity) represents eternal life of the soul which is , of course, antithetical to the basis of a vampire's existence which is living soul-less death. As I understand it, among other reasons, the Emperor Constantine adopted Christianity after he had a dream in which he saw the Cross superimposed over the sign of Helios (the Sun), effectively unifying (well, for his purposes, at least) the pre-Christian and post-Christian mythology.


[> [> Re: Cross -- rowan, 16:56:53 06/15/01 Fri

Yes, I agree with the soulless death vs. the life of the soul antipathy. Plus, the vampiric act of feeding is a perversion of the communion transubstantiation of the wine into blood.

It's interesting, because pre-Christian symbolism also suggests that the cross symbolizes the balance of the four elements and this sign has been associated with witches. The crossroads, of course, is a liminal place also associated with witchcraft. Though how that relates to vampiric fear of crosses, I don't know.


[> [> [> Re: Cross -- Wisewoman, 18:58:16 06/15/01 Fri

Came across an old superstition the other day that suicides who were not buried at a crossroads became...vampires!

(Also, people buried with their mouths open, and babies born with teeth...eewwww!)
So any ideas on how B's gonna get back?? -- Lyra, 12:29:29 06/14/01 Thu

Hey guys!!

This is the first time I hav posted anything here, so go easy on me!!

I dont kno if u guys want to think about how Buffy is commin back, but since I saw "The Gift" its been the main thing on my mind! And its driving me NUTS!!!!!

Then like last night, I had an idea, dont happen very often but i thought I would c wot the rest of u thought about it.

Do u think that maybe it was some kind of test? U know how the Watchers Council gave Buffy that test in "Helpless"? Maybe it was the same thing that the TPTB hav done. Although it is differnt as wot TPTB wanted her to do was die, but it was all some grand plan, her reward for not letting a human die might be to give her back her life?? And by showing her worthyness to TPTB, maybe some extra power??? I mean, TPTB (If they r the ones in charge of these things!) would want to make sure that she could be trusted with more power, and that she would always use it to do the right thing. Im sorry im rambling, im finding it kinda hard to type wot im thinking!!

Then theres that big problem of "how" she could get back, I mean I dont think she could just wake up in her grave, right? My friends and I hav completely run out of ideas for this one!!!

Any thoughts would be much appreciated on this!!!

Thanx if u stuck wiff me to the end!!!! :-D



[> Re: So any ideas on how B's gonna get back?? -- Phil, 12:42:29 06/14/01 Thu

i agree with you.i have 3 theries: i think she's gonna get ressurected by willow and tara.OR...evrything that happened when glory and ben were there will vanish and buffy wont have died at all and it'll all be a dream!(like the ending of 'Sunset Beach') OR...buffy will come back as a vampire!(remember she got biten by dracula in 'Buffy versus Dracula'?)but she comes back with a soul,like angel did. if u agree or disagree,please let me know.


[> [> Re: So any ideas on how B's gonna get back?? -- Kerri, 13:16:17 06/14/01 Thu

Phil-about your theories: I hope its not one of the scoobie that bring Buffy back b/c they made the point that it was wrong in forever. After seeing tara's reaction in forever i really dont think shed try to bring Buffy back. I'd hope they'd let their friend RIP.

Even more than hoping its not one of the scoobies i hope it wasnt all a dream. The only way that wouldn't be so bad is if Buffy remembers what happened when she was dead and can grow from it...but i still dont like the idea and think its kinda cheesy.

Making Buffy a vamp...well that would just be too much like Angel...unless she is turned back somehow. Then I wouldn't mind.

Personally I like something like Lyra's idea. TPTB bringing Buffy back w/ more powers.


[> [> Problems with theories -- AK-UK, 13:24:56 06/14/01 Thu

I hate the idea of the powers that be getting involved because it's such an easy way out. Every cheesy fantasy novel i've ever read has some mysterious God-like beings who are involved in a cosmic chess gamein which the hereos are pawns. I hate to see Joss rely on them to ressurect Buffy (but thats not to say he wont)

If Tara and/or Willow ressurect Buffy, then the question "Why the hell didn't you bring back Joyce" gains a lot more force. Bringing Buffy back is a blow to "The Body", allowing her to brought back through a spell would be worse.

I'm not sure why the death of Glory/Ben would cancel out what happened in "The Gift", and any talk of dreams makes me think of Bobby Ewing in the shower *shudder* (NOTE, that was a *horror* shudder, not a *Oooooh, isn't he sexy* shudder. I'm a heterosexual male. Just wanted to make that clear. And JR was miles sexier anyway :)

Buffy could come back as a vampire, but I doubt this will happen. The writers are already doing "Angel", so to turn Buffy into a vampire with a soul would be a step backwards. She could just come back as an evil vampire, and MUCH as i would LOVE to see that, I don't think that will happen either (oh, but it would be sooooo cool. What would Spike do? How would the SG react? Oh, the possibilities are endless......but it aint gonna happen) :(


[> [> [> Re: More thoughts on the Problems with theories -- Brian, 13:52:56 06/14/01 Thu

I, too, doubt that it will be TPTB as they seem to have adapted a laisse-faire (Sp?) this year over in Angel. I assume that the Host represents their involvement with humanity.

I can't image the Scoobies bringing Buffy back from the dead, except maybe Spike and Dawn. After all, she is the Key and does have unknown powers.

Could be Doc for some reason not known to us would want to bring her back, but -

I always thought that it was Buffy's love for Angel that brought him back from Hell, but as Joss has stated that there won't be crossovers, I can't see Angel being the one to bring Buffy back with love, or with help from the Host or TPTB.

Could or would the Watcher's Council try to bring her back?

If ED wasn't making so many movies, maybe Faith would sacrifice herself, and morph into Buffy somehow. That seems fitting, if a little ironic.

Or maybe Buffy just decides to come back. She's the Slayer after all, and she just reappears in the flesh one day, ready to carry on her duties.


[> [> [> Re: Problems with theories -- rowan, 20:38:10 06/14/01 Thu

"I'm not sure why the death of Glory/Ben would cancel out what happened in "The Gift", and any talk of dreams makes me think of Bobby Ewing in the shower *shudder* (NOTE, that was a *horror* shudder, not a *Oooooh, isn't he sexy* shudder. I'm a heterosexual male. Just wanted to make that clear. And JR was miles sexier anyway :)"



[> [> [> [> Re: Problems with theories -- Rae, 07:37:43 06/15/01 Fri

I would like to see the entire gang go on a journey not to ressurect Buffy but to save her soul. I mean when Buffy died it was in that energy field with every single dimension pushing and pulling to break through. What if all that magical power and dimensional pull caused her soul to get lost. Another possibility is ,and this only works if the Key opened the doors to alternate realities and not just one universe's dimensions, the Buffy that is buried isn't our Buffy and another Buffy in a different reality had jumped a little sooner and closed the portal but her body ended up in our reality. Buffy could be trapped at the axis where all the dimensions cross or in a world of demons or one where her powers are dampened and she gets to live a normal life with no mystical forces. The gang could find out by after months of Dawn seeking a sure-fire ressurecrion spell they try to give her closure by performing a seance but to their surprise reach a different Buffy. Because it is hard enough finding and sending people to a specific dimension, to reach the real Buffy by travelling through dimensions they will need Dawn who will have the capability to keep a certain dimension in place long enough for Willow and Tara to send the entire group there. While the scoobies look for Buffy, each will have flashbacks of how the death affected them such as Willow being more closed, Xander's attempt to kill Spike for not protecting Dawn long enough but letting him live after seeing the anguish in his eyes, and Giles yelling at Dawn severely for continuing to try and ressurect Buffy and for causing more pain and sadness for everyone each time she tries.

P.S. Giles was given guardianship of Dawn either by Buffy or Joyce, but will be contested by the father in later episodes because of selfish reasons.

Sorry for rambling and I hope you guys like my idea.


[> Re: The Slayer, The Witch, and the Hellmouth -- Dedalus, 15:03:23 06/14/01 Thu

Hello, Lyra. I actually kind of like that idea. And I think if anyone could make it work, Joss could.

And, AK-UK, though that type of thing has been done again and again - so has the mysterious little sister angle. And the dopplegangers. And the star-crossed lovers. And dream episodes. Joss can take any story convention and stand it on its head. I'm sure the musical to come will demonstrate that. Okay, I am sounding so like a wanker fan right about now ...

ANYWAY, on to my real idea. While most of the people on this board grew up reading Tolkien, I was reading C.S. Lewis. And while I do part with his politics after awhile, Joss is a big fan of Narnia.

Remember in Restless when Willow was doing the book report in her dream and it was The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe? I thought the end reference for that was in Xander's dream when he went through a closet to come out somewhere else, but maybe not ...

In case you don't know, The Narnia Chronicles were big time Christian allegories. The Christ figure was Aslan, the Lion, and in the LWW, he dies for the traitor Edmund. This is because of the Deep Magic since the dawn of time, and the White Witch is emphatic about blood being paid for a traitor. So Aslan dies on the stone table. However, what the Witch didn't know, was the Deeper Magic Before the Dawn of Time ... ooh ... "Dawn." Probably too obscure. Anyway, it states that any innocent who sacrifices his own life for another will be resurrected. Time will work backward, or so the story goes. And Aslan saves Narnia via his blood, and at the end of the last book, The Last Battle, they all live happily ever after in a Platonic-paradise.

So is it possible that The Powers That Be have read C.S. Lewis? :-) Was the reference to Narnia in Restless a foreshadowing of what is to come? Is there some ancient law about a Slayer who dies for an innocent? Against this symbolic background ... I think it could work.


[> [> Re: The Slayer, The Witch, and the Hellmouth -- AK-UK, 16:17:43 06/14/01 Thu

I'm sure Joss can tell an interesting story with TPTB, but such things inevitably cheapen previous and subsequent episodes.

Look at the Iniative. Once you introduce something like that into the buffyverse, you have to deal with the ridiculousness of her world. It strains your wilingness to suspend your disbelief.

As for star-crossed lovers and doppelgangers, well B/A was getting very boring, and whilst "Doppelgangland" was the bomb, "The Replacement" (which I think was the one with the two Xanders) was bloody awful. Can't think of many stories involving mysterious little sisters.... And I truly hope we don't see some "Slayer loophole" come into effect. Oh boy, I really hope Joss pulls this one off.

AK-UK - He hated Aslan's resurrection, despised Gandalf's rebirth, and still has issues with that Jesus guy.


[> [> [> Re: The Slayer, The Witch, and the Hellmouth -- Dedalus, 18:05:28 06/14/01 Thu

Ouch on that last line.

Something tells me you might not like next season all that much.


[> [> [> [> Re: The Slayer, The Witch, and the Hellmouth -- AK-UK, 18:44:24 06/14/01 Thu

Yeah, I'm bracing myself.

I just think that BtVS has to go in a new direction. It's time some of the characters started asking some fundamental questions. What is the source of the Slayers power? What makes magic work? Do the gods that Willow calls on when conjuring actually exist? What is a soul? Who set up the Watchers Council? I'll be very disappointed if we have another season of the SG v the Big Bad Guy


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Slayer, The Witch, and the Hellmouth -- Dedalus, 07:47:40 06/15/01 Fri

Well, if you put it that way, I think they will inevitably have to go in a new direction. The big Buffy cosmic questions will almost have to be brought up at some point when Buffy resurrects.

And after Glory this season, I highly doubt it will be SG vs. a New Big Bad next time around. It would be interesting to see Joss totally reinvent Buffy from the ground up. He sorta did after season three, but I mean even more radically than that.


[> Re: So any ideas on how B's gonna get back?? -- Astar, 09:34:25 06/15/01 Fri

hi lyra

this is also my fist posting here so don't have to much of a go at me please

firstly i would like to say that i totally agree with your suggestion that it was all a big test.

secondly Phil i can't see Tara and Willow being silly enougth to try and bring Buffy back since they wouldn't let Dawn try to bring her mum back. the suggestion that she becomes a vampire with a soul is a little farfetched since we have gone through all of that with angel. The suggestion that it was just a dream is not something i think they would allow since they first started thalking about her death being a gift way back in "Intervention" so the fact of her deaming to be dead dosen't really teach her much.

i think that buffy will be brought back to life on the 30th of July since in "restless" the clock kept flashing up with 7.30 also known as 30th July in Usa. altough i don't know how she will come back.

dose any one know what time of year it is actullay in on that episode(The Gift) if you do please post a message

thanks for listening to me



[> [> Re: So any ideas on how B's gonna get back?? -- Lyra, 12:24:48 06/15/01 Fri

Hello Astar,

I like ur idea, the 7:30 thing hasnt really been explained much at all. It could be however one of those things that might never be explained. The idea that its a date not a time is a good one, but somtimes Joss seems to put stuff in that doesnt really make sense at all (cheese guy), maybe its not meant to..........yet. Its hard to try and see where he might go with this, since its only been mentioned a few times over like 5 years!!


[> [> [> Re: So any ideas on how B's gonna get back?? -- Jack Shadow, 22:00:32 06/17/01 Sun

I agree that the "dream" approach and the "alternate buffy" approach are not very likely, being over-used. Ditto the "turn back time" idea. Ditto also the "Willow and Tara raise her from the grave" idea.

As much as I like the idea of Buffy the VAMPIRE slayer (Sonja Blue on TV), it is hard to make this fit. There seems to be an assumption that Buffy as a vampire would need a soul to kill other vampires, but I don't see why. There is clearly a bit more going on here with vampires; their evil seems to get more nuanced all the time. How evil they are seems to be some function of who they were and perhaps who the demon is that takes the human body. In any case, who does buffy drink from (Dracula, I guess). Why does it take so long for her to turn? I guess she had to die for the blood to take effect. It could be done.

Also, JW has referred to "cross-overs" without much crossing. I assume this refers to the idea that actions on one show could have an impact on the other show, without any acutal shared footage. Since Willow appeared in the last scene of Angel, it would be quite possible to say (off screen) Angel went back to the Valet, asked for Buffy's life, and got it, since he did pass the tests for Darla and is owed a life. Then Buffy just appears on the first epsiode of season 6, perhaps much changed by having been dead. Certainly the reborn Darla was affected by the whole process.

Another theory is that a new approach will be tried. I call this soul fixation. It is pretty much established that when you die your soul floats around somewhere, especially if you have unfinished business, which Buffy clearly has. So most probably Dawn/Spike, with maybe some help from Willow/Tara hit on the idea of getting Buffy back into a body they build, perhaps the Buffybot. This was done with Molach, so surely it could be done again. This is a lot different than a magical recreation of a body. There is a lot of ground to cover here about identity, self, etc. that could be interesting.

I do agree with the posters that it is time to start getting a bit more into the background of how things work in the buffyverse, although revealing all is usually a mistake (read Riverworld for an example of this).

And what about Dawn? -- Destiny, 16:07:07 06/14/01 Thu

Sorry if nobody feels like being serious right now (party!) but I must post this...

Are we all looking in the wrong direction for a new slayer to be the focal point of the show? Are we all forgetting that Dawn is power? She must have acess to some of that. She's human now, with a free will. (Possibly not a soul but that's a different debate). I'm wondering what would happen if she tried a spell and actually saw the results, or tried to fight people who were kidnapping her instead of just screaming. She's just been a little girl in terms of her powers and abilities up until now, but she has had Buffy to protect her. Now there's no one who can really do the job. It's up to her to protect herself, and Buffy's death has to make Dawn grow up in a way Joyce's didn't. She is in Sunnydale for a reason. Is it possible that she can't choose her destiny to be a savior of the world any more than Buffy could? And she can't avoid that destiny, because that only leads to tragedy, as we've seen. There may not even be another Slayer. The PTBs "setting the calling process on automatic"? Does that sound iffy to anyone else?(Sorry Masquerade). There was never meant to be two Slayers or there would have been from the start. That anomaly may die with Buffy, and then it falls on Dawn to protect herself and everybody else.


[> Re: And what about Dawn? -- AK-UK, 16:33:14 06/14/01 Thu

Hey, I've been arguing for months that Dawn will delve into her power, and that she should move to centre stage. I'd love to see that. I hope the writers explore her abilities in the coming season. Fingers crossed.

As for your points about slayers, well, I'm still a bit unsure about this. As far as I'm aware, the way things work are as follows. A number of girls are born every so often with extraordinary powers. The Watchers council identifies and teaches them. When the Slayer dies the Watchers council chose one of those girls to be the next Slayer. So, whilst there should only ever be one official Slayer, there could be more.

I don't understand the logic of that, it seems pretty bloody stupid, so if I'm wrong please set me straight.


[> [> Re: And what about Dawn? -- Destiny, 13:50:23 06/15/01 Fri

Sorry if I stole your pet peeve, but I'm pretty new here. This is only my third post (I'm already addicted, however). About the slayers, I could be wrong, but I think when an old Slayer dies is when the new one gets her actual powers. As I said that could be wrong but it makes sense to me.


[> [> [> Re: And what about Dawn? -- AK-UK, 15:16:49 06/15/01 Fri

Don't worry Destiny, you haven't stolen anything, I'm sure other people have voiced similiar hopes and theories. It's good to have a comrade in arms on the board :)


[> Re: And what about Dawn? -- Rufus, 17:40:58 06/14/01 Thu

The calling of the Slayers now goes through Faith. Read the bronze VIP posts. Buffy died and Kendra was called, Kendra died and Faith was called. Buffy dies and no other slayer will be called as they have started another line. As for Dawn. Remember that the power of the key is absolute but the assumption has been made that she only has one function to open the portal. I think that the assumption may be wrong. The reason is that the monks wanted to harness the power of the key for the power of light, that tells me that there is more to the key than the unlocking of one lock. Making Dawn human was something that I think they may have contemplated for awhile. When they were cornered it was the only thing to do at that point. I think when they made Dawn human she also was equipped with a human soul. Darla was brought back and she had a soul, so why not Dawn. I also think that the reason she was made the age she was has a good reason, she could grow and learn like a child the ways of humanity and what her powers of the key would be protecting. When she is ready I think she will become aware of what she is capable of. It looks like Buffy will be back in the first double episode so Dawn won't be alone for long, then the sisters will have something in common, they will both be new.


[> [> Re: And what about Dawn? -- rowan, 18:23:02 06/16/01 Sat

"Making Dawn human was something that I think they may have contemplated for awhile. When they were cornered it was the only thing to do at that point. I think when they made Dawn human she also was equipped with a human soul."

Oh goody, I love discussing this! You know, I'm not sure if the monks contemplated all the possibilities or if they didn't have a clue about all the possibilities. I agree that they were in a tight corner and I'll go even further and say they made a bold move as a result. Either way (fully cognizant or clueless or somewhere in between), they created an extremely interesting situation when they introduced the unpredictability of humanity to the Key. I mean, free will, intellect, soul, family, emotion, etc. all mixed up with the Key. Now the Key becomes an actor instead of an acted upon. That opens up all sorts of possibilities.

Dawn may always need protection against those who may try to use her (can anyone say new identity for Spike?). She may have to train herself and get tough to prepare for what could be a rough life. She probably also has alot of untapped potential there as she tries to figure out how to use her Keyness. After all, the Key opens all locks to dimensions when it's essentially just an energy that is released by another. What new fun things might happen when an intellect and a soul now have command of that innate energy?

Okay, let's talk soul. Does Dawn have one? I mean, she must have, right? There aren't too many soulless creatures walking around (except the Bots). Even the vamps have demon souls resident. Since she doesn't look inherently drawn to evil (although there have been some problematic instances like earrings and resurrection spells), I've assumed she has a soul. But where did the monks get a soul to give her? Even in the Angelus situation and the Joyce resurrection, an existing soul was being retrieved. Whose soul did they retrieve?

I also think Dawn must have Slayer powers. I realize that the line goes through Faith now, but if Buffy could substitute as the Key because "the monks made her" from Buffy, the Dawn must have Slayer qualities (even if Buffy doesn't see that). Again, I think this may be an unintentional or hidden effect of the Key (just as the monks either didn't see that Buffy was a substitute for Dawn -- or saw it but were crafty enough not to tell her). Although Dawn would not be called, perhaps she will exhibit some of the physical strength and mental acuity of the Slayers. This might explain Joss's ambiguous comments that Dawn will take the forefront in some eps, that he would watch a show called Dawn the Vampire Slayer, but that he isn't done with Buffy yet and it's still her show.

Of course, if Dawn is an unintentioned and unofficial Slayerlike person, then she'll need an unintentional and unofficial Watcherlike person (again, can you say Spike?).


[> [> We can talk all night about this one...........:):) -- Rufus, 20:32:21 06/16/01 Sat

This is where I still say the monks were smart guys. You make the key human but not just any human you make her from part of the slayer. The slayer is already predisposed to protecting humanity(you will note they didn't choose Faith), and Buffy is lucky enough to be in a good home. So the Key has a big sister/mother to look up to and emulate. That did make it so the Key was more likely to understand the value of the world.

"Dawn may always need protection against those who may try to use her."

There again is the genius of making her the age she started as. Dawn is old enough to take care of her personal needs and smart enough to figure out lots of situations. But she is young enough to make her family very protective of her. She is also at an age where learning comes easily and she can understand many ethical situations. I personally feel if she has powers beyond what Glory wanted to use her for they will slowly surface as she is ready to understand their use. I can see Spike looking out for her. She is a good person for him to be around because for the most part there will be little talk of a ship, so his motives won't ber assumed to be sexual(his love already with Buffy).

"Okay, let's talk soul. Does Dawn have one?"

As I don't know what Joss considers the soul to be made of I had to go with the fact that the matter that makes up the Key would also in the right form also constitute a soul. I go by Dawns actions on the scaffold when she was ready to jump to protect the world. The Key is no longer neutral and if her power is absolute I'd like to see what else she may be capable of that made the monks willing to die to protect it's potential.

Does Dawn have Slayer powers? Well one answer to that may be in Family when she stood up to Tara's dad and Buffy said she was a hair puller. I think that Dawn shares many personality characteristics with Buffy, but, I think her power is unique to her. She has unique powers so requires a unique Watcher(I think that's where Spike comes in).


[> [> [> Re: We can talk all night about this one...........:):) -- rowan, 10:36:14 06/17/01 Sun

"Does Dawn have Slayer powers? Well one answer to that may be in Family when she stood up to Tara's dad and Buffy said she was a hair puller. I think that Dawn shares many personality characteristics with Buffy, but, I think her power is unique to her. She has unique powers so requires a unique Watcher(I think that's where Spike comes in)."

As you can probably tell, Dawn & Spike are my two favorite characters, so I have to make sure that Joss has a special role planned for each. ;)
Theory about Doc and Buffy's return -- Kerri, 17:06:14 06/14/01 Thu

Now this may be way off and may make no sense but I was thinking: what if Doc was there to make sure that Buffy would rise not Glory. What if there was some reason he wants Buffy back with heightened powers.

It sort of makes sense: In Forever Doc pulls Dawn's hair and comments good DNA. Now if Dawn is a part of Buffy then that's Buffy's DNA he was commenting on, meaning that he should be able to bring her back.

Then in TWOTW Doc says, "Her day is coming, boys! And when she returns, then you're gonna see something. " We assumed that meant Glory, what if he was talking about Buffy?

Then maybe that's the reason he started the ritual, knowing that Buffy would die and then could be reborn.

Probably way off here but just a theory. So any ideas?


[> Re: Theory about Doc and Buffy's return -- Solitude1056, 17:15:59 06/14/01 Thu

I was first thinking of Doc's line that preceeds the one you mention: "You think only underworld bottom feeders worship the Beast?" But then I realized, you just might be right - since he says, "Her day is coming, boys. And when she returns - then you're gonna see something."

Glory wanted to go home - she never mentioned coming back to Earth & wrecking havoc. Her intention was to go home and wreck havoc. And granted, for the duration of time that Dawn was bleeding, the portals were opened, but the assumption was that once Dawn was dead, the portals were closed - leaving earth to deal with the crossovers but with the assumption that no more could occur. And Glory wouldn't be able to return, either, without the Key, anymore more than she could leave in the first place without the Key. So why mention her "return"?

There may be something to it... which also raises the question of Doc manipulating things anyway. He fended off Spike beautifully, but one thwack from Buffy and he was (again) toast, or so we're led to believe. What if letting Buffy take the plunge means that Dawn is easy pickings now, for Doc? Since there's still question of whether she could serve any purpose other than every 800 years or whatever number we picked out of a hat...


[> [> Re: Theory about Doc and Buffy's return -- Nina, 18:55:16 06/14/01 Thu

That's what I tend to believe too! I wrote something similar a couple of weeks ago. I guess we won't know until we see where Joss is going with it though. But that's a thought I like! :)

Ramifications of Might-Have-Beens -- Solitude1056, 18:38:22 06/14/01 Thu

I won't go on in detail, mostly cause the "n" on my keyboard keeps sticking and it irks me to think that suddely I'm looking, err, suddeNly I'm looking like a nonspeller. I try to catch them, but grrr. (That's me, being irked.)

Anyway, on a mildly serious note, I've been wondering. Angel was all heroic 'n stuff back in IWRY, choosing to stay Mister Vampola just so Buffy would have a full life. I think Age metioned it, but it seemed to get skipped in discussion. So much for Angel's smugness of "making the right choice," since Buffy's dead anyway.

Who says there has to be a cross-over, if Angel himself tries to make amends for his choice - acting under the "I should've done something, and if I had, she'd still be alive" idea. This is assuming that if he'd been human, he would've been at her side. Willow may have filled him in on Glory's damage, but Angel's pretty bullheaded about such things, and man, does that character have a penchant for the guilt trip. Where the Scoobs may finally accept Buffy's death by virtue of having been there & respecting -if not fully understanding - her choices, Angel's never very accepting of such things. He wasn't accepting of the implications of Buffy's mortality, he wasn't accepting of Darla's mortality, and he wasn't accepting when it came to his own mortality.

And now he gets to live with the knowledge that he made a choice which may have robbed Buffy of a few months of happiness, since she died anyway. If there's any character who may actively work to bring her back, it'd be Angel - even if the Buffy character herself doesn't appear on the WB half of the series... I could still see him putting forth the effort, and accepting it as long as she's alive again, even if that means alive-and-at-a-distance.

Any thoughts?


[> Re: Ramifications of Might-Have-Beens -- Rosenberg, 07:41:24 06/15/01 Fri

I agree with your analisys of Angel, I can understand how he would be able to perform some sort of complicated procedure and resurrect Buffy from a distance, but even then SMG would somehow have to appear on the show to be believable, if only in Angel's mind. Otherwise I couldn't see it as believable. "So did you bring Buffy back?" "Yeah. I'm hungry." "Well, did you see her?" "No, but I assume she's alive again."


[> [> LOL... ok, ok, you're right. :-) -- Solitude1056, 11:13:27 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> [> Re: LOL... ok, ok, you're right. :-) -- Marie, 08:32:17 06/18/01 Mon

But why? I mean, I don't really understand the contractual ramifications of the move to UPN. Are the actors not now permitted to appear in any other shows? Even ones written by the same people? What is to prevent DB from accepting a guest spot on Buffy, or SMG one on Angel?

(I know JW has said crossovers are unlikely, but he didn't say never, did he?).
1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- rowan, 19:49:50 06/14/01 Thu

Okay, imagine this. You've suddenly been transported to a new world, where no one has ever seen BtVS before. The ruler of that world gives you one chance to convert the population to BtVS before they throw you out on your a**..er, butt. You can select just one episode which best conveys the strange attraction and mystery of BtVS.

Which episode do you choose and why?


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Andy, 20:31:33 06/14/01 Thu

I don't how many other people would pick a season 1 episode, but I would choose the two part pilot, Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest. To me, it's just an extremely well done introduction to the series. It sets down the essential concepts, the characters of the core Scoobies and their relationships with each other (the initial stages, anyway), and it establishes the tone of the show very nicely, with a good balance between the comedy, the monsters, and the action. There are a few rough spots, like the action scenes not being as polished as the later ones, and the fact that David Boreanaz's acting is pretty funny in retrospect :), but it's about as close to a perfect pilot as I've seen.

In my experience in trying to make the occasional Buffy convert, I've found that Buffy can be an extremely difficult show for people to grasp if they try jumping in with a random episode (even the very best ones) because there are just too many questions that keep nagging them. Why is Buffy a vampire slayer? Who's the British guy? He's a Watcher? What the hell is a Watcher? Why are there all these monsters in her high school? What's a Hellmouth? Etc. It's all right there in the beginning, which saves me a lot of trouble in answering those questions :)


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Nina, 09:42:46 06/15/01 Fri

Andy I so totally agree with you. Even though I came to discover BtVS very late I started with the first box set videos and after the two first episodes I was hooked! That's all it takes. If you like those two episodes, the rest will follow.

Try to convert someone with FFL would be very hard IMO. Unless the person you try to convert becomes a JM fan and doesn't care whether he/she understand what's going on! :)

But if I were to go on an island and could only bring one episode, I'd take FFL for me! :)


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Wiccagrrl, 20:33:56 06/14/01 Thu

Can it be a two parter? Cause I'm thinking either Surprise/Innocence or Becoming pt 1&2.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- rowan, 20:36:27 06/14/01 Thu

Yes, but you must tell us why or no cyber chocolate kisses for you. ;)


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Wiccagrrl, 20:49:11 06/14/01 Thu

Ah, ok. Well, gotta have my choco kisses, so...

Surprise/Innocence- This ep was incredibly well written and acted. All the major charaters are in rare form. And it's the ep where everything changed. Buffy and Angel have sex for the first time, Angel turns bad, Willow finds out about Xander/Cordy, Willow starts to get really interested in Oz, the gang finds out who Jenny really is, putting a major strain on the Giles/Jenny relationship. Angelus hooks up with Dru and Spike. It's just such a turning point for the show.

The series premieres would be good as well, as they introduce you to the premise of the show. But I just find S/I *so* powerful.

As for Becoming 1 & 2, I'm not sure if I'd introduce people to the series with that one. I guess it'd depend on the person. It's very powerful, but on reflection it may require a bit too much backstory to explain.


[> [> [> [> x x x x x x x -- rowan, 21:03:28 06/14/01 Thu


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Sebastian, 20:57:40 06/14/01 Thu

I'll take a chocolate kiss! :)

I also say "Becoming: Pts 1&2." I would say that episode pretty much summs up the theme of the show.

For example....

Upholding your responsibility - no matter how much you don't want to do it.: Buffy killing Angel.

Realizing that no matter how hard you try - you will never be able to hold yourself up to the expectation you (or your parents) have of you: Buffy revealing to Joyce that she is the Slayer.

Binding together despite insurmountable obstacles, because, no matter the lack of blood ties - friends can still be family: The Scoobies rallying to restore Angel's soul despite Buffy's decision to kill him.

...to name a few.....

This was a tough call - because there are so many episodes stand out (the eps from the latter part of this season, Surprise, Innocence, Prophecy Girl, The Pilot) - but I think "Becoming" really sums up the trials and tribulations of Buffy, her friends, and thee theme of the show....

PS: I will be starting that thread on clothes and hairstyles and its connection to storylines soon. Promise. :)


[> [> [> [> x x x x x x x -- rowan, 21:00:38 06/14/01 Thu


[> And the winner is... -- OnM, 20:38:46 06/14/01 Thu

*Prophecy Girl*

I could pick a number of transcendent eps from any of the 5 seasons, but the essence of BtVS is summed up better in this than any other ep, if you had to do it without any external references.

The hero's journey compressed into 45 minutes.

Buffy has always been about the search for morality in the face of mortality.

I'll never ever forget that scene where our heroine accidentally overhears that she is going to die-- for an absolute certainty-- at the tender age of 16.

The conventionally written scene would have had her faint, stonewall, scream, some grandiose act. Instead, she laughs this tiny, little laugh of understated hysteria. It's a perfect moment, and only the most gifted creative people in our realverse could have made it that way.

'Like the dress."

'Yeah, big hit with everybody.'

(go to black - end credits)


[> [> Hmm, yeah, I guess I go with OnM on this one. -- Solitude1056, 07:26:13 06/15/01 Fri

It'd be hard to pick one that sums it up, and the Season 1 eps usually bug me mostly cause everyone - including the writers - were still getting into the groove of their parts. But as a stand-alone story, this one captures a lot of what makes the Buffyverse so intriguing to us obsessed fans(not that I am, mind you, just pointing out that some are, unh-hunh). Alternately, I'd lean towards the stand-alone episodes where you get a good all-round of characters and types rather than a focus on just one. Halloween, Fear Itself, Dracula, Doppelgangerland, and a few others I can't remember now... but Prophecy Girl is better as an introduction to the way the story is told, than a one-shot like Dracula or Fear Itself.


[> [> [> Re: Hmm, yeah, I guess I go with OnM on this one. -- Scout, 04:12:50 06/16/01 Sat

Yep, me too, Prophecy Girl, definitely.


[> The definitive episode changes with my mood..... -- Rufus, 21:36:47 06/14/01 Thu

Or it's another way of saying I can't pick only one. I like some of the off beat eps.

I like Halloween in season one cause we got to see Giles wipe up the floor with Ethan.

I liked Something Blue because it got people to do the unexpected. And Buffy asked Giles to be her best man. Willow got the first temptation associated with her growing powers.

I liked The Yoko Factor because it showed that people don't always get along, but they can patch it up. And we got to see Giles tanked up and giggling like a school girl.

I like Checkpoint cause Buffy got to throw that sword at the figurative head of the Watchers.

I loved FFL because it challenged how we perceive vampires. And Riley made the tomb go boom.

I liked A New Man because Giles got to growl "serviceable"....and chase Maggie Walsh down the street.

So how can I pick one when my mind changes so much?


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Wisewoman, 22:27:36 06/14/01 Thu

When I finally introduced my extremely skeptical partner to BtVS, I did it with "Fool for Love," because it had such a straightforward, narrative story line. We always refer to it as "Life of Spike," but there was a lot in there about the history of the Slayers as well, and a real revelation as far as the previous Slayers' purported death wish.

There were surprisingly few questions I had to answer during the initial viewing, and most of them concerned the slime-dripping antlered demon.

Okay, I'm rationalizing, I'd pick it anyway for the moment when Spike, lying on the ground covered in crumpled money, chokes backs his tears and clenches his jaw. I'm a sucker for intensity, what can I say?


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- change, 03:35:15 06/15/01 Fri

If I can cheat a little bit and pick a two parter, I'd pick Becoming.

The problem with picking a single episode of BtVS to represent the whole show is that the themes and ideas of the show tend to be spread out over story arcs that span entire seasons. Most of the individual episodes tend to be monster or spell of the week episodes when viewed by themselves.

I think Becoming would be a good introduction to BtVS because it contains a large part of the story arc for that season, and a lot of what it doesn't show can be inferred from the information in it. It also presents a lot of Angel and Buffy's history as narrated by Whistler, and shows Buffy making a big step in her heroic journey. You get to see the dynamics of the scoobie gang with Buffy and the SG agruing about whether or not to save Angel, Willow casting the spell to save him from her hospital bed, and Xander lieing to Buffy about it. You also get to see some of the Angel/Spike dynamic too. It's just a very good episode, and a good representation of the show as a whole.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- AK-UK, 04:49:47 06/15/01 Fri

I'd have to go for "Wild at Heart". It's an incredibly powerful episode, but very simple to explain ("Oz is a man who changes into a wolf 3 days a month, and his girlfriend is a magic user called Willow"..taa daa!). All the Buffy themes, like love and heartbreak, magic and passion, the mundane and the supernatural, all brought together in one incredibly moving, beautifully acted episode.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- darrenK, 16:16:06 06/15/01 Fri

The wonder of Buffy the TV show is the way it balances and blends comedy, drama, science fiction, social satire, wisdom literature and melodrama. If I wanted to show someone an episode that proved this and still had the power to transcend the hermetic world of Buffy mythological minutia, I'd pick Earshot.

Earshot gets to the heart of what Buffy is really about--living in a world that's painful, morally confused and deceptive, but still managing to walk around with some dignity. And it best shows why Buffy is a hero, not because she can beat up demons and stake vampires, but because she can use her abilities with restraint, compassion and love.

Everytime I've seen it, I'm blown away by the scene in the library. The acting is so subtle and the chemistry between the actors is so powerful that you really believe that Buffy can hear their thoughts. Each character's individual and magnificently realized complexity is suddenly on display. And what a wonder they all are.

Oz's existential dilemnas--always bubbling unarticulated beneath his quiet persona--are revealed as a whirlpool of self-consuming logic. Willow's well organized contradictions, insecurities and crossed intentions are betrayed. Xander can't stop thinking of sex, but not just because he wants sex, but because he's too undisciplined and anxious to stop himself. Cordelia is perhaps the best. What she thinks, she says. Not just because nothing else is going on, but because she's honest, straightforward and rude.

I don't think I've ever seen a scene on TV so complex or built so intricately. Other episodes might better introduce those characters, but no other episode shows them to be so complete, so human.

Then there's the speech to Jonathan in the Tower. A different TV character might have told Jonathan that there were plenty of people who loved him, that his parents love him, that he has friends. Buffy is not that character. She told him that he was alone, that no one cared because they were too busy being alone themselves and she told him that she was alone too, that her life "sometimes sucks beyond the telling of it."

And by the end of that speech, I was convinced that Buffy needed someone to talk to as much as Jonathan did.

"The hardest thing to do in this world is live in it." So says Buffy in The Gift. And underneath the cool action sequences and the mythology and the secret magics, that's the theme of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. That's why lovely "Earshot" is--In My Humble Opinion--the definitive Buffy episode.



[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- AK-UK, 18:47:03 06/15/01 Fri

It's strange, but I absolutely hated Buffy's behaviour in that Tower scene. All of her worst qualities (her tendency to rush to judgement, her sometimes sickening self involvement, her lack of empathy) came rushing to the fore in her treatment of Jonathan. But she was pretty preoccupied at the time, so I thought I'd give her the benefit of the doubt.

And then she did it all again in "Superstar".


[> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- darrenK, 19:38:57 06/15/01 Fri

Everyone gets their opinion and I certainly won't argue Buffy's self-involvement, but I think that was part of the point: how often do high school students look around and ask each other what their peers are feeling?

It's pretty rare. Humans, in general, and teenagers, in particular, aren't particularly good with the whole empathy thing, most are only concerned with themselves. It's natural, but unfortunate.

I think the speech in the tower was about trying to have compassion, but it was also a message of self-reliance--that you can't wait till other people notice you, you have to develop the inner strength to not worry about it all.

All that aside, she was up there because she thought Jonathan was going to commit mass murder. How nice do you have to be to potential mass murderers?

Anyway, I also loved Hush. That's probably a less controversial choice since no one really says anything; )


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- mundusmundi, 06:45:00 06/15/01 Fri

Too many to choose from, but it'd have to be from Season 2, far & away the best in my mind, the year it all came together. I may've gone with Surprise/Innocence also, but since it's already been mentioned (and is technically a two-parter), let's look at some other candidates:

*Halloween. Entertaining eppy. Nice blend of characterization + metaphor (e.g., Willow as a ghost).

*What's My Line. Another 2-parter, but also a great entertainment. Shows B's ennui toward her job, intro of Kendra, starts the gleefully twisted affair btwn Xander/Cordelia. Good stuff w/ Spike/Dru/Angel also.

*Bewitched, Bothered & Bewildered. Not the best Buffy showcase but arguably the funniest of the series. Xander does the "Love Walk," nuff said.

*Passion. One of the darkest eps, but depicts Angel/Angelus in all his evil, with a touch of ambiguity. Great at showing the operatic emotions of the series.

All those would be fine intros. However, for my one pick, I'm going to take a left turn and go with....

*I Only Have Eyes For You. Simply brilliant ep. Involves all the characters beautifully, all the themes of high school as horror flick. Terrifically unexpected twists and turns, esp. w/ Buffy & Angel in a way you weren't expecting. Classic Cordy line: "I TOTALLY deny all evil." And the great Spike scene at the end that leaves you reeling and braced for more.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- purplegrrl, 09:10:23 06/15/01 Fri

Ahh, you already mentioned my nominee - "I Only Have Eyes for You"

The episode has: * An interesting twist on Buffy and Angel's relationship, especially since Angel is Angelus at this point. * One of my favorite songs - "I Only Have Eyes for You" * Great acting (this was the episode that made Joss realize DB could carry his own show). * A Slayer who really shows her human side in her unwillingness to forgive James.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Andy, 10:43:13 06/15/01 Fri

I already made my answer above and I do stand by it, but I have to say that I Only Have Eyes for You is a damn compelling choice. I've been going through my tape sets recently and when I got to that episode I was struck more than ever before what a well-rounded episode that was. It's just perfectly layered, telling an interesting ghost story on the surface but with a really strong grasp of the show's use of metaphor, and the action for the cast feels very well-balanced. I couldn't think of anyone really getting short-changed in that one. I think this episode would be my first runner-up :)


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- mundusmundi, 11:42:31 06/15/01 Fri

Yeah, it even finds time to work in Giles's mourning for Jenny Calendar in a touching and believable way. And ya gotta like this exchange btwn Buffy/Xander:

Buffy: I'm telling you, something weird is going on here. Xander: "Something weird is going on here." Isn't that our school motto?


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Dedalus, 10:00:17 06/15/01 Fri

Nice to see you back, Rowan. A lot of people were getting antsy.

Well, to answer your question, I suppose there is a difference between the Definitive BTVS episode for yourself, and the one you would choose for someone else to see. If push came to shove, Welcome to the Hellmouth and Harvest would be the one(s). Everyone hit the ground running on those. And it gives a lot of exposition, not to mention the tone is just right - horror, humor, and drama. Also, Prophecy Girl would be great, because as previously mentioned - the hero's journey in 45 minutes.

Becoming I and II does offer up a lot of backstory, and is without a doubt one of the dramatic highs of the series, but I don't know if I would vote that in. For one, I'm not sure the impact would be felt by those just entering this world. For another, if it was, then it would inevitably suffer from what it already does via many long term viewers - This Is the Best It Ever Was, and the Best It will Ever Be. So everything is a downhill, jump the shark moment from then on out. Some people actually feel the show jumped the shark after Becoming with Anne.

Anyway, for me personally, the definitive episode would no doubt be The Gift. Everything just came together. It seemed to me like five years had been building up to this pivotal moment. It was sublime on every level, and I think it was more profound than even Becoming. Great action, drama, funnies, acting, writing, and directing. It was the high point for me, leaving me in awe every time I see it. If the show had up and ended then and there, that would have been a great culmination.

But I don't know how a newcomer would react.

Basically, I can't choose just one ... the entire series is one big episode to me. The best episode ever written on tv. It all links together so well, I'm not sure you could begin to get the whole from one piece. So I would sit someone down and tell them to watch all 100 episodes. Which some might say is a bit of a cop-out, but I say anything less would be the cop-out.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Rob, 11:05:36 06/15/01 Fri

For me, the definitive episode of "Buffy" is "Hush." That episode managed to not only be a brilliant hour of "Buffy," but ranked up there as one of the best hours of television ever produced. Leave it to Joss to take an experimental concept--an episode with no sound--and use it as a jumping off point to explore great internal character development, brilliantly examine fear and its association to childhood myths, introduce a character who eventually became a very important one, reveal secrets to certain characters about other characters, and at the same time make it at moments terrifying, at other moments hilariously funny...and all this in complete silence! After all of this, however, I thought the show's most brilliant moment was the last, when, after the characters finally have their ability to speak restored, and they can finally explain what is in their hearts: there are no words. As Buffy and Riley sit on the opposite beds, facing each other, and all of the secrets they have been unable up to now to express, silence once again overcomes them. I thought this episode was perfect: it not only showcased the stylistic brilliance of Joss Whedon, but was a great character exploration. Further, the main plot was not part of the season's story arc (although Riley and the Initiatives, and Willow meeting Tara obviously are)...The Gentlemen are the Monsters-of-the-Week (as they say to refer to X-Files villians)...so it does not require as much prior knowledge about the show in order to watch it. At the same time, I found them much more frightening and involving than most of X-Files villians. On the Sci-Fi Channel, the creator of "Farscape," created a six-episode "primer" prior to the 3rd season...They were a list of the 6 essential episodes that perfectly let people know what the show is about and its high points. What would be your Buffy primer (don't feel the need to limit yourself to 6).

My Buffy Mythology Primer for the Newbie: 1) Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest 2) Surprise/Innocence 3)I Only Have Eyes For You 4) Becoming 5) Faith, Hope, and Trick 6)Graduation Day 7)Hush 8)Primeval 9)The Real Me 10) The Body 11) The Gift


[> [> Thank you, it was nice to be missed! ;) -- rowan, 18:26:19 06/15/01 Fri


[> Lovers Walk -- rowan, 18:23:29 06/15/01 Fri

Okay, my pick is Lovers Walk. Why? Everybody loves a lover, a lunatic, and a poet, and this episode is full of 'em. We have two eternal themes here: truth, love, and the lies we tell that keep the two of those things as far apart from each other as possible.

First, this ep brings all the messiness of the Willow/Oz/Xander/Cordelia rectangle out into the open. And it's sad, funny, pathetic, and touching all at the same time.

Second, we have the return of Spike to Sunnydale. Could anything be funnier than a scorned vamp drinking himself into a stupor? The scenes with Willow and Joyce are pure comic genius. And yet this crazy subplot is used to illuminate one of the most painful realizations that any two characters in the Buffyverse have had to make, as Buffy and Angel realize they can never really be friends. (Do I hear Bono singing, 'I can't live...without or without you' here?)

This episode has one of the great speeches of the Buffyverse opus, placed in Spike's bloody mouth:

"You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, you'll shag, you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Real love isn't brains, children, it's blood, it's blood, it's blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

And for those of us B/S fans, do we sense the start of the B/S chemistry here (or at least the apparently fated, yet twisted relationship these two seem to be stuck in, in spite of themselves?), as Buffy admits to Angel:

"I can fool Giles, I can fool my friends, but I can't fool myself. Or Spike, for some reason."

There's drama. There's fighting. There's love. There's betrayal. It doesn't get any better than this. Are you kidding me?!


[> You horrible people! -- Marie, 08:47:29 06/18/01 Mon

Just kidding! But, really, every time I think I've decided on my favourite, someone posts something on another one, and I think "Oh, yeah, that was a good one, too!" and I change my mind!!

I have to admit defeat - I love them all. Even the so-called 'bad' ones aren't! For instance, 'Beer Bad' at least had the Willow/Parker conversation and Buffy biffing Parker! And 'Pangs' had the sypphilitic Xander, and the wonderful Spike "Oh, somebody stake me!" speech.

It would be far easier to nominate the ep you wouldn't show a friend (for me, definitely the 'Fish' one [can't remember the exact title at the moment - you know, the one with Xander and the Swim Team]).


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Pick the Definitive BtVS Episode -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 11:47:32 06/18/01 Mon

Been lurking for a while but I just can't resist this question so here goes (I hope people read 'em this far down the page)...

I think I'd go for 'Lie to Me', not because it explains more than the others or because I think it is the best episode but because that's the one that got me hooked. I was just flicking through the channels and there was something about the teaser that made me want to keep on watching even though I didn't know who the characters were. I think maybe it's because the relationships at the start are so obvious and interesting that they create something that needs to be resolved (when SMG looks at Angel and Dru you know exactly what she's thinking).

Later on, the episode has a strong enough theme to keep anyone interested and involves Joss' opinion of traditional vamp ideas (well, Anne Rice ideas, anyway). The characters are so well-written in all of Joss' episodes that no intro is required and at the end there is some sense of closure (Ford's death) but you want more!

Tricky thing is (in my opinion) that anyone being introduced to Buffy needs to ignore those niggling questions about the background and mythology and just enjoy - if they can do that, they should be hooked after any episode!

By the way (just to totally contradict myself), I think it's pretty tough to win skeptics over with the first two parter (WTTHM+TH) because there's not enough to surprise them and there is just too much exposition!

Sorry for going on like this about something we could all argue about forever but I'd appreciate any thoughts if anyone's read it all!


[> [> Of COURSE we read this far down! Welcome! -- Wisewoman, 13:18:49 06/18/01 Mon

I wouldn't pick WTTHM/TH as my definitive Buffy episode either, but it did do a great job of introducing the characters. I personally had never seen Nick Brandon or Alyson Hannigan, for instance, and yet I liked and identified with their characters immediately. I'd seen ASH in the Taster's Choice commercials, so that was enough to keep a middle-aged woman coming back for more!

Lie to Me is a good choice. Are you going to stay de-lurked now?


[> [> [> Re: Of COURSE we read this far down! Welcome! -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 14:26:04 06/18/01 Mon

Thanks for the reply! I guess I'll try to post some more since I managed it once and got a nicer welcome and slightly fewer head explosions than I expected (sorry - nerves - de-lurking evidently still in progress).

I know what you mean about WTTHM/TH but I have to admit that in my nasty, skeptical, pre-Buffy-obsession state they weren't enough to convert me (I don't know why!).


[> [> [> [> Delurk! There is nothing to fear here. We're a tame group. -- rowan, 15:03:07 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> *cough* We are? -- Solitude1056, 07:20:44 06/19/01 Tue

Ah, right. Of course.

*putting away the crisco, the can opener, and the muffin liners*


[> [> [> [> [> [> Muffin Liners?! Be afraid, be very afraid! *shaking in my sandals* LOL -- Little One, 08:15:20 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> Ssshhh! Don't scare the fresh meat.... -- rowan, 10:01:11 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey! The standard of some of these posts is pretty intimidating! -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:58:45 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree - they're putting up with my dead weight based on sufferance alone. -- rowan, 14:34:02 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> You started a cooking class and didn't invite me???????? -- Rufus, 17:44:57 06/19/01 Tue

Thinking about Riley -- Brian, 06:19:14 06/15/01 Fri

As I do research for my character study on Faith, I started to think about Riley. Riley loved Buffy but realized that she didn't, couldn't, or wouldn't love him back. She could be physical with him, but he felt that she didn't give him her soul. His situation was made worse when he slept with Faith/Buffy. I don't think that Buffy really ever forgave him. I believe she thought that somehow he should have known that it wasn't her in her body.

In the scene where Riley gets up after just having made love to Buffy and goes to get sucked by his vampire whore demonstrates to me his desperation to connect with someone, if not Buffy. He certainly has more than one motivation in his pursuit of some kind of understanding, release, awareness. Ironically, Buffy couldn't give him what he needed. That one moment of perfect happiness.


[> Re: Thinking about Riley -- Nina, 09:35:24 06/15/01 Fri

I agree. I think we have an answer to the Buffy/Riley relationship when we compare their first meeting to Angel and Spike.

All three men see Buffy/Buffy the first time they see her. Angel sees Buffy in LA while she's talking to her friends (and he falls in love with her right there). Spike sees Buffy dancing with Xander at the Bronze (and is attracted to her right there), Riley sees Buffy in the bookstore (and only remembers her as "Willow's friend" later). Hmmmm...

What's the first reaction when the three men meet Buffy/The Slayer? Angel sees Buffy kill her first vamp. She's strong, but he feels he needs to protect her. He's the white night and is attracted to her innocence. At the beginning of their relationship Angel has the upper hand, he is stronger and knows more about slayers than Buffy does. As for Spike, he sees Buffy in an alley. He stages a fight so he can examine her move. He is impressed by her agility and seeks a fair fight with her. Equal to equal. At this point their strenght is not that far apart and either one could win or lose. What happens with Riley? In Hush he sees that Buffy/Buffy is not what he thought she was. She's strong. Very strong. He's impressed, but he's bugged too. He doesn't know what to do with a girl who is stronger than he is. He doesn't understand what a slayer means. He's out of the loop.

The fact that Joss opted to show us Riley not attracted to Buffy at first is a very hard thing to accept. Buffy was peculiar for Riley, then she was too strong.... then he was in love with her? Hmmmmmmm....again!

I love Riley's complexity, but when you compare Riley to Angel or Spike, he just didn't pass the first tests!


[> [> Re: Thinking about Riley -- rowan, 18:04:50 06/16/01 Sat

I thought this was a very interesting comparison, Nina. It points out that to really love Buffy involves loving both the Slayer and Buffy. That, I think, might be a difficult proposition for the average guy. It's illuminating to see how each of these men responds to both sides of Buffy (as well as to her varying attempts to integrate these two sides of herself).

These three guys have been the significant romantic pairings for Buffy (although I realize that with Spike, it hasn't been fully realized, it has definitely been implied since S2). Riley has clearly been the least able to handle the total Buffy package. To be fair to him, he had some cards stacked against him. Buffy's relationship with Angel scarred her. How could she expect to respond in a totally open fashion to Riley after having been rejected so totally by the man who was her first love? (and rejected twice -- once by Angelus and once by Angel). Plus, Buffy had not dealt with "the Slayer hardness" issues when she was with Riley. But I agree with you that Riley could never really get inside Buffy's head or heart in the way he felt he needed to. He was too wrapped up in needing her to need him and every one of her actions he interpreted as evidence against her need for him.

I wonder how Angel and Buffy would have dealt with each other long term. Angel is very protective of Buffy. While that appeals to her Buffyside, I wonder if she might eventually find that slightly stifling in a longer term relationship. Buffy had matured alot since her relationship with Angel and he would definitely have to adjust to her changes in order for them to have a relationship at this point (soulmates aside). Angel hasn't really had to directly deal with Buffy's enhanced Slayer prowess.

Actually, Spike may really have the best handle on how to deal with Buffy. The fact that she may be stronger than him doesn't really seem to bother him on any level. He views her as an equal first and he doesn't seem to have too many ego issues about her being stronger than he is. He's accepted the transition in her Slayer prowess. He seems to just accept that a Slayer will be stronger than he is.

Of course, Spike may still be mentally tougher than Buffy even if he is not physically tougher. To me, that's what FFL was about. Spike was able to kill Slayers because he was mentally tough enough to hang in the game until he could identify and exploit his enemy's weakness. Spike has an amazing capacity to see, interpret, present, and deal with truth. That is where he is able to make a mental connection with Buffy that Riley could never achieve. Spike forces Buffy to see things she might miss or ignore. These are the qualities that have built both their professional and personal trust.


[> [> [> Re: Thinking about Riley -- Nina, 18:30:39 06/17/01 Sun

Love your post Rowan! I've been thinking about these three men in Buffy's life again and I'm really wondering what Joss had in mind with introducing Riley not being attracted to Buffy in the first place.

Love stories usually start two ways: love at first sight (or at least attraction) or hatred. Indifference is never a big winner. I've been ratling my mind trying to find evidence of a love story (movie or novel) where the two lovers started by being indifferent to each other and I don't see any! If anyone does, please fill me in!

When you are indifferent to someone you just don't care about that person. There's no positive or negative feelings. There are just no feelings. The fact that it took Riley 7 episodes to realize that he was attracted to Buffy was just too long. I am sure that if Riley had shown some interest since the start it would have been a hell lot different. People would have cared for Riley. But the first impression we got of him was that he didn't see our heroin. How dare he? :) And worst...why did it take him so long to see she was worth looking at?

Okay enough ramblimg for tonight I am not sure I remember the original post! Sorry! ;)


[> [> [> [> Re: Thinking about Riley -- Rufus, 19:32:30 06/17/01 Sun

I think in the case of Riley he started off indifferent to Buffy, by the end of the relationship it was Buffy that had become indifferent.


[> the moment of perfect happiness -- macadam, 12:02:00 06/15/01 Fri

I think that is such an interesting thing you point out, Ryan, that Riley was looking for Buffy really opening up, and that she wasn't doing that perhaps not because she was "the slayer" but because she still wasn't over what happened the last time she let herself be really in love.
Fighting the Forces: academic BtVS essays -- Wisewoman, 10:00:21 06/15/01 Fri

I haven't been around ATPoBTVS long enough to know if you're already all aware of this upcoming [Fall 2001]publication? (I suspect some of you may have written it!)

Fighting the Forces: What's At Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, edited by Rhonda V. Wilcox and David Lavery

and also Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies.

Both references are available at: www.slayage.tv/

I haven't read the online articles yet. Have the rest of you? Do you have opinions? (What am I *saying*? Of COURSE you have opinions!)


[> Re: Fighting the Forces: academic BtVS essays -- rowan, 16:36:53 06/15/01 Fri

I haven't read any of these yet, but I'll try to take a look this weekend. Sounds like fertile ground for debate! ;)


[> [> Re: Fighting the Forces: academic BtVS essays -- Dedalus, 18:44:39 06/15/01 Fri

Whoa. There's an online academic journal dedicated to Buffy? When the hell did this happen? Where was I? And there's going to be a whole book? Wow.

I will have to get in there and get into some of that.

Thanks for the heads-up.


[> [> [> Yes, it's for real-- saw this stuff awhile back - it's rather amazing. -- OnM, 22:27:22 06/15/01 Fri


[> Investigate these! -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:56:12 06/19/01 Tue

I don't know what happens if you post in the archives, but here goes...

I read these essays a while ago and although they vary in quality, some are superb. I particularly recommend 'Kiss the Librarian but Close the Hellmouth: It's Like a Whole Big Sucking Thing' since it made me think about an aspect of the show I had never considered before.

You probably already know about this, but there are some great essays on 'Above the Law' and there is an original interpretation of Restless called 'A Restless Exegesis' that is worth a look too.


[> [> Hmm, it would appear that if you post to the Archive you get booted back up to the top! -- Wisewoman, 14:02:15 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> Sorry! Ignore this and read Dedalus' post below! -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 15:20:33 06/19/01 Tue


[> I'm not sure how this happened, but since it's conveniently here, read this -- Masquerade, 16:13:08 06/19/01 Tue

Slayage # 3 is now available. Follow the link at slayage.tv or go to: http://www.middleenglish.org/slayage/slayage3.htm

Please take note that the bibliography for the essay by Professor Davis is not yet included. It will be posted soon.


David and Rhonda (eds).
Dumb question, but it's been bugging me -- LadyStarlight, 10:57:22 06/15/01 Fri

At the end of the episode where Spike figures out that he's in love with Buffy (forget the title), he's in a bed with Harmony, right? So what happened to the bed? Did Harmony take it when she moved out? Did he burn it? If he still had the bed wouldn't he have at least tried it out with the Buffybot? Inquiring minds want to know!


[> Re: Dumb question, but it's been bugging me -- Brian, 11:10:37 06/15/01 Fri

I imagine that Spike either got rid of the bed after Harmony left, too soft for a tough bloke like him, or he and the Buffybot were into rough sex and never made it into the bedroom.


[> [> Re: Dumb question, but it's been bugging me -- Hauptman, 11:43:17 06/15/01 Fri

In Spike's imagination, when he and Buffy were snogging, it was never in bed. It was always in battle or on the floor sort off. I think Harmony has always had a bed and, yes, she probably took it with her. Along with a lot of house/crypt decor. Crypt Beautiiful...heh, heh. I make myself laugh.


[> [> [> Oy, but the question remains; what is Spike's sleep number? -- Rosenberg, 21:42:43 06/15/01 Fri


[> Re: Dumb question, but it's been bugging me -- verdantheart, 06:49:55 06/18/01 Mon

It was a bed? I remember it as one of those stone coffins (what's the specific term?) with pillows and a blanket. I don't have a tape to go back to in this case, so I can't double-check. (I think the episode was "Out of My Mind".)
Call for Papers: Buffy and Philosophy -- Masquerade, 11:02:06 06/15/01 Fri

Call for Papers

Buffy and Philosophy

I am looking for authors for a possible collection of essays on the topic of philosophical themes in the TV series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I have been in informal talks with a publisher who is quite interested and have several commitments from authors. The essays should address recognizably philosophical questions, though contributors from other disciplines are welcome. Potential contributors should be ABD or have a Ph.D.

Please address preliminary enquiries (e-mail contact preferred) to:

James B. South Dept. of Philosophy Marquette University PO Box 1881 Milwaukee, WI 53201-1881


Deadline for initial contacts is July 15, 2001


[> Re: MU -- mundusmundi, 11:44:55 06/15/01 Fri

My alma mater's stock just went up in my estimation!


[> [> Re: MU -- Sebastian, 17:54:51 06/15/01 Fri

Boom chicka boom!

MU grad here too! (Dec. 2000)

That's *way* cool that MU is involved with this. I would contribute a paper - but I sucked BADLY in all my philosophy classes. :)



[> Re: Call for Papers: Buffy and Philosophy -- Dedalus, 18:49:23 06/15/01 Fri

That is so cool. Alas, I have a stupid question. What is ABD? I mean, I have the Ph.D. thing down, but ABD? Can't say I've ever heard this in my life.

I've been rolling quite a lot of ideas around in my head.

Do they have a list of specifications yet?

Did I mention I won a statewide essay contest in the sixth grade and got to go to London as a result?


[> [> All But Dissertation -- dy, 20:02:01 06/15/01 Fri


[> [> All But Dissertation -- dy, 20:03:18 06/15/01 Fri


[> Re: Call for Papers: Buffy and Philosophy -- WatcherBaz, 22:37:31 06/17/01 Sun

Very impressive and a wonderful opportunity to give Buffy some scholarly exposure, but rather wallowing in credentialism, aren't we? Surely it's the quality of thought that counts? We mere Masters are not thought to have anything to contribute?



[> [> Some "Masters" in various disciplines are "ABD", technically -- Masq, 09:39:20 06/18/01 Mon

Yes, this is a serious academic project and I assume he made that statement about PhD's and ABD's because this call was being posted on a website not designated for academics only. He had to have some way of preventing tons of email from "dabblers" whose work-quality would not meet the standards of an academic publisher.

It's still a publish or perish world out there, and those who need to write articles and book chapters to keep their jobs wouldn't appreciate competing with "amateurs". Well, they probably wouldn't publish in a forum that accepted work from anyone and anybody, either, because the publication wouldn't "count" when their work was reviewed by their peers.

Elitist? Maybe a little. But serious, well-informed analyses by non-academics have been accepted in "serious" publications if they meet the same standard of quality.


[> [> [> Re: Some "Masters" in various disciplines are "ABD", technically -- purplegrrl, 10:01:50 06/18/01 Mon

While I can't contribute (I only have a couple of B.S. degrees), I look forward to seeing how the heavy thinkers analyze Buffy.

(Perhaps it is just my personal bias, but I really hope Buffy will be looked at philosophically and not trivialized or interpreted beyond Joss's intent and message. The reason I say this is I read an essay that claimed that the movie "The Lost Boys" was a statement/comment on the post-modern consumerism of the 1980s. I just couldn't see where they were going with that.)


[> [> [> [> Re: Some "Masters" in various disciplines are "ABD", technically -- Masquerade, 11:04:21 06/18/01 Mon

It's publish or perish again, I'm afraid. Digging around for any point, even if it's a stretch, to get your name in a "serious" publication.

Author's intent becomes irrelevant if you can make a case for a particular interpretation of their work--perhaps assumptions and world-views the author took without consciously intending to--you can be taken seriously in particular academic communities.


[> [> [> [> Some folks have accused me of having a degree in BS, but I think they meant something else... ;) -- OnM, 18:08:15 06/18/01 Mon
Completely off the topic: Heck, Completely off the show -- Brian, 13:04:30 06/15/01 Fri

Anyone watching Witchblade on TNT? I did enjoy the pilot movie and the first episode, but I don't know what to think. In so many ways, I've been spoiled for other series on TV by the incredible writing on Buffy and Angel.

Witchblade has intriguing imagery, and the main character has a wonderful plastic face, and she's not shy about appearing ugly. I like her, but the other characters appear shallow and "off-putting." I guess the show has potential, but right now, it seems like too many unanswered questions.


[> Re: Completely off the topic: Heck, Completely off the show -- rowan, 19:14:40 06/15/01 Fri

I tried to watch the movie but it didn't really grab me. I'll have to try again, because it will surely be rerun given the new series.


[> Re: Completely off the topic: Heck, Completely off the show -- Wisewoman, 19:17:18 06/15/01 Fri

Hey Brian!

I watched the two-hour movie premiere of Witchblade a week or so ago on the WB, but I don't know if we're going to get the series up here.

I pretty much felt the same way you did...there's potential there, but the writing isn't up to much. Sara(h?)'s charismatic, but her cohorts leave a lot to be desired. I'm embarassed to say that I think this show may be shot in Canada...I detected some pretty familiar looking bit players and extras.

For me, the major bad is no sense of ensemble, like we have with the SG. The movie made it look like Sarah was pretty much a lone wolf character. I need more than one three-dimensional character in a series. Nice look to it, though. Let me know if it picks up.


[> Re: Completely off the topic: Heck, Completely off the show -- Liquidram, 23:03:32 06/15/01 Fri

I am a great lover of the Witchblade and Darkness comics.... they are a bit brutal, but the art incredible!

The movie does not have much in common with the comic, so I was not that impressed with it. I might have if I wasn't a fan of the comics. Sara Pezzini is quite a vixen and the TV show has made every effort to avoid that. I'll probably give it another chance, but I don't have high hopes.
What's the significance of Wolf, Ram and Hart??? -- Emcee003, 13:47:35 06/15/01 Fri

We all know that Wolfram and Hart is the base for some form of evil that operates on this plain of existence. Who pose as a law firm that's more connected to evil then your average bunch of evil lawyers. But what is the significance of the three animals, the Wolf, the Ram and the Hart???


[> Re: What's the significance of Wolf, Ram and Hart??? -- LadyStarlight, 14:27:56 06/15/01 Fri

The Wolf is often portrayed (in traditional vampire lore) as one of the animals Vampires can command (rats and bats being others) and is also a consummate predator, that often preys upon the weak members of a herd. A Ram (or more likely a Goat, but Wolfgoat & Hart just doesn't have that ring to it ;)) is often used to portray the head of Satan. Hart, you got me, perhaps it symbolizes the victims?

My $.02 anyways.


[> [> Re: What's the significance of Wolf, Ram and Hart??? -- rowan, 16:34:35 06/15/01 Fri

A wolfram is also...a wolf in sheep's clothing, another image for deception. A hart has been associated with infidelity and deception as well.


[> [> Re: What's the significance of Wolf, Ram and Hart??? -- Wisewoman, 16:39:43 06/15/01 Fri

I hope the writers of Angel do spell this out for us, because I really get a bee in my bonnet when writers demonize living animals (okay, I tended to root for the shark in "Jaws"; not something I discuss very often). As long as the wolf, ram, and hart are metaphors for something *other* than those actual animals, who do *not* deserve to be treated like lawyers, never mind demons, (LOL) then I'm okay with it.

Breath, breath, okay, rant over...

Sorry, AK-UK, I'm addicted to the ellipsis...

Fear it not...



[> [> [> Re: What's the significance of Wolf, Ram and Hart??? -- rowan, 16:44:24 06/15/01 Fri

I'm addicted to the ellipsis too...and please don't think I was trying to help demonize animals...I was just conjuring up some literary references for these animals.

The real "animals" in AtS, of course, are the humans. Only humans kill for sport.


[> [> [> [> Oh no, not you, rowan... -- Wisewoman, 18:41:53 06/15/01 Fri

I didn't see your post until after I'd written and sent mine; we were composing at the same time...I know *you* wouldn't demonize!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh no, not you, rowan... -- AK-UK, 19:05:02 06/15/01 Fri

Rowan, have you ever seen Killer whales playing with baby seals? I always subscribed to the "only humans kill for sport" philosophy until I saw film footage of those whales flipping and batting seals around for fun. They didn't even eat them, just knocked them around until they died, and then swam off.

Truly chilling.

But not as chilling as Wisewomans ellipses :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh no, not you, rowan... -- rowan, 19:13:11 06/15/01 Fri

Oh my gosh...now you've really scared me. Why won't you just let me live in my little fantasy world that the animal kingdom is pure and it's only humanity that's screwed up?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> This won't help... -- Wisewoman, 19:27:34 06/15/01 Fri

...because AK-UK is right about the baby seals *sigh*. To make matters worse, they tend to *play* dolphins to death, too.

However, I did an undergraduate paper many years ago on orcas, because we see a lot of them up here in BC and, at that time, the only documented incident of an attack on a human being by a killer whale occurred in BC, over on Vancouver Island, I think.

A couple of loggers where fooling around with a log chute as a pod of orcas went by, and one of them released a log timed to hit a young whale, which it did. Later the same day the two men were going across the inlet to their camp in a small open boat when they encountered the same pod, which attacked the boat and capsized it. Coincidentally (?) the logger who had released the log drowned, and the other guy made it safely to shore, to tell the tale.

I've lost touch with orca lore in the ensuing years, so there may be more documented attacks now, but that's the only one I've ever heard of.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh no, not you, rowan... -- Malandanza, 20:37:43 06/15/01 Fri

"Rowan, have you ever seen Killer whales playing with baby seals? I always subscribed to the "only humans kill for sport" philosophy until I saw film footage of those whales flipping and batting seals around for fun. They didn't even eat them, just knocked them around until they died, and then swam off."

I would go further and say that it is not just man and Killer Whales that kill for sport. I am surprised that with so many cat-lovers on the board no one remembers where the phrase "cat and mouse" comes from (but maybe you all have pampered indoor cats :). I can remember an old, very overweight black and white cat that used to hunt birds -- and rather adeptly, too. It would hunch down and creep up on the birds as if it were a tiger stalking it's game. After the pounce, whether sucessful or not, it would return to us, purring up a storm. Anecdotal, I know, but consider that a predator that enjoys the hunt and the kill has a better chance of survival than one that finds the process tedious and full of moral ambiguities. Such creatures would practice their skills more often, even when not hungry, and would be better hunters and less likely to face starvation during the lean times. I believe that far from being a uniquely human trait, the thrill of hunting (for pleasure) is merely a reversion to our primitive past.

Killer Whales, however, are scary. We never had a cat that would systematically exterminate the birds in our yard the way the Orcas did those seals (I remember the documentary you speak of -- also another where a pack of Orcas stripped away the side of a whale and left it to die).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Cats hunting -- Scout, 02:30:03 06/16/01 Sat

Malandanza, I was just about to write exactly the same thing you said when I discovered you'd beaten me to it. I read an article (can't remember which publication) back in the 80s (there again, can't remember precisely when except that it pre-dated my 1986 move to the UK) that said pretty much what you did about cats. A well-fed domestic housecat makes a far more efficient hunter than its feral counterpart because it's hunting for sport rather than a desperate attempt to catch dinner, and thus is more relaxed and less likely to make mistakes.

My own cats confirmed that notion to me. They were very well looked after but hunted anyway, frequently bringing home mice, birds and (*shudder*) snakes (in my head I can still hear the sound a snake's bones make when being crunched). I once tried to take a still-living chipmunk away from one of them and the less said about that, the better. I'll just say it's something I won't ever try to do again.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I have just entered the land of denial............... -- Rufus, 02:41:47 06/16/01 Sat

I've done some snake wrestling in my years with cats. They now all live indoors, easier on the wildlife.


[> [> [> [> [> [> The difference is ... -- Shiver, 12:18:10 06/16/01 Sat

Acting on instinct, versus acting out of emotion.

My cats hunt because it's instinctual. Whether they eat what they kill, or not, they hunt because they can't really help themselves.

Cats have a social hierarchy, but I wouldn't call it a moral code. Tomcats when they come into a new territory, barn or what have you, will systematically kill all of the kittens they find and start breeding the females on their own. Lions do the same thing - ever see a new lion come depose another male and take over his pride of lionesses - the first thing he does, is kill all the cubs brutally and quickly.

This is about survival.

Humans don't always NEED to kill each other to survive. Some humans kill out of anger or for personal gain (insurance money, less hassle than a divorce, etc). It isn't real survival (like needing food, or passing on your genes).

That's the difference - so you can come back out of denial :-)

Orcas and cats may be a lot alike - keep the hunting skills honed by practicing when the opportunity presents itself - be they baby bunnies or baby seals.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Then there's chimpanzees -- Humanitas, 10:37:27 06/18/01 Mon

Chimpanzees make war on their own species, the only non-humans on the planet to do so. (Ants make war on other species of ant.)

We do not have a monopoly on evil, I'm afraid.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Then there's chimpanzees -- rowan, 15:01:25 06/18/01 Mon

Yes, but is their warlike quality coming from instinct, or from enjoyment of war?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Then there's chimpanzees -- Humanitas, 07:54:04 06/19/01 Tue

Good question. I'd gotten the impression that they do kill 'for fun,' but I'm no expert. Any Primate specialists out there care to shed some light on this one?
Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - June 15th 2001 -- OnM, 22:08:59 06/15/01 Fri


The scene is set in an alternate universe, circa 1965. A young woman, late 20's, sits at a table in an old library, long blond hair cascading over a snug leather jacket. The table and books are dusty and an air of moldiness permeates the room. The sun, visible just a few short minutes earlier outside a grimy window, has disappeared behind some very dark clouds as distant thunder rumbles almost subsonically. The woman has one book opened, is studying the contents intently. Her eyes dart over strange-looking text, obviously lettered by hand in some ancient, long forgotten language. She turns one page, then another, then stops. A smile twitches at the corners of her mouth, broadens just slightly.

On the page in front of her, lettered in precisely the same calligraphic style as all the other fragile, yellowed pages before it, are the words...

"Ms. Summers - We're Needed!"

The door to the room swings open. Framed in the doorway is a tall, smiling man in a bowler hat, wearing a very classy, and obviously expensive European-cut suit. A neatly folded umbrella rests in the crook of one arm, a bottle of champagne is in the hand of the other.

"Was just in the neighborhood, thought I'd stop and say hello!" says the man, smiling even more broadly. His eyes twinkle with some impish inner fire. The woman rises from the table, walks gracefully over to greet him, her body language so sleek as to shame a leopard.

"Care for a bit of the bubbly, Ms. Summers? Looks like you've been working rather hard at..."

He gestures toward the table, and the huge stack of antique tomes.

"...whatever you've been working on!"

"Oh, just the usual, Mr. Finn. Another day, another End of the World..."


OK, so here's the scoop. It's summer, and the normal rules don't apply. Hot fun and all that good seasonal stuff, under the boardwalk on a blanket with my baby, where I should be, but instead I'm here, about to recommend a movie. Friday night, right, it's what I do?

Not this week, good buddies. This week I'm going to NOT recommend a movie. That's right, negative space, the surround around, the nexus of the non-positive. Then, once we have established the nowhere, I'm going to leave and go somewhere, and nice friendly dude that I am, I'll take you along.

Confused? Perfect!

Classic Movie of the Week proudly brings you, *The Avengers - The Movie*, one of the worst flicks in recent years, perhaps decades. This film pretty much ties with the last *Star Wars - The Phantom Muck* for crappola awards in terms of taking talented people, on both acting and technical sides of the camera, and shamelessly wasting all of their efforts, then pandering the results as if it were cinematic filet mignon.

Now, don't get me wrong. Like a lot of long-term filmonistos, I have a soft spot in my ticker for bad films. But by that, I mean *good* bad films where people were inept, or out of their depth, or even completely clueless, but-- and this is the big, bad, all important but--- they meant well. Even if they were just out to provide some little schlock-fest and use it as a tax writeoff, that intention is up there, visible on the screen. They're smirking that smirk that says, "We know this is junk, but we had a good time making it. Feel free to shout derisive remarks at the inane dialog, or cheer on the idiot plot. Hey, this is a drive-in show, you should be copping a feel with your honey in the back seat, not looking for artsy-fartsy greater meaning to it all!"

*Attack of the Killer Tomatoes*? Bring it on, dudes! * Slave Girls from Beyond Infinity*? Sounds infinitely entertaining to me! *The Toxic Avenger*? Oh, hey, actually that *is* artsy-fartsy-- Sorry!

So I do understand the diff.

What went wrong with *Avengers - The Movie*? I mean, you have Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes, two very fine actors. Sean Connery too! Obviously plenty of money to spend, the film is unquestionably wall to wall eye candy, no expense spared on the visuals. The script? Well, yes, it was rumored that it was the product of about 6 writers endlessly rewriting and writing some more. That could be a problem.

Jet lag? Maybe. Dunno.

All I know is, I dearly love The Avengers-- the first, the fabulous, the B&W 1965/66 and even the color 66/67 stuff, dear John and very dearest Emma. Patrick & Diana. Clever, sharp, witty, original, like Woodstock and George Carlin, often imitated, never duplicated, moments in time that become timeless, part of the world's collective psyche. How many of you out there figured out exactly who I was going to talk about just by reading my alternate universe scenario above, huh?

Now, I really, really wanted to see the film when it was in the theaters, I kept telling myself that, hey, they dissed *Blade Runner* when it was originally released, and even George Lucas' brilliant *THX-1138*, which evolved from his film student days and eventually made it to feature film length. This could be the same, maybe they just don't 'get it'. I mean, Uma Thurman, how bad could it be?

But then the fans weighed in, and they weren't happy, which is putting it mildly. I decided to wait for the pay-cable version, which is when I finally got to viddy the thing. Oh my. So there it was, and it had no soul. That's the only way I can describe it, same for *Phantom Menace*. All that glitters, and got's no soul.

Back to the boardwalk now. Obviously, I'm saying you need to watch this flick at your own risk. If you want to, that's up to you. I do have something much better to offer you, though, and that *is* the point of the column this week-- go rent, or better yet, buy, or still better, use this as an excuse to finally buy a DVD player and *then* go buy the DVD releases of the original *Avengers* to play on it. What, you didn't know *The Avengers* were out on DVD? Why, yes indeedy, and in fact they have been for nearly a year now.

A&E, who was the last American TV network to re-air the original episodes, (including even the ones before Diana Rigg joined the show and Honor Blackman played the role of John Steed's partner in adventure), started issuing beautiful digitally re-mastered discs of the entire series. I came across them by accident one day whilst browsing a local video shoppe, and did a pretty good impression of someone going "WWWWAAAAHOOOOOOOOO!!!!" while actually not saying anything out loud that would frighten the other patrons of the store, and possibly have the management call for security, posthaste.

They started by releasing the color eps from '66 and '67, then followed in a few months with the B&W's from '65 and '66, which were the shows I was really pining for. By now, over a year later, I believe that the entire series is available, although personally my own interest is limited to the ones with Rigg & Macnee as the principles.

So there you have it, my first Non-Movie Movie Recommendation of the Year! Perhaps you think I am cheating a bit by allowing a TV series to be included in the ranks of so called 'Classic Cinema', but if you think of these as short films-- 50 minute movies-- they hold their own with the very best of the century.

Get 'em while it's hot!

E. Pluribus Cinema Minor, Unum,



Technical regalia:

Not much to tell here, except as noted above, these were digitally remastered for DVD (and I think VHS also) and look absolutley incredible. The B&W eps especially have a richness and a contrast range that emulates the very best old monochrome film stocks. The color is early 60's TV color, but still very rich and solid looking, far better than I've ever seen it before, not surprising since these discs were mastered from the original films, not 2nd or 3rd generation tape copies normally used for TV broadcast. Aspect ratio is our normal TV format, i.e. 1.33:1. One of the curious and humorous things about these discs is the cover art, which on most disc jackets rather prominently features the lovely Ms. Rigg, and puts Macnee in a more background position. Of course, in the show, he was the senior actor, and always got first billing.

If you want some websites whereby one may check out some interesting Avengers lore, here are a couple I found while doing some research for this week's color commentary. The first one is the A&E site, and has pretty minimal info, but seems designed for marketing purposes for the discs. It does include a links page, which is where I found the other two. Click away!





As you know, *Tomb Raider* is off and blasting in theaters as of today/yesterday. I plan to see it in a few weeks after the initial rush dies down, let you know what I think of the newest Emma Peel descendent after that. In the meantime, I did get out last Wednesday to see *Moulin Rouge*, and I wish to echo the earlier sentiments of some other ATPoBtVS posters-- namely,

***GO SEE THIS MOVIE***, like right this minute! Or ASAP, or whenever you can.

This is the best movie I have seen yet this year, I am still trying to take it all in. Rest assured, I intend to see it at least one more time, and you may want to also. *Don't* wait for the video release, see this in the biggest, best looking, best sounding theatre in your town. If you don't have one, drive to a town that does.

What more can I say? Oh, yeah, *Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon* is out on DVD & VHS. See comments for *Moulin Rogue*, above.

(Good excuse to buy a nice 56" / 16x9 Widescreen / Hi-Def Digital TV to add to that DVD player you just got last week ;) (~grin~)


Next week - Who is this Baz Luhrman guy, anyway?



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - June 15th 2001 -- Wisewoman, 22:29:03 06/15/01 Fri

I hear you, OnM...what a disappointment! And I was so looking forward to the movie. Y'know, even though Uma and Ralph are fine actors, they both lack the sort of self-deprecating irony that was so wonderfully evident with Peel and Steed. Personally, if it *had* to be remade (which it didn't, IMHO) I would have gone for Emma Thompson and Pierce Brosnan (I know he's too beautiful to be real, but he actually has a good sense of humour and, more important, can laugh at himself).

Gotta save up those pennies and get a DVD player...give me time, it takes almost twice as many of ours!


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - June 15th 2001 -- Brian, 03:09:44 06/16/01 Sat

The Avengers, like The Prisoner, are classic TV at its finest. "Age cannot wither [them], nor custom stale [their]infinite variety"


[> [> [> Some things are better left alone -- ckinght, 06:09:48 06/16/01 Sat

Good posts. I think some old shows & movies should not be remade. Though I feel more at ease when they take a old TV show and make a movie. than when its a remake of a movie. There is such a glaring lack of new original ideas in Hollywood.

I'm even tired of TV shows that kind of ripoff other shows. Dark angel being one, maybe I'm one only a few that feel this way about that show but I feel it's a ripoff of Buffy on many levels. I tried to watch the show a few times and every time I got the feeling "hey they're trying to redo buffy" they just put a different cover on it. It was a low thing that FOX did by putting it on the same time as Angel.

Back to the movies though I love Tim Burton's work but why has he remade Planet Of The Apes?? The coming attractions look good but why do it? The movie industry has to get more creative. The was already a whole series of Planet Of the Apes movies made. Only classic characters should be redone Dracula, etc. . It's like someone saying hey I'm going to remake Star Wars (the first one).

I don't have a problem with a TV show being created from a movie though. It's continuing a story. In the case of buffy I think the show has been lightyears ahead of the buffy movie in terms of storytelling.


[> [> [> [> Re: Some things are better left alone -- Scout, 08:22:25 06/16/01 Sat

You are so right. I get the feeling that some writers/producers/what-have-you in Hollywood are trying to bring back their own childhoods by making films of TV shows that we'd have been better off without in the first place ("Brady Bunch Movie", anyone?) or that were remade as star vehicles but in the process lost the charm and cleverness of the originals ("Avengers", definitely, and "Wild Wild West" comes to mind as well).

I'm trying to think of a remake of a film that was better than the original but I can't right now.

Can any of you imagine "The Godfather" without Marlon Brando? I can't.

I also felt after a couple of episodes that "Dark Angel" was a Buffy rip-off, but without Joss Whedon's deftness.

As far as "Planet of the Apes" is concerned, OK, sure they can do special FX and makeup better today than in the 1960s, but what's the point? I was too young to appreciate the film when it first came out, but watching it later on TV I remember being floored when Charlton Heston realized he was looking at the destroyed Statue of Liberty and that he was on his own home planet. How can anyone today, even someone as talented as Tim Burton, improve on that?

I've read more than once that JW's original vision for the Buffy film was slapped down by the studio involved and that it was only when it came to the television series that he was given the freedom to do what he'd wanted in the first place. I hope fervently that he's always able to hold onto his creation, the one we know and love, and that in future years no one else will be allowed to take his concept and mangle it beyond all recognition.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some things are better left alone -- Andy, 11:12:36 06/16/01 Sat

I don't think it's about people wanting to recreate their own childhoods so much as it is that marketing people have conquered Hollywood and their logic consists of wanting to "minimize risk" by only doing movies that have "built-in" audiences. Hence remakes, sequels, and adaptations of books, comics, video games, and tv shows. They're simply terrified of original ideas because of the possibility of failing with millions of dollars on the line.

I read an interview with Joss Whedon not too long ago in which he said that he likes working in television because it's become a writer's medium, where people like him have more freedom to experiment and do storylines with complex long-term plotting and characterization.


[> [> [> [> [> [> The Brady Bunch movie...... -- AK-UK, 12:49:11 06/17/01 Sun

.......was brilliant!!! Absolutely hysterical! The way they transplanted the characters from the 70's to the 90's; showing the good and bad aspects of both decades.....the model auditions (*slap* "Cut my hair???" :), the lesbian friend, the evil neighbour, the talent contest, the kinky maid, come on people!!

This is one of my top ten funniest films ever!


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - June 15th 2001 -- Andy, 07:01:36 06/16/01 Sat

I always felt that the Avengers movie was also a little too fixated on whether Steed and Peel were, you know, like, going to do it or something. I always liked how the show never really seemed to take the idea of them as an actual couple seriously. They just happened to have great chemistry while they were working together :) The other thing is that it's tremendously hard to replicate that sense of style that the show had. I'm not sure there's a director in the movies today that could even begin to get it right without it coming off as transparent as it was in this movie.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - June 15th 2001 -- Cynthia, 05:31:40 06/16/01 Sat

Reading your review brought a much needed laugh and smile. I agree with you 100 percent. Just the mention of "The Avengers", even after decades of not having seen it, brings back crystal clear images. It's amazing what wonderful writing combined with great acting can do. I still want to be Emma Peel. LOL


[> Chapeau Melon et Bottes de Cuir -- Aquitaine, 08:58:38 06/16/01 Sat

Ahhh! The Avengers! The title in the subject line is the French name for the series which clealy focuses on the 'fashion' angle (Bowler Hat and Leather Boots - literally)...

The ancillary and much-appreciated 'style' of The Avengers was mostly product of a lack of funds and technical prowess. The stylised fight scenes and the larger than life models and gadgets as well as the purposely clipped dialogue and stilted editing all combined to create the Avengers' look and feel. By this fact, style was integrated into the substance of the show.

Likewise, while the violence and villains were caricatural, there was an air of real (Cold War?) menace that clung to every scene. Emma and Steed's sassy/cynical/sexy/subliminal repartee worked *with* the other elements to critique the political paranoia of the mid-60s.

Buffy has to deal with many of the same creative and financial challenges as did the original Avengers series. Sometimes I think that having fewer means is a good thing!

As for the recent movie, it isn't even worth mentioning. It was... slick in all the wrong places.


Lovely job on CMOTW, as usual, OnM:)



[> [> Re: Chapeau Melon et Bottes de Cuir -- Scout, 10:38:12 06/16/01 Sat

Yes, many thanks OnM, and to you Aquitaine for "Chapeau Melon". The vision in my head makes me giggle.


[> Re: The Phantom Menace did have Soul -- Dedalus, 15:33:57 06/16/01 Sat

Could everyone PLEASE stop picking on this woefully misunderstood and underappreciated movie?

Up there with the Avengers. Yeah, right.


[> [> Give us your side, my friend! If we're missing the point, clue us in :) -- OnM, 15:52:35 06/16/01 Sat

I just call 'em as I see 'em. But, I've also held up praise at times for other movies that other people disliked. So let's hear what you have to say re: *Phantom Menace*.


[> [> [> Re: Give us your side, my friend! If we're missing the point, clue us in :) -- Dedalus, 21:53:01 06/16/01 Sat

My friend, I appreciate your enthusiasm for other people's opinions. But as far as TPM goes ... I'm talked out. I've been debating that movie for two years, and I am worn out on it, and Star Wars fandom, and everything else. I am just so glad to be here with you good people, I don't want to get into it. Although, as much as I can see the mainstream press and whiny fanboys dissing it, I can't see anyone with any knowledge of myth/symbolism/philosophy just totally dismissing it.

If you want some long drawn out arguments, go to lardbiscuit.com and click on Why I Love the Phantom Menace.

If you want arguments from me personally, go to Space.com, and click on scifi, and then The Phantom Heresies. My name is Paul, and I got up a lot of them (and was paid rather nicely for once). My latest, and likely one of my last, TPM articles just went up this month at scifidimensions.com, The Force, the Tao, and the Butterfly.

I can see some people being disappointed in TPM, and I don't hold that against them. I do hold something against those who make a lifestyle out of it, however. Lucas and SW are very near and dear to my heart.


[> [> [> [> Re: Give us your side, my friend! If we're missing the point, clue us in :) -- rowan, 10:57:19 06/17/01 Sun

Amen, dedalus (Star Wars love goes along with my love of LOTR). I think the inherent "problem" with The Phantom Menace, as well as the two movies to follow, is that it is darker than Eps 4-6. After all, it will result in Anakin succumbing to the dark side. It will be hard for the casual fan to really appreciate these three eps, regardless of their quality, IMHO. Perhaps when all six can be viewed in sequence, a more general appreciation will be felt for the first three.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Give us your side, my friend! If we're missing the point, clue us in :) -- Dedalus, 12:47:45 06/18/01 Mon

Either way, George has got a tough road ahead of him. Actually, not, because he is so cool about all this. But it does just get to be a vicious cycle after awhile - hype, backlash, hype, backlash, hype, backlash.

I have serious doubts that anyone who didn't enjoy TPM will find any entertainment in the next two.

And I agree with you Rowan - everyone was like "Oh, TPM is so light and happy and there's no hint of danger" ... but I think TPM is the darkest SW movie so far. Precisely because no one knows what the hell is going on. I mean Palpatine as Supreme Chancellor? That's a "happy ending"? It would be like ending a movie with Hitler being elected president of the United States.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Give us your side, my friend! If we're missing the point, clue us in :) -- rowan, 18:17:35 06/19/01 Tue

Yes, and it only gets darker from here. I mean, we had cute little Anakin. That was as good as it gets for happy, when he had Amidala's affection to himself (sorry, did I get the name right?). Next ep, we'll have the love triangle with Obi Wan, Anakin's increasing doubts about her, plus the competition for heroic status, and the start of the flowering of the dark seeds. Last ep, darkness at the end.


[> Re: Some links to reviews of *Tomb Raider* -- OnM, 21:22:23 06/16/01 Sat

Those who have had some thought of seeing this flick may want to check out these reviews by two of my fav film critics:



The links should take you directly to the reviews, but feel free to look around the sites while you're there, esp. James Berardinelli's site, ReelViews.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - another opinion -- purplegrrl, 08:25:57 06/18/01 Mon

Obviously I am *way* in the minority here, but I kind of liked "The Avengers" movie. It was amusing eye candy. (And since I never watched the original TV series I didn't have anything to compare it with. So I guess I sort of took it on it's own merits.) Besides, I'd probably go see anything with Ralph Fiennes in it - and I can always dream that I could look like Uma Thurman in a black leather catsuit.

Just my 2 cents, so no rotten tomatoes please! ;-)


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - another opinion -- Solitude1056, 16:45:27 06/18/01 Mon

I second that about Uma Thurman and Ralph Fiennes, especially the catsuit. Michelle Pfeiffer tried, but Uma's got her beat. So I say, nothing wrong with eye candy, but it helps that I saw the Avengers movie at the dollar theater. I do have problems with eye candy when it's all you get for $8 per person and a $5 bag o' popcorn. :)


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - another opinion -- verdantheart, 07:33:11 06/20/01 Wed

I'm glad you liked it, though most of us (including me) didn't. I found the new Avengers rather insufferably smug -- and humorless, which the originals certainly weren't! For fine Fiennes, I'd recommend The End of the Affair (you may now pelt me with tomatoes if you disagree).

- vh


[> [> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week (Not) - another opinion -- OnM, 20:23:38 06/20/01 Wed

Yes, that was a key problem for me, because beyond the humor in the original series, there were also ample amounts of it's forebrained cousin, wit.

To be very fair, if I had never seen any of the original TV shows-- and after all, the whole point of last week's review was to point people into checking them out-- I would have probably given the movie higher marks, because I would write off the negative parts and allow for the fact that it was very visually stylish and quirky.

It was the same reason I stopped watching the TV show after Rigg left-- it wasn't just her replacement, it was that the show turned into a different direction entirely, and seemed to abandon what made it truly unique in the first place. You know, if you work for years to create a superb chablis, you don't just dump it all and say hey! Let's start over, and add a few cups of sugar and food coloring just for grins!

Bad move, big time, and mostly the fault of the writers, or possibly the producers if they forced the writers to take this different tack.
My personal fantasy (does not involve Spike [much] and is NOT x-rated) -- Wisewoman, 08:45:30 06/16/01 Sat

Here it is: Whenever Buffy ends, be it two years or ten from now, we have all managed to save our pennies (the unemployed writers/editors/artists have all been working at fabulous high-paying jobs by then) and we meet, somewhere in the middle geographically, at a luxurious hotel, rent the ballroom to watch the finale on widescreen, and then stay up all night drinking champagne (or beverage of choice) discussing the philosophy of the finale and, indeed, the entire series. The only bad here is that it's the end of the show, but I'm trying not to think about that.

I'm thinking the geographic centre for us has to be somewhere on the Eastern seaboard of the US, maybe New York? Lots of great hotels there, so I'm told.

Oh, wait, it just got better--see, by now, the Existential Scoobies have become an unbelievably popular web phenom, to the extent that a Hollywood director has decided to make a documentary about our *Finale Fling* and has enticed Joss and the whole cast to make appearances at the party as well.

Aaaack! I can't stand the excitement! I'm going to have to go and lie down for a while now...see ya' later.


[> Re: Along for the ride -- Brian, 08:58:12 06/16/01 Sat

Sign me up! But I suggest a more northern central location. How about Chicago or Toronto? Aren't many of the posters on this board Canadian?


[> [> Re: Along for the ride -- Aquitaine, 09:02:25 06/16/01 Sat

LOL. That's sounds like a great idea Wisewoman:) It's never too early to plan when you have a summer of reruns ahead of you...

-Aquitaine (who also favours a more northern location... ok fellow Canadians, let's throw our weight around here a bit! ROFL!)


[> [> [> Re: Along for the ride -- Wiccagrrl, 11:16:36 06/16/01 Sat

Ooh, love that idea. I'm in California myself, so probably be a trek no matter which location is chosen (unless people wanna come to SF or LA :))But count me in, cause I think this sounds great.


[> [> [> [> Seems to me no place is "central". But CA is where BtVS/Angel/Joss (& Masq) are :) -- Masq, 12:08:53 06/16/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> Masq, you gotta be there! Where you lead, we will follow. -- Wisewoman, 13:16:26 06/16/01 Sat

L.A. is just a jaunt down the 101 for me and Rufus, but what about our UK scoobies?

Oh, oh! I know! They can fly cheap to Vancouver and we'll rent an RV and drive down together!!

Ummm, but what if we're chased by guys on horses? ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Due to the exchange rate have you considered Vancouver??? -- Rufus, 14:05:28 06/16/01 Sat

You get more for your money here and we have very pretty scenery. We also have an international airport in Richmond. So for OnM pretty trees(lots of trees), fairly clean air, the Canadians will be able to afford it, it's just a thought.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Vancouver is my *fave* Canadian city, plus it's West Coast -- Masq, 06:06:19 06/17/01 Sun

Followed by Toronto and Montreal.

Vancouver of course you have to do the "Highlander" tour and the "X-files" tour (how many on location shots can you recognize just wandering around the city). In Toronto, it'd be "Forever Knight" (for me, anyway).

Well, when I wasn't partying with you guys.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Due to the exchange rate have you considered Vancouver??? -- LadyStarlight, 12:24:33 06/17/01 Sun

I was thinking about this while washing walls (hey, what else am I going to think about) and what about Calgary? It's a pretty city (lots of trees/mountains), lots of stuff for other people to do (shopping, amusement park, zoo, museums), it can be beautiful in May/June, there is an international airport, and (drum roll here) it's close enough to me so I can take Greyhound. ;) Just thinking about those pennies...but seriously folks.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Works for me- selfish, maybe, but West Coast'd be easier for me. -- Wiccagrrl, 17:59:00 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Awww, I wanna come, too.... -- Marie, 08:37:52 06/18/01 Mon

....and I'm going to have to start saving now, because I live in Wales!! (But when I'm there, can I just lurk, 'cos I'm a little shy!).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> The more, the merrier, says I! -- Wisewoman, 17:22:55 06/18/01 Mon

I'm betting you won't be able to lurk for long when you get wind of the scintillating conversation and insightful philosophical analysis that gonna be drippin' off the walls! (Or when you get enough champagne, or beverage of choice, into you...hehehe)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We'll have to save a warm beer for Marie. :-) -- Solitude1056, 07:09:36 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You mean you drink yours cold?! Eewww! "Bloody colonials!" -- Marie, 07:18:51 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nope... I prefer white wine, thanks. -- Solitude1056, 07:33:49 06/19/01 Tue

Which means there will be plenty of beers, warm or cold, for anyone/everyone else. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'll provide the Crantini's and Margueritas though! mmmm.... -- Little One, 07:50:55 06/19/01 Tue

BTW, those weren't ominous elipsis but rather yummy-indicating ones! ;-D

Hmm...The Ominous Crantini...S6's Big Bad?

(I've really got to stop drinking so much coffee in the morning!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What's a Crantini? -- Marie, 08:35:47 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Nectar of the gods -- Little One, 09:24:40 06/19/01 Tue

A Crantini is a Cranberry Martini - basically cranberry juice, vodka, raspberry liqueur, orange zest and a few other things thrown in for good measure.

Ranks high on the yummificus scale


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ewwwwwwww....I like Dr. Pepper.............. -- Rufus, 17:39:15 06/19/01 Tue

Can't drink anything with alcohol in it...sends me to the hospital.......I do also quite like root beer or cream soda.....you guys can have all the hard stuff.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Nectar of the gods ...mmmmm -- Marie, 03:17:46 06/20/01 Wed

Well, my beverage of choice would be a nice cuppa tea, strong enough to stand the spoon up in (little bit of milk, no sugar), but I have to admit that sounds rather yummy! (Would it go with bubble-and-squeak, which I'm having for dinner tonight?).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I quite like bubble and squeak.......... -- Rufus, 13:59:00 06/20/01 Wed

Iced tea for me.......my friend made me bubble and squeak years ago it was easy and tasty.....Scandinavian here...one that doesn't like eel and herring.....


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Save a nice Shiraz for me, please. -- rowan, 21:03:29 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> Remember, aim for the horsies. -- Solitude1056, 14:45:27 06/16/01 Sat

Actually, if groups of people from similar locations opt to fly together, we could get group discounts on some of the airlines. I know Southwest does, and they fly BWI and Philly, I think, and go to Oregon, San Jose, and Los Angeles. Don't know about "international" flights (to Canada). For some of us, it might mean hopping a puddle-jumper to meet up, and I don't know if that saves money or would end up costing more. Sheesh. Aren't there any travel agents on this board, or are we all writers/editors/critics? :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Actually, I think it's "Where I lead, dark forces follow" -- Masq, 06:07:54 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I can live with that. -- Solitude1056, 09:52:27 06/19/01 Tue

"Dark forces" sounds so much more, uh, dark than oh, hmmm. Perhaps... "rainbow-hued"? Just doesn't have the same punch. Then again, I've learnt to live with a lot of things. Like mis-used ellipsi.


Ah, and the idea of us all following Masq wherever she goes finally gives me a chance to use one of my favorite quotes, which never fails to rile the programmers around me. "The question is not, 'are you paranoid?' - but, 'are you paranoid enough?'" and naturally the name of the movie went right outta my head. OnM, help me out here. One of us dark forces following Masq are having a braincore bluescreen moment!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh no! I'm being followed by the Second Evil (elipsis, elipsis, elipsis) -- Masquerade, 11:34:03 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Re: Along for the ride -- Liquidram, 18:55:04 06/16/01 Sat

Sounds great and with 2 years to plan, anywhere should be potentially do-able.

I'm in Silicon Valley - Land of Revoked Opportunity :0)


[> [> [> Re: Along for the ride -- Lazarus, 19:06:19 06/18/01 Mon

Just wanted to toss in my "Me too!" too... Two.. To... Tutu??... Sorry...

And as for a venue for this intriguing venture, I'd have to also suggest Toronto. Reasons?

- Very good international airport with flights to/from any major city in the U.S., Canada and Europe.

- Great rates on everything for all the Americans on everything thanks to the exchange rate.

- Reasonable rates for my fellow Canadians for using our own money

- Innumerable extracurricular activities ranging from great museums and an excellent zoo to superb theatre and almost any kind of nightlife you could want. Add in all of the normal tourist trap type of things, some incredible restaurants of any ethnic origin you can imagine, and all the shopping anyone could want.

- Safer and cleaner than just about any major U.S. city. (Sorry American friends, but it's still true. When they use Toronto as a substitute shooting location for an American city they have to put garbage in the streets to make it look realistic!)

- Various big conventions throughout the year we could glom on to.

- Easily accessable by car from the U.S. through Buffalo/Niagara or Detroit/Windsor for those of us close enough to drive.

And no, I don't even live there... :)


[> [> [> [> Bwa ha ha ha.... ahem, sorry, my mistake... -- Little One, 07:00:25 06/19/01 Tue

Yeehaa, another vote for good ol' TO! Yet another step taken towards my fiendish plot to have all ATP members come to Toronto, fall under its spell of niceties and cleanliness so that they shall never leave, thereby increasing the IQ level of the town. This will reverse the dreaded Brain Drain (high level professionals moving south after the big US $'s) creating a, if you will, Brain Suck! We will be a vortex, a gaseous swirling cloud of ideas and creative energy that will soon take over the world, leaving all non-Buffy lovers quivering huddled masses of worshipful minions. We will then be known as Scoobificus. And yea, though the earth will tremble, all will know the finer points of Buffy beyond that "Spike is a hottie" and "Willow Rocks".

Now all I have to do is keep quiet and let them come! (Insert maniacal laugher!)

(Oops...I didn't just say the loud part quiet and the quiet part loud again, did I?)


[> [> [> [> [> You forgot to rub your hands together gleefully while you cackled. :D -- Solitude1056, 07:11:29 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry, must have been my evil clone! (Whew...) -- Little One, 07:38:09 06/19/01 Tue

(..that explanation should help to maintain my outward pose of innocence and purity!)

Meanwhile, back at the camp, gleeful hand-rubbing and cackling ensues!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> I'm beginning to wonder about you...(WARNING: definitely ominous ellipsis) -- Wisewoman, 07:51:34 06/19/01 Tue

*Little One*, hmmm? Sounds so sweet and harmless, doesn't it? Come on, what's your *real* nick? *Canadianificus terribilis*?

roflmao!! ;o)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Who, Me? (Widely blinking eyes, head cocked to the side innocently while roflmao!!) -- Little One, 09:27:04 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You guys...........are just...........adorable.............:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:42:53 06/19/01 Tue

Stole that from Spike and I'm still looking for a copy of Evil for Dummies.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> awww *blushing*...how about How To Get Ahead In Evil Without Really Trying? -- Little One, 08:53:46 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I still want a copy of Evil For Dummies... it can go next to my SQL for Dummies. -- Solitude1056, 19:12:31 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Tell a tired Rufus what is SQL for Dummies means????? -- Rufus, 22:56:16 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I don't need a book -- evil comes naturally to me. :) -- rowan, 20:12:21 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You gonna arm wrestle Spike for the status of Big Bad???????:):):):):):) -- Rufus, 22:46:28 06/21/01 Thu

Remember, plastic or metal..........:):)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I wouldn't think "arms" would be what's doing the wrestlin'. *snicker* -- Solitude1056, 05:43:05 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> Re: Along for the ride -- Solitude1056, 14:41:41 06/16/01 Sat

Could we pick somewhere temperate as well as middle-of-travel? A major hub means cheaper fares for those of us travelling... but having just gone from oh-so-cold Sweden to burnt-nose Arizona, I'd like somewhere that's kind of in the middle. Where's a nice mid-70's (F) temp for season finale time-of-year?

(That would put my vote on NYC and away from anything too much farther south, I suppose.)


[> [> [> Re: Defining the ride -- Brian, 15:36:19 06/16/01 Sat

NYC may be very expensive. Perhaps we need to find a place that's on a major airline route, has reasonable prices for room and board, is near some major attractions ( we can't talk philosophy all the time, can we?), some place where those of you with significant others can placate them with other activities, some place that we might be able to lure Joss & Company for a visit. Or, actully, maybe we should look into when there is a con that has some cast members attending, and we could meet there. What's good about that idea is that Conventions should have discounts on airfare and hotels.


[> [> [> [> Cons and fans and philosophers, oh my! -- Solitude1056, 17:27:45 06/16/01 Sat

Never been to a Con before - but I know Baltimore's big for them. Something about being near international airport and being significantly cheaper than DC... which is probably why many get-togethers in New England are in Providence RI rather than Boston MA. Which is fine, but can we skip New Jersey if at all possible? I'll ante up for meeting in Champaign IL (rather than Chicago) anyday over Newark NJ. Cheap is good but even I have limits!



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Cons and fans and philosophers, oh my! -- rowan, 17:38:20 06/16/01 Sat

Providence has some nice Italian restaurants & a very nice (although small) airport. However, it can be very expensive to fly to Providence from some locations. Direct flights from most PA airports are about $800.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cons and fans and philosophers, oh my! -- Solitude1056, 17:56:36 06/16/01 Sat

If you wanna stay in Providence, the time to do it is during Waterfire. Without giving too much away, I used to live there, *and* I worked in the hotel industry, so that's a backroute to cheap hotel/conference deals. TF Green Airport's actually cheapest if you fly United or Southwest. Both have "puddle-jumpers" from many major cities for quite cheap, depending on when you go. (You can fly from BWI to TF Green, on Southwest, for about $90 roundtrip. United sometimes has deals from TF Green for commuter flights that are as cheap or cheaper.)

And yes, the city rocks for food & entertainment, all within a short walking distance of everything else. It's also got one of the top onsite breweries for those of you of drinking age. Not that I spent a lot of time there, of course. Heh. Btw, the city's also quite cheap compared to most eastern seaboard citys in the US, for those of you coming from Canada. (Just in case you ever think, gee, why don't I go visit the smallest state in the Union?)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cons and fans and philosophers, oh my! -- rowan, 18:06:41 06/16/01 Sat

I go to Providence alot on business. Newark fares are also relatively inexpensive to Providence. Just don't try to get to Providence from Philly, Lehigh Valley, Harrisburg, or Pittsburgh!


[> [> [> How about ME? -- rowan, 17:12:17 06/16/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> What about you? -- Solitude1056, 17:59:03 06/16/01 Sat

Hey, we'll conference you in. Have your girl call our girl, we'll fax lunch. :)

IOW: I'm not sure what you mean by the question...


[> [> [> [> [> Re: What about you? -- rowan, 18:07:49 06/16/01 Sat

Sorry...I meant, what about Maine as a possible location? Lovely coastline, good for East Coasters and Canadians in terms of location, nice weather, plenty to see and do.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Only if you provide the sweaters. -- Solitude1056, 18:09:33 06/16/01 Sat

I was raised in Georgia. That should explain everything. :)

(Remember, it's not the heat that gets ya, it's the humility.)


[> Re: My personal fantasy (does not involve Spike [much] and is NOT x-rated) -- Scout, 10:51:15 06/16/01 Sat

Oh, honey, sign me up right now! I live in the UK, as you know (and, hey, it would be great here as a location and I could put some people up in my house as needed), but I go home to Atlanta at least once a year, plus at least once a year to Canada or the USA skiing, and, well, my heart will lead me to where you tell me where to follow.

Oh yes.


[> Re: My personal fantasy (does not involve Spike [much] and is NOT x-rated) -- LadyStarlight, 12:03:21 06/16/01 Sat

Count me in! A weekend without kids...be still my heart! I guess I'd better start buying Lotto tickets (I'm a stay-at-home-mom at the moment).


[> Re: My personal fantasy (does not involve Spike [much] and is NOT x-rated) -- Rosenberg, 14:20:11 06/16/01 Sat

Giddyup, cowboy, this commie is in. And I would also take part in any effort if Aly should join us for the night, eh?


[> It's all coming together... -- Wisewoman, 15:47:08 06/16/01 Sat

Okay, central location skewed slightly North + moderate May weather + Canadian exchange rate = Toronto! Actually my hometown, although I haven't been back for almost thirty years (lol).

I'm just itchin' to start pulling out the luggage right now! Oh wait, at least two years to go... :o(


[> [> oh godz... -- Solitude1056, 17:49:57 06/16/01 Sat

I was explaining the idea to my housemate, and I suddenly had a bizarre vision of us tailgating into a Sci Fi Con to use their group rates to cheapen the deal. We'd watch the finale on a large-screen HDTV in a spare conference room, and afterwards all 30 or 40 people are consumed by a huge debate about hegelian dialectic as reflected by the cadences of Anya & Willow arguments, with a sub-conversation discussing the mythic travels of the hero and the plotholes of literal death. Then the conference room door opens and the room falls silent...

...and a mid-30's permanently adolescent computer programmer in a homemade star trek uniform pokes his head around the door. One rubber vulcan ear drooping slightly, he lisps, "is this the class for Introduction to Conversational Klingon?"

Yikes. I scare myself...


[> [> Re: Refining the ride -- Brian, 18:17:36 06/16/01 Sat

So now it seems to be, at least, semi-offical, in a non-offical way, of course. We will keep our eyes and ears alert for a Con location - Somewhere in North America. During the next two years we will be able to do much more planning, during breaks from all our lush and wonderful philosophizing. We will start saving our pennies for expenses (including cool name tags), because I have all these images in my head of what various folks on this board look like (and I'm sure I'll be wrong when greeting the reality). "And we will have fun, fun, fun til Joss takes our Buffy away."


[> [> [> My personal fantasy...coming true! Guys, I...I think I'm gonna cry... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:50:20 06/16/01 Sat


[> [> [> Re: Refining the ride -- Liquidram, 19:00:06 06/16/01 Sat

and I'll design and make our custom t-shirts based on our website... everyone can wear their favorite character with our name and slogan (hey, we need a slogan!) on theirs.


[> [> [> [> Re: T-shirt Messages -- Brian, 05:09:08 06/17/01 Sun

I like this concept. How about:

Danger: Buffyverse Philosopher


Another Philosophical Warrior for ATPoBtVS


[> [> [> [> [> Re: T-shirt Messages -- rowan, 11:03:57 06/17/01 Sun

With a nice big photo of Spike with bedhead underneath! ;)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: T-shirt Messages -- Liquidram, 11:41:01 06/17/01 Sun

I was actually considering offering this for you all regardless to commemorate the anniversary.

I was thinking about using the collage images of each character from the site with a standard logo and slogan for continuity per each member's choice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: T-shirt Messages -- AK-UK, 12:19:34 06/17/01 Sun

Liquidram, I want one of your T-shirts!

Ok, I want the picture to be of Joss Whedon. With the slogan

"He thinks, therefore I am......"

on the front, and on the back

".....A member of ATPoBtVS"


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oooh, me too! -- Masq, 14:26:05 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, yes, please! Me, too!! -- Wisewoman, 14:43:51 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> me three! -- Solitude1056, 15:39:26 06/17/01 Sun

Yes, the one with the picture of Joss - totally! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: me three! -- liquidram, 17:46:37 06/17/01 Sun

it shall be done... i'll go to his official website and nab something unless someone has an image they would prefer. Should I use the Buffy font?

Would it be fair if those of you who want a t-shirt (and I'll post a pic of it first) to send a shirt to me (white or beige) and enough to cover Priority postage ($5)?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What???No t-shirt that says: Masquerades minions -- Rufus, 18:15:24 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well... -- Masq, 19:27:05 06/17/01 Sun

it could say that on the back. For the board members who are short and scabby and wear robes. The rest of the T's could say "Existential Scoobies". Is that what everyone decided on???

Mine, of course, would say, "Her luscious luminescence". Either that or "The First Evil".


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Well... -- Rufus, 19:30:12 06/17/01 Sun

How about one of each depending on your mood. Sometimes you feel just evil.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can I be "The Second Evil", then? -- Solitude1056, 20:05:17 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Still giggling over OnM's "Masq'd Avengers of Buffydom "! (NT) -- Little One, 09:12:01 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: me three! -- Wisewoman, 19:58:36 06/17/01 Sun

Sounds like an incredibly generous offer to me!

Wait, did AK-UK use the dreaded ellipsis in his slogan...yes, he did! Ha! Won him over at last.

So, what we're really saying, front to back, is: "He thinks, therefore I am a member of ATPoBtVS"...love it! That way we can all get one, whether we're involved in The Existential Scoobies or not.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: me three! -- AK-UK, 21:38:28 06/17/01 Sun

Hey, I love ellipses.....just not at the end of a sentence. They make posts look all evil and foreboding.........

See what I mean? :)

And Wisewoman: don't overlook my carefully crafted Cartesian pun. "He thinks, therefore I am" is also a sly tribute to my favorite BtVS character, Oz (an "Existential Scooby" if ever there was one :)

You know, I just realised...........will I be able to get a T-shirt, considering I live in England? Oh, the irony of everyone getting one of these "I think....." T-shirts except for me :(


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Whatever it takes, we'll get you one. -- Wisewoman, 21:54:18 06/17/01 Sun

Flights from Vancouver to Manchester are going for $399, return, Canadian right now. If the worst comes to the worst, we'll personally bring you one!



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> In that case, me four! -- Marie, 08:08:51 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> uh, about those nabbing images -- Solitude1056, 20:04:07 06/17/01 Sun

As a photographer, I'd be a lot more comfortable with it if it's an image that's clearly marked for public distribution or (preferably) we get someone in Joss' camp to give us permission to use the image. I don't fancy a photographer walking up to me on the street one day & saying I'm wearing a shirt with his/her copywritten image that s/he didn't give specific permission for that kind of usage (t-shirt). If we're clear that it's not for a profit, and would further publicity for Joss' endeavors, they might grant it (with probable requirement that no one makes money off the idea).

Alternately (and less comfortably), play with the image to such an extent that it's not recognizable as one person's photographic image, but that's walking a thin-line in terms of US copyright laws. The third option is for someone amongst us who's skilled with pen & ink to do a drawing of Joss based on a photograph. That's considered (usually) a new creation of artwork, and can be copywritten by the artist without infringement on the original photographer's work.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: uh, about those nabbing images -- Liquidram, 21:05:09 06/17/01 Sun

As a designer, I know exactly what you are saying and totally agree. Any images taken from a website must have permission from either the site or the photographer.

Publicity shots can be used with the appropriate copyrights attached. It is acceptable to use publicity shots as long as you do not profit from them. This is why we would never sell the shirts (or anything else from the site.) It is for personal use only.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: uh, about those nabbing images -- Solitude1056, 06:12:38 06/18/01 Mon

Not having much experience with "publicity shots," I wasn't sure if that were true or not. In your place, I'd probably write Joss & co. and ask permission anyway (& offer his writers a chance at the shirts), but that's just me. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ...and me also :0) -- Liquidram, 08:34:37 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Great idea! -- rowan, 16:52:05 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> What, nothing about cats and chocolate? -- verdantheart, 07:34:35 06/18/01 Mon

I thought someone would have wanted mentions of those essentials on our T-shirt ... or maybe hot cocoa with the little mini-marshmallows ...

- vh


[> [> Toronto Attractions -- Little One, 08:57:50 06/18/01 Mon

I selfishly love the idea of Toronto! As a Torontonian, I could collect pamphlets and info and mail it off to everyone who's interested, along with getting names of hotels, arranging for tours, group rates, etc.

There are many great attractions in Toronto, not the least of which is a great club (my hang-out when I'm not here!) called the Zen Lounge. It's very Bronze-ish. It's one of the few places in town you can go around dressed like Evil Willow and nobody questions it!

As to the convention idea, we have two annual sci-fi conventions: the Toronto Trek in July (which in 2003 will be a WorldCon), and the Canadian Sci-Fi Convention in August (which James Marsters was supposed to come to last year but was replaced by Giles at the last minute). However, if we don't want to have this in May, I could arrange for a Buffy MiniCon at the Toronto Trek in July! I know quite a few people behind the convention and we could probably arrange for special guests if we start campaigning now! Not to mention, the room rates and airline discounts are arranged through the mass spending power of the convention itself. If anyone would like to take a look, the site for Toronto Trek is: http://tcon.icomm.ca/tt15/ and the site for the Sci-Fi Convention is: http://www.hobbystar.com/torontoconventions.html
For all us Godless Canadians -- LadyStarlight, 12:51:29 06/16/01 Sat

I just checked the Space Network website and starting Sept. 8, they're showing BTVS at 8 pm and 2 am ET. Woo Hoo!!! Somebody may have to explain to me how to hook my VCR up with my satellite so I can tape the 2 am one. (or give me a brand name for TVo so the schmucks at FutureShop know what I'm talking about).


[> Thanks! I'm going to spend the summer stocking up on video tape ;o) -- Wisewoman, 13:10:23 06/16/01 Sat


[> Re: For all us Godless Canadians -- gds, 14:00:37 06/16/01 Sat

I'm not sure what you are asking (Perhaps because I'm not Canadian), but when you say TVo it seems you might be referring to TIVO. One of the versions of TIVO is a combo TIVO/satellite receiver. If you were thinking of TIVO here's a few links to get you started.


http://www.orbitsat.com/DirecTV/Index.htm models SAS-T60D/T60 & SAS-T60T/T60

http://www.gadgetguru.com/Jan%208,%202001%20-%20Echostar%20Receiver%20with%20PVR.htm (Since it doesn't specify this PVR may not be TIVO.


[> [> Thanks, I'll check the links out! -- LadyStarlight, 16:44:25 06/16/01 Sat


[> We Canadians have an opportunity....... -- Rufus, 14:07:51 06/16/01 Sat

To see the first few seasons all over again, there will be no living with us.


[> [> Re: We Canadians have an opportunity....... -- rowan, 17:36:12 06/16/01 Sat

I think we already have problems living with you. ;)


[> [> [> Whatever do you mean?????......:):):) -- Rufus, 20:07:40 06/16/01 Sat


[> I can help you with the VCR to Sat hookup - it's usually pretty easy -- OnM, 19:46:23 06/16/01 Sat

I need to know about how old your VCR is, and if it is a stereo unit. I can then e-mail you directions for the hookup. You may need to buy a cable set to connect them, but that isn't a big expense.

Let me know if you are interested. Using your VCR is still way cheaper than using a TiVO or Replay hard disk recorder, and if you want to archive the shows, you will still need to dub them off the TiVO to the VCR-- hard disks only store so much video, then you have to erase stuff to fit more on.


[> [> Re: I can help you with the VCR to Sat hookup - it's usually pretty easy -- LadyStarlight, 19:59:51 06/16/01 Sat

Thanks for your offer, I went & looked at the back of the VCR (When in doubt, check the instructions ;)), and it is hooked up to the satellite. So now I just need to get the times in sync, find the remote for the VCR & I'm set.

Thanks to the links posted, I found the TiVo webpage, but it's not sold in Canada, as far as I could figure out. So I guess us godless Cdns. will have to use VCRs.
Slayer's death -- Gary, 20:13:33 06/16/01 Sat

Up until the end of season 5, I would have said that the show would end - and, dramatically, should end- with Buffy's death, because that's what's happens, the Slayers die heroicly. I don't think that now for two reasons. One, I don't think Joss would want to repeat himself.

More seriously, Buffy's death in "The Gift" was not just something that she had to do- on some level, I think she wanted to die, and I think this was part of the buildup through the whole season. Spike telling her she has a death wish, only controlled because she has friends and family, was the start of it. Then Riley left, her mom died, and then she was given the choice to let the world end or kill Dawn. Buffy was weary and depressed in "The Gift". While her sacrifice was heroic, it was also the act of someone who was suicidal and looking for a way out of the world. This is not a healthy attitude. Could you imagine, when Buffy comes back, her being able to live with this mindset day after day?

I think that next year, Buffy is going to learn how to go on with her life- and she's going to get some hope that she doesn't have to be like all the other Slayers. At the end of the show, I think Buffy is going to find a way to close the Hellmouth for good, liberate Sunnydale from the demons and vampires, and have the life she thought she could never have. It's going to be difficult, but once you've died (for real - not I drowned for a few minutes then was brought back by CPR) I think the only real thing you need to learn is how to live.

Besides, once you've died heroically, you can't do it ever again. People would be expecting it.


[> Nice Epigram! :) (n/t) -- Mandanza, 20:21:20 06/16/01 Sat


[> Re: Slayer's death -- Rufus, 20:44:48 06/16/01 Sat

I disagree on Buffys attitude when she jumped into the portal. I don't think it reflected her death wish as much as it showed a "life wish". Only one person was to close the portal and she chose to allow her sister to live, as well as the world. I felt at the end she understood her gift as reflected in her words to Dawn about telling Giles she got it. Buffy understood her gift. She saw that her death would mean life to her sister, friends, and the world. Her attitude didn't reflect a person that was suicidal it showed that life was the one thing she wanted. She wanted it so much she was willing to die to make sure that the people she loved got their chance to live.


[> [> I completely agree! -- Kerri, 20:54:26 06/16/01 Sat


[> [> Re: Slayer's death -- Solitude1056, 09:13:06 06/17/01 Sun

Actually, in some ways it was Classic Buffy, again. See the following quotage from The Prom, season 3.

Willow: Ooooh! I got into Tucker's e-mail account. Listen to this message Tucker sent to this kid David Metz at school last week. The Sunnydale High lemmings have no idea what awaits them. Their big night will be their last night.

Giles: So, we have a threat against the students on their big night, a hellhound trained to attack people in formal wear...

Cordelia: Oh, are we all catching up now?

Giles: Tucker is planning to attack the prom tonight.

Oz: Once again, the Hellmouth puts the special in special occasion.

Xander: Why do I even buy tickets for these things, I ask you?

Willow: Wonder if I can take my dress back?

Buffy: Don't you dare.

Willow: But Tucker is going to...

Buffy: No! You guys are going to have a prom. The kind of prom that everyone should have. I'm going to give you all a nice, fun, normal evening if I have to kill every single person on the face of the earth to do it.

Xander: Yay?


[> [> [> Re: Slayer's death -- rowan, 10:39:24 06/17/01 Sun

"Buffy: No! You guys are going to have a prom. The kind of prom that everyone should have. I'm going to give you all a nice, fun, normal evening if I have to kill every single person on the face of the earth to do it."

God, I love this show. ;)


[> Re: Slayer's death -- Kerri, 20:52:05 06/16/01 Sat

Through most of the episode Buffy felt like there was no hope and no reason to live. However, I think she gained that hope when she realized she could sacrafice herself for Dawn, becaus she felt like there was good in the world. Buffy had hope and love for humanity when she died. Death wasn't a gift to Buffy because she didn't have to live anymore. Instead it was a gift for Buffy because it allowed her to regain her faith in the goodness of the world and gave her hope.


[> [> My turn to agree with you......:):):):) -- Rufus, 21:05:00 06/16/01 Sat


[> [> Re: Slayer's death -- gds, 21:57:02 06/16/01 Sat

Death wasn't a gift to Buffy

Actually I interpreted it as "Death (of herself) was a gift FROM Buffy, for which she will (although she wasn't aware of it) receive a gift in turn. Buffy asked the Spirit Guide if it was a gift she would receive or a gift she would give. I believe the answer is that both were true. The gift she received was probably bestowed upon her by the enormous mystical inter-dimensional key-related forces that were enfused in her. For these new features to take effect however, the body had to die, much like a computer needs to be re-booted after installing a system upgrade. The problem being is that we (and probably the SG) will have to wait months for the re-boot to finish.


[> [> [> Buffys re-boot -- Rufus, 22:52:06 06/16/01 Sat

The words of the guide made me think that death was something that Buffy had to go through.....

Guide: "You are full of love. You love with all of your soul. It's brighter than the fire.....blinding...That's why you pull away from it.............

Buffy: "I'm full of love? I'm not losing it?"

Guide: "Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain...Love give forgive. Risk the pain. It is in your nature. Love will bring you to your gift."

Maybe it's just me but with the reference to the journey in Restless, and what the guide said I thought that Buffy had to go through death. Death would be her gift and also have a benefit to her. The line about forging strength from pain I just made some guesses on.


[> [> [> Re: Slayer's death -- rowan, 10:41:59 06/17/01 Sun

I guess I saw the gift as twofold: Buffy gave the gift of her life to save Dawn/humankind and Buffy received the gift of restored meaning when a positive choice became available to her (not having to either kill Dawn or let the world end).
What 1 line sums up a character? -- voyageofbeagle, 21:10:21 06/16/01 Sat

If you could pick on piece of dialogue from S5 that most accurately summed up the character, what would it be?

Two that come to mind for me are:

-Spike " I'm not good, but I'm OK" This says it all, in terms of what Joss & Co. are showing us about Spike. He's a vampire, so he can't be "good" (or can he?), but he can be other things- passionate, loyal, brave, and insightful. And what is 'good", by the way?

-Xander (to Anya) "You make me feel like I've never felt before in my life. Like a man." Ah, from "butt-monkey" & Zeppo, to a man. This transition's been a long time coming.

Any ideas for the rest of the Scooby Crew?

This is my first post, and just have to say, this site absolutely rocks!


[> Re: What 1 line sums up a character? -- Brian, 05:02:32 06/17/01 Sun

For Giles, I'd say his line to Buffy in the training room:

But I have sworn to protect this sorry world, and sometimes that means saying and doing... what other people can't. What they shouldn't have to.


[> Re: What 1 line sums up a character? -- Wisewoman, 11:10:45 06/17/01 Sun

Both of mine come from The Gift. I think the new, human Anya is summed up by her line during the planning session in the Magic Box:

"Here to help. Want to live."

And, similarly, Willow's, when Buffy tells her she's her Big Gun:

"I'm your -- I never was a gun... someone else should be the gun, I could maybe be a cudgel, or pointy stick ..."

By the way, great topic for a first post. Welcome!


[> Re: What 1 line sums up a character? -- mundusmundi, 13:47:30 06/17/01 Sun

For Xander, I'd have to go with a line from Becoming:

"Cavalry's here. Cavalry's a scared guy with a rock, but it's here."


[> [> Love this line. Sums up Xander in a nutshell. -- rowan, 19:26:34 06/17/01 Sun


[> [> Re: What 1 line sums up a character? -- Sam Raimond, 12:45:16 06/18/01 Mon

I think the one for Buffy would be from NKBOTFD "If the Apocalypse comes... beep me"

it blends the archaic world of her Slayer half with the modern teenage girl half


[> Re: What 1 line sums up a character? -- Wiccagrrl, 19:06:34 06/17/01 Sun

Angel (to Buffy, in Angel) You have no idea what it's like to have done the things I've done and to care.

Cordy- (in Killed by Death) Tact is just not saying true stuff. I'll pass.
The Meaning of 730 ( The Emecee003 theory). -- Emcee003, 06:04:16 06/17/01 Sun

I Think I've sort of decoded the meaning of numbers that in buffyverse have not meaning. To us these figures are every thing:- its when Buffy finally ends!!

Apparently US networks only ever make seven series of a show. (According to a friend, is this so???) If it is it means that series seven, episode 30 something big is going to happen,the end??? Or what ever that will lead to the scenario that happens till Fray (All demonic forces disappear for 200 years).

So you see to Buffy it has no meaning, it is just the writers putting in references to the end, in forms only we can get, yet to Buffy its the date of the Apocalypse, but by beingBuffy she can't decode it???

(That does not really make sense but am sure some1 else can word it better...Dam Dyslexia!!)


[> Re: The Meaning of 730 ( The Emecee003 theory). -- Cynthia, 07:33:56 06/17/01 Sun

Sorry this theory doesn't work for me. The the current average season consists of twenty to twenty-two espiodes. There hasn't been a 30 espiode season in years and years.


[> [> is this set in stone??? -- Emcee003, 07:44:51 06/17/01 Sun

Being in the UK I don't really have any idea on how US tv stations/networks (What eva!!) work.

What about the seven seasons thing. Is that the case, if it makes it to 7, does it stop??


[> [> [> Re: is this set in stone??? -- Victor Infante, 08:20:39 06/17/01 Sun

Sorry, but 730 turned out to be the number of days 'til Buffy croaked it. (two years to the mark...give or take.)


[> [> [> [> Re: is this set in stone??? -- darrenK, 20:35:49 06/17/01 Sun

It's dream logic-- a little pattern for us to get our knickers twisted in.

Someone pointed out that a clock says 7:30 in Restless (though I didn't see it myself.) And as Victor so correctly points out, Joss indicated that it is the number of days (more or less) between Graduation and Death day.

Strangely, 7 is also the number of Scoobies who fight Glory in the Gift (Buffy, Giles, Willow, Tara, Spike, Anya, Xander), 3 is the number of Buffy's present at that battle (the real Buffy, the Buffybot, and Dawn, the Buffybud). Zero is what Glory really is, a big nothing, the hole in Ben's head. At the end, there's not even a sign that she was ever there except for Ben's battered corpse.

I'm not saying Joss meant to put all these 7's, and 3's and 0's around, but such unconscious patterns are one of the side-effects of good storytelling. It's like the metal netting used as the structure for concrete in Skyscrapers. Or signs that point us towards the ultimate mystery of what makes a story intriguing. The signs say something like-- "Do we know where we're going yet?" dK


[> [> [> [> [> Thats 1 of the best post I've eva read -- Emcee003, 06:43:22 06/18/01 Mon


[> Re: The Meaning of 730 ( The Emecee003 theory). -- Jac, 12:57:38 06/17/01 Sun

I pretty sure that there is no 7 season limit to shows in the US, I think some end after 7 seasons merely by coincidence, but some have lasted longer than that.

X-Files, for one, has lasted 8 seasons and the 9th season starts in the fall and NBC's Friends starts its 8th season in the Fall.

I think most shows die within 7 season's because the fan-base changes and they attract fewer viewers, not because there is a 7 season limit. Just my thoughts on that, but your theory is intriguing.


[> [> Re: The Meaning of 730 ( The Emecee003 theory). -- change, 15:33:09 06/17/01 Sun

I heard that the reason why shows last about seven seasons is that the studios want to have about 150 episodes. I'm not sure where the number comes from, but the studios think they need about 150 episodes for the show to be successful in syndication. I think they ideal is that 150 episodes is enough so that somebody watching them 5 days a week will have forgotten the details of the plot in the first episode by the time the last one has aired. Back when they made 30 episodes a year, they shot for 5 seasons. Now that they are down to 22 episodes a year, they try to make shows last for at least 7 seasons. They will make more episodes if the show is wildly successful, but they try to plan for at least 150.


[> [> [> 7 seasons -- verdantheart, 07:35:17 06/19/01 Tue

I believe it was a writer/producer for Star Trek: Deep Space Nine who said that 7 seasons yeilded the optimal number of episodes for the greatest return on investment in syndication. (This can be interpreted as the minimum number of episodes -- therefore cost -- to ensure a lengthy run in syndication, as you indicate.)

Of course, as was mentioned, this is not "set in stone." Most series do not make it to 7 years. Others, like X-Files (as mentioned) and Law and Order last longer. The Star Trek series beginning with Next Generation were self-limited to 7 years (for example, Next Generation ended near the height of its popularity and could well have been continued longer). One limiting factor is the rising cost of retaining talent, a problem which Law and Order avoids because it is less dependent on continuing characters and can modify its cast with less ill effect. (The X-Files has been much more expensive, but I'd speculate that it has something to do with the fact that it's a Fox show on the Fox network -- and one of the network's most popular shows.)

I hope this detail wasn't too boring ...

- vh


[> [> [> [> THanxS! -- Emcee003, 12:32:54 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Re: 7 seasons -- Brian, 14:28:25 06/19/01 Tue

Another reason for limiting shows to 7 seasons is a cost factor. The actors sign a contract for 7 seasons. If the show get popular and the actors become "stars." they will ask for a lot more money if the show goes on past season 7 when their contract comes up for renewal.

I don't believe.... -- Marie, 04:28:00 06/18/01 Mon

....in significant things turning into insignificance in Joss's Buffy-world, so could anyone explain why Dawn stole the earrings in 'Intervention'? I re-watched this over the weekend, and was struck anew by the fact that this point has never really been explained. And I know that things are not always explained, but may be in a future episode, so I am trusting that I'll be watching an episode of season 6, and I'll go 'AHA!!, so THAT's the why of that!'.

Why I think it may be important in a future episode, and not just a "teenage temptation to pinch some of Anya's 'pretties'" is that the camera stayed on Dawn the whole while the other characters were speaking, i.e. making a big deal of it, and it just seems kind of a pointless act in view of what was to come. Joss had planned this series well in advance, and things that don't seem important at the time ALWAYS are, so it makes me wonder, that's all. Any thoughts?


[> Re: I don't believe.... -- Solitude1056, 06:15:27 06/18/01 Mon

I didn't stress as much about it once I realized Joss wasn't going to explain it this season. Then again, Tara did that put-the-powder-under-the-bed stunt in season 4, and it wasn't explained until halfway through season 5. So hold tight, the verdict's still out on the Earring Debacle.


[> [> Can I just stress.... -- Marie, 08:13:09 06/18/01 Mon

...I'm not stressing! I just know that you guys here are such geniuses (genii?!) that you would have probable thoughts on this.


[> Re: I don't believe.... -- Wisewoman, 08:08:19 06/18/01 Mon

I've been thinking about this a bit lately, as well. (But I fear we could drive ourselves insane thinking about it until it finally is explained!)

My take on it is, I wouldn't be so worried if Dawn had taken Buffy's or Willow's or even Tara's earrings, but Dawn has a *thing* about Anya, and a big crush on Xander. At least, she did. Then she had a crush on Spike, and, what the heck, she's only fourteen, she's probably got a crush on someone else by now!

Even if she were not The Key, I think Dawn would be interested in trying to develop whatever power she *did* have, and I think she'd do that by studying with Willow and Tara. She already knows that magick works (eg the Joyce spell) and now she needs to find out how to make magick work safely. Obviously, she'd be better off with Tara's instructions than Willow's right now. This is why I think there was a definite intent behind Dawn's action when she stole the earrings. It was not just an act of 14-year-old, traumatized-by-mother's-death, rebellion. A piece of personal jewelry, like an earring that was worn a lot, would be imbued with the wearer's vibes, life force, personality, what-have-you, and therefore would form a potent link to that person during the casting of a spell. She means to do something with those earrings. I just don't know what.

But thanks, you've just reminded me of something I wanted to put out there, but I think I'd better start a new thread above.

cheers, Wisewoman


[> [> Re: I don't believe.... -- rowan, 19:31:28 06/18/01 Mon

I agree with you all that these little scenes with Dawn mean something more than just a 14 year old girl's tendency to be a little light-fingered. Didn't Dawn also take something from Tara? (or am I thinking that it was the book Willow pulled out for her). I've always assumed Joss & Co was saying this for S6 fodder.

I agree with the magickal interpretation (given Dawn's penchant for trying spells). Earrings would be a personal effect with someone's life force. Anya's would be of particular interest, I think, maybe beyond just her role as Xander's girlfriend -- possibly because of her ex-demon status.

Dawn is a very ambiguous character. Whereas Buffy has always clearly been established as "good" (which makes her forays into the land of "not so good" all the more dramatic), Dawn has pondered her own goodness and has been validated by no less than Spike (who knows a thing or two) as "not evil" but possibly "not good either but okay" (he doesn't argue with Dawn that she is good, but reinterprets her worry another way). So Dawn is somehow allied more with the ambiguous character, Spike, than with the obviously good character, Buffy.

Is this theft and perhaps a desire to dabble in magickal workings somehow indicative of Dawn's ambiguous status? Remember, we're not sure what kind of soul she has. Did the monks give her one, or did they grow one from part of Buffy's?


[> [> [> Re: I don't believe.... -- Rob, 08:09:53 06/19/01 Tue

I also interested to find out whether, if they are to be used for magic, the earrings are useful because they are Anya's personal effects, or whether they themselves have magic in them. (Perhaps Anya got them from the magic catalogue, when she was ordering for the store...) Maybe that's a silly idea, but it's an idea nonetheless!!
The "Oh, grow up!" Theme -- Wisewoman, 09:24:45 06/18/01 Mon

I've been thinking a bit about Anya lately, as I'm doing her (!) for the 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party in August. I was reliving, in my mind, The Gift and the last we saw of Anya...how brave she was in shoving Xander out of the way when the ceiling collapsed on them, burying her face-down in the debris. And then the relief I felt seeing her alive and conscious, albeit in Xander's arms, and suddenly something clicked.

Anya may very well have been paralyzed from the waist down by that accident. There seemed to be a fairly good weight of stuff falling on her back, and she wasn't capable of walking afterward. She may just have been bruised and battered, but imagine where Joss and his writers could take her character, and her relationship with Xander, if she has suffered some sort of permanent disability?

Talk about, "Oh, grow up!" The learning curve for all the characters would become much more challenging with one of the Scoobies in a wheel chair. And, I don't know, it just kinda seems like a Joss kinda thing to do...although, of course, I may be totally off base. Can't wait to find out ;o)


[> Re: The "Oh, grow up!" Theme -- mundusmundi, 11:02:53 06/18/01 Mon

Interesting idea, though I don't think Xander would've picked her up if she couldn't move. (And if she couldn't, he shouldn't've.) The writers used the subject of disability very effectively with Spike. He recovered of course, but his feelings of powerlessness then set in motion much of the events in "Becoming" and beyond.

I really like Anya's character, but I hope next season she's used for more than just punchlines. I'm glad you're writing about her and I'm looking forward to reading your analysis.


[> [> Re: The "Oh, grow up!" Theme -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 15:36:07 06/18/01 Mon

I agree that disability was used well with Spike but I think it would be really different with Anya. In his wheelchair Spike was like a caged animal (not for the last time) and would be dangerous if he became strong again but Anya is still getting used to the limitations of humanity / mortality and it would seem really cruel to dump a massive injury on her.

I doubt that she's really badly hurt because it would be almost impossible for her to live with the SG if she was that vulnerable. It would be a hell of a challenge for the writers (but, then, they do seem to like challenges!).

I wish they would find a way to add depth to Anya but I just can't figure out how it could be done!


[> [> [> Re: The "Oh, grow up!" Theme -- Wisewoman, 15:40:52 06/18/01 Mon

Well, permanent or temporary disability aside, there's nothing like pregnancy and child-rearing for adding depth to your character!

(Glad you made it to the top of the list!)
Campy Camping -- Little One, 11:16:39 06/18/01 Mon

I just read that James Marsters will be guest-starring in a November episode of Andromeda. Apparently, he's currently on set in B.C. filming it. So that begs the question, who here is in B.C. and wouldn't mind having a drooling house-guest (namely me!)? Just kidding! I doubt my siggy other would allow me out of the province if Spike was galivanting around B.C.!

My other question is: if you could go camping with one character, who would it be and what do you think they would bring as gear? For example, I would choose Spike. He'd probably prefer to go RV'ing, but I would insist on tenting it. He would most likely be averse to seeing me whittle pointy sticks for marshmellows, though I'm sure he'd partake of their gooey goodness. As for his gear, he'd probably bring a sack of deep-fried onion blossoms.

Anya could come as well and she would most likely bring a guitar because she read somewhere that it is a necessity around a campfire (though she would probably use it for kindling instead of its higher purpose of sing-alongs).


[> Re: Campy Camping -- vampire hunter D, 11:40:22 06/18/01 Mon

British Coumbia? I thought I read something a couple of weeks ago that said Andromeda had moved its studios to L.A.


[> [> Andromeda move -- Little One, 11:54:25 06/18/01 Mon

Really? I haven't heard that. I did read an interview recently with Kevin Sorbo discussing how he is tired of relocating for work (i.e. to New Zealand for Hercules and B.C. for Andromeda). Perhaps the network PTB were listening.


[> *Sob* and LOL! -- Wisewoman, 13:05:11 06/18/01 Mon

I have religiously avoided Andromeda from the moment it debuted, and thus was unaware that it was shot in Vancouver. Stupid, stupid, stupid! I heard at least three weeks ago that JM was doing a guest starring role, but I didn't put the two things together until I heard a few days ago that he'd wrapped up the shoot and left town! AAAAAARGH!!

We used to get the X Files shooting in our neighbourhood a lot (older, heritage type houses, big oak trees, lots of rain, perfect for the show until it moved to LA) so we got rather blase about David and Gillian (she is so TINY), but I still would have bleated and drooled over James.

As to camping, I'd have to go for Xander because I'm pretty hopeless about the Great Outdoors Stuff (unless it involves tree-hugging) and I'd need someone to put up the tent, chop the wood, start the fire, etc. But at that point I could take over and whip up a camp fire banquet!

Xander would bring the absolutely appropriate gear for camping, and a sack full o' stakes for woodland vamps, as well. His other essential gear would be Anya, so that would take care of the entertainment aspect of the outing.


[> [> Re: *Sob* and LOL! -- rowan, 14:53:12 06/18/01 Mon

Do you think he'll be blond or brunette for the Andromeda guest shot? I'm thinking this role may be a little like Q in the Star Trek series (Next Generation and Voyager). Obviously, your inner essence isn't as attuned to JM as mine, because I'm sure I would have sense a disturbance in the force with him so close by. ;)

He must be frightened to be the object of so much female lust...er, I mean philosophical admiration.


[> [> [> Hmmmm Philosophical admiration of the bleating and drooling variety....... -- Rufus, 15:04:00 06/18/01 Mon

Is there such at thing as dignified philosophical admiration, cause with all this bleating and drooling JM would be apt to think he hit a sheep farm at shearing time.:):):):)


[> [> [> [> Re: Hmmmm Philosophical admiration of the bleating and drooling variety....... -- rowan, 15:12:30 06/18/01 Mon

I'm like Plato -- I'm admiring the purity of an ideal.


[> [> [> [> [> Sure you are....and my name is James Marsters.......:):):):):) -- Rufus, 15:25:42 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> [> Re: *Sob* and LOL! -- Wisewoman, 15:23:30 06/18/01 Mon

I did hear he was mortified a while back when middle-aged women in the UK attempted to grab his butt...be still my heart! Oh, um, and philosophically, that's not particularly, um, rational? Kinda eudaemonistic? ;o)


[> [> [> [> Re: *Sob* and LOL! -- rowan, 15:35:45 06/18/01 Mon

Trust me, I would never be crazy enough to do that. I at least keep my drooling and fantasies confined to my own interior life.

I think ASH is pretty hot, too. They're both close to my age, so I'm not a dirty old woman, either.


[> Re: Campy Camping -- rowan, 14:50:02 06/18/01 Mon

It would be difficult trying to figure out what to do with Spike during daylight hours, however.


[> [> Re: Campy Camping -- Brian, 09:50:39 06/19/01 Tue

My idea of camping "roughing it" is going from Holiday Inn to Holiday Inn. So I guess I would op for Anya. She likes the good life, and her sense of droll humor would be most entertaining. (Separate rooms, of course)


[> [> [> Any form of camping applies -- Little One, 11:14:20 06/19/01 Tue

Any type of camping is accepted here, Brian! My mum's idea of camping is loading up the jeep, setting her eye on a coast and heading to it whereas my friend's idea of roughing it is packing only 10 pairs of shoes!

I think I would like to go camping with Willow and Tara at an amusement park campground. I can just see them running to get their pics taken with the characters ('specially Scooby!) then eating beans and roasting weinies around the campfire! They would probably shelf the magic books and pack cards (tarot or playing) to while away the evenings.


[> [> [> [> What I can only take 10 pairs...that will never do.......... -- Rufus, 17:30:39 06/19/01 Tue

I'm not a camper of any sort, there isn't an exstention cord that goes far enough to power all the stuff I'd take. Plus, my bed is too heavy to carry very far.

If I were to go camping (in a fancy house on wheels that is) I'd go with Giles, and throw in Wesley. Watching those two bicker would make the days just fly by.


[> [> [> [> [> ... or drag like a drunk snail going uphill -- Liquidram, 23:35:56 06/19/01 Tue

Amy the Rat -- Little One, 13:20:47 06/18/01 Mon

Steven deKnight was on the posting board, The Bronze, on Friday when he revealed that Shannon Doherty was going to be a recurring character on Buffy. He wrote that she would play Amy the Rat. Something tells me this is a Fake Spoiler but it really makes me wonder: how does one create a life for oneself after being a rat for several years? (Yes, I do have waaaay too much time on my hands!)

It would have strong moral and mental repercussions, I would imagine. She would have to deal with being reintegrated into society, create lies as to her presence for the last few years, and cope with feelings of anger and frustration. Would Amy have feelings of resentment towards Willow for not trying harder to break the spell and for constantly putting it on the magical back-burner?

I'm sure she would also have physical issues as well. Issues such as relearning how to walk, to talk, to untangle her rat impulses with her humanity.

Also, would she be able to identify and relate to her former friends? They have gone on with their lives while she was stuck in a cage with a wheel for company. Or would she only be able to relate to Spike while hovering on the outskirts of Scooby-dom?

And for the very far-fetched, would she (as a former rodent) have anything to do with the Cheese-Man??


[> A Vengeful Amy the Rat as the Season 6 Big Bad! It's all so clear to me now ;o) -- Wisewoman, 14:02:33 06/18/01 Mon


[> [> 'Ware The Cheese!! *LOL* -- Little One, 14:10:08 06/18/01 Mon

With Spray Cheese in hand and the Cheese-Man as her accomplice, she could rule the world! (or at least the dairy section of a grocery store near you!)


[> [> [> Beware Amy the Rat and the Cheese Man (Foreshadowing from Restless) -- rowan, 14:47:45 06/18/01 Mon


[> Re: Amy the Rat - the next Big Bad? -- Marie, 07:48:31 06/19/01 Tue

You know, this may be a double bluff! On British teletext, one of the 'phone message type things says "Buffy Pal to be next Big Villain" (or similar, can't remember exact wording).

It also says "Xander/Anya Marriage Disaster On Way".

Probably not true, because how do they know? But....


[> [> Marriage Disaster -- Little One, 08:05:07 06/19/01 Tue

I don't really doubt the marriage disaster part though. I mean, how can a large event occur in Sunnydale without going horribly awry. As Xander said about the prom horrors, kind of "puts the special in special occasion."

In regards to Buffy Pal Big Bad, I would immediately jump to Willow being the villain. It would also jive with the Oh Grow Up theme. Instead of merely hunting down and killing the Big Bad, they would have to try rehabilitation, convincing her to return to the side of goodness and light. I think this would be a welcome change. However, Joss rarely does the expected and almost always exceeds my expectations.

Though I must admit to secretly hoping it is Amy and the Cheese Man!
1st Anniversary Fun: Results of Definitive Episode Post -- rowan, 17:21:05 06/18/01 Mon

Okay, philosophers, editors, critics, literary luminaries, and technical writers: here are the official results of the posting to discuss the BtVS Definitive Episode (the one to show if you're ever stranded on entirely new planet and you're looking for converts).

1st place (tie w/3 votes):

Welcome to the Hellmouth/The Harvest Prophecy Girl Becoming 1 & 2

2nd place (2 votes):

I Only Have Eyes for You

3rd place (tie w/1 vote):

Lie to Me Fool for Love Wild At Heart Earshot Hush Lovers Walk

Honorable Mention (for those who are obviously unable to color in the lines and voted more than once **cough**Wiccagrrl, Rufus, mundusmundi, Solitude1056**cough**):

Halloween Fear Itself Dracula vs. Buffy Checkpoint Doppelgangerland Something Blue The Yoko Factor What's My Line A New Man Passion Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered

What an eclectic group we are! Or is BtVS of such great quality that it's likely picking through Rembrandts...?


[> Hey.......I resent that......LOL......the idea of picking just one that is.......:):):) -- Rufus, 17:40:28 06/18/01 Mon

I just can't do it. One ep leads to another and then you just have to watch them all, even the ones considered bad. Plus I've never been able to colour inside the lines, can't be done.


[> [> That's why they put 64 crayons in the box, right? :) -- rowan, 17:47:43 06/18/01 Mon


[> The lines are just rough suggestions. -- Solitude1056, 06:54:03 06/19/01 Tue

I always was a Jackson Pollack kinda kid, anyway.


[> [> I was only teasing everyone ;) -- rowan, 08:38:04 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> hey hey now! -- Solitude1056, 09:29:01 06/19/01 Tue

If we all followed the directions exactly as you listed them, you'd end up worried that we'd been abducted by rejects from the X-Files extras crew and replaced with exact duplicates. See, now, that's frightening.


[> [> [> [> Sol now you are telling scary campfire tales...........:):):):) -- Rufus, 17:26:38 06/19/01 Tue
1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 17:46:20 06/18/01 Mon

Okay, I know you've all been wondering: "What surprise will she have for us this week? We know that Willow is coming up on Thursday, but what else? Last week it was a challenge to pick the definitive episode, but what will she think up this week?"

Well, now it's here -- this week's 1st Anniversary Fun Thread. You all know that Joss & Co are nuts for Shakespeare. And every great Shakespearean play has at least one great, memorable speech. I mean, we've all had to memorize then in school, right?

Okay, we have 5 years of episodes to choose from. Pick the greatest speech in the Buffyverse, and tell us who said it, when they said it, why they said it, and why it's great. This should be the speech that's engraved in your memory, that you'll still remember on the day you finally shuffle off this mortal coil. The definition of great is up to you. It can be a speech of lyrical excellence, or one of important revelations about the Buffyverse, or one of raw, intense emotion. Just make sure you give us the juicy details. Enjoy!


[> I'll start the list with two votes... -- Masquerade, 18:17:21 06/18/01 Mon

Everyone will no doubt note Spike's dubbing of Angel's talk to Rachel in the alley in "In the Dark".

Plus Angelus' voice-over in Passion. Pure poetry. Makes me sad Ty King isn't writing for the series anymore : (

I'm sure I'll think of more, but that's off the brain-cell cuff.


[> [> Okay, here they are... -- rowan, 19:08:50 06/18/01 Mon

Okay, here's Angel from Passion:

"Passion...it is born...and though invited, unwelcome, unwanted...like a cancer, it takes root. It festers. It bleeds. It scabs...only to rupture, and bleed anew. It grows...it thrives...until it consumes. It lives...so, it must die...in time."

Creepy and powerful. Ever notice how much blood imagery there is in this show, even for a show about bloodsucking? Compare this speech with Spike's in Lovers Walk:

"You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it kills you both. You'll fight, you'll shag, you'll hate each other till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Real love isn't brains, children, it's blood, it's blood, it's blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may be love's bitch but at least I'm man enough to admit it."

And now from In the Dark:

"(Spike in a high voice) How can I thank you, you mysterious, black-clad hunk of a night thing? (low voice) No need, little lady, your tears of gratitude are enough for me. You see, I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse defanged me. Now I'm just a big, fluffy puppy with bad teeth. (Rachel steps closer to Angel and Angel steps back warding her off with his hands) No, not the hair. Never the hair. (high voice) But there must be some way I can show my appreciation. (low voice) No, helping those in need's my job -- and working up a load of sexual tension, and prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough. (high voice) I understand. I have a nephew who is gay, so... (low voice) Say no more. Evil's still afoot! And I'm almost out of that Nancy-boy hair gel that I like so much. Quickly to the Angel-mobile, away!"

Wow. I had never seen this ep, and boy, did I laugh when I read this. What do you think Spike would say now? about Angel? about himself?


[> [> I have a different (transcript) version of the "Passion" speech, Rowan -- Masquerade, 19:50:39 06/18/01 Mon

Passion. It lies in all of us. Sleeping, waiting. And though unwanted, unbidden it will stir... ...open its jaws, and howl.

It speaks to us... guides us... Passion rules us all. And we obey. What other choice do we have?

Passion is the source of our finest moments. The joy of love, the clarity of hatred, and the ecstasy of grief.

It hurts sometimes more than we can bear. If we could live without passion, maybe we'd know some kind of peace. But we would be hollow. Empty rooms, shuttered and dank.

Without passion, we'd be truly dead.

--Ty King c 1998


[> [> [> Re: I have a different (transcript) version of the "Passion" speech, Rowan -- rowan, 20:10:00 06/18/01 Mon

Hmmm...well, I got this from the teaser of the shooting script out at Rayne's site. But at least it forced you to post what you were referring to. ;)


[> [> [> [> Re: I have a different (transcript) version of the "Passion" speech, Rowan -- Brian, 06:57:45 06/19/01 Tue

I believe that speech is from the end of that episode.


[> [> [> [> [> Actually, bits of the speech cover the entire episode... that's the whole thing -- Masq, 08:23:07 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Actually, bits of the speech cover the entire episode... that's the whole thing -- rowan, 08:39:45 06/19/01 Tue

Thanks! Love this speech. It was a great choice for this post. I think a very interesting future post might be to discuss the different types of love in the Buffyverse. That hasn't been discussed in a long time.


[> [> [> "the ecstasy of grief" -- how apt! -- verdantheart, 06:36:02 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> Re: I'll start the list with two votes... -- purplegrrl, 07:50:57 06/20/01 Wed

These are my two favorites as well.

Spike talking disparingly about "Nancy-boy hair gel" always gives me the giggles.

Angelus giving a speech about passion that sounds like it should be coming out of the mouth of Angel gives me the shivers.


[> [> [> rowan has a point above, though... -- Masquerade, 10:34:10 06/20/01 Wed

The Spike speech in "In the Dark" belongs to the old Spike. Can you imagine the present-day Spike saying any of the following without being, well, a hypocrite?:

"You see, I was once a badass vampire, but love and a pesky curse defanged me. Now I'm just a big, fluffy puppy with bad teeth."

"No, helping those in need's my job -- and working up a load of sexual tension, and prancing away like a magnificent poof is truly thanks enough."

"And I'm almost out of that Nancy-boy hair gel that I like so much." (well, this last one was hypocritical then, 'coz, bleached-blonde boy obviously slicks back his curly-mortal-mop with something)


[> [> [> [> Re: rowan has a point above, though... -- rowan, 11:33:14 06/20/01 Wed

It's like the PtB heard everything Spike said and then decided to curse him with it so that he could learn a little humility (which I bet he hasn't knowing Spike!). You know that saying "be careful what you wish for -- you might get it!"? Well, Spike should be careful what he mocks -- he might become it!


[> [> [> [> [> Yes, I doubt that... -- Masquerade, 12:19:23 06/20/01 Wed

I doubt that Spike would see himself as being more Angel-like now. Well, unless he'd happened to have come upon Buffy and Angel making out under the tree in the graveyard after Joyce's funeral. Then he'd think, "Oh, fine, so Nancy-boy there gets the Buffy action for being Mr. Sensitive Save-the-World, and I don't?!"

I kind of wish Spike had seen it, but that might have been too disheartening for him, considering the supporto-boy challenges that laid ahead for him at that point.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, I doubt that... -- rowan, 14:40:51 06/20/01 Wed

Too true. I mean, as you say, what's the difference between hair gel and peroxide that makes hair gel Nancy-boyish and peroxide manly? As insightful as Spike can be about others (and alot of the time about himself), he definitely has some blind spots (and a chip on his shoulder as well as a chip in his head).

That's why I think that if the writers decide to pursue a more meaningful and lasting change in Spike (beyond what we've seen thus far, which has been quite a bit) it may probably be best expressed through his relationship to Dawn, rather than Buffy. Spike and Buffy have too much history that Spike uses as an excuse whenever things don't go the way he's scripted in his head. I think he does much less of that with Dawn because he's not interested in her sexually, he doesn't have a negative history with her, and she is more genuinely open to accepting him as he is (she doesn't carry around the baggage of his history).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes, I doubt that... -- Masquerade, 15:37:09 06/20/01 Wed

But I assume she does carry around some of Spike's history (maybe not it's baggage, but...) The Monks would have surely have included in her memory banks the fact that Buffy considered Spike a nemisis from ep 3 of Season 2 all the way up to ep 4 of season 5 (and beyond that). Maybe little Miss Muffet is a bit less discriminating about who's good and who's bad because her sister made more subtle distinctions she couldn't (soul/no soul, enemy/ally/temporary truce), but Spike would have memories of the Slayer's vulnerable little sister (the "bite-sized one") and Dawn would have memories of Spike=evil.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree... -- rowan, 17:24:59 06/20/01 Wed

I agree with you that Dawn has the memories (and therefore should also have the baggage), and also that Dawn is less discriminating about the memories (and therefore doesn't appear to hit Spike over the head with the baggage). She loved the story Spike was telling her about killing that family...the only negative reaction I've seen her give to Spike was when she saw direct action of Spike against Buffy in Crush (the chain her up stuff). But even with that, by Forever she was letting him help her with the resurrection spell. Maybe it's because Dawn is so unsure about her own moral status that she more innately accepting of Spike's.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I agree... -- Rufus, 17:48:13 06/20/01 Wed

Consider her human age. As a teen she is not totally jaded to the world and had been sheltered for her life. She would tend to mirror Spikes actions...if he acts nice she simply mirrors those actions back.....plus there is that eensy crush she has for him.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Wisewoman, 18:37:02 06/18/01 Mon

I don't know if I'd call it the greatest speech in the Buffyverse, but I know the one I'll never be able to forget is Anya's speech, from The Body:

ANYA But I don't understand!

I don't understand how this all happens, how we go through this, I mean I knew her and then she's, there's just a body, I don't understand why she just can't get back in it and not be dead, it's stupid, it's mortal and stupid, Xander's crying and not talking and I was having fruit punch and I thought that Joyce would never have any more fruit punch and she'd never have eggs, or yawn, or brush her hair, not ever and no one will explain...

What I find so amazing about this speech is that it's really the way most of us feel when confronted with the death of a loved one--we don't understand, no one will explain it, and the simplest of thoughts, like "Joyce will never have any more fruit punch" become so poignant and unbearably heart-breaking, and yet make so little sense. And Anya, from her perspective as a relatively new and naive human being is able to "cut to the chase" and give voice to thoughts that the other Scoobies would have trouble expressing. It's really quite beautiful.

(In fact, it just made me cry *again*! Damn, I'm getting maudlin in my old age ;o)


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Anthony8, 18:29:06 06/21/01 Thu

Hey! You left out the most heart-wrenching word in the speech.

Anya: And no one will explain to me WHY!

The way Emma Caulfield exclaims "WHY" at the end of the speech connotes such a feeling of childlike helplessness, you want someone to hug her, but, of course, when Xander goes to her she recoils. Just perfect.



[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- LadyStarlight, 18:49:50 06/18/01 Mon

I've got two. I would have more but *cough*Ireallyhaven'tseenmuchbeforethisseason*cough* (please don't hate me because I didn't see the light before now), both from Spike:

I'd do it. Right person. Person I loved. I'd do it. and I know you'll never love me. I know I'm a monster. But you treat me like a man. And that's...

These are in my head with Surround-Sound Video.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 18:59:07 06/18/01 Mon

Ah, but you missed: "I'm drowning in you, Summers."


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- LadyStarlight, 06:06:45 06/19/01 Tue

That's a good one too, but somehow it doesn't stick in my head. Maybe because it had the flavour of an oft-rehearsed speech while the other two were more spontaneous. (OK, you know what I mean!)


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- verdantheart, 06:39:21 06/19/01 Tue

Ah, this line could have been so overripe in the wrong hands! - but so perfect in the right ones!


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Wisewoman, 19:34:48 06/18/01 Mon

And, "You *know* you wanna dance..." ;o)


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- JBone, 19:07:28 06/18/01 Mon

I remember a classroom scene from the episode "Bad Eggs" in the second season that was as funny as anything I ever watched. It was mostly Xander and Cordiela listing the "consequences" of sex which so confusing, and a couple of shots of Willow just looking bewildered. A little snippet.

Cordiela: Like that compares to kissing a guy who thinks the Hoover technique is a big turn on.

Xander: What about having to feign interest in her vapid little chitchat just so you can get some touch.

Another favorite high on my list would be when Faith was in Buffy's body in "Who Are You". In the scene where Faith/Buffy was flirting with Spike. That little speech was sooo hot.

Faith in Buffy: Cause I can do anything I want, and instead I choose to pout and whine and feel the burden of Slayerness? I mean, I could be rich. I could be famous. I could have anything. Anyone. Even you, Spike. I could ride you at a gallop until your legs buckled and your eyes rolled up. I've got muscles you've never even dreamed of. I could squeeze you until you popped like warm champagne, and you would beg me to hurt you just a little bit more. And you know why I don't? Because it's wrong.

Ah, that gets me in a special place.


[> Music to my ears.... -- Rufus, 20:34:17 06/18/01 Mon

I went to Checkpoint for these bits;

Travers: Buffy.....I can sense your resistance, and I don't blame you. But I think your Watcher hasn't reminded you lately of the resolute status of the players in our little game. The Council fights evil. They Slayer is the instrument by which we fight. The Council remains, the Slayers change. It's been that way from the beginning.

Giles: Well, that's a very comforting, bloodless way of looking at it, isn't it?

Travers: Giles, let me talk to Buffy, because I think she's understanding me.

Later after Buffys Epiphany on power and who has it;

Buffy: You guys didn't come all the way from England to determine whether or not I was good enough to be let back in. You came to beg me to let you back in. To give your jobs, you lives some semblance of meaning.

Buffy: You're Watchers. Without a Slayer, you're pretty much just watchin Masterpiece Theater. You can't stop Glory. You can't do anything with the information you have except maybe publish it in the "Everyone Thinks we're Insane-O's Home Journal. So here's how it's gonna work. You'll contact me if and when you have any further information about Glory. The magic shop will remain open. Mr. Giles will stay here as my official Watcher, reinstated at full salary.......

Buffy: Now, You all may be very good at your jobs. The only way we're gonna find out is if you work with me. You can all take your time thinking about that. But I want an answer right now from Quinton, cause I think he's understanding me.

Now, that was music to my ears, Buffy understood her importance. Her existance didn't depend on the Council, they depended on her.

And for Rowan words from Spike;

Spike: No, it's not that easy. We have something, Buffy. It's not pretty, but it's real, and there's nothing either one of us can do about it.......Like it or not, I'm in your life, you can't just shut me out......


[> [> Re: Music to my ears.... -- rowan, 20:36:54 06/18/01 Mon

"No, it's not that easy. We have something, Buffy. It's not pretty, but it's real, and there's nothing either one of us can do about it.......Like it or not, I'm in your life, you can't just shut me out."

Ever notice that love in the Buffyverse seems to be hell? (at least for Buffy) All these quotes are violent and dangerous.


[> [> [> Re: Music to my ears.... -- Rufus, 20:40:08 06/18/01 Mon

Yes......a very enjoyable hell at the right times.....:):):):)


[> Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest -- rowan, 20:56:54 06/18/01 Mon

Okay, I was going to pick the Love's Bitch speech from Lovers Walk, but I already used that episode for Most Definitive. Plus, Masq brought up that voice over from Passion, and I don't think I can beat that one. So, I'm going to go in a different direction. Screw Love. I'm going for Death. And Beauty.

Spike to Buffy in Fool for Love (shooting script):

"Death is your art. You make it with your hands, day after day. That final gasp, that look of peace...Part of you is desperate to know...What's it like? Where does it lead you? That's also a warrior's question. A warrior's curiosity."

Ah yes, the Slayer Death Wish speech. The thing I love about this speech is that first wonderful image of art from death. Indelible. Every time I see Buffy slay, I think of those lines and wonder how true they are. What is great about this speech, I think, is that there is enough truth in Spike's words for it to be seductive, but enough lies for it to be dangerous. Spike is like Lucifer here, spinning truth and lies so quickly together that they blur and make it impossible for the eye to see clearly or distinguish...

Spike also reminds me of Forrester in Finding Forrester. Remember when Forrester tells Jamal the difference between an interesting question and one that is not? An interesting question is one where the answer matters to the one asking. This is Buffy's interesting question, just as it is Spike's for here he tries to link them both: the Warrior of the Light and the Anti-Warrior of the Dark, both fighting in the shadow until they are...indistinguishable? Or is that another trick and cheat on Spike's part?

Earlier in this speech, Spike speaks of his younger days when there was nothing but death and glory, so Slayers needed to be sought to find meaning. Here, the Slayer seeks meaning in the eyes of the slayed. And isn't that the question we're all tuned in to find out...'What's it like? Where does it lead you?'


[> [> Re: Now cracks a noble heart. Good night, sweet prince, and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest -- Sebastian, 21:06:58 06/18/01 Mon

Okay. I'm a BIG "Becoming" dork - so I would have to say the speech Buffy gives Joyce in that episode when she finds out she is a Slayer.

This is halfway through the speech - but it is something along the lines of...

"do you realize how lonely it is? How dangerous? But I have to save the world - AGAIN."

It summed up Buffy's frustration in not having a normal life and her conflicting desire to uphold her responsibility.

SMG's intensity still gets me when I watch it.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Caulfield, 21:33:16 06/18/01 Mon

Hey, I am a long time lurker popping up to add my votes. I have three selections that will always stick out in my head and demonstrate the amazing talent of the writing staff.

First, from Lie to Me, Giles trying to comfort Buffy after she sees just how grey life can be: Buffy: "Does it ever get easy?" Giles: "You mean life?" Buffy: "Yeah. Does it get easy?" Giles: "What do you want me to say?" Buffy: "Lie to me." Giles: "Yes, it's terribly simple. The good guys are always stalwart and true, the bad guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats, and, uh, we always defeat them and save the day. No one ever dies, and everybody lives happily ever after." Buffy: "Liar."

Second, from Epiphany, when Angel explains to Kate the real way each of us can change the world: Kate: "... it's like nothing I do means anything." Angel: "It doesn't" Kate: "Doesn't what?" Angel: "Mean anything. In the greater scheme, the big picture, nothing we do matters. There's no grand plan, no big win." Kate: "You seem kind of chipper about that." Angel: "Well, I guess I kind of worked it out. If there's no great glorious end to all this, if nothing we do matters... then all that matters is what we do. 'Cause that's all there is. What we do. Now. Today..."

And finally, a funny one, from What's My Line Part 2, Oz giving the real low down on snooty monkeys: Oz: "The monkey's the only cookie animal that gets to wear clothes, you know that? ... So I'm wondering, do the other cookie animals feel sorta ripped? Like, is the hippo going, 'Hey, where are my pants? I have my hippo dignity.' And, you know, the monkey's just (in a French accent) 'I mock you with my monkey pants.' And then there's a big coup at the zoo." Willow: "The monkey is French?" Oz: "All monkeys are French. You didn't know that?"

Those are the most memorable to me. I quote them and get funny looks...my friends are sick and tired of me mocking them with my monkey pants...

- Logan


[> [> Welcome! -- rowan, 04:12:13 06/19/01 Tue

I love when I can get a lurker to post. Welcome! I hope we'll hear more from you.


[> [> [> Re: Xander in "Into the Woods" -- Brian, 07:59:28 06/19/01 Tue

I'm a sucker for Romance, and Xander's lines to Anya really clarify his love for her, and show how much he's grown.

XANDER I need to say something to you. I should have said it a long time ago. I mean, you may not even know... I love you, Anya, more every day. I love the way you see things. I love the way you work a cash register and how beautiful you are - and how amazingly sweet and crazy you can be at the same time...

He's at her side now, and she's crying joyful tears. He takes her face in his hands...

XANDER I can't imagine my days without you - and I wouldn't want to.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- OnM, 21:45:01 06/18/01 Mon

This is pretty near impossible, which just goes to show just how much of a 'writer's show' BtVS really is. It's just like asking, 'what's your favorite Shakespeare?' to a fan of the Bard. All of it, they'll inevitably answer.

I can pick my favorite eps pretty easily, at least if I can tie two or three for top of the class. But best writing? Uh-uh.

So I'll take the only way out I can, and recall a quote from Joss about how "I don't give my fans what they want, I give them what they *need*."

The 'Passion' speech would certainly be a great choice if I was looking for the most literary-feeling kind of speech, but the show is like music for me, in that I go for the words that conjure up the deepest emotion. I'll have to think about the other seasons, but one of the most emotionally wrenching moments from Season 5 were the words exchanged between Joyce and Buffy when Joyce is in the hospital and she finds out the truth about Dawn not really being her daughter in the literal sense of the word.

Joyce: Buffy?

Buffy: Um hum?

J: I want to ask you something... and if I'm being crazy - you just tell me, OK?

B: You got it.

J: The other day... actually, I'm not sure when. The days all seem to bleed together...

B: It's not important.

J: No, I guess it isn't. I do know I was pretty out of it. And I had - not a dream exactly. More like, I had this knowledge. It just came to me - like truth, you know? Even though it didn't seem possible. Even though I shouldn't think such things.

B: What, Mom? It's OK.

J: That Dawn... She's not mine, is she?

(Long beat)

B: No.

J: She's - she does belong to us though.

B: Yes. She does.

J: And she's important. To the world. Precious...

(Buffy nods. Joyce takes her hand)

J: As precious as you are to me?

(Buffy nods again - trying to hold it together)

J: Then we have to take care of her. Promise me, Buffy - if anything happens to me, if I don't come through this -

B: Mom -

J: No, let me finish. No matter what she is, she still feels like my daughter, and I have to know you'll keep her safe. You'll love her like I love you.

(Buffy fights tears)

B: I promise.

J: Good. Good...

(Joyce pulls her daughter to her, holds her tenderly)

J: My sweet, brave Buffy. What would I do without you?


Well, I have tears in my eyes right now from writing this out, seeing the images in my head again.

So that's one. The other is another tear-jerker, the final speech from *The Gift* as Buffy dies. I'm not gonna write that one down, I think most of us know it all too well. Besides, hard to type when the keyboard's all blurry!

Ah, me.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Rufus, 21:55:12 06/18/01 Mon

I watched that episode last night and was teary at the idea that Joyce knew the truth but loved Dawn anyway.....the speech at the end of The Gift was another one that can't be forgotten as it speaks to all of us that life is difficult but worth living.

We will have to get rowan to hand the hankies out...........


[> [> [> The child is the parent is the child... -- OnM, 22:07:09 06/18/01 Mon

You know, I read that again, the hospital conversation, and I can't for the life of me figure why *anyone* would ever question that what Buffy did in *The Gift* was anything other than a gift of love. The idea that there was anything selfish about it... my mind simply doesn't know how to respond to that. I mean, just how clear can the writers make it?

Which is one other reason I chose to bring those particular lines back to life.


[> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- Rufus, 22:23:17 06/18/01 Mon

Plus I sense some heavy foreshadowing in the conversation specially where Joyce said; "And she's important. To the world. Precious. As precious as you are to me." I think that Dawn is still more than just a single functioning key. I think there was a reason to make her so important to Buffy that she was worth dying for. Buffy loved Dawn....Joyce said that she felt like her daughter....it's important that Buffy loved Dawn and Joyce made her promise to protect Dawn. There are many warriors of both light and dark but there is only one Key.....I think there may be a reason for that.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- gds, 23:28:50 06/18/01 Mon

I think that Dawn is still more than just a single functioning key

I absolutely agree. The monks HAD to believe that the Key was capable of doing somenting othe than destroy the universe. Either it can do other things or it's normal function can be contolled to accomplish a great good. Perhaps analogous to Dr WHo's KEY OF TIME which for all it's danger, could be used to temporarily stop EVERYTHING so that the White Guardian could make adjustments to universe to prevent it from degenerating into chaos.

There is another possibility however. The monks sent the Key to Buffy not because of the function of the key, but for it's affect on Buffy. Ie. the Key is to be an important part of Buffy's evolution.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- rowan, 04:14:41 06/19/01 Tue

I knew that someone called Dawn precious (LOTR).


[> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- AK-UK, 05:30:33 06/20/01 Wed

"The idea that there was anything selfish about it...."

OnM, if part, even a small part, of Buffy's motivation for throwing herself of that platform was to end her own pain, would that really be such a terrible thing to accept? We saw her pain and despair in "The Body" and "Forever", we saw her recognise within herself a small wish for death in "Fool For Love".......so I have to ask: just how clear can the writers make it?

Death was her gift, a gift of love. A gift to Dawn, a gift to the world, and in some small way, a gift to herself.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- OnM, 20:07:14 06/20/01 Wed

In the Realverse, I have no problem with it at all. I personally think that there are times suicide can be justified. In the Buffyverse, Buffy is a metaphorical character, and so yes, it would diminish the act she performed.

I personally dispute the 'death wish' concept as it relates to Buffy, and I think the intent of the writers throughout the season has been to either directly or subtlely emphasise that concept.

Recall FFL, when Spike is rejected by Buffy, he states right out (as he is loading the shotgun with intent to finally kill her);

"Hasn't got a death wish? Bitch won't need one."

I think the thing that made it possible for Spike to feel empathy for Buffy and try to comfort her was that *she had proven him wrong*-- he thought he had everything all sussed out about the Slayers, and here is this one, proving him wrong. He just sort of intrinsically understood it, that she was not wallowing in self pity, she was worried about her mother, and angry that with all her supposed strength, she was helpless to do anything about it.

Evil exists with a core of ultimate cynicism. You can justify going on being evil because day after day, your cynicism is proven to be correct. It is easy to excuse your evil actions because 'everyone else is really evil also, they're just hypocrites, or they put a pretty face on it'. So the Slayers, even though they fight the good fight, still have that part that welcomes death, to seek that which they bring to so many others.

Buffy doesn't seek to die for her failings-- she wants to punish herself. Thus, in *The Weight of the World*, she slips into catatonia, where she lives her supposed failure to save Dawn over and over again. Willow pulls her out of this loop by making her believe that the battle isn't over yet, that her belief in her failure is erronious.

Would a real person feel some relief at death taking them away from the horrors of daily life, when there is also the byproduct of saving the lives of a large number of others in the bargain? I would think so, and I accept that as morally OK, but Buffy isn't real-- she's a hero.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- AK-UK, 04:40:28 06/21/01 Thu

I don't think Buffy rejected the death wish theory. Spike's anger and his wish to put her 6 feet under were due to Buffy's rejection of HIM. Spike thought that he had figured it out, that Buffy was attracted to him; and he was wrong.

"but Buffy isn't real-- she's a hero"

And that, I think, is the point at which we part company. You demand purity from your mythical heroes. I don't. Buffy is a hero, Doyle is a hero. They lost their lives whilst saving others.......that's enough for me.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- OnM, 17:53:15 06/21/01 Thu

This may be an overly subtle distinction, and I'm not sure I can even explain it properly, but I demand a certain degree of purity *from the mythology*, _not_ from the character.

I accept a flawed Buffy, even one that could entertain a death wish at times. But when she sacrifices herself for Dawn and for the world, the mythology takes precedence. She is no longer just a human doing a good deed by saving other humans. It's somewhat analogous to *Last Temptation of Christ*, in that Jesus the man transcends his mere humanity and becomes Jesus the mythology/godhood when he willingly accepts his fate/destiny in an unselfish manner.

I hope that's more clear, as I said, I'm having trouble explaining a 'feeling' in logical terms.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- AK-UK, 18:19:54 06/21/01 Thu

I understand where you are coming from, OnM. It's a personal choice as to how you wish to view things.

The thing is, I'm a strong believer in humanity. I like the human condition; the love, the hate, the anger, the evil, the jealousy, rage, pity......ohhhhh, the whole damn bundle. I don't think it is something that should be transcended or overcome; it's something we should revel in.

Therefore Buffy leaping into mythology would be a bad thing for me, and a good thing for you.

So..........do you reckon Jesus was being *entirely* unselfish when he........


Lets not go there :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The child is the parent is the child... -- AK-UK, 18:47:35 06/21/01 Thu

I understand where you are coming from, OnM. It's a personal choice as to how you wish to view things.

The thing is, I'm a strong believer in humanity. I like the human condition; the love, the hate, the anger, the evil, the jealousy, rage, pity......ohhhhh, the whole damn bundle. I don't think it is something that should be transcended or overcome; it's something we should revel in.

Therefore Buffy leaping into mythology would be a bad thing for me, and a good thing for you.

So..........do you reckon Jesus was being *entirely* unselfish when he........


Lets not go there :)


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 04:13:36 06/19/01 Tue

Okay, I do have plans to do a post later (before S6 starts) about the biggest tearjerker moment, I must confess.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 04:11:03 06/19/01 Tue

"This is pretty near impossible, which just goes to show just how much of a 'writer's show' BtVS really is. It's just like asking, 'what's your favorite Shakespeare?' to a fan of the Bard. All of it, they'll inevitably answer."

I have such high confidence in this group, that I can propose six impossible things before lunch...or else I just like torturing you all...I have one of these fun topics left for every week of summer until the S6 premiere...


[> [> Re: Side Note: Joss's quote -- Brian, 08:24:26 06/19/01 Tue

Sounds like a line from Just Like a Woman by Bob Dylan. Those greats, they stick together:)


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 01:02:31 06/19/01 Tue

Not surprisingly, I agree that all of the excerpts quoted above are amazing so I'm just gonna try and mention one that nobody's used yet: Buffy's little speech to the first slayer at the end of Restless.

'I walk. I talk. I shop. I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you moved out and I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me back my friends!'

What a groovy little insight into the images in Buffy's subconcious! It's not a very long extract but some of the words used fill it out with layers of meaning (biblical floods vs modern fireman / civic duty etc) and it's delivered really well with some classic Christophe Beck in the background.


[> Spikes doing MST3K style dubbing -- Emcee003, 02:20:52 06/19/01 Tue

"In the Dark" where spike is watching Angel and the girl from the roof whilst adding his whole second dialogue. **They should add a MST3K style dialogue on all DVDs**


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Morgane, 05:15:41 06/19/01 Tue

I've watched this episode like a thousand of time and that speech, that everyone appear to have forgotten, is on repeat mode in my head for like 2 years now!

It's in Amend, when Buffy try to convince Angel that he must live and fight. It's a bit long but worth it.

" BUFFY: Angel. He hears her say his name and briefly glances in her direction before looking back out over the rooftops. Buffy slowly walks over to him. ANGEL: I bet half the kids down there are already awake. Lying in their beds... sneaking downstairs... waiting for day. BUFFY: (out of breath) Angel, please. I need for you to get inside. Th-there's only a few minutes left. ANGEL: I know. I can smell the sunrise long before it comes. BUFFY: (anxiously and hurried) I don't have time to explain this. You just have to trust me. That thing that was haunting you... ANGEL: (interrupts) It wasn't haunting me. It was showing me. BUFFY: (confused) Showing you? ANGEL: What I am. BUFFY: (insistently) Were. ANGEL: And ever shall be. I wanted to know why I was back. Now I do. BUFFY: You *don't* know. Some great evil takes credit for bringing you back and you buy it? You just give up? ANGEL: (harshly) I can't do it again, Buffy. I can't become a killer. BUFFY: Then fight it. ANGEL: It's too hard. BUFFY: (desperately) Angel, please, you *have* to get inside. ANGEL: It told me to kill you. You were in the dream. You know. It told me to lose my soul in you and become a monster again. BUFFY: I know what it told you. What does it matter? ANGEL: (raises his voice) Because I wanted to! Because I want you so badly! I want to take comfort in you, and I know it'll cost me my soul, and a part of me doesn't care. He sobs. Buffy is at a loss for words. ANGEL: Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man. BUFFY: You're weak. Everybody is. Everybody fails. Maybe this evil did bring you back, but if it did, it's because it needs you. And that means that you can hurt it. Angel doesn't want to believe her. BUFFY: (pleadingly) Angel, you have the power to do real good, to make amends. (raises her voice) But if you die now, then all that you ever were was a monster. She looks out at the sky as it begins to lighten. BUFFY: (begging frantically) Angel, please, the sun is coming up! ANGEL: Just go. BUFFY: I won't! ANGEL: What, do you think this is simple? You think there's an easy answer? You can never understand what I've done! Now go! BUFFY: You are not staying here. (grabs his arm) I won't let you! ANGEL: I said LEAVE! He jerks his arm free of her grasp. In her anger and desperation Buffy punches him. He reacts by shoving her away from him roughly, making her fall face forward, hard to the ground. ANGEL: (quietly to himself) Oh, my God... He goes to her and crouches over her, grabbing her by the shoulders and turning her around to face him. Buffy fears his intentions and cries out. BUFFY: No! No! He grabs her roughly by the arms and holds her firmly. ANGEL: Am I a thing worth saving, huh? (shakes her) Am I a righteous man? (shakes her) The world wants me gone! BUFFY: (tearfully) What about me? I love you so much... And I tried to make you go away... I killed you and it didn't help. She shoves him off of her and gets up. BUFFY: (crying) And I hate it! I hate that it's *so* hard... and that you can hurt me *so* much. (sobs, then harshly) I know everything that you did, because you did it to me. Oh, God! I wish that I wished you dead. I don't. (whispers) I can't. Angel gets up now, too. ANGEL: Buffy, please. Just this once... let me be strong. BUFFY: Strong is fighting! It's hard, and it's painful, and it's every day. It's what we have to do. And we can do it together. Angel struggles with himself, knowing she's right. BUFFY: (resolvedly) But if you're too much of a coward for that, then burn. If I can't convince you that you belong in this world, then I don't know what can. But do *not* expect me to watch. And *don't* expect me to mourn for you, because... She stops in mid-sentence because it has inexplicably begun to snow. "

Oh GOD!! that is a great show!! ;o)


[> [> Thanks for reminding me about that one.......... -- Rufus, 20:20:49 06/19/01 Tue

It's a line that helped me get a feeling for the vampires that conflicted with the original season one bits of information.

Angel: "Look, I'm weak. I've never been anything else. It's not the demon in me that needs killing, Buffy. It's the man."

We had been told that the vampire had become a completely new being.....but if you listen to what Angel has had to say and his experiences in Pylea you can see that the man never left. The demon infection took advantage of the weakness in Angel that made him stay locked in battle with his father, made him resent his family enough to kill them. It also explains why Spike is so capable of love, and why it will make him act against the impulses of the demon. They are men with demons inside of them, we just get to see the demon physically when they go into game face. It's why Buffy could see Angel was worth saving and why she can't kill Spike. May I add to it what Darla said in The Prodigal.......

Darla: "What we once were informs all that we become. The same love will infect our hearts - even if they no longer beat. Simple death won't change that."

The inner weakness that influenced Angel is what he had to overcome, more so than the demon. With Spike, his ability to love wasn't erased with the infection of the vampire, just they way he acted out. Once love got ahold of him he had no choice but to help Buffy in any way she requested.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Solitude1056, 06:39:12 06/19/01 Tue

My favorites have already been posted, so I'll just name them instead of quoting them:

Spike's "love's bitch" speech in Lover's Walk Anya's "I don't understand" speech in The Body

and then one other, from way way back in Season 2. Willow, from Reptile Boy:

"Well... (to Angel) Well, why do you think she went to that party? Because you gave her the brush-off! (to Giles) And you never let her do anything except work and patrol! And I know she's the Chosen One, but you're killing her with the pressure! I mean, she's sixteen going on forty! (to Angel) And you! I mean, you're gonna live forever, you don't have time for a cup of coffee?! ... Okay, I don't feel better now, and we've gotta help Buffy."



[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Marie, 07:41:02 06/19/01 Tue

My favourite character is Spike, and others before me have already mentioned my absolute favourite speech from Lover's Walk, so I'll go for this, from Pangs:

Spike : Oh, someone put a stake in me.

Xander : You got a lot of volunteers in here.

Spike : I just can't take all this mamby-pamby boo-hooing about the bloody indians.

Buffy : Uh, the preferred term--

Spike : You won. All right? You came in and you killed them and you took their land. That's what conquering nations do. It's what caesar did, and he's not going around saying, "I came, I conquered, I felt really bad about it." The history of the world isn't people making friends. You had better weapons, and you massacred them. End of story.

Although the blond blood-sucker is superb whenever he's off on one of his rants, so you could just take your pick, really!


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 08:36:29 06/19/01 Tue

I'm right there with you about Spike. In a way it's not fair, because he does get some of the greatest lines and speeches. ;)

I love what he points out about the Indians (Native Americans). We can do the terrible things, but then we try to make it better by becoming more sensitive, but are we really any better or are we just kidding ourselves? Is our sensitivity a true betterment of ourselves or just a way to make ourselves feel better about terrible things we'd rather not remember? Is remorse productive or just hypocritical. Spike is always pointing out the hypocrisy in people's actions, yet he too isn't immune from being a total hypocrite.

This small exchange gets at why Spike (currently) isn't all Remorseful Guy like Angel. Spike doesn't see the point of going back and trying to reintpret, reinvent, or make up for something that given the same circumstances, he'd do again. He lives in now and accepts history for what it was. I don't know if that's brave, or scary.

I could write a book about Spike, I think.


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Dedalus, 08:44:34 06/19/01 Tue

I tend to agree with Spike. Political correctness is so ... phoney. To me anyway. I guess I don't feel the need to go around apologizing to everyone because, as George Carlin so eloquently put it "I DO NOT IDENTIFY WITH THE LOCAL GROUP."

I see it as a bit ridiculous to apologize to people who aren't slaves now because your ancestors may or may not have owned slaves at some point in the past. What gives you the authority to apologize for something you haven't even done? How is that just not meaningless? It's pandering. Not to mention the whole PC doctrine just doesn't make sense. African-American? What about a racist white man from South Africa who moves to the USA? I would think it would be insulting to me if I were black. And it is designed for no other reason than to make smug, arrogant, well-fed white people feel better.

As much as I enjoy a good Angel brood every now and again, I do like it how they are not making Spike like that. He just takes it as it comes, no apologies.

And I would love to read a book you wrote about Spike. :-)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 09:55:24 06/19/01 Tue

It's great that BtVS can present two such different responses to essentially what is the same situation (Vamp with a Heart) and that both can speak to us so eloquently.

My book will be dedicated to the BtVS. Unfortuantely, it won't be as erudite as what we see on this board, since I'm an intellectual lightweight compared to everyone else here. I'll have to go for sales, not academic credentials. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You have a book? -- Dedalus, 11:04:19 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just teasing, although I feel I could write one. ;) -- rowan, 11:06:03 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Marie, 01:33:39 06/20/01 Wed

"I could write a book about Spike, I think."

Let me know when it's published, I'll be first in the queue!

I just think I like Spike so much because he cuts right to the heart of the matter - no messing! I'm a little like that myself - I can't be doing with people waffling, and friends come to me a lot for advice, because they know I'll tell them the truth, as I see it (though I do try to be a little more tactful than our boy!).

So, I'm watching a Buffy ep, and just as I'm thinking 'Oh, for Pete's sake....', Spike'll say 'Oh, for....', and it always makes me laugh. And then he'll come out with something like his little speech to Buffy in the Gift, about her always treating him like a man, and that'll make me cry.

Gotta stop now, I need to go and lie down...


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Marie, 01:36:12 06/20/01 Wed

"I could write a book about Spike, I think."

Let me know when it's published, I'll be first in the queue!

I just think I like Spike so much because he cuts right to the heart of the matter - no messing! I'm a little like that myself - I can't be doing with people waffling, and friends come to me a lot for advice, because they know I'll tell them the truth, as I see it (though I do try to be a little more tactful than our boy!).

So, I'm watching a Buffy ep, and just as I'm thinking 'Oh, for Pete's sake....', Spike'll say 'Oh, for....', and it always makes me laugh. And then he'll come out with something like his little speech to Buffy in the Gift, about her always treating him like a man, and that'll make me cry.

Gotta stop now, I need to go and lie down...


[> [> [> [> [> Sorry, don't know what happened - posted twice! -- Marie, 01:38:42 06/20/01 Wed


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Rob, 08:05:42 06/19/01 Tue

This isn't a speech, but it was one of the most heartbreaking scenes ever on "Buffy"...from "Wild at Heart," when Willow walks in on Oz and Veruca:

Oz : Willow... (He starts putting on his pants.)

Willow : Oh, my god. Oh, my god.

Oz : I know what you saw. It wasn't-- (Finishes putting on his pants.) I had to.

I had to lock her in there with me.

Willow : I bet.

Oz : She's like me. A wolf.

Willow : Well, I knew you two had a lot in common, but... (Oz tries to touch her.)Don't touch me! (She jerks back.)

Oz : She was gonna hurt somebody. I didn't have a choice.

Willow : But you did. You could've told somebody. Your solution... Just put you two together in a room all night?

Veruca : (Having woken up, stands up bearing all.) Girl's got a point.

Oz : (Angrily.) Leave.

Veruca : I'm just saying--

Oz : (Shouts) Now! I'm sorry. I know.

Willow : I knew, you jerk. And you sat there, and you told me everything was fine? And that's as bad as... As... (Now crying.)

Oz : I know how it feels. I remember.

Willow : Oh. So what, this is payback? I had this coming?

Oz : No. It's not--

Willow : Because I thought that was behind us. And you know, what happened with Xander, it doesn't compare. Not with what you and I had. Not with whatever you've been doing with her.

Oz : I don't know what Veruca and I have done. When I change, it's like, it's like I'm gone and the wolf takes over.

Willow : But before this, when you were regular Oz, you had feelings for her, didn't you?

Oz : No. I could sense something, but...

Willow : But you wanted her... Like in an animal way? Like...More than you wanted me? (She runs off, tears streaming down her face.)

As usual, Willow uses few words, but the ones she does are so heartbreaking and innocent. On the one hand, her words seem strong. She calls Oz a "jerk," and asks him if this was revenge. But at the same time, at this point, her entire reality is being held together by a thread, which seems to break by the end of the scene as she runs off. Not only was this one of Allyson Hannigan's best scenes in "Buffy" history, but it was such a beautiful expression of heartbreak and loss. Another favorite speech of mine has already been mentioned a few times, and that is Anya's breakdown in "The Body." While we're all used to her literalness as a source of comedy, this is the first time we hear it applied to a tragic situation. And it is absolutely heartwrenching. While fruit punch may seem mundane, it is these mundane, everyday things that the dead can never do again. The fact that Anya is so afraid and cannot understand why there is no clear answer to her question (perhaps now for the first time she realizes she will one day die as well), makes for one of the most dramatic moments in the show's history. I never cry watching television shows, and that made me cry.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Humanitas, 09:14:27 06/19/01 Tue

I have two. The first is, of course, Spike's "Love's Bitch" speech from "Lovers' Walk." Very Shakespearian. I keep thinking of Romeo: "I am Fortune's fool!" Ah, the psychological whirlpool that is love!

The second one is from this season, "Into the Woods." Xander's speech to Buffy:

XANDER If you don't want to hear what I have to say, I'll shut up right now.

BUFFY Good. 'Cause --

XANDER I lied. See, what I think? You got burned with Angel. Then Riley shows up-

BUFFY I know the story, Xander.

XANDER But you missed the point. You shut down, Buffy. And you've been treating Riley like the rebound guy, when he's the one who comes along once in a lifetime. He's never held back with you - he's risked it all - and you're about to let him fly because you don't like ultimatums?

This hits Buffy hard. Xander sees it, comes on strong-

XANDER If what he needs from you just isn't there - for God's sake, let him go. But if it is? If you can go deeper... Let him get to know that raw, unguarded heart you tried to put away... Maybe you'd better risk something too.


He's finally gotten through to her - her anger gives way to realization...

XANDER Okay. So he's drawn the line. Good. Cause either this is the end - or maybe it's the beginning. It's up to you.


Buffy looks at Xander with stunned tears in her eyes.

BUFFY Xander-


Someone above mentioned Xander's later speeh to Anya. That's another great one, but this speech to me says just about everything there is to say about the baggage we bring to relationships, and how important it is to let that go and share with our partners.

Zeppo no more.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 09:58:07 06/19/01 Tue

This is an awesome choice. The sad thing, this speech did Buffy no good, because she was too late (against, the angst of love!). Is everything always too little, too late in the Buffyverse? Is timing always off?

The interesting thing is, I question whether Xander is actually right that Riley was a once in a lifetime kind of guy. If Riley were here today (well, here post-Buffy resurrection) would she still feel the same about him?

I guess I'll have to wait for the Riley post...


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Andy, 12:06:32 06/19/01 Tue

That's what rang falsely to me about that episode: I never believed that Riley was that guy for Buffy. Thus, I felt that Buffy's running after him was motivated more by guilt over her own behavior than any unreserved feelings she had for him. I think it's a blessing in disguise that she was too late to catch him :)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Humanitas, 14:43:11 06/19/01 Tue

The thing is, to me it didn't matter if Reily was that once-in-a-lifetime-guy or not (I didn't think he was, either). The important thing about this moment, and the episode as a whole, was that Buffy needed to acknowledge the possibility of there being such a guy, and allowing herself to feel for him. It's all about letting down the walls we build.


[> [> Hey .......Rob....................... -- Rufus, 16:56:27 06/19/01 Tue

I'm sure that Oz and Veruca were just playing a nice game of checkers in that cage.......just like the Buffybot and Spike..........Loved that scene with Willow BTW.


[> [> [> Re: Hey .......Rob....................... -- Rob, 08:34:31 06/20/01 Wed

LOL...I wonder if they turned on the tube and watched "Passions" when they were done with the...um...game? :) :)


[> [> [> [> Re: Hey .......Rob....................... -- Rufus, 13:55:15 06/20/01 Wed

Made me think of all the little white lies told to kids to protect them. Checkers....jeez she's 14 she knows all about Checkers............


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Dedalus, 08:54:27 06/19/01 Tue

Okay, I don't think this one has been mentioned yet -

What about the lines from Prophecy Girl when Buffy overhears Giles and Angel talking about her imminent death?

"Show me the signs! Tell me my fortune! You're so useful, sitting here with all of your books ... Giles, I'm sixteen years old ... I don't want to die."

And especially -

"Does it say how he's going to kill me? (voice gets really small) Do you think it'll hurt?"

That one had me on the floor. I think that was the first time I ever welled up over a Buffy episode.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Little One, 09:47:19 06/19/01 Tue

For making me crack up everytime I hear it, I'll have to go with Spike and Giles in The Gift:

"SPIKE Not exactly the St. Crispin's Day speech, was it?

GILES (sardonic agreement) "We few..."

GILES/SPIKE "we happy few..."

SPIKE "We band of buggered..."

As for romance, I'll have to go with the afore-mentioned Xander speech to Anya in Into The Woods.

Great topic, Rowan!


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- rowan, 09:59:47 06/19/01 Tue

Thanks! Wait until you see next week's topic ***she said, chuckling evilly**.


[> [> [> Can't wait to see the next topic...especially since you did an evil chuckle! -- Rob, 11:09:44 06/19/01 Tue


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Slayrunt, 15:29:09 06/19/01 Tue

Most of my favorites have been taken: the Spike voice over and love's bitch speech. Here'e two short ones I have bouncing around in my head.

Buffy in "The Gift": "Then the last thing she'll see is me protecting her". Personally. I think the word should have been defending not protecting, since everyone will die...but.

And I must admit to a Willow fantasy: "Willow's gonna make you bark".


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Kimberly, 16:33:04 06/19/01 Tue

Although most of the best lines/speeches have been taken, there are two I think need to be here.

From Restless:

The First Slayer: I have no speech, no name. I live in the action of death, the blood cry, the penetrating wound. I am destruction absolute alone.

Buffy: The Slayer.

TFS: The First.

Buffy: I am not alone.

TFS: The slayer does not walk in this world.

Buffy: I walk, I talk, I shop, I sneeze. I'm gonna be a fireman when the floods roll back. There's trees in the desert since you moved out and I don't sleep on a bed of bones. Now give me back my friends!

TFS: No friends. Just the kill. We are alone.

(Later) Tara: You think you know. What's to come. What you are. You haven't even begun.

Second, from Intervention (without the interruptions):

TFS: You think you're losing your ability to love. You're afraid that being the Slayer means losing your humanity. You are full of love. You love with all your soul. It's brighter than the fire. That's why you pull away from it. Love is pain and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Love, give, forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift. Death is your gift.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- Rufus, 17:05:47 06/19/01 Tue

Kimberly, liked what the Guide said to Buffy, I was convinced then that she was going to die. I was also thinking that because she risked acting upon her love there would be a benefit to her and her death would only be a step in the journey not the end of it.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Ear Candy -- JBone, 18:00:40 06/19/01 Tue

how about in "The Zeppo" after Faith finished up with Xander...

Faith: That was great, I gotta shower.

If that's not a blowoff, I don't know what is.


[> A couple Oz gems among my other favorites -- Liquidram, 23:30:27 06/19/01 Tue

Here's a bunch (keyword-bunch) of my older favorites I've been jotting down for awhile.... haven't even analyzed them - just enjoyed them. Alot of my favorites have already been listed, so I'll try to keep these fresh.


Willow: Oz is a werewolf. Buffy: It's a long story. Oz: Got bit. Buffy: But obviously not that long.


Buffy: Oh, look at my poor neck... all bare and tender and exposed. All that blood, just pumping away. Giles: Oh, please. Spike: Giles, make her stop! Giles: If those two don't kill each other, I might lend a hand.


Xander: You're considered somewhat cool. Oz: I am? Xander: Is it because you always tend to express yourself in short, non-commital sentences? Oz: Could be.


Willow: I'll give Xander a call. What's his number? Oh, yeah, 1-800-I'm-Dating-A-Skanky-Ho. Suffy: Meow! Willow: Really? Thanks. I've never gotten a "meow" before.


Faith: When I'm fighting, it's like the whole world goes away. I only know one thing: that I'm gonna win, and they're gonna lose. I *like* that feeling. Buffy: Well sure, beats that "dead" feeling you get when they win and *you* lose.


Willow: Maybe we shouldn't be too coupley around Buffy. Cordelia: Oh, you mean 'cause of how the only guy that ever liked her turned into a vicious killer and had to be put down like a dog? Xander: Can she cram complex issues into a nutshell, or what?


Anya: What a day. Gimme a beer. Bartender: ID. Anya: I'm eleven hundred and twenty years old! Just gimme a frickin' beer! Bartender: ID. Anya: Gimme a Coke.


Anya: I have witnessed a millennium of treachery and oppression from the males of the species, and I have nothing but contempt for the whole libidinous lot of them. Xander: Then why are you talking to me? Anya: I don't have a date for the prom. Xander: Well, gosh, I wonder why not? It couldn't possibly have anything to do with your sales pitch. Anya: Men are evil. Will you go with me?


Buffy: I went to Angel's last night, and Faith was there. They looked sort of... intimate. Willow: No way. I know what you're thinking, and no way. Buffy: You're right. Faith would never do that. Willow: Faith would *totally* do that. Faith was *built* to do that. She's the *do that* girl. Buffy: Comfort, remember? Comfort here. Willow: I mean, please. Does Angel come up to Faith's standards for a guy? Let's see... is he breathing? Buffy: Actually, no.


Buffy: The world is what it is---we fight, we die. Wishing doesn't change that. Rupert: I have to believe in a better world. Buffy: Go ahead. I have to live in this one.


Giles: Since Angel lost his soul, he's regained his sense of whimsy.


Drusilla: Your face is a poem. I can read it. Xander: It doesn't say "spare me" by any chance?


Buffy: I wish we could be regular kids. Angel: I'll never be a kid. Buffy: Okay then, a regular kid and her cradle-robbing creature-of-the-night boyfriend.


Xander: You were looking at my neck. Angel: What? Xander: You were checking out my neck. I saw that. Angel: No, I wasn't. Xander: Just keep your distance, pal. Angel: I wasn't looking at your neck. Xander: I told you to eat before we left.


Xander: Yep, vampires are real. A lot of 'em live in Sunnydale. Willow'll fill you in. Willow: I know it's hard to accept at first. Oz: Actually, it explains a lot.


Cordelia: So does looking at guns make you wanna have sex? Xander: I'm 17. Looking at *linoleum* makes me wanna have sex.


Buffy: Have I ever let you down? Giles: Do you want me to answer that, or shall I just glare?


Xander: Oooh gang, did you hear that? A bonus day of class plus Cordelia. Mix in a little rectal surgery and it's my best day ever!


Buffy: I think I speak for everyone here when I say, huh?


Buffy: Mom, the only way you get a new slayer is if the old slayer dies. Joyce: Then that means you... When did you die? You never told me you died. Buffy: It was just for a few minutes.


Buffy: You read my diary? That is not OK. A diary is like a person's most private possession. You don't even know what I was writing about. Hunk can mean a lot of things, bad things. And, and when I said his eyes were penetrating, I meant bulging. Angel: Buffy... Buffy: A doesn't even stand for Angel for that matter. It stand for Achmed, a charming foreign exchange student. And that whole fantasy part has nothing to even do with you, at all... Angel: Your mother moved your diary when she came in to straighten up. I watched her from the closet. I didn't read it, I swear. Buffy: Oh.


Cordelia: And if you get me out of this, I swear I'll never be mean to anyone ever again. Unless, they really deserve it or if it's that time of the month, in which case I don't think you or anyone else can hold me responsible...


Cordelia: What gives you the right to suck face with your demon lover again? Buffy: It was an accident. Xander: What? You just tripped and fell on his lips?


Cordelia: Willow, nice dress. Good to know you've seen the softer side of Sears.


Cordelia: You're really campaigning for bitch of the year, aren't you? Buffy: As defending champion, you nervous?


Giles: Alright. I'll just jump into my time machine, go back to the 12th century and ask the vampires to postpone their ancient prophecy for a few days while you take in dinner and a show. Buffy: Okay, at this point you're abusing sarcasm.


Joyce: You belong in a good old fashioned college with keg parties and boys. Not here with Hellmouths and vampires. Buffy: Not really seeing the distinction.


Xander: How could you let her go? Giles: As the soon-to-be-purple area on my jaw will attest, I did not "let" her go.


Xander: Well, 'cause you never know if a girl's gonna say yes or if she's gonna laugh in your face and pull out your still-beating heart and crush it into the ground with her heel.


Buffy: Slaying is a tad more perilous than dating. XanderHarris: Obviously you're not dating Cordelia.


Harmony: Is Antonio Banderas a vampire? Spike: No. Harmony: Can I make him one? Spike: No. On second thought, yes. Go make him a vampire. Take your time. Get Melanie and the kids, too.


Anya: This isn't a relationship. You don't need me. All you care about is lots of orgasms. Xander: Okay, remember how we talked about private conversations? How they're less private when they're in front of my friends? Spike: Oh, we're not your friends. Go on.


Forrest: This is the burden we bear, brother. We have a gig that would inevitably cause any girl living to think we are cool upon cool. Yet, we must Clark Kent our way through the dating scene, never to use our unfair advantage. Thank God we're pretty.


Harmony: Being a vampire sucks!


Buffy: What are you doing here, Spike? Five words or less! Spike:Out... for... a... walk. bitch.


Spike: I would, but I'm paralyzed with not caring very much.


Spike: Sometimes I envy you so much it chokes me. And sometimes I think I got the better deal. To be that close to her and not have her, to be all alone even when you're holding her. Feeling her, feeling her beneath you. Surrounding you... the scent. No, you got the better deal.



[> [> Re: A couple Oz gems among my other favorites -- verdantheart, 06:56:48 06/20/01 Wed

You picked many very funny lines. Others have mentioned some of my favorite speeches, but this one had me on the floor (from Intervention):

Buffy: Listen, skirt-girl, we're not going to "save" him, we're going to "kill" him. He knows who the Key is and there's no way he's not telling Glory.

Buffybot: You're right. He's evil. Killing him is the only way. We're the Slayer and that's what we do. (then) But you should see him naked. I mean, really. Can we save him now, please?

Especially the way SMG delivered "I mean, really." The mixture of comedy and drama in the episode was a rollercoaster.

- vh


[> [> Re: A couple Oz gems among my other favorites -- purplegrrl, 08:37:28 06/20/01 Wed

***Buffy: I wish we could be regular kids. Angel: I'll never be a kid. Buffy: Okay then, a regular kid and her cradle-robbing creature-of-the-night boyfriend.***

Oh, I'd forgotten this interchange!! LOL

(Perhaps this was really a comment to all those who couldn't/wouldn't buy into the B/A relationship because she was 16 and he was 27 going on 240-something.)
BtVS Gets a Favoutable Mention in Canadian TV Guide -- Lazarus, 10:49:29 06/19/01 Tue

I received next week's issue of the Canadian edition of TV Guide, and in an article spotlighting the ten best moments of television from last season number ten reads as follows:

10. Spike Grieves on Buffy the Vampire Slayer As Buffy lay lifeless, the lovelorn vampire wept uncontrollably. (5/22)

I think it's great that (IMO) one of the best and most wrenching scenes in the history of one of the best series in TV history has gotten this kind of mainstream public recognition.


[> Re: BtVS Gets a Favoutable Mention in Canadian TV Guide -- Dedalus, 19:10:39 06/19/01 Tue

I wholeheartedly agree. And I think Spike crying got to just about everybody.

Thanks for posting.

Go Canadian TV Guide!


[> TV Guide Emmy wish list -- verdantheart, 07:54:32 06/20/01 Wed

I went to the online TVGuide (to see if your list appeared there) and found this Emmy wish list asking for noms for the series, Ms Gellar, Ms Hannigan, and Mr Marsters. At least the reviewers seem to agree that Buffy deserves recognition.

- vh


[> [> Re: TV Guide Emmy wish list -- Lazarus, 08:48:24 06/20/01 Wed

Thanks for the link, VH... It's so refreshing to see people in the entertainment industry finally starting to stand up and say "Hey folks! Some of these not-quite-mainstream shows are really worth watching!", especially when they include our favourite... :-)

BTW, this is the link to the Canadian TV Guide site...


They're still displaying this week's features, so the list probably wouldn't show up there until Friday or Saturday...


[> [> [> Re: TV Guide Emmy wish list -- Andy, 09:20:18 06/20/01 Wed

I think Robert Bianco of USA Today, who's a huge Buffy fan, also had a wish list in which he listed Buffy nominations in almost every major category. I do have a feeling that there is some pressure on Emmy voters to give some recognition to Buffy in the form of nominations if not actual wins. It's been an acclaimed series for five seasons now and has never gotten any serious nominations besides writing, despite many critics singing its praises. If it doesn't get at least an acting nomination at some point then it'll be even more blatantly obvious that the awards are completely out of touch with real television.


[> [> [> [> Been blatantly obvious for years -- mundusmundi, 12:16:44 06/20/01 Wed

But if Buffy ever gets any Emmy noms, this is the year. From what I understand, the shows send *one* episode to the voters -- which is pretty ridiculous (do these people watch anything during the season?), but if that one ep is "The Body," then I think they've got a shot, since it's got great acting, interesting writing/direction, and downplays the supernatural stuff that's always been the Emmys' bugaboo. Here's how I weigh the odds:

Excellent chance for a nom: Joss, for writing and directing "The Body."

Good chance: Gellar. Strike while the iron's hot. This could be, should be, her year.

Slim chance: Marsters, Hannigan, Trachtenberg, et al. All were great, especially JM (my choice for performance of the year, bar none), but pretty doubtful they'll get recognized, I think.

Darkhorse: Emma Caulfield for Supp. Actress. Nobody's talking about her, but I think she has a shot, if her work is based solely on "The Body."

And, also for a darkhorse, I gotta go with the show itself. It *could* get a nomination. On the other hand, if it gets slighted in favor of the usual suspects (ER, NYPD Blue, Providence, Touched By An Angel, blah blah blech!), nobody should be surprised.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Been blatantly obvious for years -- rowan, 14:59:46 06/20/01 Wed

I agree that the best chance is probably for writing for The Body. But the show should be nominated. It deserves it. Where else do you have such a blend of drama, comedy, and emotional realism on tv today? If only people would look beyond their pre-conceived opinions based on the subject matter...

For the acting awards, while I love SMG and AH and certainly support nominations for them based on past work(and SMG in The Body, which was fantastic), I think that JM is the cream of this crop this season and should be the "one" if there is only one. He plays Spike with such emotional range consistently every ep that it's mesmerizing. Of course, he gets the benefit of the writing, too, since he probably gets the opportunity to play a greater range than some of the other actors. Spike is the true marriage of writing, direction, and acting. I think FFL or Crush would be his standout eps this season.

My second choice for an acting award this year would be MT. She too showed a beautiful range throughout her eps.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Lie to Me (the Emmy Awards version) -- mundusmundi, 15:18:32 06/20/01 Wed

Buffy: Will we be nominated for any Emmys? Giles: What's that? Buffy: Will we be nominated for any Emmys? Giles: What do you want me to say? Buffy: Lie to me. Giles: Of course we will. The Emmy voters are all astute individuals who can look beyond our silly title and see the essence of great art and entertainment beneath the surface. Buffy: Liar.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Spike's Response -- rowan, 17:20:45 06/20/01 Wed

Spike's response to no Emmy nominations for BtVS:

Out. Of. Their. Minds. Bitches.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Fabulous you two! -- Dedalus, 21:03:40 06/20/01 Wed
The Source of Buffy's Power -- Dedalus, 10:55:10 06/19/01 Tue

I always liked that cool - if cryptic - line SuperBuffy gave while confronting Adam.

"Never hope to grasp the source of our power!"

It was said that we would learn more about the origins of the Slaayer this season, and while it started that way, we got off on the whole Glory/Ben/Key/Role Playing Rejects thing. Or did we?

Long before The Gift ever stirred up fandom controversy, I had a theory about Dawn and Buffy's connection. I haven't even thought much about it since the finale since it was never directly addressed, but the more I think about it, the more sense it seems to make.

I think the source of Buffy's slayer power is none other than ... drumroll please ... the Key.

Many people have objected to how the Key was made a 14 year old girl and sent to live with Buffy on the Hellmouth. And it is a bit strange. Key Protector is not the job description of a Slayer. And yet, out of all the heroes in all the dimensions of the Buffyverse, the monks sent Dawn to Rodello Drive, all neat and nice with a bow wrapped around her. Why do that unless there was a profound connection between the Slayer and the Key?

Much ado has been said about the foreshadowings of Dawn before season five. "Oh yeah. Miles to go. Little Miss Muffet counting down from 7-3-0." That was in Faith/Buffy's shared dream. "Be back before Dawn." That was in Buffy's Restless dream. Notice only the two slayers had any idea - unconscious or otherwise - that little sis was coming. There was no reference to Dawn in any of the other's dreams. Is it significant that only the Slayers knew about her imminent creation?

We know that the Key was living energy, thousands of years old. We know that its power is damn near absolute. Energy is a power source. The Watchers have been around at least 1200 years, and the First Slayer was probably around a few thousand years before that. She looked aboriginal though, so who really knows?

There were bad tidings surrounding both the Slayer and the Key. The Knights saw the Key as a manifestation of evil, and Dracula told Buffy her power is "rooted in darkness." The First Slayer said "I am destruction, absolute, alone." What could be more absolute than the power of the Key to destroy the universe?

For my part, I doubt the Slayer or the Key is really evil. LIke Glory said, "It depends on your point of view." Could the Watchers have domesticated the Slayer to fight evil with her power? Was that ever really her initial purpose? Could the monks have played a similiar role in the creation of Dawn? Did they see a way her power could be harnessed by the forces of light before they were killed?

Buffy told First Slayer "You're not the source of me." And she wasn't the end source. Maybe it was significant that the Guide took the form of the First Slayer. Love would lead her to her Gift, and her Gift was death. Maybe that vision quest was leading her back to her source, which was Dawn.

It would go a long way in explaining Buffy's profound - almost not strong enough a word - love/connection with Dawn, and why she was so unwilling to sacrifice her. Maybe Dawn's death would have short circuited all the successive slayers. (Maybe it does eventually - see the Fray comic)

Also, I think this would forever end any misgivings the fans may have about Buffy's blood being able to close the portal. Okay, not the bashers over at alt.tv.buffy on Usenet who think Buffy jumped the shark with Anne, but certainly the more generous fans. It would mean that not only was Dawn made from Buffy, but that Buffy WAS MADE from Dawn. And thus, with her Slayer essence, her whole body would be infused with the metaphysical properties of the Key.

I have no idea if this will ever be addressed, but I think it would be a cool tie-in.


[> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Brian, 11:06:58 06/19/01 Tue

Wow! Great Theory! It explains many of the seeming digressions throughout Season 5. I am you; you are me, and we (all the slayers that ever were) are all together. Therefore, time is just a flux of energies, and Buffy is just around the next cornor. Enter stage right.


[> Wow! -- rowan, 11:07:36 06/19/01 Tue

I'll need to think about this tonight at home. I love this!!

But this explains why Buffy could close the portal, doesn't it? Of course, we should have just thrown Faith into it. ;)


[> Double wow! - cool idea -- Solitude1056, 11:11:09 06/19/01 Tue


[> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:45:13 06/19/01 Tue

Fantastic idea!

And by making the key an innocent like Dawn an extra layer is added because in a way it is Buffy's love and respect for these innocents - the enthusiasm with which she comes to their defence - that makes her such a successful slayer. So the Key could be the source of Buffy's power physically (mythically) and emotionally!

Thanks, Dedalus. It's reassuring to hear an idea that should (IMO) silence anyone who's worried about plotholes in season five!

(I'm not saying that it is exactly what Joss and co are thinking of, but it would be one very effective way of resolving lots of problems)


[> Best theory I've heard yet.... -- mundusmundi, 14:27:14 06/19/01 Tue

So good, in fact, that don't be surprised if Joss steals it. ;)


[> [> Re: Best theory I've heard yet.... -- Dedalus, 15:48:47 06/19/01 Tue

*Dedalus gives a little bow*

Well thanks, guys. Great and supportive as usual. I am pleased it is not totally off the wall. I came up with this over at fanforum even before the finale, and everyone seemed to like it.

And who knows, it may have been Joss' plan all along. It would make sense, as noted in the first post. I'm not sure when it would be revealed - maybe even in the first episode if anyone expresses any doubt about Buffy being able to close the portal, or maybe for sweeps.

I was thinking about something else today. We have all wondered about the Big Bad for season six. It seems demons and vamps walking about in the mortal coil could no longer stand up to Buffy, especially if she comes back more powerful, or "rebooted" as the colorful metaphor goes. Is it possible really, really cool things can happen when the Key and the Slayer are joined, say like in a spell or something? Could Buffy be traveling into other dimensions and waging offenses on their own turf? Will she be able to fight non-coporeal enemies in the seasons to come?

Something to think about.


[> [> [> The slayer factor -- cknight, 16:44:16 06/19/01 Tue

I liked what you came up with but.... I think in the buffyverse there are girls walking around with a slayer factor within them. "when one dies another gets the calling". I think Dawn, as being pure energy could not have really been killed. Her body woud have died but the key would have remained. I think the buffyverse is a place of order and chaos, The Powers That Be and the Forces Of Darkness. Each side has it's solders. If there are vampires then there must be a slayer the keep them in check. I do believe there is a energy that drives the slayers but I think it's different then Dawn's energy. The being or beings that created the buffyverse "In the beginning" would have made the key after the Buffyverse was sectioned off in different dimensions. So the Key is older than the slayer.

Dawn was made from Buffy creating a mystic connection. But They are two different supernatural beings. "If I'm wrong, then I think you'll see Dawn with slayer powers when the new season opens. That to might be interesting, imagine Spike having to train the new Slayer!?


[> [> [> [> Re: The slayer factor -- Dedalus, 16:54:43 06/19/01 Tue

Yeah, I think the Key was around a long time before the Slayer - "just this side of forever". My first post might have implied otherwise, but there it is.

I have no idea how Joss would work it or if he would ever work it.

And I'm not sure if Slayer powers would manifest in Dawn, but I have a feeling something will develop.

And on a side note, I'm not suggesting Buffy is the Key. I don't think any of the Slayers were the Key. I'm just positing the idea that some small portion of the Key's energy could have at one point in the distant past empowered the Slayers and jump-started the line of succession. I think of it as sort of an emanation of the Key in the universe - or maybe secretion would be a better word. Whether or not it was at all intentional or not, I have no idea.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The slayer factor -- Rufus, 17:24:40 06/19/01 Tue

I went to Spiral to get this:

Gregor: The key is almost as old as the beast itself. Where it came from, how it was created...the deepest of mysteries. All that is certain is that its power is absolute. Countless generations of my people have sacrificed their lives in search of it, to destroy it before its wrath could be unleashed.

Dawn: But the monks found it first.

Gregor: Yes, and hid it with their magicks.

Buffy: Why didn't they just destroy it. If the key is as dangerous as-

Gregor: Because they were fools. They thought they could harness its power for the forces of light. They failed, and paid with their blood.

Dawn: What do I do: What was I created for?

Gregor: You were created...to open the gates that separate dimensions. The beast will use your power...to return home and seize control of the hell she was banished from.

Now something in what Gregor said makes no sense....if they don't know how or where it came from, how can they be sure that the only thing that the key does is destroy? The monkes had it in mind to harness the power of the key for the forces of light. I think that the key may be in a similar situation that Angel is, we don't know which side she will ultimately work on, we can only guess. This is where Buffy comes in. She was so convinced that her sister should live that she risked the pain of death to make it so. I don't think that she would have if she thought that Dawn would be a force of destruction. I think that both Buffy and the Key(Dawn) have a similar source, and that is what makes them need each other. Both will be powers that come to play for the forces of light. This could be part of the reason that the monks sent the key to Buffy. They put the key with the one person who would sense at a biological level that the key had potential that must be protected, the built memories helped get them together, it was Buffys choice to keep it that way.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Buffy's Choice -- Solitude1056, 17:50:17 06/19/01 Tue

You're right, I hadn't thought back to that - it was Buffy's choice to keep Dawn as her "sister," no matter what other information told her that Dawn was placed in her life, and not born there. When Buffy did the spell and saw Dawn as an intruder and not part of Buffy's true reality, Buffy at that point was angry and had every opportunity to turn her back on Dawn.

That juncture was also what made me wonder if Dawn's existence was the source of Joyce's migraines, since the migraine "disappeared" when Buffy began the spell... and reappeared as soon as the spell ended, when Joyce returned home, feeling doubly ill. That minor note is also the reason I agree that Dawn was made from Buffy, and not Joyce - Joyce may have certain strengths she genetically bestowed on Buffy, but she didn't appear to be immune to the powerful energetic effects of the Key, while Buffy was.

An incomplete idea, but my excuse is that I'm working on dinner at the same time as posting.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Nina, 18:31:33 06/19/01 Tue

Joss said many times in different interviews that Joyce's death was natural and that Dawn had nothing to do with it. So I'll take his word on that. I think the point was to show us a real death, a normal death. Nothing magical. No Spike, no Glory. My humble opinion! :)

Now Dedalus, that was one incredible post you came up with! Bravo! I love it. I'm also thinking a little further. If the key is the source of the slayer's power, couldn't it also be a manifestation of the PTB? Like Christ is a manifestation of God? From where else the powers of the slayer could come if not from the higher Power that created us?

Glory was older than the key. If Chaos (Glory) was there before the PTB, that would also explain why the Key appeared a little later. It would also explain the choice of having monks and knights from the time of the crusades. All religious connection. Different views in their religions.

If the key comes from the PTB, Dawn is divine. To give her human life the monks send her to Buffy (it's like taking Buffy's rib to create Eve!). Buffy dies and to give her life again, Dawn could create Buffy out of her. Or someone else could do it for Dawn.

Not very clear.. sorry I was thinking out loud. I'll think about that tonight! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Dedalus, 18:44:59 06/19/01 Tue

Thank you, Nina.

And, first off, I just have to say - making Dawn out of Buffy's "rib" ... wow. Great thought.

As for TPTB ... we really just don't know if enough about them. I think the most definitive statement we have is from Doyle - "You know, the higher powers - whoever they are." Did they create us? I don't know. I remember Joss saying TPTB could be interpreted as God, but he's not defining it either way. "There's a reason we kept it vague." I suppose the reason is to allow for more than one interpretation.

I have also thought about Dawn being divine in that sense - the Key made flesh. Although I think Buffy certainly qualifies as the Christ figure in The Gift. I'm not sure where to take that as far as Dawn goes, but it is there.

I also like the idea of Dawn "making" Buffy out of her. Would take some major mojo, but it could be done.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- spotjon, 20:18:55 06/19/01 Tue

If the key is the source of the slayer's power, couldn't it also be a manifestation of the PTB? Like Christ is a manifestation of God?

Not meaning to be too nit-picky, but the Christian view of Jesus is not that He is a manifestation of God, but that He is God. He is not some sort of emanation from or manifestation of God, but He is God Himself in human flesh. I know this has little to do with the point of your post, but I get a little picky when others misrepresent my religious beliefs. :-) I love the theory, though! It would make a whole lot of sense out of this last season. I do so hope that Joss will address the fact that this season got so off-topic from where it started.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Nina, 10:17:18 06/20/01 Wed

Gee, Sorry Spotjon if I offenced you. That certainely wasn't my intention!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- spotjon, 13:15:14 06/20/01 Wed

Naw, I wasn't offended. Just correcting a misperception.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Dedalus, 16:46:29 06/20/01 Wed

I can see emanation sounding a bit too Neoplatonic ...

Manifestation though ... I see that as an essence that is transferred to another time or place or form. Wouldn't a manifestation of God be God?

I need to check my Webster's Dictionary.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Solitude1056, 22:20:32 06/20/01 Wed

Wouldn't a manifestation of God be God?

Depends on which religious context you're using. For one point of view, scroll back through the archives for the thread on Avatars.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- spotjon, 07:12:50 06/21/01 Thu

Wouldn't a manifestation of God be God?

Hmm, perhaps. I'm not up to speed on the full meaning of some of these philosophical words (though I spend enough time lurking around here that I should).

== From the Cambridge Dictionaries Online: manifest verb [T] FORMAL to show (something) clearly, through signs or actions

From Webster's 1828 Dictionary: MANIFESTA'TION, n. The act of disclosing what is secret, unseen or obscure; discovery to the eye or to the understanding; the exhibition of any thing by clear evidence; display; as the manifestation of God's power in creation, or of his benevolence in redemption.

From Dictionary.com: man·i·fest adj. Clearly apparent to the sight or understanding; obvious. ==

In one sense, I suppose I would see Jesus as a manifestation of God. His life made God visible and tangible. His actions and His words clearly showed who and what God is. But I would go a bit further and say that Jesus was much more than a manifestation, because you don't have to be God to show what He's like (though it helps). The reason Jesus manifested God so clearly was because He was (and is) God Himself. Mankind was created in the image of God, but only Jesus expressed that image perfectly. He was not an aspect of God, though He communicated many of God's aspects; and He was not simply a manifestation of God, though He manifested God's character. I believe that Jesus was much more than an abstract philosophical term. He contained all those things, but was not limited to them. He defined them.

Okay, perhaps this thread is getting a little off-topic, now. I can't really think of how to tie this in to Buffy, except that a couple vampires mention the Crucifixion in season two. Does that help? :-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Nina, 17:02:37 06/21/01 Thu

Sorry if I got you to check the dictionary. I just wrote the first word that came to my mind (and cut most of my original post because I couldn't find proper words to express myself). English is not my first language and sometimes I am lazy (like now!) and I will express myself with non accurate words. Bad bad me! I try to post as little as possible these days mostly because things tend to feel odd when I write them. So I'll go back to lurker mode until further notice! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't you dare, Nina. (OT) -- Solitude1056, 19:06:41 06/21/01 Thu

Besides, I'm the anti-social one around here. (Comeon, like the nickname's not a clue.) Well, more like hermitic, but I figure as long as I'm not hermetically sealed, I'll be okay. So don't go away, and keep up the posts - I never woulda guessed you're not fluent in English. Besides, even those of us who are fluent still stumble in word choice, so you're gonna hafta come up with a better excuse than that one. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You are anti-social....would have never guessed it....use your status as Second Evil to...... -- Rufus, 22:20:13 06/21/01 Thu

Make Nina stay.......Nina.......my first language is English and you use words better than I do......love your posts......don't lurk, Sol will get all anti-social on you.........


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Be afwaid, be vewwy afwaid. -- Solitude1056, 22:24:08 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> What he said! You get back here right now, young lady!! -- OnM, 08:09:29 06/22/01 Fri

Wondered why we haven't heard more from you lately. If English isn't your first language, did you ever think that this is a really great and fun way to practice it?

With all the plays on words we do here, I mean, just how idiomatic can you get?

(see, I just did it-- oh, clever me!) (not)



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Don't you dare, Nina. (OT) -- Nina, 09:52:20 06/22/01 Fri

Okay, I fold then! :) But it is true that I'm always struggling with words! (not only saying that to get compliments! ;) So tell me Solitude...what is the 1056 about? Now that I discovered what OnM means I am way curious to hear about all the meanings behind the handles people use!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just a little support for posters -- verdantheart, 07:17:44 06/22/01 Fri

That would mean my posting less and less, too (and when I'm thinking up some wonderful and erudite things to say in an upcoming post, too! ;) ). I always feel strange when posting, too, like I'm sticking my neck out to have it chopped off. Please don't let that stop you! I enjoy reading your posts!

By the way Sol, I'm kind of an anti-social character myself. Not that I don't enjoy having friends, just that there don't seem to be many birds of my feather. Also, I'm kind of good at being alone. Glad you break your solitude now and then to join us!

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Can I second that? -- Marie, 07:59:49 06/22/01 Fri

I'm always terrified of posting, though I'm getting a little bolder thanks to all the niceness here, 'cos I haven't been to college, and have never heard of Kohlberg, and have never read anything philosophical - until I came here, that is! I just figure, oh well, they can't shoot me can they? And they can't see me can they? (Or CAN they? hmmmm...)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- OnM, 08:20:32 06/22/01 Fri

It's probably because the median age is skewed so high on this board, but I've observed far, far less general rudeness here than on many other boards, one reason why I quickly leave them. It's at a point so low that most of the regulars here seemed startled when it does appear-- I know I always am.

But when it does, our erudite and decimating collective wittiness acts to dispatch the offender post-hasty!

So park your mind down here, and post 'em if ya got 'em!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- rowan, 08:50:31 06/22/01 Fri

"It's probably because the median age is skewed so high on this board, but I've observed far, far less general rudeness here than on many other boards, one reason why I quickly leave them. It's at a point so low that most of the regulars here seemed startled when it does appear-- I know I always am."

So true! I'm spoiled for other boards. I can't take the negativity. About a week or two ago, we had some people post some things in what I thought was a very negative tone and I had to withdrawal a little from it.

Even if I'm stupider than everyone else, you're going to have to put up with me, because I can't go back out there into that big dark void of other boards...

Do you think our median age is 30? 35?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- Dedalus, 09:02:31 06/22/01 Fri

My median age is 25. :-)

I seem to notice a pattern here ...

We're all smart, we're all Buffy fans, we like to use words like "erudite," we're unemployed, and generally anti-social.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hell is other people... unless they're also Buffy fans. -- Solitude1056, 09:33:54 06/22/01 Fri

Actually, I'm employed. I'm still working on the independently wealthy part, dammit. Still haven't gotten that part down right. And my median age is old enough to know all the words to every song when the radio station plays any song from the 80's.

I wouldn't say we're really that anti-social... but I'm betting that I'm not the only person on here who tends to be very discriminating in my choice of companions. The philosophical edge shows up both in that context as well as in valuing the time to be alone and reflect internally on the world, people, buffy, life, the universe, and everything. Being alone, IMO, is good for thinking - it gives you more to contribute when you're back amongst friends. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- Little One, 09:42:52 06/22/01 Fri

Ripe ol' age of 27 here (just turned so feeling a bit tender about it).

Just wanted to add that we're also very literary minded, many of us being writers, adore bad boys/girls, and tend towards being shy and humble (most of us claiming to be towel, toga and loofah holders and not plato's)

And then there's that whole cats and chocolate thing. ;-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- Dedalus, 09:56:19 06/22/01 Fri

"Solitude is my greatest companion," as Thoreau so eloquently put it.

See, I'm weird. I'm not really shy or insecure, yet both shy and insecure. I hate people but love them at the same time. And I have both superiority complexes, as well as inferiority ones.

It's very complicated.

I'm not really sure how I feel about the world yet ...

Do you realize if any of us lived just 500 years ago, we probably all would have been burned at the stake by now?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- rowan, 11:22:39 06/22/01 Fri

Hey I'm very employed in a very high pressure job (Project Manager of Software Development projects) for a big company. So, I don't think there's necessarily a career link here.

But my first career was academia -- specifically, English Language and Literature, so maybe there is one, after all.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- spotjon, 12:15:31 06/23/01 Sat

We're all smart...


...we're all Buffy fans...


...we like to use words like "erudite"...

I had to look that one up, but check. :-)

...we're unemployed...

I prefer the phrase "between meaningful employment." I'm working part-time, but still looking for that wonderful full-time position.

...and generally anti-social.

Unfortunately, yes. Mainly a fault of my own, not of those around me. I'm not the most outgoing person in the neighborhood. As Dedalus mentioned, I also have a bit of a superiority/inferiority complex. I feel smarter than the people around me, but socially unsure of myself. As the wonderful people over at despair.com so eloquently put it, "The problem with being better than everybody else is that people tend to assume you're pretentious."

I need to work on my humility, or lack thereof. :-)



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Can I second that? -- Rahael, 17:04:45 06/23/01 Sat

I have to say that this is one of the most intelligent Buffy sites I have discovered. None of my friends watch it, and my obsession with it has kind of become a running joke(!). Which is why I finally hooked up to the internet last month.

I'm young (23) intelligent (went to Oxford, good degree)and its true that I am much happier by myself rather than with a group of people. I do like other people, their opinions, their lives, how funny and witty then can be - but so much of the time social interaction seems to consist of shallow banalities. University forced me to learn how to do it, and my job means that I am constantly having to network and schmooze but I hate it!!

I also have a sneaking suspicion that I am a bit of snob, and think that I am superior to a great many people. Oh well.......i'm not proud of it anyway.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Perhaps 'non-social', rather than anti-social? -- OnM, 20:09:43 06/23/01 Sat

This sorta reminds me of that great old Joan Armatrading tune, *Me, Myself, I*

My job involves working with people all the time, and I neither particularly like or dislike that aspect, it depends entirely on the customer. Some people are great, and you even become semi-friends with them, others are a royal pain in the keaster, but most (80+%) are just people making a transaction, bucks for entertainment and that's it.

I am not particularly gregarious, and it doesn't bother me to not be socializing all the time, I have more hobbies/interests than I have the possible time and/or finances to pursue, so I never lack for something to keep myself occupied. So, I'd guess I'd peg myself as 'non-social'.

Of course, one of those interests is hanging around this place for more than a few hours/week!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps 'non-social', rather than anti-social? -- Nina, 21:11:54 06/23/01 Sat

My father asked me yesterday how I could bear to stay at home and not see people. I don't live downtown, there's no activities where I live, yet I am happy like that! Non-social would apply to me pretty well. Then I told him about you folks! Try to explain to your father that you spend time writing messages with a bunch of faceless people who live far, far away from your home ... suddenly you become THE anti-social girl in the neighborhood.

Happy to see that I am not the only one thinking I am better than everyone else! ;) LOL Seriously, one really good trick is to go down the salary scale for 6 months. I did that last year. Went from being an office manager and assistant to a producer to being a production secretary for a tv production. Ego felt a hundred feet down! Probably a very drastic way to work the ego, but a very effective diet let me tell you that! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps 'non-social', rather than anti-social? -- Rufus, 00:09:01 06/24/01 Sun

I like non-social myself as the other term tends to make me think of people who are angry for whatever reason. I don't like large crowds in a social situtation because you can't get to know anyone. I love small settings where people have more of a chance to be themselves. Everyone I meet be it at the grocery store or coffee shop is more than what you immediately see. I find people and the things they do facinating I love to learn what someone else is all about. What I do notice is that we are connected by our likes, dislikes, and fears. If you approach others worrying about what you look like, you may miss the fact that others are just as worried about the same thing. The fact that we are even talking to each other on a message board shows that we aren't nearly as non-social as we may think. Our social expression just happens to be through the web.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Perhaps 'non-social', rather than anti-social? -- Brian, 06:48:35 06/24/01 Sun

Rufus, I like your term. I never really thought of myself as anti-social, either. But I hate crowds, the bar scene leaves me cold. I prefer small gatherings of people I know well. I don't have much family, but I am very close to those who are still alive. Unfortunately I've lost contact with the Canadian side of my family. I do have a small circle of friends, and the comic book world is very open to welcoming new people, so I have a large circle of friendly acquaintanes. Very much like this board. I hope that our possbile meeting at the end of the 7th season of Buffy becomes a reality. It will be fun to put names and faces together.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I think the word we're looking for is "introverted." -- Solitude1056, 12:45:23 06/24/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Are you sure it isn't 'perverted'? ;) Or, as a buddy of mine aptly comments... -- OnM, 15:38:48 06/24/01 Sun

...he used to be 'preverted', but he got over it after a while and now he's 'postverted'.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you sure it isn't 'perverted'? ;) Or, as a buddy of mine aptly comments... -- Rufus, 21:15:50 06/24/01 Sun

Intro, extro, pre, post.......boy lots of types of verts, just pick one and wear the label proudly?????


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Are you sure it isn't 'perverted'? ;) Or, as a buddy of mine aptly comments... -- Dedalus, 08:24:22 06/25/01 Mon

Damn you AOL yet again. Well, I just typed out a fifty page post basically telling my life story, and then the stupid AOL connection went down before I could post it. I swear. I am going to have to switch internet services ...

Nice to hear everyone's thoughts, though.

I think Byron summed it up -

"I have not loved the world, nor the world me."


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Seems we had a poll on average age a while back. Anyone remember the result? -- Masquerade, 10:47:47 06/22/01 Fri

Probably in the archives (the old archives)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Found it. Result was 36. -- Masq, 11:03:47 06/22/01 Fri

http://www.geocities.com/masqthephlsphr/feb_p.html#1235 (post by Brian)

For Masquerade et al. FYI: Using the 23 responses to the Age question I calculated that the average age is 36.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think the Median Age is 37 -- Brian, 13:47:15 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- spotjon, 12:22:21 06/23/01 Sat

Sorry if I got you to check the dictionary.

Hey, don't worry about it. The thing I like about this message board is that is makes us go back and examine what we say and why we say it. It makes us smarter and (hopefully) wiser when we take the time to look at our own beliefs. I hope you don't stop posting. I enjoy almost all of the conversations on the board, even though I don't join in very often. I know how it feels to write something that doesn't seem to express what you're wanting to say. Practice makes perfect, though. I think you'll find that the more you write, the better you get at expressing your thoughts.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Anthony8, 19:20:07 06/21/01 Thu

With all due respect for your right to believe what you choose to believe, I beg to differ with you when you claim to speak for all of Christianity. Nina is right and you are right since the nature of Jesus has been the number one topic of debate among Christians for the past 2000 years.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Choice -- Nina, 20:05:37 06/22/01 Fri

Thanks Anthony8, but I must confess again that the choice of words was pure laziness on my part and not a mirror of my beliefs! :)


[> Incredible! Why can't I write like this?????? -- Liquidram, 15:52:06 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> Because you're busy making cool-looking graphics design stuff? :) -- OnM, 16:45:45 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> Re: And because she has a real job :-) -- Dedalus, 16:47:58 06/19/01 Tue


[> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- rowan, 18:04:50 06/19/01 Tue

Oh God, this is so brilliant. Everything you say sounds so very plausible to me. I have nothing brilliant of my own to add; I can only live like a parasite off of your ideas (um, yummy food for thought). But I was thinking a little about this:

"There were bad tidings surrounding both the Slayer and the Key. The Knights saw the Key as a manifestation of evil, and Dracula told Buffy her power is "rooted in darkness." The First Slayer said "I am destruction, absolute, alone." What could be more absolute than the power of the Key to destroy the universe?"

First, I definitely don't believe everything that comes out of Drac's mouth. We really don't have enough knowledge of him to know if he's credible. His motivation was to seduce Buffy, so it would be in his interest to tell her some truth wrapped in some lies to both seduce and weaken her.

So let's speculate about how to unwrap that package. The truth might be that Slayer power, Key energy, and vampire (demonic) power all have root in the same beginnings. Let's say for sake of argument that Dawn as The Key is the root of both the demonic power of the vampires and the Slayer power -- two opposing forces of what was once a balanced union. That would be consistent with alot of mythologies (e.g. even basic Christian mythology of Lucifer as a fallen angel of God) which stress the good and evil become different paths from the same primitive creative energies. To make another analogy, Dawn is like Anakin Skywalker, a fully unified entity of enormous energy with great potential for good or evil -- the vamps are like the Darth Vader part of him and the Slayers are like the Jedi Knight part of him.

First the "evil" or demonic side of the Key potential emerges. The Slayers are then a response to evil: since the evil can be subdued or reintegrated, it is opposed and thereby balanced in some way. Or perhaps the Key cannot stabilize without its negative (or dark) side and thereby must release its positive (or good) side and that's how the Slayers emerge.

Perhaps one of the challenges to the Slayers is to unify themselves with The Key and dispel their isolation from each other. All Slayers but Buffy seem to be loners. Maybe this isolation has increased their link to darkness and weakened them. Spike has commented as early as S2 and as late as S5 that what distinguishes Buffy from other Slayers is her connection to friends and family. Possibly as you say, Buffy and Dawn will reunite The Key and Slayers through their connection to each other and to the world.

An even more frightening thought might be that the Key and the Slayer can reintegrate the demonic element (and thereby defeat it) by the connections between Buffy/Dawn and Angel/Spike. Yikes!

Regarding the "destruction" mentioned by the First Slayer: it doesn't necessarily have to be a bad thing. Just as someone in another post mentioned that the Death card in Tarot can have cleansing meanings, destruction also cleans out what is useless to make room for the useful. Noah's flood was destructive, but was it evil? I think it was powerful, but not necessarily evil.


[> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Dedalus, 18:58:34 06/19/01 Tue

Glad you made it back to this thread, rowan.

As far as the Buffy/Key bad tidings thing, I think there has been a fairly substantial bit of evidence that the Slayer derived from some dark source, or at least a lot of people seem to think so. Including Buffy sometimes (We're not demons - Is that a fact? Restless). Yeah, Drac was trying to seduce her, but why would he think of a vampire slayer as "kindred"? Sort of an odd word to use.

Bottom line, the Key is power, and the Slayer is power, and people get nervous/envious around power. I think that is pretty much as far as I would personally take it. I think it is pretty much morally neutral in and of itself.

I like the idea about the Key being the origin of vamps and Slayers. You could certainly use my argument as lead in for that.

And kudos for bringing up Star Wars. On a side note, TPM is going to be released on DVD October 16th! Yes! Two discs. I am happy. Allow me to revel in the happy. Anyway, I have this really famous/controversial theory about Anakin HAVING to go to the dark side in order to subvert it to the light instead of the other way around. That's what balancing the Force means. Light, dark, then breaking through and transcending both. Joseph Campbell.

Interesting point about destruction ... still, it seems to me to be a negative thing. Slaying all too easily turns to killing - ala Faith. Goodie on you for bringing up Noah's flood. It can be seen as a cleansing or baptism - symbolically anyway. Still, this is where I think Buffy parts company with religion. Apocalyptic thought is actually pretty positive, because usually the sect/group talking about it is the group that will be "saved." I think there is no denying death-rebirth is a big Buffy theme, but not on the large scale. The end of the world is something to be avoided at all costs. There is no "leading us to a better world" ideology at play there. Unless you're a demon.


[> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Wisewoman, 20:32:59 06/19/01 Tue

"Bottom line, the Key is power, and the Slayer is power, and people get nervous/envious around power. I think that is pretty much as far as I would personally take it. I think it is pretty much morally neutral in and of itself."

Exactly! And if I hadn't had to go out after work tonight, I would have be adding my kudos to all the others much earlier.

In line (I hope) with what both Rowan and Dedalus have just said, The Key originally was just power, possibly Absolute power, but in a raw energy way. And power isn't good or evil, it's neutral. The monks though that power could be used for good, and the KoB thought it was entirely evil, and both those ideas are just their opinions. One group, or both of them, could be wrong. What we are building up to here is the ultimate opportunity for a display of free will by the Reborn Buffy.

I like the idea that Slayer power *and* demon power may both originate with the power of The Key. Slayers and demons take what they have of that power and use it as they see fit. The Council of Watchers have been able, for the most part, to induce the Slayers to use their power in a way that benefits humanity, to the detriment of vamps and demons, but where is it written that it has to be that way? The words of the First Slayer, and the actions of Faith, both indicate that slayers, in general, are free to determine how they will use their power. Buffy recognized this as well, in her final showdown with Quentin. They need her a lot more than she needs them.

It seems likely that Reborn Buffy will be more powerful than Original Buffy. That's supported by a lot of sacrifice-and-rebirth mythology. But she'll still be a 20 year old woman placed in the position of deciding how to use that enormous power. It's not likely that she's going to take orders from the CoW, or anyone else. Perhaps her biggest battle is the one that is coming, the one she will wage with herself. And, to continue the Star Wars theme, this is reminiscent of the scene where Luke is studying with Yoda and has to fight a Jedi dressed as Vader, who turns out, in fact, to be Luke himself.

And if Buffy finds herself in this position, so does Dawn. A lot has been made of Dawn's innocence, and as a 14 year old human girl she may indeed still be innocent of some things, but as the manifestation of an ancient power she, too, is neutral and must decide for herself...and little things like stealing earrings may count for a lot more morally than we've previously thought. I love Buffy and Dawn, and I don't want to spend S6 watching them strut about like Angelus, but I do think it would be interesting to watch them both struggle to define themselves as powerful beings.

It drives me crazy that the T.S. Eliot quote from "Four Quartets" shows up just about everywhere these days, but I think it's appropriate for Buffy and Dawn in their quest for self-knowledge:

"We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And to know the place for the first time."

Okay, I'll shut up now... ;o) and thanks, Dedalus.


[> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Sebastian, 21:41:45 06/19/01 Tue

This may be a tad off topic - and I confess I am nowhere near the league of all you SuperPhilosophy guys :), but I always got the impression that the monks literally took Buffy's human aspect to create Dawn.

I always found it a bit hard to swallow that the monks were THAT good to successfully create a realistic 14 year old girl. I mean - they WERE monks, for pete's sake.;-)

Buffy's speech of how they "made Dawn out of me..." in The Gift made me wonder if that was actually the case.

Throughtout the entire season, Buffy has been grappling with the supposed loss of her humanity. In Buffy vs. Dracula - she shows a primal nature in fighting and hunting vamps - which is right around the time Dawn appeared.

Buffy had been quite clear in the latter part of the season that she felt she was losing the "human" part of herself - meanwhile, Dawn - a being that technically is a six-month old mystical construct - correctly shows the manners, thought processes and actions of a "normal" human girl.

I almost feel that they took the non-slayer aspect of Buffy that existed before she became a Slayer. If memory serves correctly, Buffy became a Slayer when she was 15 - and Dawn was made as a *fourteen* year old girl.

So, in essence, the monks took the "normal" part of Buffy that existed in her before she became the Slayer - and used that essence to create Dawn. Dawn is sort of an avatar of Buffy.

Its similar to a storyline used a few years ago in "Wonder Woman" to explain the origin of Wonder Girl. WG was a "variant" of WW that had taken a life/personality of its own....

I'm sure I'm wrong about this - so please correct me if I am....


[> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Dedalus, 09:02:21 06/20/01 Wed

No, I think you are right about this.

And you're dead on as far as the ages go - Buffy was called when she was 15, and Dawn will be 15 next year. Hmm ... putting it that way, and I don't think it would be so odd to see Dawn developing some Slayer skills. Just out of her own no longer latent powers.

I agree that the monks literally made Dawn from Buffy, at least in the physical sense. It would be much easier to mold her flesh with some kind of template to go by. And since they were meant to be sisters it would make sense.

Plus bonus points for using the word "avatar."


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- rowan, 11:27:41 06/20/01 Wed

Yes, I agree too, that my impression is that "the monks made her out of me" implies using Buffy as physical essence for Dawn (after all, where would monks get the power to create a life out of nothing? the gift of life isn't usually just any old person's to give). I think I also mentioned in a post below that Dawn must have some latent Slayerness if she was made out of Buffy (though no official call would be triggered since the line goes through Faith). Add this together with Spike's Watcher role in Restless and you get Dawn with latent Slayer abilities starting to manifest themselves in S6, with Spike as her very unofficially sanctioned Watcher.

Of course, none of this invalidates the theory that Dawn's essence originally gave birth to the Slayers (just makes a nice circle of Dawn as Buffy's hereditary birth mother and Buffy as Dawn's DNA provider!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Sebastian, 17:32:32 06/20/01 Wed

Thanks for the words...I actually get a little jittery posting on here for fear of sounding like a moron. :)

Another thing. An undeclared theme this season seemed to be dichotomy. Various episodes and story arcs seemed to deal with that theme in various ways.

Xander: The Replacement. Willow and Tara: Their opinions on magic and its uninteneded consequences in both Forever and Tough Love. Willow and Anya: Their antagonistic relationship in relation to Xander in every episode before The Body. Spike: Need I say more?......

The same ties into Buffy and Dawn. Dawn was Buffy's dichotomy: Her "human" side fighting her Slayer side. Not Buffy and Dawn fighting, of course, but Buffy grappling with the concpet of her being both human and Slayer. Buffy seemed as not knowing how to deal with the melding off both.

Buffy had stated that she was afraid of losing her humanity - but when she DID show it - she was unaware that she WAS being human.

In The Weight of the World - her fear and hopelessness was a normal human reaction to the very severe situations she has dealt with this season - but she thougt she had failed as sister, leader and Slayer by giving in to it.

She actually showed she was capable of being human - of showing fear - when she did break down in that episode.

It seemed a reconciliation of sorts happened in The Gift. She realized Dawn was a part of her - her more human vulnerable side - which allowed her to make the sacrifice she did. Which, IMHO, was not a sacrifice - but a realization that she could be both human and a Slayer.

Hence her words to Dawn - "Live. For me."

She was a Slayer to the last - putting the needs of others before her own - but at the same time she was able to preserve her "human" side to continue - because she finally realized that Dawn was the side of her that she thought she had lost. When in reality she had never lost it - she had simply been unable to recognize it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- rowan, 19:06:37 06/20/01 Wed

Hi Seb!

"I actually get a little jittery posting on here for fear of sounding like a moron. :)"

Just post after me. You're going to sound great by comparison. I feel like the guy holding the togas and towels at the public bath where Plato and Aristotle are chatting.

"She was a Slayer to the last - putting the needs of others before her own - but at the same time she was able to preserve her "human" side to continue - because she finally realized that Dawn was the side of her that she thought she had lost. When in reality she had never lost it - she had simply been unable to recognize it."

Question for you -- what happens when she comes back? Does she have renewed recognition of this human side in herself that she acknowledged in Dawn? or is it lost to Buffy because it is Dawn?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Sebastian, 19:49:02 06/20/01 Wed

Hey Rowan!

I'll help you pass out the towels and togas. :)

Regarding your question - that's lost to me. Joss is so clever on turning ideas and notions on its head -that I'm not even going to try to touch that.


IMO, I don't think Buffy's humanity would be lost. I think that would defeat the purpose of this entire season. I think Buffy's touched upon losing her humanity throughout the entire season (key episodes being Buffy vs. Dracula, Fool for Love, Intervention, The Weight of World, and The Gift) and The Gift was her reconciliation with that struggle. We know that Joss is not one to retread a theme once it has been successfully resolved.

If anything, I would think that Buffy's humanity would be renewed.

But HOW it is going to happen - along with her resurrection itself - is the ultimate question.

I could almost envision Joss returning Buffy back to the fold as a tabula rasa - a blank slate - who has TOO much humanity and not enough Slayerness.

But then again - I have a billion ideas floating around in terms of how Buffy will be when she returns. Waiting till the fall kinda sucks. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Dedalus, 20:59:12 06/20/01 Wed

You have some great words, Sebastian. I know how you feel, or I did, but these guys are so nice, it seems like I've been here since at least season four!

And reading some of this got me thinking ...

Slayer and human ... you know what would be REALLY wild? If Buffy got brought back totally human, and no Slayer powers. Of course, it would never happen, but man, that would be quite the curve ball.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: The Source of Buffy's Power -- Sebastian, 21:12:51 06/20/01 Wed

To be honest...I thought much the same. It took Dawn's "latent" power as The Key to open the gates. Maybe it will take Buffy's active power as The Slayer to close it.

AS we know - it wasn't so much Dawn's blood that was the issue - but the fact that her blood was represented the power her now human guise contained.

Which would be the same for Buffy. We have all heard about how a Slayer's blood seems to contain extra properties (the Master's ability to break free of the Hellmouth in Prophecy Girl, restoring Angel's health in Graduation Day).

It can't JUST be Summers blood - otherwise Joyce, Hank or any other Summers blood-relative would qualify - but the power flowing in the blood of two *particular* Summers members.

So perhaps Buffy will return powerless, because she used her Slayer power to close the gate.

Which would tie neatly into what we were discussin about Dawn and Buffy being the origin for the other. Buff could close the gate because her power as a Slayer DID descend from the power of The Key......


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> RE: Buffy coming back powerless -- Manoon, 08:52:21 06/21/01 Thu

I personally HATE that idea. I really do. I wouldn't mind if Buffy lost her power for a while, cos we can always presume she will retain it, that's suspense. But Buffy to return having lost all her supernatural abilities? for me, I hope that never happens.

I also think you answered this point earlier. Buffy reconciled her duelling aspects at the time she died. She found her humanity, as well as fulfilling her role as the slayer. she became WHOLE, which is what she had been lacking.

What I personally would like to see is Buffy coming back not only stronger which many people have alluded to, but also past her existential issues.. I want her to really focus on being the Slayer now that she has finally accepted/found her humanity. Manybe it is THIS way that Buffy becomes more powerful.. she doesn't hold herself back anymore... ?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: RE: Buffy coming back powerless -- Dedalus, 19:48:31 06/21/01 Thu

I hate that idea, too. I just thought it would be really, really trippy. Then again, they've already sorta done that with Darla, so ...

And yeah, I think Buffy will be stronger because she has accepted all elements of herself. I think that was the point of the season.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: RE: Buffy coming back powerless -- rowan, 19:59:47 06/21/01 Thu

I'm thinking maybe she'll come back with Buffy's soul, Buffy's personality, Buffy's Slayer ability, Buffy's intelligence, but not Buffy's memory or emotional connections...and have to build all her relationships with the SG all over again.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: RE: Buffy coming back powerless -- verdantheart, 07:54:00 06/22/01 Fri

That would tend to give a certain bottle blonde a little more hope ...

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: RE: Buffy coming back powerless -- rowan, 14:27:55 06/22/01 Fri

Hey, I'm out there working for Spike's benefit every day, vh....


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, towel garcon, over here! -- Solitude1056, 22:28:25 06/20/01 Wed

I feel like the guy holding the togas and towels at the public bath where Plato and Aristotle are chatting.

ROFL! I just woke up the dogs AND the cats by laughing outloud at 1:30am... that's a great line, even if it's completely false! You rock right along with everyone else, and more so - you're the one doing a weekly hootenanny, after all. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh, towel garcon, over here! -- rowan, 19:40:41 06/21/01 Thu

I'll put you in charge of loofahs and bath salts, okay?


[> [> Nothing brilliant of your own to add? That was great! -- Liquidram, 22:28:51 06/19/01 Tue


[> Does this mean Faith, in a way, is also Dawn's sister? -- mundusmundi, 15:28:35 06/20/01 Wed


[> [> Re: Does this mean Faith, in a way, is also Dawn's sister? -- rowan, 17:17:39 06/20/01 Wed

I would suggest that Faith is Dawn's descendant if the theory is correct that The Key is the source of Slayerness. What marks Buffy/Dawn as unique is that Dawn was "made out of Buffy", which gives them a second bond (and closes the circle by giving Buffy an inheritance from Dawn and Dawn an inheritance from Buffy).

But we still could have thrown Faith off the tower...;)


[> [> [> Re: Well said, rowan - I take it you don't like Faith? -- Dedalus, 19:50:06 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Re: Well said, rowan - I take it you don't like Faith? -- rowan, 20:10:08 06/21/01 Thu

Not as much as Buffy, if I'm forced to choose. Seriously, though, there really hasn't been a character I've disliked on BtVS. Some have spoken to me more than others. Faith has had some moments for me (and that storyarc with Angel & Buffy stabbing her was powerful) but on the whole she pushes some of my buttons (I have issues with manipulative women that are coloring my perception of her, I think). I also have trouble with people who use sex for power.

That's why it's hard for me to engage with her emotionally in the way I can with other characters.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Well said, rowan - I take it you don't like Faith? -- Dedalus, 09:09:56 06/22/01 Fri

Well, I feel the same way about the general characters. And I can't say that about many shows. But everyone on BTVS, I pretty much love. Objectivity isn't my strong suit when it comes to the Scoobies.

I think one of the most powerful storylines with Faith was when she went over to Angel. That was some powerful stuff. And especially once we "got" her motivations ... essentially looking for someone to kill her, she got to be sympathetic. Like, ten seconds after torturing Wesley. Good storytelling. I halfway think she wanted Buffy to kill her during Graduation Day.

And, you know, I think a lot of her violent tendencies was just her suicidal temperament projected outward. I got that the last time I watched Five by Five. When she was torturing Wesley, she was basically torturing herself, acting out.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Self-torture, inside out -- Solitude1056, 09:40:56 06/22/01 Fri

And, you know, I think a lot of her violent tendencies was just her suicidal temperament projected outward. I got that the last time I watched Five by Five. When she was torturing Wesley, she was basically torturing herself, acting out.

Wonder how it adds into the mix the fact that Wesley - formerly so wimpy (at least, last time Faith saw him) - refused to scream in pain. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall that he still had enough fire in him to provoke her intentionally. Hmm, shades of Spike with Glory.

Also, about Faith: she seemed kinda skanky to me, as well, but her relationship with the Mayor just constantly astounded and delighted me. Talk about skillful writing - a man who's spent the past 100 years preparing to become a true Demon... who's now the surrogate father for a wayward Slayer. A mix I never would've predicted, but the chemistry between the two actors had it down just perfect. Faith did her best to keep up the bad girl act, and the Mayor would have none of it. He saw through it all, and had her measure. That's not surprising, given he had 5 times as much experience dealing with humans as she, and all the counters of him manipulating her for her own ends... it was obvious to me that he still cared for her, to the very end. That scene where she was watching the VCR tape of the Mayor nearly broke my heart. Yeah, his intentions were ill for Buffy, but to the end, he was thinking of Faith, and trying to make sure she'd be taken care of, no matter what. And no one mourned for him, except his adopted daughter.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Self-torture, inside out -- rowan, 14:08:31 06/22/01 Fri

"That scene where she was watching the VCR tape of the Mayor nearly broke my heart. Yeah, his intentions were ill for Buffy, but to the end, he was thinking of Faith, and trying to make sure she'd be taken care of, no matter what. And no one mourned for him, except his adopted daughter."

And there you have this show in a nutshell. It really stretches the imagination and the emotions. You can never be fully comfortable in your own skin when you watch it.
T-shirt Notion (kind of OT) -- Solitude1056, 12:41:10 06/19/01 Tue

How about instead of making poor Liquidram do all the work of our t-shirts, too, we just hire the aforementioned designer to create the images... and then the rest of us trot our butts over to Staples (or your country's favorite version of it) and pick up the ink jet color printer iron-on papers? I've used such before as transfer basis when doing multimedia works on canvas & linen, so I can vouch for the transfer's ability to actually work pretty well. Only thing you need is semi-decent program like Photoshop, a color ink jet (but you can use b/w if you don't mind the image being b/w), the transfer paper, a t-shirt in your size, and an iron.

For those of us who don't have one of the above, perhaps mailing the selected transfers might work better than shipping the shirt to someone and then having to ship it back. Just a thought since there's about 4 different versions of various lines & quotes that I'd personally love to have, but shipping 4 shirts to somewhere and expecting some poor overworked soul to do all the work seems a bit of an imposition to me.

Anyone else able/willing? Thoughts?


[> good idea, or..... -- Liquidram, 12:59:27 06/19/01 Tue

I could provide at least the transfer already printed.... then all you would need to do is iron it on the shirt of your choice. I just took one of the images from the site and did this on Saturday and it came out great. (I've already gotten about 20 "OHMIGOD, where did you get that shirt??" I like the idea of exclusives that no one but us has (and maybe an honorary for Joss)

Which reminds me.... anyone have a good mailing address for his camp now that everything is moving? I would like to request the permissions asap, because it may take a while to get a response.

What do you think?


[> [> Joss's new address -- Little One, 13:09:33 06/19/01 Tue

Here is an address I've found on The Bronze:

Joss Whedon c/o Buffy the Vampire Slayer c/o UPN 11800 Wilshire Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90025

Those images are amazing, Liquidram. I love how you've melded the pics with poignant quotes. You must be a graphic artist. I'll definitely have to create a shirt for each image. Actually, I have a canvas bag that just screams to be Spike-ified! Thanks!!!


[> [> [> Do you have a link to the T-shirt images somewhere, Liquidram? -- Masq, 13:47:10 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> Masq- just the collages from the proposed website -- Liquidram, 15:39:14 06/19/01 Tue


I will add the rest of the characters as I get them finished.... anyone in particular you'd like to see 1st?


[> [> [> [> Thought you had a Joss-y one for the T's -- Masq, 16:14:30 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> coming soon :) -- Liquidram, 22:15:52 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> Re: Joss's new address -- Liquidram, 15:43:31 06/19/01 Tue

"Those images are amazing, Liquidram. I love how you've melded the pics with poignant quotes. You must be a graphic artist. I'll definitely have to create a shirt for each image. Actually, I have a canvas bag that just screams to be Spike-ified! Thanks!!!"

Thank you - I own a web development firm in Silicon Valley and have been a graphic designer for over, ummmm.... a long time.

I used the Spike images for my shirt.


[> [> [> [> Re: Joss's new address -- Solitude1056, 17:52:53 06/19/01 Tue

Liq claims status as "a graphic designer for over, ummmm.... a long time." Gee, it's okay, you can stop hiding the walker. Hold on while I reinsert my spare set o' teeth, and tell me again how long you've been doing this?



[> [> [> [> [> ok, ok, so much pressure! -- Liquidram, 22:19:08 06/19/01 Tue

28 years and counting, which I believe is as old as James claims to be .... hahahahaha


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: ok, ok, so much pressure! -- Rufus, 22:54:40 06/19/01 Tue

So that means that you will be 27 soon....:):):):)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> sure. yea.... I like that .... 27 ... sounds good to me. -- Liquidram, 23:32:21 06/19/01 Tue


[> Re: T-shirt Notion (kind of OT) -- Little One, 13:00:17 06/19/01 Tue

That's a great idea! That'll also save on time (I'm an instant gratification kind of gal). I've never done anything like that before but am certainly willing to give it a try. One question though. Do you need a colour inkjet or can a colour laser printer work just as well? *thinking of mooching company printer* If a laser printer will work, I don't mind making extra transfers for anyone who doesn't have access to the necessary components. I'd just need to know which design is desired and an address to send it to.


[> [> No - Laser printers melts the transfer paper :( -- Liquidram, 13:04:17 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> Re: T-shirt Notion (kind of OT) -- Solitude1056, 13:09:58 06/19/01 Tue

Liq's right - laser printers work by using heat to impress the ink on the paper (which is the reason why getting a laser print out wet won't make the ink run, unlike an ink jet). Unfortunately, this paper is especially touchy when it comes to being heated, natch. Ink jets work by floating the ink on the surface of the paper, which is perfect when you're intending to remove that ink and put it somewhere else (so to speak). :)

So my suggestion would be to either have a friend print it out on a color ink jet, or see if we can convince Liq to make b/w versions for any folks who have older b/w ink jet printers or no access to color ones. (I think you can also go to some Kinko's or the equivalent and use their computers & printers to print the pages using a color ink jet.)

The last question then, is: where shall the images be stored, how will we know what "front" images go with which "back" images, and what format is easiest, or can we impose long enough to get several different ones? (IE, mac & pc, unless there's a format that will work on both - I think .tif will, but I'm not positive.)


[> [> [> Re: T-shirt Notion (kind of OT) -- Liquidram, 15:49:29 06/19/01 Tue

Good points! There are several different fixes to help everyone. Like I said in an earlier post, I would be glad to mail the design printed on the transfer paper, so it just needs to be ironed. (B/W images might be interesting also as a matter of choice.)

I will also make the designs available via the website for download onto your own hard drives. The printable images are far larger files and anyone with slower connections may not appreciate having to download them . :)

Bottom line, we'll make this work for everyone.


[> one or two other things -- Solitude1056, 13:12:51 06/19/01 Tue

There's two signatures I'd want to have added, though:

Liq's signature (or a reasonable facsimile) in the usual lower left or right hand corner... and perhaps, if we ask nicely, The First Evil just might sign under the "ATPoBtVS" line? Kind of like our own bizarre version of the cryptic, "To Wong Foo with love, Julie Newmar."

(just a thought, but I'm adamant about the Liq signature part.)


[> [> Um... Is that supposed to be me? 'coz I'd be honored -- Masquerade, 13:36:03 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> Don't see any other First Evil hangin' around here...just some wannabe's ;o) -- Wisewoman, 14:00:10 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> Yup, and yup, and hey, us second evils are NOT wannabe's! :) -- Solitude1056, 17:33:13 06/19/01 Tue

Although my housemate the former Harley guy often says, "ya gotta be a Wannabe before you get to be a Be."


[> [> [> [> [> Speak for yourself, no evil here, just purity.....;):):):):) -- Rufus, 17:34:59 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. -- Solitude1056, 17:37:57 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You can trust me........;)......I never get caught telling a lie....:):):) -- Rufus, 17:40:23 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Always a good rule of thumb: don't get caught! :-) -- Solitude1056, 17:43:18 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> The best "Be"'s don't seek "Being", the best "Be"'s have Being thrust upon them -- Masquerade, 18:44:31 06/19/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> As long as it's not a killer Be... -- Solitude1056, 20:50:30 06/19/01 Tue


[> Re: There are T-shirts now? -- Dedalus, 16:07:26 06/19/01 Tue

Again, where was I? I think I'm on top of everything on this forum, but damn, some stuff must just slip through. On what thread were you guys discussing t-shirts?

And Liquidram, your work on the webpage is exceptional.


[> [> Re: Nevermind - I found it - Liquidram is SO generous -- Dedalus, 16:19:11 06/19/01 Tue

Season Themes -- Kimberly, 16:37:29 06/19/01 Tue

The First Anniversary party here is terrific! I've been mostly lurking, but the quality of the Questions is too good to resist.

I have a question I hope someone here can answer. I know that Season 5 is "Family", Season 6 will be "Oh grow up". Does anyone know the short themes for Seasons 1-4. (Obviously, I can figure out a way of describing them; I'm just wondering if there's an "official" description.)



[> Re: Season Themes -- Dedalus, 18:03:29 06/19/01 Tue

Welcome aboard, Kimberly. And good question.

Joss has said that the theme of season four was about going off to college, and about how that liberation often fragmented you as a person and as a group of friends.

Season one was based very much on the high school is hell metaphor - other than that, I'm not sure.

Season two was undoubtably about the boyfriend from hell.

Season three was about Faith as Buffy's shadow self.

I'm not sure what the overriding themes are, at least in the clear cut "Oh, this is about family" sense.

If you want a great analysis of season four, check out what Age had to say in the symbolism posts a page or two back ...
The Absolutely Strangest 7-3-0 Occurrance I've Found Yet -- OnM, 20:56:42 06/19/01 Tue

Considering that I've seen this movie about 15 times by now, I can't believe that I didn't see this before, but earlier tonight, I happened to be checking out an old demo tape I made many years ago for an 'open house' show that our store furnished an A/V system for.

It was a collection of about 20 movie 'clips', each about 4 to 10 minutes long, that I dubbed off laserdisc to S-VHS so we could just play the tape over and over thru the system without having anything repeat for at least two hours.

One of the clips was an old favorite of mine, from the movie *L.A. Story*, which many of you know I recommended during a CMo/tWeek column. It is a masterpiece of editing and the use of music. I won't give too much away in case anyone hasn't seen the flick and might like to, but the sequence is about Steve Martin's character apparently losing the love of his life, and then something mystical happens, and she comes back to him.

Early in the sequence, a storm suddenly starts to come up out of nowhere, and Martin is sitting at a desk in his home. One of the edits cuts to a shot of a digital table clock, one of the old mechanical ones where the numbers 'roll over', and we see the clock change the minute from 7:29 to---


I never saw this before, the shot only lasts a few seconds, and I suppose it just didn't register.

This movie was made in 1991, back long before even S1 Buffy. Coincidence? It's 7:30, a storm brews, someone goes away, a mystical event occurs, someone comes back.

So, if y'all are officially freaked out now, I've done my job for the evening.

Goodnight! ;-)



[> Re: The Absolutely Strangest 7-3-0 Occurrance I've Found Yet -- Solitude1056, 21:05:58 06/19/01 Tue

That's one of my favorite movies, and yanno, I know the scene you're talking about. Never thought to put it together with Buffy, but there is the niggling thought in the back of my head about 7-3-0. If it were 7:53, we'd say it's a series of prime numbers, but fact is, 7, 5, 3, and 0 are all equally symbolic in various systems... but only 7:30 would be seen & skimmed over as nothing unusual. It's 7:53, or 5:31 or even 9:53 that might cause a person to notice the time/number combination when the author just wants the audience to only remotely register it. I mean, I didn't even notice the clock's time in Restless until the 2nd time I saw the episode - the first time I only registered that someone was saying the clock was wrong, not the actual time itself. (Of course, this was also at the tail end of a season that bored me utterly, so I wasn't much for paying attention to detail since I wasn't certain I'd even bother to watch come this past fall. How wrong I was!) But anyway, just a thought to match yours...


[> Re: The Absolutely Strangest 7-3-0 Occurrance I've Found Yet -- Cknight, 22:36:24 06/19/01 Tue

It's late, get some rest. Turn the TV off. :)


[> Yet another 730 occurrance -- Little One, 10:54:17 06/20/01 Wed

I'm not sure if this one has been mentioned before, but I was just perusing the shooting script for Season 2's Lie To Me and noticed another 730. It is near the beginning where Jenny is arranging to meet Giles for their date:

JENNY I gotta take off. Tomorrow, 7:30. Right?

It's interesting that it started popping up as early as season 2.

OnM, how strange that it appeared in LA Story as well (one of my favourite movies of all time)! I am definitely "officially freaked"! ;-)


[> 730: Serious to the power of 10 -- darren K, 11:52:17 06/20/01 Wed

Joss has been kind enough to put his 730 dream logic in a nice symbolic progression for us to get our knickers twisted in. So here's my tally of where some of the places this road takes us...

Someone pointed out that a clock says 7:30 in Restless (though I didn't see it myself.)

Joss himself has indicated that it is the number of days ( 2 years more or less) between Graduation and Death day.

In Intervention, Giles asks Buffy how serious she is about the feeling that she's losing her humanity. The answer is "10. I'm serious to the power of 10." Ten is ,of course, the sum of the digits 7, 3, 0. And the fact that she's serious to the power of 10 leads her on the vision quest where it is REVEALED that "death is her gift."

In a related coincedence, the Summers women live at 1630 Revello Drive. 1630 and 730 have several similarities, one of which is that the sum of the digits in both numbers add up to 10. I should also mention that REVELLO means to expose or reveal. In other words, the Summers live on Revelation road.

Strangely, 7 is also the number of Scoobies who fight Glory in the Gift (Buffy, Giles, Willow, Tara, Spike, Anya, Xander), 3 is the number of Buffys present at that battle (the real Buffy, the Buffybot, and Dawn, the Buffyspawn). Zero is what Glory really is, a big nothing, the hole in Ben's head. At the end, there's not even a sign that she was ever there. She's a real zero.

I'm not saying Joss meant to put all these 7's, and 3's and 0's around, but such unconscious patterns are one of the side-effects of good storytelling. It's like the metal netting used as the structure for concrete in skyscrapers. Or, a set of road signs that point us towards the mystery of what makes a story intriguing. In this case the signs says something very like-- "Do we know where we're going yet?" dK
Some almost interesting thoughts -- Kat, 06:41:24 06/20/01 Wed

I don't know if any of you have discussed Doc yet but I just want to point a couple of things out. I'm pretty sure Doc didn't die because: a) we didn't actully seem him die b)If Spike survived the fall why can't he c) He didn't die in "Weight of The World" so why would he die now. Also, alot of times Joss shows the villan of the season before. For instance Angel(we met him in the 1st season before he turned all bad) and the mayor(we heard about him briefly in Becoming pt.2).He was trying to get through the portal too, and maybe because he couldn't get thrugh it he'll come back for revenge.

Oh and uh, funny, we were first introduced to Doc from Spike as a "bloke" who "knows everything there is to know about resurrection spells." Interesting. 'Cause you know Buffy has to be resurrected. That could defintely come handy later on.

One other thing, there is something about the whole Glory/Ben dead thing that I am not just buying. They did it so quick and we only saw ben for a brief moment when he "died". I just think that it would be harder to kill a god. Actully they weren't in their true form because giles said once that Glory was taking a tremendous amount of energy to be in human form. So maybe they'll end up in their true form if they're carried on into the next season.

Well those are my almost interesting thoughts. I hope I stimulated your brain for at least 5 seconds.


[> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- Marie, 07:58:43 06/20/01 Wed

"I know this bloke. Well, not so much a bloke so much as a demon." (Spike, WOTW)

If you go into the archives, you'll see extensive discussions of Doc. Most posters here think/hope he'll be back and agree that he'd make an excellent Villain in S6.

We weren't shown his body at the end of the Gift, so you never know. Personally, I think he had his own agenda when Spike and Xander visited - he could have made it less obvious there was something hidden in the box, he didn't really put up much of a fight, and waited until they'd gone before opening his eyes. Almost seems like he wanted them to get the box but didn't want them to know that.

There are a lot of things which haven't been explained - have faith in Joss Whedon; I'm sure things will become clear!


[> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- spotjon, 14:55:49 06/20/01 Wed

It's pretty well established that Ben and Glory are now dead. The obvious intent of showing Giles suffocating Ben was to show that he and she were dead. And when somebody dies like that on Buffy, they stay dead, unlike some other T.V. shows (*cough*Xena*cough*). Also, Joss Whedon himself said that both Ben and Glory are dead:

TVGO: Does Ben's death mean Glory is dead too? Whedon: Yeah, it does (Joss, as told to M. Ausiello, tvguide.com, May 24, 2001). reference

I certainly hope that Doc will make a few appearances next season, though I'm not certain whether he'd make a good Big Bad or not.


[> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- rowan, 15:01:58 06/20/01 Wed

I really like Doc as a "supporting bad" character -- kind of an evil "power behind the throne" thing. It makes it all the more menacing not to really see him directly, if you know what I mean.

Perhaps there's potential there for him to seduce Willow to the "dark side" of magick...


[> [> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- Solitude1056, 15:48:20 06/20/01 Wed

The Scoobies don't seem to be ones to rehash an apocalypse too often, so I wouldnt' be surprised if Dawn & Spike never really told anyone that Doc was up on the platform with Dawn... the other Scoobies noticed someone was there, Spike couldn't beat him & got dropped for his troubles, but Buffy finished whomever it was off, pronto. The rest of the details may remain fuzzy. The plot device of Willow going to Doc - at this juncture - requires silence on the part of Dawn & Spike as to Doc's appearance and his ensuing role. I doubt even Willow would mess with someone who'd hurt Dawn, no matter how much knowledge could be gained.


[> [> [> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- rowan, 17:14:41 06/20/01 Wed

Sol, if you're speculating that it's not really feasible that Willow could get involved with Doc (considering Spike, Dawn, Xander, and Buffy have seen him), I agree...it would stretch even my credulity (and remember, I don't have a problem with the 'Buffy's blood closes portal'!). It just has some attraction for me as a potential storyline...

You know, there's alot of speculation that Willow is next season's Big Bad. It's easy for me to imagine that Willow might have some consequences to deal with out of her more powerful magickal acts, or even that she might unintentionally harm someone with her magick (even another Scooby), but it's hard for me to imagine her becoming really, consciously bad. I could see her possibly getting seduced and confused by someone really evil who seeks to mold her to his/her purpose, but to make such a change from such a sweet character to a bad one is hard for me to see within one season.

Now, I realize alot of people who say, 'hey rowan, they just did that with Spike in one season', but I think that first, Spike isn't good, he's just better and second, that's been in the works since S3. Willow's turn to bad hasn't really been foreshadowed (I don't think, but I'm sure everyone will tell me if I'm wrong) -- definitely qualms about increasing power have been, though, and a fear of 'too much, too soon' have come from Tara and Giles (and possibly others).


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- Rahael, 13:54:56 06/21/01 Thu

Well, there was the whole thing about D'Hoffryn thinking that Willow was a suitable candidate for the post of veangence demon.

She was the one who helped Anya do the spell to get her necklace back. She can be seduced by the dark - Moloch, all the way back in Season 1.

Though this doesn't mean that I am convinced she's going to turn bad - you could probably find as much evidence for Xander.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- Andy, 18:02:54 06/21/01 Thu

To me, the most obvious foreshadowing is the black eyes when she was casting spells toward the end of this past season, just like Amy's mom looked. I don't think it's just a neat effect :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- rowan, 20:07:05 06/21/01 Thu

Maybe Willow will get sucked into evil in spite of herself. There are alot of clues that it's in her: the Vengeance Demon job offer, the black eyes, the Vamp Willow character, etc. She doesn't seem capable of a conscious choice to do evil, though, so maybe she'll become trapped (like a poor prehistoric mosquito in amber) in the consequences of her spells and change without really having a moment of self-recognition that might stop the inevitable pull. Like Mina Harker with Dracula...she wants to be good, but she is mesmerized before she can stop herself.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- Andy, 20:59:35 06/21/01 Thu

It wouldn't surprise me. While I think it's possible that Willow is being set up to do something bad in the coming season, I've never felt that she would just turn bad in any conscious way. It's more of a hole she's digging for herself but doesn't realize it, maybe because she thinks she can handle things and doesn't see a threat. Especially since those dark magics that she's been using were extremely helpful for the Scoobies. I doubt Willow would believe that the magic she used to restore Tara could possibly lead to anything bad, but I think that's how evil works: it suckers people and plays off their good intentions, building slowly until before they know it, they're screwed.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Just some more agreement -- verdantheart, 06:51:29 06/22/01 Fri

I think Willow could be seduced because of her curiosity and quest for knowledge (and to some extent, power, if only to help out Buffy). Before she realized what was happening, she would already be trapped.

What do they always say in the mad-scientist movies? There are some things that Man shouldn't mess with -- or something like that ...

- vh


[> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- Slayrunt, 16:13:07 06/20/01 Wed

I think/hope Doc will be back in some fashion. And, yes, he has been discussed, but I don't remember reading a discussion about his speed.

I mean Glory was blindingly fast and Glory was a god. Doc showed some fast moves in Spiral and the Gift, any connection?


[> [> Re: Some almost interesting thoughts -- rowan, 21:03:24 06/20/01 Wed

Yes, that was a disturbing coincidence, wasn't it?
Cheekbones (longish) -- rowan, 18:39:19 06/20/01 Wed

I'm temporarily giving up my hobby of turning all threads to Spike -- and instead, I'm starting one all about Spike. It's hard to find a new topic under the sun here ;), but we have some new boardies, so maybe I'll be forgiven if I tread old ground.

Cheekbones...on another board, someone suggested that we're all mesmerized by Spike because of JM's cheekbones (i.e. physical appearance) to the extent that we'll accept egregious violations of the Buffyverse, its ethics, and its internal logic just to feed our addiction. If Spike were played by a gnome, the theory goes (not to bash gnomes here, but you catch my meaning), Spike wouldn't work & we'd have a different reaction to the character.

I generally try to be an open-minded person, so I pondered this for a couple of days. Am I ethically challenged? Am I ignoring what Spike's character has done in the Buffyverse because of some secret desire to fulfill my own erotic fantasies about cheekbones by watching JM and SMG (or any other female actor) do it?

I don't think so.

I do accept the theory that we love beautiful things, and do show a tendency in our movies and tv shows to want to feature beautiful or unique looking individuals over average folk like me. But...

First, while JM is certainly not unattractive (he passes the 'won't kick him out of bed for eating crackers test') he certainly isn't blow my mind, Richard Chamberlain as Dr. Kildare, Mel Gibson in Gallipoli gorgeous. JM is essentially for me a character actor; he's interesting looking, but I've seen him in other things and I haven't felt mesmerized by his sexual aura.

However...is Spike as a character so sexually compelling that we're seduced? Well...yes IMHO (at least those who preferences run in the male direction). Isn't that the point? I mean, evil's really attractive. If it wasn't it wouldn't be so darned hard to resist Darn its sinister attraction! Eating a whole pan of brownies in one sitting is attractive too, but we must resist the evil temptation. And now that Spike is evil, but hey, sometimes he's nice, and maybe he could be even nicer (but still be a little dangerous), he's tapping into all those fantasies we have about bad boys. Mr. Rochester and Heathcliff, here I come.

But am I ethically challenged if I succumb? I'm assuming the writers want us to succumb or they wouldn't give him so damn many good lines to say, right? I mean, vampires are sexy. Wasn't that Bram Stoker's point too? It's the writing that's making him so compelling, not just the cheekbones and the voice. Are Joss & Co. ratings whores who'd change the rules of the Buffyverse around just to pander to our desire for cheekbones, or voices, or words? Are they hurtling towards a B/S ship just to feed our fantasies regardless of whether it undermines Buffy's credibility as a character? Does it undermine Buffy's credibility as a character if she loves Spike (or just uses him for sex and tosses him out at sunrise?). Will the writers respect me in the morning if I fall for him and hope he's mending his ways?

I hope not. I tend to think of them as having alot of integrity, plus respect for their work, their creations, and for their audience...but then I think...BuffyBot. Was it just an excuse to pander to B/S shippers who wanted to see two beautiful people get it on? Or were they subtly poking fun at our obsession with beautiful people getting it on?

Art and reality...how much of the reality of our response to BtVS informs the direction that the Buffyverse goes? As you can see, this is a post with more questions than answers. If you're bored by this topic, please pass on by and forgive a woman who is just...seduced by cheekbones.


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- AK-UK, 19:47:38 06/20/01 Wed

Too many questions rowan!

Hmmm, let me deal with the ones that caught my attention first.

I think "ratings whores" is a little extreme, but I do think that the writers of BtVS are prepared to suspend all logic and continuity if they have a good story to tell or a cool character they want to develop (see my B and Q response near the bottom of this page).

I'm male, I'm heterosexual, and I like Spike. The changes in his personality do strain the rules established by previous episodes of BtVS and AtS (just look at David Fury's comments on Spike) but I'm prepared to accept it; not because of JM's looks, but because of episodes like "Fool For Love", because I get to see the interactions between Spike and Buffy, and Spike and Dawn.

B/S shippers shouldn't hold their breath. When it comes to TV, sexual tension is better than sex. Sex lasts 40 seconds on TV, sexual tension can last a season. Audiences like to be teased, tormented, toyed with........slowly seduced into thinking somethings gonna happen.........drawing out the excitement........delaying the climax...........

Hmm........that sentence ended up in a different place than it started out in :O

But you see my point though, right? (no sniggering please).

(Oh Wisewoman, I hope you're proud of me)


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- rowan, 20:23:17 06/20/01 Wed

Thank you for not dismissing me as a "Is Spike a hottie?" poster ;). I think that one of the things my post is trying to get to is this: the older I get, the more uncertain I feel about everything I know. My certainties and beliefs about ethics, my morality, my code, (call it what you will) seems to retreat from my grasp as I reach for it. It becomes harder to speak in absolutes and more natural to speak in relativities. Yet, what meaning is there if I continue to define meaning as relative? Where is my fixed north star to guide my ship?

BtVS appeals to me in some ways because just as you grasp it, Joss & Co throw another curve ball that says, "hey, you thought you knew this Buffyverse -- well figure this one out!" The Spike arc is easy to point to as an example of stretching the envelope.

I shall now quote Dorothy L. Sayers, from Gaudy Night, as Harriet has her epiphany about Peter:

"But if she wanted an answer to her questions about Peter, there it was, quite appallingly plain. He did not want to forget, or to be quiet, or to be spared things, or to stay put. All he wanted was some kind of central stability, and he was apparently ready to take anything that came along, so long as it stimulated him to keep that precarious balance. And, of course, if he really felt like that, everything he had ever said or done, as far as she was concerned, was perfectly consistent. 'Mine is only a balance of opposing forces.'...'What does it matter if it hurts like hell, so long as it makes a good book?'...'What is the use of making mistakes if you don't make use of them?'..'Feeling like Judas is part of the job.'...'The first thing a principle does is to kill somebody.'...If that was his attitude, it was clearly ridiculous to urge him, in kindly tones, to stand aside for fear he might get a rap over the shins."


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Humanitas, 11:29:33 06/21/01 Thu

"the older I get, the more uncertain I feel about everything I know. My certainties and beliefs about ethics, my morality, my code, (call it what you will) seems to retreat from my grasp as I reach for it. It becomes harder to speak in absolutes and more natural to speak in relativities. Yet, what meaning is there if I continue to define meaning as relative? Where is my fixed north star to guide my ship?"

I hear you loud and clear, rowan. It's only human to want to have a nicely defined system to help make decisions, to help us say "this is right," or "that is wrong." We do need to have clearly-defined priciples to guide us, especially early on in life. As we get older, though, we discover that no code, no set of principles, no matter how complex, can guide us through every situation. In fact, every code, when taken to extremes, produces or allows horrors on some level (I think that's called reductio ad absurdem, but I'm not sure. Help?). Ultimately, we are forced at some point to recognize that almost every rule can be bent, if not broken, under some circumstance or other. Most of those circumstance involve relationships, it seems. This is a lot harder to manage intellectually, but it is (at least to me) a sign of continuing growth.

Joss said in an interview some time ago that the show is designed to mirror growing up. When the main characters were still in high school, they (and we) were told that vampires are pure monsters, devoid of humanity, and that killing them is ok, because they're demons bent on killing people/bringing about the end of the world. As the characters have grown (and I include Giles in this, by the way), we've been exposed to all sorts of situations that do not conform to this rule-based structure. The metaphorical world becomes more complex, the ethical calculus becomes fuzzier, to reflect our own evolving ethical and moral systems.

Hmmm. Writing this, it occurs to me that the growing uncertainty about right and wrong is part of what keeps us coming back, even during the summer re-run season. Because the show is so metaphorical, it can physicalise the conflict that for most of us is internal. That conflict is always there within us, the viewers, so watching "Crush" again (for example) is still an experience that has some resonance, even though we already know what is going to happen. It's chock full of Joss-y Philosophical Goodness!


[> [> [> [> Relativities........ -- Rufus, 14:45:00 06/21/01 Thu

I think Dawn is a prime example of what you said about relativities. Even though she is younger she has adapted her judgements based upon her relationship to them...she did point out the similarity of the function of Spikes chip to Angels soul.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Relativities........ -- Humanitas, 08:53:45 06/22/01 Fri

I read somewhere that there was a study done (this was as recently as a year ago) that men tend to operate more on har-and-fast principles, and women tend to take relationships more into account. I'm not sure that's true, but it seems intuitively to follow social patterns. It does seem to be reflected on the show, in general.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Relativities........ -- fresne, 10:51:13 06/22/01 Fri

Okay, once again for emphasis, I must say "gotta love this board." Where even a "isn't he cute" discussion devolves (or would that be evolves) into a discussion about what that means. Rowan, thanks for the thread and the Lord Peter reference. Speaking of wit...

Anyway, hmmm...Spike's attraction. Is it the cheekbones? True you could cut glass with them. And the Spikey one is quite alabaster fine.

However, at least for me he occupies the ecological niche that I am always attracted to/like. The smart aleck, witty, not nice character on the side lines. The Methos, the LeCroix, the (reaching back) Kerr Avon character. They aren't the hero. They aren't even the sidekick. They aren't good, but they're okay with it.

All of which draws me back to a comment/question someone made in the thread that would not die. What draws us to fiction? Now for myself, I'm drawn to characters. Watching a movie, or a book or a tv show is always about finding a character (or characters, I am fictopolyamorous) that I can fall in love with, or the very least like. After all, if I'm committing to several hours of relationship, then they'd better be people that I want to spend time with. Which doesn't mean plot isn't important, it's just secondary for me.

Do I think that writers are leading us down the garden path? Only if they themselves are skipping along, merrily leading the way. If they didn't find Spike just as intriguing as we, they wouldn't give him such good lines. Lines which JM takes and runs with. Or as previously noted, stands silent and still without lines. Still attracting attention.

Which brings me back to the actor and his cheekbones.

I'd say the attraction lies in the whole package: the look (which doesn't hurt), the attitude, the wit (because its something better than patter, its something called wit), and the incredible emotive acting range. The character is going somewhere. And since the path is not preordained, or soulful, it is ambiguously interesting.

And yet the thing that troubles us so, is that Spike is evil. He has done some terrible things. I would tend to agree that he does not apologize for the past evil because that would be, to his mind, hypocritical behavior. Yet, some part of me I can't help but want him to feel sorry so that I can forgive myself for liking him so. And yet, wanting both cake and the eating thereof, I want him to never be sorry, because this is so much more interesting.

Anyway, I managed to totally fall under the spell of the Hunter character in C.S. Friedman's Coldfire trilogy, which was (trust me) much more morally ambiguous than obsessing on Spike.


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Sebastian, 20:12:53 06/20/01 Wed

I always thought the purpose of the Bot was of course to show Spike and Buffy (humorously) getting it on without the expected repercussions but also to show Spike's feelings for Buffy were much more legitimate (and less dangerous) than we all were expecting.

He easily could have programmed a Bot that had the temperament of Drusilla - but he had one programmed that was...girly. He wanted to be near Buffy without having to expect the loathing the real Buffy (rightfully) shows him. He wanted a Buffy that not only "treated him like a man" but showed the love he admitted in The Gift that she does not (and probably will never) feel for him.

In terms of Spike's appeal....I think it is the concept if "will he be evil or won't he?" In the Buffyverse, true evil and sexuality is dangerous and loathsome (Angelus, Darla, early S2 Spike, VampWillow, Faith at her worst), but is much more enticing when you have to keep guessing.

Add that to unconventional looks - which I feel that JM does possess (he is not the typical strapping hero type ala Riley or Angel)- and it adds a further element of mystery and appeal.

Personal complexiity (which we have to admit JM has showcased VERY well this season), unconventioal looks, and curiosity to whether he is *truly* evil is what creates the appeal.

IMHO, that is.:)


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- voyageofbeagle, 20:16:43 06/20/01 Wed

Great post. It's something I've spent some time thinking about. Why are so many of us rooting so hard for Spike? (Besides the sinister attraction of those cheekbones).

Spike's interactions with Buffy, are, to me, not what's it all about. It's all about redemption, and I think his relationship with Dawn is what's going to do it for him. To further elaborate...

When Spike fell in love with Buffy, he "saw" her. As a woman, not as a walking supply of blood, or a Slayer to be defeated. But....for a while, this "seeing" was only for her. His initial interactions and protection of Dawn were only done for Buffy's sake. But somewhere along the line, he started to care for Dawn. And by "The Gift", he loved her (anyone who doubts this, re-watch the look those two share right before Doc tosses Spike off the platform). So, now, this seeing others as people and not walking blood supplies extends to Dawn. From here, could it be the scoobies, and from then, all people?

It's all about redemption. And who better to be redeemed than a bad-ass, sexy vampire? And not by the deus ex machina of a soul. By fighting the demon that's in him.

My predictions for S6: Spike's chip was rendered null & void by his fall at the end of S5. He tells no one but Dawn. During some heroic act mid-S6 (fighting humans- maybe a human threat to one of the scoobies), his secret comes out. Scoobies (and especially Buffy struggle to deal with this)

And please, Joss, a Spike/Buffy (real) kiss at the end of S6. (Hey- I'm only human!)


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- rowan, 20:41:35 06/20/01 Wed

Did you ever wonder why Spike loves Buffy (assuming we accept it is love now and not obsession). I mean, she is so "girly" as you point out, Sebastian, when compared to Drusilla -- except when she's kicking a**. Most of the posts I see deal more with whether Spike's feelings are true or why Buffy would/would not love Spike. I have nothing against Buffy (hey, I like her alot), but I'm puzzled about exactly what Spike has found lovable about her.

Hey, Voy, interesting predictions. Here's some speculation about that chip. In one interview right around the end of the season, JM said that the chip was staying in during S6 because the writers wanted to continue to explore Spike's obsession with Buffy. Then, in a slightly later interview, he said something to the effect that the idea of the chip deactivating was in play, and he personally liked the idea of exploring Spike doing good without having a chip to enforce it (by choice, not by pain). Hmmm...a slight change in direction there, but of course, I take the actor's views with a grain of salt, because I don't know how much the writers reveal to them.

On the B/S ship subject...JM also rushed in to say (after making the potential chip deactivation remarks) that he and SMG are on a need to know basis, and that they haven't asked the writers what's going to happen. In a recent interview, M. Noxon was asked directly about a B/S ship and she very skillfully gave a non-committal answer. Then there have been other leakages from the writing staff this week that they know they are "pushing the envelope" with Spike & Buffy, that they're conflicting, and that the writers are meeting to discuss the overall direction of Spike's storyline.

Whew! Here's one other tidbit. Wanda on Eonline said early last season (when the B/S obsession was in its infancy) that it was a romance that would develop slowly over two seasons. Wanda was very accurate last year.

I'm very conflicted by B/S. On one hand, I would like to see Buffy with someone who really appreciates her for the person that she is (girl and Slayer). I suspect Spike does, possibly even more than Angel. I'm not opposed to them together on any canonical grounds. But, romance unfulfilled is more interesting than romance fulfilled, and I don't want my two fav characters going down the tubes because they did the nasty.

I'd rather just keep exploring Spike's internal changes through his relationship with Dawn than risk anything with Buffy.

Oh well, we'll see what Joss has planned soon enough...


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- LadyStarlight, 20:26:21 06/20/01 Wed

Ooh, good topic. I've asked myself some of these questions, but sort of the opposite way around.

Anyways, yes JM is attractive; as are ALL of the main actors on both shows. This is part of Hollywood. However, his attractiveness does tap into the "bad boy" stereotype. This also is part of the vampire legend (much easier to eat if you can seduce your prey into sitting still.)

BUT...the character as a whole seems to be shifting. One question that I wanted Spike to throw at Buffy during one of their fights was "Would Angelus have helped you, even with a chip?" Most people would say no. He didn't have to help, just like Buffy didn't have to not stake him. There is something between them and hopefully S6 will explore that. And yes, the shrine, the stalking and the chaining up was creepy; but who had he been with before? Dru probably would have loved it. Maybe once they stop acting like 6th graders (Eew, boys! Eew girls!), they can sit down like grownups and discuss the whole situation. He is trying to change, and even if it's motivated to please someone else, it's still good.

Something else I've been pondering was Joyce's reaction when Buffy told her that Spike loved her. If I remember correctly, her first question was "Did you do something to encourage this?" That response still seems off to me.

Anyways, pardon my ranting. Chalk it up to cleaning the house today (too much time to think/too many cleaning fumes). :)


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Sebastian, 21:25:02 06/20/01 Wed

"He is trying to change, even if its motivated to please someone else..."

I agree and disagree. I think up until "The Body" he WAS trying to please Buffy for purely selfish reasons.

But I think by "Forever" - he was doing good for the sake of doing it. In Forever, he brought flowers without a card and he took Dawn to get help from Doc (even if it was wildly INappropriate). In I Was Made to Love You h endured torture without revealing Dawn's identity. And in The Gift - he admitted that Buffy would probably never love him - but he helped the Scoobies (and made a valiant effort to save Dawn) regardless.

I think that by the last several episodes, Spike was no longer motivated to help only to look good (ie "The Choice" where he points out to Buffy that he is rescuing rather than feeding). In all the above examples (before The Gift) no one would have none he was doing those "good deeds." Spike wasn't making his usual attempt to trumpet actions. They very well could have gone undiscovred.

So I think by the last four or five episodes - he was did what he did not out of necessity (he HAS to: to get Buffy's affections)- but desire (he WANTS to: because he feels its the *right* thing to do).


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Rattletrap, 20:07:51 06/30/01 Sat

Good points Sebastian. By the end of the season, Spike seemed to be someone who wanted very badly to do the right thing, but was never quite sure what it was. His helping Dawn with the resurrection spell in Intervention is a perfect example, it wasn't really selfishly motivated if we take his statement that "[he] doesn't like to see Summers women take it so hard on the chin" at face value. His willingness to steal an RV to help the gang in Spiral shows the same sort of dichotomy--not what we would typically call "right," but not really selfishly motivated. If we are to equate the restoration of Angel's soul with his conscience, then Spike is all the more remarkable for trying to do something good without a conscience to guide him.


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Liquidram, 23:07:17 06/20/01 Wed

In the earlier seasons with Spike, I was intrigued by him, but never physically attracted to him. Now, I am much more intrigued, and very attracted to him.

The logical explanation for my change of heart is JM's ability to act (as well as the beautiful face, of course), especially with his silent expressions. This guy wears his heart on his sleeve in every scene during the latter part of Season 5.

In Crush tonight, his choking on his cigarette smoke and yelling at Dawn to "take that back!" when she admitted to him that she felt safe with him is a keen example that he is terrified that he has lost his edge. His attempts to be the "Big Bad" once more with Dru and failing gave him the strength he needed to come clean with Buffy - his own epiphany, if you will.

More to the point is the look on his face when he realizes that he can no longer follow Buffy into her house. There is shock, embarrassment and ultimately, pain. All of the shaky acceptance he had acquired was shattered in that moment. Dawn's rejection of him the next day seals it. His motivations become less selfish. He has accepted Buffy's feeling (or lack thereof) and is now on the next step of becoming whatever it is he is becoming.

My non-logical explanation comes from a far more emotional point of view. We, the viewers remember the affection between B/S in "Something Blue". We remember his hot dream at the end of "Out of My Mind" and we remember the tender kiss at the end of "Intervention". We have seen him holding her with his shirt off. We have seen her passionately kiss him (even though it wasn't real, we still saw/felt the chemistry between these two.) We have seen him in his crypt alone with his Buffy shrine and seen his face crumble as she walks away from him yet again. Lastly, we have seen him break down in tears twice. We see William. Buffy does not. She may not have memory of Willow's spell, nor does she know of his dreams of her. She certainly does not see his vunerability until "The Gift" and then of course, there is no time to pursue any interaction. Had that scene been allow to play out, who knows what would have happened. IMHO Buffy rebels so strongly against Spike, because she does have feelings toward him and is refusing to accept them. What those feelings are is yet to be seen. Remember that fine line between love and hate?

I have always believed that anticipation is 75% of the pleasure and I am not interested in seeing any resolution anytime soon. I would have alot of difficulty relating to Spike being bad again. He has proven this past season that there is too much humanity still within him.


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- rowan, 07:15:20 06/21/01 Thu

"In the earlier seasons with Spike, I was intrigued by him, but never physically attracted to him. Now, I am much more intrigued, and very attracted to him."

You'll have to go through me to get to him, and I pull hair. :)


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Liquidram, 12:56:55 06/21/01 Thu

I'll just sic my daughter on you and she is MEAN. I've heard James is equally as cool as Spike. I'll let you know in August :P


[> [> [> [> Where's your Moses now? Schmee, schmee! -- Rosenberg, 16:40:18 06/23/01 Sat

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Rufus, 23:59:44 06/20/01 Wed

Cheekbones...blue eyes.....he could be related to me.....so ewwwwwwww. I like the character of Spike but not because of what he looks like. He was one of my least favorite characters because a smart mouth can only take you so far. Then they took the chance of developing the ambiguity of the vampire by neutering the Big Bad. That got my attention. First the vampires in BVS were just bodies waiting for a stake and you never really got to know them. Angel was our first hint that the demon wasn't a seperate entity but just a person possessed, infected. That opened up the question of free will. I wanted to know if the vampire in BVS was more complex than first thought.....they became fun. Angel was easy, insert soul, you get a decent guy...until the tasting at Hollands place. Angel has fought the demon that turned out to be quite primative when singled out from the man. So the man had to be a major part of the murderous acting out of the vampire. Then FFL gave us a good man, a bookish man, William, a Victorian Giles who instead of reinventing himself alive, died first. Spike is like Ripper. Both aka's to cover for a person they were ashamed of, or were running from. Spike became more than just a big bad to kill but a source of questions about how we perceive evil, the soul, and the ability to choose. Spike's ability to love made me question what happened to Angel. Dru forever answered the question about love...they can...they do love. So if a vampire can love, what else are they capable of. Why do we care.......is it just cheekbones?


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Ghostwood Developments, 07:03:28 06/21/01 Thu

Excellent post. Here's something less coherrant but even more introspective...

Myself, I've bought wholeheartedly this season's bending of the rules regarding Spike not particularly because I'm fond of the character, but because I'm fond of seeing rules bent.

Spike gaining the capacity for moral development and out-and-out virtue hasn't really been an cynical undermining of the series' assumptions - its been a bold and overdue challenge to them. Not only that, but one that fits in perfectly with the other themes of season five. For example...

"Maybe a Slayer is just a killer after all" - Big S5 question, thrown into sharp relief by having one of the souless animals Buffy's been killing for years, secure in the knowledge that it's not murder 'cos they're not people, turn round and develop into a person.

"Is this blood?" - Personhood was another major thing at stake this year. Buffy's prepared to die to save someone that probably isn't a real person - We've no good reason to assume Dawn has any sort of authentic mind or inner life beyond what it takes to *simulate* a fourteen-year-old. Joss once said that the High School years of the show were about how your friends seem real to you at that age, and nobody else does. Well now it's more complicated and more difficult to decide who's 'real'. Vampires, under the old rules of the show, aren't real people - they can't make moral choices, they're compelled to the Bad like automata. Now one's started acting like a man. Does that mean we should treat him like one, as much as we should treat a Key like a child? People who feel the Spike arc fits badly with previous Buffy should look at how perfectly it fits with this season. In this regard it's probably also no coincidence that this is the season with loads of robots.

"You are NOT the source of me" - Oooh it's the big old essentialism/behaviourism chestnut - Simmering away on the backburner since Walsh started teaching the gang about BF Skinner. Angel can be virtuous by nature - he's got a soul. Spike's been taught by his chip to be virtuous - like Pavlov's dogs were taught to salivate, and by the "The Gift" he's learned the behaviour really well. This does, of course, fly wildly in the face of the first three seasons in which vampires were intrinsically, essentially, ireedemably bad - but even then that view of vampires/nature was comming to us via the Watchers (a majorly vested interest), and open to challenge (As the Judge noticed). Since 'Pangs' then Spike's role has been to offer wise and cruel challenges to the gang's assumptions. By changing into a better man, without possessing a soul, he's now doing that with his whole being. "Chip or Soul? What's the difference?" asks perceptive little Dawny at one point. Myself I don't find either explaination for the source of us comforting - that it's written in our DNA/Soul/Slayer-heritage or that it's adaptive behavior learned from our parents/enviroment/Inititive-chips. That's why I LOVE the way that Spike's awkward and contradictory position in the system of the show forces it into more sophisticated and ambiguous territory.

I'm pretty convinced that I've not just been seduced by cheekbones, as Spike's one of the very few regulars I don't fancy. In fact, before this season I really didn't give a damn about him one way or the other, but right now I think he's the most interesting character on television.


[> It's not just the cheekbones. -- Solitude1056, 07:14:21 06/21/01 Thu

I've been mulling over your questions, rowan, and I think a lot of them are classic for the genre. Are fans fascinated with characters because they're intelligent, well-written, and complex? Or do they just like looking at pretty faces? I'd like to say the former (as shown by Law & Order, Hill St. Blues, Buffy, ER, M*A*S*H, St. Elsewhere), but the truth is that it's more likely it's the latter. We've got too many sitcoms with cute wives and cute kids choking up our airwaves for me to really believe that the former appeals to the unwashed masses. Hell, look at Married With Children. The popularity of that show says it all about the american people. Yikes.

Anyway, it'd always seemed to me that Spike fills several gaps. One, he was a lot cooler than Angel, that dorkus who's good-looking and good-intentioned but in the end is still a dork. Second, Spike's got that whole bad boy, late 70's, quasi-Billy Idol, leather-wearing, high-cheekbone action going on. Dru appealed to me a lot more, as a viewer, since in some angles one might be generous in saying she's merely handsome. She's definitely more like Angelica Houston, or Sigourney Weaver - not a "classic" beauty but a striking one nonetheless. Spike, on the other hand, was just too hollywood handsome for my taste. I think JM's done a good job of making his character as loud and cocky as manageable given his lines - part of that noise distracts you from seeing his cheekbones, and part of that noise level is to contrast with his silent but equally expressive non-speaking spaces. It would've been easy to rest on his good looks in his original one-season run with the cast; plenty of other actors do it on other shows. But we've already got Angel over there standing in the corner looking like the handsome doofus that he is, and if Spike's to stand out, he's got to do something else. And JM manages to do that by being an amazing actor. At this point, it startles me when I realize, again, that he's a good-looking fellow, cheekbones and all - I'm too busy paying attention to the nuances of his performance to give a damn what color his eyes are.

The real measure of an actor, IMO, has always been: "what do they do when they have nothing to say?" That was the hardest part of Shakespeare for me. Overacting is more of a risk when you're not at the subtlest age in the first place, and you're facing a 10 minute stretch of silently listening as some other character drones on in one of those endless monologues. Some directors compensate by giving the listening characters something to do - straighten something up, pour a drink, browse through texts, and nod at appropriate intervals. Sometimes this works, sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes it just looks like an attempt to not have to stand there and look stupid for 10 minutes, or more. Actors are on the stage (or in front of the camera) to say something; only Marcel Marceau has the knack of getting rich from saying nothing - and he says more in 5 minutes than many sitcoms give their actors to say in a 5 year run. So does JM measure up, in the spaces between his lines? Hell yeah he does.

Anya was a boring character, to me, because her lines were predictable and her silent points were, well, mostly just silent. She did the appropriate ensemble reactions while someone else was speaking - look worried, glance at Xander, bit her lip, fidget, roll her eyes. Yes, this is called over-acting, according to the directors I worked with. On the stage, you'd do this - because otherwise someone on the 17th row wouldn't see that you're wrinkling your nose - but on camera, it's too much, too obvious. Anya blew a lot of us out of the water because when she finally got a good line (in The Body), she nailed it and left us gasping for breath. But as soon as I knew she was done speaking, I was done watching her. Spike's the opposite, in some ways. His lines have always been as sharp and witty as anyone else's. But he could've been one more good-looking bad guy who blows through, wrecks havoc, and heads on out again. And we've believed Spike's transformation not because JM's good-looking. It's because he continues to speak despite being silent.

That's a rare skill, and I think the writers are still getting accustomed to it. The look on his face when he realizes Buffy's shut him out of her house? There's no scripted line there - he had to either come up with the expression, or over-act it to compensate for the fact that he's faking it. When Buffy re-invites him, in The Gift, the writers gave him lines, and there's any of a hundred ways he could've read it & blown the moment. But it's not his speaking the line that makes it - it's his expressions and gestures in between the lines that make the moment work.

I had to watch most of The Gift with fuzzy to nonexistent sound, since a thunderstorm had just come through the area and was playing havoc with the cable channels. My tape of it sounds like the speaker system's going south from all the hiss and noise. So in frustration, while re-watching it, I turned the sound off and just watched what the actors were doing, how they moved, the light, the camera angles. And I must say that JM was a true delight to watch because he keeps his body & face subtly but actively responding and speaking even when his lips aren't moving. Ok, so he might've followed a different arc (with less shippiness, since this is Hollywood & hardly perfect) if he weren't so textbook handsome... but I think the actor would've prevailed. Seth Green, Alyson Hannigan, Amber Benson, even Nicholas Brendan - none of these folks are classic hollywood handsome themselves, so I don't think Joss has problems with casting a good actor despite the lack of billboard appeal. It's just a lucky break for the eye-candy fans that JM's a good actor and good-looking.


[> [> Gotta get in on this discussion... -- Marie, 08:17:22 06/21/01 Thu

O.K., I believe I've mentioned before that Spike's ma boy, so I'm not going to waffle on about his chiseled cheeks, his quirky little smile, his hunky shoulders, his...er, sorry...

Actually, although all the fore-mentioned have appeal, for me the real attraction to this character is his humour. I've always been a sucker for cheeky bad lads who can make me laugh, and sometimes JM only has to raise that (sexily-)scarred eyebrow, to do it. Also, I'm a sucker for good wordsmiths, and from the very beginning the quality of the writing on this marvellous series has blown me away. It makes me laugh, cry, groan and think, and quite often in the one episode. Also, I'm a bit of an empath, and when I'm watching I'm not 'just watching', I'm actually THERE, taking part, feeling the hurt, and the fear, and my heart is racing ahead to the credits.

Now, my lad Spike. Well, to be honest, from the very beginning I've thought of Spike as a true romantic. When he falls in love, he wants to protect his girl, and he'll do anything for her, even die to protect her little sister. There is a lot of William still left inside Spike - if he had a soul, it'd be a poetic one. Half of his bad attitude is just that - attitude. He acts bad, because he wants people to believe he's bad, when, given a little encouragement, he's a true protector. He wants to be loved back, and tries what he can to make that happen (like administering aid to the Bronze victims, instead of feeding). He thought Harmony trying to be tough was 'adorable', and Dru only had to whimper to turn him from irascible to tender. He went to watch Buffy die at the hands of the Lei-Ach (sp?) demons, in 'Family', but when push came to shove and he saw she was in trouble, lost no time in wading into the fray. He had a genuine soft spot for Joyce (flowers - no card) and seems to have developed a true affection for Dawn. Even Tara came in for a little tenderness, when she pulled the blinds open in 'Spiral', and Spike's hand was burned - "No biggie. Look, the skin's already stopped smoking. You go ahead and play peek-a-boo with Mr. Sunshine all you like."

Wow! I wish I could shake the hands of all these writers, don't you?

(Sorry if I seem a little incoherent - typing as I'm thinking, and we Welsh are very emotional Celts - even some of the posts on this board make me tear up!).


[> [> [> Re: Gotta get in on this discussion... -- Slayrunt, 11:39:42 06/21/01 Thu

Thanks, Marie. The Welsh comment explains alot. I have Welsh blood, but I don't no much about them (us?).

Blood, why is it always about blood?

Spike is great and James is great in the way he has made Spike.

Being a male who is straight, the cheekbones of Spike do nothing for me. Now, I could speak volumes about AH or any of the other beautiful women on the show. But, SMG as any other character or even SMG does nothing for me. Buffy is good looking, SMG is cute.

Sorry, back to the thread. Evil is attractive, I have a thing for the great evil characters and the great evil character actors i.e. Gary Oldman. I have always liked Spike, I prefer Angelus to Angel, Luke, Darla, the Mayor, ok maybe not Adam and Glory.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an evil person, but evil is so free, so powerful. No moral constraints (sp?), no trying to do the right thing. On tv and the movies, good is greater than evil. Good is greater than evil in reality as well but it shows the thin line we must walk. "Come to the dark side, Luke".

Maybe as we grow older and hopefully wiser, we understand the appeal and the tough choices we must make better. We have seen ourselves and/or others make the wrong choice and we try to understand the reasons why.

I think we inherently know the big picture right from wrong, but because we live in this imperfect world, we become corrupted by it. Hence the difficult path we must walk to get to Heaven, enlightenment, the tao, fill in appropriate word here.


[> [> [> Re: Gotta get in on this discussion... -- rowan, 18:50:36 06/21/01 Thu

I'm Irish...well, at least my ancestors were. Maybe it's our Celtic blood that attracts us to Spike. All that latent (doomed) romanticism.


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Javoher, 11:51:02 06/21/01 Thu

Y'all have said a lot. Don't have too much further to contribute but this...personal beauty is enhanced, and often created, by the person's actions. When a person is sure of himself and his art or craft or intellect, and sure that by being himself he can affect others, that is beautiful. Some souls are too large, too talented, too explosive to be fully contained by their bodies. JM may or may not be that kind of actor, but I think he plays Spike as that kind of person. Spike could be ugly as a gnome and I would still be fascinated by him. The cheekbones are just a bonus, one I don't always notice.


[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- bess, 13:23:02 06/21/01 Thu

backstory : i've been an on-and-off watcher of btvs for the first three seasons, but i've kept up to date on it because my best friend is THE buffy fan of my town. don't toss any stones just yet ! i've got the facts - i've watched the eps., but for some reason i never really became a dedicated glued-to-the-tube-tuesday-nighter (ok, except things like prophecy girl, becoming, etc.).... mid-season four, something changed. she handed me a tape of doomed, and i actually sat down and watched it. spike in all his morbid glory. from then i couldn't get enough. i'd been a fan of his character from school hard, but now i was intrigued. a vampire that couldn't, well... vamp ? what happens now, when what once defined him gets taken away ? he's had to build himself basically up from the bottom. he couldn't get the respect his insecure psyche demanded from the vamp community - he's building a new trust with the scoobies. i'll admit, he's perhaps the yummiest thing in leather the tv's offering up (though i didn't think so at first), but it's not really why i'm so enchanted with his character....something in me loves a smartass, and the man's got timing... "there's a nice lady vampire who's set up a tea room on the other side of this pile of crap, what d'you think i'm doing ??"... and then along came... drumroll... out of my mind, and everything after. what does anyone seek in this world but love ? love gives hope. and we'd like to think that love redeems. the chance to watch something once thought beyond hope, climbing the ladder back up bare-handed because of a love he'd die to protect ? reeks of an emmy, (fingers crossed !) but also smacks of true drama. spike seems to be on the right side at last, of his own free will, simply because he's convinced he loves this woman. this is what's kept me watching through the whole season - they could have replaced glory with an ominous-looking stuffed bear and i would have tuned in every week to see spike hanging on to love & even possibly redemption by his fingernails. it's the hopeless romantic in me, i admit it. here's hoping joss & co. deliver a season that can match spike's rocky journey that has made season five such a joy. and on the 'what about b/s ? will it sink her down to his level ?' debate, i'm not buying. i don't think there's any shame for buffy in loving someone that went against his original nature, and is fighting to save the world (and all the tiiiiny peeeople) for the sake of her love. i don't think it should be done out of pity, and i think the only way they could cheapen it is to have her use him, because that would be too cruel. you don't lead a character towards good only to throw him a bone, kick him in the ass, and giggle wickedly. heh. one more thing ! (noo ! don't leave !)why does spike love buffy ? nobody knows. but, seriously, maybe to spike, buffy's the example of tough, but not evil. if she can fight evil and still be a well-dressed smartass, hey ! there's a job opening for him after all. he could love the warrior in her, no matter what side he was on, he can appreciate her strength against all odds, her not staking him repeatedly... yadda yadda yadda. he's dead, but he ain't cold - maybe all those halter tops fried the poor bottle-blonde's brain.... hee hee.

thanks for sticking around for the whole rant....

marsters takes the cake, and the little plastic party forks as well.


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Nina, 16:55:05 06/21/01 Thu

I was wondering one thing since I read this thread: To post or not to post? Posting demands an incredible effort out of me these days, but it's about Spike and my fingers seem to be ready to do their little dance. So here it goes:

I must say that even though I am not always very articulate I always analyse everything. Which is the worst thing that can ever happen to anyone. When I say everything. I mean everything. So I must confess that the obession I have with Buffy comes from Spike. I love Buffy. I will watch season 1 or season 3 with pleasure even if Spike isn't there. But without Spike I wouldn't be obsessed with it. I've been racking my brain for 6 months trying to come with answers. Why? why? WHY???????? I hate to be addicted to anything. To love something is wonderful. To be addicted and obssesed is something else entirely.

I can't say that the cheekbones are what make me tune in or obsess me. I don't even like the coat! :) The more I analyse it, the more I think it's a cathartic experience for me. I did bad things at one time and was looking for repentence, forgiveness. I identified with Spike this season because I recognized myself completely. I was afraid of him going bad again (no redemption) around Crush because I was afraid not to be forgiven myself. To be doomed. To remain the "bad girl" I once was. I think I've learned my lesson. It's not over, because the obsession would be too. But I'm making progress! ;)

What is wonderful is that anyone can be touched by the same thing and they will all experience it differently. I must say that I am also very fascinated to see how Spike is helping JM as human being too. Spike and JM have similar pasts (love litterature- did bad things- tried to be cool to cover the vulnerability) and to see how the actor is learning from his part is also a wonderful confirmation to me. JM was afraid people would find out about is inner "nerd". He wanted to keep the cool mask in front of the fans. As time goes by (and maybe because the response of the fans was favorable to William) he seems to make peace with what he is. (the above is mere speculation on my part. So sorry for including it!)

Okay.... I think my fingers danced more than they could handle. Thanks for the thread Rowan.


[> [> [> To expose your inner nerd is frightening..... -- Rufus, 17:16:40 06/21/01 Thu

I knew when I heard that JM wasn't so thrilled to hear that William was a nerd that he must know what that feels like. We all want the world to see us at our best, we can get some funny ideas of what best would or should be. Spike is what William wanted to be seen as...the Big Bad(disturbing Buffybot straddle comes to mind here). When Dru made William into Spike his attitude(Crush) was that she saved him from his mediocre life.....with no soul he doesn't get why that isn't the case. Spike is what William wants to be seen as, the chip is lowering more than the barrier between Spike and Buffy, it's making Spike aware of the horrible price of his pose...he knows he is a monster....so does that mean he is beginning to understand that his killing of humans is wrong?


[> [> [> [> Re: To expose your inner nerd is frightening..... -- rowan, 19:14:19 06/21/01 Thu

When Dru offered Spike the "gift" of vampirism, she lifted him out of a life of obscurity. In William's mind, he was special, he was gifted, he was a poet. But that identity was horribly ripped away by his brutal exposure at the hands of Cecily and her crowd.

Spike tranformed William the pathetic outcast into Spike, powerful outcast, slayer of humans. Then, when the thrill of inflicting huges amounts of fear and torture began to pall a little (and perhaps leaving Spike open to the fear of subsiding back into the role of pathetic outcast again), suddenly Angelus says: "Slayer."

Then Spike's life takes on new meaning: he is the Vampire Slayer Slayer. This carries him into S2. But now, I agree with you Rufus -- that identity is now beginning to fade and he's looking for something else.

I know alot of people have problems with the fact that Spike won't show remorse for what he's done or seek forgiveness -- they see that as a sign that he's not really changing, or that he isn't ready for redemption, or that he isn't as evolved as Angel. But Spike has a different emotional makeup than Angel. He probably won't ever react quite that way.

When Spike brings up what North Americans settlers did to the native American population or comments that Caesar didn't apologize for conquest, it's linked to his remark "I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man" as well as to the issue of remorse. I think what we'll eventually see is that Spike is saying in essence: "I'm accountable for what I did. I did those things. I wasn't sorry when I did them, so it's useless to say that now." Spike IMHO would see it as hypocritical in some way to now say, "Oh, that was wrong and evil" when he knows full well under the same conditions he'd do it again. He's more in the moment than Angel to the extent that the only thing he sees as important is what he does now. That's the only way he can express remorse, I think: by action, not by words. Angel has a little more Hamlet in him than Spike; Spike has a little more Harry V.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: To expose your inner nerd is frightening..... -- Rufus, 22:53:13 06/21/01 Thu

I don't think the identity of poet was taken away from William as much as he was made fun of for how romantically oriented he was. William admitted that he was a lousy poet but a good man, he accepted his limited talent as a poet, it was Cecily's rejection of him as a man that hurt most of all. I always wondered if perhaps had he never met Dru would William used that rejection to transform himself like Giles did with Ripper? Dru just changed the man into a demon and instead of doing something that would distinguish him as a man, he was left with demon society to impress. I think Spike may already have existed in William's mind as an image of what he thought a fickle woman like Cecily would like. Your thoughts on this rowan?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To expose your inner nerd is frightening..... -- rowan, 05:28:30 06/22/01 Fri

This is a good point. I think I need to look at the shooting script and see that ep again. Tonight....then I'll respond.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Okay, I'm back. -- rowan, 17:54:52 06/22/01 Fri

"I don't think the identity of poet was taken away from William as much as he was made fun of for how romantically oriented he was. William admitted that he was a lousy poet but a good man, he accepted his limited talent as a poet, it was Cecily's rejection of him as a man that hurt most of all. I always wondered if perhaps had he never met Dru would William used that rejection to transform himself like Giles did with Ripper? Dru just changed the man into a demon and instead of doing something that would distinguish him as a man, he was left with demon society to impress. I think Spike may already have existed in William's mind as an image of what he thought a fickle woman like Cecily would like. Your thoughts on this rowan?"

I'm really not sure. For all that Spike talks alot, we don't get alot of his interior life. FFL is about it. So although we can intuit or interpret his motives from actions, we don't get alot of support of his thoughts or words. I hope we get to see a bigger piece of what goes on in Spike's head next season.

I looked at the timeline and it took Spike from 1880 until 1888 to acquire the Spike name, the accent, and start to develop the attitude. The personality wasn't firmly set in place until his first Slayer killing in 1900.

My best guess is that the demon within set out to cope with the sexual/romantic rejection (which is a big sore spot with Spike even up to 2001) by creating a persona that was as far from William as possible. William was a man of intellect and thought: Spike became a vamp of brutal action. William avoided confrontation: Spike seeks it. William loved romantically from afar: Spike loves sexually right up front. William was educated and refined: Spike assumes a working class accent and a crude attitude at times.

What the demon has conquered is the truly romantic nature William had, or his intelligence. Even in its evil, those personality traits still come through.

If William hadn't been vamped, I'm not sure what would have happened. I think William would have gone home and retreated into himself, rather than creating or remaking himself, but I'm not really sure.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, I'm back. -- Nina, 19:26:53 06/22/01 Fri

Just a little correction here if you may. Spike got his name in 1880. In the script it was originally set in 1888, but in the episode it was revised. Shooting scrits are great, but they tend to misguide us sometimes as so many little details are changed during the shooting. :)

It's an interesting change though. It means that Spike changed the same year. He did want to become that Spike persona as soon as he could. If they had decided to stick with the 1888 intead of 1880 it would have meant something completely different. Our William changed radically. Not with time.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, I'm back. -- rowan, 21:20:03 06/22/01 Fri

Well, I don't have the ep on tape, but in the shooting script Angel was still screwing up the name and asking what was up with the accent. Did they change that as well? i thought it interesting that the whole process was much longer than what I originally had imagined.

I don't agree that he changed so quickly. I don't really think the change was completed until he killed that first Slayer and really took over the relationship with Drusilla.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Okay, I'm back. -- Rufus, 22:35:53 06/22/01 Fri

Spike had changed his basic persona, he was getting a bit bored with the lack of attention he was getting from killing people. When Angelus mentioned The Slayer, Spike saw his chance to see his name become the stuff of legend. The rejection that Spike went through was both of his mind and his love, he was off somewhere to be by himself. He was just like Giles he had a mother waiting at home for him (duty) and the prospect of nothing efflugent in his life. I could see William pulling a Giles and running off to find a new gang....they just found him first. I don't think it was the demon part of Spike that created anything other than just guide him to do it in an evil way. Look at Ripper and you see Spike. I only asked myself that question because I found that the vampire is the person with a new direction in life but not a new personality. They all tend to act upon all their hurts and slights while alive. William just wanted someone to see him as special, as a vampire the only way to do that is to kill.


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (o/t) -- rowan, 19:02:05 06/21/01 Thu

Hi Nina!

I'm glad you liked the thread and decided to post. I know my topics aren't always as intellectual as some of the others, but I'm pleased when the topics touch people emotionally.

You sound a little melancholy and blue. I hope you're getting enough rest. We will all send you positive energy even when we don't see your posts as frequently.

Remember what Spike said to Dawn: "I'm not good - and I'm okay." Words I live by everytime I'm tempted to beat myself up over past mistakes; time's too short for recriminations. As Auntie Mame says: "Live, live, live!"

Cyber chocolate kisses to you,



[> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (o/t) -- Nina, 08:56:22 06/22/01 Fri

Thanks Rowan you are such a sweetie! :)

I guess I felt a little blue last night! Never good to post under such circumstances! Well at least it forces us to be true to ourselves! :)

I rarely come with great philosophical stuff myself... but your topics have the capacity to bring people together (and they are very good!). They bring unity on this board. You have this talent to unite people! So Yay to you!!!!! :) I'm sure a lot of people will agree with me here. And if this board was only and purely intellectual the inevitable would happen: people would forget that life can be fun and that it's not all about analysing stuff (oh yeah... I take note of this! :)

The good part of understanding why you love something is that it allows you to understand yourself better. And maybe I am projecting here, but I am under the impression that a lot of people care about Spike's redemption so much and take it so much at heart that it has to be something a lot more personal than just wanting a bad guy to reform. Lots of human beings love redemption stories and if we do it's because (still my humble opinion) we need this redemption ourselves. The need for forgiveness is in all of us. When we get to see such a story on the screen, even unconsciously we are bond to root for the bad guy redemption. For our redemption.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (o/t) -- rowan, 11:03:16 06/22/01 Fri

Great points! I don't know what you mean about English only being your second language. I would never have noticed that: you seem as articulate in it as if it was your first.

And thank you. You made my day. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (o/t) -- Rufus, 13:18:47 06/22/01 Fri

Yes, keep coming back I wait for your posts Nina......if you feel down we have the solution....plastic or metal:):):):)well some chocolate thrown in for the heck of it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (o/t) -- Nina, 19:16:11 06/22/01 Fri

Gee, did I sound that pathetic? :) I am certainely not depressed or anything! I guess this subject just hits home a little more than normal. It's a good thing. Like that we remember we feel things! :) But I can always use cyber chocolate. That's keeping me out of real chocolate and that's way better for my diet! Am I the only one here eating an entire box of chocolate when I open one? Bad, bad me! So yay cyber chocolate. :)

Rowan I mean what I said so youppi if I made your day! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (o/t) -- Rufus, 22:40:01 06/22/01 Fri

No you didn't sound pathetic. You said something about chocolate......hmmmm...never leave chocolate unattended.....it may disappear........Oh sorry, no you didn't sound depressed......back to chocolate, bad for diets good for any time of day........


[> What if we took this question one step further -- Liquidram, 19:43:37 06/21/01 Thu

Hopefully, a little topic evolution here without going too far off the deepend ... it's going to get weird, so feel free to pass this one by.

What if this show was Buffy, the True Stories of a Vampire Slayer? What if James Marsters did not exist, but Spike did? How many of us would be attracted to his character and be so willing to forgive regardless of cheekbones? What if there was no greater story to be told, or no more brilliant mind of Joss Whedon? Could we grow to care about this character (or Angel, or even poor wolf Oz) more week after week because he appeared to have changed? Could we trust that it was true change?

Another example - I consider Antonio Banderas and Catherine Zeta Jones two of the most breathtakening beautiful people I have ever seen. What if these two gorgeous people went on Letterman one night and stated for the record that they in fact worship the devil. That would be it for me. I would never go to anything remotely associated with either of them again. Does that make me close-minded and unforgiving? In some cases, yes it does because I believe so strongly in a clear sense of what I was taught is wrong. If Antonio said that he routinely beats Melanie, I would probably feel the same way. If he admitted that he used to rob banks but has spent the last 10 or whatever years of his life trying to make up for the people he hurt, I could accept that bygones are bygones. We all have our skeletons which ultimately turn us into the person we are now. Given the opportunity to go back into my history and change it, I probably would not because the good place that I am now would not exist without all of the experiences that brought me to this point.

I have always been the person at the other end of the conversation who was willing to look at all angles of a person before condemning their actions. Ted Bundy - truly evil or merely a sociopath psycho? (and no, I don't want to reinvent that thread...) Most people do not hesitate to swat a fly and feel no remorse for it. Is the sociopath condemned because he has no more conscience toward people than he does a housefly? Is he evil, or is he simply ill and has had his free will denied? Does God punish the sociopath for his chemical imbalance or does he forgive?


[> [> Re: What if we took this question one step further -- rowan, 19:49:57 06/21/01 Thu

"What if this show was Buffy, the True Stories of a Vampire Slayer? What if James Marsters did not exist, but Spike did? How many of us would be attracted to his character and be so willing to forgive regardless of cheekbones? What if there was no greater story to be told, or no more brilliant mind of Joss Whedon? Could we grow to care about this character (or Angel, or even poor wolf Oz) more week after week because he appeared to have changed? Could we trust that it was true change?"

Yes, this is really at the heart of this thread. Although the Buffyverse is not the Realverse (and we can't directly equate Spike with Ted Bundy), obviously part of our attraction to myth is that it's speaking truth to our hearts. If we were Buffy or Xander or Willow, wouldn't we be justifiably afraid to have anything to do with Spike?

That's where I'm wondering if the writers are leading me down a path they won't respect me for walking down in the morning. They make Spike attractive and compelling, but maybe they're thinking to themselves, 'the lesson here is to resist Spike, not to be mesmerized by him; wait, we're fooling them now, but eventually we'll expose this audience by showing them they shouldn't have invested in him emotionally'.


[> [> Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- Solitude1056, 21:37:11 06/21/01 Thu

Ok, cryptic subject line but I couldn't think of any other at this late hour. Thinking about your comment of how you'd respond if you found out a gorgeous man beats his wife, and it reminded me of an interview I saw years ago with Gerard Depardieu. The interviewer was asking GD about his upbringing, his school years, and GD responded that he was a wild kid, rang with a gang, etc. Thinking to get amusing stories (or something), the interviewer pursued it, and Gerard allowed - and quite proudly - as to how his gang wasn't just "a gang" but a gang. Including gang rapes, vandalism, buglery, etc. That's one thing - it's the fact that GD only admitted feeling stupid about committing burglery. No mention of the gang rapes, assaults, batteries, or various other stuff - just a minor feeling of "god, I was stupid" for having broken into someone's car or house and taken their stuff. Excuse me?

As a result, to this day I patently refuse to see anything with GD in it. I don't care how good an actor he is. I don't have much with which to damage most people or businesses except by money, and therefore I exercise what I can to keep my money from going near anything he's worked on.

So in that sense, I agree with you - once you know who's behind the curtain, it's real hard to get back to a blissful ignorance. I may have friends who appreciate and enjoy GD's acting and his movies, and aren't bothered by his lack of contrition for horrible acts he committed when young. For that matter, I know folks who feel that elderly former Nazi officers should enjoy a statute of limitations on how long before there's no point in tracking them down, senile and toothless, in some nursing home in Brazil. I'm not sure how I feel about it - I tend to be one to examine extenuating circumstances whenever possible, and go on my measure of the person's own words and actions - but I do know that such "new information" can color a person's response permanently.

Someone on this list said awhile back that the one thing Spike hasn't done is admit that his previous behaviors were wrong, or recognize that he's suspect as a friend because of his past. I think in The Gift he came closer than ever before. To use the Nazi officer analogy, I don't think participation in such heinous activities would negate a person's ability to love, nor would I necessarily doubt that they're for real when s/he says s/he loves - but I still would have difficulty respecting, or trusting, the person. The first major step would have to be the person acknowledging and dealing with the fact that their past actions violate my, and my community's, principles and ethics. But even then...

Joss & crew are walking a thin line with Spike, and I agree with rowan that it seems we should brace ourselves for some sort of tumble into a major reality check. What's that old story about the fox and the scorpion who needs a ride across the river? "You stung me, now we'll both drown." "It's my nature, and you knew it before you helped me." Etc, etc.


[> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- rowan, 21:59:31 06/21/01 Thu

Wow. This isn't fair. I need to sleep (it's almost 1:00a) and you're tempting me....Okay, I agree 100% with the GD example. I had the exact same reaction you did.

You remind me of a book I read years ago called (I think) Pursuit by (I think) Robert L. Fish. It was about a German SS officer (who has committed minor cruelties and stood by silently at major atrocities) who sees at the end of WWII that Hitler is about to go bonkers. He comes up with a plan to: a. get plastic surgery to make himself look like a Jew; b. get put in a concentration camp that he thinks is about to be liberated; c. flee to Switzerland to get to his Swiss bank accounts; and d. live happily every after as a rich, free man no longer identifiable as a Nazi war criminal.

Of course, his whole plan goes awry. He gets placed in the wrong camp, he has to survive it for several months, he ends up going to Palestine (thinking he might be able to make it to Switzerland that way easier than from occupied Germany), he falls in love with a Jewish girl who's engaged to the guy who kept him alive in the concentration camp (and is putatively his best friend), eventually marries her (she's amazingly sweet, BTW), he has a son, he becomes a freedom fighter for Israel (and is appointed to public office in the military no less), his tries to get to this bank accounts to get his money & one day prior they get frozen, and eventually...he's exposed. His son looks just like he did and he figures out who his father really is. The Neo-Nazis track him down and want to blackmail him to put destroy the Israeli state. His wife is killed. Eventually he must sacrifice himself to save Israel (and his son, who now hates him). His son comes to terms with his father after his father's death, with the help of his father's best friend.

Why did I put you through this long story? Because it's Spike's story. This guy in Pursuit never feels remorse for having been a Nazi (although, as I said, he was more on the military side and was not directly involved in creating or implementing the crematoriums -- but he was accountable because he stood by and let it happen, plus he was a racist SOB). He never confesses to anyone what he was (except at the last to his best friend). He takes a long time to change and for many years, only pretends to have changed for love of the woman and a vain hope he'll eventually get his money from Switzerland. Finally, he fakes it until he makes it, and the change becomes real. But it's through his actions (he defends and saves many lives in Palestine/Israel with his military skill) that he demonstrates his remorse and receives his redemption. In the end, he sacrifices himself. The book just tears you up because it makes you emotionally connect to this guy that you should condemn for his inhumanity.


[> [> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- Rahael, 17:22:27 06/23/01 Sat

When people commit terrible acts, crimes against humanity, they change forever, and their souls become scarred. But spiritual redemption is possible. Most human beings are all capable of the worst crimes. We must accept the possibility they can turn around, and accept them. Here in Britain, there is a big debate going on about the two little boys who killed a seven year old boy, brutally tortured him to death. They are now too old to stay in a children's prison, and have been inside for 8 years. They were released yesterday under new identities. Those two boys have expressed their remorse, but it took a lot of work and help. I believe they should be forgiven.

I grew up in the midst of civil war (had to move to Britain for safety) and saw the best and worst sides of people - great cruelty, and great heroism. Still human beings at the end of the day. I find that I can forgive those who committed terrible crimes against my community.

But I totally agree with all the poinst made above re not liking people like Gerard Depardieu. Its difficult. It definitely affects the way I look at film stars and actors, but poets? novelists? I love Philip Larkin's poetry, but he was a vicious racist and mysoginist. Doesn't make his poetry less true, or less beautiful. Still trying to sort out my mind about this! What about Wagner? What does everyone think?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- Nina, 20:59:37 06/23/01 Sat

You know after reading all those bad comments about Depardieu, I am under shock. Bear with me. Since I am a kid I have seen all his movies (way before he started to be known in America). The fact that he was part of a gang has never been a secret and he talked about it several times on talk shows in France. I don't know how he sounded in the interviews you saw, but I've always been under the impression that he wasn't proud of what he did. I saw a big evolution, as a human being, through his movie choices. He used to be cast as a bad boy, then with time he revealed more secret vulnerability. I believe that through his work he is learning and evolving at his own rythm. Maybe one life won't be enough, but there is a change.

I love theater and actors for that reason. I saw the effect a role can do to a person (having lived with thespian parents!). I think actors learn a lot while acting. It's the open window to their soul. I judge people on their action, not their words. In the end it's always better if someone can acknowledge the wrongs he/she did. But if it's not possible, action will be a transitionary state that I'll accept. We all have our paths to follow, we cannot all be able to achieve it in one shot. So maybe Depardieu should be boycotted. But some of his movies (French ones) really changed my life. If he hadn't done them I wouldn't be who I am today. It's a domino game. One life changes another one..indefinitely.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- Rahael, 06:12:53 06/25/01 Mon

Nina, I think your right to stress the importance of drama/acting. So often esp in Hollywood, it can become just about shallow blockbusters. I too grew up in a family were drama/writing plays/acting was considered a very worthwhile activity. Maybe Depardieu has given something back to society now.

On a more frivolous note, I love Buffy and Angel so much, I feel slightly cheated when the actors themselves don't turn out to be as great as the characters. I mean, I don't know if I can stand the shock of learning that SMG's favourite book is 'Gone with the wind'. (according to some fan website). And I've heard through the grapewine that David Boreanaz was not a very nice person. Obviously, since the chances of my meeting him are very slim, its academic. But it still seems to matter somehow.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- carniriel, 09:31:22 06/25/01 Mon

Hi, another long term lurker coming out of the woodwork. I love the board but I'm mostly reading at work and also I'm in the UK and have to desperately avoid spoilers for most of the season! Plus I don't usually have anything pertinent to add to the intellectual discussion..... Anyway, just a note in defence of Depardieu. I don't know all the details but I've heard of this interview and in it he says something like "quand j'étais 10 ans j'ai assisté à un viol". "Un viol" is a rape, but "assister" doesn't mean he assisted in it, it just means he was a witness to it. Still not great, but not as bad I guess. I remember hearing that the interview was badly translated and caused him a lot of trouble in the US. But I definitely agree with your overall point. If it was real..... I wouldn't trust Spike as far as I could throw him. Even with the cheekbones! keep up the philosophising, maybe one day I'll get to post properly!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> just to clarify -- Solitude1056, 17:28:46 06/25/01 Mon

The interview I saw with Depardieu was back in the late 80's to early 90's or whenever it was that he had his first american hit. Secondly, the interview was entirely in English. While he obviously wasn't the most fluent (and at the time I was still fluent in French, myself), he still has a rubberface enough to convey his attitude about the topic. The attitude, expression, and body language all underline his words. If the non-verbal had contradicted his words, I might've gotten a different impression (including that he was less fluent than he realized). But they didn't, so I didn't. Just to clarify, altho it's really OT.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: just to clarify -- Sue, 22:50:52 06/28/01 Thu

"While he obviously wasn't the most fluent (and at the time I was still fluent in French, myself), he still has a rubberface enough to convey his attitude about the topic. "

This is a bit off topic, but still I must ask. Are you saying that once you were fluent in French, but now you aren't as fluent?

I didn't know you could lose your fluency in language?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh boy, can you ever! -- Wisewoman, 18:36:54 06/29/01 Fri

I used to be fluent in French (after high school, most Canadians are!) but that's disappeared, and after a year of Russian at university (20 years ago) all I can remember is Ya lyublyu sineeyz danya (roughly the pronounciation, I'm not gonna try the Cyrillic characters) which, as far as I know, means "I love yellow buildings!"

Even friends of mine who were raised from infancy in another "mother tongue" get rusty if they haven't heard/spoken it for years.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yeah. It's called "not practicing." ;-) -- Solitude1056, 23:52:03 06/30/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 08:29:24 06/25/01 Mon

I didn't know anything about Depardieu's past prior to this so I'm kinda surprised too, but I don't think he should be boycotted. What's most important is what he's doing now and (IMO) it's important to judge him primarily on this. Sure, when he's dead it will be possible to look at his life as a whole and see how it balanced out, but if we dwell on his past, he will never be able to leave it behind.

I think this is totally relevant to Spike. The only reason he is able to change is that Buffy (and to a lesser extent the rest of the Scoobies) 'treat him like a man'. As they forget his past, he can too. Having done this, he can see that being good gives more rewards than being evil. He has to care about other people but they care for him in return (who wants to hang around with a bunch of self-serving, back-stabbing vampires when you could be with people who genuinely care about you).

The only reason he found evil so attractive before was the fact that he had been surrounded by it when he was trying to be good. With no support or love, he became an outcast and turned against those who had snubbed him (okay, 'evil' is a bit harsh, but if they hadn't snubbed him, 'Spike' might never have happened).

Oh, God. Sorry for dragging the thread back into analysis. I'll shut up now.

(+ sorry if I'm saying stuff that people have already said - still new!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Ramifications of Knowing Who's-In-There -- Nina, 18:24:40 06/25/01 Mon

"(+ sorry if I'm saying stuff that people have already said - still new!)"

Please don't apologize! You always make so much sense in your posts! And you are absolutely right that it applies totally to Spike. If I didn't believe that anyone who used to be a murderer has a chance for redemption I wouldn't believe the same for Spike. The fact that we are analysing fictional characters only makes sense if we can apply it in real life.

I remember that around February someone made a poll and asked people who they'd like to have from the BtVS cast an AtS to do their home chores. I remember having said at the time that I would have left Spike outside (uninvited, but well in view so I could watch him) As long as Spike was dangerous I saw him as dangerous too. If he had been reel I wouldn't have left him near me. Now it would be entirely different. He made a huge leep. It's comforting to have confirmations and see that people can change (even if in BtVS it's only fictional!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Stories and Values -- Humanitas, 06:22:21 06/26/01 Tue

"It's comforting to have confirmations and see that people can change (even if in BtVS it's only fictional!)"

The stories we tell and embrace define what our values are as a culture. The hope that "every man can be better" (to quote The Man In the Iron Mask) is one of the lessons of BtVS and AtS. We see it not just in Spike, but in Angel, and in most of the main characters (esp. Xander and Cordelia this season), as they grow up.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: David Boreanaz -- Brian, 04:04:45 06/28/01 Thu

Having seen David Boreanaz on several talk shows. His self-deprecating humor, his body language, and his willingness to look silly makes me think that he's probably a pleasant person to know. I also imagine in a work situation he may be very demanding.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: David Boreanaz -- Rahael, 17:20:07 06/28/01 Thu

I'm glad you think he's nice - I've never seen him in a interview or anything .....its just that my friends who have said that he didn't come across well.


[> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- verdantheart, 14:02:59 06/22/01 Fri

OK, can't resist responding to this one. (At length; sorry! ;) )

You know, I've asked myself this very same question, especially since Mr Marsters physical appearance isn't that far from my "type." I like doing drawings of interesting faces, so I noticed his face right away. Angled, high cheekbones, almost sunken cheeks (can we say Peter Cushing, anyone?), clean jawline, if a little prominant at the corners. Add to it a well-toned but not overly buff physique, on the lean side. OK, he doesn't have the hands (now this is a true admission, don't ask me why, I have a thing for a certain type of lean hand that is used expressively). His face is beautiful in a way that transcends sexual appeal, like Buster Keaton (whom I don't find sexy, but love to draw). He even looks good in specs.

OK, let's set that aside and look at the character. The fact is that the character has transformed into a very romantic type. And because we have seen things from his point of view, we know what he's feeling. We know he really does love Buffy whereas Buffy can't appreciate that. What could be more romantic than the notion of a demon turning his back on evil for love? What woman wouldn't want to be the inspiration for the kind of passion we know that Spike feels? Buffy is his all. And his love is unrequited. There's something very compelling about that (I'm a sucker for it). Add to this the fact that Mr Marsters is expert at emoting sexual tension/emotion (for example, on the dance floor with Dru in "Crush"). Not made of stone, you know. Not only that, we know that Spike greatly respects Buffy for her strength and character. What woman wouldn't want that kind of regard? Then there is the danger factor. Many women can't resist that edge, and some seem to regret that he seems to have lost a little of that.

Then I have to go on and put in my usual plug for Mr Marster's talent. Were he not as good an actor, I hardly think that I'd be this fascinated by the character. The depth of his performances add layers to the character that bring him alive in ways that ordinary actors do not. If Spike were played by, say, Tom Cruise, I would not care for him nearly as much. OK, Cruise isn't my type, but relatively few actors fit the bill. Antonio Banderas, maybe. If he were played by Jeffrey Combs, however, I'd probably be interested (I love Mr Combs acting; note he isn't my physical type), but would other women?

If I knew Spike, would I be in love with him? I think I would if I were Buffy. Otherwise, I'm not so sure. Let me add for comparison that were I on Deep Space Nine, I would have been in love with Garak, and he does not match my physical type (although I don't have anything against the scales, particularly). Why? His patriotism, mystery, intense suffering, hidden altruism. (I'm still miffed that they never spilled the beans on the reasons for his exile ... oops, sorry, we were discussing BtVS, weren't we?)

But, for me, I think that the fact that we've seen so much from Spike's point of view has made me identify strongly with the character. There's something about the sympathetic monster that resonates with me very strongly. Perhaps it has something to do with the sense of isolation, his intense suffering, his lonely grief. In fact, this sense of identification is so strong as to ameliorate the romantic appeal. I root for him to become a hero and get together with Buffy eventually because of this identification.

Now I have to take a moment to comment, as I've wanted to (and in response to Solitude's excellent point), that part of this storyline was, in a way, very subversive (I'm sure that Joss was fully aware of this, too). By making Spike sympathetic, he made us sympathize with someone who stalked, took a woman into bondage, and threatened to kill her (via Dru). Yet who do we feel sorry for in "Crush"? I, for one, feel for Spike, not Buffy. She was shocked and worried; he was nearly destroyed. Buffy would neither listen to or believe him. (Makes me think of the woefully brief Profit, which made me root for the "bad guys" and against the "good guys." I fell in love with that show immediately -- a friend of mine called it "evil." I wonder about me sometimes.)

Someone asked what Spike sees in Buffy. He seems to have a thing for strong women. Cecily was sure of herself and her position if nothing else. He's been turned on by slayers and seems to like facing someone who can "take him." With Buffy, has he avoided killing her partly because he wants more? Kill her and no more fighting, no more rush from fighting. But that doesn't explain everything. Can it be partly her goodness ("She's not like us.")? (Now, that *is* perverse for a demon.) But then, in the final analysis, is there an answer to the question of why anyone loves anyone, in the Buffyverse or ourverse? We could just chalk it up to fate. (Or, cynically, the fact that Ms Gellar & Mr Marsters share excellent chemistry and make a beautiful couple.)

Well, has this been long-winded enough? Confessional enough? I now go crawl back under my rock to lurk for a while ...

- vh


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- verdantheart, 14:07:12 06/22/01 Fri

Oops! Meant to say, responding to Liquidram's point (What if we took this question one step further). Though I did very enjoy your comments, Solitude!


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- rowan, 18:04:21 06/22/01 Fri

"You know, I've asked myself this very same question, especially since Mr Marsters physical appearance isn't that far from my "type." I like doing drawings of interesting faces, so I noticed his face right away. Angled, high cheekbones, almost sunken cheeks (can we say Peter Cushing, anyone?), clean jawline, if a little prominant at the corners. Add to it a well-toned but not overly buff physique, on the lean side. OK, he doesn't have the hands (now this is a true admission, don't ask me why, I have a thing for a certain type of lean hand that is used expressively). His face is beautiful in a way that transcends sexual appeal, like Buster Keaton (whom I don't find sexy, but love to draw). He even looks good in specs."

I knew I'd lure you out with this post, vh. We've been waiting for you. It wouldn't be a Spike thread without you. Hey, stop reading my mind. Actually, JM is my physical type, too. I like a face that's all planes and angles. And guess what -- I totally agree about the hands. It's not some weird fetish thing you're experiencing (or if it is, be comforted: others share it). I like long, lean, artistic, expressive, nervous hands. Ever read Dorothy L. Sayers? Lord Peter has the Wimsey hands to die for. JM really needs to at least take better care of his. He can't be touching Buffy with those hands. Maybe toning exercises, or manicures would at least help...

"But, for me, I think that the fact that we've seen so much from Spike's point of view has made me identify strongly with the character. There's something about the sympathetic monster that resonates with me very strongly. Perhaps it has something to do with the sense of isolation, his intense suffering, his lonely grief. In fact, this sense of identification is so strong as to ameliorate the romantic appeal. I root for him to become a hero and get together with Buffy eventually because of this identification."

For all that he's an evil vamp, we do get the most painfully honest, real moments from Spike scenes. If I had to make a top ten list of the most personally uncomfortable viewing on BtVS (things so painful I almost could not watch), I would definitely include:

1. Buffy rejecting Spike as beneath her & Spike crying while surrounded with money in FFL

2. Spike and Dawn's locked eyes before Doc threw him off of the tower in The Gift

3. Buffy rejecting Spike in Crush after he's bared his soul that he's "drowning in you, Summers"

4. Spike's look of amazement when Buffy reinvites him into the Summers house in The Gift

"Now I have to take a moment to comment, as I've wanted to (and in response to Solitude's excellent point), that part of this storyline was, in a way, very subversive (I'm sure that Joss was fully aware of this, too). By making Spike sympathetic, he made us sympathize with someone who stalked, took a woman into bondage, and threatened to kill her (via Dru). Yet who do we feel sorry for in "Crush"? I, for one, feel for Spike, not Buffy. She was shocked and worried; he was nearly destroyed. Buffy would neither listen to or believe him. (Makes me think of the woefully brief Profit, which made me root for the "bad guys" and against the "good guys." I fell in love with that show immediately -- a friend of mine called it "evil." I wonder about me sometimes.)"

You say this so much better than I did in my original post. The storyline is very subversive, because we're being placed in a position to feel sympathy for that which we should probably abhor. But you know, I think perhaps Joss and Co are putting us emotionally through the same thing Buffy is going through -- we're being encouraged to forgive, love, and give.

I personally hope that they push the line a little more.


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- voyageofbeagle, 12:22:35 06/23/01 Sat

"If I had to make a top ten list of the most personally uncomfortable viewing on BtVS (things so painful I almost could not watch), I would definitely include:

1. Buffy rejecting Spike as beneath her & Spike crying while surrounded with money in FFL

2. Spike and Dawn's locked eyes before Doc threw him off of the tower in The Gift

3. Buffy rejecting Spike in Crush after he's bared his soul that he's "drowning in you, Summers"

4. Spike's look of amazement when Buffy reinvites him into the Summers house in The Gift"

Yes! I completely agree. The intensity of these moments was almost unbearable. Usually when I have a "look-away!" moment when watching TV or a movie, it's because what I'm viewing is so cheesy it's almost embarrassing. But the above moments were not cheesy, IMO. The emotions were so raw and painful, you felt like you were intruding, watching something so personal you had no business being there.

Quite an accomplishment for the writes and actors involved.


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- Jen C., 23:25:31 06/23/01 Sat

*...He can't be touching Buffy with those hands. Maybe toning exercises, or manicures would at least help...*

Boy-o-boy! I really wish that I had something really intelligent to add to this wonderful post. But - meaningful or not - I had to say...I love JM's hands! It just goes to show how tastes differ, I suppose. I too have a hand fetish, and his are just my type - they're kindof big for his build, strong looking, square fingered, they look...active.... and I won't start on his voice....

I have wondered if Spike's lines would have the same impact without the impact of that voice. But - to take a stab at sticking to the topic of the post - I don't think that it's necessarily the attractiveness of the actor that is the most compelling. I've been fascinated by the gradual revelation of Spike's inner processes. The character started out so buttressed by his bad-assed attitude, and over the course of the last two seasons, he's had everything that he has used to define himself taken away. I can't wait to see where the writers (and JM) take him.


[> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- verdantheart, 05:51:02 06/25/01 Mon

Nothing against Mr Marster's hands; and I think he uses them quite expressively. I'm just saying they aren't the type that gets to me.

- vh


[> [> [> [> Inquiring minds want to know... -- rowan, 19:10:04 06/25/01 Mon

Hey, I say, 'show us the body parts: we'll decide.' This way, we can have plenty of evidence to continue the analysis...


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- bess, 10:16:57 06/24/01 Sun

liked your list of emotional moments for spike, rowan. but i think my #1 would have to be his face after the kiss in "intervention". that was one of the loveliest, most understated pieces of acting i've ever seen - like his heart was ripped out of his body and then replaced, and he only flinched. okay, self, take a deep breath... it's gonna be ok... ;)


[> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- rowan, 13:53:15 06/24/01 Sun

Don't worry...next season, he'll get the girl and his heart back...just so she can rip it out all over again...


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- verdantheart, 05:54:02 06/25/01 Mon

You know, Rowan, sometimes I don't have to say a thing, you've already said it for me.

- vh


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- Nina, 19:50:52 06/22/01 Fri

"I think that the fact that we've seen so much from Spike's point of view has made me identify strongly with the character."

I think you pinpointed a crucial element here concerning the B/S relationship. We've been seeing Spike's point of view this year. The only time we got to see Buffy's point of view was in IWMtLY and for the first time we weren't seing things from Spike's perspective. The fact that the writers opted to show us everything through Spike eyes makes us very sympathetic to his torments.

For fun, and because lets admit it I have no better things to do (time to get a life!) I watched season five a while ago but only from a Buffy point of view. I only saw and heard what she saw. If she wasn't looking at Spike I wasn't either. Let me tell you that in that perspective, everything is very different. When you are in Buffy's shoes and imagine that you loved Angel and loved Riley (even if it was not THE love she did like him) that you were abadonned by your father and all the men in your life, when you take into account the previous encounters with Spike and what she actually see of him in season 5, well I must say that her kissing Spike in Intervention is a very incredible bold move! She has nothing to base this kiss on. Lets face it, absolution could have been given with a kiss on the forehead.

I think the writers did choose to not keep us in tune with Buffy's inner world on purpose. The ambiguity, the fact that fans can interpret scenes differently is the charm of it all. We now know that Spike's love is true. But we can only guess what Buffy is really thinking. I've read some threads were the reinvite scene is completely deconstruct to show that Buffy is cold and doesn't care at all (when I believe the opposite). Until we are given more info on what Buffy is thinking and feeling we can only speculate. Like we did on Spike's feelings before we could be sure they were true.


[> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- rowan, 21:37:04 06/22/01 Fri

"Until we are given more info on what Buffy is thinking and feeling we can only speculate."

I think that you're making an excellent point. We got alot of Buffy's reactions in Crush, for example, but the overall ep still came off as slightly more sympathetic to Spike, I thought (even though he had chained her!). That's probably because most people can identify with being totally rejected by someone they care for (and it isn't pleasant).

From Intervention to The Gift, Buffy's reactions have been very understated. It's very hard to know what's going on in her head about Spike. You get the very obvious actions of the reinvite and the charge to protect Dawn. But what is she thinking?

In Crush and IWMTLY, we got alot of Buffy's reactions to Spike's attraction. She was very vocal about how is repelled her to think he was attracted to her. Then suddenly she goes silent on the whole issue after Intervention. My only guess is that the writers don't know where this is going, so the understatement helps them keep all options open.


[> [> [> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- Nina, 11:36:46 06/23/01 Sat

"My only guess is that the writers don't know where this is going, so the understatement helps them keep all options open."

I believe that too. They are painting themselves into a corner and they will have to make clean moves one day. One thing did strike me as odd behavior for Buffy during the reinvite scene. She lowered her eyes two times when Spike looked at her. Immediately after Spike lowered his eyes too. A while back, around IWMtLY, I mentionned that Spike used to watch people in the eye and I was struck to see him falter with Buffy and Giles. It was just too much and he couldn't hold his gaze. Similarly, Buffy always looked at Spike in the eyes. In the Gift it's the first time (from memory) that she has to lower her eyes because the tension is too high to sustain the eye contact.

It doesn't mean that she is attracted to Spike, but something is really changing.


[> [> [> [> [> Buffy's response -- verdantheart, 06:19:52 06/25/01 Mon

We needed to see Spike's transformation from his side so that we would know it was true.

Buffy did not want to believe that his feelings were real, but could not deny it after "Intervention." If she has any feelings in return, she is not ready to acknowledge them. This leaves their relationship in limbo; their previous relationship is gone and neither one knows what the new one will be or should be. The one thing Buffy knew for sure was that she needed help protecting Dawn, and that Spike a) could help and b) would help because of his feelings.

Buffy may now be aware of the tremendous power she has to cause Spike pain, even inadvertently, and hesitates to be too harsh toward him now. She's in the quandary of the woman who needs to deal with a man whom she knows loves her (the feeling not being mutual), but whom she doesn't want to hurt (a change from her response in FFL). And if she does harbor any subconscious desire for him, that would tend to make her even more uncomfortable. If she looked Spike in the eye, he might see through her (and we know Spike can tell immediately when something's off. He knew right away something was up in "Crush" and asked her what was the matter).

We understand Spike's diffidence a little better, having walked a long mile in his boots. Spike realizes that he has a long way to go in "turning his back on the whole evil thing" and considers himself unworthy of Buffy's affection.

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's response -- rowan, 19:36:21 06/25/01 Mon

Both of you have really honed in on the importance of the eye contact. I don't think we're exaggerating it, although I expect AK-UK to show up any minute to tell us we are. ;) Spike has the ability to read emotions and motivations; he has often exposed them before to the discomfort of several other characters. Buffy knows that Spike can see through her (she admitted it in Lovers Walk). I think that Spike and Buffy (or any character) being unable to make contact with Spike's eyes is significant.

I also felt that, given Spike's perspicacity in the past (even about himself; again the Love's Bitch speech in Lovers Walk is one example), I had to place some credence in his assessment that he and Buffy had something 'messy but real' in Crush. And I think he was picking up on something beyond just sexual attraction.

Now, of course, just because Buffy feels something doesn't mean she'd ever act upon it. That's where her rational side ('thinking Buffy's' moral compass) is probably in conflict with her emotional side ('feeling Buffy's' natural desire to be loved and to love) over Spike.

Buffy loved Angel before she met Angelus. But my sense of the Angelus storyline was that Buffy eventually realized that although she hated/deplored the actions of Angelus, she never stopped loving Angel, and that she acknowledged that Angel/Angelus were not two distinct personalities, but were linked (I'm not quoting textual evidence here, so feel free to jump on me if I'm not reading this right). Again, this discovery about herself would be a source of conflict for her and perhaps would push her to try to find a man who was clearly a "good guy" -- can anyone say "Riley?" That would also explain some of her extreme reaction to find Riley with the vamp-for-hire.

With Spike, Buffy met bad Spike first, then met grey Spike. Buffy may fear Spike "turning" the way Angel/Angelus did, but she might also rationalize that she has seen the worst (no hidden surprises with Spike).

Also, did you notice that Spike's treatment of Buffy in Crush somewhat mirrored Spike's treatment of Dru in S3? Spike wanted a spell from Willow to subvert Dru's will (and force her to love him again). Once he discarded that idea, he said something to the effect that he would find Dru and torture her until she loved him again. Kind of like what he tried with Buffy, hmmm?

"She's in the quandary of the woman who needs to deal with a man whom she knows loves her (the feeling not being mutual), but whom she doesn't want to hurt (a change from her response in FFL)."

This situation reminds me very much of Harriet Vane and Peter Wimsey in the Dorothy L. Sayers novels of the 30s. Peter (the aristocratic second son of a Duke who "dabbles" in detection) saves Harriet (the bluestocking novelist who has been accused of murdering her live-in lover) from the gallows. Peter professes his love. Harriet, sick of love from her bad relationship with the murdered poet, in debt to Peter in a way she can't repay (for her life), and unable to love anybody, has to learn how to handle this man who loves her. At first, she is sarcastic, vindictive, and hurtful. Eventually, she comes to care enough that she wants not to encourage, but not to hurt. Finally, she looks into her heart and sees love.

Okay, it's similar, but without the whole evil dead aspect.

I see several options (among many probably) for S6:

1. Status quo with Buffy: Spike continues to struggle to do good, is tempted by evil, continues to earn SG trust, with a healthy dose of skepticism (very possible if writers are conflicted about where to go).

2. Spike gets over his feelings of love and truly settles for friendship (not very persuaded this will happen).

3. Spike is dechipped and goes bad (not very persuaded this will happen, since we've invested so much in the character).

4. Spike is dechipped and continues to choose good (variation on #1 with more SG trust placed in him).

5. Spike continues to low key feelings for Buffy, keeps doing good; Buffy develops feelings, but has to make the first move since a twice-burned Spike isn't going to risk the fire again (could have hilarious potential).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Risking the fire.............. -- Rufus, 20:01:45 06/25/01 Mon

Can you see something like a little heat and flame stopping Spike from attaining what he wants? He could play hard to get for......hmmmmmmmmm....nope he can't play hard to get.......


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Risking the fire..............(S6 speculation & spoilers) -- rowan, 20:39:59 06/25/01 Mon

I don't know. IMHO, I think we're in for a whole season of unresolved sexual/emotional tension. I suspect that, given a couple of interviews I've read which suddenly have different opinions on the chip (less emphasis suddenly on needing to keep it in), it may come out and part of S6 may be Spike doing good with more choice about it (basically, 'I could resume being a vamp, but I chose not to') that could be Spike's part of the "oh, grow up" theme (e.g. see the posting on vamps stuck in adolescence). S6 may be about Buffy's developing emotions, leaving a big messy situation for S7 (which my gut tells me will be the last for this combination of cast...can you say 'Dawn the Vampire Slayer?').

If there would be a B/S in the future (and I'm really ambivalent about turning Buffy loose on my guy) they really need to build Spike back up a little bit. He's too stripped down to the essence/raw right now (after all the humiliation heaped on him this season) to be strong enough to handle Buffy. He needs to get some respect/confidence back. Plus, they will have to deal with remorse at some point. I mean, Buffy can't really get involved with someone with zero remorse for a hundred years of killing, can she? I'm not looking for Hamletlike paralysis (I'll leave that to Angel). What would that say about the Buffyverse?

Who knows? But it's fun to speculate. Wanda's spoilers for the week say it's more "unrequited love for Buffy and Spike" as well as "sparks" surrounding Fred on AtS, which "deepen the B/A separation." I truly think I'll cry if Angel falls in love with Fred and poor Buffy is still alone. It's not fair.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Risking the fire..............(S6 speculation & spoilers) -- Liquidram, 23:28:38 06/25/01 Mon

"Plus, they will have to deal with remorse at some point"

Here is the touchy subject where we may all have different opinions. Angel, because of his soul is living the tortured life of remembering his past evils and trying to atone.

Having grown up strict Catholic, I went through a bizarre similar situation when my son was born with serious birth defects (whom btw, 15 years and 34 surgeries later, is a completely normal gorgeous teenager, so don't feel bad for us!)

I was basically a good kid and didn't get into the kind of trouble that most kids find themselves getting into as they plow their way thru adolescence and teenhood - no drugs, no sex, etc. However, some of my actions in my 20's came back to torment me when my son was born. Even though I knew for a fact that I had done nothing medically wrong to cause his problems (I didn't even drink caffeine when I was pregnant), I still wondered if I was being "punished" in some way because of my Catholic upbringing which had still included Latin masses and mortal sin when I was in elementary school. It took a visit to a priest I didn't know (I am no longer a practicing Catholic) to tell me that God doesn't work that way, even though in my heart and soul, I already knew it. I grew up, matured and chose not to do things I was ashamed of any longer.

What about Spike? As a vampire, I'm not sure I agree that he has anything to apologize for. He has no soul and he acted without conscience. He did what vampires do. He may not even have the capability of feeling remorse. How he can atone (and is making every effort to do at this point) is to continue to turn away from evil and do good with a free will and choice. Since Intervention, his actions can be filed under selfless good.

His storytelling to Dawn as well as his attempt to go back with Dru in Crush prove that he was trying very hard to hold on to the "Big Bad" persona that no longer exists. Even his temper tantrum where he says that he should burn Dru and cut Buffy into little pieces is bull considering that the first thing he does after fighting Harmony is punch Dru and release Buffy to protect her. Look at this line: "And if it means turning my back on the whole evil thing-" Not "my lifestyle", but "the whole evil thing". Again, an example of what vampires do. I've said it before and it bears repeating that the chip causes him pain which he has endured when he has wanted or needed to hurt a human. We'll never know how he would have reacted if the chip had never exsisted but he had still fallen in love with Buffy. I suspect he would be acting the same way he is now.

Having read the number of comments, posts and general fascination (my own included)dedicated to Spike and his evolution, the one question I would ask JM given the opportunity would be if he actually "gets" Spike or if he is just acting his ass off because that is what he does.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Risking the fire..............(S6 speculation & spoilers) -- rowan, 05:12:13 06/26/01 Tue

"What about Spike? As a vampire, I'm not sure I agree that he has anything to apologize for. He has no soul and he acted without conscience. He did what vampires do. He may not even have the capability of feeling remorse. How he can atone (and is making every effort to do at this point) is to continue to turn away from evil and do good with a free will and choice. Since Intervention, his actions can be filed under selfless good."

First, let me tell just say that I agree with what you've said. Also, I'm not sure that for me personally remorse is an issue. I like atonement, though. It's like applying rules of being to things that aren't human and faulting them for not conforming. I think alot of Spike's comments in other areas (like native Americans, etc.) go to show that he doesn't see much point in regreting what you did with your full mind when you did it (a badly constructed sentence, but you know what I mean). Nor am I looking for them to create a second Angel.

However, what I (and the audience) can accept may be different than what Buffy can accept. I don't think until she met Angelus that she really understood viscerally how much blood was on Angel's hands. Now, she still loves Angel, but somehow in her mind (although she must know it's false) she is trying to protect herself by using the "he's got a soul, so different guy" excuse.

I'm not sure mentally if Buffy can allow herself to express love to someone who is only in atone mode but not remorse mode. Notice I didn't say feel love (because my theory is, she's already there but in denial, of course -- why else trust Dawn to him? She's saying something with that which she can't admit out loud).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Risking the fire..............(S6 speculation & spoilers) -- Nina, 10:32:43 06/26/01 Tue

First I must stop to say: "Hamletlike paralysis" LOL!!!!! I laughed so hard! :)

Now, about Remorse. As I stated above I judge actions, not words. So personaly I would accept Spike even if he didn't feel remorse, as long as he doesn't act the same way now. The problem I see with this is that Joss and Co won't see it that way. They may have a problem putting their heroin with a murderer who doesn't feel remorse. Yet, Xander is with Anya and it isn't a problem.

A sentence Giles told Angel in "Invisible girl" hauts me too: "A vampire in love with a Slayer. It's rather poetic". That was said in season one, when all was black and white.

Even though I am a sucker for uncommon love stories, I don't put all my hopes on this one. As long as they don't pull a Mulder/Scully story I'll try to be happy with what I see!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> IMHO, he gets it -- Wisewoman, 18:20:54 06/26/01 Tue

"Having read the number of comments, posts and general fascination (my own included)dedicated to Spike and his evolution, the one question I would ask JM given the opportunity would be if he actually "gets" Spike or if he is just acting his ass off because that is what he does."

I hesitate to speak for someone I've never even met, but I acted and directed actors on stage for 25 years, and I don't think you can do what we've seen JM do with his character unless you "get it." And he's acting his ass off, as well. The way I look at it is, if I were casting Spike and JM came to audition and he *was* Spike, then he wouldn't be an actor I could work with...he'd be totally out of control and not have the patience to listen to direction, learn lines, etc. Spike, as a *person* is basically undirectable, but JM, because he is *not* Spike, is eminently directable. I think the depth of the character is a tribute to his intellect as well. There are fine nuances of characterization that it is sometimes just impossible to explain to an actor (as a director) and you finally have to give up in frustration. Just telling someone to "do it like this" is a recipe for disaster. You have to feel that they're on the same wavelength and understand completely what you're asking of them, or the whole thing is a sham.

JM has often said that none of the cast ad lib, because the writing is superb and does not need their help. Fine, what that means is that he and all the others on BtVS are able to take someone else's words and make them truly their own. That is truly the test of one's talent on stage or screen.

BTW, there may be a little bit of Spike in JM (I certainly hope so!) but he is also an incredibly disciplined actor and that far outweighs his "bad boy" persona.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: IMHO, he gets it -- Liquidram, 21:44:03 06/26/01 Tue

I think there is a great deal of Spike in him, especially his past.

That question stemmed from my own experience on stage and how I used to prepare for parts (*used to* because I gave it up for "a real job" and now, married, with children.... sob) so I definitely understand what you are saying and agree with you. I miss acting but at least my kids are getting into it and I can run lines with them. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: IMHO, he gets it -- rowan, 05:47:28 06/27/01 Wed

I go with the combination of "he gets it" and "he's acting his a$$ off." My personal opinion is that to produce a truly get performance, there has to be some element of "getting it" on the part of the actor. The director is huge, of course, but no one can script every nuance. If the actor is truly in the character, plus gets great direction, plus has good writing to work with, you get magic.

We've gotten magic three special times in S5 from JM in the three Spikecentric eps: Fool for Love, Crush, and Intervention. The amazing thing is, each ep has been different. JM should be on bended knee thanking Joss for this role and Joss should be on bended knee thanking the PtB for sending him JM. (Okay, that didn't come out quite sounding the way I intended, but you know what I mean). When you add these three eps to The Body and The Gift, you get what has been IMO a truly spectacular acting & writing season when it comes to character development (perceived storyline plotholes aside for the moment!). And you can see that JM is getting huges amounts of notice for his work this season (Emmy buzz, two roles during off season, etc.).

I also think JM is a big, fat...dissembler...sometimes. In the interviews, he often comes off as totally clueless about Spike and often says contradictory things. I mean, how many times can we hear that line about wanting to bag chicks and kill things as his preference for the role? or that the character is played out and he's going to AtS? or that the chip will never come out? or that the chip needs to come out? I'm sure that Joss does keep the actors need to know on certain things to control leaks (and because he's a crafty devil), but come on, they have to know something before they get the pages -- or at least, after they get the pages -- so they know how to play the character and what nuances to introduce -- especially with a show with as much foreshadowing as BtVS. JM strikes me as too intelligent a person to not have some idea that this is the role of lifetime (in terms of giving him some exposure as well as good stuff to show off his range) and where it's going.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: IMHO, he gets it -- verdantheart, 07:38:49 06/27/01 Wed

OK, I know, I'm preaching to the choir ...

It's impossible to believe that someone who is able to create a dramatic role like Spike wants to bag chicks and kill things (as you put it). I'd believe that if he played a villain the way John Travolta does (apologies to his fans). No, I'm sure that he's encouraged to keep the press and fans guessing, and he probably even enjoys doing that.

He must *get* Spike, or we wouldn't be discussing him ad nauseum. He wouldn't be able to give him the shading and depth that Spike has. One mark of a great actor (IMHO) is the ability to bring the insides out so that the audience can see them (this came out yuckier than I intended, but you know what I mean) -- yet to do this in a way that is subtle enough that the character does not lose reality. This cannot be an easy balance to achieve. I'd say that Mr Marsters is probably one of the few actors I'd trust to *get* Hamlet (wish he'd come down to Cedar City and play him ...).

- vh


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: IMHO, he gets it -- rowan, 07:55:07 06/27/01 Wed

Okay, we're down at the bottom of the board where no one looks, so I can indulge my silliness.

"It's impossible to believe that someone who is able to create a dramatic role like Spike wants to bag chicks and kill things (as you put it)."

JM put it more gracefully in the interviews that my rephrasing, but it was definitely a "kiss & kill" type comment. But I agree that he's enjoying the game of keeping people guessing about Spike.

If there were 3 Spikecentric eps this season, I wonder how many we'll get next season? I know it's early for spoiler rumors, but I've noticed the total absence of ones concerning Spike. So either the preliminary ideas (and Joss said that by the end of last season he knew the general path for S6) are being kept totally under wraps, or the writers are debating what to do.

Redemptionistas unite! (oops, sorry, wrong board).

"He wouldn't be able to give him the shading and depth that Spike has. One mark of a great actor (IMHO) is the ability to bring the insides out so that the audience can see them (this came out yuckier than I intended, but you know what I mean)..."

Insides, outsides...I'm not fussy. I'll look at any old part of Spike or JM (philosophically speaking of course) that Joss wants to show me.

Although I will always love Spike, as I have mentioned in another post, I think Dawn may become my obsession next season. There's alot more to her than meets the eye.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> There's a Redemptionistas board??!! Where??? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:35:03 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: There's a Redemptionistas board??!! Where??? ;o) -- rowan, 08:42:34 06/27/01 Wed

Actually, I was thinking of the Bloody Awful Poety Society (BAPS) which is at www.bloodyawfulpoet.com. There's that site plus a Yahoo club which is All Spike, All the Time. 24x7.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, it's for Spikeaholics not so anonymous......:):):):) -- Rufus, 15:39:55 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> ActionSpike Theatre??!! ROFLMAO!!! -- Wisewoman, 21:00:41 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Addition to the Finale Fantasy -- Wisewoman, 08:51:03 06/27/01 Wed

Okay, along with writers/editors we've obviously got actors/directors here.

How 'bout we put on a Buffyverse version of Hamlet for the big Finale Party? (Of course, we'd have to get JM for the title role...)



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dibs on playing Ophelia (I wasn't the lead in my school plays for nothing!) -- rowan, 09:15:59 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dibs on playing Ophelia (I wasn't the lead in my school plays for nothing!) -- Humanitas, 10:14:17 06/27/01 Wed

Ok, but I get to choreograph the fight between JM and maybe Nicholas Brendon as Laertes!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hey, if you need a director... -- Little One, 10:56:11 06/27/01 Wed

Director/producer here if you need one, albeit only community and school theatre. But I was the president of my university theatre society if that counts and I recently married a theatre techie (he could make cool sets and flies for our production!).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hey, if you need a director... -- Cynthia, 11:51:36 06/27/01 Wed

I want work with the costumes. Get to help the designer get "measurements". Help with costume changes. Get to be there every night. He He He.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh Yes! -- Liquidram, 15:26:41 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Oh Yes! -- Brian, 20:04:39 06/27/01 Wed

Sign me up for lighting and set design. Hey, cats, chocolate, Canadians, and Theatre links - Hmmm, I beginning to sense a patttern to this board.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wisewoman Directing -- Brian, 19:59:22 06/27/01 Wed

Very cool, can you elaborate?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wisewoman Directing o/t -- Wisewoman, 20:42:38 06/27/01 Wed

Hi Brian ;o)

Did you want me to elaborate on my impressions of Spike as an actor, JM as an actor, or know more about me as a director?

Reading over my post I realize I may have made my stage career sound far more glamorous than it was! I studied theatre at university ( a loooooooong time ago) and then became involved in local theatre in Vancouver, mainly community theatre, but I did some professional acting gigs, lots of Fringe Festival work, and even some film work when Vancouver became Hollywood North.

I loved acting but I think I found my niche as a director and that's where I spent most of my time and energy over the last 20 or so years (although I did perform the role of Lettice in Lettice and Lovage two or three years ago--I think it was my swansong--the rehearsals just about killed me!)

The production I'm most proud of is "Judgement," by Barry Collins, which is a full-length, one-man show. The subject matter is true, and quite harrowing: a group of Russian soldiers were captured by the Nazis in Poland toward the end of WWII and locked into a small tower. With the Allied Armies advancing, the Nazis abandoned their prisoners without food, water, or any chance of escape. When the Allied troops found them, several weeks later, only two of the original six remained alive, and they had survived by cannibalizing their companions. In reality, both survivors were hopelessly insane, and were quickly executed. The premise of the play is that only one man is insane and the other is forced to defend his actions before a military tribunal before sentencing. The entire 2+ hour monologue is his recounting of the weeks he spent in the tower. It is absolutely the most powerful piece of theatre I have ever seen...um, not my version of it, although that won awards, but the version of it I saw on stage several years ago and could never forget.

Is that what you wanted to know?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Wisewoman Directing o/t -- Brian, 03:44:07 06/28/01 Thu

Absolutely. I'll have to look up that play. I, too, did some acting, but found that I really like directing best. I did high school theatre throughout my career, and we did some wild productions. My favorite was a feminist production of Euripides' Medea set in the TV Studio of WNOW-TV. It was a mixture of stage and video, and it ended with Medea becoming a rock singer


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Medea becoming a rock singer! LOL, love it! -- Wisewoman, 08:23:10 06/28/01 Thu

And as I just made a typo in the subject of my message, I suddenly realize how similar the name Medea and the word media are!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Risking the fire..............(S6 speculation & spoilers) -- Rufus, 23:36:31 06/25/01 Mon

I watched season four and part of three and in four you could see that they were getting more interested in *your guy*. I do think that Spike was starting to get his stuff back by the end of this season. It's going to be a long process or it would look too forced. From OOMM to The Gift they had to first take him to the low to get him to the high of the reinvite. It was believable. In Where the Wild things are Spike goes from missing the death he caused to almost helping the Scoobies before talking himself out of it. Even back then part of him wanted to help the Scoobies even if he couldn't understand why. The loss of his soul was only the loss of his direction to good, it didn't rule out him becoming "lost" and ending up where he started in the first place....."a good man".


[> [> Re: Cheekbones (long response) -- Etoile, 10:44:07 06/23/01 Sat

"You know, I've asked myself this very same question, especially since Mr Marsters physical appearance isn't that far from my "type." I like doing drawings of interesting faces, so I noticed his face right away. Angled, high cheekbones, almost sunken cheeks (can we say Peter Cushing, anyone?), clean jawline, if a little prominant at the corners. Add to it a well-toned but not overly buff physique, on the lean side. His face is beautiful in a way that transcends sexual appeal, like Buster Keaton (whom I don't find sexy, but love to draw). He even looks good in specs."

I couldn´t agree more... I am sort of an artist-wannabe and I have to admit I just *love* drawing him. There´s something about his face and how expressive he is - english isn´t my first language, so I don´t think I can put it into words *grin* - I really don´t know what came first... was I atracted to his personality or just physically at first? I really don´t know if I can aswer that, but I can tell you this: with every episode I end up more and more obsessed with the guy. And if any of you know about a nice image of human William, please post the link here because I´d love to draw him like that!



[> Re: Cheekbones (longish) -- Olympia, 13:07:09 06/30/01 Sat

What do you expect? Spike is evil. Are we forgetting that? He's a vampire with a chip in his head - a chip that prohibits him from harming humans. It's not like he's had this epiphany that killing is bad. IT'S A CHIP SENDING WAVES OF PAIN IF HE TRIES!!! And let us not forget the numerous times he's tried to kill every member of the Scooby Gang. I could hardly blame Buffy if she didn't want to forgive the guy who hatched evil plans to kill her, her mom, her best friends, her boyfriends, and, once or twice, the entire world. Yes, I know. He's helped her. Big woop. He does that a lot, always with an ulterior motive. OK, sometimes not even that ulterior. Go back to Season II, Becomeing 2. He helps Buffy stop Angelus not because he's saving the world, but because he wants to get Dru away from a rival. When he finally arrives in Sunnydale for good and they chip him, it's always for something, and not, as he says, "...out of the evilness of my heart." When he seemingly works with the Scoobies to stop Adam, but is really working to get that chip out of his head. Evil. When he saves Giles, Xander, and Willow from the demons after Buffy has defeated Adam, he does he so so he won't get staked for helping the bad guy. Evil. This thing with Buffy, it's not really any different. Only this time he's helping her so that he can get into her pants. Evil. I don't think that Buffy sees him any other way. I think that she knows that he's neutralized in more ways than one and she uses that to protect her sister. Buffy knows that, because of his affection for her, he will not let anything happen to Dawn. If he does, he looses Buffy forever. Plus I think that he likes Dawn. Buffy's not above "hurting" Giles if he tries to harm her "sister". What makes you think that "... there is something she just isn't saying" when she entrusts Dawn to Spike? What makes you think she isn't above using him to save her sister?


[> [> I take it that you vote he is evil only??....:):):) -- Rufus, 18:16:47 06/30/01 Sat

I agree that Spike hasn't had an Epiphany about killing, but something is going on that has at least me facinated. If you believe in Spike as evil absolute he could never have done anything to help the Scoobies, it just wouldn't be in his nature. In Becoming 2 the major reason was to get Dru back, but Spike also expressed the fact that he like the world, happy meals on legs were part of it, but he mentioned things that were based upon nostalgia(soccer, Trafalger Square). If he had no humanity and was evil only he would have danced at the opening of Chaos that was Acathala, but he didn't. He ended up losing Dru as well, he took a risk that lost him the girl and part of the reason was his obsession with the slayer. In Primevil, Spike did help in the end to save his hide, but he could also have gotten out of Sunnydale without any punishment leaving the Scoobies to battle alone. He chose to stay. Love is Spikes motivater at this time. We had many arguements on other boards about vampires ability to love, with what I saw I believed they could which was confirmed in Crush. As for protecting Dawn for Buffy, that takes a level of trust that goes beyond just using the guy. Buffy had to beieve that the thing most precious to her Dawn, would be protected, safe with Spike. I will debate if Spike was ever a threat to Joyce past the ep School Hard, he never did anything past make motions when Angel could see them in Lovers Walk, he had the time to make short work of Joyce and never took it. He has tried to kill Buffy, he didn't much bother with the rest of the gang. Willow was in the right place at the wrong time when Spike found out he was neutered. Mr. Whedon has done something great in making us question the nature of evil and our preconceptions about demons. Season one made it all black and white, all demons were evil. As the seasons progressed we have seen that it isn't going to be that easy. I think of the vampire target practice in Giles dream in Restless, it is a puppet like figure that just says "I am a Vampire", you shoot the target and you get a treat(just not from Giles). That is what I thought of vampires for a long time, targets without any value. I found that boring. Killing should never take on that video game quality, it loses meaning. The introduction of Angel was easily explained, he had a soul, he was good, well, until the second season of Angel when we saw the man was just as capable of evil as the demon. I think what is happening with Spike is good, the viewers have had a chance to see that vampires are in fact people with demons in them still as unpredictable in undeath as when alive. Before we just thought it was a demon and the person who was had vacated. It just ain't that easy.....the soul is only like an autopilot that directs one to good, our choices determine which side the the good, evil spectrum we will be. With Spike, we have to wonder if having the love but for Buffy is a potential catalyst for change. By The Gift, Spike called himself a monster, he wept for a woman he had tried to kill for years. Something has happened, will it continue, will he revert back with no reason to remain good, or, has Spike done the one thing we thought a vampire incapable of, gone against his autopilot and chosen a higher path, we won't know til the writers are ready to tell us.


[> [> [> I say, heck, let's embrace evil and dive right in with Spike. He's got cute hair. ;) -- rowan, 18:32:19 07/02/01 Mon

Sorry, couldn't resist. I don't have the strength for the fights over redemption anymore...I might need a pint of O neg to perk me up again.


[> [> [> [> Can't forget the compact though muscular body.....:):):) -- Rufus, 19:25:20 07/02/01 Mon

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 'Gift' foreshadowing in S4-- Anyone else catch this one before? -- OnM, 20:19:59 07/01/01 Sun

OK, late Sunday night pre-sleepy-time mini-post here--

Been continuing my review of S4 eps in prep for my Riley essay later this month, now up to *Primeval*. Earlier today, watched *Who Are You*, and was surprised to find this, obviously there before but of course I didn't attach any relevance to it at the time of the original broadcast:

The scene is the one after Faith has taken over Buffy's body, and had found her passport. She makes a phone call to arrange a flight out of Sunnydale, and is obviously reading info off a credit card.

She reads the last four digits of the card, then says, "Expiration, five-oh-one", meaning of course the expiration date of the card. 05/01 is of course the month and year of Buffy's death.

Interestingly, in the shooting script (from Rayne's site) the scripted dialogue reads 'five-oh-two', so it was changed before the broadcast.

G'nite, all!


[> Wow. -- rowan, 20:36:36 07/01/01 Sun


[> [> Another 'Wow'... -- Marie, 01:23:45 07/02/01 Mon

And now I'm going to be watching for hidden meanings behind everything I hear!

("He's ordering pizza? What does that mean?!)


[> [> [> Re: I had to add a "WOW" here too...That is so cool! -- Rob, 08:33:49 07/02/01 Mon


[> Foreshadowing Since the Begining (A BIG STRETCH) -- heywhynot, 17:40:07 07/02/01 Mon

We all should of known that Buffy was going to die by leaping into energy. Buffy has two sources of meaning, one a little bunny (or rabbit) and the other from Elizabeth (or one consecrated by God, Chosen One anyone?). Well how is this foreshadowing? Of course we know she is the Chosen One. Well it all comes down to the rabbits part. In Buddhist & Hindu faiths, rabbits are revered & associated with the moon. There are two tales that explain this. One is about a rabbit who offers himself to a friend fo Buddha's who is very hungry. Buddha rewards the rabbit by placing him in the moon. The other tale that is much more linked to Buffy's death. It involves, Indra (king of the Vedic Gods in the early hindu faiths, was revised down lower to God of War & of the sky/weather). Indra was starving and in pretty bad shape. A rabbit happened upon him, realizing all he had to offer Indra was himself, the rabbit lept into Indra's fire to be cooked. Indra did what Buddha did (actually the other way around, since Indra came before Buddha) and elevated the rabbit into the heavens, associating the rabbit with the moon. So basically, the gift of a rabbit is the gift of death, Buffy's gift. Buffy did what any good little bunny consecrated by God would do, she lept into the portal, killing herself so that Dawn may live. My tongue is firmly planted in its cheek on this one. I can see Joss knowing the tales and using the imagery when the situation arose, but I don't think it was planned out like this from the start.


[> [> Hey, I'll buy that, just so long as it wasn't "Marion, the Vampire Slayer" ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:00:08 07/02/01 Mon

Current board | More June 2001