June 2001 posts

Previous June 2001  

July 2001

Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Solitude1056, 21:13:14 06/20/01 Wed

We've seen a number of different bad guys over the past 6 seasons. First there was the Master - and he's one who didn't need a black hat to let you know right away that he was obviously bad. I mean, fruit punch mouth? And we've had Spike 'n Dru, the Mayor, the Judge, Adam, and Glory. With the exception of Glory, who was quite cute in a cheerleader-gone-serial-killer kind of way, and the Mayor - that paragon of miniature golf and germ warfare - the rest of our bad guys have usually tended towards being just as ugly on the outside as they were on the inside.

But the bad guy that got me the most, and probably always will, was Angel. Not because he could go all grrr, but because originally he was one of the good guys - he was one of us. When he went bad, he took with him all the knowledge of the Scoobies' (and Buffy's) vulnerabilities. The Master, the Mayor, the God: none of them had any true insight into Buffy's strengths, and her crew's strengths, except through vicarious knowledge. The Master had high school classmates who'd gone vamp, the Mayor had Faith, and Glory had Ben. But all of these vicarious sources of insight were in themselves limited to what knowledge the Scoobies doled out to them, or what glimpses they could catch when the Scoobies would stumble and let loose potent information.

The real source of terror, for me, will always be when the murderer is someone we all know and love - and it ain't the butler. It's someone among us... insert drumroll here, if we're unmasking, or that annoying dink-dink-dink music if we're still in dark hallway, working our way down to the cellar to check the circuit breaker, and still ignorant that we're being followed. So yeah, who's going to be our next bad guy? Who could top a God, in terms of really frightening the Scoobies? Who's someone the Scoobies could never fight - not because they can't, but because they wouldn't want to?

No points for guessing, since the message subject gave it away if you've been paying attention. If you've not been paying attention, you won't get a cookie.

So let's see. None of us really seem to see Willow happily going off and dealing in spells with someone who was so clearly a potential bad guy in this past season. On the other hand, a clearly potential bad guy may be next season's opener, the usual Joss smokescreen in his fine tradition of fooling us with one bad guy when the real one is behind the curtain. So let's say Doc's the next season bad guy, and will be such for at least the first few episodes, or perhaps only the first one.

Now, I'm not saying my ideas would carry a whole season - in fact, I doubt they would. And as further disclaimer, I doubt that with Buffy returning in the season opener that we'd see my suggested arc continue for a full season. Unless, that is, the fake-out bad guy continues for a good length of time and manages to be as sneaky as the Mayor, as patient as the Master, and as determined as Glory - and as ruthless as Angelus. To top Glory, we need a bad guy who can hold out, and has a good reason to do so. We've got that reason already, in the form of Dawn, and her uncertain potential as the Key. Doc might be able to do it, and for the sake of argument, let's assume he can. (And btw, unless there's a memo to the underworld that Glory/Ben is dead, who's to say the Knights won't be making odd appearances here and there, when the plot requires it?)

So given that we've generally established that the scariest is one of our own, going bad, it's clear to me that Willow has the most potential. For starters, Buffy made it clear that in Buffy's opinion, Willow was the strongest of the group - in some ways, perhaps stronger than Buffy. (I'm working on a post to explain why this isn't true, in a magickal sense, but that won't be til later this week.) Additionally, Buffy impressed on Willow, and Willow herself learned through action, that Willow's got a lot of ability to command things when Buffy's not around or isn't willing. We're still acting under the impression that Spike is chips ahoy, so Willow may be willing to leave Dawn's protection to Spike, and take upon herself protection of the whole Scooby gang in Buffy's absence. An additional note to this choice may be Giles' withdrawal from the group in the wake of Buffy's death/return, which means one less "top guy" to stand as buffer between Willow and the decision making process. I posit this because the chain of command seems pretty clear. Not the chain of action, which runs roughly as Buffy, Spike, Xander, but the decision making, which usually runs more as Buffy, Giles, Willow. If the first one's been out of the picture by reason of being dead, and the second has spent time in mourning, Willow will probably take on the reins of running the group just as she temporarily did while Buffy was comatose and Giles was injured.

However, we've seen in the past that when Willow's reacting to something, she invariably goes overboard. She didn't just flip out at finding Oz with what's-her-face, she planned to curse them both. She didn't just get angry at Glory and vent - she pulled up the darkest power she could and unleashed it with all she had. And we know, from Evil Willow, that Willow's got a streak of some pretty sadistic abilities buried in there somewhere. So in three months' time, it's a good chance - going on these observations - that our meek little Willow will have taken on the mantle of running the group. So... what's wrong with that, as long as Tara keeps her balanced?

First, Willow doesn't confide in Tara as much as she might, for whatever reasons of her own. Look back to her attempt to help Dawn with resurrection issues, and the fact that her actions were done without forethought, and without consultation with Tara. I also didn't get the impression that Tara had the clearest idea of Willow's intent when Willow transported Glory - if I recall, Tara seemed as shocked as the rest when Glory disappeared and Willow fell over. Tara may have been under the impression that the spell would have different effects, or perhaps Willow downplayed the effort required and the risks involved, and led Tara to believe the consequences would be minimal. I wouldn't be surprised, given Willow's encouragement to Tara before the demon-finding spell: "why not? come on, it'll be fun." Fun? Tara was rightfully dubious, IMO, regardless of her own issues with demons and finding them.

Ok, endless points aside, if Willow has spent the summer working hard to be as strong as possible and garner as much magical power as possible, I wouldn't be surprised. In Buffy's absence, Willow will feel the burden twice as much and is likely to compensate. Given that position if/when Buffy returns, I'd suggest that Willow may feel it necessary to continue her role so as not to put Buffy in a place again where her death is a possibility. If anyone would make the argument of "I need to develop my power so I can make sure you never get hurt again," it'd be Willow. She's got the whole self-castigation action going on sometimes, and may also secretly feel that if she were stronger, she could've just pushed Doc off the ledge and away from Dawn, or perhaps just levitated Dawn off the ledge and away from all danger. She's the most likely of any of the Scoobies to overcompensate after the fact - even more than Angel ever did. At least Angel had some recognition of his limitations, while Willow steadfastly refuses to acknowledge them in the face of what she considers to be pressing reasons or bad situations.

So Buffy may end up fighting a Willow who's consuming herself in getting as much power as possible in order to protect both the Scoobies and a returned Buffy. And Buffy and the Scoobies may end up fighting a Willow who's become addicted to her power, and the self-identity she's built around being the "most powerful" of the Scoobies. If we threaten to take away Willow's magic, or to downplay its importance to the group, then it's a good chance that Willow would see such as a threat to her very self-identity at this point. After all, we've hardly seen her at the computer except once or twice this past season, and she hasn't been figuring out the minor mysteries like she used to - more and more of her time has been spent relying on her ability in magic to be her contribution. At this point, it seems to be her sole contribution, so any intimation that it's a bad thing may be taken as a personal affront. And that would make for a pissed-off, powerful, Willow.

And that's how you get a bad guy.


[> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Masq, 21:31:39 06/20/01 Wed

Cool idea--right up there with Joss's evility--but how could the situation be resolved at the end of the season

1. without being incredibly cheesy ("Oh, I was so wrong Buffy, Tara, Xander... how can you ever forgive me!)

or 2. without killing off Willow,

or 3. without sending Willow to hell skewered on a pointy sword with Chris-Beck-like theme music swelling up in the background?


[> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Solitude1056, 21:57:22 06/20/01 Wed

Two things: first, the season's arc has already been identified as "oh, grow up," and second, Angel's already working on a paradigm of vampirism as addiction. This is another type of addiction, and treatment is similar.

Yeah, the "oh, I love you guys" could be cheesy, I suppose. I'm not sure how it could be resolved... but I suppose I could follow it to its likely conclusion and see where that gets us. Hm, a wake-up call in the form of Willow putting herself in danger wouldn't faze Willow - that's part of her ability to ignore her own limitations if she feels her actions are justified. This goes into a longer arc, I suppose, if I modify the theory a bit.

What I forgot to mention in the previous post was that Willow is also likely to feel especially protective of Tara, due to the possibility that she still feels responsible for having left Tara alone and vulnerable when Glory attacked. The fact that she was the main reason for Tara's mental return from the cabbage patch may not stop Willow from feeling pressure to ensure that the situation is never repeated. That could put additional pressure, and arc the Tara/Willow story gracefully into replaying Tara's upbringing - Willow's overprotectiveness is one more form of control over Tara, similar in intent if not practice to her family's past pressures on her. They sought to protect her from herself, while Willow might seek to protect her from everything else - it amounts to the same insistence on controlling Tara and her actions. And let's face it, another season of Tara staying in the background wouldn't please those of us who like her character, and I hope it wouldn't please the writers, either. At some point, that girl's gonna finally put her foot down, and I can see some insinuations that it could happen with Willow, depending on how much Willow insists on holding the power in the relationship.

Combine the self-pressure, the protectiveness, the control, and the growing magical power, and it's possible that next seasons arc will match the Initiative arc in pacing and style. IOW, the threat causes more fear than the actual bad guy, and Tara can effectively somehow knock the wind right out of Willow's sails. So we get the message of 'oh, grow up,' whilst in the undercurrents Joss plants all the intuitions we'll need for the final season.

Ok, so few writers these days take a whole season to move us into place for the final 22 episodes, but then again, Joss isn't most writers these days. He's in the style of the serial radio shows of the 30's, where each half-hour led you on to the next, and while things happened, there was always a slow-moving undercurrent of the main story. Those evolved into our trite soap operas, but Joss has brought back the fine art of entertainment over the long run. And preparing us for the final season is going to be more than just a one or two show run-down, it seems to me, and growing up can't just be one or two characters. Why grow up, anyway, other than it being the next thing to do? Joss doesn't do anything because it's just the next thing to do - he's positioning the characters where he wants them in preparation for the final season.

In part, that's why I posit Willow as being a useful arc, because her move towards a negative position might force Tara into a more active role as reaction. In that sense, I'm thinking backwards. In the final season, we need Xander to be self-confident, and not just a scared guy with a rock. We need Anya to be inventive and sure of herself enough to hold up despite her tendencies to skedaddle in the face of an apocalypse. We need Tara to be as powerful as we've suspected she can be, and we need Willow to stop going off half-cocked at any emotional turn. We need Spike to be the action man we know and love or alternately to get the hell out of the way so our moral ambiguities aren't tested anymore. We need Giles to be over his dark secret of killing Ben and ready to bring back the Ripper, and we need Buffy to be strong and sure of herself. And most importantly, we need Dawn to be sure of herself and her place in the world. Some of them are there already, but Tara and Willow aren't. Putting the two of them through an arc-long test, while Anya and Xander go through marriage as their own season-long test, and Dawn and Spike go through some sort of bonding as theirs, is one way (as I see it) to bring them all into place.

That may not answer your question, and it may only serve to explain further why I think next season may revolve around how we can be our own worst enemies... but I think Tara's going to be next season's key to defeating whatever-it-is. In practical application, I think it's most likely that Willow's overgrown power may inadvertantly trigger something which Buffy then has to fight. If Tara calls Willow on it, there might be an intermediary showdown. Either Willow goes completely bad (which I doubt), or she recognizes through her hardheadedness that Tara's right and she does her usual over-reaction by swearing off magic. Her grow-up point is finding that balance to help Buffy with the final smokescreen bad guy, which I'd think would be one way Joss would keep the real fight in the undercurrents: that of Willow with her own thirst for power, and Tara with her own issues of flight or flight.

Uh, really? I dunno. I was kinda hoping everyone else would have some good ideas. :)


[> [> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Malandanza, 08:05:17 06/21/01 Thu

How about this idea to bring Willow back into the fold:

In battling the Scoobies and Buffy, Willow accidentally kills Tara with one of her spells gone awry?


[> [> [> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- Marie, 08:28:50 06/21/01 Thu

Just my two pennorth, but I've protested before that I don't think someone intrinsically 'good' can be a 'Big Bad', and now I have to reiterate...No!

Willow could've gone somewhere else to College, and chose to stay in Sunnydale to help Buffy fight the good fight. Sure, she's made some emotion-guided wrong decisions (who hasn't?), but her intentions were never to harm her friends, and if that happened she was always very sorry. True, she's come a long way in the magic stakes, but always to fight on the side of the angels!

I might believe that she could be taken over temporarily (for a couple or so episodes) by the dark side of the Black Arts, but I think her good is too well-grounded (and she has such strong support from her friends) that she could suddenly become truly evil. Also, she's just got Tara back, but she's lost Buffy, one of her closest friends, and she knows that Dawn needs her, and needs her protection.

I hope she's not season 6's villain!


[> [> [> [> [> What's a cudgel??! -- Manoon, 08:39:01 06/21/01 Thu

But you understand that it isn't really about how good Willow is. It's about how dark is the magic she is tapping into.

liken it to taking hard drugs, if you will. once the drugs take over, you don't stand a chance

I agree with you Marie tho, that Willow will NOT be the season big bad, I can only see it lasting over a few episodes.

Wouldn't it be interesting if the very act which turns Willow dark, is her bringing Buffy back from the dead...? what do you think?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Bad magic! Bad! -- Little One, 09:14:52 06/21/01 Thu

Interesting scenario, Sol and Manoon, that resurrecting Buffy could lead Willow to becoming a big bad. After all, it was Willow who encouraged and provided the info to Dawn to bring Joyce back despite repeated admonitions from Tara that it was wrong. Tara was seriously concerned that Dawn would attempt to resurrect Joyce and that it would break an oath the Wiccans took to not alter the 'fabric of life'. Yet Willow's protests at the beginning stemmed from the fact that she didn't think it could be done. When Tara revealed through her passionate speech that it was possible, Willow's protests seemed weak, merely echoing Tara. Then, when all was said, she ignored Tara's concerns to provide Dawn with the required info. Willow's love for Joyce and for Dawn outweighed her wisdom that Tara was right. Willow blatantly ignored right and wrong to help Dawn. To me that spells potential to be a big bad. She took one more step along the path towards darkness then and her dependency upon the dark magic is pulling her the rest of the way.

Sol, great post. Definitely fodder for thought.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad magic! Bad! -- Solitude1056, 10:39:44 06/21/01 Thu

Actually, I don't see Willow resurrecting Buffy, nor do I see her actions as being "bad" in a Willow scheme of things. My point was that from Willow's perspective, she's protecting what's left after the wreckage of Buffy's death - Tara and the rest of the Scoobies. Willow's always had that defensive mechanism in her on behalf of her friends, even in minor details like when she lit into Parker for being such scum. When I said Willow might be the Big Bad, I don't mean in the sense of "oh, now we must put a sword through her gut while sending her to whatever demon dimension..." Besides, that's been done already.

What hasn't been done is having a character have to face up to the fact that they'd become their, and the Scoobies', own worst enemy. Willow has that potential, in her thirst for power (which she may feel is justified in the course of protecting what's left of her loved ones and in protecting Buffy from such pain again), in her need for control, and in her desire for knowledge and her self-identity as based solely in the definition of "the most powerful in the group."

A Big Bad doesn't have to be one that gets banished and defeated - it could be that one's own shadow-self is the Big Bad, in which case it's defeated in one sense... but assimilated (and balanced), in another sense. Additionally, as I originally pointed out, I don't think Willow's the only Big Bad potential for the upcoming season. I just think a Scooby dealing with the internal issues, and the destructiveness of control/power issues, are a more complex level that Joss has yet to explore.

The magic Willow uses may or may not be "bad," in & of itself. I tend to think of magic as neutral, unless you're working in a religious framework & believe yourself to be 'borrowing' the power from a deity of some sort. In that case, yes, you might consider yourself as 'owing' the Source, and paybacks can be a bitch. But if magic is neutral then to me it's more analogous to someone who starts abusing prescription medicine. It starts out as something that can fix a problem, but becomes a problem in & of itself. The analogy has more potency if we think of prescription medicines (and they are out there) that have psychological addictive risks, but not physical ones. I can see Willow being able to stop doing magic and not being physically harmed by the lack of practice - but I can't see her not being emotionally or psychically harmed, due to her own perception that she's purposefully removing a means of defense from the Scoobie's repetoire.

There's more than one kind of Big Bad, was all I meant, and in suggesting that was trying to show how we could wrap "oh, grow up" into a package with a particular Scooby resolving some of her growing issues. Magic makes for a nice metaphor for 'addiction to power,' and I think Joss might easily use such... though I'd call myself lucky if I come even remotely close to predicting the arcs he actually intends. So, we'll have to wait and see, I suppose.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Bad magic! Bad! -- Slayrunt, 11:56:31 06/21/01 Thu

Sol. great thoughts, and I agree with you completely. I can see all the little Willow thoughts running through the little(?) Willow brain.

Sorry, just thinking about the part in The Body where W says something to the effect of "Why do all my clothes have little (things?) on them, why can't I dress like an adult?. I can see a change in wardrobe coming as well. Hopefully more leather!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Willow in leather... *drool* -- Solitude1056, 14:58:05 06/21/01 Thu

Oops, excuse me. Just a momentary flashback to Evil Willow. Ahem. Where were we..?


[> [> Re: Can I be a cudgel, or a pointy stick? -- rowan, 20:37:25 06/21/01 Thu

Willow's desire to be a cudgel or a pointy stick instead of a big gun reminds me of Xander's comment that the cavalry is a scared guy with a rock.


[> Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. -- change, 04:51:16 06/21/01 Thu

Great analysis. I agree that next year's big bad is probably going to be Willow. However, you missed Willow's motivation for turning to evil: Spike. Willow and Spike had a thing going before Spike fell for Buffy. Now that Buffy is gone, Willow and Spike can renew their bonds. The season arc could go like this:

1. In the season premere, we find that Willow and Spike shippage has been occurring over the summer. After some soul searching, Willow decides to dump Tara and move into Spike's crypt. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Anya and Dawn come up with a way of bringing Buffy back from the dead. When Willow arrives at the crypt, she walks in to find Buffy and Spike tongue westling.

2. Tara, pissed off after having been dumped, finds the amulet D'Hofferyn gave to Willow and applies for the vengence demon job. She gets the job and starts out by changing Spike's chip so that it goes off whenever he's feeling amorous.

3. Tara turns out to be a decoy big bad when Willow destroys her power center.

4. Willow becomes the big bad as she fights Buffy for Spike's affections.

5. Dru and Harmony get in on the action during sweeps month.

6. The season ends when Dawn runs off with Spike.


[> [> And we could change the name of the show to Vampire Passions! -- Little One, 08:27:11 06/21/01 Thu

Great suggestions! I'd personally love to see an episode like that but, of course, at the end of it, Willow wakes up and it's just a Bobby Ewing in the shower moment.

You made me laugh at my computer again. My bosses are soon going to be suspicious and think that I actually enjoy my job! Nah.... ;D


[> [> Now there is a plan....except for....................... -- Rufus, 14:41:44 06/21/01 Thu

Look at all those hair pullers in a lower post that would be fighting for their little share of the Big Bad, he'd never make it out of town............:):):)


[> [> [> Re: Now there is a plan....except for....................... -- rowan, 16:39:57 06/21/01 Thu

Okay, excuse me, but am I one of these hair pullers that you're referring to? Just so you know, I was quoting Buffy about Dawn with that little line.

But I will defend my rights to Spike against anyone. And I am mean, ruthless, and relentless. Be afraid. Be very afraid.



[> [> [> [> Re: Now there is a plan....except for....................... -- Rufus, 16:52:48 06/21/01 Thu

Of course I know where you got that line from.....hairpulling is a honored way of getting someones attention.........just one of many tactics to use to make sure Spike doesn't get out of town......once you have him you then get to that arguement about plastic or metal.....:):):):)


[> [> [> [> [> :o) -- rowan, 18:48:42 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- AK-UK, 19:05:45 06/21/01 Thu

I swear you can *smell* the hormones on this site.

It's just not fair.......you guys can droll all over Spike, but what do us bad girl lovers get? Huh? Huh?

Anyone wanna help me spring Faith?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> LOL *cough* I mean, "Awwwww." -- Solitude1056, 19:10:29 06/21/01 Thu

Hormones work both ways, but you can have Faith. In case no one's noticed, I'll always be partial to Evil Willow. Yeah, SMG has tried to do a Bad Buffy here 'n there, when Joss gave her the chance... but she's always a Good Girl as far as I'm concerned. AH and ED just got the 'tude; hell, I adored CC's ability to steal scenes with her slicing wit and arching eyebrows back when she was the Bitch of Sunnydale High.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Humm...you get Dru, Darla, Glory, sometimes-Cordy, and even Buffy and Willow at times. -- Wiccagrrl, 19:12:26 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't confuse "Bad" girls with "annoying" girls.... -- AK-UK, 19:42:52 06/21/01 Thu

I mean Dru, Darla and Glory.....oh boy. Just the sound of their voices makes me want to run to the hills.

Buffy, as has been noted by someone else on this thread, just cannot for the life of her do bad. She just can't pull it off, poor thing.

Cordelia.......it's weird, but I just don't see her like that anymore. That episode where she had to wear a bikini in that advert......it just felt wrong. I just wanted her to put some clothes on.

So that just leaves.......

Vamp Willow...................

Mmmmmmmm...........shiny........*cue Homer Simpson style droolling effects*


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> To each their own, I suppose :) -- Wiccagrrl, 19:53:49 06/21/01 Thu

I find Dru absolutely fascinating...I think Buffy, while basically a "good girl" has a dark side, and can be a real bitca at time (and I'm *not* saying that in a bad way, believe me.)

Cordy I'll give ya, she's changed...but there's a real part of me that misses Queen C.

Far as I'm concerned, it's *all* good. (or bad ;))


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: To each their own, I suppose :) -- rowan, 19:55:20 06/21/01 Thu

*sighs* I miss Queen Cordy. She was such a brat. But everyone has to grow up.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Ode to Queen Cordelia -- Newbie, 14:07:32 06/22/01 Fri

Gawd but I miss Cordelia. She was my idol. Strong, saucy, sexy. I miss Oz too. Those were the good ol' days.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- rowan, 19:52:57 06/21/01 Thu

Okay, I'm about to commit heresy (don't tell Masq).

God, I can't stand Faith. What do people see in her? From an artistic standpoint, I can understand what we need a Bad Slayer for, but...please.

Try lusting after Willow. She's got all sorts of deep, dark, bad power that she doesn't even know she has.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- Wiccagrrl, 19:58:24 06/21/01 Thu

um, ok...again, to each their own...but Faith is just...yummy. She's wild, irreverant, smart, and somehow vulnerable and hard-as-nails at the same time. And she comes across, at least to me, as a very lost soul.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- rowan, 20:01:56 06/21/01 Thu

Well, that last AtS ep with Faith did kinda get to me. Before that I just felt she was kind of trashy. Although the whole relationship with the Mayor was very interesting, too.

She just doesn't strike me as a long-term kind of girl for an obsession. Points in her favor, though, for wanting to pop Spike like a champagne cork.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- Solitude1056, 21:22:03 06/21/01 Thu

I believe the word my best friend used for Faith was "skanky." As the dubious creditor of having introduced me to this series, I quote him as a soul with some authority in these matters. Hah.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- AK-UK, 20:29:14 06/21/01 Thu

Rowan, rowan *shakes head sadly*

Just on the physical side, Faith has a figure to kill for. She has curves, which is disturbingly rare for a character in BtVS.

Plus she just OOZES sexual desire. She likes sex. Not boyfriends, not long romantic walks in the park. Sex. Another thing that marks her out.

Add to this her intelligence, sharp wit, cheeky smile, smouldering eyes, that speech she gave to Spike (in Buffy's body) in "Who are You?" and the way she danced in "5 x 5" and you get a million reasons why Buffy should be allowed to rest in peace.

FtVS......mmmmmm :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Forks, right? You guys are talking about which kind of forks you prefer to eat with......right? -- rowan, 20:33:50 06/21/01 Thu

Heresy! Are you saying that Buffy isn't sexy? Ask Parker! Ask Angel! Ask Riley! Ask Xander! Ask Spike!

Faith IMHO pretends to like sex in order to manipulate men when they are at their weakest. Always go with an enthusiastic amateur rather than a jaded professional.

*exits chuckling evilly*


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> rowan is right, Faith does have the attitude of a pro.......:):):):) -- Rufus, 22:32:23 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> and that's the attraction 4 me -- Emcee003, 00:40:08 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Faith - Skanky but sensitive?! -- Brian, 03:44:15 06/22/01 Fri

Ah, Faith, the "do that" girl.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I heard that... and I'll help anyone who wants to break Faith out of jail -- Masq, 08:51:48 06/22/01 Fri

The summer of '01 needs a slayer, after all


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I heard that... and I'll help anyone who wants to break Faith out of jail -- rowan, 11:01:23 06/22/01 Fri

Yes, but she's on the road to redemption. Do we want another grey character? Actually, if we busted her out, would she/should she end up on AtS?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Yup....forks and forks only.............:):):):) -- Rufus, 22:26:27 06/21/01 Thu

I already tried to get someone to help me spring Faith from the pen. And I was told it was wrong.........


[> Sincerely hope not. -- Wiccagrrl, 18:57:37 06/21/01 Thu

I know that it's been speculated that Willow's magick is going to turn her "bad". That she's likely to become the big bad next season. I also know that there have been members of TPTB who have mentioned that something's brewing for Willow, and that there will be consequences/issues that will have to be dealt with in terms of the power she's been dabbling in. I can see things getting out of control, I can see someone (maybe even Tara, although you know how much I love her) getting hurt and Willow having to live with that. But what I don't want to see is them having Willow turn "evil", especially if it's based on her magick. And some of you may feel that my reasoning is fairly PC, but here goes:

Bad things happen to good people. That's nothing new. I don't expect Willow or Tara to be exempt from that. I also don't expect them to be portrayed as perfect. But, the fact is, Joss has been playing the "magick as a metaphor for the W/T relationship and lesbianism in general" thing since Tara was introduced. And I am very uncomfortable with the idea of having Willow turn bad/be destroyed because she was "dabbling in things she shouldn't have been". Plus- Lesbian comes out and then turns evil? Cliche much?

I do hope there are consequences to Willow's actions- I hope she has to struggle to deal with all the changes that happen in her life. I even hope that there will be W/T angst at times and that we'll continue to see that Willow is, at times, far from perfect. But, I will be sad if they turn her "evil" or kill her off. I'll be very disturbed at the message that sends. (Especially since they already killed off the only other openly gay character they'd ever introduced on Buffy- Larry)


[> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- Manoon, 01:27:02 06/22/01 Fri

there are so many levels which can be read into Buffy, you know..

I have never, ever related the use of magic as a metaphor to willow and tara's lesbianism or relationship in general. And I dont really think the point you made about willow coming out and then turning evil follows much.. it's more a combination of willow's complex personality dynamics and the use of bad magic (someone said that magic is neutral, don't think I really agree with that, why is there a dark magic book then, for example?) which will have the negative consequences we are going to see, not the fact that Willow is gay. Tara is also in the lesbian relationship, and she is going to be the opposing force of light against the dark battle Willow is going to fight.

Willow isn't dabbling with Tara relationship-wise, she's happy and content. She's proven that in the latter episodes of series 5. But she does have personality issues which she will have to face in the next series. It's more about how (access to) too much power corrupts, with Willow. Not really about who she coses to love.


[> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- AK-UK, 05:48:34 06/22/01 Fri

"I have never, ever related the use of magic as a metaphor to wiilow' and tara's lesbianism or relationship in general"

Really? I think the interlinking hands, the orgasmic flower opening spells, the dirty secret that Tara tried to hide.....all have been used as metaphors for the sexual aspect of the w/t relationship, sometimes cleverly, sometimes cowardly (but I think that is a discussion that should be had in the Official Willow Thread above).


[> [> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- Manoon, 08:59:45 06/22/01 Fri

Magic has always been a separate entity to me. Something I wish had been used more throughout the show, so imagine how happy I am to see Willow develop so, and her girlfriend be Wiccan. The magic and the lesbianism, Willow and Tara, they're all interrelated, but they are separate too. There was Magic before willow. there was willow before tara, there are many other magical characters in the buffyverse other than these two. magic does not equal lesbianism, nor vice versa.

I think what you mean is that magic may have been used to hint at the fact that these two girls were going to end up together (re the examples you gave). That's cool. I couldn't even remember them admittedly.

but that's not really the same as 'metaphor' for me, so I guess we're just miscommunicating.

The main point I wanted to make was that I don't believe Willow being consumed by (dark) magic is to be read as representative of social prejudices against gay people.

Enjoying the debate though, AK! have a good weekend all


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Sincerely hope not. -- rowan, 11:05:02 06/22/01 Fri

Although it interesting that I thought the ep Family showed her family's desire to demonize her as a metaphor for social prejudices against lesbians. BtVS came out strongly against that attempt, of course (even Spike).

Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- dream of the consortium, 10:34:57 06/21/01 Thu

Please forgive a de-lurker an obscenely long post - when you've been reading and keeping quiet as long as I have, lots of things build up.

I've been thinking about Kohlberg's stages of moral development in regards to Spike and the Buffyverse in general.

"(In the) first level of moral thinking.... people behave according to socially acceptable norms because they are told to do so by some authority figure (e.g., parent or teacher). This obedience is compelled by the threat or application of punishment. The second stage of this level is characterized by a view that right behavior means acting in one's own best interests. ...The first stage of this level (stage 3) is characterized by an attitude which seeks to do what will gain the approval of others. The second stage is one oriented to abiding by the law and responding to the obligations of duty. The third level of moral thinking is one that Kohlberg felt is not reached by the majority of adults. Its first stage (stage 5) is an understanding of social mutuality and a genuine interest in the welfare of others. The last stage (stage 6) is based on respect for universal principle and the demands of individual conscience."

Spike's development is roughly following these stages. Which is to say, at first the only reason he would thwart his own desires was out of fear of reprisals (getting staked). Stage one. When he goes against the "conventions" of the vampire world in forming an alliance with Buffy, he does so because he enjoys the world the way it is ("Happy Meals with legs"). It's the right thing to do, because it will accomplish what he wants. Stage two. Even this level of development seems to go beyond the development of most of the vampires we see. The majority are childlike in their morality - they do what they want, within the limits set for them by a authority figure, under threat of death and torture. Only the more "advanced" vampires (the Master, e.g.) have developed a sense that their own desires create a world of good and bad, right and wrong. The minions themselves can't even comprehend that level - they are stuck at an primitive level of pain avoidance/pleasure pursuance.

And though it is in part the primitive tool of pain avoidance (chip) that allows Spike to break though to the next level, there are certainly indications that his connections to the world are more intense than those of other vampires - his connections to Dru, his fondness for the pleasures of life (smoking, drink, Sid Vicious), even the way he has maintained his connections to the human world of popular culture, rather than becoming completely absorbed into timelessness of the vampire world. His connections to the "human" world make believable his desire to be accepted and approved of by members of it - or rather, one member of it, Buffy. The chip has forced him into a even deeper involvement with this world, by disconnecting him with the communal goals of the vampire world. But it's attachment to the world, and specifically, the intense, focussed attachment that is love, that draws him into the third level of moral thinking. You see traces of the third level type of moral thinking when he tries to be a proper demon to regain Dru. Now that he is forced to be part of the human world, he seeks approval from Buffy, enough to change himself for her approval. Stage three. ("What does it take?") At the end of the season, Spike exhibits stage four thinking, fulfillment of duty. He respects the laws of Buffy's world .Though in Spiral he would like to run away with just Buffy and Dawn, one doesn't get the impression he resents the presence of the other Scoobies. He has accepted that the first Scoobie law is "never leave anyone behind." And, of course, he risks his life to fulfill his promise to a lady.

Which leaves two seasons for Spike to develop to levels five and six.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on this - perhaps how this type of structuring might apply to other characters? I am particularly interested in how one would consider the evil characters in these terms - Glory is clearly at stage two, but what about Angelus? Is his obsessive desire to torture rather than simply kill a perverted version of seeking the approval of one person? Are vampires who desire the return of a demon-controlled world merely more intelligent and can see the greater personal benefits enough to delay gratification, or is there some sense in which they feel connected to the entirety of the demon world - after all, the older vampires do seem to be the ones with the biggest plans? In other words (I'm having troubles expressing myself here), do vampires develop along the same sort of stages, but to an opposite end, or are they trapped at a low level of moral development (the vampire as eternal adolescent?)

Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here.


[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Solitude1056, 10:53:09 06/21/01 Thu

Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here.

No babbling found in your post, but don't worry, I haven't posted yet. I'll do enough for you, me, and several other folks. Oh, wait, no, I ramble. Well, babbling's close enough for government work. I'll respond to your post as soon as I can remember what all the big words mean, cause my dog ate my dictionary. (No, actually, that's a compliment from me. I appreciate and applaud large vocabularies, even if my spelling sucks on anything with more than 4 syllables.) I'm just curious why you think you've any reason to be scared, when you just pulled a post out of your hat that has me scratching my head and wondering how this would align with Maslow's triangle thingie of self-actualization.

I wasn't a psychology major, so go easy on me. :)


[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Masquerade, 11:21:28 06/21/01 Thu

There have been many critiques of Kohlberg's stages of moral development, especially the assumption that doing things to please others is ipso facto "immature". Our desire to cooperate and compromise with others is part of our social nature and is not always an attempt to "get others to like me" at any cost or a sign that the person can't reason morally in other ways.

Also, Kohlberg's "higher" stages involve an ability to reason about morality in highly abstract, unemotional ways, relying on abstract ethical principles rather than taking into account the situation one is in or the other people involved and what they might want or need. Which can be a sign of maturity and rationality, or simply being morally inflexible and/or out of touch with one's feelings and the feelings of others.

Bottom line, it's a theory pitted with Western cultural assumptions about how one ought motivate their moral behavior. Keeping this critique in mind, by all means, let's discuss the moral development of the various characters.


[> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- dream of the consortium, 12:14:23 06/21/01 Thu

Yikes! Like I said, scary to post here. I would actually agree that ANY attempt to set up clear-cut stage for development of anything as complex as morality suffers from the limitations of Western linear thinking. I am also no expert on this particular theory - just interested in ideas about moral development. That said, I think there is some value to Kohlberg's structure (as much as I know about it. I have to admit that -stammer, blush- I had to look up the stages again, not trusting my memory from so many years back.) For example, I like that the development is a constant expansion outward. From your self as little more than an animal, to the understanding of a "self", to the understanding that those you love matter, too, and then even ideas matter, and people you don't know and love. I think the point is not that doing things to please others represents a low level of moral development - of course doing things to please others need not be based on anything other than the purest motivations of love and kindness - it's that determining the morality of a particular decision based on whether someone else would approve represents a low level of moral development. This is not unheard of - who hasn't known someone whose ideas of right and wrong are "imported", so to speak, from someone else. You could definitely see that type of morality in Spike's helping the victims at the Bronze. That doesn't mean that Buffy's helping the victims comes from the same moral thinking - the action is the same, the reasoning is different. As for the idea that the higher levels represent an "unemotional" response, I think morality at its highest level can show itself by the ability to feel strongly for abstract things, for ideals, for humanity, rather than only feeling the self or loved ones. Now where I have troube with the theory is in its highest levels, becasue you are absolutely right that a focus on ideals can lead to the greatest acts of morality, or to the worst acts of hard-headed fanaticism. That leads me back to the vampire question - is the deepest evil a "perverted" form of the greatest good, similar reasoning to opposite ends, or is it simply less advanced morally?

Okay, that was enough for me for now - time to hide some more.


[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Brian, 12:36:23 06/21/01 Thu

Now that you've revealed yourself, no more hiding! I found your presentation very interesting. What I like about this board is that different theories are most welcome. They stimulate "the little grey cells." What is delightful is that Buffy and Angel can be philosophically looked at in some many different ways. Lots of fun. Of course, if you like cats, chocolate, and have some Canada in your history, all the better. Welcome!


[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Humanitas, 13:52:22 06/21/01 Thu

So, if I understand you correctly, what you're really asking is "What is the nature of Evil, in terms of moral development?" Wow. That's a biggie. Here's my attempt to tease it apart.

For most vamps, Evil is simply an exageration of doing what is in one's own best interest. They feed and kill because it keeps them alive, and because it's fun. The demon soul supresses the normal human feelings of revulsion towards killing, leaving the vampire free to do whatever he wants.

Ok, that covers your average, run-of-the-mill vampires. What about the "special" vamps we've seen? Angelus certainly operated on the pleasure principle. He enjoyed the torture and artisticly-arranged deaths. They gave him a rush. Knowing that he genuinely loved Buffy caused him so much pain, that he decided to put an end to the world to escape it. Not much moral development there in either direction, he was simply more creative than most vampires.

The Master is more interesting. He had distinct notions of family and community. His impulse was to build a group of vampires, working together for a common goal. Of course, for most of the time we saw him, that goal was to break him out of the Hellmouth, so it might be said that he was merely using those principles to further his own self-interest. I would argue, however, that he genuinely believed in those principles, based on the flashback material we saw on AtS. There, long before coming to Sunnydale, he talked about honoring the past and building a family. So in this case, I think it could be said that there was a certain kind of moral development, albiet one based on vaules antithetical to human survival.

That's my shot at it. Anyone else?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Rufus, 14:55:18 06/21/01 Thu

With Angelus we get a guy that in life was screwed up. He didn't have the ability to love because he had been made to feel worthless by his verbally abusive father. When he died he became a monster acting upon all the repressed resentment and rage against families, a situation that he had felt was confining in life. His need for the artistic kill is very similar to the feelings he had as Liam. Liam wanted to break from his family but felt trapped by first his father then the love of his sister. When Darla came on the scene she offered him an escape, which formerly came in the form of alcohol. He traded on addiction for another. He was still in the same "contest" with his father. He went back and confronted then killed his father thinking he had won the contest but Darla pointed out that dead his father could never abuse him, but could also never approve of him. That lead to her saying...What you once were informs all we become. The same love will infect our hearts even if they no longer beat....simple death won't change that." Everything Angelus did came from Liam's mind....the demon only perverting how Angelus would act out.


[> [> [> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Masq, 16:23:23 06/21/01 Thu

Sorry if I intimidated you. You are very welcome to post any thoughts you have here, understanding that some folks have more knowledge in some areas than others and we like to throw our weight around 'cause being smart is actually acceptable and highly praised in this forum. Ignore us if you choose--it's an ego thing anyway : )

And truthfully, your knowledge of Kohlberg equals that of any psychology major--I know, I was one. It wasn't until grad school and my philosophy of science courses I learned there was any problem with any of the theories I learned as an undergrad. So now I'm showing off what I learnt there. Uh, not spelling obviously.

Your articulate response to my critique-y post was well thought out, and it's helpful to have clear-thinking posters to hash and rehash Buffy with. You know, when we're not drooling over characters wearing leather or chatting about the pros and cons of cat ownership.


[> [> [> [> Morality & Community -- Solitude1056, 09:29:40 06/22/01 Fri

I'm home today, under the pretense of major housecleaning. Yeah, right. I'm suckered into posting, and it's all y'll's fault. Now that I've got that out of the way... *grin*

It seems that the moral development you're positing, dotc, moves from personal to community to universal. By that I mean that one's original moral compass is "what pleases me," then it's "what pleases authority" (authority being equivalent to community, I suppose), and lastly it's "what's good for All" which seems to look past the confines of the local community/authority to the bigger scope. Curiously, we had a series of thread a bit ago that eventually prompted one member to suggest that Spike's tribal membership cannot be underestimated. In that sense, wouldn't he already be at the middle part (what pleases authority)?

At the same time, I think back to my own perception of vampires, that they're trapped with whatever issues they had upon death. For William, it was acceptance by his community - specifically acceptance of his own view of himself (as poet, fighter, lover) and not a derogatory view (as fool, coward, wimp). Respect is a crucial part, and sometimes fear will suffice if respect isn't forthcoming. In that sense - and diverging a bit - I'd say that the pain of "growing up" sometimes involves losing the fearless (and feared) Big Bad self-image. The pain and difficulty of this part of growing up only becomes apparent when one discovers that respect is a far more valued, and lasting, community basis for acceptance.

I've also frequently suggested that vampires, without a soul, and led by the demon influence, are going to be trapped in some sort of adolescent stage. (I wonder if we need to start speaking of the demon itself, and whether it's like the Slayers as they relate to the Key. The original Demon is distinct, yet each separate vamp carries an echo or an imprint of the First Demon.) In that case, the Slayers have had difficulty moving past their primary state (as influenced by the Source), and similarly the vampires have difficulty doing so because the demon influence itself was adolescent. Each Slayer responds to the Source's influence differently according to her previous knowledge/experience, and thus shapes her own destiny by virtue of the mix. Thus also do vampires reflect their previous knowledge/experience, now colored by housing the demon instead of a soul. That's all a long way to say that a more mature person would be marginally farther along than a less mature person, upon becoming a vampire. And that's all a longer way to say that I'm not sure we can talk in generalizations when we're discussing the complexities of vampires, just as we couldn't about real people.

At the same time, there's also a question of whether the influencing Source impacts the creature it infects - be it Vampire or Slayer. Does the demon, given long enough on this plane, move to a higher level of its own morality, just as the Slayers appear to? I recall Faith seeing that vampires were holding hostages in a church - at the very moment she was about to flee to mexico - and despite her intentions otherwise, she was drawn back to Sunnydale to deal with the situation. An unexpected move on her part, from my perspective, since up til then I'd figured she was solely in it for herself - but it appears that walking away from her Duty wasn't in her makeup. That may be the influence of her Source working upon her, despite her preferences otherwise. Her slayer Source exerts its own strictures of morality, just as the demon Source exerts its own - in which case, we need to set aside the questions of "greater good" and "greater evil" and wonder just what the original Demon was intending to achieve when it infected the first human?

Once we can figure that out, then we might have a better idea of the moral compass of vampires, separate from humans. And having somewhat figured that out (since I doubt we'll ever pin it down precisely!), then we'd better be able to determine where the demon Source sits on a scale of morality. Just curious what you think, since I'm starting to wonder if vampires aren't even more moral than humans, if compared to their own scale of morality, and including their tribal aspects. (Speaking of which, have we ever seen vampires fight each other except in cases of Angel and Spike? I seem to recall mention of Spike being especially outcast for having "killed his own kind.")

Long, rambling, but see what you get when I should be vacuuming? :)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community -- Rufus, 13:02:09 06/22/01 Fri

Spike has killed his own kind when they worked for him. It seems to be accepted to kill in the aquiring or keeping of a power position in a group. It was when Spike started to kill his kind because they replaced his former target kill that the trouble started. So there seems to be some sort of code that allowes vampires to kill each other but what Spike has started to do is a danger to all vampires, I'm surprised they haven't gone after him for it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Like the Master killed his own kind to maintain his power -- Masq, 13:52:04 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community -- rowan, 17:44:13 06/22/01 Fri

I loved reading this whole thread within a thread. I just have some random comments to points raised.

Spike has a chip on his shoulder as well as a chip in his head. The chip on his shoulder is about rejection -- and gets larger when it's sexual/romantic rejection. I like the idea that perhaps this is because this is the moment his human development was "stuck in" so to speak when he was vamped. Spike has suffered several notable sexual/romantic rejections while we've known him. It's interesting to note them and his varying responses.

1. Cecily: This drove him to despair, to undeath, then to rape, pillage, and murder. Ultimately, it lead him to reject everything about himself and reinvent an identity that would refute her point that he was "beneath her" and not "like her." Although his behavior was extreme, he appeared rational and focused throughout.

2. Dru (with Angelus): Spike's response was to subvert Dru's will by striking a bargain with Buffy and kidnapping Dru from Sunnydale. He remained rational and focused throughout.

3. Dru (with Chaos Demon): Spike's response was drunkenness, despair, and then an attempt to subvert Dru's will through magick. He eventually gave up on that and attempted to win Dru back through persuasion.

4. Buffy: Spike's response was anger and then again an attempt to subvert the love object's will by creating an alternate form of her who would submit to him.

I like examining the timeline in Spike's development, too. He was vamped in 1880. He developed the Spike name and accent in 1888. He killed his First Slayer and had sexual relations with Dru in 1900.

The kill of the First Slayer marks Spike's entry into adulthood of the vampire community. After Spike is vamped, he becomes part of Angelus's "family" and starts in with the killing and pillaging.

However, it appears he retains alot of William's diffident manner and personality traits. We know this because we see the changes begin in 1888. He rebels by killing often and recklessly, against Angelus's express wishes. He brings trouble to the family with his reckless ways (they're in hiding underground, I think, during this scene). The women (Darla and Dru) are still clearly Angelus's (he refers to them as such).

Spike has also begun by 1888 to differentiate his personality from William's. He starts using the accent and speech patterns of Spike (noted by Angelus). He starts overtly challenging Angelus (taunting Angelus to stake him). My guess is that Dru and Spike do not have a sexual relationship at this point. She seems to still be Angelus's property. Oedipally, she belongs to the father figure, not the son. I might be wrong, and if anyone who has a better memory of eps than I do has evidence to the contrary, please let me know. I will say that if they did have sexual relations prior to this incident, it was not as significant as this moment. This is the moment that Spike assumes the power in their relationship (but he's a benevolent dictator, which should reassure Buffy to some extent!).

By 1900, Spike kills his first Slayer. He immediately, fresh from the kill, both feeds Dru and has sex with her, establishing himself as provider. They confront Angelus together, Spike with a new confidence. Angelus seems disturbed and jealous of this development. But it's too late -- Spike is born. It only took 20 years.

I think what I've observed about the presentation of Spike is that we don't get alot of his interior life. We know that he must have quite alot going on in his head: we often see the results of his perception and intelligence in the conversations he has with others. Yet we get very little insight into his "interior monologue." There were three Spike-centric eps last season: Fool for Love, Crush, and Intervention. Yet even with three eps such as these, what Spike thinks about himself remains very much a mystery. The closest we get is FFL. That's why I asked the very simple question, why does Spike love Buffy? I'm puzzled. I can't see into his head (his mind truly doesn't cast a shadow).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community -- Rufus, 22:14:14 06/22/01 Fri

The beauty of the infecting demon is that it keeps the host personality suppressed by killing other people. It is just like Dru described the chip, it tells lies, you are better than them, you are stronger therefore have a right to destroy,you don't need them. The reason that you don't see much of the interior of Spikes emotions is that before the chip he was busy being "seen" by vampire society. He was so submersed in killing and living by the moment he didn't grow much as a person. He just changed his gang. But with his obsession with slayers you could see his need for something more. When he made it to Buffy he thought it would be like the last two, kill, take credit, leave. Then he saw her, he didn't know it but he was so screwed. He started doing things that made no sense given his last methods of killing...once he started to talk to her it was clear the kill may not be enough. Then we saw not much of him til season four. It took time for Spike to stop feeling sorry for himself to actually start considering his options as a neutered male vamp. He did some obvious stuff like trying to kill himself. Then in OOMM he did try to get rid of the chip....leading to his dream. Then he was aware of just how screwed he was. He kills to get attention, the one thing that can control him is love. He is helpless against it. But he was a dope when he first tried to act out his love for Buffy. He had to start from early adolecence and work his way up...remember that first halting scene when he stuttered out that he didn't like Buffys hair anyway. In Triangle he was doing things that he thought Buffy would like, but as he didn't do them because it was right, she rejected him. Does Spike love Buffy.....yes. I don't think he even understood how much until he was forced to transform the shrine into the Buffybot....he was able to work out the mechanics of sex with the bot but without a mental connection he lost interest. It was when Glory beat the unlife out of him that he finally did something real, because it was right, he was willing to die because he couldn't stand the prospect of Buffy suffering. That is when Spike got to understand love for the first time. With Dru he had a love that was convenient, but he still preferred Buffy and Dru knew it and kicked him loose. When Spike did something that wasn't for gain, he finally started to get just what love was about, he could understand that the loss of Dawn would devastate Buffy and that became more important than his sexual needs more important than himself. He loves Buffy it's the first unselfish thing he has ever felt. It's no longer about what he wants be it sex or just her company, it's love that he is willing to die for. He is just so screwed. Now without her is he also lost?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community (longish) -- rowan, 09:55:11 06/23/01 Sat

These threads are getting so complex that now I have to print them, read them, and then draft a response...before I used to just wing it right after I read it.

"The beauty of the infecting demon is that it keeps the host personality suppressed by killing other people."

Do you think so? I'm not so sure about the choice of the word "suppressed." I think maybe the demon perverts the personality by exploiting the chinks in the armor or by mocking the things that personality valued.

"The reason that you don't see much of the interior of Spikes emotions is that before the chip he was busy being "seen" by vampire society."

I like this idea...goes along with the vampire mind being impenetrable. Maybe they don't even think the way humans do.

"Then he saw her, he didn't know it but he was so screwed."

LOL. God, I love this line, Rufus. So true. It reminds me of the Monkees lyric, "And then I saw her face. Now I'm a believer." It's hard to believe sometimes that the writers hadn't planned on Spike sticking around from the beginning. They've done a great job of weaving him seamlessly into the story (with the small exception of the whole who's his sire issue). When he first went after Buffy, he was thwarted by Joyce (axe in the head). He immediately realized here was a Slayer of a different color -- she had family & friends -- which culminated in Spike's speech to Buffy about that very subject in FFL.

Then he tries, tries, tries again. And fails. But the problem is, just as you've pointed out, "once he started to talk to her it was clear the kill may not be enough." He started playing with his food too much before eating it, and now the thrill of the chase is so much greater than the thrill of victory. Even when he tries to stay away from Buffy, she starts pursuing him. He can't get away from her. Some say that Buffy always defeats Spike. My personal theory is that either one could have destroyed the other long ago, but they're both too caught up in the game to give it up. It's hard to kill what you know.

Then suddenly - wham! He realizes he's gone from being fascinated with his enemy to being in love with her. "With Dru he had a love that was convenient, but he still preferred Buffy and Dru knew it and kicked him loose." I think Spike's love for Dru was alot of things. First, it was probably his first sexual relationship of any consequence. Second, she was his sire (mother). Third, she required protection, and appealed to that side of his nature. That's all a powerful combination. In Crush, despite his actions, I doubt he could have staked Dru. You can just tell by his speech to her that the ties that bind are still there. But they are just not tight enough to pull him back to her.

The moment when I knew Spike loved Buffy was in Crush when Dru got loose and went for Buffy. Spike's instinctive response was to rush to Buffy to protect/help her. Before that, the I thought the attraction was primarily sexual, with some admiration thrown in for good measure. It reminded me of Spike manuevering his wheel chair between Dru and the Judge. He couldn't actively attack Dru to stop Buffy (not ready to harm Dru yet), but he'd chosen. Dru's comment that he is "so lost" that even she can't help him was that moment when sexual attraction was revealed as love. In other words, Spike was so screwed.

[On a side note, there's a great fanfic to be written, I think, about Dru coming back to punish Spike into line by taking Dawn, and then Spike really have to make a choice that's going to last for eternity. Maybe in my free time...]

A question someone asked somewhere in this post is: should Buffy and the SG feel safe around Spike? My answer is yes. When Spike was moved by Buffy's tears in FFL, and didn't kill her, I saw enough to know that he could be trusted.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Morality & Community (longish) -- Rufus, 12:52:00 06/23/01 Sat

I used the words that didn't make it from the shooting script in "Disharmony"

Doug: "That's just the voice of your inner human, spreading the ghostly remnants of neuroses from your past life...Ignore it. Suppress it. Instead......"

I do think that the little voice that does tell the vampire what they are doing is wrong is part of the personality that remains with memories ect. The loss of the soul may disable the moral compass, but there is a life full of memories that at some point has to be made to forget...see Harmonies pick of songs "Memories" in Disharmony. To be able to do evil you have to know the difference. To lose your moral compass you have to understand that what you are doing is wrong in the society you came from. When the vampire starts out they can be just as insecure as in life. What then happens is what happens with anyone that starts killing, you have to consider the person you kill as less than you. You have to consider them food or evil or worthless. Most human killers that are prolific generally start on something like animals then work their way up to a person. Spike saw people as "happy meals on legs" also a means to an end, they gave him his reputation as a vampire. Spike worked his way up to Slayers by first killing people that were less able to fight back. There is a problem the chip has taken the activity away from him that he based his identity as a vampire on. Now Spike has been interacting with the "food". It's harder to kill what you know for most people. Spike has been a kill them quick and get outta there kinda guy. His attachement to Buffy has made it that much harder for him. The reverse is happening to him. All the things that helped him be the best vampire are now gone. He has had to interact with people he would have killed. Buffy is a slayer that had a family and friends, that got his attention as well, he never tried to kill Joyce, he played at being menacing when only Angel could see but he never went after the woman who hit him on the head with an axe. The act of killing to eat helps the vampire suppress the feeling that what they are doing is wrong. Once you can depersonalize someone you can find it easier to kill them. Slayers kill vampires because they consider them soulless monsters that are only a shell of the person that once was. Vampires kill humans because they consider them food. They brag about the hunt. Both Buffy and Spike had those things taken away. Spike has started to speak to people in a way that shows he actually cares. Buffy has found out that the vampire is uncomfortably close to the person they once were. To efficiently kill in the numbers that the vampires and slayers kill you have to suppress all thoughts that these are beings equal to you.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Rowan, usually I love your posts, but... -- Marie, 06:36:45 06/25/01 Mon

...this time I have some queries:

"Cecily: This drove him to despair, to undeath, then to rape, pillage, and murder."

In which episode(s) do you actually see a vamp rape? I am an ex-victim (I'm not angling for sympathy here [and, by the way, I wish there was another word for 'victim', because I hate to think of myself as one] - it was a long time ago, and although (IMO) you never get over it, I've moved on), and as such am very aware of anything that suggests rape. I've never seen this in a Buffy or Angel episode (but please correct me if I'm wrong). As I'm typing this, I'm wondering what it says about me that I'm more comfortable with the thought of Spike eating someone than raping them! As a Gerard Depardieu fan, I was shocked to read on a thread here that he has taken part in gang rapes - I'll never again see him without remembering that. I guess what I'm really saying is that I can't stand to think of Spike doing to someone what was done to me - I think it'd spoil the whole series for me, although I know it's my past that's colouring these these thoughts - sorry if I've gone on about it, but it hits close to home!

"I like examining the timeline in Spike's development, too. He was vamped in 1880. He developed the Spike name and accent in 1888. He killed his First Slayer and had sexual relations with Dru in 1900."

Do you mean by this that he and Dru weren't lovers until then? I don't agree - Dru travelled with Angelus and Darla, but THEY were the couple, not Angelus and Drusilla, even if they did have occasional sex - it was Angelus who told Drusilla to get herself a companion, and she chose William. And I don't think anyone watching them after he killed the Slayer in China would think that was their first time together!

"The women (Darla and Dru) are still clearly Angelus's (he refers to them as such)."

I think Angelus is proprietorial about Dru, because he sired her, not because of sexual reasons. I always got the impression that when he lost his soul after being with Buffy, he used Dru not so much as a sex-partner but mostly to needle Spike, in that cat-and-mouse way of his.

"By 1900, Spike kills his first Slayer. He immediately, fresh from the kill, both feeds Dru and has sex with her, establishing himself as provider. They confront Angelus together, Spike with a new confidence. Angelus seems disturbed and jealous of this development. But it's too late -- Spike is born. It only took 20 years."

Angelus at this point now has his soul back - as we later see, he is killing and feeding off only murderers and rapists. I think THAT is why he seems disturbed at Spike's killing a Slayer, not because he's jealous.

Of course, this is just my opinion. Hope you don't mind.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Don't think we're disagreeing -- rowan, 09:46:37 06/25/01 Mon


Just a few minutes of free time, but I wanted to reply to your post.

1. "rape, pillage, murder" -- sorry, I was being intellectually lazy and using this as shorthand for vamp mayhem, not to delineate specific crimes. As far as I know, you're absolutely right. Sorry if I upset you.

2. My point about the post-Slayer sex scene between Dru and Spike is that for me it seemed hugely significant. It was a moment when the balance of power really started to shift to Spike (as opposed to Dru or Angelus) in the Spike/Dru relationship. I don't know if it was their first sex or not, but I think it was the most significant sex to date.

Plus it was also disgusting, but that was just a bonus. ;)

3. I agree that part of Angelus's proprietarial attitude comes from the siring, but I also think there's a sexual element as well -- i.e. who is the dominant male. Sex and siring seems all mixed up with these vamps (no incest taboo there, I guess). That's what makes the relationships so complex.

4. I read the Angelus being disturbed again as a balance of power shifting thing -- could be a result of a mix of Angel's soul (kind of "oh God, I've let Dru sire a Slayer killer) and a recognition that Spike is out of his control (which was quite evident from the first!).


[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Liquidram, 14:00:09 06/21/01 Thu

"Sorry for the babbling. Very scary posting here."

Wow. I consider your post anything but babbling. I understand your fear :) It took a long time for me to come out of hiding and enter the fray, but I have never once looked back.

I am not an eloquent writer, nor do I have a substantial knowledge of philosophy at my fingertips, but that is the joy of this board. Everyone's opinions are valued regardless of their personal writing skills and the posts are a joy to read as well as stimulating to the gray matter. Everyday finds me smacking my head and wondering why I couldn't have said "it" as well.

Welcome, and please, stick around around.


[> I take your 'very long' and raise you a 'sickeningly self-absorbed' -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 15:56:08 06/21/01 Thu

I too have recently (kinda) de-lurked (though with considerably less panache than you) and I totally agree that it is scary! It's just fortunate that the hope that it may be possible to join in can eventually overcome the fear of doing something really stupid (like, oh, say, dredging some long-lost post up from the archives and landing it on top of the posting board in everyone's way). Anyway, I digress. Now, if anyone's still reading, I'll start to respond to the groovy post that lured me out of hiding once again...

I would say that most vamps get to stage two on the chart but that the stages are inter-related and overlap, making it pretty tough to be certain. From the moment they crawl out of the earth, most vamps are acting on their own interests and desires (survive / drink blood). Even when they obey authority, they do so in order to further themselves so I take it to be stage two behaviour.

Of course, in some ways stage two is actually stage one, since following ones desires is simply obeying oneself (or one's 'id'). I assume that the difference here is that in stage two the subject is actually chosing to obey themselves (hey, that's not a difference, is it?). Anyway, I'm confusing myself, so...

Doh! In vampires, it is even more complex than this because of the conflict between the demon and the human soul (we have seen from Spike that it never totally disappears). Surely each of these entities bring its own views to the morality of the being as a whole. Since the only demon objectives we know of are feeding and survive, we can assume that only vampires in which the host's personality is very strong (The Master, Angelus (?), Spike, Dru, Darla, VampWillow, VampXander, etc) can progress beyond stage two.

I would say that Angelus is at stage three. It is difficult to see who he's trying to prove something to, but he is certainly doing things to impress others. Perhaps it is some twisted way of trying to make up for his time as a wastrel (in which case he may well be doing it for his father). Here, the human soul is clearly more powerful than the demon in some ways since a desire for the approval of others (isn't that what drives his redemption?) is evident in Angel too.

Another interesting case is the Master, who is arguably at stage four. He seems to feel some sort of unholy duty to try to give vampires power over the humans. Here I would definitely go along with the idea that the scale seems to be inverted for evil. However, from what I have already talked about it is difficult to discuss the master since we have no idea what he was like as a human (if, indeed, he ever was human).

Perhaps it is possible to say that most vamps are morally balanced between the human personality and the demon personality, resulting in a stage two morality. However, when one takes control over the other different levels can be attained. In Angelus, the human personality has a larger influence and maybe in the Master the demon personality is more in control, giving him an in-built desire to bring the Buffyverse closer to the demon reality (as seen in The Wish).

But perhaps not.

Spike is much harder to deal with in these terms as the human personality seems to have almost completely taken over. I agree with your analysis of his progress in the last couple of seasons and I would say that he was never on the same inverted, 'Evil, yea' scale as the Master.

After all that, I'm not even gonna try to talk about the morality of the Scoobies in relation to Kohlberg but not simply because even I am growing bored of this inane drivel. Oh, no.

I think evil often comes from abstract theories like this (see Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment). It is not impossible to judge vamps by these standards (or maybe I've just proved that it is...oh, this is too hard!) but the Scoobies completely defie them, flipping between stages at all times and inventing entirely new categories of their own. The main way in which they avoid evil is by thinking of people as individuals and accepting them on their own terms.

As soon as things become impersonal and too theoretical, real people almost cease to exist. Relying on systems such as this can lead to people actually justifying killing other people as in Utilitariansim (which Joss HATES vehemently in my opinion).

An example: in season three of Buffy, Faith becomes totally detached from reality and starts to live by simple little maxims provided by her own troubled subconscious and later by the Mayor. This allowed her to kill without ever really acknowledging that she had taken a life (is this how vamps do it?). As soon as she consiously realised what she had done (at the end of 'Five by Five') she broke down completely.

Sorry about that rant - it sounded harsher than it was meant to. I just don't see how such a hierarchical structure of morality could be applied to characters as complex as Buffy, Xander, Willow and Giles. However, it is great fun trying to get it to work!

If anyone has got this far, you have more patience than me! However, I would be overjoyed if someone would tear my little arguments to pieces (by that I mean enter into a discussion about them, I think).

Dream of the Consortium: Fascinating idea!!! Sorry for this crappy, rambling mess - I hope it puts the original post in perspective and convinces you that it's way interesting enough to be here and that you should post some more (way, way more than me).


[> [> Re:Welcome! -- Nina, 16:23:24 06/21/01 Thu

Lurker Becoming Restless and Dream of the Consortium you are totally welcomed here! (Is it just me or are handle names becoming longer and longer?? ;)

We need new blood to keep the board alive and I need new threads to read because I am way too lazy these days to write anything myself! So don't be scared. Topics vary. You can talk about cheekbones or philosophy. Your pick! :)

Chocolate for both of you!


[> [> [> Re:Welcome! -- AK-UK, 17:34:06 06/21/01 Thu

I would also like to welcme to new intelligent posters to the board. It's a pleasure to read such well thought out arguments.

Lurker becoming Restless, I usually am more than happy to rip other people's posts to shreds (in a nice way), but it is a little late in my country, and I am awfully tired. Sorry :(

I'll try to do better next time ;)

I would like to leave you with a couple of thoughts to consider.

1) It's easy to say that vampires are only interested in feeding their own desires when it is generally the case that the only time we are permitted to see vampires is when they are attempting to feed their desires (i.e. when they are chasing a human or trying to kill Buffy). If an alien came down to earth and only observed us at meal times (particular meals with meat in them) it might well conclude that we were an awfully selfish, greedy, and morally dubious species.

2) Whilst Joss Whedon may not like utilitarianism, isn't Buffy's sense of morality based on it? She ends the life of one creature (for example, a vampire) to prevent more deaths amongst humans.


[> [> [> [> Utilitarianism and Buffy -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 09:04:17 06/22/01 Fri

Thanks for the reply!

I agree with your first point. It is true that vampires may exhibit behaviour beyond stage two when we are not aware of it (indeed, the few vampires we have come to know quite well have proved that they do). We have no concrete evidence of this for weaker vamps, but Buffy and her friends have not gone out of their way to find any. Perhaps this is one of the things that helps Buffy to be so ruthless with vamps, but I don't want to get bogged down discussing whether vamps are living creatures in their own right or just symbols of negative emotion (though I think they can be either).

I find the second idea you mentioned more interesting. Totally contradicting what I said yesterday (that the Scoobies can't be judged using a hierarchical system of morality), I would say that Buffy began at stage four of the scale, killing vamps because of her duty as a slayer and working solely on utilitarian principles. As the series has progressed, she has tried to go beyond this level of morality as we can see in 'The Gift'.

Though she still uses utilitarianism at times (in the teaser for 'The Gift'), with Dawn she begins to use a higher form of morality. I think that dissatisfaction with utilitarian principles was evident as early as 'Dopplegangland' and (having read the superb post about Willow above) I think that Willow has been avoiding them for a while.

In 'The Gift', Buffy could not let Dawn die. Clearly she is very close to her sister, but I think there was more than just sisterly love coming through here. She is becoming a true hero and is finding it more and more difficult to kill (notice how troubled she is when she begins to think that she is just a killer in late season five).

Having been totally convinced by Dedalus' excellent idea that the Key is the source of the Slayer's power I would go on to say that it is important that the source of Buffy's power is an innocent since that is where her power really comes from. Her power comes from the people she is protecting and her emotional attachment to them. This relies to a large extent on her ability to empathise with and understand them. Now, it is (arguably) easier to empathise with a member of your family than with anyone else, but I hope that Buffy will empathise with more and more people as she goes on.

Surely this is the height of morality: being able to put yourself completely in someone else's shoes and doing what is best for them, regardless of the price for you. Without empathy, the opposite is achieved. If you cannot understand anyone and become completely isolated then killing becomes justifiable because you are not killing people anymore. At the end of season three, Faith was the only person who existed in her twisted little world so she wasn't killing other people.

So, I would say that a morality based on individual empathy is preferable to one based on abstract ideas (such as utilitarianism) and that Buffy is trying to find this. I hope we will see more evidence to support this idea in season six!

Sorry for rambling again - I actually had a much more coherent post written out when my computer shut itself down so this is a little bit more messy than it should have been! However I would still appreciate any thoughts so I can try and respond to them a little more effectively.


[> [> [> [> [> I think Schopenhauer agreed with me on this -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:30:55 06/23/01 Sat

I'm kind of extending on my previous post here.

I just remembered that it was Schopenhauer who said that ethics is based on compassion and not reason and I think that this is very evident in Buffy. Utilitarianism is very heavily based on reason and I think that characters who rely on empathy (like Willow) are presented as being slightly more morally developed.

Was it Schopenhauer who said this? If so, he probably explained it better than me!

I don't know if I'm supposed to do this, but I'm gonna put a similar post in the Willow thread (I think it is relevent).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: I think Schopenhauer agreed with me on this -- rowan, 11:16:10 06/23/01 Sat

I agree, especially since the "hardened" part of Buffy that she struggles with (the Slayerside) is exhibited when she does not feel an empathetic connection to others (when she can't put herself in others shoes and walk a mile so to speak).

When she is doing the "love, give, forgive" stuff, that is the basis for empathy.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> But... -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:34:42 06/23/01 Sat

Yes, but what you say reminds me of the complexity of the problem...

Those with true empathy cannot harm others: in doing so they would only be harming themselves.

Given this, how can Buffy do her job as the slayer if she achieves the level of compassion required to be morally impeccable?

Perhaps she could only do it by differentiating between the demons (as in those that are symbols of problems) and the living creatures she is trying to protect but how is this possible? Is there really a difference?

In Othello (sorry about the apparently random reference - it helps with my argument + it's mentioned in Earshot!), Iago can be seen as a physical manifestation of all the fear and jealousy of all the other characters in the play. On many levels he is not a character at all but negative qualities in the form of a living creature. Othello on the other hand is a person with genuine qualities, but he is de-humanised by prejudice. Buffy is full of Iagos (problems that are so overwhelming that they become more important than living creatures) and Othellos (people who appear to be objects (or vamps etc) because others fail to empathise with them) and the task of the heroine is to distinguish between the two.

This would be really hard, though. Where does Ethan Rayne fit into this? What about Spike? Oh my God, this is way too hard!

Sorry - longer than it was supposed to be again. Hey, thanks for replying - I was starting to have a discussion with myself there!


[> Wow. Great first post. Welcome! -- rowan, 19:38:14 06/21/01 Thu

I have alot of thoughts running around in my head, so I might not sound very coherent (some might say I never do!). I think perhaps the evil/demonic characters can exhibit these various stages, but perverted to match their warped view of life.

Spike's Evolution:

After Spike was turned, we see in FFL that he behaves IMO very adolescently (translated into evil vampire terms, of course) as he goes on a tear of raping, pillaging, slashing, and burning against humans. Dru goes along because she's crazy. Spike looks like the leader. Angelus and Darla seem to show a little more caution (not less evil, but they're more practical about avoiding exposure). Spike rebels against their authority. Spike shows the least amount of human empathy. He does random, reckless evil of large scope with little regard for consequences to humans, himself, or his vampire family. He's on an almost drug-induced high.

But it starts to pale a little. Then Angelus says the magick word: Slayer. Spike then begins the transition from mass slaughter to the pursuit of Slayers. Now he is in young adulthood, perverted style: he is a man on a romantic quest, to pit himself against a worthy foe. He is the Hunter of Vampire Slayers. He is a perverted Knight of the Round Table, hunting what is good and destroying it. He's focused, he's goal-oriented, he begins to exhibit tendencies to plan his evil. He eventually forms a pack of minions to help him. He leads.

He also begins to feel again the stirrings of connections to humans. He connects to each of the two Slayers he kills (their eyes lock), but he denies it and continues with his evil. Eventually he gets to Sunnydale, where he meets the third Slayer and is defeated by her in S2.

By S3, Spike begins to move into more mature adulthood. He starts putting others ahead of himself. He gives up the quest to kill the Slayer in favor of protecting Dru. He forms a bond with the Slayer for mutual benefit. He connects with Buffy ('Oh my God, he's going to kill her') in a very real way, but again, turns his back on it -- but not to continue killing solely, but mainly for love of Dru.

By S4 and S5, Spike is now ripe to begin feeling further connections to humans because the chip is severing his connection to vamps (and plus, Dru has cut the very powerful maternal/sexual bond that held Spike for over a hundred years -- let's not underestimate that as Spike's catalyst, more so than the chip). Joyce, Buffy, Dawn, and yes, the other Scoobies (hey, he has feelings for Willow, too, and has shown sensitivity to Tara's feelings as well) all begin tugging on Spike's heartstrings in different ways and with different intensities. Now we'll see if instead of continuing on the evil side of the evolutionary chain, if he moves up the good side.


I really think some interesting posts could arise out of examining Angelus pre-Buffy vs. Angelus post-Buffy. The glimpses I caught of Angelus in FFL, etc. suggest to me that the post-Buffy Angelus was even more sick and twisted. It was almost as if that love for Buffy was burning a hole into whatever demon soul sits inside Angelus, motivating him to do ever greater evil as a punishment for the love Angel holds for Buffy.


[> [> Re: Wow. Great first post. Welcome! -- Greta, 13:15:17 06/22/01 Fri

*It was almost as if that love for Buffy was burning a hole into whatever demon soul sits inside Angelus, motivating him to do ever greater evil as a punishment for the love Angel holds for Buffy.*

I, too, see a big difference between Angelus 2.0 and what we've seen of pre-curse Angelus. None of the flashbacks suggest a desire for the apocalypse, indeed, the "Darla" scene in the Master's lair suggested a Spike-like desire to be out and about among the Happy Meals with Legs, if only to torment them.

Spike even said once that "the new, improved version's not playing with a full deck," and many fanfics work on the premise that either the curse or loving Buffy drove the demon insane.


[> What, we scary? -- ObjectsinMirror, 20:28:56 06/21/01 Thu

First, very nice post. I join with my fellow Bretheren of Buffydom and Sisteren of Soliloquy in welcoming you to our very amiable midst!

Second, you do not need to be concerned as to your intellectual qualifications, your post speaks well of them. Heck, if I personally had more than a high-school diploma, I would know that 'Sisteren' isn't a real word!

Third, if you yearn to learn, the best way to do it is to hang out with smart, thoughtful, friendly people who share your passion. I know, this works for me!

Fourth, Masq only pretends to be the Second Evil, she's really a pussycat. Or, no, wait-- that's Rufus...

Fifth, I like your NetName, I have a longish one too, but I got too lazy to type it out all the time, so I just (d)evolved it a bit.

Last, I have heard the name 'Kohlberg' in passing, but never knew what he was about. See, I get to finish the day with fresh, salty philosophical goodness, all thanks to you!

Come back soon!



[> [> Hey now. -- Solitude1056, 21:17:39 06/21/01 Thu

Masq may pretend to be the Second Evil, but we all know she's really the First Evil. Take notes, you will be tested on it! :-)


[> [> [> I'm so *not* getting in the middle of this! You kids fight it out amongst yourselves! ;) -- OnM, 21:20:44 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> Meow............purity here....no evil at all............really!!!!!! -- Rufus, 22:12:25 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Oh, yeah, right, Ms.-wanna-turn-me-into-a-cat... !! -- OnM, 07:57:48 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> [> Yes, we are trying to turn you to the kitty litter side.........:):):) -- Rufus, 13:21:04 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> What fight? I'm the First, Sol's the Second. We worked this out by comparing our evils. -- Masq, 21:52:10 06/21/01 Thu


[> [> [> Yah, I'm the Lesser of Two Evils. -- Solitude1056, 22:20:47 06/21/01 Thu

But you'll probably try the one you've not tried before, so it's all the same in the end! (Butchering Mae West's wit, natch.)


[> [> [> [> Boy, you've just been waiting to get that one out, haven't you? -- OnM, 07:45:05 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> Nope. It was an unplanned moment of inspiration. Really. -- Solitude1056, 08:53:54 06/22/01 Fri


[> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Cynthia, 19:10:31 06/22/01 Fri

Ok, my small turn to come out of the shadows again.

Seems to me that one of the events that take place in moral development is a moment when one can see oneself and the behaviors that one has, as others see them. It can be a rather nasty shock, especially if the behaviors are destructive. And it doesn't necessarily mean change. An addict can have a moment of clarity but still not be strong enough to end the addition at that moment. Such a truth could even send one further into the behavior in an attempt in denial.

I believe that Spike had such a moment in The Crush when he looked at Dru in vamp form as she feed off of her victim. He saw that Buffy saw and it wasn't pretty. Granted he then feed himself, whether from blood lust, politeness, scheming to fool Dru in regard to his plan to use her, etc.

The moment may have been buried almost as soon as it appeared but I believe it had an effect on him. I sometimes think that Spike scenario for the Buffybot was as much an subconcious belief that he is too horrible for Buffy to ever accept him, that he himself feels he's not worthy of be saved, that his punishment is to be rejected by the person he valued the most, as it was a need to hold on to the Big Bad image he had created.

When he states that he is a monster in The Gift, I think it was an acknowledge of not only what he is, a vampire, but how he feels about himself. And they say acknowledging one's behavior is the first step in changing it. Of course, geting others to trust those changes is another matter.

Back to the shadows again. Got to start on the huge book list I've made since I've starting attending this great site.


[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- Rufus, 22:24:28 06/22/01 Fri

Spike first said to Angelus that they did the things they did because they were "vampires" "it's what we do". It's amazing what a little cooling off time and fraternizing with the usual vicims will do to ones perception. In Crush Spike did have an odd look on his face like he was reminding himself that this is what he does....destroy. In The Gift I think he understands that he is a monster, he is what has contributed to the worlds suffering. He understands what Buffy must see. Now, will he do anything about it?


[> [> Re: Kohlberg's stages of moral development (very long) -- rowan, 10:08:52 06/23/01 Sat

"Seems to me that one of the events that take place in moral development is a moment when one can see oneself and the behaviors that one has, as others see them."

Very good point. If evil arises from a basic lack of empathy, when a moment of empathy can be struck, behavior can change.

"I believe that Spike had such a moment in The Crush when he looked at Dru in vamp form as she feed off of her victim. He saw that Buffy saw and it wasn't pretty. Granted he then feed himself, whether from blood lust, politeness, scheming to fool Dru in regard to his plan to use her, etc."

I too think this moment was huge. One interpretation I've heard is that Spike was just afraid of activating the chip. But we've seen alot of times when Spike has done something to activate the chip, and we haven't seen that look on his face. I think he was emotionally conflicted. He was recognizing that this feeding was a step back to his vampire life and he wasn't sure that he wanted to take it.

Of course, once he tasted the blood, he was done. Kind of like me and pizza.

"The moment may have been buried almost as soon as it appeared but I believe it had an effect on him. I sometimes think that Spike scenario for the Buffybot was as much an subconcious belief that he is too horrible for Buffy to ever accept him, that he himself feels he's not worthy of be saved, that his punishment is to be rejected by the person he valued the most, as it was a need to hold on to the Big Bad image he had created."

I dreaded that whole BuffyBot for weeks before it aired. I thought there was no way it was not the end of Spike. Then Intervention aired and now it's one of my favorite eps. I thought when Spike first asked Warren to build it that his attitude seemed like Revenge Man. But then (as someone pointed out in the Cheekbones post, I think) she turned out to be so girly. Spike wanted to interact with the "other side" of Buffy -- the non-Slayer side. Of course, ultimately the Bot was unsatisfying because it wasn't real.

Makes you think about his interactions with Dawn, huh? If what Buffy says is true and Dawn is the "real" part of her, the Buffy part (vs. Slayer), then when Spike is interacting with Dawn, he is in a way interacting with the true Buffy. Hmmmm...

But I digress.

"When he states that he is a monster in The Gift, I think it was an acknowledge of not only what he is, a vampire, but how he feels about himself. And they say acknowledging one's behavior is the first step in changing it. Of course, geting others to trust those changes is another matter."

This scene is an interesting contrast to one a few eps earlier (can't recall which ep; possibly Intervention in the scene between Spike & Xander in the crypt before Spike is beset by minions). Spike essentially says, "I'm not a monster" and Xander responds with "Yes, you are. They make monster movies about things like you." Spike sometimes loses the sense that he is a monster. But by The Gift, he acknowledges that to Buffy. Hmmm...personal growth seen here? self-knowledge? The first step of true internal change?
Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Isabel, 21:35:35 06/21/01 Thu

Willow, our Favorite Red-headed, Bisexual Witch

Ah, labels, what a good way to start out. Perhaps I should explain myself. I hesitate to use 'Wiccan' to describe Willow because Wicca is a religion, albeit one I don't know a lot about. For a while I had thought Willow had converted to Wicca, but in Listening to Fear she said:

"Oh, I feel just like Santa Claus. Except thinner, and younger, and female, and well, Jewish."

So I'm still considering her Jewish, since people traditionally only have one religion at a time. I did some surfing on the Web and learned that Wiccans consider themselves witches, not all witches are Wiccan. I am not fond of BtVS' using it interchangeably with 'witch.' Perhaps the show is trying to soften the term so it is easier to think of Willow and Tara as good witches, but any 5 year old who's seen Glinda, the Witch of the North in The Wizard of Oz is familiar with the concept of a good witch.

"Hello, gay now!" to Anya in Triangle.

Bisexual should be obvious, and we did discuss it at some length a few months back. The dictionary definition reads "sexually attracted to both sexes." (Wordsworth Concise English Dictionary, c1994) She had a life-long crush on Xander. She dated and loved Oz. She is dating and loves Tara, very much. That quote is also factual. She's in a lesbian relationship, now. Willow isn't thinking of future lovers, because, for her, each relationship is her last.

"You care about someone, you care about them. You can't change that by..." to Buffy about Angel. (I'm 95% sure the line is from Angel. I can't find a quote list or script that lists it. I copied it down one night while watching 1st season episodes and forgot to note which episode. Duh.)

One of the things I like best about Willow is her loving nature. She doesn't hold back in case she gets hurt or come into the relationship with preconceptions. If she and Tara break up, Joss forbid, there is no set definition of whoever she'll fall for next. I think Willow falls in love with the person she falls for, and doesn't care about whatever else they may be: male/female, werewolf/witch, human/demon. Bearing that in mind, I've noticed that there are similarities between Oz and Tara. Both are quiet, Oz is habitually taciturn and Tara is quiet and insecure around people she doesn't know. Both are talented, Oz is a musician and Tara is a natural witch. And both thought Willow was terrific before they got involved. (Always a good thing.) There's one more thing that Tara and Oz have in common, but I'm mentioning that later.

An aspect of the show I really like is that not one of our heroes is a paragon of virtue. Everyone has their negative human aspects. Giles is pedantic with a hidden violent streak, Xander can be the jealousy-ridden slacker clown, and Buffy tried not to be the slayer, ran away, lied to her friends about Angel, ... you get the picture... Willow, she tends to be the most kind-hearted and forgiving of the Scooby Gang, but not always. She was the first Scooby to accept that Angel might be a good vampire (Angel;) because Buffy asked for it, she got Angel's soul back while she was in a hospital bed (Becoming, Pt.2;) and she was the first to accept Angel back after he returned from Hell despite the fact he had almost killed her as Angelus. (Revelations, and after.) She argued against killing Hus, the Vengeance Spirit because he had a right to be angry about his people's extermination (Pangs.) She kept Spike from staking himself, when Xander wanted to lend a hand, also despite the fact that he had almost killed her, twice (Doomed.)

But she drew the line at Faith. Before I started researching for this essay, I had forgotten that Willow really didn't like Faith at all. In fact, compare Willow's and Xander's attitudes towards Angel and Faith. They're mirror images of each other. Xander was jealous of Angel because he had Buffy, romantically, and he was an almost physical equal to Buffy. Willow was jealous of Faith because she had Xander, sexually, the same number of times Angel had Buffy, and she was a physical equal to Buffy. Plus, Faith took Willow's place as Buffy's girl buddy. In Bad Girls, Buffy was ditching Willow to go slaying with Faith and Willow wasn't allowed to tag along, even though she had gone in the past, because she might get hurt.

I've already mentioned that Willow was the first, after Buffy, to forgive Angel for Angelus. When Faith started unraveling in Consequences, Xander was one of the ones who tried to reach out to her. It didn't work. She almost strangled him. Then, a year later, when she woke up from her Buffy-induced coma, Xander still thought at first she might be able to be rehabilitated. Willow, on the other hand, argued 'No, she's a killer. She should go to jail.' Or Buffy should at least beat her up.

If I counted correctly, Faith had only killed 2 humans at that point, at least on screen. The Deputy Mayor, in Bad Girls, (an accident) and the Geology Professor, in Graduation Day, pt. 1 (definitely NOT an accident.) Plus she had tried to kill Angel, hurt Buffy, and helped the Mayor in his plans to eat the town. Angelus, on the other hand, murdered Jenny, a teacher Willow liked, as well as at least 120 other people in Sunnydale (on and off screen) before Buffy sent him to Hell. (Assuming 1 person/day to feed, if he became evil in Mid-January and was sucked into Acathla at the end of May. Not counting the roughly 53,000 people he ate in the 145 years before he got his soul back the first time.) Perhaps she rationalizes that Angel and Angelus are 2 separate people, one who is a good guy, and one who belongs in Hell. But what's her rationale for Spike? Yes, he's helpless now, or at least until we see if his chip was damaged in that fall, but he's still an unrepentant vampire who joyously killed for 119 years. That's roughly 43,500 people, if you do the math.

I'm not bashing Willow, or Angel and Spike for that matter. All I want to do is point out that our girl has quite a blind spot. At this point, Buffy may even have a higher human body count than Faith does after she took out the dozen or so Knights of Byzantium. Of course Buffy was defending everyone's lives, so it wasn't simply murder.

"I'm not your sidekick!" to Buffy in Fear, Itself.

Willow has changed a lot from the girl we saw drinking water from the fountain in Welcome to the Hellmouth. She was an intelligent, shy, dowdy, naive schoolgirl, in her brown jumper that her mom picked out for her. She only had a few friends and she was ignored and/or picked on by all the cool kids in school. In extraordinary circumstances, she was the last to lose her faith in normality. Even after finding out that it was vampires who had taken their friend Jesse, she wondered why they weren't calling the police. To her credit she adjusted quickly, "Buffy, I'm not anxious to go into a dark place full of monsters, but I do want to help. I need to." (The Harvest)

Willow quickly put her brains and computer ability towards helping her new best friend save the world. From Xander's comment about her hacking into City Hall's files, "Somebody's been naughty." I figured that he hadn't even known about it. From then on, when Buffy needed information, Willow found ways to get it, cracking encrypted files, reading coroner's reports, getting city plans. I always felt that Willow's hacking was a rebellion against her innocent exterior. "I'm very seldom naughty." To Buffy in Restless. Her subconscious must not count being a hacker as 'naughty.'

Then she discovered magic. Finally something she could do to really contribute to Buffy's slaying. She started out slow with a potion in The Witch, but by the middle of the 2nd season she was casting minor spells, like Angelus' disinvites. I think her first major spell was the re-soulification of Angel, but she did get some help from somewhere so it wasn't entirely on her own.

Soon, Giles and everyone started encouraging Willow to slow down a bit and be more careful. Some spells had gone awry so people were starting to be concerned about magic being performed. Willow found ways around this, from finding Giles' hidden spell books in his locked office to just not telling people about all the magic she was performing.

Xander: Is that a spell book? Willow: No, no, no! Chemistry book. X: Wait a minute. This is love spell stuff. You doing a love spell? W: No, of course not! This is a purely scientific... de-lusting spell... for us. I thought it would go better if you didn't know. X: Are you nuts? Or have you forgotten I tend to have bad luck with these sorts of spells? ..... W: This whole "us" thing is... bleach! X: So, do you really need to resort to the black arts to keep our hormones in check? (Lover's Walk)

I had planned on doing a statistical analysis of success and failure of her spells and determine whether she's irresponsible or misunderstood by her friends. Right now I've got the potion in the Witch, Success; the Resoulification of Angel-Success (but she had help); The 'My will be done' spell in Something Blue-Failure, 3x a failure, almost killing Xander & Anya, Blinding Giles, then Spike and Buffy trying to suck out each other's tonsils, plus the De-ratting and Re-ratting of Amy cancel each other out; The 'find the demons in Sunnydale' spell-failure, but Tara sabotaged it; The 'get the petals off the rose' spell, also with Tara-technically a success, but I think I'll count as a failure because they burned off when the rose became a floral ballistic missile; The 'metaphor for sex' spell when Tara had to anchor Willow so she could travel to the astral plane to see who was in Buffy's body- Success; The multiple mentioned attempts to De-rat Amy-Failures; The 'ball of sunshine' spell-failure, so far, and Olaf was 'No ball of sunshine'; Causing pain to Glory-Success; Shielding the group from intruders-Success; Sucking Tara back- Success (But was it complete?); Getting Buffy to 'Snap out of it'-Success; Tossing minions out of Spike's way-Success; The 'Find my way' spell in Fear, Itself-Success, but when it turned on her, failure.

Time is passing, so I can't do a thorough enough job. As it is that's 9 Successes, 8 Failures including 1 sabotage. And that's just off the top of my head. It's definitely not all the magic that Willow's done. Just this sample comes out to roughly a 53% success rate. With the power that Willow is obviously wielding at the present time, is that a good enough percentage to shrug off all criticism? Granted, Willow's had a large number of successes recently, but is that because she's turned to using Dark Magic and/or working with the controlling influence of Tara?

Now Willow has a level of power. In The Gift, Buffy tells Willow she's their big gun because she's the most powerful of them all. This seems to startle her, even though she was the only one who had hurt Glory, at that point. I laughed when she said no, she'd rather be a cudgel or a pointy stick, because a pointy stick in the hands of a Slayer is a powerful weapon.

I've come back to Tara and Oz. The two people who love and know Willow the best, and the last thing I noticed they had in common was they both told Willow that they were worried about her use of magic. In Fear, Itself Willow calls Oz 'Brutus' because he admitted he had concerns about what magic she was doing. Later in the crazy house, when she did her conjuration to find the exit, it turned on her because she did something wrong and/or she lacked the control for the spell.

Willow and Tara's only fight so far has been when Tara told her how frightened she was by Willow's progress in Tough Love.

TARA: --Oh but you're way beyond me there. In just a few -- I mean it frightens me how powerful you're getting.

WILLOW: That's a weird word.

TARA: (knows damn well) "Getting"?

WILLOW: It frightens you? I frighten you?

TARA: That's so not what I mean. I meant impresses, impressive...

WILLOW: Well I took Psyche 101 -- I mean, I took it from an evil government scientist who was skewered by her Frankenstein-like creation right before the final -- but I know what a Freudian slip is. (beat) Don't you trust me?

TARA: With my life!

WILLOW: That's not what I mean. .... TARA: It's not that. I worry. Sometimes... You're changing so much, so fast, I don't know... where you're heading...

WILLOW: Where I'm heading?

TARA: I'm saying everything wrong.

This wasn't the first time that Willow and Tara had ideological differences over magic. When Dawn wanted to do the resurrection spell to get Joyce back, Tara insisted right off that it couldn't be done. Willow argued that it could, but it wasn't a good idea. Then Tara clarified that it was something that Wiccans took vows not to mess with because it was wrong. It was after Tara left the room that Willow slid the book out for Dawn to find the information she had wanted about the resurrection spell. And afterward, Willow did not tell Tara she was the one who led Dawn to the book.

Willow doesn't like limitations on her magic. When Anya was trying to stop her from doing magic in the shop when Giles was out of town, Willow made fun of her and kept on doing it, ignoring the facts that some spells weren't going right and maybe Anya had a point. I don't think she considers herself responsible for the destruction of the Magic Box or the Bronze and all of the people's injuries from Olaf's rampage.

I also found it interesting that after Glory brainsucked Tara, Willow knew exactly where to look to find Giles' hidden dark magic books. I'm pretty sure that they weren't ones that he'd just let her use, so she must have searched and found them on her own previously. An alarming thing I noticed when Willow cast her dark spells, her eyes went completely black, like Doc's did when Dawn went to him for the resurrection spell, and like Catherine Madison's did in The Witch when she cast her curse at Buffy that ended with Catherine trapped in the trophy. I'm pretty sure that's not just an indication of power level because when Willow re-souled Angel, her eyes didn't change at all.

A karmic principle that I found on some Wicca web sites was 'The Rule of Three.' Basically, it means that any magic power you use, the repercussions come back to you three times. If you cast a benevolent spell, you get benevolent repercussions, if you cast a malevolent spell, you get malevolent repercussions. Willow freely used dark magics to hurt Glory and save her friends, so by that philosophy, she's written several blank checks on her powers to the powers of Darkness. Will she have to pay up and how will that effect her?

Ever since Hush, Willow and Tara together have been a powerful magical combination, from moving the soda machine to flinging hoards of minions. Tara was raised in the use of natural magic and she is comfortable in accepting what witches can and can't do with magic. As long as Willow stays working with Tara, she'll have a calming influence and an ethical guide as well as an incredible power boost. Perhaps next year, she'll learn some of the witchcraft rights and wrongs and be one of the ones to 'Grow Up.'


[> It's here, it's here! Hip, hip, hooray! -- rowan, 21:42:30 06/21/01 Thu

This looks great. I'll have to wait for tomorrow to do it justice (it's almost 1:00a here) because I'm too sleepy right now.


[> Just under the wire... -- Isabel, 22:00:55 06/21/01 Thu

Thanks to the marvels of time zones. ;)

It's a little rough in parts, but it says what I wanted it to say. I'm posting from the Eastern Time Zone, so it was 12:35 AM on Friday when I sent it out.

I'm still a little frazzled, partly because I found out 2 days ago that I had an interview for a promotion on Thursday. (yesterday)

But I made it through. I did ok in my interview and Willow is posted. I think I'm going to bed before my head explodes.



[> [> Re: Just under the wire... (o/t) -- rowan, 22:04:05 06/21/01 Thu

Good luck with the promotion opportunity!


[> [> It's great! Hope the postage didn't interfere with your interview... -- Masq, 12:38:26 06/22/01 Fri


[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Slayrunt, 03:50:16 06/22/01 Fri

He he he, it pays to be a night owl.

Isabel, great job. I'm glad you brought up the bisexuality. I wasn't hear a few months ago so as I was thinking about Willow (which I do a lot) I was running "Triangle" through my head and the scene in "The Gift" and it hit me. Darn your sinister collective brainpower.

There are similarities between Oz and Tara. They act as a support system and a grounding force for her. Unless Tara becomes a little more forceful in explaining the dangers of the dark magic, Willow could, and IMO, will be in trouble.

Willow has alway held things inside, I think she is afraid of being rebuked for things, for her sexuality or her quest for magic. She is strong when and/or if she needs to be, but the majority of the time, she remains the little shy girl. IMO Willow is the one main Scoobie that needs to "Oh, grow up"

Karma, well, yeh. Wil is in for it. As been discussed else where on this site far better then I could, Willow is in for trouble. The (a) new Big Bad is in town and she's one mightily pi$$ed off witch.


[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Marie, 06:02:03 06/22/01 Fri

I'm loving these posts!

I really LIKE Willow. I'd love to sit and chat with her! I know she's made some foolish choices with her spells, and consequences have been..well, not good! But I truly believe she's meant no real harm and is sorry for her acts where they've hurt the people she loves, even when it's them that have made her mad in the first place.

(Having said that, I sometimes find the way she speaks occasionally irritating - a little too childlike and naive. She's fought the good fight for a few years now, and needs to face the fact that she's an adult - which I assume Joss is going to address in S6).

I like the comparison between Oz and Tara - they both speak little (Oz = 'cool', Tara = shy), so that when they do speak, what they say has impact.


[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Rob, 07:14:56 06/22/01 Fri

There is no way I can write as mammoth a post as you have...It's so overwhelming to me at the moment! But I do have to say that you did an excellent job.

What I find most interesting about Willow's character is her double nature. On the one hand, she is shy, kind, and forgiving. On the other, she can conjure up great forces of dark magic, and many times recklessly (and against the requests of her friends). I'm not sure exactly what that says about her character, but it does definitely make her more human and three-dimensional. (That is, by the way, what I think is so great about all of Joss' characters. They are never cardboard characters. Every one, even when you think you have them pegged, has a secret layer or an unusual quality that you did not realize before. This is what makes them human.) I think it would be interesting if an episode was ever done, similar to "The Replacement," but instead of 2 Xanders, 2 Willows...one the quiet, gawky girl we first grew to love, the other the powerful (and sometimes) reckless witch.

One thing I have noticed is that Willow's darker spells usually come at a time when either she or her friends are in emotional turmoil. She is not a Slayer. She does not have superpowers. But finally now through her magic she can be as strong...or even stronger...than Buffy (something she had never thought possible before). Willow alone had the power to hurt Glory, not the Slayer! She harnesses her power out of anguish over loss. The last most notable time she used such dark magic was in "Something Blue," when she was heartbroken over the loss of Oz. That turned out to be a disaster. She has, however, I believe, matured a great deal since then. Yes, she uses very dark powers to avenge Glory's brainsucking of Tara, and yes she could have been killed...but she did not through this magic cause harm to her friends, as she had in "SB". She only hurt the enemy. And this newfound knowledge that she could indeed hurt Glory contributed a great deal to the final battle strategy. In fact, had Willow not done a "reverse brainsuck" on Glory, weakening her, Buffy may not have been able to finish Glory off herself with the troll hammer.

I think that the thing about Willow is that she had never before had much self-confidence or self-worth, and now she finally has a venue through which to be strong herself. Sometimes she gets carried away with it, but in the end, she is still a very kind, sweet person, who, fortunately, is now capable of fiercely defending her friends. She truly did go through hell itself when her love, Tara, was left mentally ill. But she brought Tara out of the prison of her mind, and she did that herself. Buffy was not able to figure out a way to restore Tara's mind. Willow figured out a way to do that and fight Glory simultaneously.

Above all, Willow is an extremely loyal person. She loves her friends a great deal and would do anything in her power to protect them. What I find most touching about her relationship with Buffy is that Willow's gayness is not an issue. Buffy or Willow can tell each other, "I love you," and mean it with all their hearts (but just not in the same way that Willow and Tara mean it), and neither of them are awkward about it now. (As a side note, I thought Buffy's reaction to Willow when she first came out was perfectly played...She was very "weirded out," but never made Willow feel as if she had to change. Instead, Buffy changed her conception of Willow and grew to love Tara as a friend also.) Willow and Xander also have a similar relationship, although they have known each other longer. Their friendship in a way is even closer than a brother and sister. They probably know each other more perfectly than any other two people on the show. I found it very interesting that one of Willow's messed up spells this year was a result over a fight with Anya, basically over who was more important to Xander.

Well, I wrote a lot more than I thought I would after all...(That seems to happen all the time, doesn't it?) and I'm not exactly sure where I'm going with all this, so I'll just wrap it by saying that Willow has always been one of my favorite characters on the show, although I care so much about every one, that I would say that every character is my favorite character. Let me rephrase that: I love Willow's character very much. I love her strength, and I love her quiet nature. Everyone should have a friend as good as her.


[> [> The Strength Of Emotions -- Kerri, 18:21:15 06/22/01 Fri

Just picking up on a very small point here:

"Willow alone had the power to hurt Glory, not the Slayer! She harnesses her power out of anguish over loss."

I think it is a very significant point that Willow can hurt Glory because of her emotions in "Tough Love". At this point Buffy cannot touch Glory. It is not until "The Gift" when Dawn is in danger that Buffy poses a threat to Glory. Buffy clearly draws a great deal of strength from her emotions and her love from Dawn. In "Blood Ties" Spike can't even lift the troll hammer, while in "the Gift" Buffy easily picks it up and swings it repeatedly. While it does seem that Buffy is stronger then vampires it never seemed that she was that much stronger then them.

So what gave her this power? It seems to me that the power came from her love from Dawn. This goes back to what Buffy tells Kendra in "What's my line" about her emotions being her assets.

Buffy has learned to use her emotions to foster her power and build her strength. Willow in the past has not seemed to be able to harness her emotions. ex-in "Doppelgangland" Willow is floating a pencil, and when she becomes upset the pencil spins out of control with great force. We see the force of Willow's emotions, but her inability to harness them. This changes in "Tough Love" -instead of letting her emotions overwhelm her Willow uses them for her power.

It seems clear that emotions can be the strongest wepon. I think Willow learning to harness her emotions as a source of strength will allow her powers to grow. It will be very intesting to see if she can handle how strong her emotions are when the manifest themselves.

Sorry for the rant and for going off on a tangent.



[> [> [> Re: The Strength Of Emotions -- Rufus, 21:49:12 06/22/01 Fri

Very good point about the emotions. Specially in respect to Buffy. When it comes to Willow it's when she gets angry that I worry the most about her. Being natually a loving person Willow isn't used to dealing with rage. When she almost went after Veruca and Oz she did manage to stop herself, when she went after Glory she was lucky Buffy intervened. Willow is strong but her weakness is her inablility to deal with negative emotions. Her next area of problem is best intentions. That was seen the best in Forever when she lead Dawn to the book to raise Joyce. Grief is hard and I can understand Willow wanting to make Dawn feel better....fast. The results could have been far more traumatic had Dawn not ripped up the picture before the figure that shuffled up to the door could be seen. Willow is getting sloppy, she is using magic like a recipe you cook with, she isn't thinking about the ethics associated with her craft. I do have the feeling that she now will find out that you don't call upon darkest magic to solve a problem and not expect the power to cost....something.


[> [> [> [> Re: The Strength Of Emotions -- rowan, 21:59:18 06/22/01 Fri

"When it comes to Willow it's when she gets angry that I worry the most about her."

Very good point. Sometimes with reserved people who are great givers to others, their own deepest needs become submerged and remain unfulfilled. This could be serving as the source for some of her darker emotions and power IMO.

"Her next area of problem is best intentions."

I see this as another manifestation of her desire to please and take care of others. She takes risks in order to be the caretaker. I remember the SAT episode, where Willow was so stressed out that she didn't have higher scores (even though hers were astronomical). That rang true with me, because I was somewhat like that in high school myself. I wondered if the way Willow's parents (and pre-SG friends) had interacted with her made her believe that her self-worth was tied up in her intelligence and what she could do for other people, leading to some self-doubt (which again would provide fuel for her witchy fire).


[> [> [> Re: The Strength Of Emotions -- FanMan, 00:19:45 06/23/01 Sat


I agree with your entire post with one exception.

My theory on the Troll hammer is it makes the user stronger(Triangle)

However it is probably aspected in WHO/what can use it;if Trolls have a racial enemy species that species would probably not be able to use it, also maby any form of undead(vampires) cannot use it.

When I say cannot use it I mean more than simply not getting the strength benefit of the hammer; I mean whoever is not permitted to use it will have the hammer become heavier ONLY for them(still same mundane mass and weight...)

I will give examples of two other(theoretical only...grin) weapons and effects they could have.

Holy Sword of Angels

1. Enchantment to cause double or triple damage to any evil entity. 2. Light or glowing radiance and a "feel of goodness" similar to how you can "feel" the aura/pressance of a powerfull or very VERY good person...hopefully you get what I mean here! 3. Bane for any evil entity; if any evil entity even touches this weapon it will be burned by holy fire, therefore demons could not disarm an angel and then use his own sword against him...

Soul Eater Sword

1. Only evil entities can use this without getting hurt similar to the bane on the angels sword, but reversed. 2. Anyone hit by this sword will have to resist an effect similar to vampirism; the sword drains lifeforce instead of blood! and gives the life to the sword bearer. 3. Requirement of evil; the sword will resist any use of it that DOES NOT cause suffering or is not motivated by evil by becoming heavier and making the user clumsy with a temperary curse(sort of a curse, also this would be valid for the other sword, but requirement for GOOD instead!)

The rest of your post was cool with me(grin)


[> [> [> [> the troll hammer and Buffy: The nature of Slayerhood? -- squireboy, 13:26:17 06/26/01 Tue

I'm sorry if I've missed someone's post referring to it, but I think it is significant that Buffy can lift the hammer when no one else, including Spike, can (although that does beg the question of how the hammer got so neatly arranged for display :).

Olaf was a god. He could lift the hammer. Spike is a demon, he could not lift the hammer. Buffy can lift the hammer. Is there something being said by Joss about the nature of the Slayer's power? (referencing Thor's hammer only being liftable by him/other gods?)

Yes, it sure is convenient that the hammer was around so Buffy could use it against Glory, but Joss doesn't write like that -- everything is significant.



[> [> [> [> [> woah woah woah -- Solitude1056, 18:36:01 06/26/01 Tue

Olaf was a god. He could lift the hammer. Spike is a demon, he could not lift the hammer. Buffy can lift the hammer. Is there something being said by Joss about the nature of the Slayer's power? (referencing Thor's hammer only being liftable by him/other gods?)

I noticed that, and it bugged me, but very quietly. (I've been busy.) In the Gift, when Anya said, "if you want to beat a god, use the weapon of a god - Olaf the Troll God's hammer" etc. When did Olaf become a Troll God? Olaf was just some big doofus dating Anya back when people were living in small huts and thinking a fire in the middle was good heating & a hole in the roof was proper ventilation. we're not talking the most advanced, yet Anya turned him into a troll... but at what point did she turn him into a Troll God?

And if Olaf was a God - regardless of what kind - why was Buffy so shocked when she was told that Glory was a God? And why could Olaf be beaten so easily, if he had somehow reached God status? Or are we to believe that Joss now can't keep his pet names for bad guys straight, any better than he can do his math? It just seems odd to me, to use the expression "troll god," because that opens up a boatload o' plotholes IMO.


[> [> [> [> [> [> And I thought this was a post about horsies......... -- Rufus, 18:52:13 06/26/01 Tue

Anya did say something about weapon of a god, I do find it hard that a girl could turn a cheating boyfriend into a god. Given Olaf's size and troll strength I just assumed that he had the strength of a god without being a Glory type.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: woah woah woah -- squireboy, 20:25:49 06/26/01 Tue

I'll have to review the original ep again, but it doesn't seem too weird to me that Anyanka would be dating a lesser deity (?) like a troll god and think nothing of it. (I'm thinking of Dru and her slime demon (um, ick).

Good point, though. Does or should Olaf being a god (even a mini-god) diminish the effect of Glory being a Hellgod? Probably not, different orders of magnitude after all, and Olaf is in Sunnydale by mistake (not even his own), Glory is not.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: woah woah woah -- Solitude1056, 21:39:33 06/26/01 Tue

I'll have to review the original ep again, but it doesn't seem too weird to me that Anyanka would be dating a lesser deity (?) like a troll god and think nothing of it. (I'm thinking of Dru and her slime demon (um, ick).

Sure, but he wasn't mister big 'n hairy til after she dumped him... and his transformation into big 'n hairy was her way of a little goodbye. That's how she got her job as a vengeance demon, after all. Oh, there's another eye candy for you: everyone's reactions (and Anya's, too), when Olaf reveals that Anya(anka) was his ex-girlfriend. LOL!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss' background -- Brian, 03:06:19 06/27/01 Wed

Joss is heavy into comic books. Perhaps the troll god hammer was a homage to Marvel's Thor who carried the hammer of the gods.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss' background -- Rufus, 03:11:06 06/27/01 Wed

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw the hammer was Thor.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Joss' background -- rowan, 05:35:37 06/27/01 Wed

I still think it was a eensy weensy bit of a slip (suddenly calling him a god). However, in my brain, I translated it to "supernatural being" primarily because it had already been established that he was strong (in Triangle) and that the hammer was very, very heavy as well as the source of the troll power. After all, we have seen big things slow Glory down (like the tractor trailer momentarily in Spiral and of course the wrecking ball in The Gift). So I assumed that big magickal hammer plus Buffy could do alot of damage (especially since Spike couldn't lift the thing). I mean, it's hardly a time to get dainty. The girl has Slayer strength.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'? -- Marie, 06:35:08 06/27/01 Wed

I sometimes think that if JW et al ever read these posts, sometimes they'll want to tear their hair (hairs??) out! I know some things don't add up to everyone's satisfaction, and maybe they never will. Maybe Anya should've said 'troll hammer' not 'god hammer', and no-one picked up on it at the time it was filmed, and the scene was too expensive to re-shoot or they didn't have the time to re-shoot, or something like that!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'? -- rowan, 07:43:50 06/27/01 Wed

As I said, although I do think it's a small continuity error, it really didn't register much with me as a problem. Since the whole concept of using the hammer worked, I ignored it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'? -- squireboy, 10:08:21 06/27/01 Wed

Well, we are talking about a show with gods and vampires and superBuffies, I think we suspend disbelief pretty well. The writing usually does an extraordinary job of making everything count and getting it all right, that when something like this sticks out, it gives us all something to gnaw on. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: C'mon, guys - remember 'willing suspension of disbelief'? -- AK-UK, 11:00:24 06/27/01 Wed

The shooting script has Anya calling Olaf a troll god.

It just looks like Joss screwed up. I'll willing suspend my belief with regards to magic, vampires etc, but I don't think it should cover writer errors.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: the troll hammer and Buffy: The nature of Slayerhood? -- Andy, 07:50:07 06/27/01 Wed

I think it's a bit tricky to call Olaf a god. Was he actually a god, or did he simply become like unto a god so long as he wielded the magic hammer? I think it works better, and I think it's more implied by Triangle, if we accept Olaf as a mere troll who somehow acquired the "weapon of a god" and whose power was greatly increased by it (he seemed to be at least as strong as Glory when he was batting stuff around the neighborhood with it). On the newsgroup a good point was made that if we accept the Thor comparison, one of the things about Norse myth is those guys liked to fight. So when Buffy defeated Olaf in combat, it made her worthy of lifting the hammer and using it to hurt Glory, whereas someone like Spike, who didn't defeat Olaf, was incapable of budging the thing.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Olaf is a troll. He has the Hammer of the Troll God. That doesn't make him the God -- Wisewoman, 09:05:46 06/27/01 Wed

Okay, maybe I've forgotten a bit of dialogue that mentions specifically that Olaf *is* the Troll God, but I don't have a problem with the whole issue. Maybe he stole the hammer *from* the Troll God? Maybe having the hammer is what makes him the Troll God?



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Olaf is a troll. He has the Hammer of the Troll God. That doesn't make him the God -- rowan, 09:14:25 06/27/01 Wed

Oh. I thought when Anya became all Vengeance Demony and trolled him, the hammer came with the curse. I'd better go back and read a transcript before I make a bigger fool of myself.

Do you see what we're reduced to discussing? We need a new ep -- or at least for the repeats to start from S1 (that way we can go back in time and it will almost be like the board was here from Day One).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> We're displaying the equivalent of Cabin Fever...I need eps NOW!!! -- Wisewoman, 09:22:29 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You got that right! :-) -- Solitude1056, 09:31:45 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I may be forced to post two 1st Anniversary Fun Postings per week to get us through. -- rowan, 09:37:54 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Hummm... the board seems busier than it's ever been to me! -- OnM, 10:08:32 06/27/01 Wed

I'm having trouble keeping up with everything, although part of that is because I'm also downloading/printing S4 scripts from Rayne's site to help with my Riley writeup, and viewing both S4 & S5 sequentially for reason same, not to mention I'd do it anyway, I picked up all sorts of little goodies I missed before from the original viewings. You know, a lot of people have stated dislike for S4, but so far I'm finding it holds up even better than I thought previously, and I've been on record as saying I thought it was a great season.

How can any Buffyphile be bored, with so many riches to explore? Or fanfic to write? Or websites to design? Or conversation with our esteemed selves?

Huh? Huh? I ask ya!!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Hummm... the board seems busier than it's ever been to me! -- rowan, 10:27:52 06/27/01 Wed

But don't you think this flurry of activity is partially arising from the fact that...we have nothing new to dissect? We're natually trying to distract ourselves from the pain of withdrawal.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You know you've got DTs when you get the "no posting more than once a minute" page... FIVE TIMES. -- Solitude1056, 13:11:05 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Digital Trepidations??? ;) -- OnM, 14:36:45 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: You know you've got DTs when... -- rowan, 15:06:49 06/27/01 Wed

*small voice* God, I thought that only happened to me.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Pain is the mind-killer. Pain is the little death... no, wait, that's *Fear*. Sorry! ;) -- OnM, 14:33:59 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I agree with EPS NOW! but hey . . . -- squireboy, 11:19:05 06/27/01 Wed

We have several months to go (ack!) and we might as well have fun with it. :) Anya specifically calls him "Olaf the Troll God" in The Gift, and says something like, if you are going to fight a god, you might as well use the weapon of a god. Which is what got me going on this whole, how come Buffy can lift the trollgodhammer, and Spike can't, thing. There aren't any specific references to Olaf being a troll god in Triangle, but lots to the magic or enchanted hammer. Besides, here's a whole thread that isn't entirely about cheekbones! Oops, I guess now it is. Sigh. ;)


[> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- LadyStarlight, 07:21:24 06/22/01 Fri

I definitely think that part of the "oh, grow up" arc will be learning that actions have consequences. The "Rule of Three", when I've read about it, usually applies to spells cast against people. Perhaps this is why there have been no consequences against Willow (yet). A prime example of this is Tara's spell in Family--she was exposed as potentially doing harm to the Scooby's, she was punched in the nose, and she thought she would lose Willow's love by her actions. Of course (of Joss?) everything worked out. However, I could still see Willow descending deeper into dark magicks, rationalizing all the way. Power has a price and Willow is probably going to find that out.

Sort of O/T--I REALLY want to watch Anya planning her wedding. I'm thinking much fun here.


[> [> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Nina, 19:07:41 06/22/01 Fri

Absolutely love the post! One thing that I find fascinating about "The Gift" is that without one of Willow's mistake (Bringing Olaf back to life in Triangle) Buffy could never have beaten Glory. The hammer was the key to defeating the god, to weaken her. No Olaf, no hammer, no way to stop Glory. I think the choice of JW to make a prodigious mistake become the only element allowing victory is all in favor of Willow. In "Spiral" it was written in the script that Willow should be bleeding from her nose after she cast the protection spell. It was actually written off when they shot the episode. It's an indicator to me that even though Willow is growing more powerful they are not leading her to be a big bad. She saved the day in many ways and she is truly a hero now. Even more so because she won't acknowledge it herself! :) She's still walking on thin ice and learning to balance her emotions (like she said in BvsD) but I believe that there are good chances for her to stay on the good path.


[> [> [> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Cynthia, 19:29:45 06/22/01 Fri

One can cause great destruction all in the name of good intentions. I think Willow, especially because of her natural talent, needs a mentor, someone who can remain emotionally objective and not hestitate to dress Willow down if necessary. Somethings I'm not sure Tara would be able to do because of her emotional involvement with Willow as well as her own insecurities.

Humm, perhaps be someone for Giles too :)


[> [> [> Re: Willow: 1st Anniversary Character Posting Party -- Wiccagrrl, 19:30:03 06/22/01 Fri

I tend to agree. While I do think Willow will have to learn to use her power carefully and wisely, I don't think they're setting her up to "turn evil".


[> Great post! -- mundusmundi, 15:44:45 06/22/01 Fri


[> Isabel--I'd be interested in hearing... -- Masquerade, 16:32:03 06/22/01 Fri

...your interpretation of Willow's dream in Restless. What it says about her, what it said about her future that seems to have come true, what it says about her future that hasn't so far. It seems to indicate she has issues with her former nerd self that was her big thing in Season 4, but is she past that now?

Is she the powerful witch/scooby leader now? Or are there lingering issues for her?

And for her friend's attitude towards her?


[> [> Posting Idea -- rowan, 17:11:49 06/22/01 Fri

You know, I was thinking that one of anniversary posts before next season should have to do with looking once again at Restless, re-interpreting it for every character, and checking for precisely what you're asking -- what's come true and what hasn't.


[> [> Restless Willow -- Isabel, 22:14:08 06/24/01 Sun

Restless, the episode that wouldn't die.

I had to dig it out and watch it again to refresh my memory about what happened. Every time I watch it, and it's been like 10 times now, I notice and interpret something else. I should be getting sick of it by now, but I'm not. The mark of a good episode, plus I love puzzles and symbolism.

The first thing I want to mention is the Cheese Man. Joss has said in multiple interviews that "The Cheese Man Has NO Meaning!" I don't argue with him, he wrote the episode, but I swear the Cheese Man is saying things that actually relate to the characters. (At least to me.) 1) To Willow, "I made a spot for the cheese slices." He's off to the side, out of the action, with the cheese neatly laid out on a little table, organized. Willow likes to have the different parts of her life separated. Tara is separate from the Scoobies. (At the time she is not a Scooby.) They are both separate from her home. She is academic Willow, computer Willow, and magical Willow. She very rarely mixes them. In fact, earlier in the season, she explains to Tara that she doesn't want to share her with her friends just yet. (This Year's Girl, I think) 2) Xander, "These will not protect you." Xander had been having trouble with life. He hated his parents. He tried to see the country and that blew up in his face. He couldn't hold a job or even get a decent one. When the Scoobies were broken up by Spike, Xander retreated from the world to his bed. The cheese meant (to me) that he has to face his problems, there is no hiding. 3) Giles, "I wear the cheese, it does not wear me." A huge chunk of Giles' prior identity was being Buffy's Watcher. In 4th season, he dealt with unemployment and Buffy's new independence. He now wears the persona of the Watcher, but Giles is, and has become, so much more than that. 4) Buffy, She is arguing with the First Slayer about what she is and the Cheese Man waves the pieces of cheese in her face with that little smile. At one point, Willow had told Riley that Buffy liked cheese. Cheese Man seems to be saying, 'Listen to the First Slayer and I'll give you cheese.' Maybe I'm reaching. Maybe it's because I'm loopy, it's late and I'm wired. ;)

As for the rest of Willow's dream, some bits will always be a mystery. I have no clear idea for the first part, where she's writing in Greek on Tara's back. I noticed this last time that Tara seemed to be naked except for the strategically draped blanket. Does that mean that Tara has let down all of her barriers to Willow? (Willow already knows Tara's true name.) And by letting Willow write on her, she's given herself physically to her. (No surprise there) Tara is not touching Willow and Willow is still dressed. Does that mean that maybe Willow doesn't have the same level of commitment? Or maybe Tara is the dominant one in their relationship and Willow works to please her. (She refers to finishing homework as she writes on Tara's back.) Or maybe Willow is dressed simply because she's got to leave the safe place and go to drama class. (face the world.)

The next scene is the school hallway where Willow talks to Oz and Xander as she goes through the motions of opening her locker. She barely looks at them and talks to them in passing. Oz mentions that he's been there forever when Willow asks if he's taken drama. I think drama class is a metaphor for her hiding what she is inside. Oz is very controlled in real life, even Willow never knew what he was really thinking. I think it's significant that Oz and Xander are her two previous loves and they are standing behind her when she tries twice to unlock her locker (her heart or theirs?) but it won't open and then the bell rings, time is up and she moves on to class. (She left them behind and moved on with her life.) Xander is very juvenile acting perhaps because he was her puppy love or maybe because Willow feels that he's too fixated on sex and he needs to grow up. His 'spells'=sex and masturbation comments are so funny.

The drama class performance seems to be Willow's life and the audience is the world. Giles says that 'everyone that Willow's ever met is out there tonight including all of us...it's all about hiding. The audience wants to find you, strip you naked and eat you alive, so hide.' Buffy and Harmony comment that Willow is already in costume for the play that Willow didn't know they were putting on. I think it means that Willow's everyday clothes are part of a persona, an armor, that she puts forth to the world for her own protection. Buffy congratulates her that no one will ever know about her. Oz and Xander are not in the performance, perhaps that means that Willow has never performed for or hidden her true self from them. Everyone in the play seems to be very superficial. Riley is all excited that he showed up on time so he got to be 'Cowboy Guy.' Is that Willow thinking that any guy who showed up in Buffy's life at the right time would get to be 'Cowboy Guy?' Harmony is dressed sweet and innocent, but is only pseudo nice (big surprise.) She tries to vamp-bite Giles and even when she answers a question correctly, she is not taken seriously at all. Harmony isn't really a scary vampire so she's easy to ignore. Buffy is the vampy drama queen who over acts about everything. Does Willow think of Buffy as a star of the show, (;)) a center stage hog? Harmony and Riley are doing a scene and Buffy's sitting there in the middle of the stage, playing with her hair, not really part of their conversation.

When Willow talks to Tara in the red curtains, it looks a bit like their safe place. The play is going on in the back ground. Everyone else is going on with their lives (in the outside world) and her interactions with Tara aren't part of that world. Perhaps Willow's subconscious is telling her she's safe when she's with Tara, because as soon as Tara vanishes, Willow is attacked.

Willow is rescued by Buffy and led into the empty classroom Buffy wanted to know what Willow did (to get attacked) and Willow said "I never do anything. I'm very rarely naughty." Is that Willow insisting that she never really does anything wrong or that she's never allowed to do anything (constructive for the group.)? Buffy asks her why she's still in costume, because the play is over, and Willow tries to explain it's not a costume, it's her everyday clothes. Buffy rolls her eyes, "Everybody already knows, take it off." Willow is insecure, "No, I need it." Buffy then rips her clothes off and goes to sit down in the suddenly filled class room. (Is this a consequence to the audience wants to strip you naked and eat you alive?) Schoolgirl Willow is left standing at the front of the room with her book report. She's dressed almost exactly the same way as she was in the first scenes of the pilot, the ugly brown jumper, her long straight hair and no makeup. The class, which includes Buffy, Xander, Oz, Tara, Anya, and Harmony, is amused by her and is apathetic to her book report. When she is attacked and is screaming on the floor, no one lifts a finger to save her.

I think Willow's clothing/costume issues mean that she considers Schoolgirl Willow to be her true self, deep inside. And she isn't proud of it. Schoolgirl Willow is dowdy, insecure, shy, innocent and plain. She tries to cover it up with her glossy makeup, her haircuts and her college type clothes. If her closest friends knew how she was deep inside, they would not want to be her friends. (Xander, "Oh, who cares?" Tara and Oz flirting with each other.) It was Buffy who 'stripped her naked' saying it was "much more realistic." Is Willow feeling that Buffy wants to reveal her weaknesses and keep her back (magically and therefore she's not competition), while Buffy sits with the cool kids and laughs. (Willow looks angry, not scared when Buffy ripped her clothes off.) I think the book report on "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" reflects Willow's feelings of being kept back. That's not a book a high school student does a report on, especially one as smart as Willow. (I read it for school in fifth grade.) Or it could refer to Willow's immature behavior when she can get away with it.

The scene ends with the First Slayer sucking out her spirit. Is that a hint that if Willow messes with a dark primal force, she could lose her soul? I don't think the Slayer's 'kiss' or the Narnia book report refer to her homosexuality because, at that point, she's 'out.'

Is Willow the leader of the Scoobies? I think she can fill that role for a while. She is the one who sent Spike to protect Dawn. She didn't ask anyone else about it, or even let them in on it. Now that Buffy's out of the picture, for a while, there is no one who is competition in the 'power to kick evil's butt' category.


[> [> [> Greek writing -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 03:51:32 06/26/01 Tue

Two brief points:

I totally agree about the cheese guy! He demonstrates the meaning each character gives to a meaningless symbol.

The greek writing on Tara's back is a Sapphic love poem - I think there may be a link to a translation of it in 'A Restless Exegesis'.


[> [> [> [> A Restless Exegesis -- Solitude1056, 11:37:19 06/27/01 Wed

Where do I find a copy of this?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: A Restless Exegesis -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:53:44 06/27/01 Wed

The address is: http://home.earthlink.net/~leadtogold/exegesis/exegesis.html


[> Great post! -- rowan, 17:24:21 06/22/01 Fri

This was so great to read. Various thoughts occurred to me as I read it and everyone's responses.

Willow and Spike are probably the two characters who I identify most closely with because I share character traits with them (except the murdering part). Willow is truly someone about whom could be said: "Still waters run deep." As you've all rightly pointed out, she is such a sweet and loyal friend (with some blind spots!), yet she also has all that hidden power down deep inside of her. She has almost struck me through the years as someone who is not just introverted, but almost repressed. She seems to sublimate her own needs to those of her friends and lovers. This is of course the essence of being a caretaker. But I wonder if some of her own needs are being pushed down in some dark corner within her, feeding that power. Her witchy powers seem to explode with emotional force at times as was mentioned in this post. Truly, I agree with everyone who has said that Willow may be one of the ones who will be learning the "oh, grow up" lessons the most.

Because she does seem to repress her own self at times, I worry about her in relationships. Hers with Oz seemed doomed from the start to me. I accept that they cared for each other deeply, but Oz's own inner demons were just doomed to suck up all of Willow, leaving no time for her. The "affair" with Xander preceding Oz's with Veruca just demonstrated that Willow wasn't getting what she needed from him, but wasn't able to tell him.

Willow as a character will wear well over time, too. She will always have that grave gladness, loving nature, and curious mind. If I were choosing friends, Willow would be at the top of my list.

"How many loved your moments of glad grce, And loved your beauty with love false or true; But one man loved the pilgrim sould in you, And loved the sorrows of your changing face."

"When You Are Old" William Butler Yeats


[> [> Re: Great post! -- AK-UK, 20:50:12 06/22/01 Fri

rowan, it's 4:30 am here in th UK, and I've just got back from some seriously hard partying, so I am in NO fit state to post here. If I were, I would take you to task for the things you said about Oz and the Willow/Oz relationship.

I honestly think they were the most believable, most realistic, most loving couple on the show. And I don't think Oz's "inner demons" sucked up Willow. The guy was more than able to deal with them himself. I don't think it's coincidence that Willow became more confident, more willing to explore magic, during the time she was with Oz.

Wow, this post actually looks like it might make some sort of sense! HA, even when drunk, I can still string a sentence together! Beat that Aristotle! Yeah, I'll have a pint of what Socrates is drinking.


[> [> [> Re: Great post! -- rowan, 21:17:26 06/22/01 Fri

Well, I don't really recall saying that Willow didn't grow during the relationship or that it wasn't a good relationship in some ways. What I think I said was that I thought it was doomed from the start because of the baggage Oz was bringing. And I stand by that. Because Willow is such a caretaker at heart, despite Oz's best intentions, eventually his baggage would dominate her world.

There must have been something lacking in the relationship or they both wouldn't have cheated.


[> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- Wiccagrrl, 21:42:42 06/22/01 Fri

I think there were a lot of issues that played into this relationship ending. Oz had plenty of things he needed to deal with, not the least of which...werewolf.

I also tend to think that, this being Willow's first big relationship had an impact. I think she still had a lot of growing and self-discovery to do. And, I think there was a dynamic when it came to W/O, since he was the older and "more experienced" one, that he tended to set the pace of the relationship. He decided when they were ready to have sex, he decided to take some time off after both the W/X and O/V situations (against Willow's wishes to try and work things through)- and decided when he was ready to come back and try again. Which is fine, except, by the time he came back in NMR, he was too late. Willow couldn't live waiting to see when and if he might come back to her. She moved on.

I also think (and I'm not really blaming Willow for this, but I think it's true) that part of Willow's attraction to Oz was a status thing. "My boyfriend's in the band" But Willow even admits in Earshot that she never knows what Oz is thinking. There's a line from a Mary Chapin Carpenter song that goes

"You got the kind of mind I love to read"

Well, that can be exciting for a while, but exhausting and hard on a relationship in the long run. I liked W/O, but I guess I tend to see Willow and Tara as being more on the same wavelength, having more in common, being on more equal footing. I think they've got a firm friendship, which I wasn't always sure was the case with W/O, despite strong feelings for one another. And, at least in my book, that's a very strong basis for a lasting relationship.


[> [> [> [> [> Very perceptive! -- rowan, 22:00:37 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- Isabel, 00:58:20 06/23/01 Sat

"I also think (and I'm not really blaming Willow for this, but I think it's true) that part of Willow's attraction to Oz was a status thing"

Thank you for saying that! I thought it was just me. I was going to use 'inherent coolness' as part of Willow's attraction to Oz (and Tara) but I couldn't come up with anything more solid than her saying "I haven't been a nerd for quite some time. Hello! Dating a guitarist! Well, I was." (Paraphrased from Doomed) and her "Hello! Gay now." and "Preaching to the choir" (Blood Ties) comments.

I figured I was going to get flamed, and I didn't want that to happen for something that was mostly a gut feeling.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- LadyStarlight, 05:56:33 06/23/01 Sat

Having been a semi-outcast in Jr. High, I can definately see where part of Willow's attraction to Oz would be status. Probably a very small part, but it's a valid theory nonetheless. (especially after watching Welcome to the Hellmouth & figuring out the pecking order. High school really sucks most of the time.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- rowan, 08:19:47 06/23/01 Sat

I think it's a good thing to remember that these are high school (now college) kids, after all (at least at that point). Although exceptional, they do still exhibit some of the hallmarks of their age. I think I may have even dated a person or two for status way, way, back...it my high school, it was drummers who were cool.


[> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- AK-uk, 22:10:14 06/22/01 Fri

Argh! I'm still awake, and I'm sobering up :(

rowan, I'm slightly confused here; what baggage did Oz bring to the relationship and how did it swamp Willow? Oz was a remarkably well-adjusted teenager, able to deal calmly with everything that life threw at him (look how calm he was when he discovered he was a werewolf). He was popular, intelligent, and in a cool band. Willow, on the other hand, was (throughout season 3) dealing with feeling like an outsider, unpopular, "geeky" and "nerdy", a dull sidekick, underappreciated, overlooked, etc etc. Surely if anyone was bringing baggage to the relationship, it was Willow.

As for why they both cheated on each other.........well, we do have some pretty unique circumstances here. Oz's werewolf emotions were clearly at play when he slept with Veruca. The werewolf attraction to a female of it's own species must have been phenomenally strong (and imagine how strong the desire of such a primal creature must be), and, like Oz's hearing and enhanced smelling abilities, the wolf attraction "leaked" into Oz.

As for Willow.......well she had always fancied Xander, and she hadn't been going out with Oz for that long. So, when she and Xander were looking all sexy in their homecoming outfits, their teenage hormones got the better of them. They were able to have their cakes and eat them, until Oz and Cordy found out, at which point Willow realised how much she loved Oz and dropped Xander.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Great post! -- rowan, 08:21:11 06/23/01 Sat

The baggage was the werewolf stuff (which allow contained by Oz, was not really handled.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- Malandanza, 12:12:15 06/23/01 Sat

I have to agree with AK-UK on this one -- the baggage in the relationship belonged to Willow. Perhaps the Oz/Willow romance was doomed from the start -- after all (as noted by Oz in Innocence) the relationship began as an attempt by Willow to make Xander jealous. The relationship was one-sided from the beginning and continued to be so as long as Wilow and Oz were together. Willow was always Oz's primary concern -- Willlow often had better things to do than to be with Oz.

I think Oz was handling lycanthropy quite nicely -- certainly he accepted being a werewolf more quickly than Buffy accepted being the slayer. To say he was responsible for what happened with Veruca would be like saying Angel was responsible for the deaths caused by Angelus.

OT, a bit, but I found an interesting Willow quote in Dopplegangland:

Willow: (To Anya -- after failing to bring back Anya's amulet) I believe these chicken feet are mine. Look, m-magic is dangerous, Anya, i-it's, it's not to be toyed with. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have someone else's homework to do.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- Wiccagrrl, 13:07:53 06/23/01 Sat

This has come up before, but I just don't buy that Oz was totally free of responsibility for the Veruca situation. Certain acts happened when he was wolfing out, but there was plenty of deception and bad judgement that had nothing to do with the fact that he was a werewolf. And again, Willow wanted to try and work things out. Oz left. By the time he felt he was in a position to work things out, Willow had made the painful, but inevitable decision that she needed to move on. He did leave because of his own baggage, cause he knew he *didn't* have things very well under control when it came to the wolf issue.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- Malandanza, 15:15:12 06/24/01 Sun

"This has come up before, but I just don't buy that Oz was totally free of responsibility for the Veruca situation. Certain acts happened when he was wolfing out, but there was plenty of deception and bad judgment that had nothing to do with the fact that he was a werewolf. And again, Willow wanted to try and work things out. Oz left. By the time he felt he was in a position to work things out, Willow had made the painful, but inevitable decision that she needed to move on. He did leave because of his own baggage, cause he knew he *didn't* have things very well under control when it came to the wolf issue."

I think you'll agree that the first night with Veruca was not Oz's fault -- and I agree that the second day could have been handled better. But let's look at the first day first:

Willow left Oz unattended to go to a College Wiccan initiation. Furthermore, she didn't check in the following day to see how he was doing (otherwise she would have noticed he was missing and the cage door broken). I see two possibilities for this behavior: 1. Willow is self-absorbed. The risk of turning lose a werewolf on an unsuspecting populace takes precedence over any inconvenience Willow or one of her friends would have faced. She either should have skipped the meeting or found someone else to wolf-sit. 2. Oz's monthly transformations had become so routine that no one felt it was really necessary to have a watcher for him. (Note, that when he initially became a werewolf, a Slayer kept watch over him -- to his profound discomfort). I favor the second choice (although I think Willow IS self-involved). Up to this point, Oz did have the wolf under sufficient control that there were no "werewolf issues" in the relationship. Oz was not responsible for the cage breaking (at least we saw no evidence that human-Oz sabotaged the cage before sundown) and he is not responsible for his actions while a wolf.

The second day: After Oz makes his way back home, he meets up with Willow, who becomes upset when he resists her suggestion that they have sex. So why doesn't Oz take this opportunity to tell her about Veruca? I would suggest that if Willow is that upset about something so trivial, she would have been even angrier with a full confession. Oz, I believe, was very insecure about their relationship -- he never got over the Xander/Willow betrayal (and as I write this, I realize that a good deal of the emotional baggage was Oz's :) as is indicated when he brings the incident up later. Willow doesn't have the same issues -- Oz isn't the love of her life (obviously), he's the cool boyfriend that makes her cool ("I haven't been a nerd for a very long time! Hello dating a guitarist" -- Fear, Itself) and that her mother wouldn't approve of (in "Gingerbread" she's mad at her mother so she mentions that she's dating a musician). He had the opportunity to tell Buffy when she found him fixing his cage. Again, he could have said something, but did not. There did seem to be a little intimidation in her tone -- just the hint of a threat. He may have been worried for Veruca or for himself (if Buffy finds out, Willow will find out...) -- I suspect a little of both. He did seem genuinely concerned for Veruca and wanted to help her. There was a connection between them that had to do more with pheromones than thought processes (remember that Highlander moment in "Fear, Itself" when Veruca and Oz look at each other as they pass by?)

Finally, let's look at Willow's reaction -- the spell. Suppose your boyfriend/girlfriend walked into a room with you after a fight holding a shotgun, aimed it at you, then decided that they couldn't pull the trigger. This is how I view Willow's curse. She was ready to curse Oz and Veruca forever and came very close to "pulling the trigger." How anxious would you have been in such a circumstance to renew the relationship? Add to that the fact that Oz killed Veruca -- alot to deal with. There was far more than just being a werewolf that led to Oz's departure. Personally, I believe that at the time he felt as though he had forever destroyed his relationship with Willow -- that she would never forgive him.

Maybe I haven't convinced you, but I've convinced myself -- Oz had the bulk of the baggage in the relationship :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- AK-UK, 16:36:38 06/24/01 Sun

Oz had the bulk of the emotional baggage???? Once again I ask, what is this baggage? I think the idea that Oz never got over Willow kissing Xander doesn't hold up to scrutiny. He brought it up in "Wild At Heart" because it was relevant to the situation. Willow was saddling him with a lot of guilt, and he merely reminded her that he too knew what it was like to be hurt by the one you loved. Oz was clearly ok with Willow and Xander continuing to be close friends (something many boyfriends would have had a problem with); hell, he and Xander were buddies too.

And since when has it been obvious that Oz was just the cool boyfriend Willow dated to make herself feel less of a nerd??? Seriously, I'm confused here. Did I miss some episodes? Willow clearly loves Oz. The romantic moments they shared on screen showed a couple clearly in love with each other. Willow's devastation when he left, and her heart breaking confusion when he returned also leave no room to doubt her feelings (she even acknowledges that she will always love him, and will probably end up with him again, but "now is not that time").

As for the reasons for Oz's departure, I think the writers really spelt it out clearly. He was scared of the werewolf within him; scared that some day that cage might not be enough to hold him, that he would kill again, possibly killing someone he loved (Willow). So he leaves, immediately, to seek out a way to contain the creature. Willow begged him to stay, telling him they should deal with it together, but Oz couldn't bear to put her in danger, so he drove off.

You know, all this talk of emotional baggage is, I think, a bit unnecessary. It's like we are lawyers arguing in a divorce, trying to assign guilt to one party, when no-one is to blame. They loved each other truly and deeply, but a situation neither of them could control got the better of them.

Who'd be a teenager in love, in Sunnydale?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- Malandanza, 18:39:44 06/25/01 Mon

I do try to back up my opinions with support from the scripts when I think that I say something that departs from the doctrinaire interpretations.

"I think the idea that Oz never got over Willow kissing Xander doesn't hold up to scrutiny. He brought it up in "Wild At Heart" because it was relevant to the situation. Willow was saddling him with a lot of guilt, and he merely reminded her that he too knew what it was like to be hurt by the one you loved. Oz was clearly ok with Willow and Xander continuing to be close friends (something many boyfriends would have had a problem with); hell, he and Xander were buddies too."

I don't think that Oz was "ok with Willow and Xander." Suppose for a moment that the Xander/Willow friendship did bother Oz -- what could he do about it? Demand that Willow choose between him as a boyfriend or Xander for a friend? Who would Willow have chosen in such a circumstance? No -- I think he continued to be bothered by the betrayal but being with Willow was important to him than indulging his petty jealousies. But don't take my word for it -- here's Xander in "Gingerbread":

***Xander: But I'm talking about the future guilt. Look, everyone expects me to mess up again. Like Oz. I see how he is around me. You know, that steely gaze... that pointed silence. ***Buffy: 'Cause he's usually such a chatterbox. ***Xander: No, but it's different now. It's more a verbal nonverbal. He speaks volumes with his eyes.***

A big part of Xander's impression of Oz is probably guilt, but there was an awkward meeting between Willow, Oz and Xander in the cafeteria just before this conversation that gives credence to Xander's fears.

"And since when has it been obvious that Oz was just the cool boyfriend Willow dated to make herself feel less of a nerd??? Seriously, I'm confused here. Did I miss some episodes? Willow clearly loves Oz. The romantic moments they shared on screen showed a couple clearly in love with each other. Willow's devastation when he left, and her heart breaking confusion when he returned also leave no room to doubt her feelings (she even acknowledges that she will always love him, and will probably end up with him again, but "now is not that time")."

I did not say that the only reason that Willow was dating Oz was because he was cool -- but I do believe that there was a coolness factor. The quote from "Fear, Itself" ("I haven't been a nerd for a very long time! Hello dating a guitarist") supports this notion. I do not believe it would be atypical for a teen-age girl to want a boyfriend that might not be approved of by her parents (look at the Ripper and Spike and compare them to Riley...). Certainly, in "Gingerbread" Willow uses Oz the Guitarist as a means of angering her mother. Another significant factor: since the first episode, Willow has wanted a real boyfriend (it almost gets her killed in "Welcome to the Hellmouth" and "I Robot... You Jane). In "Surprise", while Oz is thrilled that he has a date with Willow, Willow is just thrilled that she has a date ( ***Willow: (to herself) I said 'date'.***) This attitude is further illustrated in "Phases" in this illuminating conversation with Buffy (about how far -- physically -- the relationship has progressed):

***Willow: Nowhere. I mean, he said he was gonna wait until I was ready, but I'm ready. Honest. I'm good to go here. ***Buffy: Well, I think it's nice that he's not just being an animal. **Willow: It is nice. He's great. We have a lot of fun. But I want smoochies! ***Buffy: Have you dropped any hints? ***Willow: I've dropped anvils. ***Buffy: Ah, he'll come around. What guy could resist your wily Willow charms? ***Willow: At last count, all of them. Maybe more. ***Buffy: Well, none of them know a thing. They all get an 'F' in Willow. ***Willow: But I want Oz to get an 'A', and, oh, one of those gold stars. ***Buffy: He will. ***Willow: Well, he better hurry. I don't want to be the only girl in school without a real boyfriend.

As the conversation continues, we find that even though Willow was just talking about how much she wishes Oz would speed up the physical side of their romance, her heart still belongs to Xander:

***Buffy: But I would do a lot better if you and Xander and I could do that 'sharing our misery' thing tonight. ***Willow: Great. I'll give Xander a call. What's his number? Oh, yeah, 1-800-I'm-Dating-A-Skanky-Ho. (rolls her eyes) ***Buffy: (surprised) Meow!

Not really fair to Oz. In the same episode he stoically endures the pressure of his peers regarding Willow:

***Larry: So, Oz, man, what's up with that? Dating a junior? Uh, let me guess. That little innocent schoolgirl thing is just, uh, just an act, right? ***Oz: Yeah. Yeah, she's actually an evil mastermind. It's fun. ***Larry: I mean, she's gotta be putting out, or what's the point? What are you gonna do, talk? (laughs) Come on, fess up. How far have you gotten?

I agree that there were plenty of romantic moments between Willow and Oz-- but to me, it appeared that Oz initiated the romance and Willow accepted his praise with returning it. As for being devastated by his departure, remember that Buffy was devastated by Parker's abandonment of her as well -- and she moped about him about as long as Willow moped about Oz. Wallowing in self-pity does not mean that the relationship was one of mutual respect, caring and love. I see Oz as having been very much in love with Willow -- a sincere, deep and abiding love. For Willow, I see the relationship being based on jealousy (of Xander and Cordelia, then Xander and Faith, and now Xander and Anya), curiousity (about sex), status (having a boyfriend in Highschool is important for young women, whether it should be or not), guilt (after "Lover's Walk") and... oh yeah, a little affection, as well. For Oz's sake, I hope he and Willow never meet again -- I doubt that they are destined to end up together, but Willow may be destined to run him through the emotional meat-grinder a few more times before they die.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage -- AK-UK, 23:50:20 06/25/01 Mon

Ok, dealing with your points in order.

1) I still can't see the evidence that Oz never got over xander kissing Willow. You quote Xander's opinion from "Gingerbread" (an opinion you yourself admit is hugely affected by feelings of guilt), but what you fail to take into account is that the amount of time that passes between the events in "Lovers Walk" and "Gingerbread". Look at the episode order:

Lovers Walk - in which Xander and Willow aree caught kissing The Wish Amends - In which Oz and Willow get back together Gingerbread - from which you quote Xander.

So, as "Gingerbread" begins, Oz has only been back with Willow for a very small space of time. So it's gonna be awkward for Oz, Willow and Xander, but that's only natural. Even so, by the end of the episode Oz and Xander are working together to save Willow, Amy and Buffy from being burned at the stake. And after that we are shown no evidence of any real bitterness by Oz towards Xander or Willow. Hell, Oz and Xander are chatting away and eexchanging jokes in "The Zeppo" which is the second episode after "Gingerbread". And as to what Oz could have done, well, Oz could have made Willow feel guilty, he could have pressurised her into having less contact with Xander, (something Willow herself suggested she would do in "The Wish" ) but he doesn't! He forgives, and he moves on.

2) Good to see you say that Oz's coolness is just one of the factors that attracted Willow to Oz. I agree. But I find your extensive quoting of "Phases" puzzling. Firstly, this episode takes place VERY early on in the Willow/Oz relationship, and secondly, the quotes really don't seem to back up your points. Willow's comments about Xander dating a "Skanky Ho" are, surely, more do to with the fact that Willow HATES Cordelia, a hatred that existed LONG before Xander ever got involved with her. Cordelia was a nasty piece of work, who constantly put Willow down, so obviously she is going to say nasty things about her! She calls Veruca (the werewolf) a "Twenty dollar ho" in "Wild At Heart", so I think we can see a pattern hear (Woman who piss Willow of are Ho's.....man, isn't Willow sexist!).

3) And we reach your final point, which is that Oz loved Willow, but Willow was with Oz due to seeking status, guilt, jealousy of Xander (whom she is still attracted to), curiousity with regards to sex, "and... oh yeah, a liitle affection"

I really don't know how to tackle this one. I mean, the evidence that Willow loved Oz is so overwhelming, that to pick out little scenes here and there just seems pointless. If two seasons of BtVS can't convince you, how can a few quotes? Plus it's REALLy late in here in the UK, so I can't trawl through all the past episodes, looking for quotes. When Willow wonders why she can't think straight when it comes to Oz, Xander (whose opinion you seem to like) tells her why:

Xander : Love. It's a logic blocker (Wild At Heart)

Buffy is no doubt as to Willow feelings for Oz, taken from "New Moon Rising"

Riley : It's a little weird [for Willow] to date someone who tries to eat you one a month [Oz] Buffy : Yeah, well love isn't logical (She is also equating Willow's love for Oz with her love for Angel in this scene)

but I think Willow describes her relationship with Oz best when Riley seeks her help in asking out Buffy. In a few words, Willow shows us her what she felt with Oz, and how her feelings developed over time:

Willow : You spend time together, feelings grow deeper and one day, without even realising it, you find you're in love. Time stops. And it feels like the whole world's made for you two, and you two alone.... (The Iniaitive)

Willow's words, Willow's thoughts, Willow's feelings.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Baggage in High School -- Solitude1056, 18:54:41 06/26/01 Tue

Reading your posts... I think you both have good points, and illustrate - more than anything else - that Joss has a fine knack of creating truly complex characters that in turn have truly complex relationships. Neither Oz nor Willow is free of being immature (which is only accurate, given they were in HS), and each has issues of some sort or another.

The part that strikes me as curious, though, is Willow slowly got over Oz's departure, but she wasn't as in the forefront about it. It doesn't surprise me that this would be one more thing Willow would repress in the interest of continuing her contributions to the group as a whole, and her internal sadness might be seen by Willow as detracting from her ability to contribute. And to be fair, half of that grieving may be genuine but half may also (sometimes) be just the "missing someone who used to always be here" gap. You can go back as far as Some Kind of Wonderful for a good HS-derived quote: "I'd rather be with someone than be right." The fear of being alone has kept a lot of people in relationships that keep them even more miserable than they'd be alone, and this is a part of growing up.

Also, I have to note that Willow didn't promptly go & replay her experiences, just with new people, as so many freshly out of a relationship tend to do. She didn't revert back to the lone nerd existence, nor did she try to find another Oz and repeat the pattern. (Parker, to me, seemed to be Buffy's attempt to repeat a pattern, when he appeared to be "into" Buffy as the Sensitive Guy.) Instead, Willow encouraged Tara's friendship and sought it out, and thus she & Tara were friends (and possibly lovers) long before Willow ever introduced Tara to the Scoobies, let alone mentioned her. If I recall, Tara first shows up back in the Oz/Veruca episode(s), but isn't introduced to the gang until well into the following season. This time around, Willow wanted something to herself, something private, without the difficult introduction of a new person into some old and complex relationships. I don't know if doing this has solidified her relationship with Tara more than it would have otherwise, but it's possible that introducing Tara only after they were a couple was a way to stave off the Xander jealousy from the get-go. And it may also have been to allow herself the pleasure of a one-on-one friend, like she saw that Buffy had (for awhile, at least) with Faith.

That could be viewed as baggage in some ways (control, privacy, repression), but it could also be viewed as a young person's attempt to deal with her own issues in a new way, having learnt already that the previous ways didn't work very well.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> First appearance of Tara -- Humanitas, 07:57:15 06/27/01 Wed

Great post, Sol. I think your assessment of the "baggage" issue is spot-on. I do have to make one little correction, though. Tara first appeared in Willow's Wicca group in "Hush," several episodes after the Veruca episode. Still, you're absolutely right about Willow holding on to Tara for a while. She didn't introduce her to the group until "Who Are You."

Sorry to nit-pick. I plead Summer re-runs, and boredom at work! :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: First appearance of Tara -- Solitude1056, 10:40:35 06/27/01 Wed

Thanks for making that clear - I'm still fuzzy on that season, since I moved to an area that didn't have the WB in the cable system... yes, it was a long four months while I waited for the WB to be added, so I only caught them in out-of-order reruns over the summer. Gack!


[> Moral Willow? -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 10:43:57 06/23/01 Sat

Groovy Willow analysis!

I agree with pretty much all of what you've said but I just thought I'd mention something that occurred to me from the Kohlberg thread below.

I think that Willow has a great deal of compassion and this makes her the most morally advanced of the Scoobies in many ways (I'm pretty sure that Schopenhauer said that compassion was the basis of ethics). The only times she becomes a bit more ambiguous is when her emotions get the better of her (as you say).

(Hey, am I adding anything new here? If not, sorry.)

So I think that in a morality based on empathy, Willow tends to make the right choices more often than her friends. For this reason I doubt very much that she will become the Big Bad for season six. The only way this could happen is if she became so neurotic and self-obsessed that it blinded her to the problems of other people (for evidence of Joss thinking that it is important to be able to understand and empathise with others see Earshot!).


[> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- rowan, 11:14:17 06/23/01 Sat

"So I think that in a morality based on empathy, Willow tends to make the right choices more often than her friends. For this reason I doubt very much that she will become the Big Bad for season six."

You've expressed what I've been feeling so much better than I have been able to. This is why I'm struggling with Willow as Big Bad. She's just too empathetic and able to connect with everyone else. I could see her having to deal with consequences from magick, but I have a harder time seeing her go bad. The only ways I've been able to imagine it is if she is somehow tricked or seduced into some type of empathetic connection with something evil.

But then, Joss & Co have made me believe alot of things I didn't think I'd be able to...


[> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- mundusmundi, 11:41:48 06/23/01 Sat

What's that saying? "Nobody commits evil for evil's sake; we do it because we mistake it for the good we seek."


[> [> [> [> I believe that's a paraphrase of Socrates, but I'm not sure. -- Rosenberg, 15:54:03 06/23/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> Does sound Socrates-ish, but I just found it attributed to Mary Wollstonecraft -- mundusmundi, 11:53:07 06/24/01 Sun


[> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- Darrick, 11:52:54 06/23/01 Sat

While I agree with you in some ways rowan, I question just how far Willow's empathy extends. In "Triangle", for instance, she bore most of the responsible for all of those people getting injured. Yet I don't recall her acting particularly contrite. Someone could easily have been killed. While she is hypersensitive to the needs of her friends, when it comes to the exercise of her magic and her own desires her empathy seems to fail her.

If she does become the Big Bad( or even the little bad), it would probably happen as a result of a fatal miscalculation on her part. Perhaps she kills someone, and then either has to cover it up or deal with the consequences of discovery by her friends and Tara. This could force her to become isolated from her friends and vulnerable to feelings of resentment. Someone as insecure as Willow has been may be particularly likely to fall victim to these kinds of emotions. Of course this is a lot like what happened with Faith, so perhaps ME won't want to go this route again.

I suspect that rather than becoming a Big Bad, Willow's use of magic and the consequences that follow will only be a major plot point. Maybe she'll be the one to summon the true villain of the season in some way.


[> [> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 01:09:31 06/25/01 Mon

I think Willow has a greater capacity for empathy than anyone else but her emotions can get in the way.

I'd say that, from what we have seen of Buffy so far, it would be more likely that they would bring in a double for Willow (a figure like Faith) rather than make Willow herself go bad. But then, maybe Willow will become more like Tara's double. Doh!

I do like the idea of Willow summoning the Big Bad, though. It would be a logical progression from Something Blue and Triangle...


[> [> [> Paradoxical Willow? -- verdantheart, 08:10:21 06/25/01 Mon

Willow is very interesting in that she embodies potential both for great empathy and forgiveness and for vengeance. Usually, we see her empathy and forgiveness, but when she is badly hurt, the vengeant streak comes out. On one hand she (to hilarious effect) comforts Spike upon his inability to bite her; on the other, D'Hoffryn tries to recruit her as a vengeance demon because of the intensity of her pain and desire to lash out as a result. She sometimes acts (out of pain or even curiosity) without considering the consequences. When we look at the potential power that she may be able to harness, she might well cause great greif before she realizes what she is doing.

Paradoxical? She's not the only one ...

- vh


[> [> [> [> Re: Paradoxical Willow? -- Eva, 06:42:13 06/27/01 Wed

"She sometimes acts (out of pain or even curiosity) without considering the consequences. "

Sounds like Dawn as well.

Those two have much in common.


[> [> [> Re: Moral Willow? -- dream of the consortium, 10:57:18 06/26/01 Tue

I tend to agree. Willow seems to have a problem with limitations on her power. Her reluctance to deal with that issue, in my mind, leaves her ripe for an old-fashioned Greek-style tragedy - hubris rewarded with pain and loss and overwhelming regret. That's different than having her become the "Big Bad"; she wouldn't be a villian, but a tragic figure, albeit one who might create the problems that the Scoobies have to solve, tragedy crossing over into adventure. The problem with introducing tragedy into this form - a long-running television show - is that it can be very difficult to watch. Tragedy replicates the very worst emotions of human experience. Watching a character on stage suffer the torments of grief and regret can be hard, but cathartic. Watching a character that we have developed a deep attachment to over several years undergo that sort of suffering might be too much. Of course, after "The Body", we know that Joss is not one to coddle his viewers. So it is possible that he could create a tragic scenario in which, for example, some sort of magical overreaching on Willow's part results in the death of Tara (I know that that is unlikely based on contracts with actors, etc., but just as an example.) I can imagine that story, though it would be painful to watch. What I can't imagine is letting Willow "go bad" in the aftermath, but not because it would be out of character. I think the writers could build a slow alienation of Willow from the group based on aspects of her character we already know and then use a tragic event as a final catalyst for a turn toward evil. What stands in the way of "evil Willow" is that the viewers, quite fairly, want to protect their affections. I've been trying to think of a television series in which a sympathetic character has "turned bad" permanently. The only thing I can think of, (Spoiler alert) and it certainly represents a use of the tragic form, is Twin Peaks. In the final episode Dale, who has been the hero of the series, becomes possessed by the demon he has been fighting, seemingly as a consequence of refusing to accept his own limitations in fighting evil. Everyone I know HATED that ending, desperately hated it. Personally, I just decided to pretend it didn't exist. When Laura Palmer's killer was found, that was the end of the show. What I found strange was that I had to make that sort of formulation mentally, because the effect otherwise was far too disturbing. A truly evil Willow, one we could believe, would produce similar results.


[> Jewish or Jewish? -- Rosenberg, 15:44:50 06/23/01 Sat

Actually, saying your Jewish does not mean you believe in the Judaic beliefs (monotheist god, divine inspiration in Tanakh, etc), it merely states that you are descended from a Jewish parent. Unlike Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist, for instance, a Jew is a socio-ethnic designation as well as a religious one. So there's no contridiction in being a Jewish Wiccan any more than Einstein being a Jewish pantheist or Woody Allen a Jewish atheist.


[> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Isabel, 21:44:27 06/23/01 Sat

You do have a point, and I'll admit since I am neither Jewish or Wiccan I felt inadequate delving too far into religion.

A Wicca web site I looked at, which I didn't make a print out of so I can't give an address, did mention that you could be a witch and be a different religion. (Pagan, Wiccan, Christian, Jewish...) But that was a site that also differentiated between witch and Wiccan.

As for being Jewish, the way it has been explained to me by my Reformed and Conservative Jewish friends, being Jewish is passed through the mother and only through the mother. (A male Jewish friend just had a baby with his non-Jewish wife. According to him, his family and other mutual Jewish friends, that baby is not Jewish.) The flip side is that once you're born Jewish, you're Jewish even if you choose another religion. And if you're female, any child you have is Jewish even if you raise them in the other religion.

Again I'm not an expert. But that is exactly why I felt that I needed to explain what I meant. I do feel that BtVS is not consistant in the Wicca/Witch area. At one point in Family, Xander and Buffy are talking about Willow 'Swinging with the Wiccan lifestyle' that seems (to me, at least) to equate Wiccan with lesbian. Since you don't need to be lesbian, or even female, to be Wiccan, that's way inaccurate.


[> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Rosenberg, 20:47:49 06/24/01 Sun

Oh, maternal descent of Jewish ancestory isn't accepted by Reform Jews, and it's mostly and Orthodox belief. Personally I accept that anyone with a Jewish parent or grandparent is a Jewish. Also, I'm sorry, but Alyson Hannigan is not the person to cast as a Jew. She just looks so obviously Irish. It seems as if Joss through the "Jewish thing" on as an afterthought, as it also appears that her heritage has had no effect on her. Her magic has no Kabbalistic influences, but she never talks about her beliefs so we can't know for sure whether she's been influenced by Judaism (or even Wicca, for that matter). Sorry for rambling, but this always bugged me.


[> [> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Rob, 09:30:25 06/26/01 Tue

Sorry to butt in here, but I'm Jewish too, spent the first 9 years of my schooling in an all-day Hebrew school, and I've never heard of Judaism being passed on through the mother as being only an Orthodox thing. Whether some Reform Jews choose to ignore it is one thing, but that happens to be one of the most important rules of Judaism. If it was not, then each sect would have a different definition of whether someone was Jewish or not, and that would get far too confusing. The rule is: If your mother is Jewish, you are Jewish. If every single family member in your family is Jewish except for your mother, you are not Jewish. If your mother is Jewish and you decide to convert to another religion, you are still considered Jewish by this rule. If you are not Jewish and decide to convert, you are still not truly Jewish. Therefore, no matter what Willow does--whether she followed Judaism but still practiced Wiccan, or if she "converted" to Wiccanism--she was born a Jew, has a Jewish mother, and will, therefore, always be a Jew. As far as the Alyson looking Irish, I don't agree that this means she can't be Jewish. Sometimes different genetics get mixed in (Perhaps one of her female ancestors married an Irish man)...I know a lot of Jewish girls and boys who you would swear were Irish.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Rosenberg, 09:52:16 06/26/01 Tue

Being a Jew by maternal descent is certainly not one of the most important elements of Judaism (ever hear of the Ten Commandments, kindness to strangers, charity, etc). And as for conversion, ask a Rabbi: Abraham was not born a Jew. I didn't say that you can't be Irish and Jewish, I was only saying that Willow seems to have been made randomly Jewish.


[> [> [> lesbian wicca -- vampire hunter D, 10:57:32 06/25/01 Mon

In response to your last paragraph, while I agree that the show's writers do tend to confuse witch and wiccan, at no time do they ever equate witchhood and lesbianism. What they tend to do is use Willow and Tara's wiccanpractices as metaphores for teir relationship, since there are still plenty of Standards and Practices boards that are still uncomfortable with that subject matter. You weren't wrong in realizing Buffy and Xander were refering to lesbians when they said Wicca, but they didn't say it to imply that wicca are gay.

btw, is it spelled lezbian or lesbian?

And I would just like to close this post with a quote from the great philosopher Howard Stern: "Lesbians, Lesbians, I love lesbians!"


[> [> [> Re: Jewish or Jewish? -- Solitude1056, 20:43:39 06/27/01 Wed

As for being Jewish, the way it has been explained to me by my Reformed and Conservative Jewish friends, being Jewish is passed through the mother and only through the mother. (A male Jewish friend just had a baby with his non-Jewish wife. According to him, his family and other mutual Jewish friends, that baby is not Jewish.) The flip side is that once you're born Jewish, you're Jewish even if you choose another religion. And if you're female, any child you have is Jewish even if you raise them in the other religion.

Let's see, from my recollections of studying Judaism with a Rabbi. No, maybe, yes, maybe. The tradition of the jewish faith/socioeconomic participation being determined by the mother is not an original element of judaism - in fact, it dates from the Inquisition. Between the Spainards, seeking proof that a child was jewish (and therefore within their province as a human to be evicted), and the Jews themselves, seeking proof that a child was jewish (since many jewish women were raped by marauding soldiers etc), each seemed to determine that if the mother is jewish, the child is jewish. After all (as the Rabbi explained to us), you can't know for certain who the father is, but you always know who the mother is. In this case, though, the Judaic response - to measure a child's inclusion by the mother's background - became the accepted attitude.

When the reformed jewish branch broke away, this was one of the tenets that was challenged (among others). But it's a habit that's been around for what, five hundred years now? That's a hard one to break, and you'll meet folks who say one way, and some who say the other. But my understanding is that the common attitude now, amongst reformed Jews, is that either parent's lineage causes the child to be Jewish, and that those who convert to Judaism carry equal weight with those born & raised in it (remembering that conversion to Judaism is a years-long act, not a one-day act).


[> Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Little One, 13:07:50 06/26/01 Tue

I have posted earlier my belief that it Willow has great potential to become seduced by the dark side. However, after much reflection (let's just say work is very very slow right now) I believe that it will be her lust for knowledge that will lead her down this path, not her emotions. Throughout Willow's academic career, she has always been a top student. This, I believe stems from her intelligence and insight. Perhaps the attention she received (Xander asking her for homework help) from her grades fanned this burgeoning thirst for knowledge. As well, we have all be spectators in her wiccan pursuits, beginning with mere dabbling which, as she sees the power and potential in this magic, grows in power until Willow becomes Buffy's "big gun".

Of course, her emotions do lead her towards the dark magic, but I believe it is her thirst for knowledge that will have her continue to delve into this dark power. It is like a narcotic for her, the more she knows, the more she wants to know. In Forever, she had followed Tara's example in dissuading Tara from resurrecting Joyce until Tara revealed that such a spell was possible. At this point, Willow's protests begin to sound feeble as she ponders the possibility of resurrection, a realm of magic she hadn't considered. She ignored Tara and aided Dawn mostly out of her desire to help but also because she didn't believe that knowledge was dangerous.

A good example of Willow's lust for knowledge is shown in S2's Ted. These quotes are taken from the Buffy Shooting Script site and they occur near the end of the episode where Buffy, Willow and Xander are discussing Ted.

WILLOW And the sad thing is, the real Ted must have been a genius. There were design features in that robot that predate-- BUFFY Willow. Tell me you didn't keep any parts. WILLOW (guilty) Not any big ones... BUFFY Oh, Will, you're supposed to use your powers for good! WILLOW I just wanna learn stuff.

Perhaps this is a precursor to S6. Willow ignores her friends and her own common sense and dives into dark and powerful magic all because she wanted to "learn stuff".

Just a thought.


[> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Solitude1056, 21:42:46 06/26/01 Tue

That's essentially the gist of what I've been arguing, although Willow's emotions IMO play a big role (especially the protective element, which may fuel her desire for more knowledge). However, you said it in a lot less words & far more concisely than I - kudos! :-)


[> [> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Little One, 08:01:29 06/27/01 Wed

Thanks *blushing *, but you were quite eloquent in your arguments as well. I agree with your point of Willow's protectiveness being a key element in her thirst for knowledge. I think that is what initially propelled her towards the dark magic, but it will be her wanting to learn more and more that will keep her momentum going. She has an insatiable lust to know all and seems to berate herself when she doesn't have the answers or when her spells fail. I'm a bit afraid that she will become a Dr. Frankenstein of sorts, that her thirst for knowledge will inadvertently create great evil.

By the way, I looked up Kudos (being a bit on the curious side myself) and it means glory. Hmm..how did you know that was my alter ego?


[> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- Eva, 23:10:43 06/26/01 Tue

I see this as a quality that Dawn has as well.

Both Dawn and Willow are very curious about the world around them.

Both are active readers.

Buffy really never went in for that reading thing much.


[> [> Re: Willow's Thirst For Knowledge -- verdantheart, 07:11:03 06/27/01 Wed

Boris Karloff intonation: "There are some things Man should not know ..."

Paraphrase of many old horror/sci fi movies. I always tended to groan ... must be the mad scientist in me ... he he he HA HA HA ... ahem, where was I? ...


[> [> [> ah, but what about women? *evil wink* -- Little One, 07:58:59 06/27/01 Wed

Love the Boris Karloff intonation (LOL). Afterall, Bella Lugosi's dead (sorry, having a BauHaus moment...feeling much better now)

Hmm..mad scientist, huh? So do you go around mutting "It's alive! it's alive!" as well? It does wonders in the sack. (oh, deary-me, I've got an awfully filthy mind...) It's ALIVE!

(Trying desperately to keep this a family show) ;-)


[> [> [> [> *Canadianificus terribilis* makes an encore appearance...lol -- Wisewoman, 09:15:06 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> No evil here, just shy coy little ol' moi...roflol -- Canadianificus terribilis..oops, I mean Little One, 10:47:41 06/27/01 Wed

Canadianificus terribilis, I love it! Now i want a name-plaque for my desk that says that so I can switch it with my real plaque when I'm feeling a wee bit naughty. It could act like a warning, like caution: there be dragons!

You guys keep making me burst into laughter at work! My bosses all think I'm looney! (well, they wouldn't be completely wrong) ;-)
Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier, 12:00:21 06/22/01 Fri

*There be spoilers here*

This was supposed to be a response to a message in a previous thread. However, it seems that thread that seems to have been deleted. Now I have changed the intent of this message in order to rally support behind Buffy and Xander entering into a relationship. Wait! Don't go. I know some people don't want to see this happen. However, I do have evidence from past episodes that it could out work between them. If you can find these episodes, the interaction between them is cute and sweet without being sugary.

On the topic of episodes I don't have: Other people have said that "Passion" and "Amends" have some great B/X momments, but I don't have "Passions" on tape and I'm missing part of "Amends" (and I haven't had time to check the part that I do have)

First Season: "Teacher's Pet: I don't have the full episode, so this may be incorrect. Buffy is very shocked when she learns that Xander is a virgin. If the missing part of the episode has Xander saying he isn't a virgin or something like that, that would explain it. The interesting thing is that she made an assumption that he had already had sex. This leads to the conclusion that hse had given some thought to Xander's sex life. Why? Maybe She viewed Xander as someone she could have her first time with. I know someone whose first time was with a friend. She asked him to be her first because he was a friend. They had a certain level of trust and a certain bond that had been created.

"Prophecy Girl": As Buffy revives she says Xander's name, not Angel's.

Second Season: "When She Was Bad": Not sure about this episode. The sexy dance was hot, but Buffy's intent was to make Angel jealous. But it also could be because Buffy chose Xander. Angel could only be jealous if he perceived Xander to be a real threat. Xander would only be a real threat to Angel if Buffy had some romantic feelings for Xander.

"Inca Mummy Girl": The final scene is a conversation between Buffy and Xander. Based on the long look (too long to be considered to be just "friendly") and the fact that when they broke the look Buffy gave a content smile, part of Buffy does view that being with Xander would be very nice.

"Phases": In the mortuary, the embrace between Xander and Buffy as Xander tries to comfort her lasts a little too long and they do look into each other's eyes.

"Go Fish": The scene at the pool. Xander says he's going "under cover." Buffy responds that "Your not under much." I'm not sure if this counts, but Freud (I think) said that humor (or was it laughter) was one way humans deal with subjects they find uncomfortable. Based on what I have seen in this episode and others, Buffy finds the subject of actually dating Xander uncomfortable even though she does have some desire to.

Season Three: "Earshot": When Xander runs from the library, Buffy has slight smile. It seems to me that she doesn't mind that he thinks about sex all the time...as long as she can tease him about it. This reminds me of "Never Kill a Boy On The First Date" and something that happened to me. In "Never Kill a Boy On the First Date" Xander tells Buffy that she should find someone who already knows her darkest secrets and still wants to date her. On to me. A little less than two years ago I started to hang out with a friend of mine. I thought she was beautiful and cool and started to fall for her. At one point I secretly tested our compatibility by telling a somewhat coloful joke in the form of a one-liner in reference to Cinemax and its late-night programming. After I said the joke, in a slightly teasing voice, she said, "You man." (Now she's my girlfriend. Yay for me.)

Season Four: "Beer Bad": Buffy is VERY attracted to Xander. She sniffs him and says, "Boy smell nice." In a way this mirrors, what happened to Xander in "The Pack". In "The Pack" what happened was that the hyena spirit twisted Xander's attraction and caring into something that was very dangerous. Based on that, we have evidence even though they don't show those types feelings for each other, Buffy and Xander definitely have a shared attraction to each other.

"Restless": Possibly. Xander's dream has Xander watching over Buffyon they playground. She calls him "big brother", but this may not be a reference to her loving him like a brother but a reference to Xander always willing to protect her physically or emotionally. If it is, it may be a roundabout reference to "Killed By Death", in which Angelus called Xander "white knight" and then stated that Xander still loved Buffy.

Season Five: "I Was Made To Love You": Buffy hugs "puffy Xander" (Xander in the puffy suit). Xander says something that suggests he still has romantic feelings for Buffy. Probably feelings that outweigh anything that he has had with Anya, even if he won't admit it himself. Also the very content sihs Buffy communicates suggest that the previous barriers she put up to a romantic relationship with Xander are breaking down and that she is starting to see that it could be a real option.

The reference at the beginning is a reference to old maps. In the distant past, cartographers would designate uncharted areas of the world with the phrase "There me monsters here". I was making it as an interesting way to indicate that my post contained spoilers, but I realize that a relationship between Buffy and Xander is certainly uncharted territory.


[> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- mundusmundi, 15:42:38 06/22/01 Fri

Great post. Interesting you mentioned it, since for a while this season I wondered if the writers were going down that road, e.g., from some of the examples you mentioned, and a few others. Way I see it, all the characters love each other, and virtually all are attracted to each other in some degree. One of the funniest examples of this was last season, when Willow, Tara and Anya stumbled on Giles singing "Behind Blue Eyes," an experience Wils deemed, "Weirdly sexy."

The hitch is, as Spike noted to poor Riley: "(Buffy) needs a monster in her man." Xander hasn't that quality. Of course Spike could be wrong, but I sense that the Xander/Buffy relationship will remain platonic for that reason....unless she returns from the grave wanting to shag every man in sight.


[> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier, 18:37:50 06/22/01 Fri

I think Spike was incorrect in his initial assessment of what Buffy needed when he told Riley that the man she was with had to have a monster within. I even think Spike knows this now. In "The Gift", Spike tells Buffy, "I know I'm a monster, but you treat me like a man." I think he knows now that what Buffy really wants and needs is a man who is normal (read:no monster within). The most normal (read: same) in Sunnydale that Buffy seems to fancy on some level is Xander. However, what would cause her to start admitting to herself that she has feelings for Xander that are romantic in nature as wall as friendly in nature?

In "Intervention", Buffy asks the First Slayer if she is losing the ability to love and the First Slayer responds, "Only if you reject it. Love is pain, and the Slayer forges strength from pain. Give. Forgive. Risk the pain. It is your nature. Love will bring you to your gift." Removing the part about love bringing her to her gift (since she has already utilized her gift), we are left with advice that is generally good: do not reject love. This interesting, because in the episodes I mentioned in my original post (and possibly other episodes), Buffy seems to have rejected her romantic feelings for Xander. If Buffy takes this advice to its logical conclusion, she should recognize that these feelings are a part of her and should be recognized as an essential part of her and then fully embraced. Once she embraces them, she will be a more balanced person. If this type of transformation happens, she will become like Xander in a way. Before "The Replacement", Xander was plaqued with periods of self-doubt. Once he realized that he was actually a good carpenter because of the events of "The Replacement", he has began the process of integrating his strongest and weakest qualities so that he will become a more balanced individual. (In a previous thread about Xander's destiny, I went into more detail about this subject. Please read it. You might be impressed. You might disagree. If you do read it, please try to respond. I like responses.)

Of course, she will feel pain because Xander is dating Anya, but she will also be happy for him. She will even have hope that day he will love her like he loved her before.


[> [> [> Re: Oops -- Jarrod Harmier, 18:43:29 06/22/01 Fri

The last line of that post is supposed to say: She will even have hope that one day he will love her like he loved her before.


[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Cynthia, 19:20:17 06/22/01 Fri

Well, when I heard the First Slayer's words I automatic thought it meant Spike. Whether or not Buffy needs a "bit of monster" in her men, I always gotten that the impression that she sees and needs to have Xander as a brother rather than a lover. This type of relationship should not be undervalued, it is a source of great strength and comfort. And while it not impossible the relationship to have a sexual aspect, I don't see it having a dynamics of a couple.

Of course, the writers could prove me wrong LOL


[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Nina, 20:23:48 06/22/01 Fri

You know it will sound strange coming from me, but if the writers did bring Buffy and Xander together and it made sense I'd say: "go for it". I'm not obtuse and I don't only want a B/S relationship because this is the only thing that can happen.

I just have difficulty to see how it could work now. Joss said that he gave Willow what she most desired when she couldn't have it anymore (meaning that she had Xander's affection shortly in season 3). To go there again when Xander is involved with Anya is poorly reflecting on Xander. What would it say about him? That he ditches the girl he is with to go with someone else when he has a chance?. I wouldn't love that Xander. If Anya had died in season 5 maybe they could have gone that way. Grieving Xander could attract a new risen Buffy. But angst just for angst I surely wouldn't want to see anything between Buffy ad Xander while Xander is still with Anya.

Logically I have always said that Xander is the only male choice for Buffy. The only normal guy who accepts her for who she is and who would let her slay without feeling a lesser man. But love is not something you can command. Buffy loves Xander. I just don't think that there's anything sexual on her part.

I love people to be happy. If Spike doesn't make Buffy happy, if really she doesn't like him, I hope the writers will ditch that story line as soon as possible and not drag it for 2 years. Let's put her with Xander if she's going to be happy there. But the thing is that I do believe that Buffy is attracted to Spike (notice the big conflict here!)...and I am sorry as I am turning this thread to be a S/B thread! For god sakes it's nice to hear other opinions. We haven't had a B/X thread in a long while! Yay!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- rowan, 21:54:13 06/22/01 Fri

"Love, love, love...love, love, love...love, love, love...There's nothing you can know that isn't known. Nothing you can see that isn't shown. Nowhere you can be, that isn't where you're meant to be. It's easy."

All You Need is Love, The Beatles

Have I ever told you that I think all the wisdom of the world resides in the lyrics of Beatles songs? These are just my off the top of my head thoughts. I haven't really been getting any Buffy/Xander vibe recently. I suspect it could be problematic if he went back to Buffy post-Cordelia, post-Willow, post-Faith, post-Anya. I'm definitely feeling that he is settled with Anya and that the "oh grow up" theme would naturally fit them if they married and started contemplating a family.

Now on Buffy's side...someone with a role like Buffy's may never have love (in the sense of a committed relationship). That may be the sad sacrifice that she has to make for her destiny. Her work demands so much of her. There may never be room for more. I think perhaps, in Rufus's immortal words, we need to get the girl breathing again before we set her up on a date (love that line!). Seriously though, I think Buffy could use some alone time to come to terms with the "you're full of love" idea and how to balance woman/Slayer.

A B/S ship doesn't offend me, but I'm not pushing it, either. Frankly, I want Spike to stick around, and a B/S ship might guarantee a quick expiration date for him. I'd rather see Joss explore Spike's character through his big brother/little sister relationship with Dawn.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier, 07:03:45 06/23/01 Sat

I am also wouldn't want to see anything between Buffy and Xander while Xander is still with Anya. I just think that Buffy and Xander seems to make more sense than Anya and Xander. Anya and Xander are cute, though. I'll give them that.

I do know if I were writing a storyline about the growing romantic relationship between Buffy and Xander, I know I wouldn't make the tone overtly sexual. The tone of their relationship would have to reflect the tone of the friendship. The same qualities that are found in friends can also be found in people in romantic relationships. It would actually be rather easy to build a Buffy/Xander storyline. The interaction between them would be arise from their friendship, but it would be more intimate and there would be a cute akwardness between them. This cute akwardness would come from needing each other as both friends and lovers, but not wanting to royally screw things up. The build-up of the relationship would be similar to the slow build-up that Mulder and Scully had on "The X-Files". As the seasons continued EVERYONE knew that Mulder and Scully loved each other. This love was based on mutually earned trust and respect. The whole relationship was very chaste. But at the same time, it was hot as hell! If a slow build-up is used, a Buffy/Xander romance could conceivably be one of the most romanctic and fulfilling relationships on television.

One episode could have Xander literally following his beloved into Hell, even though she has told him not to. She wants to protect him. Her chanches of returing are slim. Buffy's "white knight" just looks into her eyes and answers, "I would rather die with you than die alone."


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- AK-UK, 17:32:38 06/24/01 Sun

It is really nice to hear that someone is fighting the good fight for Xander. This character really could do with some TLC, and it's good to read a post which tries to give him a some greater destiny in the show.

But I don't think you're right.

Sorry, but I honestly think the writers have dropped the ball when it comes to Xander. After "The Zeppo" I thought to myself "Wow, this character has loads of potential.....and, WOW Nicholas Brendon really can do more than a Jim Carrey-lite act". The way he walked away from Cordelia without replying to her jibes was just too cool.......finally, Xander was going to grow up, his new found confidence would allow him to shine.

So, what happened? Yep, you know what happened. The very next episode, things went right back to normal. Xander is as dopey as ever, still a dogsbody, still trying to come up with witty come-backs to Cordelia, and failing at it.........what a pity. Ever since then it seems the writers just don't know what to do with Xander. They seem content to occasionally throw him a important line out of guilt ("I know, lets have him accidently suggest the SuperBuffy meld thing"). I mean, look at this season's finale. Joss Whedon was so desperate to have Xander do something to help that he had Xander swinging a wrecking ball, for crying out loud!

I fear that any B/X relationship, if it was going to happen, would have happened in season 4. Buffy is newly split from Angel, looking for a normal guy, all the ingredients were there, but we got Riley. Now we have a really dynamic going on between Buffy and Spike, and Xander is happily tied up in a (rushed and contrived, but still kinda sweet) relationship, nay engagement, to Anya so I wouldn't get my hopes up for season 6.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Jarrod Harmier, 23:31:00 06/24/01 Sun

Buffy did find "normal" guy. Do you remember Parker (a.k.a Poop-head, a.k.a Id boy)? I had forgotten about this until I read a piece of Buffy/Xander fanfiction today, but when I first saw Parker ("Living Conditions"), I thought, "Why does he look so familiar?" It took me quite a bit of thought, but when it hit me I thought, "Oh hell! He looks like Xander!" Just some food for thought.

On the subject of how much good Xander has done: I posted Xander and Destiny to to one of the other forums (www.voy.com/13746) on this website. It covers just season four and part of season five right now, but I think that it ia very illuminating. I'll email it to you, but you may want to read the responses on that forum.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- Andy, 06:57:06 06/25/01 Mon

I don't feel that Buffy could have taken up with Xander in season 4. I think Xander had so many problems with his life and self esteem that season that Buffy could only regard him as pathetic. Like in Fear, Itself when she believes he's run off and spits out, "God, this is so typical of him!" She simply didn't have enough respect for him to consider any kind of truly deep relationship.

Season 5, however, I think Xander's made a great deal of progress and is arguably the most mature of the Scoobies. Now he's not just a goofball who gets into trouble all the time, he's a well-adjusted guy whose point of view is respected and taken seriously (I think it's telling that Xander is the one who accompanies Buffy to meet the Knights in Spiral, and he's the one who keeps the situation from degenerating into chaos). The result of the progress he's made is, I believe, a level of comfort between him and Buffy that has never existed before. While I agree that other circumstances will prevent Buffy and Xander from hooking up, I think there's at least a groundwork finally laid there that, if circumstances permitted, could lead to something that was previously out of the question.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Xander (spoilers from episodes from every season) (longish) -- mundusmundi, 15:08:10 06/25/01 Mon

""I don't feel that Buffy could have taken up with Xander in season 4. I think Xander had so many problems with his life and self esteem that season that Buffy could only regard him as pathetic."

Yeah, I always wondered if they missed an opportunity with Xander in B4. You have a guy who's through with school, who's struggling to find his identity, who used to have army training (from "Halloween" before he lost his powers)....and then you've got this new Initiative in town. Throwing Xander in with Maggie, Adam and the gang might've created some interesting tension and combustion with the SG. Guess they saved that for Riley.

"Season 5, however, I think Xander's made a great deal of progress and is arguably the most mature of the Scoobies. Now he's not just a goofball who gets into trouble all the time, he's a well-adjusted guy whose point of view is respected and taken seriously (I think it's telling that Xander is the one who accompanies Buffy to meet the Knights in Spiral, and he's the one who keeps the situation from degenerating into chaos)."

Nice example. (I'd also mention that he was the first to pick up on the bad Buffy/Riley vibes.) He hasn't had much in the way of action lately, but he's been very good at *reacting* to problems and dealing with them fairly well. He's more comfortable with himself, and that's why he and Buffy have such a nice, relaxed atmosphere now in their scenes together, as you said.
Nervously posting, and me with not a philosophical thing to say -- sollig, 16:22:06 06/22/01 Fri

I've been lurking for a few months, posting only a couple times, but just wanted to express how impressed I am with the intelligence and humor of the posts here. Thank goodness I landed on this board while stumbling from site to site filled with posts considering the possiblity of the witches from Charmed or the aliens from Roswell bringing Buffy back, countless declarations of "Angel+Buffy 4ever," and random ramblings about all things not philisophical and not even Buffy. I consider myself reasonably intelligent, but you all are so thoughtful and have in turn given this ex-editor, current stay-at-home mom lots to think about; a little excercise for the brain, as it were. Thanks!

To Liquidram: Am I to understand that you designed the images on the website mentioned in the t-shirt discussion? If so, very striking! Me likey!

Okay, I now retreat back to the shadows, but I'll be watching. And maybe if I have something to share that matches the caliber of the regulars' posts, I'll surface again. Farewell!


[> I'd like to welcome you to come post or comment on posts anytime! -- Masquerade, 16:24:28 06/22/01 Fri


[> Thank you very much and please, stick around awhile! -- Liquidram, 17:01:27 06/22/01 Fri


[> Re: Nervously posting, and me with not a philosophical thing to say -- LadyStarlight, 20:38:37 06/22/01 Fri

As an ex-librarian and currant SAHM myself, isn't it great to talk to grownups occasionally?


[> Welcome! -- rowan, 21:13:19 06/22/01 Fri

Hey, if I can do it, anyone can. Welcome.


[> [> We need a speical thread for all lurkers to delurk onto?? (This will do) :) -- Emcee003, 23:08:56 06/22/01 Fri


[> [> [> Thanks for the nice welcome all! I think I will stick around! NT -- sollig, 08:15:43 06/23/01 Sat

Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- OnM, 21:44:56 06/22/01 Fri


In the instance of this project, I wanted to investigate the notion, being someone who admires Shakespeare as the great storyteller, and the question we wanted to answer was, how would Shakespeare make a movie, if he was making a movie?

Now, we do not know a lot about Shakespeare, in truth, but we do know that he was an actor at the Globe Theatre, and his audience was basically three thousand drunken, screaming punters, and his competition was bear-baiting and prostitution. So, as a storyteller, he was a relentless entertainer. There was no sense of being a 'precious artist' so much, but someone who would savagely and cleverly use every possible asset he could lay his hands on to execute a storytelling that would affect his audience.

So we went on a very meticulous year of research, to research the truth about the Elizabethan stage from which Shakespeare told his stories. Then we set about converting that information into a cinematic language, and into elements that we would use to tell our story.

______________ Baz Luhrmann


Ah, everybody loves The Bard, do they not? Well, not everybody.

The common wisdom is, Old Bill wrote quite a lot of plays, and after lo these many centuries we still consider them to be some of the finest examples of the writer's gift. Dutiful descendants that we are, we seek to pass this literary and poetic excellence on to the next generation, usually sometime in junior high school. Which is where, not surprisingly, you will find lots of inquiring young minds who if they had their druthers, would druther not be studying Shakespeare.

Consider their point of view in this dislike, I prithee. Pick a play, any play. They're full to the brim of oddly cadenced, very old, difficult to decipher English speech, obscure Elizabethan social and political references, and of course, those puns which delight scholars of ancient British witticisms, but give most 20th century readers the 'huh?' expression, assuming they're awake in the first place.

Of course, that was the way it was when I was in junior high school, which was waaaaayyyyyy back in the dark ages of the 1960's. Things are surely different now, kids are so much more sophisticated, they have, movies, TV, even access to the Internet where you can log on to Shakepeare.com and get the full skinny de-obscured for their own personal junior-highish literary enlightenment.

Nahhh. Who're we kidding? When you're 13 or 14 years old, The Bard doesn't mean much. And why should he? Crazy old fart, writing stuff to entertain the bourgeoisie that certainly must have been over the heads of the common rabble of the day. Who else would go to these high-falutin' affairs of the mind?

Uhh, what do you mean, his audience *was* the common masses? Oh yes, on occasion a member of the social elite, perhaps even the rare prince or queen might attend, but that was the exception, you say? Impossible! If this was the entertainment of the proletariat-- the tinkers, tailors, barkeeps and stablehands-- then that would make it equivalent to, well, today's popular music culture, or TV, or... or... movies, fer cryin' out loud! That'll never do, we know darn well the teachers and school administrators only try to introduce this stuff to us at this tender age to quickly separate the run-of-the-mill slackers and losers from the future intelligentsia, so as to quickly ascertain who is truly worthy of being garlanded with the future burdens of wealth and power! What an incredibly radical thought it would be to think that Shakespeare was an.. an *entertainer*!

Naahhh. If that was possible, then who knows what's possible, anything goes! Here, today, some doofus TV writer could come up with some patently idiotic idea like, say, a hero's journey involving some tiny teenage Valley-girl-esque blond chick from California who, say, fights vampires. Only it's all thematically layered and uses clever, obscure language styles, social and political references, and of course, puns.

Why, if *that* happened, then the next thing would be somebody feeling perfectly free to take the exact words from the entire play *Romeo & Juliet*, those beautiful, social-elite-serving iambic pentameters and set them into a 20th century alternate universe scenario and make a *movie* out of it! Good god, they might even cast teen idols like Claire Danes and Leonardo DiCaprio in it!! And... and... have Mercutio dressed up like a drag queen and be singing and dancing!!! Oh, the horror, the horror...

Which brings us to this week's Classic Movie, *William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet*, by Australian director Baz Luhrmann, who has managed to both piss off and absolutely delight numerous film and literary critics with, well, Shakespeare for the Masses, and young masses at that. This is a film that shows many of the stunning stylistic features of Luhrmann's current work, *Moulin Rouge*, a film which at the end of last week's column, I heartily encouraged, nay, bade thee go see posthaste, it being a certain contender for best film of 2001, in the humble opin of this modest scribe. If you have seen *Moulin Rouge*, and liked it, and you haven't yet seen *William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet*, now is your chance to do so.

This film is so visually unique, don't expect to pick up everything on the first viewing. Like the Bard, it can be very dense and layered and intimidating, but it never fails to entertain. Stay with it past the opening sequences, where it is unquestionably jarring to hear the spoken words of centuries past melded to an obviously contemporary sensibility. Have faith-- things unfold in due time, and you will find yourself drawn in and involved. You don't even really need to know anything much about Old Bill and his plays, since Luhrmann is such a visual storyteller, the words and the soundtrack could be deleted, and you could still clearly follow what's transpiring-- the timeless story of two star-crossed lovers, and their inevitable tragic fate.

What could be truly tragic would be for you to not see this innovative and original re-working of a classic tale, and get a glimpse into the mind of one of the Bards of the current millennium. They are all around us, blessing us, rabble and elite alike, with their keen artistry, and you need only see it for yourself to see that it is so.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



Neo-Elizabethan Technical Compendium:

*William Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet* is available on DVD. The review copy was on laserdisc, and contains, in addition to the film itself, several extras. These are: Full length audio commentary with director, writer and producer Baz Luhrmann, production designer Catherine Martin, editor Jill Bilcock, director of photography Don McAlpine and co-producer Martin Brown, and a 20 minute video, *Inventing a Way of Doing It*, that contrasts original sites and production team 'walk-throughs' to the finished scenes. I do not have information as to special features on the DVD version, but they are probably similar, or perhaps even more extensive. (The quote from Baz that opens the column this week was excerpted from the laserdisc commentary track).

In addition to lead actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes, the film stars Brian Dennehy, John Leguizamo, Christina Pickles, Pete Postlethwaite, Paul Sorvino, Diane Venora, Harold Perrineau, Vondie Curtis-Hall, M. Emmet Walsh and Jesse Bradford.

The year of release was 1996. Running time is 2 hours. Aspect ratio is 2.35:1, but even if you have a smallish TV, try to see the film in the original widescreen version. Luhrmann uses the entire frame nearly all the time, you will see a basically completely different film in the pan & scan (1.33:1/standard TV) version. Sound is Dolby Digital 5.1 and THX.


OK, time to go now, hope you enjoy this weeks selection, but before exiting stage right, I'll take the suggestion of several respondents to my recent summary of flicks and requests for how to make this column better, by asking a question that might conjure up discussion.

If you have seen *WS's R&J*, you will quite possibly have noticed that there is a lot of water imagery in the film. For example, when we first meet Juliet (Claire Danes), she has her head underwater, her hair swirling mermaid-like all about her. Shortly afterward, when she meets Romeo (L. DiCaprio) for the first time, Luhrmann utilizes an incredible looking sequence involving a fishtank. There is the ocean, there is rain, there are fountains.

What's it all about? I doubt there was this much water in the Globe Theatre, so what is Luhrmann trying to say to us?

Please mark any responses to this question with a *SPOILER* denotation if you reveal any significant details about the film in your post, and don't put spoilers in the thread title, of course.

Thanks again, see you next time!



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- rowan, 22:09:31 06/22/01 Fri

*sigh* Now I know I don't have any taste. I liked the Zeffirelli version with Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey. They kind of had a Spike and Dawn quality about them (alot of acting via the eyes -- keep your thoughts clean, everyone. Evil to him who thinks evil). But then, I liked Branagh's Henry V better than Olivier's, so obviously my problems have a very old root.

Although I heartily endorse viewing as much Shakespeare as possible.


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- Rufus, 22:18:35 06/22/01 Fri

I saw this one too.....I read all my Shakespeare in my early to mid teens.....now I've forgotten it all. I do remember some basic plot stuff. My favorite was King Lear. I didn't like Romeo and Juliette because I thought they were too impulsive for my taste. The movie was fun.


[> [> The Zeffirelli version was fine, it's just more conventional. -- OnM, 22:44:07 06/22/01 Fri

Could make for an interesting double feature, eh wot?



[> [> [> Re: The Zeffirelli version was fine, it's just more conventional. -- rowan, 08:14:28 06/23/01 Sat

Exactly! I think I'm one of these people who doesn't like my Shakespeare too unconventional (personal taste issue, not an artistic critique). Although I did like the Richard III with Ian McKellan that was done several years ago.


[> [> That's because Branagh's Henry V *was* better! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 20:22:57 06/24/01 Sun

And Derek Jacobi's Hamlet was better than Olivier's too, IMHO!


[> [> [> Re: That's because Branagh's Henry V *was* better! ;o) -- Rahael, 02:02:14 06/25/01 Mon

Exactly! As for Olivier's "We few, we happy few" speech" - tingles running down my spine. Not.


[> The anwser is (H2ooo) -- Emcee003, 23:43:54 06/22/01 Fri


Now this is where we get into my expertise, film (and sociology), the water is to do with the sexual development of Juliet (and kind of Romeo). As you pointed out the first time we see Juliet its morning, as she's in a night dress and she has to get dressed. Her own head is obviously a metaphor for masturbation in the morning by Juliet. The fish tank scene is all about the metaphor for sexual attraction and barriers, as the water is contained. The fountain is where Romeo 'cums in' (I'll not explain that one as I can only get so liberal). The water motive ends with Romeo and Juliet falling into the pool. Swimming in the water and being in the 'moment'.

Although this is from memory I think that's what its all about (I had to do my film coursework on the themes in this film).


[> [> Re: R & J to the Buffyverse with possbile spoilers -- Brian, 05:12:03 06/23/01 Sat

When I was a teacher, I used to tell my students that if Shakespeare were alive today, he would be working with Steven Spielberg and George Lucas.

Romeo and Juliet were the Buffy and Angel of their world. Being from two different, rival families, their love was forbidden. But, like water, their passion for each other could not be contained or thwarted. When they kissed, their worlds merged and were consumed and destroyed by their passion.

This film imspired me to write two poems as a reaction to its power and beauty:


With sorrow, I reject the descending stars. Their truth now bitter falsehood, And their promise, only deceiving starfire. Here, in this forbidden tomb I embrace my lost love this last time, And drink a sweet cordial to the cold wave of eternity. May it carry us to the fire beyond the betraying stars.


Sweet Juliet breathes the sour, festering air: She knows how to separate night from day, day from light. She sees the shadow of her lover's kiss In the spreading contagion of betraying sunlight.

She turns from those dark eyes Her mind accepts her dark fate. She severs her soul, ending her life, With his still, still, too warm knife.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- Andy, 05:50:50 06/23/01 Sat

> Nahhh. Who're we kidding? When you're 13 or 14 years old, The Bard doesn't mean much. And why should he? Crazy old fart, writing stuff to entertain the bourgeoisie that certainly must have been over the heads of the common rabble of the day. Who else would go to these high-falutin' affairs of the mind?

Heh. Nothing like high school to take classic storytelling and completely neuter it :) I always liked reading Shakespeare when I was that age because I realized pretty quickly that it was full of sex and violence, which to an adolescent mind always equals fun no matter how poetic the language is. Actually discussing it in school, however, was a complete drag because the teachers all had very dogmatic interpretations of it and wouldn't let you stray from that. So I and other students were constantly being told "No, you're wrong" if we had ideas that didn't mesh with the teacher's. Of course, when I got to college, the professors' lines changed to "Hey, that's interesting" and honest discussion could follow. Main difference between high school and college: high school tries to crush your spirit into dust while college encourages you to think :)


[> [> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 22nd 2001 -- Nina, 11:21:34 06/23/01 Sat

OnM I have seen that movie! Yay! A total of 2 or 3 I think! (I have a better movie culture with French movies!) It is always fun to see modern adaptations of classics. I used to be a very classic lady. I know my French classics by heart and would scream everytime they tried to give the play a modern twist. Moliere, Racine (my personal favorite) and Shakespeare are very alike for that reason. They were entertainers. If we want to feel what people felt at the time we have to modernize the presentation. But whatever happens in the future there will always be a battle between the purists and the moderns. It has always been that way.


[> [> [> Re: Racine Adaptation -- Brian, 15:36:57 06/23/01 Sat

Hey, Nina, did you ever see Jules Dassin's adaptation of Phaedre? Cool movie. Very risque for its time.


[> [> [> [> Re: Racine Adaptation -- Nina, 15:49:13 06/23/01 Sat

No, actually I didn't. Phaedre is my mother's role of predilection. I should tell her about that. She played it, teached it, analysed it. I'll check that out! Thanks very much. I have never seen movie adapations from Racine's plays. Maybe he's tough to adapt for the screen. French theater in the 17 century had four rules to respect (rule of time - the action had to be condensed in 24 hours, rule of space - they only had one set, and I don't remember the last two) I guess it's hard to adapt and keep it less static. Shakespeare at least could play with time and space as he pleased!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Racine Adaptation - The Unities -- Brian, 16:13:21 06/23/01 Sat

Unity of time, place and action:

The action does have to take place in 24 hours. Makes a play like El Cid rather action pack. To compress this action, each main character usally had a companion that their conversations with helped compress the time factor of the exposition.

There is one set that the actors speak in front of.

There are no subplots. All the action is focused on the main story.

The Racine adaptation, being a movie, takes place over a long period of time, with many changes in location.


[> [> [> Re: Racine Lovin' -- Aquitaine, 20:13:04 06/23/01 Sat

I knew we were kindred before, Nina, but now I have confirmation:) I *love* Racine - pure, unadulterated drama and divinely inspired wordplay. *sigh*

- Aquitaine (I just got back from a one-week vacation and I can't believe how many new - and clever - posts I have to catch up on!)


[> [> [> [> This sounds interesting... could one of you give some brief background info... -- OnM, 20:34:43 06/23/01 Sat

...on what you are talking about?

Brian, is the film you mentioned available on vid?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Phaedra availability -- Brian, 21:28:38 06/23/01 Sat

After searching the web, I couldn't find it.

It was made in 1962 by Jules Dassin, starring Melina Mercouri and Tony Perkins. It is set in modern times, and is just a terific film. I believe it was made in Europe and the effect of Psycho on Perkins' career hadn't reached that far. I originally saw the film in grad school, and got my copy off an A & E presentation back in the 80's.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Phaedra availability -- fresne, 23:30:52 06/23/01 Sat

Yeah, I'm guessing Racine exposure is (at least in the US) mostly a college level, "so you want to study French literature" sort of thing.

Oddly enough during the discussion of the finale, I kept thinking of Iphigénie en Aulide, and the substitution of one sister for another as a suitable blood sacrifice. However, I really couldn't think of a way to work it in, beyond hey, Iphigenie. Huh, interesting not actual mythological parallel.

Oh, and here's an appeal to the group mind. Baz Luhrman apparently sees Simply Ballroom, Romeo+Juliet, and Moulin Rouge as a trilogy retelling ancient stories. SB=David and Goliath. RJ=well, Romeo and Juliet. MR=Orpheus. I get the first two, but any idea on how Moulin Rouge, which was a brilliant movie, is Orpheus?


[> [> [> [> Re: Racine Lovin' -- Nina, 20:38:47 06/23/01 Sat

Thanks Brian! I've studied this stuff for years and yet managed to forget the right terms. I'm pretty sure there was a fourth rule though. Hmmmm... I'll check my old books. I sound like Giles suddenly! ;)

Welcome back Aquitaine. I feared you went away again! Glad to see you back! :) My favorite Racine play is "Berenice". A very underlooked play which is the apotheose of love for me. And guess what? The poor Anthiocus, the unrequited lover (sound familiar?) is the one I always root for! Buffy being shot in English, Shakespeare quotes make lots of sense. If it had been in French, Racine would have been the best choice.

Unfortunatelly, I am not sure Racine is as well know to other cultures as Shakespeare is to us. Probably hard as hell to translate!
Ye Olde 7-3-0 and Miss Muffet Debate -- Ms. Pointy, 23:18:17 06/22/01 Fri

Just late night musings here, but what if the whole "counting down from 7-3-0" thing refers to the number of Scoobies supporting the Buffster?

At the end of last season, there were 7 Scoobies: Giles, Willow, Tara, Xander, Anya, Dawn & Spike. I have _no_ ideas (that are not just too horrible to contemplate) about how to "count them down" to three and then to 0.

One of the problems with this theory is of course that there are not _always_ seven Scoobies. Why start counting arbitrarily from the end of this season?

I also had a Miss Muffet theory, but it sort of dried up and blew away with the season finale. (In a nutshell: Glory=Miss Muffet, Dawn or brain sucking victims=Curds and Whey, Buffy=Spider) It seems like there would have been more overt reference to Miss Muffet in the season finale if I had been close, but then, Joss moves in mysterious ways. (And that's why I love him!)

I'm sure this topic has been beaten to death here many times over, but why not give it another try?


[> Re: Ye Olde 7-3-0 and Miss Muffet Debate -- Lucifer_Sponge, 11:05:13 06/23/01 Sat

Well, look at it this way...

7 = the number of Scoobies

3 = the number of original Scoobies (the ones that were there from the start)

0 = the number of slayers in the group

I don't really like this theory, m'self, but it's fun to think about.

Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice -- Rahael, 16:47:34 06/23/01 Sat

I wasn't able to post a reply to Dedalus's earlier post to my first one, so I've put it in as a new topic.

Well done for spotting the connection between the Gift and the Lion, Witch and Wardrobe. I scrolled down and read your earlier post on the subject, and completly agree. Its such a big point ! Can't believe that people havn't made more of it. I forgot about Willow's book report in 'Restless'. The whole sacrifice aspect of Buffy's death seems to rely heavily on Christian imagery - someone else pointed out that Buffy, diving toward her death makes like Christ on the cross. The solution to the sacrifice demanded by the 'White witch' is so beautiful and simple, and I hope Josh comes up with something as satisfying as that for next season.

However, I think that he also like playing around with allusions, and maybe its not exactly what's going to happen. There's a lot I don't like about the Narnia books (THe Calormen - ancient, cruel and alien race of people all of whom wear turbans hmm...) and girls not being allowed to fight!

Going completely off subject, have you read the 'dark materials' trilogy by Philip Pullman? Mindblowing riposte to CS Lewis.


[> Re: Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice -- AK-UK, 17:07:31 06/23/01 Sat

Oooo, the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, yeah! I've read the first two, (really must get my copy of "The Amber Spyglass" back off my friend) and loved them. Strong female characters, magic, witches, parallel realities (sound familiar?), and a storyline that.....er, well I don't want to spoil it for anyone. Suffice to say that C.S. Lewis would NOT have approved.


[> [> Re: Philip Pullman -- voyageofbeagle, 19:00:52 06/23/01 Sat

"His Dark Materials" rock- for the same reason that BtVS rocks- there are so many levels to enjoy it on. "His Dark Materials" is billed as a young adult fantasy trilogy, yet draws heavily on "Paradise Lost" and has many complicated and contoversial messages on humanity, religion, etc.

Philip Pullman has many uncomplimentary things to say about the writings of CS Lewis and religion in general. My favorite quote of his:

"We don't need lists of rights and wrongs, tables of do's and don'ts. We need books, time, and silence. Thou shalt not is soon forgotten, but Once upon a time lasts forever."


[> [> [> Re: Philip Pullman -- Rahael, 19:55:15 06/23/01 Sat

That's a great quote, which I hadn't seen before. What I like about his work is that it is critical of the Judeo-Christian tradition, but still has a robust morality at its centre. Isn't it strange, the theme of sacrifice enters into 'dark materials' as well - only Lyra doesn't sacrifice herself - she sacrifices her friend.

There's a lot of great writing being done for children (and its not Harry Potter !!). I like Margaret Mahy and Diana Wynne Jones. They all deal with serious problems in a truly magical way. Giles could come straight out of a DWJ book.


[> [> [> [> Just picked up "The Golden Compass." Looking forward to reading it. -- mundusmundi, 11:59:07 06/24/01 Sun


[> [> Re: Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice (maybe OT) -- LadyStarlight, 20:21:25 06/23/01 Sat

I first read the Narnia chronicles, oh, before I was 6 or 7. They were my first intro to fantasy and I was captivated. I still go back & reread them at least every other year. I've read the Pullman trilogy but I don't know whether they will have that pull (oohh, awful unwitting pun) on me. Now, their attraction may just be that when I reread them I tap into that first reading and experience again the feeling of new worlds opening up, but it's still valid.

Watching BTVS and reading/writing *good* fanfiction does the same thing. It takes me to *there* when sometimes *here* sucks desperately.


[> [> [> Re: Buffy's Blood, Buffy's Sacrifice (maybe OT) -- Wisewoman, 20:00:24 06/24/01 Sun

I was 12, I think. No image from literature has stayed with me more strongly over the years than that of Lucy first pushing her way through the old fur coats at the back of the wardrobe and seeing the streetlamp in the snow. I later tried to read the other Narnia books, but none of them ever measured up to TLTWaTW, IMO.

I've read the first two books of His Dark Materials by Pullman and enjoyed them both, and now I have the whole trilogy in a single large hardcover, I think I'll go back and read those first two before going on to The Amber Spyglass.

BTW, anyone else find they don't seem to have as much time for reading fiction as they did before they started posting to this board? Sheeesh, it's taken me a week to finish a paperback potboiler that I used to polish off in an afternoon! ATPoBtVS gives a whole new meaning to the phrase, "Reading for Pleasure!" ;o)


[> [> [> [> Time for reading... -- OnM, 06:36:39 06/25/01 Mon

I didn't have time for reading fiction *before* I found this place! Needless to say (but say it anyway) I have even less time now. I have stacks of books that I bought over the last several years that I either started and didn't finish, or didn't get started at all. (~sighs~)

I try not to let it bother me, it's mostly a work-takes-up-nearly-all-my-time & energy thing, so there isn't much I can do about it. Also, I've been watching movies as opposed to reading far more in the last 4 or 5 years than I did previously, thanks first to laserdiscs and now DVD's. (Not a big fan of VHS or pan'n'scan TV versions).

On the other hand, the intermittent, interactive nature of the board here is often more enjoyable than simply reading a book over the course of a few afternoons, so at the moment I give that some priority each day.

As you've noticed, no doubt!

You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- voyageofbeagle, 23:11:11 06/23/01 Sat

Nothing resonated harder for me than Buffy's words in Crush (quoted in subject line).

Is anyone thinking (as I am) someone please help this guy! Spike needs a push, a glimmer, a spark, anything. Hopefully in S6 one of the scoobies will see his change as something to encourage, not mock. I understand that they have huge reservations, but, please, someone take the leap of faith for this gray-area vampire and give him some encouragement.

Working (through a literacy program) in prisons, I have worked with people who have murdered.

Our project last Christmas was to have the inmates (it's a women's prison) record themselves reading a book, and then the recording and book would be delivered to their children, and the kids can listen to their mom reading to them, as they look at the book. My student, whom I have tutoring for close to a year, has 3 children being cared for by various cousins while she completes a sentence of 20+ years for murdering another person during a drug deal gone horribly bad.

We worked on "Goodnight Moon" for 6 weeks before the final recording was made. As I was gathering up my stuff to leave, she said "I wish I could really be there on Christmas. I wish I hadn't done what I done." Wow. This woman has at least 15 years to ponder that thought.

Bottom line: Redemption is possible for anyone. We don't define it, they do. We don't judge what suffering is enough, what guilt they should carry. We don't define the penance. They do. Many people who are still in prison are redeemed. Many who are let out are not.

Back to BtVS- I hope the writers carry on with the difficult and confusing theme of redemption. Spike's a violent bad-ass, compensating for a weak and mediocre William. Our prisons are full of them.

Off topic (and super preachy): This is a great board. I'm not a huge internet reader/poster, but this board (although I haven't visited many) has impressed me with the quality and civility of thoughts posted. In another thread, many of you were posting about being somewhat alone/dissatisfied with society. I hope that anyone that feels that way would consider working in volunteering some time to the problem of illiteracy. Or any problem. Tying myself tightly to this great mess of humanity is one of the most fulfilling things I have ever done.


[> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- FanMan, 23:35:23 06/23/01 Sat


What does your name mean? Cool post and I agree with all of it! Sounds like you are a good person...we need more like you in this confusing world!


[> [> FanMan's like a serial killer before prison :) -- Sssaaammm, 05:25:55 06/24/01 Sun


[> [> [> Re: FanMan's like a serial killer before prison :) -- FanMan, 08:17:33 06/24/01 Sun


And I am insulted!

I am so pissed I will come find YOU!

(just joking...or am I? UH yes I am joking)


[> [> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- verdantheart, 09:20:20 06/25/01 Mon

I don't see your answer, voyageofbeagle, but let me guess. It has something to do with a voyage of discovery, like that of the Beagle (Darwin's voyage)?

- vh


[> [> [> Re: Screen name -- voyageofbeagle, 19:06:15 06/25/01 Mon

You got it.


[> [> [> [> Hummm.. here I thought it might be a Snoopy reference. -- OnM, 21:09:27 06/25/01 Mon

But then, I tend to bow down most humbly before all things Schultzian, so I am predisposed to see Snoopyisms everywhere!



[> [> [> [> [> Re: Hummm.. here I thought it might be a Snoopy reference. -- voyageofbeagle, 21:22:07 06/25/01 Mon

Would it help if I also added that I have 2 beagles? My fascination with all things Darwin led me to this breed of dog...what a great choice it turned out to be...Nixon and Carter rock. I blush to admit that I wanted to name Carter "Spike", and was only dissuaded when my boyfriend declared that if I named our dog Spike, our next pet would be christened "Gina Gershon". So, I continued with our theme of misunderstood presidents...


[> I think Buffy took a leap of faith when....... -- Rufus, 00:28:33 06/24/01 Sun

Some of the things I have worked at in my life allowed me to see the results of lives gone wrong first hand. I dealt with the victims of people who were angry, or stoned, or just didn't care enough to do anything but hurt others. The waste I saw was heart breaking. I'm not fond of criminals and I've made no bones about it. I've seen smart sociopaths cheat others of money, self respect, their lives. The bigger question was what to do about it. A good start is in a literacy program in prison, it may not solve the overall problem of crime but it can give the people who want to change their lives the chance to do it. It's up to them, to redeem themselves. My first thoughts will always be to help the victims of crime, but I realize that most prisoners will get out of jail at some point. If we set them free in exactly the same condition they came in, then we only get an older version of the same troubled persons.

Buffy had to change the way she felt about Spike, the man who spent time trying to kill her for a greater reputation. I'm not surprised that it took Buffy awhile to trust Spike, he had to change the way he acted, and felt. At first he was only interested in the possession of the girl, not what she was about. His process of learning may have been painful but was needed. Spike called himself a monster and he is.....the amount of bodies that are piled up proves that. His protection of Buffy and Dawn were the first true signs that he was really beginning to empathize with how Buffy felt, not just what he might get for his actions. Redemption is up to Spike, Buffy can't grant it to him, it won't be easy, people won't always be kind to him or trust him. Spike and only Spike can prove that he has changed. Buffy showed that she was beginning to trust Spike when she had him come along in Spiral. In The Gift she trusted him enough to come into her home again. Spike earned it, only his actions will keep it that way or will lose it for him.


[> [> Re: I think Buffy took a leap of faith when....... -- FanMan, 03:39:03 06/24/01 Sun

I agree that something needs to be available for prisoners. IF they want to become better people it is good for society, however if all experiances in prison are negative it is very likely they will get out of prison with a BAD attitude...or WORSE!. One other thing, too many people in prison for MINOR drug offenses become hardened cynical people after their 5 or ten year sentance is up...

Not any easy solutions(at least not moral ones!)

Regarding Spike, he has an invite from Buffy. The SG trusts Buffy completely so her trust in Spike will carry some weight...

I do think none of the SG should make acceptance and redemption easy for Spike; make him really earn any respect he gets. BTW respect based on trust is MUCH more valuable than the respect of "the BIG BAD who killed two Slayers"


[> [> [> Re: I think Buffy took a leap of faith when....... -- Sssaaammm, 07:32:53 06/24/01 Sun

After working at drink / drug rehabs for a few years and receiving a lot of referrals from the criminal justice system, I have found that people who are in prison for drug offences receive basically no form of rehabilitation apart from token gesture CAROT talks which are impractical and the whole emphasis is on punishment. The figure of re-offenders is the result of this. =Punishment for being ill.

I follow the belief that there is no evil in the world and all anti-social behaviours are a manifestation of illness. Surely illness should be treated not punished and responsibility for the environment that led people to such crimes should be taken. Unfortunately, this would be unacceptable to the general public due to the need for revenge and delight at seeing people take punishment to tie-up uncomfortable feelings about social illness. I'm not saying people should be allowed to commit crime with no consequences but the whole emphasis inside prisons needs to be changed if we want to change offenders' cycles and thus reduce further crime. At the rehabs I've worked at people lucky enough to get referral from prisons receive professional counselling and life skills training etc.., and can then choose how they want to live their lives. Without the referrals they would remain in the prisons and develop a negative self image and resentment and their choices are narrower and narrower in as far as their place in community.

RE: Spike He is the victim of birth (the demon nature he possesses) and the environment he exists in (when William got bit - if you think Spike is William down the line). Spike is not evil he is just what was created - a species other than human at a different place on the food chain. Spike was however a danger and the initiative in their experimentation unknowingly gave spike a shot at rehabilitation rather than punishment and the true test of it worked will be what he does if the chip is removed or damaged (in the fall maybe?).

Redemption is achievable to Spike simply by becoming reconditioned with new beliefs and motives. There is no need for guilt or making amends. Is is what he is not was.

Being a different species than human, surely this argument is not about redemption but assimilation into human society and if the SG can trust him. Is Spike evil for biting down the foodline in the past when he could have had pig's blood when we have eaten further down our food line when we can eat vegetables? Evil is a label placed on illness and/or differences all to readily.


[> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- Rahael, 08:12:43 06/24/01 Sun

I agree with everything you say. Its great that there are people out there in the world willing to take on all the hard and necessary jobs . I also think that Buffy has become an even better programme since it became less black and white. However, it has always maintained a very strong theme of duty, of the redeeming power of relationships and friendship, and the dangers of disassociating yourself from the world - i.e Jonathon. A cautionary tale of what happen when you start being too far apart from the rest of society.

As for the post below regarding unsociability - I dont think anyone here dislikes the rest of the world - perhaps not always going along with the "group" - which can be a wise thing too. Buffy also tackles the topic of feeling alienated from the values of society - school, work, peergroup. Sometimes the groupthink can lead to injustice - like racism, prejudice etc


[> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- Rosenberg, 21:27:41 06/24/01 Sun

When Spike first began to have feelings for Buffy, I was one of the ones saying to everyone "give the guy a chance!". Of course, that's easy for us to say, we've seen him brooding in his lair thinking about Buffy rather than how to get the chip out so he can go eat, the others haven't. And who among us hasn't liked the witty British vampire with his casual cynicism and good looks? Although eventually their distrust gets rediculous. And am I the only one who, over the years, has really come to detest Buffy's snotty-ass preppy attitude? I don't know, that just bugs me. Especially when Spike is trying to tell her how he feels.


[> [> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- Rufus, 00:55:32 06/25/01 Mon

I don't find Buffy's attitude preppy or annoying. She has had to protect the world so I think she gets cut some slack when she seems single minded. Spike up until season 4 has tried to murder Buffy her lack of trust was founded upon her experiences with the guy. He is the one that now has to prove himself. Buffy gave him a chance in The Gift and reinvited him into her home....it's up to Spike to prove that the trust is worth it. Buffy has never done anything to Spike other than defend herself. I'm surprised that many people are blaming the victim in this case. He tried to kill her then when he decided he loved her stalked her. I think Buffy has been more than understanding. She had to change the way she felt as she didn't have the information to work with that we do. Remember she only heard what Spike wanted her to hear in FFL. It's hard to go from Spike wants to kill me so he can improve his big bad reputation...to Spike loves me something I have been told that vampires were incapable of....give Buffy a break...she is dead after all.:):):):)


[> [> [> Re: You're like a serial killer in prison (OT) -- AK-UK, 08:21:19 06/25/01 Mon

Whilst Buffy's attitude to Spike has been ENTIRELY justified, I find her general attitude to be snotty in the extreme. I stopped liking her some time in season 3, and only occasionally find myself feeling any sympathy for her. Strangely, most of my BtVS watching friends can't stand her either; some of them *cheered* when she died, and many were heard to mutter "bring back Faith".

Of course, I wasn't one of them :)


[> [> [> Buffy's Attitude -- rowan, 18:47:08 06/25/01 Mon

Well, I would say that I've noticed that Buffy has a tendency to make a judgement and then stick with it. Sometimes this can come off as a little cold and a little inflexible IMHO. Because we're being encouraged to some extent by the writers' portraying things from Spike's POV, this is reinforcing Buffy seeming a little harsh.

Of course, Spike is always quick to point out that he's being "used" by the SG when they need him, and then tossed aside like a used hankie when they're done. This is self-pitying and ridiculous, given the number of times he's tried to kill them. I like Spike better trying to be sincere rather than blathering on about his "mistreatment." You catch more flies with honey than vinegar, after all.

Buffy's "snottiness" as I think it was called, is probably a counterpart, though, to her Slaying, which requires snap judgements and decisions followed by immediate action. In battle she's decisive; sometimes in "real life in the Buffyverse" that decisiveness can tranlate a little less effectively. I felt that the hardness she sensed in herself this season was one of the things addressed by the "full of love" theme and her extending an olive branch to Spike with the reinvite and the charge to protect Dawn (and how huge is that, considering that she thinks Dawn is a part of herself?!). When Buffy decides to trust again, she puts her whole heart into it (okay, Spike, don't repeat Angel's mistake and break Buffy's heart again).


[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Nina, 10:14:05 06/26/01 Tue

I'll do Buffy for the 1st Aniversary of the posting board. Maybe then (I think it's due in August if I remember right) I'll find some elements to show you how lovable Buffy can be! She truly is an inspiration for me and I believe her snottiness, her harshness is by way of self defense. A friend of mine told me recently that she realized that everytime she was interested in a guy she was a bitc* with him. Way too afraid to show her vulnerability. I don't say it's the case for Buffy, but such attitude always hides some fear.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:49:38 06/26/01 Tue

I agree - I think that maybe Buffy is judgemental about other people because she has to be so judgemental about herself. Just think of the tests she is put through in her capacity as the slayer (how unreasonable was the Cruciamentum?!) - surely somebody who is judged so harshly will begin to judge others in the same way.

Of course, this causes problems when she has to forgive people, but I think she is beginning to learn about that now and will continue to do so in season six...


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Rufus, 14:33:48 06/26/01 Tue

Brings to mind Giles words in Pangs....vengeance is never sated........At some point forgiveness has to come into play. Buffy has shown such to Spike, it is part of her growth as a slayer.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- rowan, 17:33:00 06/26/01 Tue

I greatly look forward to Nina's post on Buffy. You know, I do love Buffy, but I have observed that little bit of hardness, which I think developed post-Angelus partially as a protective measure. Just as the First Slayer said, Buffy is full of love, but she draws away from it...Love has brought Buffy pain, so she pulls back, which makes her hard...but now she has embraced love (and The Gift was an ep about love from first to last -- almost every character got a great scene with another character they loved).

I guess this helps Spike's chances! ;)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Buffy's Attitude -- Rufus, 18:57:47 06/26/01 Tue

Just think you boink Prince Charming and he turns into an evil killer of your friends and their fish(thank god noone had a puppy)....then you think you've moved on to copulate with a guy who is a classless user(never forget the toilet seat comment)..........then your normal boyfriend who is a nice guy gets addicted to vampire bites and leaves town.....Spike only tried to kill her body the others killed her ability to trust herself.
Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- Wisewoman, 17:57:03 06/24/01 Sun

Oh god, I missed you guys! We had a wonderful time on the Island (went with a friend of mine from work, significant other had to stay home with dog and cats ;o)).

Picture this: there we are, two middle-aged ladies looking fairly obviously touristy, wandering around a shopping mall outside Nanaimo, when what to my wondering eyes should appear but a comic book store! Right in the middle of the mall! And the last original copy of Fray that they owned! AND (wait for it...) the last Spike Action Figure! OMG, I almost had a heart attack right there. I'm dashing around, practically foaming at the mouth, and my companion thinks I've lost my mind. She's clearly embarassed. I take my treasures to the counter, overcome with bliss, and she makes a point of telling the (well-over-30-year-old) clerk that I must be buying these things for my young nephews, to which I loudly replied, "Are you kidding? These are for me!!"

And the clerk, bless him, says, "I am not in the least surprised. Hope you enjoy them both."

And I have and I am and I will!! But not as much as I enjoy this Board.

I've only been back for an hour so the only thread I've had time to read is rowan's cheekbones, which she cruelly started just as I was leaving and which became everything I thought it would. (BTW, I've forgiven you, rowan...it's such a treat to read all that chewy, spikey, philosophical goodness at one fell swoop.)

There's some other truly wonderful-looking threads down there and I'm going to read them if it takes all night. And it looks as though we have some interesting new posters, as well. Boy, you really can't afford to miss a day at this place.

Nina...now that you know what OnM stands for, will you tell me, please?

(AK-UK, you have indeed made me proud! Greater use of ellipses hath no man...)

Good to be back. Talk to you all soon...



[> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- AK-UK, 18:31:56 06/24/01 Sun

Good to have you back, Wisewoman. My attempts to keep this board boring until you returned came to nothing ( I can't claim any credit for mushing up the "Can I be a cudgel....." thread, as that was a kinky mess before I got my hands on it).

As for my use of ellipses......well, I'm thinking of stretching myself, maybe I'll add a few dashes to my dots, give them a morse code-y feel...-....--.-..-........ what do you think? :)

(AK-UK respects the - ,it's the only thing that stops him looking like a kook:)


[> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- Nina, 19:46:10 06/24/01 Sun

Wisewoman, you are an inspiration! :) I love your boldness with the clerk! LOL

As for OnM... you will probably find it out yourself by reading the threads bellow! A good Sherlock Holmes excercise! Hint: OnM is lazy (god forbids me to say that!)... so he compressed his name in 3 letters! I am lazy too, cause Nina is not my real name, just a lot shorter to write! ;)


[> [> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- Rufus, 21:13:55 06/24/01 Sun

Oh yeah...like Rufus is my real name.....I just like it.

Great to see you back, I can imagine the look on your friends face when she watched you regress in front of her eyes. I take it she may not be a sucker for cheekbones.


[> [> [> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- Dedalus, 08:29:11 06/25/01 Mon

Greetings, Wisewoman. I enjoyed your story. I love it when things like that happen. I would have very much liked to have seen it.

"Are you crazy! These are for me!"



[> [> [> [> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- verdantheart, 09:10:25 06/25/01 Mon

On the other hand, verdantheart *is* my real name -- just kidding! ;)


[> The whole story (don't worry, it's a pretty short whole story)... -- OnM, 06:13:52 06/25/01 Mon

Click on the link for the old archives, and then click on the Nov 2000 section. After it loads in, scroll down about 15 threads, until you find a thread started by Ryuei regarding 'Mirrors' posted Nov 22nd 2000.

Follow down a few posts within the thread, and you'll find one I made that explains the source of my NetName. The correct post starts:

*** Re: Mirrors,Thursday 23-Nov-2000 00:15:02, writes,Your analysis is insightful and very well reasoned and you may well be right (even though I'm among those who is wondering whether Spike will eventually get a soul and attempt to redeem himself).***

That's the scoop! ;)


[> [> That's the spirit OnM! Make her work for it :) -- AK-UK, 08:30:33 06/25/01 Mon

"What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value"

Now, if someone could just tell me why the hell my netname is AK-UK, I'd be eternally grateful ;)


[> [> [> Hey, it wasn't *that* much work! -- OnM, 20:56:18 06/25/01 Mon


[> [> Thanks! And did you ever get to listen to the Meat Loaf song? -- Wisewoman, 08:36:59 06/25/01 Mon

And as for you, evil AK-UK, you answered your own question in your last post...it's net shorthand for *a kook*! ;o)


[> [> [> Re: Thanks! And did you ever get to listen to the Meat Loaf song? -- Solitude1056, 09:56:41 06/25/01 Mon

And here I was thinking that AK-UK was short for something like "aussie knackered," with the UK stuck on there to imply that it's a drunk aussie trapped in britain.

ok, so I have a weird mind...


[> [> [> Re: Meatloaf tune-- Alas, no, I never got to. Someday, perhaps. :( -- OnM, 21:05:29 06/25/01 Mon


[> Welcome back, Wisewoman! Congratulations on your courage (and is Fray available in the UK, anyone?) -- Marie, 08:48:18 06/25/01 Mon


[> Re: Of Fray and Action Figures and Cheekbones... -- rowan, 17:28:11 06/25/01 Mon

Welcome back.

We have expanded our little family (as I like to think of it) over the last few weeks. We also seem to be coaxing some lurkers out of lurkdom and into postdom. New blood *evil grin* ('it's always got to be the blood'...or the ellipsis).

Wahhhh! I want a Spike action figure. You do notice that we kept the Cheekbones post active for you, so you'd still be able to get in on all the *chuckle* chewy philosophical goodness.


[> [> And chewy philosophical goodness, it was! -- Wisewoman, 18:26:16 06/25/01 Mon

Wail not over your lack of the Spike icon. While the cheekbones are magnificent, the visage is, shall we say, ever-so-slightly cross-eyed? Still, well worth the small fortune I paid for it.

OMG, I've just realized there's probably a more sensitive, modern term for cross-eyed, but I can't think what it is...

After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... -- Kerri, 08:50:29 06/25/01 Mon

Hi! I'm sorry if this is a kind of discombobulated post. I had a few thoughts after rewatching the epi last night that I though I'd share.

At first I kind of saw The Gift as contradicting B vs. D. In B vs. D Drac tells Buffy her powers are rooted in darness, while in the Gift she finds that her powers come from light, life, and love, not darness and death.

Then after thinking about this I realized that the two ideas don't contadict each other at all. The slayer's physical power's maybe rooted in darkness. They may come from the same origin as the vampire's powers as Dracula suggests, calling Buffy "kindred."

But really darkness can grow into light. Buffy's powers may have come from darkness but their real strength comes from light and humanity.

The fact that the slayer's powers are rooted in darkness may explain why there is a temptation towards darkness. We see this in Faith. Faith doesn't have Buffy's "ties to the world"(to qoute Spike) so it is easy for her to be drawn toward evil.

However, it seems that the slayer's powers are strongest when fed by love and humanity. In the Gift Buffy is made stronger by her love for Dawn. In another thread I discussed how I believe Buffy drew the strength to pick up the troll hammer(which Spike could not do) from her love for Dawn.

Ok. So let's consider other slayers. Every other slayer we have seen has been alone. The first slayer told Buffy that the slayer doesn't walk in this world. The slayer Spike killed in NY was alone(hence the slayer's death wish). Kendra was alone. Faith was alone. Dracula tells Buffy that she is "always alone." But this isn't true. When Buffy dies she isn't alone. She can never be alone b/c she accepts the love inside her and embraces it. I think that it is this that makes Buffy stronger then other slayers.

In this way I think Buffy is a lot like Angel. Evil gives them both physical strength, but humanity makes them stronger and makes them forces of good. So where exactly does Spike fit in to all of this? He does not have a soul to lead him away from the darkness, but he does seem to resist it.

I really hope that next season we get to see a little more about where the slayer's power comes from.

Anyway I know that was very incoherent. Sorry.



[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... -- Jarrod Harmier, 09:35:53 06/25/01 Mon

That kind of reminds me of the movie "The Shadow". In the novelization, it mentioned that the character had a side to him that craved violence and destruction and when he tried to appease it by fighting in a war, it just wanted more. (This is not mentioned in a straightforward manner in the movie, but it is sort of implied.) Because of this he commits many crimes.

At one point he is kidnapped and then trained to be force for good. This way his dark side is appeased, but he is attempting to make the world a better place.

I hope that made sense.


[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... -- AK-UK, 10:17:25 06/25/01 Mon

Nothing incoherent about that post!

I think that Buffy's connection to family and friends allows her to remember what it is that she is fighting for. She doesn't kill for the sake of killing, for the pleasure of the battle; she kills to protect others, to keep those she loves from being harmed.

If we look at it like that, Faith's behaviour becomes more understandable. The poor girl had no-one to love (her Watcher was killed and she couldn't prevent it, what effect would that have had on a slayer?) so the fight, the slay, became everything to her. Then she finds the Mayor, someone who genuinely cares for her, and she regains a connection with the world, and fights to protect what she loves.

Spike is a whole other can of worms. The writers have got to bit the bullet on this one. Loving Buffy fits with what we already know about vampires, but affection for Joyce, Dawn and (to a lesser extent) the SG, doesn't. It looks like season 6 could be the stage for a battle royale between David Fury and Marti Noxon, with the winner deciding the fate of Spike.

As for Dracula, I think he was messing with Buffy's mind. Darkness doesn't have to mean evil. Dracula could have been playing with the word, knowing that Buffy would read it to mean evil. Darkness can also mean the unknown, the mysterious. And what is more mysterious than the origin of the Slayer's (and the vampire's) power?


[> [> Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I thought it would be) -- Wisewoman, 13:05:09 06/25/01 Mon

"As for Dracula, I think he was messing with Buffy's mind. Darkness doesn't have to mean evil. Dracula could have been playing with the word, knowing that Buffy would read it to mean evil. Darkness can also mean the unknown, the mysterious. And what is more mysterious than the origin of the Slayer's (and the vampire's) power?"

Thanks, AK-UK, for bringing up something that I've been trying to compose a meaningful post on for some time.

Why are we, as human beings, so obsessed with categorization and, specifically, dichotomization? Why do we feel most comfortable with categories that are black and white, either/or? There's lots of evidence that that's just not the way the world works, but we seem to cling to duality, dichotomy, polarity in order to make sense of things.

I've been thinking about some very basic dichotomies: darkness/light, black/white, self/other, female/male, night/day, death/life; the yin-yang symbol, which divides reality into dark, female, passive, wet versus light, male, active, dry. I'm trying to ascertain if, in every case, there is a mid-point that better reflects reality. The problem with clinging to the dichotomies is not so much that they don't reflect reality, as it is that we tend to assign the values of good and bad to each half of the pair. For example, light is *better* than dark, white is *better* than black, etc.

What is there in darkness that is inherently bad? Is it the danger that we fear when we cannot see clearly? I begin to think that all the dichotomies can be encapsulated in the polarity of life and death. We, at least in modern Western society, have believed that life is indeed good, and death bad, to the extent that most (if not all) fear can be ultimately traced back to the fear of death.

As an example, anger is, to my mind, an expression of fear. Let's say someone in authority tells you that you must make a speech before some very important colleagues, and gives you very little time to prepare. Your immediate reaction may be anger at the unfairness of this situation; it's unreasonable to expect you to perform well under these circumstances. But that anger comes from the fear that you may not be capable of performing adequately. Perhaps you have a phobia about speaking in public to begin with. Where does this fear originate? If you were to make a complete hash of the speech and no one minded and it made no difference to your career, there'd be no need for the fear or the anger. But you must feel that there *is* a threat to your career, to your livelihood, inherent in this situation. To explore this fear more fully, take it to its (unlikely but possible) conclusion: You make a hash of the speech, your colleagues are critical, your boss is embarassed and you are fired from your job. You are unable to obtain another job because everyone has heard about your disastrous speech. You can't meet your mortgage payments, you lose your home, your family abandons you, and you are forced to live on the street, eventually succumbing to death by starvation and/or exposure. Ridiculous? Probably, but that's what goes on in your subconscious mind that produces the fear and the anger when the order to perform is given. And you can use a similar method to trace almost any fear (of the dark, the unknown, strangers, others, etc.) back to the ultimate fear of death.

So the question, for me, becomes, why do we fear death so? What do we really know about it? Maybe it's nothingness, total annihilation, but maybe, just maybe, it's the next big adventure--Helen Keller thought so. Maybe we get reincarnated. I'm all for reincarnation in theory, although if you have no memory of previous lives it seems a fairly useless process. I, personally, don't remember where I was or what things were like before I was born, and I'm fine with that. Why should I fear returning to that state?

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in heaven and hell, so I am not motivated by the desire for one nor the fear of the other. I believe that death is part of the natural cycle. I don't think we're just on a linear journey from birth to death, but, hey, I could be way wrong. If I'm right, and there's no reason to fear death, what does that do to our dichotomies? If death can (ever) be conceived of as a good thing, a positive experience, then what reason is there to fear the dark, the unknown, the stranger?

I'm not saying that evil does not exist, just that death isn't necessarily evil. To my mind, evil is pain, suffering, torment (either physical or mental), and death probably ends these things.

Hmmm, I think I've strayed rather far from my original purpose here, which was to show that life consists more of shades of gray than black and white. And that's what I think the writers are dealing with in BtVS--the growing realization in Buffy and the SG that everything, including themselves, is a shade of gray. Some heroes do evil things. Some demons do good things. Death can be an end, or a whole new beginning...as we're about to see.

And darkness, blackness, can be the softness of the night, and the awesome power of the primordial matrix--it all depends on your perspective.



[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I thought it would be) -- Kerri, 13:26:30 06/25/01 Mon

Picking up on a point you made:

"If death can (ever) be conceived of as a good thing, a positive experience, then what reason is there to fear the dark, the unknown, the stranger?"

I really hope that this is explored next season in Buffy.

Because really, in the end of The Gift, death was presented as almost being good. Buffy realizes that she can sacrafice herself for Dawn and we see a small smile on her face. Death was a gift of life that Buffy gave her sister and the world, and perhaps more importantly it was a gift to Buffy. Because Buffy could sacrafice herself she had restored hope and faith in the goodness of the world (remember that previously-her conversation with Giles-she says she doesn't see the reson to live in this world.) as well as a renewed desire to live which allowed her to be content with her death(if that last part made any sense at all).


[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I thought it would be) -- Slayrunt, 14:25:17 06/25/01 Mon

I've been thinking about some very basic dichotomies: darkness/light, black/white, self/other, female/male, night/day, death/life; the yin-yang symbol, which divides reality into dark, female, passive, wet versus light, male, active, dry. I'm trying to ascertain if, in every case, there is a mid-point that better reflects reality. The problem with clinging to the dichotomies is not so much that they don't reflect reality, as it is that we tend to assign the values of good and bad to each half of the pair. For example, light is *better* than dark, white is *better* than black, etc.

Wisewoman, my other posts have been light and airy, as I am not a student of philosophy, but you have hit upon something I think about and know a little about. The yin-yang symbol is a dichotomy in that it is black and white, but it shows that either side possesses attributes of the other. That is why the white circle and black circle appear in the opposite side. Female/male, night/day, death/life, et al, have elements of the other side. I think there is wisdom in that showing that everything is a part of the other, or it shows the symbiotic nature of the world. The Chinese view of the world is interesting and I found it through study of martial arts.

I'm not a Christian and I don't believe in heaven and hell, so I am not motivated by the desire for one nor the fear of the other. I believe that death is part of the natural cycle. I don't think we're just on a linear journey from birth to death, but, hey, I could be way wrong. If I'm right, and there's no reason to fear death, what does that do to our dichotomies? If death can (ever) be conceived of as a good thing, a positive experience, then what reason is there to fear the dark, the unknown, the stranger?

I am a Christian, and think that many people see death as an end to existance, therefore bad, evil. It is a part of life, but only a transitional part. I know many religions and philosophies believe that as well, and someday we will all learn the truth (or maybe not).

I can only speak about what I know, so please bear with me. If my view is correct, there is a God/devil, heaven/hell, then the grey is the problem. The good is there saying this is good and that is evil, but the evil is saying no it's not. The evil wants the grey to depurify (if that's a word) the good. The greatest lie that Satan can sell is he doesn't exist.

Dracula, Wolfram & Hart, perhaps even my boy Spike is not the dark, the evil, the bad. They are just elements of the grey that the first evil has spawn.

Sorry if that sounded preachy, didn't mean it that way. Just sharing my ideas for discussion.



[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light -- spotjon, 15:13:26 06/25/01 Mon

I'm not saying that evil does not exist, just that death isn't necessarily evil. To my mind, evil is pain, suffering, torment (either physical or mental), and death probably ends these things.

"Pain is inevitable; suffering is optional."

What is it that is inherently evil about pain? I do not see evil as things that are, but as things we do. Pain is uncomfortable and unwelcome, but is it evil? We sure don't like it, but it is through pain that we grow. Maturity is gained through pain and sacrifice. I am not saying that pain is something to be sought, but neither is it something to give in to. Pain and suffering can either be our salvation, or it can be the road to bitterness and anger.

A similar duality can be true for a life without pain. When we have an easy life without hardship we can either praise God for it and enjoy life to its fullest, or we can become complacent and feel like we've somehow earned it. It is easy to take a life of ease and turn it into a selfish and slothful existence.

Here's the yin and the yang for you: pain and ease are neither good nor evil. They are things that can be used for good or for evil. Both can bring great good, and both can bring great evil. Good and evil are not such dichotomies as night/day, or light/dark, but are how we use and dwell on these things. Things and circumstances are neither good nor evil. Our thoughts and actions are good or evil. That is where the real dichotomy lies.


[> [> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light -- Wisewoman, 16:20:15 06/25/01 Mon

Well, there you go...even in the midst of posting about the *evils* of dichotomy I manage to categorize pain as evil! And, believe me, I take your point, spotjon. Pain serves a very useful purpose in life, physical or mental pain, and is a neutral, rather than an evil thing, in itself.

I guess it comes from some discussions I've had about overcoming the fear of death, and I find that most people are quite ready to accept that death, itself, is nothing to fear, but they *do* fear a long, lingering death full of pain and suffering.

Can we agree that it is natural and usually advisable to avoid pain? And that the only way to cope with unavoidable pain is to live with it and accept its lessons?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light -- spotjon, 19:30:21 06/25/01 Mon

Can we agree that it is natural and usually advisable to avoid pain? And that the only way to cope with unavoidable pain is to live with it and accept its lessons?

Yeah, I would say that it's generally a good idea to stay away from things that cause pain, such as picking up a hot skillet or jumping onto a pile of broken glass with bare feet. We should avoid painful situations when we know they will cause us serious harm. But like Solitude1056 said, pain in other situations can be a good thing. Childbirth and athletic training are painful, but are certainly good for you. Injected liquid bleach into your bloodstream is painful, and definitely bad for you. The trick comes in trying to discern which painful situations should be embraced, and which should be avoided. It's a tricky question without any really simple answers. Sometimes we need to embrace painful situations that will cause us serious harm, for the good of others (a martyr's death, for example). Nobody likes pain, but it is inevitable, and the way we deal with it when it comes really shows us who we are.


[> [> [> [> well put, spotjon -- Solitude1056, 17:44:50 06/25/01 Mon

I was formulating a response & then I read yours. Ok, so much for my brilliant repartee, you've beaten me to it. :-)

I suppose as a corrollary to your words, I'd have to add that I was taught that "pain exists solely to tell you when something isn't right." I think sometimes people draw a line from the "something isn't right" to "something is wrong" and therefore something in the situation must be evil (as in, extremely wrong). But at the same time, as an athlete, I was also taught that when it hurt (in particular muscles) that this meant I was doing something right. The pain of childbirth, I've been told, is both wrong (because it hurts, and you don't want to live your whole life with that hurt) but also very, very right (because it's part of a larger experience). And the pain of athleticism falls in the same category - right, but wrong. Right because you're achieving mind over body; wrong because it hurts like hell and your muscles are suffering from the exertion. But neither by any stretch is immediately equatable as "evil," yet there it is: pain is identified with evil.

To me, that's sort of like saying that the speed limit signpost is equal to speeding (or not speeding), when it's not. Tillich had a whole slew o' comments about signs & symbols, and that they're not the same thing. Pain is a sign of something... it's not a symbol for something. It points to something larger than itself but can also exist independently of that which it points to, hence a sign, much like a signpost. It doesn't represent that which it points to, nor should we grant a sign the status of a symbol. That'd be like paying reverrence to the speed limit sign as being equal to actually obeying the speed limit. So to draw it back to the original, evil is a symbol (of suffering, isolation, insert bad thing here) but pain is a sign. It may point to evil... but not always.

Ok, so my analogies & arguments are wonky tonight - I'm swamped with trying to get my webpages in working order, and they're not behaving! :-)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: well put, spotjon -- spotjon, 19:35:52 06/25/01 Mon

Thanks for the complement. I haven't chimed in in a while, and I enjoy discussing these issues with people who don't always agree with me. It's always nice when somebody does!

By the way, what kind of web pages do you work with? You work on fairly large sites, or do you mainly deal with smaller ones? I'm just starting out in the web development field, myself, and there's a lot of stuff for me to learn.


[> [> [> [> [> [> web stuff (OT) -- Solitude1056, 06:04:38 06/27/01 Wed

Big, big, BIG sites. (Right now dealing with a portal project for telecommunications coalition in Asia Pacific - the "test" site has over 300 pages, and the final product will probably be five times that, security issues, various proxy setups, and all.) I'm not a techie, I'm a business process analyst really, so my techie involvement is necessarily limited to translating for non-techies the geekspeak uttered by my own tech teams. I get to some vbscript programming on applications for my own department, and I'm also the flash/shockwave person when those are needed for an application. I use javascript for my (personal) photography web pages, but I may switch to ASP & vbscript once the web hosting move goes through - it's cleaner, secure, & doesn't conflict with browser platforms the way javascript does sometimes. All that said, I actually just try to get away with doing as little as possible for as much money as possible. So far, so good. :-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff (OT) -- spotjon, 21:16:28 06/27/01 Wed

Cool, that sounds like some of the stuff I've been doing. When I worked for my college, I managed a website with 1000+ pages on it. It was weird after a while just how easily I could find anything on that site in under a minute. I seriously need to get back into Flash/Shockwave stuff, it's been too long since I've done any of that. ASP and VBScript are becoming my specialty, now.



[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff (OT) -- Solitude1056, 10:06:56 06/28/01 Thu

Go volunteer to help Liquidram, then. I'm not the vbscript expert, and Liq tried a javascript search function - errors all over the place. Right now Liq's working on a perl function, but I don't know why we couldn't use vbscript... it's just that Liq doesn't have a vbscript/asp person handy for the programming.

Hmm, maybe you'll volunteer? :-)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff (OT) -- spotjon, 12:38:37 06/28/01 Thu

What kind of a search function? If you're trying to run a search on an entire site, you would need some sort of crawler to go through the pages and save key words into a database, I think. I've never programmed anything that hefty before. Atomz.com has a nice free search program you can use if you don't mind outsourcing. Or maybe you're talking about something else entirely....


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff (OT) -- Solitude1056, 12:59:27 06/28/01 Thu

Nothing wrong with outsourcing, IMO. Ask Liq - as host o' the site, Liq gets final say. I'm just helping with the "how to" for those folks who aren't familiar with html. I may also end up being the final check point on any htm docs from folks who want their coding, spelling, grammar, etc double-checked, I dunno. Email Liq & ask. :-)

(You'll get a gold star if you do!)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: web stuff (OT) -- spotjon, 08:52:49 06/29/01 Fri

You got Liq's e-mail address? Or maybe he/she is reading this thread. I would go for the outsourcing, if possible. Atomz will search a site up to 500 pages for free, with no ads except for their company logo. I'm sure there are other places that will do this, too, and it's a lot less work than trying to code it yourselves.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Check what's there now.... -- Liquidram, 16:46:00 06/29/01 Fri



[> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I thought it would be) -- Cynthia, 18:46:26 06/25/01 Mon

Many things of beauty grow out of the darkness. The womb is not exactly a well lit place. Nether is the dirt. So many religions tell and/or say that darkness is only the end or destruction of something when it is equally the source of the begining. I guess that is why the concept of yin-yang as always appealed to me.


[> [> [> [> LOL! -- rowan, 19:01:06 06/25/01 Mon

"The womb is not exactly a well lit place."

This is one of those great observations that is both profoundly true and yet humorous at the same time. :)


[> [> [> [> [> On a slightly irreverent but scientifically accurate note... -- OnM, 20:28:55 06/25/01 Mon

...how well something is 'illuminated' depends on the frequency you're talking about. We humans talk about 'sight' and 'seeing' as if the visible light spectrum was the be all and end all of perception.

In a pitch 'dark' room, you can see via infrared if you have the proper hardware. X-rays and CAT scans and MRI's all image without visible light. The entire universe is afire with radio wavelength light.

We are indeed what we perceive, and sometimes that perception is severely lacking in complete and accurate data!

I'll close with the classic line from Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon composition':

"There's no dark side to the moon, really. Matter of fact, it's all dark."


[> [> [> [> [> [> On a completely irreverent and totally unscientific note... (OT) -- Solitude1056, 21:59:13 06/26/01 Tue

It's late, and I couldn't resist... speaking of truth 'n lies and sorting out knowledge, and then OnM has to mention the dark side of the moon? Uh-oh.

A bit ago, I was casually acquainted with a group of newage (rhymes with sewage) weenies who were doing a series of "dark moon" astral plane rituals. No, not as in "dark magick," as in "darkest part of the moon." I dunno, had something to do with meditating wherever they were at a particular time on the night of the new moon. Theoretically, they were to meet up with each other in the astral, and then email each other the day afterwards to report what they'd seen. And since they wanted a "foundation" from which to visualize, the group agreed to visualize themselves as being on the "dark side" of the moon. Dunno exactly why, but these were the parameters as it was explained to me.

So they're doing their little monthly routine, when around rolls that over-hyped full moon - you know, the one that was supposed to be twice as bright as any other full moon? I don't recall, actually, that it was - but shortly afterwards, an email post started circulating that was a parody, stating how the following "new moon" would be twice as dark as a result. I, uh, forwarded it to the email group, figuring that they'd get a kick out of it. As a matter of fact, they didn't realize that Dr. Pinhead and Dr. Peabrain might be signs that this was a joke. In fact, they were thrilled at this information and were certain it meant great things were in store for their next astral shindig.

To make matters even more entertaining for those of us who know "gullible" is still in webster's dictionary, a friend of mine threw fuel on the fire by suggesting that if the upcoming new moon were to be twice as dark, they should do something special... like meet on the opposite side of the moon from usual - because that side would naturally be even darker. This idea was embraced with open minds, to use the term loosely, and afterwards they reported great success and marvelous adventures.

Only problem is that when it's a new moon... the side facing away from earth... is the one that's lit!

(Curiously enough, none of them were Buffy fans - they considered the whole Buffyverse to be quite demeaning to the Serious and Important Work of Magick. Bwahahahaha.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: On a completely ludicrous and totally unscientific note... (OT) -- OnM, 09:57:25 06/27/01 Wed

This reminds me of trying to explain to this fellow I worked for years ago why the 'full moon' relationship to people's actions was totally bogus in terms of it being an actual scientific effect. (He thought it was related to gravity or somesuch, like the tides).

Pointing out that if gravity did have some effect, it would be a daily phenomena, not monthly, and that the relative illumination of the moon has nothing to do with the change in the moon's distance from us, but angle of reflection from the sun etc., didn't seem to phase him!

It was always so baffling to me how someone who was a technician by trade seemed so little in touch with any actual real-world science outside of his particular field. I won't even get into the time I tried to explain the difference between weight and mass in zero-G. Oi!



[> [> [> [> Re: Darkness and Light (oops, longer than I thought it would be) -- Rahael, 16:26:10 06/27/01 Wed

There is a whole section of very influential anthropology devoted to this (Levi-Strauss - The Raw and the Cooked) which talks about how so many cultures around the world dichotomise the world around them. So our repugnance for dirt/death/decay/darkness is opposed to an attraction to other values - cleanliness/life/growth, even if it ignores the realities of life.

But this is very different from saying that suffering ennobles, which I strongly disagree with. Suffering, especially traumatic events does not make you a nicer or more noble human being, though exceptional people can overcome the past with difficulty and with pain. Many end up damaged, embittered and angry.


[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... -- rowan, 17:24:30 06/25/01 Mon

"As for Dracula, I think he was messing with Buffy's mind."

AK-UK, I couldn't agree more. In Dedalus's great post below about the source of Buffy's power, we discussed this a little. I think we have to be very critical (in the analytical sense, not the pejorative sense) of Drac's words. When dealing with Drac and Angelus (and to some extent, Spike), I'm always reminded of Satan's traditional role as the Father of Lies. I believe that characters such as Drac and Angelus may offer truth wrapped in lies. It seduces other characters (remember, Drac is trying to lure Buffy) and we need to carefully distinguish what is what before we rely on it as fact (or even theory).

Drac's truth could be that the power of the Slayers and the power of the vampires does have the same source. Ultimately, perhaps all power in the Buffyverse has the same source, in some unified godhead. But it's possible the "lie" is that it's dark.

I loved Wisewoman and Slayrunt's comments on how we sometimes have a tendency to take dichotomies and associate them with value judgements (dark is evil, light is good). It's a very good point, for example, that death isn't bad or evil, unless you make it so -- for some, it's the gateway into a new life, or higher life, etc. Someone commented below (Wisewoman? OnM? Sol?) that these qualities are neutral in and of themselves (like power is neutral or magick is neutral) but it is the use to which they are put that leads us to define them as good or evil.


[> [> Re: Truth wrapped in lies/Lies wrapped in truth -- Aquitaine, 18:32:39 06/25/01 Mon

*** I believe that characters such as Drac and Angelus may offer truth wrapped in lies. It seduces other characters (remember, Drac is trying to lure Buffy) and we need to carefully distinguish what is what before we rely on it as fact (or even theory).***

Exactly! This is why I take what happened to Angel in 'Reprise' with a grain of salt. Sure, Holland took Angel on the elevator to the dark side but, as of yet, I am not at all convinced that the Home Office = Hell = the Real World. Yes, this equation *may* end up being true but basically these parallels were set up to 'screw' with Angel's mind and drive him over the edge. Wherever you turn, there is always a veil of fear, ulterior motive, jealousy etc. to lift away.

- Aquitaine


[> [> [> Re: Truth wrapped in lies/Lies wrapped in truth -- verdantheart, 13:46:55 06/26/01 Tue

That's what I thought! Especially since they took care to mention that they hurried to disenchant the key at Wolfram & Hart.


[> [> [> [> Oops! I meant "ring" not "key" -- verdantheart, 13:48:16 06/26/01 Tue


[> Re: After rewatching "Buffy vs. Dracula"... -- Cynthia, 18:37:15 06/25/01 Mon

Could someone please explain to me why Angel and Spike look like normal people, vamp face aside, while Dracula looks like a bad Halloween makeup job LOL


[> [> LOL -- rowan, 19:02:42 06/25/01 Mon

Obviously a victim of bad plastic surgery as a result of trying to take a few years off his age. :o)


[> [> Showy gypsy makeup????????? -- Rufus, 19:26:53 06/25/01 Mon

And they never even thought to blend past the chin, really did look like a mask.


[> [> [> Re: Showy gypsy makeup????????? -- Brian, 03:57:00 06/28/01 Thu

How about those pesky monks just believing too much of what they read (or maybe see, but monks at the cinema? I don't think so. Of course, could be rental!)
1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 11:59:29 06/25/01 Mon

Last week we had our little post about our favorite speech from the first five seasons of BtVS. Thanks to all who contributed. It was fun going down memory lane. We had so many different choices mentioned, I won't bother to name them all, but I guess we proved that BtVS & AtS are definitely shows for fans of the craft of writing.

This week, let's try for the eye candy. Please tell us your favorite (non-verbal) visual moment on BtVS over the last five years. This moment could be significant because of what it revealed about the Buffyverse, because of its emotional impact, because of its sheer artistry, because of the acting virtuosity, or it could just be a haunting image you can't get out of your mind. Basically, it's that moment that's just so right, you can still see it with your eyes closed.

Note: If you want to nominate Spike's bedhead, be warned that you may face the wrath of your fellow posters. ;)

I'll start the festivities with my nominee. I'm going with the look Spike and Dawn exchanged before Doc threw Spike over the tower. When it comes to non-verbal communication, MT and JM get to me every time. I finally knew what the saying "a picture is worth a thousand words" meant when I saw The Gift. I saw so much pain, longing, guilt, fear, and love in that short exchange (as Spike realized his defeat, and Dawn tried vainly to break her bonds to stop Doc) that I literally cannot watch it today without feeling that same tightness in my chest that I felt upon first viewing. This was the moment when I felt I could say, among other things, that I saw into Spike's heart -- and there was something there besides evil and Buffy.

Please share your favorites!


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Brian, 12:35:33 06/25/01 Mon

For me, it's the scene in Innocence between Angel, now Angelus and Buffy in his bedroom the next day after they have slept together, when he just rips her apart with his words. She gave him her heart and he crushed it with a smirk.The look of bewilderment, shock, horror, and shame on her face still haunt me to this day.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 16:54:47 06/25/01 Mon

Talk about the first sexual experience from hell. ;) And do we wonder why Buffy can't get another relationship to work right? This was enough to put your off the opposite sex for life.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 12:51:59 06/25/01 Mon

Okay, I'm gonna get in early on this one.

There are just so many moments to choose from - I'll stick with just a couple from the end of 'The Gift'.

My favourite picture moment comes when they are all standing around Buffy's body with JM slowly collapsing in the background - you could just frame it!

My favourite acting moment comes when SMG turns away from MT and looks at the portal. At that moment, for the first time in five years, you can't tell exactly what she is thinking. After taking the viewers with her wherever she goes on every occassion (see her face as she hugs Angel at the end of Becoming for one of the best examples of this - oh, God, that's another one!) she finally gets to depict transcendant thought; a revelation which it is impossible to communicate via expressions alone. Later episodes may explain what she was thinking leading up to that moment, but they will never explain the moment itself.

I'm sure these aren't the most original of choices, but I think they are worth mentioning all the same!


[> Testing, uno dos tres -- Masquerade, 13:00:11 06/25/01 Mon

I want to see if this moment-that-needed-no-dialogue will show up on screen...


[> [> Other moments that needed no dialogue... -- Masquerade, 13:28:45 06/25/01 Mon

Other moments that needed no dialogue...

(Just needed a little heart-wrenching music...)

(another special effects eye-popper)

(Buffy and Riley discover each other's extracurricular activities)

(brrrrr... 'nuf said)


[> [> It showed up fine, but I can't remember what that moment was...? -- Wisewoman, 14:34:04 06/25/01 Mon


[> [> [> Xander, the king of luv... -- Masquerade, 14:43:59 06/25/01 Mon

Xander in "BBB" when he returned to school after his love spell kicked in. He'd meant to just get Cordy, but got every woman except Cordy. Once he realized what had happened, stepping foot into the school was a really BIG step.

And of course they had the coolest musical accompaniment--"Got the love" by a '70's funk band who's name is escaping my aged brain at the moment.


[> [> [> [> Re: Xander, the king of luv... -- Slayrunt, 14:47:29 06/25/01 Mon

The Average White Band I think


[> [> Don't mess with these guys... -- Masquerade, 10:38:44 06/26/01 Tue

Don't mess with these guys...

O.K., I know I'm not picking things that are strictly pleasant on the eyes, just the images that were riveting or memorable (or hysterical!) for me without dialogue being essential...

Don't mess with these guys...

(Who needed dialogue when a hanky would do?? Doyle saves the Lister demons. Icky to look at, but you still look at it again and again...)

(O.K., one fan I know had a crush on these guys. No accounting for taste. Way spooky, though! The Gentleman invade Sunnydale...)

(OK, mess with these clowns. They lawyer-ettes of Wolfram and Hart are funny when they're frustrated)

(Didn't you ask "who is that??" before Darla even opened her mouth??)


[> [> Don't mess with these babes... -- Masquerade, 10:48:03 06/26/01 Tue

Don't mess with these babes...

(Determined Jenny. *sob*)

(Still about the coolest moment on the show: Buffy slays the Judge)

("Anne"'s name-sake gives the hell-demons the evil eye while she weilds her hunga-munga ["Anne"])

(Everyone needs an evil twin! "The Wish")

(Cordy the vampire slayer! "In the Dark")

(A nice shot of the First Slayer "Restless")

(Tara being the witch of everybody's dreams, "Out of My Mind")

(What mad genuis thought of putting these two babes together to wreak Evil? "Reunion")

(Go Will! Will we see more of her human "dark side"? "Tough Love")


[> [> Erotic moments to remember -- Masquerade, 10:52:41 06/26/01 Tue

Erotic moments to remember

(Say what you want about Spike + Anyoneelse, aren't Spike and Drusilla gorgeous together?? "School Hard")

(OK, wish I had a better pick of the slayer-dance in the bronze "Bad Girls", I don't)

(My personal choice for numero uno "Graduation, pt 2")

(subtle. "Hush")


[> [> And a couple from the Deathwok dimension -- Masquerade, 10:55:54 06/26/01 Tue

And a couple from the Deathwok dimension

(I just think this one is kinda pretty "Over the Rainbow")

(Anyone got a better shot of dancin' Numfar?? I need one for my website. "Through the Looking Glass")


[> [> [> Masquerade - you're a Genius! I wish I could do this sort of stuff! -- Marie, 07:39:43 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> perform the dance of shame! -- spotjon, 14:16:06 06/27/01 Wed

Try this one: http://www.theslayershow.com/angel/a2_screenshots/looking_glass/images/looking_glass13.JPG. There are many more pics from that episode here.


[> [> [> [> oops, wrong link -- spotjon, 14:18:44 06/27/01 Wed

Try this one: looking_glass13.JPG.


[> Okay, I'm shallow, stake me now! -- Wisewoman, 13:17:35 06/25/01 Mon

I don't know if my favourite moment ever even showed up on-screen! I have a vid cap (I think, might have been an outtake) in my screensaver from Spike's dream, where he is shirtless, facing Buffy, and flinching back a little from her attempt to run her fingers down his abdomen, even as he's reaching out for her.

I realize that this has absolutely no relevance to anything even remotely philosophical in the show but hey, that's my moment, hands down.

BTW, did rowan say somewhere down there that she actually *has* pictures of naked Spike? Be still my heart!


[> [> Re: Okay, I'm shallow, stake me now! -- rowan, 16:56:39 06/25/01 Mon

You know I'm not going to complain! I remember when I first saw that ep -- I had no idea what was going on, or that it was a dream. I thought I was delusional until it showed Spike sitting up in bed, waking up.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Kimberly, 13:19:00 06/25/01 Mon

My favorite is in Hush, in the scene with Buffy and Riley fighting the Gentlemen. They still don't know the other is fighting demons too; they're each fighting the Gentlemen solo and they turn, Buffy with her crossbow and Riley with his gun. That scene, the two of them facing off that way, is just great.

Sorry if this is a little disjointed; I wanted to get this in before we take my son to the doctor's (just a checkup).


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Little One, 13:23:32 06/25/01 Mon

My favourite eye candy is at the end of The Crush when Spike is following Buffy home, arguing with her. She walks into her house and Spike, thinking to continue the argument inside, attempts to follow her. As she enters her house, Spike right behind her, he says "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."

But she has shut him out. And he realizes this as he suddenly comes against the invisible barrier at the threshold. He looks at Buffy. Look is such a simple word to describe the range of expression on his face. We see anger, uncertainty, denial, hurt, rejection and acceptance all flicker across JM's visage. No words are exchanged. No words are necessary because it's all been said. We see in that instance the depth of his emotions for her. As well, in Buffy's gaze we see in a small degree her rage become sorrow that it came to that extreme as she shuts the door on him.

To me, that is the poignant moment where Spike loses hope. In the next episode he contracts Warren to make the Buffybot, revealing that though he has lost hope of winning her love, he will settle for having the next best thing: a clone who was created for the purpose of loving him, who won't, nay can't, hurt or reject him. But it was at this moment when he is shut out of her house, her life, her sacred place that is her home that he loses hope.

And, to me, that is the moment that captured the essence of his tragic unrequired love and reduces me to a quivering huddled mass each time I see it. So be warned, that when this episode is repeated, you might want to invest in shares in Kleenex!


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Regina, 14:37:21 06/25/01 Mon

Think you meant to say "tragic unrequited love," although some viewers still may not buy into Spike really loving Buffy. I'm not one of those, by the way.

I also loved the reaction Spike gave when he passed over the threshold after Buffy reinvited him into her home.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Liquidram, 19:07:36 06/25/01 Mon

This was mine also.... I saw shock, a flicker of a smile like he couldn't believe it, when a question. I never saw anger. In her face, I saw "just watch me". Door shut, fade to black.

Actually, the whole episode of Crush with him. The whole "bad" mask with Dru, the anguish with the dead girl at the Bronze before the bloodlust took over, the anticipation when Buffy starts speaking gently and then crushes him with the "unconscience" comment, and finally his hissy fit at her and Dru. All in all, a great JM episode.

My 2nd moment is a completely devestated Willow asking Oz "don't you love me?".


[> [> [> Yah, what she said ;) -- LadyStarlight, 20:23:55 06/25/01 Mon

I also liked the look Spike & Buffy exchanged during Harmony's little speech.


[> [> [> [> Harmony gets me every time... -- Solitude1056, 21:45:20 06/26/01 Tue

Since we're speaking of Crush... then ya gotta give Dru major points for that hilarious deadpan response while Harmony was talking. "Booboo?" Dru mouths silently to Spike. She barely raises an eyebrow.

Man, that cracked me up.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- vampire hunter D, 14:13:38 06/25/01 Mon

For me, one of the best visuals was from 'Blood ties', when we see Dawn had just cut herself. there's just somthing about that look (a sort of combination of anger and hurt). Actually, any scene with MT from this episode works, (especially the ones with JM) because it's the first time she was given a chance to display some real talent.

While I'm thinking of MT, the look on her face after Buffy threw Dawn against the wall (in 'No place like home') also comes to mind, mostly because of the way it takles on a whole new mening once you see the rest of the episode and realize just how much Dawn knew.

And finally, I think any scene from 'The Body' should be on any list of favorite Buffy scenes, because that episode was shot so well, and the characters showed so much feeling.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Sophie, 14:22:26 06/25/01 Mon

One of my favourite set pieces this year was Spike and Dru in the Bronze in 'Crush'. I loved their chemistry, the way they moved towards their prey and when Spike held the girl in his arms - what drama, what an actor! A seasons worth of conflict in 5 seconds. Sophie.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 17:02:43 06/25/01 Mon

I was at the Bloody Awful Poet Society website this weekend. I saw a great comment about chemistry. It basically said that if JM's new love interest was a Cement Block, suddenly a whole group of S/C-B shippers would arise and we'd all be commenting on how great C-B was in certain scenes and the expression C-B showed, etc.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- verdantheart, 06:44:30 06/26/01 Tue

Didn't you think the mannequin did a great job this season? I think JM and the mannequin had great chemistry together! ;)


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 09:34:47 06/26/01 Tue



[> Wait, can I vote again? -- Wisewoman, 14:26:25 06/25/01 Mon

Having already admitted to all and sundry that I've sacrificed my personal moral compass for a pair of cheekbones, I've just realized that I have another favorite speechless moment--that moment in The Gift when Willow reaches back, without looking, for Tara's hand to toss aside the minions guarding the tower. That said it all for me, about the power of their relationship and the fact that Tara was truly back among the (somewhat) sane.


[> [> Compassless in PA -- rowan, 19:12:50 06/25/01 Mon

"Having already admitted to all and sundry that I've sacrificed my personal moral compass for a pair of cheekbones..."

It's a disease, not a moral failing.

"...that moment in The Gift when Willow reaches back, without looking, for Tara's hand to toss aside the minions guarding the tower. That said it all for me, about the power of their relationship and the fact that Tara was truly back among the (somewhat) sane."

Yes, sanity in the Buffyverse is relative. I too, loved this scene and what it said about their relationship. Total faith that the hand would be there to be held, total unspoken communication, and shared power.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Andy, 14:37:20 06/25/01 Mon

One moment that always stands out in my mind is the end of Becoming, part 2. The whole sequence is classic, of course, but there's one little bit that always strikes me and that's just after Buffy stabs Angel with the sword and the portal starts to suck him through. Buffy starts out with a blank expression on her face, but then her eyes widen for short moment as if in a grim wonderment at what's happening. Then the portal shuts behind Angel and Buffy's expression finally cracks (which is also brilliant :)), but it's that one split second with her eyes widening that stands out for some reason :)


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Slayrunt, 14:37:49 06/25/01 Mon

Just mute the tv and watch "The Body" wonderful acting all around.

And now for something completely different. VampWillow licking fill in the blank. Sorry, I told you I have a little Willow problem.


[> Re: Sight Gags -- mundusmundi, 14:43:50 06/25/01 Mon

Lots of great choices already mentioned, most of them dramatic moments, so I think I'll name a few classic sight gags instead:

3. Xander looking at his Tweety-Bird watch after Buffy's boyfriend hands her a deluxe time piece in "Never Kill A Boy on the First Date."

2. Buffy stumbling on Giles, on the day of his magic shop's grand opening, standing alone with a giant wizard's hat atop his head.

And, my all-time favorite:

1. In "Hush," after Xander asks (with a sign) how to kill the Gentlemen, Buffy makes a staking motion that gets hilariously misinterpreted as, erm, something else.

Countless others will doubtless come to mind.


[> [> More Sight Gag Fun -- Caulfield, 20:54:11 06/25/01 Mon

I have to go down the sight gag path myself. Both of my choices are Xander and Anya centric (I am absolutely in love with Emma, and not just because we share a namesake).

First, in the Harsh Light of Day, when Xander turns to offer a juicebox to a now naked Anya and he squeezes it, spraying half the room.

Second, in Hush, when Anya realizes Xander cares about more then lots of orgasms after beating up a confused Spike. She makes an offer Xander can't refuse through use of an infamous hand jesture.

Oh so funny... -Logan


[> [> [> Re: More Sight Gag Fun -- mundusmundi, 11:39:50 06/26/01 Tue

And another one: in Becoming, when Spike and Joyce sit quietly together in her living room. Does anyone use long drawn-out silences to funnier effect than Joss?


[> [> Re: Sight Gags -- Brian, 14:39:19 06/27/01 Wed

One of my favorites is from the Gift when Willow says she needs some courage, and Spike's hand with his flask appears before her. A delightful comic moment before the real seriousness starts.


[> [> [> Re: Sight Gags -- Marie, 01:58:37 06/28/01 Thu

Aww, you just reminded me of 'We band of buggered'! Another good one.


[> The scene I will never forget -- spotjon, 15:42:54 06/25/01 Mon

Giles reaches his front door to find a rose angled in the door knob, and hears opera music playing from inside his house. Upon entering, he finds a bottle of wine in a bucket full of ice, and a parchment paper with the word "Upstairs" written on it. He begins to walk up the stairs, stepping on roses and passing lit candles. As he approaches the top of the flight, we see from an angle a woman lying on his bed, only her arm is visible. He walks the final steps and rounds the corner. The color drains from Giles' face. The music swells. We see Jenny's face, lifeless and staring into nothing. The wine bottle and glasses drop from Giles' hand and shatter on the floor.

I will never be able to forget that scene as long as I live.


[> [> I second that -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 04:15:12 06/26/01 Tue

And did you notice that they didn't show that in the montage at the start of 'The Gift'? It was too intense. They included the shot of him standing just inside the doorway instead - that's great too, but because it reminds us of what he's just experienced rather than because it is a moment in itself.


[> [> [> Re: A sad Giles moment and a funny Giles moment (Spoilers to "Band Candy" and "Earshot") -- Jarrod Harmier, 05:28:12 06/27/01 Wed

[I went to www.mustreadtv.com to confirm the scene information for "Forever".]

At one point in "Forever" (the episode right after "The Body"), Giles is alone in his apartment and searches for a specific record. As he plays it, he sits down with a whiskey and begins to listen. The record is the same one he and Joyce listened to together in "Band Candy". We all know what happened then. The scene suggests that Giles' feelings for Joyce--aside from what happened in "Band Candy"--went beyond what you would call "just friendly".

In "Earshot", it was said that whatever they gang least wanted Buffy to hear would be what they would think about. It was Joyce's thoughts that let it slip that she and Giles had had sex under the influence of the candy in "Band Candy". An observation that was mentioned on the Everything Philosophical on Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode guide entry to "Earshot" was that Giles never seemed to think about having sex with Joyce previously. At first that may seem callous. However, based on his general reaction to Joyce's death in "The Body" and his need to listen to that specific record in "Forever", it suggests that Giles was not ashamed about what happened with Joyce.

Of course, one of the funniest Giles moments I've ever seen occurs in "Earshot". It's when Buffy mentions what she overheard her mother thinking and runs into a tree. A very funny way to end an episode.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 15:52:49 06/25/01 Mon

Oh man! I knew that rowan was posting this topic (it's funny the things you find out at the bottom of this board :) and yet I STILL get here to late too claim some of my favorite moments! Grrr! And Argh!

I love the look on JM's face when he bumps into the invisible barrier in "Crush". He conveys so much, in such a short space of time. Wow.

And double WOW for the look that passes between Dawn and Spike on the platform in "The Gift". I spoke to my friends after watching that episode, and the conversations all went something like this:

AK-UK "So........they killed Buffy........."

Everyone else ".......yeah, but did you see that bit with Spike and Dawn????"

AK-UK "Oh my GOD!!!!! That bit was soooo intense!!!!"

Poor Buffy; how soon we forget :)

A lot of my favorite moments happen whilst charcters talking to each other, so even though the scene's power comes from their non verbal skills, I don't suppose I can vote for them here. :(

So, I'll happily settle for the moment in "The Zeppo" when Xander faces down Jack, the zombie, and death itself in the boiler room of Sunnydale High. Jack asks him if he is really ready to die, and Xander lets him know that he is. And then this look settles on Xander's face.......a look of resolution, courage and calm acceptence, a look that spoke of the untapped depths this character, and this actor, had to offer the show. It really amazed me, and made me appreciate Xander in a way I'd never done before...........and haven't done since.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 16:51:07 06/25/01 Mon

"Oh man! I knew that rowan was posting this topic (it's funny the things you find out at the bottom of this board :) and yet I STILL get here to late too claim some of my favorite moments! Grrr! And Argh!"

I even posted it a little earlier so that you'd have a better shot at it with the time differences between East Coast USA and the UK.

"AK-UK "So........they killed Buffy........." Everyone else ".......yeah, but did you see that bit with Spike and Dawn????" AK-UK "Oh my GOD!!!!! That bit was soooo intense!!!!" Poor Buffy; how soon we forget :)"

So true. The same thing happened at my house. Buffy dies and can't get top billing. Although as someone mentioned above, that look on Buffy's face when she sees the open portal & the dawn, and realizes what she needs to do is also very moving.

This moment between Spike and Dawn. As you say, wow. This is by far my most memorable moment, because I have never seen two actors convey so much in such a short scene with no dialogue (or rather, with one whispered word, 'no.'). I was just totally floored. I think the acting on BtVS is very fine overall. But I'm especially impressed by the way MT and JM can convey so much through facial expression (especially through the eyes). I notice this in scene after scene. Then, when they're together, it's...electric. Let's here it for more Spike and Dawn sibling bonding in S6!

"I love the look on JM's face when he bumps into the invisible barrier in "Crush". He conveys so much, in such a short space of time. Wow"

Also a great choice. And now we can compare it to the reinvite ("Presto! Barrier gone.") scene where Buffy and Spike can't maintain eye contact.

"So, I'll happily settle for the moment in "The Zeppo" when Xander faces down Jack, the zombie, and death itself in the boiler room of Sunnydale High. Jack asks him if he is really ready to die, and Xander lets him know that he is. And then this look settles on Xander's face.......a look of resolution, courage and calm acceptence, a look that spoke of the untapped depths this character, and this actor, had to offer the show. It really amazed me, and made me appreciate Xander in a way I'd never done before...........and haven't done since."

Well, S6 is the year of Xander *chuckles saracastically*. Seriously, though, every season has some great individual Xander moments, but IMHO, it never translates to overall greater Xanderness (if you know what I mean). Let's give the guy a storyline where he can shine a little more -- or at least be a pointy stick or a cudgel.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 18:38:37 06/25/01 Mon

Oh, that reinvite scene is lovely. Just watching Spike battling to keep his joy from showing, watching that cool exterior buckle.......and oh, Buffy and Spike are standing so close to each other, but they just can't look directly at each other for more than a second.........what will it lead to?

"This moment between Spike and Dawn. As you say, wow........I'm especially impressed by the way MT and JM can convey so much through facial expressions.........(and) when they're together it's...electric."

Hmmm, I seem to remember coming on this board after I'd seen "The Gift" and begging forgiveness for (silently) mocking the posts of one hapless individual who had been suggesting, for quite some time, that Spike and Dawn had a bond that seemed to go beyond that of friends..........Anyway, I agree that that those two actors work brilliantly together, the scenes they shared really live long in the memory (oh, that scene in "Crush" when Spike is telling Dawn a scary story from his past......that was another JM/MT classic), I can't wait to see more from those two in season 6.

"Well, S6 is the year of Xander *chuckles saracastically*"

You must have read this brilliant quote from The Watchers Guide Volume 2 (the Offical guide to seasons 3 and 4 of BtVS) They give a summary of all the things that have happened to Xander in seasons 3 and 4 (up to and including his dream in "Restless") and conclude the character guide with this line:

"Big changes in store for the X-man as he moves to center stage in Season Five..."

You've got to laugh......


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 18:56:47 06/25/01 Mon

"Hmmm, I seem to remember coming on this board after I'd seen "The Gift" and begging forgiveness for (silently) mocking the posts of one hapless individual who had been suggesting, for quite some time, that Spike and Dawn had a bond that seemed to go beyond that of friends."

Hmm..was that me you were mocking? I notice that's a habit of yours. It certainly could have been. I often suspect that the Spike and Dawn chemistry (again, not sexual chemistry, but emotional chemistry) comes down to the JM/MT acting chemistry. Perhaps (like the decision to "add" Spike back to the mix sans Dru when JL wasn't available or the decision not to make Tara part-wood sprite) that relationship is being modified by the writers as they see the chemistry develop or the characters interact. I've often wanted to ask the writers about issues like that (do they change where they're taking a storyline based on what they see developing on screen).

I do, however, believe that if MT were 20+ years old, quite a S/D shipper contingent would spring up, based on the same facts in evidence today (you know, people tend to read alot into longing looks). However, I much like a refreshing storyline where two characters who are not romantically involved can explore a deep and meaningful friendship. Guess it's kind of Giles and Buffylike, with some Xander and Buffy thrown in for good measure. It's nice to see types of love that aren't predicated on setting sheets on fire. Although I'm not actually oppposed to seeing that, either. ;)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 20:03:38 06/25/01 Mon

Yes, I did beg you for forgiveness. I never actually posted anything about what you had said, but i did read your posts on the subject and think "that person is a bit.....weird". You seemed to be getting quite a bit of stick from others due to your astute reading of the situation, so when I finally "saw the light" I felt that the first thing I should do was say "sorry" for not sticking up for you and "damn, you is one smart cookie!!" for spotting it....what, ten episodes before I did? I doth my cap to thee, rowan, and I hope that I'll be a bit quicker on the up take next time :)

I think the writers leave gaps in the season arcs to allow themselves to modify aspects of the plot if chemistry develops or fails to appear, or if a smaller storyline develops/fails to develop. I think the Buffy/Spike arc was planned ages ago, but the Spike/Dawn scenes were increased when the writers realised how well the two actors worked onscreen. I mean, Dawn originally had a crush on Xander, what happened to that?

If MT was 20+, I think 90% of my friends would be S/D shippers. Personally, the Spike/Dawn interactions remind me, slightly, of the film "Leon" (I think it was called "The Professional" in America and Canada). Young girl with a crush on a older guy. Older guy is a killer. The relationship was NEVER sexual, but they did seem to genuinely love each other.

I like the Dawn/Spike friendship as I stands. I mean, when was the last time you saw Buffy and Willow just relaxing in each others company? And was it ever really that interesting when they did? I don't think it was, but I could happily spend an episode watching Spike and Dawn hang out with each other (and if they happened to go off on a zany adventure, that would be cool too :).


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 20:14:14 06/25/01 Mon

"If MT was 20+, I think 90% of my friends would be S/D shippers. Personally, the Spike/Dawn interactions remind me, slightly, of the film "Leon" (I think it was called "The Professional" in America and Canada). Young girl with a crush on a older guy. Older guy is a killer. The relationship was NEVER sexual, but they did seem to genuinely love each other."

Did this have Natalie Portman as the girl and that French actor from Mission Impossible and French Kiss as the hired killer? Good analogy.

"I like the Dawn/Spike friendship as I stands. I mean, when was the last time you saw Buffy and Willow just relaxing in each others company? And was it ever really that interesting when they did? I don't think it was, but I could happily spend an episode watching Spike and Dawn hang out with each other (and if they happened to go off on a zany adventure, that would be cool too :)."

Kind of the Lucy and Ethel of the Buffyverse...just another crazy, madcap adventure with the Gothra demon (or whatever that Hydra creature with the eggs was called).

"You seemed to be getting quite a bit of stick from others..."

Is this a Britishism? Please translate for those in America who no longer speak the English language (ah, GBS, what a man!)

"I mean, Dawn originally had a crush on Xander, what happened to that?"

So true. It went the way of Spike and Willow's burgeoning attraction, Tara's 1/2 demon roots, the Year of Xander (don't get me started on that), and...Riley. I admire Joss & Co for recognizing what works and what doesn't -- and acting on it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Dawn's Crushes (o/t) -- LadyStarlight, 20:36:05 06/25/01 Mon

Having been at one time a 14 year old girl, let's examine Spike and Xander from that aspect.

Xander: around alot, older guy, cute, has a job and perhaps a car, nice to me, and a girlfriend

Spike: OK, so he's stalking my sister, which is sort of a bad thing but still sort of romantic (weird love is better than no love, right?), looks out for me, dangerous, wears SERIOUSLY cool clothes, nice to me (in a mocking, go away now way), tells really scary stories, has wicked cheekbones AND treats me like a real person (or grown-up)

Who would you pick?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's Crushes (o/t) -- rowan, 20:41:34 06/25/01 Mon

"Spike: OK, so he's stalking my sister, which is sort of a bad thing but still sort of romantic (weird love is better than no love, right?), looks out for me, dangerous, wears SERIOUSLY cool clothes, nice to me (in a mocking, go away now way), tells really scary stories, has wicked cheekbones AND treats me like a real person (or grown-up)."

This sounds like every guy I dated for the first 10 years of my dating career (except the evil dead thing -- I think).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: LOL dating -- voyageofbeagle, 20:52:44 06/25/01 Mon

LOl rowan- reminds of my dads's (unintentionally)funny quote in regards to my choice in boyfriends-

"First it was the long-haired guys,and I was starting to get used to that. But now you bring home a shaved-head guy. This is hard."

My brothers and I (and also my "shaved head" boyfriend) still like to quote that line. Classic, Dad.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's Crushes (o/t) -- verdantheart, 06:53:33 06/26/01 Tue

Are you saying every guy you dated had "wicked cheekbones"? I don't remember even meeting more than a couple of guys with wicked cheekbones my whole life! Is there a paralell dimension of the wicked cheekbones -- sort of like the dimension without shrimp?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dawn's Crushes (o/t) -- rowan, 09:36:59 06/26/01 Tue

You seem less concerned about the evil dead thing than the cheekbones thing. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Well, you did say "except for the evil dead thing," after all! :) -- verdantheart, 12:14:31 06/26/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> I've been to the demension without shrimp. It sucks, you have to order a beef cocktail at the bar. -- Rosenberg, 23:47:13 06/26/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- AK-UK, 21:05:51 06/25/01 Mon

Geting quite a bit of stick = coming in for a lot of criticism. Now, if you could return the favour by telling me who Lucy and Ethel are, I'd be very grateful :) For some reason I'm picturing rubber gloves on a glass bottles.......very weird.

"Did this have Natalie Portman as the girl and that French actor from Mission Impossible and French Kiss as the hired killer?"

Yep, that's the one. One of my favorite films, if only because of Gary Oldman's wonderfully over the top performance, and this piece of dialogue:

"Be careful, that pizza could be poisoned!" "No....there's no anchoives on it"

"I admire Joss & Co for recognizing what works and what doesn't -- and acting on it"

Yeah, I think the writers are eager to avoid a repeat of the the Riley/Iniaitive debacle.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 21:34:02 06/25/01 Mon

"Geting quite a bit of stick = coming in for a lot of criticism."

Oooohhh, I love the way you Brits talk. It's so...Spikey. ;)

"Now, if you could return the favour by telling me who Lucy and Ethel are, I'd be very grateful :)"

Well, since you asked so nicely, how could I refuse? Lucy Ricardo and Ethel Mertz were characters on the old B&W "I Love Lucy Show". You've probably heard of the show, it's considered a bit of a comedy classic. The show featured Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz playing on screen (as in real life) a married couple with alot of...personality differences, let's say. It was an excuse for alot of screwball comedy, led by Lucy and Ethel (played by Vivian Vance) getting into impossible situations. There was one memorable episode where they were working in a candy factory on an assembly line (don't ask me why) and the conveyor belt was going too fast, so Lucy had to keep stuffing candy in her mouth to keep up...and hijinks ensued.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Year of Xander ?!? -- Rahael, 16:02:51 06/27/01 Wed

The one aspect of 'Restless' which didn't seem to pan out was the scene between Xander and Snyder - where he's told that he would be a sacrifical lamb. Both the spoilers and this scene seemed to promise a prominent role for Xander.

Its the only thing that hasn't become clearer after S5 has ended. Did they scrap it? or is it still to come?

I've never seen Apocalypse Now, so maybe I didn't get all the allusions.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Year of Xander ?!? -- AK-UK, 16:35:56 06/27/01 Wed

Apparently, Xander was originally going to be Glory's mortal prison (rather than Ben). Hence all that sacrifical stuff, and the expectation that Xander was going to be central to season 5.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- JBone, 21:23:47 06/28/01 Thu

"Poor Buffy; how soon we forget :)"

I really appreciated the scene between JM and MT, but I'd rank it between 10th and 15th on the list of scenes that I really liked in that episode. Maybe the rest of you will come around soon enough.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Solitude1056, 16:44:28 06/25/01 Mon

I suppose some images can be captured on a screenshot, but unfortunately I tend to think in groups of images... or else I'd be fancy like Masq & try to find screenshots.

So, hmmm. These would have to be the images I think of, in no particular order.

1. Cordy silently cutting up her pictures of herself and Xander, and burning them. Up until that point, Cordy had loudly proclaimed her non-love for Xander (except at a few hesitant points) - it was only then that it became clear she did have a heart under her cold exterior, and it was broken.

2. Willow in Evil-Willow guise, waving excitedly at Oz while she tries to convince the vamps (and Anya) that she's really Evil Willow. It was that quick, goofy little smile and the tiny wave that cracked me up.

3. The shot of Xander, and then of Anya, in the car on the way to pick up Tara & Willow in The Body. Completely silent, completely isolated.

4. Oz's smile. As an actor playing a character who emotes very subtly, I'd have to say that most interactions with Oz fall under the category of eye candy. (Maybe that's where JM/Spike learned to tone down his original brashness.)

5. Cordy's expression after she's told Angel to stay lost now that he's fired his team. That eyebrow action of hers gets me everytime - sooooo cool. :-)

6. Wesley doing the unexpected thing - shooting one bad guy with a cross-bow in the hand as he stoops to catch the guy's gun at the same time.

7. Faith's expression when she turns herself over the authorities - as seen behind Kate & the rest of the crew. All those people bustling about, and she's the silent center of the shot.

8. Giles in The Body - putting on the record that he & Joyce listened to in Band Candy, and sitting down with a drink. It was that little shake of his wrist to get his watch to slide just a bit down the wrist - an odd movement, and one that just stuck in my mind. So much more subtle of a "settling-in" to think about something than his usual on-again off-again with the glasses.

9. Anya's expression when she realizes she can't grant Cordy's wish. (Hehe.)

10. As someone else mentioned, Xander in The Zeppo, in that last long minute where he waits for Jack to decide. I wouldn't mention it here otherwise but for the fact that's one of my favorite Xander episodes.

11. Ok, most of Hush - but especially the shot of the Gentleman floating past the window right as Rupert's girlfriend (what was her name?) is looking out the window. I just about jumped out of my skin!

(Yes, this list goes to eleven.)


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Aquitaine, 18:05:56 06/25/01 Mon

Oooh. So many good 'images' already mentioned above... I think that I will cite the visuals of the FFL alley/subway car scene. Sure, the words in that scene were haunting but I will never forget the image of Spike kneeling over Nikki's body after killing her superimposed on the reverent image of him kneeling before Buffy. *Shudder* The editing juxtaposed not only past and present, light and dark, good and bad, but created a new depth for BtVS and turned this formerly-casual viewer into an ME aficionado.

- Aquitaine


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Cynthia, 18:33:12 06/25/01 Mon

Only been watching since Season Five so I'll pick from that.

In Fool For Love, the moment where Spike dares Buffy to continue "dancing" there is a moment of silence that leads to Spike starting to move in for a kiss. The sexual tension between the two characters was intense. I feel it was this moment between them even more than the fighting that Buffy really worries and wonders about in regard to accidently leading Spike on in Crush.

Giles sitting in the darkness, listening to a special song, remembering Joyce.

I've also enjoyed Dawn's ability to be terrified of Glory and serpents yet be totally unafraid of Spike, to his total frustration.

Everybody's reaction at the end of The Gift.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Anthony8, 18:55:17 06/25/01 Mon

Okay, here's a few that instantly come to mind. After more careful thought, I'll probably have some more.

1. In 'Enemies,' the look on Faith's face when Angel replies that she is the "second best [actor in the world]" and realizes she has been played.

2. Also from 'Enemies,' Buffy and Faith, cutlery at each other's throat, then Faith kissing Buffy on the forehead before fleeing.

3. The look on Cordelia's face (batting eyelashes and silly grin) after she tells Angel that he can't fire her because she's "Vision Girl" and Angel's (DB's? It almost looked like it could have been the actor's reaction rather than the character's) attempt to suppress a grin.



[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- John Burwood, 00:06:39 06/26/01 Tue

To that list of moments, can I add the expression on Buffy's face in 'Nightmares' as her father tells her the divorce was her fault. It was that scene which turned me from a regular watcher enjoying a good series to a total addict convinced he was watching the best television drama he had ever seen.


[> Just for you rowan.............eye candy .............:):):) -- Rufus, 19:57:33 06/25/01 Mon

In the episode Superstar there was a little interaction near the end between Buffy and Spike.

Buffy: "Shut up Spike."

Spike laughs: "Ooh ooh ooh! Semi harsh language from Betty! You're feisty when the big guy standing in front of you. (sighs)(lightly strokes Buffys hair and side of her face while each intently look at each other) "Someday sweet slayer." (he slides his hand down her throat) "See you face the evil alone for once."

I found that a hint of what was going on in his mind. Had to think throw that guy a life ring.....he's sunk.....so much for killing the slayer....


[> [> Re: Just for you rowan.............eye candy .............:):):) -- rowan, 19:59:49 06/25/01 Mon

And yet further proof of what our mothers always told us: don't play with your food!


[> [> [> Re: Just for you rowan.............eye candy .............:):):) -- Rufus, 20:03:02 06/25/01 Mon

Is that how you do the Heimlich maneuver???????????


[> [> [> [> Next Year's Obsession -- rowan, 20:07:50 06/25/01 Mon

I'm just announcing this now. For S6, I plan to be obsessed with Dawn's character development. While I fully intend to remain committed to, er, cheekbones and redemption, S5 was the Year of Spike.

S6 will be the Year of Dawn. I want to know why she stole those earrings, how she'll deal with a Buffyless Buffyverse, if she'll develop her witchy ways, if she'll manifest latent Slayer powers, etc.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Next Year's Obsession -- AK-UK, 20:18:34 06/25/01 Mon

I agree that Dawn should be centre stage next season, but I'm no sure I'd want her to develop her key powers yet. It might be fun to just have her deal with being a 14(?)yr old girl in Sunnydale. Buffy had to handle responsibilty when she was young, lets not force Dawn to grow up too soon.

And as I typed that last sentence in, I remembered that Joss said the theme for S6 was going to be "Oh grow up!".

Damn :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Next Year's Obsession -- rowan, 20:20:59 06/25/01 Mon

Well, I'm thinking, please Joss give us some Key clues to puzzle over in S6, then really go for the full deal in S7 (stretch out the goodness for a while).


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- OnM, 20:06:41 06/25/01 Mon

Like with the writing, there really isn't just one choice, there are so many wonderful visual moments, and I agree with the ones mentioned so far.

My pick is the same one that I wrote about before, back after *Forever* aired. A lot of people concentrate on *The Body*, and for good reason, but I maintain that it and *Forever* are bookends, like *Surprise/Innocence* and the one isn't complete without the other.

*The Body* concentrated on the physical aspect of death and the physical immediacy of the survivors having to deal with it. *Forever* goes on into the process of grief and the more long-lasting emotional and spiritual aftereffects.

*Forever* had a very large number of visually stunning shots that captured those thoughts, but none was greater in my opinion than the one that starts by seeing Buffy sitting alone and bereft in her room, then panning down the hallway, past the family pictures on the wall, to Dawn's room where she sits exactly as Buffy does. In just a few seconds, the sweep of the camera captures the horror of that aloneness perfectly, and without a single spoken word.

That scene then segues perfectly into the scene at the cemetary. Shortly afterward, there is the sequence (also wordless) where Buffy stands motionless by the gravesite as darkness falls, and Angel appears beside her and takes her hand. She doesn't even turn around, she knows it's him.

Those are the two that stay in my mind the most from this past year.

Runners up:

Spike sitting on the ground, choking back tears, the money Buffy flung at him scattered all around, suffering a fate worse than death, in FFL.

The scene shortly after on Buffy's back porch where he goes seamlessly from rage to sympathy in a matter of a minute and redefines our concept of what a vampire can be. This is no small feat-- our belief in all that happens afterward hinges on us 'buying' this seemingly impossible action. Marsters pulls it off.

The above-mentioned scene with Dawn and Spike in *The Gift*.

Favorite humorous moment: Dracula announces himself to Buffy-- she pauses-- there's this look on her face-- then "Get out!"


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 20:28:41 06/25/01 Mon

"Spike sitting on the ground, choking back tears, the money Buffy flung at him scattered all around, suffering a fate worse than death, in FFL."

Painful to watch. It's hard watching even bad guys get so totally humiliated. Having someone tell you that you're beneath them after they throw cash in your face for information you should have given freely is not my idea of a fun time.

"*Forever* had a very large number of visually stunning shots that captured those thoughts, but none was greater in my opinion than the one that starts by seeing Buffy sitting alone and bereft in her room, then panning down the hallway, past the family pictures on the wall, to Dawn's room where she sits exactly as Buffy does. In just a few seconds, the sweep of the camera captures the horror of that aloneness perfectly, and without a single spoken word.:

A beautiful conceived and executed moment.

"Favorite humorous moment: Dracula announces himself to Buffy-- she pauses-- there's this look on her face-- then "Get out!""

Please feel confident that we'll do some 1st Anniversary postings on funniest ep, funniest one liner, and funniest scene.

My only problem is...what will I come up with for the 2nd Anniversary Party?


[> [> [> Re: 2nd Anni - We'll have a whole 'nother season to talk about, now won't we? -- OnM, 20:50:13 06/25/01 Mon

Maybe that year you can get Joss, Marti, Sarah, David and the whole gang to join us online for what would probably turn into the longest thread in ATPo history!

After all, you are the mighty rowanificus, are you not?



[> [> [> [> Re: 2nd Anni - We'll have a whole 'nother season to talk about, now won't we? -- rowan, 20:51:46 06/25/01 Mon

Maybe I AM "Joss, Marti, Sarah, David...[or] the whole gang". Seriously, though, why can't we attract them to the high tone and serious debate of our posting board?


[> [> [> [> [> Wait a minute.........we're serious????????:):):):) -- Rufus, 23:11:07 06/25/01 Mon

Sure.....must be what attracts all the Canadians........and their cats.......:):):):)


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Malandanza, 20:17:21 06/25/01 Mon

I liked the power shot of Darla, Angel, Spike and Dru with the burning Chinese city as a backdrop in FFL. Also, in the same episode -- the look that Buffy gives Spike when Spike came, shotgun in hand, to kill her -- a sort of "go-ahead-and-kill-me look."

From Season 4's "Living Conditions," I liked the evil glare a tied up Buffy gave Oz and Xander as they cautiously approached her to see if they had tied her up tightly enough.

Finally, all the way to season 1 -- the ending of The Puppet Show. The Scoobies were armed with archaic weapons with a dead demon at their feet when the curtains came up -- leaving poor Principal Synder puzzled.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- rowan, 20:24:18 06/25/01 Mon

"I liked the power shot of Darla, Angel, Spike and Dru with the burning Chinese city as a backdrop in FFL. Also, in the same episode -- the look that Buffy gives Spike when Spike came, shotgun in hand, to kill her -- a sort of "go-ahead-and-kill-me look."

Yes, that Boxer Rebellion backdrop with the Demonic Family highlighted in front was certainly one image of hell on earth.

I always wondered if Buffy even knew why the heck Spike had a shotgun with him. I'm glad to hear someone's opinion of it.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Sebastian, 20:38:54 06/25/01 Mon

Mine's rather generic: :)

1. I would say the moment when Buffy and Dawn first witness Ben's transformation into Glory in "Spiral."

The shock/horror in their eyes is chilling - and even though as a viewer I had known the "secret" for sometime - it feels as if I'm just learning it along with them.


2. Angel feeding on Buffy in Graduation Day Pt. 2. The way the entire scene is filmed is very cinematic. (Buffy and Angel falling to the ground in slo-mo and Buffy crushing the urn in agony & ectsasy still sticks out in my mind)


[> [> Ah! Snyder doing post-Apocalypse Brando! There's a moment!! -- OnM, 20:53:16 06/25/01 Mon


[> [> [> Ahhhh Snyders moment........funny thing......gave me a cramp......:):):):):):) -- Rufus, 23:16:25 06/25/01 Mon

I liked Snyder his dislike for kids didn't stand in the way of him being a major pain in the ass......I did love the moment in Band Candy when Snyder stalked around Oz admiring his full head of hair........oh and....."Summers, you drive like a spaz.......oh oh, and when he tried to pick up Joyce......sniff......I kinda miss him.........


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Isabel, 22:37:56 06/25/01 Mon

I was reading the posts being very happy that no one picked my choices, when 'bam' people remembered 'Fool for Love.' sniff.

But my eye candy bits are slightly different from other people's choices.

1) Spike kneeling in the alley in front of Buffy.- Ok, this was picked, but, damn, my toes curl...

2) After Buffy knocks Spike down, throws the money and stalks off. He gathers the money, starts to sob, gets control of himself, the music changes, then he looks after her with a glare of such rage and hatred, that it still makes the hairs on the backs of my arms stand straight up.

3) In Family, Spike sitting in his crypt with the mannequin's head in his lap. He's just gently caressing the face, completely alone with his fantasy and trying so hard to ignore Harmony's prattling behind him.

And a non-Spike moment for me.

4) I have to agree with Maladanza about that scene in 'Living Conditions.' But my favorite bit is the 'Uh oh' look exchanged between Oz and Xander when they realize that they've got to go check Buffy, who's glaring at them evilly. Xander looked terrified and Oz actually looked concerned.


[> And from Beer Bad............ -- Rufus, 23:27:30 06/25/01 Mon

I loved the exchange between Jack the owner of the bar and Xander..

Jack: "You know I've been taking abuse from snot nosed kids for twenty year. They're always coming in here with their snotty attitude, drinking their fruity little micro brews and spouting out some philosophy....like it means a damn thing. Thinking they're different than us."

Xander: "They are now."

Jack: "They ain't. That's the great thing about beer. It makes all men the same."

I find after working a few weekends or so stolling the bars, Jack is quite right....beer levels all men..they didn't take much kindly to us taking it away from them.


[> A scene with impact! -- Emcee003, 23:47:23 06/25/01 Mon

My best socalled eye candy is, The arrival of Spike as he just flattens the "Welcome to Sunnydale." :)


[> The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- Marie, 04:04:56 06/26/01 Tue

...for me, over the whole 5 seasons, was the scene in 'Passion' when Giles 'phones Buffy's house to tell her and Willow about Angel killing Jenny Calendar. As the girls both start sobbing, the camera cuts to Angel, outside, watching, smiling...

One of the saddest - who can forget Willow walking into Oz's empty room?

One of the funniest - it makes me smile even as I type - Xander's face as he gasps 'Syphilis?!'.

The Gentlemen as they float on by, of course, and ALL Spike moments...mmmmmm!

(Rowan, I promise you can have him when I've finished with him!).


[> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- Millan, 04:37:15 06/26/01 Tue

"(Rowan, I promise you can have him when I've finished with him!)."

*shock* You think you would ever be finished with him!?

*mumbles* ...that would not be bloody likely in my case...



[> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- rowan, 05:05:25 06/26/01 Tue

We'll need to work up a schedule to share...I don't want him getting tired.


[> [> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- LadyStarlight, 06:45:47 06/26/01 Tue

Can I please have Sunday nights then? I promise it's just for conversation ;)


[> [> [> Re: The most chilling 'goosebump' moment... -- Isabel, 18:11:17 06/26/01 Tue

Perhaps it's a good thing he's immortal. ;)


[> [> [> SHARE!! But didn't you realise? I meant you could have what's left of him - his husk! -- Marie, 03:18:09 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> OK, OK! I won't be mean - maybe we could work something out for a few days in the month! -- Marie, 03:20:36 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> That's really cold, Marie. :) -- rowan, 05:31:49 06/27/01 Wed


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Millan, 04:31:51 06/26/01 Tue

Hi! I've never posted here before, but can't leave this one without my contribution.

I have not seen the second half of season 5 - that is, after Triangle - so that limits my choice. Since this season has struck me quite hard, I won't even try to think about scenes in season 1-4. Thus my favourite Eye Candy goes to:

"Fool for love", the last scene.

Spike is closing in on Buffy, shotgun ready. Rage in his eyes. Waiting for her to look at him: This is personal and he has to have that contact. Buffy looks up, tears and pain in eyes. The next shot of Spike is amazing. His anger so very slowly dissipates while he's registering her pain. I don't know how he does it even though I've watched it some twenty times, but you can see his eyes changing expression from rage via hesitation to care. 'What's wrong?' He wonders. The next transformation is where I think he meets his turning-point. Before this, in the right situation, he might have killed her. After this, I don't believe he will ever be able to. The care becomes an expression of love and deep concern. 'Is there something I can do?' His eyes are a window, if not to his soul, at least to his heart.

I'll never tire of watching that scene.

Sorry if this is a bit jumbled, English not being my native tounge.



[> [> Not at all, well put! -- verdantheart, 07:17:56 06/26/01 Tue


[> What about this powerful Willow and Tara moment? -- sollig, 07:51:21 06/26/01 Tue

Since I've waited so long to post, some of my favorites have been mentioned, but one that hasn't:

The totally non-gratuitous, loving kiss between Tara and Willow in The Body that says so much about the depth of their feelings for each other. It was all the more tender because it was shared through tears and grief, a desperate emotional attempt to ease the pain and confusion they felt and a confirmation that they were precious to each other. Very touching!

So many other scenes from The Body are fabulous, but some others that really stand out are:

The scene where we are in the classroom looking out as Buffy tells Dawn their mother is dead. Having lost a parent suddenly myself when I was about Dawn's age, I was just sobbing as this scene unfolded!

When Xander and Anya join Willow and Tara and are talking about what they are supposed to do for Buffy, and Anya sits on the chair, pulling the blue shirt that Willow has been frantically searching for out from under her. This happens in the background and she tosses it aside without comment. I just thought it was visually interesting: sort of funny and sort of sad, for some reason. (Help me out here; I can't seem to express why this is so.)

Other scenes I love:

In FFL, final scene, specifically when Spike so very badly wants to comfort Buffy. He's not sure what he can do or what she'll allow him to do, so he just sits next to her. He seems to feel helpless and unsure of his place and even his true feelings.

The sexual tension as Spike goes in for the kiss, and Buffy totally rejects him, then the whole struggle to maintain his composure after Buffy throws the money at him.

I've only been watching since Season 4, so my choices are limited, but I thought these were pretty darn good!


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Humanitas, 09:12:39 06/26/01 Tue

Wow, there are so many, and reading the posts alreay up has reminded me of so many more... Hush... The Body... The Gift...

I haven't seen many of the earlier seasons (can't wait for the re-runs on FX), so my impression may change over time, but the one scene that sticks in my mind, and just haunts me, is from the end of "Amends:" Buffy and Angel on the roof, as it starts to snow. I don't know why this sticks with me so clearly. Perhaps it was because this was the first episode I saw in it's entirety, or maybe it was just a beautiful shot.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- dream of the consortium, 09:46:24 06/26/01 Tue

It can be easy to dismiss the early shows because the writing has developed so much since then, but even first season Buffy was far superior to most television. So I'm going to pick an image from the very beginning - in Harvest, the vampire gang, led by Darla, heading for the entrance of the Bronze, where they intend to lock in the teenagers and feed. They approach in slow motion, full vamp-face, Darla in her schoolgirl outfit, skipping and grinning. The image is terrifying, to me anyway, because, other than the vamp faces, they could be any group of bullies, taking pleasure in their malice. The slow motion actually works for once because the camera is placed in the path of the oncoming vamps, so the viewer is being approached, and the slowmotion replicates the fear of having been singled out. (Oh, God - what do they want with ME?) The High School/Hell equation is spelled out so clearly and effectively. The visual supports both the plot needs and the theme - a rare level for television direction.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Nina, 10:03:30 06/26/01 Tue

Well I am late, aren't I? Most of my very top favorite moments are already taken, but some of them are still free, so I'll jump on them!

A Buffy moment: The Gift - when she jumps in the the portal. The look on her face is wonderful, but that jump gets me everytime. It's a leep of faith. No barrier, no restraint. Same position as in Prophecy girl when she falls in the pool, yet this time she flies. Just a wonderful image!

A Giles moment: In "Passion" when he goes to the factory and fights Angel with a stick on fire. He's my hero each time I watch him. I always hope Angel won't catch the stick and that he'll kill him. Chilling.

A Xander moment: In B2, the scene with Willow in the hospital. The whole speech in beautiful, but all the silences showed me a Xander I didn't know. He's deep and vulnerable. Love how his eyes are full of restrained tears.

A Willow moment: In Innocence when she sees Xander and Cordelia kissing. The look of surprise/betrayal/hurt in her eyes.

A Dawn moment: In Tough Love. The look in her eyes when she thinks she's evil. It's heartbreaking.

A Spike moment: I think it's Aquitaine who mentioned that moment at BAPS. I haven't seen it here, but it's one of my favorite. In FFL when Buffy and Spike are in the Bronze talking about beer. Buffy tells him they are not there to talk about hops and the look on Spike face at that moment is just so full of hurt. It's not a moment that is often refered to, but really it's when Spike showed how much he was hurt for the first time.


[> [> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- fresne, 10:42:33 06/26/01 Tue

Late but, fashionable so...in addition to what everyone else has said, and a few repetitions.

The Pack - Xander after he has been Heyenafied, walks across the school yard with his pack members. It was such a Jim Morrison moment. They are so very controlled, graceful, dangerous. You can see the change in his eyes. This Xander will kill you as soon as look at you. Also, as (I think) the first instance of one of the core group being a threat, there is an emotional immediacy. I the viewer think, "But its just Xander." and then, "No, its not."

Prophesy Girl - Buffy walks down the sewer to face the Master. She is wearing a simple, elegant white dress, but in the light of the tunnel, it appears to glow yellow. Her hair is up in a very elegant style, but it also serves to reinforce the fragile lines of her neck. Her eyes are downcast, almost shyly. A young girl going to her first dance. A young bride going to meet a groom she has never met. But she is carrying a crossbow. She is a young slayer going to meet her destined fate. SMG conveys such trepidation, resolve, innocence. She looks so very young. The knowledge that she is going to die is in every line of body, in every flow of her dress and in those tiny little shoes, but on she goes.

When She Was Bad - Buffy pounding the Holly Bejesus out of the Master's bones with a sledge hammer. It's a visual they build towards nicely all episode. All of her anger, rage, and helplessness at her fate are in this scene. She does not want to be the Slayer. She does not want this. And here are these bones, that could have been, maybe should have been, hers.

Halloween - Buffy putting on a late 1700's dress sans corset. Okay, so may that's just a costuming thing.

School Hard - Spike drives into town and takes out the SunnyD sign. Steps out of the car and has a smoke. They establish Spike's entire persona in about a minute.

Anne - Buffy stands there in the Demon Dimension holding a Hunga Munga Throwing Knife from W. Africa. Because it's a Hunga Munga knife and it's wicked cool looking. Because I get a real sense that Buffy is healing from Season II's events and coming back into her own. Because it is a 34 side shot, SMG is looking out of the corner of her eyes for unseen dangers. There is something spine straight resolute in the pose and yet...and this is hard to explain... She has that relaxed loose look that you get when you are ready to fight. It's this moment, when you totally bypass your brain and you just act.

Lovers Walk - Spike once again plowing over the SunnyD sign, but this time falling of the car. Its an excellent revisit to the earlier scene and does a great job of establishing where Spike is now.

Something Blue - Spike proposing. Its just one of the funniest things ever.

New Moon Rising - At the very end of the episode, when Willow blows out the candle that Tara is holding. Cut to black. The soft light in the scene suits the soft reaching nature of the characters. The hope, fear of rejection on Tara's face. The look of love on Willow's. The softness of the gesture. The luminescence of the votary style candle. It's such a gentle scene.

Fool for Love1 - Spike kneeling in front of Buffy in the ally behind the Bronze. They are somewhat backlit. His coat is pooled around him, almost like a medieval robe. His back is very straight, which works really well with the flow of the coat. It's such a supplicants position. His throat is exposed. He is very vulnerable. And yet, in body language he is the master of this situation. Visually lower, and yet instructing. Buffy. He is so very open, while there is something very tight in Buffy's stance. Of course, juxtaposing this image with the action in the subway, is just utterly brilliant.

FF2 - Spike sitting in the alley just after Buffy has thrown the money at him. He goes through so many emotions. The little sob. The completely exposed looseness to his body. And then the change in his face as he comes to look very, very angry. The way the shadows play on the absolute angularity of his face are very...well frightening.

FF3 - Spike as at the end of the episode as he is about to shoot Buffy. He walks up. He is so filled with anger and resolution. He just doesn't care about the potential pain. Then he sees her, so small and sad on the step. His jaw clenches once and you literally see the anger just flow out of him. And then he does that head side tilt thing and everything in his posture and facial expression tell you that he wants to comfort her, but doesn't know how. It is at that point that I see Spike accepting that he loves Buffy and why no matter what occurs in subsequent episodes I just couldn't believe that he could hurt her.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- verdantheart, 13:22:39 06/26/01 Tue

I asked myself what I thought were simply stunning visuals and came up with:

1) Loved that dragon that flew out of the portal in "The Gift." Also the tower.

2) Angel dropping the cigarette into the gasoline to burn Dru and Darla. ("Redefinition")

3) The "power shot" in "Darla" wherein we see Angelus and "family" striding through the chaos of the Boxer Rebellion.

4) A general comment: make-up design for the Host. That's probably the best horned demon make-up I've seen.

Of course, there are numerous Spike moments, pretty much covered in previous posts (we *do* seem to have quite the appreciation society going here ...). I'd add the following:

1) Spike and Dawn sitting cross-legged as Spike weaves a scary story in "Crush." There's a nice intensity to the scene, and I can envision it as an illustration.

2) Someone mentioned the proposal scene in "Something Blue." Let me add to that the moment when they announce their intentions to Giles (I believe this is the moment I'm thinking of). Buffy's and Spike's heads are together and they both have huge smiles on their faces. It reminds us that these two can summon gorgeous multi-megawatt smiles. Those two don't seem to have much occasion to smile -- certainly not this last year!

3) Oh, yes! And Spike's fight fantasy in "Family." Erotic/humorous elements aside, I thought that was a nifty fight sequence to watch.

- vh


[> [> Regarding Something Blue -- Rufus, 14:28:49 06/26/01 Tue

Same ep. when Xander comes into the room and notices that Buffy and Spike are holding hands....he asks what's up and they go into this manic clench and announce they are getting married.....and Xander askes if he can be blind too....laughed lots.......

In Intervention Xander and Anya approach the Buffybot and it askes how Anyas money is...Anyas smile and joy about her money was wonderful....then when Spike shows up and the Buffybot goes it's Spike and he's wearing a coat....to the later straddling scene...can never think of the big bad in the same way again....poor Xanders eyes....


[> [> [> Re: Regarding Something Blue -- rowan, 17:17:04 06/26/01 Tue

"to the later straddling scene...can never think of the big bad in the same way again."

That scene shocked me in more ways than one. Yes, the phrase Big Bad now takes on more meaning...and becomes indelibly associated with that image. Sometimes I wonder if the writers take a look at the fanfic sites to come up with some of these things.


[> [> [> [> Oh yeah............I think they do......:):):):) -- Rufus, 18:53:37 06/26/01 Tue


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Eva, 23:02:48 06/26/01 Tue

I would like to nominate two very visual scenes that I found very effective. But dealing with Dawn.

The first was when Dawn finally changed into her "sacrifice dress". She slowly placed her "street/kid clothes" on a chair very neatly. Almost ritualistically. It was so errie. Like she was preparing to die. Putting everything in place so carefully. What really stood out was her tennis shoes, as they so represent for me the "kid" in her. It like she was trying to build some momument to her childhood. Her life.

The second was at the end, when she was standing there bleeding, the blood draining down to her bare feet. I really don't know what Joss was trying to envoke with that image. Why bare feet? What did he want us to feel?

Two scenes, very visual, yet I am not quite sure what emotions were being envoked by them.


[> [> Re: why bare feet? -- Nina, 17:56:20 06/27/01 Wed

Eva, I believe it's to continue the Christ metaphore. We got bare hands with blood (Spike in Spiral), Giles wound on the side and blood on bare feet (Dawn). It's the three wounds the Christ got during cruxifiction. My humble opinion anyway!


[> [> [> Re: why bare feet? -- Solitude1056, 20:46:09 06/27/01 Wed

And don't forget Xander's bloody knuckles during The Body ... the whole season's been filled with images of blood, and for a show that's revolved around bloodsuckers, that's saying a lot!


[> [> Isnt' it strange...? -- Wisewoman, 19:12:30 06/27/01 Wed

I got almost the exact opposite message from the way Dawn carefully folded and arranged her clothing and shoes. I saw it as her belief, which she stated continually, that Buffy would save her, and that she would be needing her things again very soon, so she wasn't going to just toss them aside but make sure that they were neatly ready for her.

Your interpretation makes sense too...isn't it odd that the same brief, speechless moment can be interpreted in two such different ways?


[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it strange...? -- Eva, 20:00:57 06/27/01 Wed

Dawn wasn't protrayed as a "neat" person, so her neatly, slowly, and carefully folding the clothes seemed out of character.

It seemed so ritualistic. Like Dawn was subconciously trying to make a statement. One last way to try to make at least some little mark in this world. Maybe I will not exist anymore, but at least this shell of me will be left to remember me by.

When I saw the clothes, especially the shoes, I had images of kid sister, bubblegum, pony tails, childhood, all of that. It was eerie in that the only thing that was missing is the little girl to wear them.

Dawn was forced to leave all that behind. It will be interesting even though she ultimately wasn't sacrificed, how much of her childhood was sacrificed along with her sister that night.


[> [> [> [> Dawn will be 15 next season -- Susan, 20:18:08 06/27/01 Wed

I mention that just to point out that we first met Buffy when she was 16.

Dawn is growing up.

Not a kid anymore.


[> [> [> [> [> *Bitty Buffy* no more! -- Wisewoman, 12:39:55 06/28/01 Thu

Dawn certainly is growing up! And if MT grew any taller over the summer, it'll be the *real* Buffy that we're calling Bitty Buffy in S6, 'cause Dawn is going to tower over her Big Sister!


[> [> [> that's the way I saw it, too -- spotjon, 20:06:53 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it strange...? -- Marie, 01:48:44 06/28/01 Thu

"...isn't it odd that the same brief, speechless moment can be interpreted in two such different ways?"

Make that three - I interpreted it as her putting off the moment. You know, like when you were a child and didn't want to eat your sprouts, you pushed them around your plate for as long as you could before your mother said 'eat your vegetables'! Dawn was being uncharacteristically tidy, very slowly - she knew that when she was finished, she'd be led to her fate!


[> [> [> Re: Isnt' it strange...? -- Andy, 06:01:11 06/28/01 Thu

That's pretty much how I saw it. I also think there was an element of focusing for her. She's about to be lead to her death so the only thing to keep her from panicking is to just concentrate on folding those clothes as diligently as possible. Once it was done and the minions started leading her away, then she started screaming :)


[> [> [> [> same here -- Solitude1056, 09:57:52 06/28/01 Thu

It made me think of suicides who clean their house before killing themselves - putting everything "in order" as ritualistic preparation, and of self-focusing. In this case, I think the antidote to panic is also part of it, and the zen element of leaving a mark behind, as neatly and carefully as possible. It's all of that - and to think, on any other show it would've been a throwaway few seconds of screen time... but when it's Joss, those three seconds carry almost a show's worth of impact & import in & of themselves.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: same here -- rowan, 14:23:23 06/28/01 Thu

Yes, I equated it to with the ritualistic preparation of suicides. As if Dawn was closing her accounts, since she expected to die. The music playing was also the same as when Buffy and Dawn had their last scene on the tower, which evoked preparation for death.

Also, Dawn was symbolically putting aside all the Dawn-stuff and going outfitted with only her Key-stuff (which would be her bare flesh plus the dress prepared for her).


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- purplegrrl, 11:54:11 06/27/01 Wed

My favorite is Buffy's dream of her night with Angel (from "Surprise" I believe). All naked body parts and red silk sheets. Yikes!!


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- JBone, 22:05:06 06/28/01 Thu

I've been out of town for a little while, and reading up on everyone's eye candy, I can really appreciate most of them. While the list of my favorites (and my favorites of those listed) is too long, especially with a show with the script stage direction "off look(s)", I'd thought I'd name something I never see on this board. The HOTTEST Chicks scenes.

First, Buffy trying to make Angel jealous on the dance floor in WSWB with Xander. Awesome dance. Next, Buffy in the raincoat in BBB. Vamp Willow letting it all hang out in Doppelgängland. Faith and Buffy on the dance floor at the Bronze in Bad Girls. Buffy's cavegirl hair in Beer Bad. Sorry, I'm a guy, and I dug it. Most any episode with Anya in something revealing. The hot robot chick in IWMTLY. Last, but most certainly not least, Cordy in the last four episodes of season 2 of Angel. From the bikini to the throne ware.

That my friends, is Eye Candy.


[> [> Might I add-- -- Rosenberg, 23:20:00 06/28/01 Thu

Willow in her "ghost costume". How could you forget that? Mmmm . . . okay, just any seen with Willow then. And this is my philosophical contribution to this thread?


[> [> [> Re: Might I add-- -- JBone, 08:31:26 06/30/01 Sat

I don't know how I missed ghost Willow. Cordy's Catwoman outfit wasn't bad either.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Rattletrap, 07:24:05 06/29/01 Fri

A couple of light ones, from otherwise heavy episodes full of great visual moments.

The Body, toward the beginning there is a flashback sequence that shows the entire gang at Christmas dinner. Dawn makes a comment about accidentally getting eggnog with rum in it. What catches me every time, though, is the little face MT makes the next time the camera cuts back to her, it is about the best interpretation of "14-year old with a buzz" that I've ever seen. I don't know why this scene of all the ones in this episode should stick out in my mind, but it does.

Another great one is from Becoming I. In the flashback sequence to Buffy's first vampire kill, the expression on SMG's face after the vamp explodes is absolutely priceless, and says so much without a single word.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Fun: Your Favorite BtVS Eye Candy -- Olympia, 05:30:48 06/30/01 Sat

My favorite non-verbal visual moment - that's kinda hard. There's so much to choose from. But I guess when all is said and done, I have to go with the heartwrenching ones. And of those there is one that wrenches above all others. Becoming II. Yes, I'm sure you know the scene I mean.

Buffy and Angel are in a fight to the death - a fight that the Slayer must win or else, well, ya know, the world being suked into hell is never a good thing. She's finally pretty much kicked his ass and she's going for the kill. She pulls back for the death stroke but something stays her hand. Something seems to go through Angel. He seems different. What? Wait...are those...tears? (Begin very sad and tragic Buffy and Angel love theme.)

ANGEL : Buffy? What's going on? Where are we? I don't remember.

Buffy just stares at him, not sure what to think, but she starts to lower her sword. She very slowly begins to realize what's happened.

BUFFY: Angel? ( She starts to move to him, unsure.)

ANGEL: Oh Buffy...God.

And they embrace. And this is the moment that I'm talking about. The camera stays on her as she closes her eyes in an "Is this real?" kinda way as she realizes that the man she loves is back on the good side of the Force. She accepts this just in time to hear Acatha rumble. She opens her eyes. There are tears from the wary happiness. Then they go wide with shock as she realizes that, just as Angel has returned to her, she must scarifice him to save the world. Again. (I love that moment. There's so much going on in her face - in her eyes.) She tells him that she loves him, asks him to close his eyes, and kisses him one last time before running him trough with a sword and sending him to Hell. She steps back and watches as he reaches out to her and then is suck Acatha's growing, gaping mouth. The vortex closes and she begins to cry. (Begin Sarah MacLachlan's " Full of Grace".)

'Course, by this time I'm weeping like a wee babe and when she sings, ' I know I can love you much better than this ' and we see Buffy's reflection in the window of the bus as she's leaving town...fresh sob.

I think that Joss said it best when he replace the monster going "Urrrg, Arrrg" in front of the Mutant Emeny logo with the same monster crossing the screen with, instead, an "I need a hug". Very aptly put.


[> [> Urrrrg, Arrrrg -- Solitude1056, 18:46:54 06/30/01 Sat

I think that Joss said it best when he replace the monster going "Urrrg, Arrrg" in front of the Mutant Emeny logo with the same monster crossing the screen with, instead, an "I need a hug". Very aptly put.

He did? When? Where? I missed this!


[> [> [> Re: Urrrrg, Arrrrg -- JBone, 18:57:57 06/30/01 Sat

actually, the WB screwed up and it didn't air with the original episode, but you can find it all over the internet. I have a clip of it myself somewhere.


[> [> [> You can see/hear it at... -- Wisewoman, 22:25:08 06/30/01 Sat

this url (need RealPlayer, I think)

Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's hope not)(longish) -- vampire hunter D, 13:39:37 06/25/01 Mon

Hey, I was checking out the feedback page the WB still has, and found this post:

'How does Buffy come back from dying and the whole bit from the finale you say? Well i have gotten these tid bits from a reliable source...Hope you guys enjoy...I am almost positive these will happen.... *!!Spoiler & Sneak Peaks alert!!* * Angel will not be involved in this except in terms of giving some key advice to Willow, (hence the ending of the Angel Season finale). * Buffy is coming back in a cliffhanger at the end of e p i s o d e 2 * Willow, with increasing powers, will work with Dawn, with Tara involved in some way to bring Buffy back. Willow will release the spirit of Buffy her Soul, which was ****ed into the portal. Buffys body died not her soul, which has been trapped in another (demon?) dimension. How Series 6 will affect Character development- * Buffy is expected to return with increased powers involving teleportation * Tara will get a lot darker. * Willow will have increasing powers. She will also have to face up to the consequences of the dark magic that she is using. * Anya will have some interesting experiences as Anyanka returns for at least 2 e p i s o d e s, before she reverts to Anya. Anyas role will increase. Dawn is confirmed for Series 6. The reappearance of Hank Summers in the 1st couple of e p i s o d e s is also expected. Dawn will have the opportunity in the 1st couple of e p i s o d e s to work through the message Buffy left her with, the live life for me bit in the S ea son 5 finale. The Season Premier - There is some confusion about the air date for this. The line said that different sources quote October and August as alternate dates, however the lines latest info is that it would be in September. The Premier will be two hours long, combining e p is o d es 1 & 2. Buffy is expected to make a reappearance in a cliffhanger ending for e p i s o d e 2. The writers for the first 6 E p i s o d e s are as follows: * E p i s o d e 1 Marti Noxon * E p i s o d e 2 David Fury * E p i s o d e 3 Jane Espenson * E p i s o d e 4 or 5? Douglas Petrie (will see return of Jonathan unfortunatly) * E p i s o d e 6 Joss Whedon in the Musical E****ode The Musical E****ode - Joss has said that he is working on the songs for E p i s o d e 6, but it is hard. He says it will be very contemporary and cites as his influences Rent and Elvis Costello. Joss says he can't wait to hear the cast actually singing them. Allegedly it will be the cast members singing and no dubbing. Joss states that Series six will see the Scooby gang entering the Adult world, having to focus on jobs, housing payments and relationships. Even going to College has still been a sheltered environment and now even though Willow & Tara are still there, series 6 will focus on the Adult world. Everyone will be making adult choices and some of them will be bad. In Season 6 the gang will start to understand and experience why adults and their parents always seemed so dumb, as they grow into adults themselves.'

I don't know about you, but some of that sounds like the dumbest crap I've ever heard. The part about how they're going to resurect Buffy sounds too amatuerish to have been done by Joss (Hell, I'm willing to bet most of you have better ideas than that). Actually, there are two points here that I think expose this as a fraud. First, I seem to remember Joss saying somewhere that the portal has nothing to do with Buffy's return, and that Hank wouldn't be making an appearence. I just hope this is a hoax, because if not, it means that Buffy's definitely jumped the shark.


[> Re: Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's hope not)(longish) -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:56:23 06/25/01 Mon

Sounds to me like somebody's taken all they know about the end of season five, added the bits and pieces we've heard about the beginning of season six and then filled in the gaps with a ton of guesswork. As you say, sounds way too predictable to have anything to do with Joss.

(+ it doesn't mention Giles. At all.)


[> Re: Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's hope not)(longish) -- Rufus, 14:37:19 06/25/01 Mon

Spoilers from this early aren't true. I've seen this before. Most spoilers are crap I'd consider this just some more of the same.


[> [> Re: Possible Season 6 (possible spoilers, but let's hope not)(longish) -- rowan, 05:01:54 06/26/01 Tue

True. However, do keep track of spoilers, philosophers and philosophettes, because one of our 1st Anniversary Fun postings right before the season starts will be to review the spoilers for S6 and speculate on what's true and what's false.
Importance of Names -- Jarrod Harmier, 17:49:53 06/25/01 Mon

I was thinking about the importance of names. I did some searches and this is what I found.

Alexander "Xander" Lavelle Harris: I have found several websites that state the name Alexander means "protector" and I even found one that said the name Alexandria (the feminine form of Alexander) means "helper" or "defender of mankind". I couldn't find a meaning for Lavelle. I found a website that said that the name Harris is similar to Harrison, which means "son of Harry".

Angel/Liam: I found that the name Angelo (close) means "heaveanly messenger". Liam (his original name) means "unwavering protector".

Allen Francis Doyle: Allen - "handsome, cheerful, noble". Francis - "free". Doyle - "dark stranger".

Rupert Giles: Rupert - "bright, famous". I found a definition for the name Giles that seemed to follow the Ripper part of his persona, but the website was iffy.

Willow Rosenberg: I did a search to confirm something I read years ago. The willow tree has something to do with immortality. This is important because I think that vampire folklore forbids to use of the wood from a willow tree as a stake because of this property.

Spike/William the Bloody: William - "valiant protector".

Buffy Summers: Buffy - "God's promise".

Joyce Summers: Joyce - "rejoicing".


[> Re: Importance of Names -- Kerri, 18:25:11 06/25/01 Mon

Where did you look b/c I looked up the meaning of Buffy not that long ago and found that it meant bunny. So I looked up the importance of the bunny and posted it in a thread called About Bunnies(posted 6/15). I copied it and put it here b/c it's quite appropriate to this thread.

The name Buffy comes from the word bunny...

so I looked up the importance of the bunny and here's what I found:


Here are the main points:

*First easter: a connection to Christ-already been debated so I won't continue.

*In Buddhist the Bunny is sacred becaus it supposedly sacraficed itself. Hummm....

*In German tradition the Bunny brings life...Buffy brought life by sacraficing her own.

*In Native American tradition the Bunny is revered b/c it helped humankind.

Just thought this was really interesting...



[> [> Re: Importance of Names -- Jarrod Harmier, 20:04:25 06/25/01 Mon

Your points are interesting.

I'm not sure which interpretations are right. However, several interpretations may be right. Just think of "Restless".

I found a good deal of the names at www.babynamelocator.com and another I can't find again. There were also a few more general sites.


[> [> [> Perhaps it has different meanings from different origins. -- Kerri, 20:26:56 06/25/01 Mon


[> Giles -- spotjon, 19:51:43 06/25/01 Mon

Found this here:

GILES (m) "young goat" from Greek aigidion. Saint Giles was an 8th-century miracle worker from Greece who regarded as the patron saint of cripples.

Here's another one I found:

Giles (n.) 1. "Saint," 8th century a.d., Athenian hermit in France. 2. a male given name: from a Greek word meaning "shieldbearer."

I didn't find anything that would go with his "Ripper" persona, though. The name seems to have sort of the opposite connotation, actually.


[> [> Re: Giles -- Jarrod Harmier, 20:19:41 06/25/01 Mon

I had to do a search again just to be sure, but the origin Buffy that I found was Hebrew. Kerri found that the name comes from the word bunny. I goes the interpretation depends on the origin. Since similar words pop up in different cultures, multiple interpretations will always occur.


[> Re: Importance of Names -- mundusmundi, 14:53:14 06/26/01 Tue

Interesting how perfect certain character names are, isn't it? Besides word origins and original definitions, another way to look at their names is what Joss may have meant them to suggest based on how they sound and mean to us today:

*Buffy. Natch, most people probably associate the name with "bubblebrained" (e.g., my friends/family who still refuse to watch the show). But the name can also imply strength -- someone who's "buff."

*Xander. Dimunitive of Alexander. "Alexander" suggests someone strong (or "Great"), as does "Alex." Both are also too familiar. "Xander" suggests to me someone not fully formed.

*Willow. Suggests weakness or timidity -- as she originally was -- but also strength. Somebody who bends but doesn't break.

*Angel. A vampire with a soul. Ironic but also defining.

*Cordelia. One of King Lear's wicked daughters...or was she the good one, I forget. In any case, there's a fitting witchiness to that name.

*Giles. "Miles" is too obvious and "Niles" already on another show. Dunno why, but it works.


[> [> Re: Importance of Names -- Jarrod Harmier, 03:01:29 06/27/01 Wed

>"Xander" suggests to me someone not fully formed. Missed that. Good one, mundusmundi!

I believe I read somewhere that Cordelia was the daughter who loved her really loved her father. The rest (I think there was at least two more) told him they loved him, but were scheming. (If this is wrong, please correct.)


[> [> Re: Importance of Names (warning - a little gross) -- Humanitas, 07:22:08 06/27/01 Wed

And don't forget Drusilla, who was the sister/wife of the Emperor Caligula. He thought he was the god Zeus, so when she got pregnant, he cut her open and ate the baby, expecting Athena to be born from his head. Associations with madness and family abound!
Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- purplegrrl, 11:51:03 06/26/01 Tue

I intended on starting this thread yesterday, but was unable to get to a computer. (And it is on a completely different wavelength than the Bvs.D thread below.)

After watching "Buffy vs. Dracula" Sunday night I had some additional thoughts as to the meaning of or ideas behind the episode. Some have said it begins Buffy's dark journey of self-discovery, while others have criticized it doesn't really fit in the story arc of season 5. (Actually, for me, what doesn't fit is Dawn's sudden appearance at the end of the episode, but that's a whole 'nother thread.)

In my opinion "Buffy vs. Dracula" is a retelling of Bram Stoker's "Dracula", as translated into the Buffyverse. (It has been a number of years since I read "Dracula," so please forgive me if some details are fuzzy or not completely accurate.) Some story elements and characters are similar, while others shift and blur to tell the story according to Buffy. I'm not saying that "Buffy vs. Dracula" is strictly an homage piece (as well as a bit of a spoof). Joss uses the Dracula story skeleton as an introduction to the possible dark origin of Buffy's powers.

We've argued about whether or not Willow's calling of fire caused the storm at the beach. I posit that it was merely coincidence. Dracula arrives that night as the storm still rages, just as he does in Stoker's novel. He comes with his boxes of native soil, killing those who bring him to his new home.

Soon after this Dracula meets Buffy and her friends. Since this is Sunnydale, not London, Buffy knows immediately that he is a vampire. However, she cannot help but be intrigued by him (the world's most famous vampire knows who she is!). Later, Dracula singles out Xander to become his servent (Renfield). It is possible that Xander is picked because his rantings in the graveyard are viewed as a state of madness by Dracula (similar to Renfield's mental illness).

Other roles begin as one character and shift to another. Initially in the graveyard, Willow briefly takes on the role of Lucy Westenra -- both scared and intrigued by Dracula. Because of his relationship with Buffy, Riley is Jonathan Harker (Mina Murray's fiance), while Giles is Dr. Van Helsing (the knowledgable older man who knows how to hunt and kill vampires). Willow, Anya, and Tara take on roles similar to those of Lucy's three suitors (Arthur Holmwood, Quincy Morris, and John Seward).

Riley/Jonathan goes to Spike's crypt (the vampire's castle/lair) to get information about Dracula. In typical Spike fashion, Spike poses and obfuscates -- smoke and mirrors -- much like Dracula does with Jonathan about his business in London. But Spike does give Riley some real information. (Forget Spike's claim that he knows Dracula, is owed money by him, and dismisses Dracula's powers as "showy gypsy tricks." This is Spike trying to regain his self-importance.)

Riley/Jonathan is concerned about Buffy/Mina's attraction to Dracula, but feels helpless/impotent to do much about it. He tries to protect her because he is afraid he will lose her to Dracula.

Joyce invites Dracula into her home, much as Dracula is invited into the Westenra home before it is realized he is a vampire. Thus, Buffy takes on the role of Lucy/Mina. Dracula comes to her in the night to seduce her, telling her of the dark mysteries of her powers. This is similar to Dracula's seduction of Lucy and particularly Mina. Although Lucy succumbs easily to Dracula, Mina is more resistant. But in the end she, too, allows Dracula's kiss/bite. As Buffy herself does. Both are frightened yet intrigued by the mysteries that Dracula offers.

Riley and Giles search for Dracula's location. Similar to Van Helsing and the men's search for the boxes of soil Dracula has deposited throughout London. The last place they look is a castle that appears to be on the outskirts of town, much as Carfax Abby was. (I don't think Riley's comment about never having seen the "castle" before is necessarily relevant. How many of us can say we know every block or street of the town or city we live in, no matter how long we've lived there?) When Riley and Giles enter the castle, their roles reverse. Giles is seduced by the Three Vampire Sisters, as Jonathan Harker was in Dracula's castle. While Riley/Van Helsing continues the search and eventually resuing his companion from the clutches of the vampire.

Buffy, much as Mina did, fights Dracula's thrall over her. Although this is difficult because she is interested in what Dracula seems to offer -- in Mina's case, unrestrained passion and sex; and in Buffy's case, knowledge of the source of her Slayer power. Under his thrall, Buffy drinks Dracula's blood -- as did Mina. However, unlike Mina, Buffy does not become a vampire or psuedo-vampire.

As Buffy rejects Dracula's thrall and fights to destroy him, her role shifts to several of the male characters -- specifically Van Helsing (the ultimate destroyer of Dracula), and Jonathan Harker and Quincy Morris (who destroy Dracula in Stoker's novel).

For me, using the Dracula story was an excellent way to begin Buffy's journey for the source of her powers, whether dark or not. Stoker's Dracula seduces Mina by showing her a passionate and mysterious life of sexuality tinged with blood; a life very different from the one Jonathan offers her. For a while Mina falls willingly under Dracula's spell, but in the end she rejects him. For a while Buffy believes Dracula when he tells her that her powers stem from a dark source. Although Buffy rejects his claims, she remains curious and wants to learn more.

And of course in the end Buffy is reunited with Riley, just as Mina was reunited with Jonathan.


[> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:32:55 06/26/01 Tue

I think you're right about the success of the episode in turning the focus to the source of the slayer's power. Interestingly, if you were convinced by Dedalus' post about the Key being the source of Buffy's power, then this theme was continued and not broken by Dawn's appearance.

I think I'm gonna piss everyone off now by repeating what's already been said, but the best idea about this episode is that it is an illusion conjured up by the Monks to make the introduction of Dawn less noticeable. I know that there are practical problems associated with this, but it just kinda fits.

The monks knew exactly where they wanted the key but they couldn't just make it appear. They had to create memories and stuff and presumably had to transport it to Sunnydale without anyone noticing...so, how do you distract a Vampire Slayer?

I think this provides a nice explanation for any plot problems with the episode and accounts for its dreamlike quality. However, it doesn't discount any of the points in your post, purplegrrl (cool name), but just adds another layer to the episode.

What would be most interesting (IMO) would be if Dawn was indeed the source of Buffy's power and the monks actually intended for Dracula to get Buffy thinking about this - that would be so cool!

This explanation also covers Dracula's disappearance at the end of the episode and all sorts of bits and pieces which aren't totally convincing, such as Buffy not turning into a vampire and nobody knowing about the castle (what the hell is a castle doing in America anyway!). I take your point that nobody knows everything about their home town but it's like a massive landmark (+ Xander knew about the mansion on Crawford street (oh, God, Sunnydale streetnames: too much knowledge (wow, a bracket within a bracket: cool. Hang on...))).

There is a good essay about this on 'Above the Law' which mostly makes similar points to the ones I made, only it does it better and with less focus in quirky punctuation.


[> [> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- Cynthia, 14:10:32 06/26/01 Tue

I read about this theory on the another board. That Drac is an illusion created by and/or an agent of the monks in order to obtain Buffy's blood and setup Dawn. Interesting.

What puzzles me is the fact that the two people, a "rival" and a "friend", who claim to know Drac and would know what he actually looks like, never see him. Was he avoiding them. Wouldn't he want to meet up with an old pal or brag to a rival. These are the two who would most likely not be affected by the "gypsy tricks" or actual powers Drac has since they are are demons themselves. And how and why did he just disappear from Sunnydale. Ah, questions, questions. :)


[> [> [> Good points -- Solitude1056, 15:49:37 06/26/01 Tue

I've been wondering about that - if Dawn is made from Buffy, where did the monks get that part of Buffy to make Dawn? An imposter Dracula would sure fit the bill, would string Buffy along, and be a vessel for obtaining the blood. In that case, maybe we shouldn't be so suspicious about Drac's words, remembering that they may have been posited and puppeted by the monks. And the monks were searching for a good use for the Key, so why introduce the Key by telling the Slayer that her power is rooted in darkness? Hm. More going on there than I can puzzle out at this point, I guess. But it's always nice to see that there's more to puzzle out even when the episode aired more than 9 months ago!

Second, I did always wonder about that - that Anya & Spike claimed to know Drac but never managed to meet up with him. That did seem unusual, especially in Anya's case. I can see Drac avoiding Spike (and I can't see the two characters ever getting along, frankly), but I can't see Drac avoiding a cute meal like Anya - especially since she's no longer a demon these days. It only fits if Drac wasn't coming to stay, but only visiting with some express purpose in mind. So why the hell search "all over the world" for Buffy when she's been in Sunnydale for the past 4 years? Hm, must be the brain damage from sleeping in special dirt.


[> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- squireboy, 20:41:45 06/26/01 Tue

Blah, monks, schmonks, way too much of a stretch for my disbelief suspenders (ow!). I have a big monks post bubbling away on the back burner which is just waiting for some eye of newt or something (not the discount salamander :) to boil over onto the page.

You're kidding about the castle right? I'm sure there are lots of crazy very rich people in real America who have built actual castles (or craptacular copies). I can think of a couple off the top of my head [Boldt Castle, 1000 islands; Richard Garriott's estate, Austin Tx] One could probably make money conducting tours of all of them. :) Now, not knowing that one exists in Sunnydale seems unlikely, but the architectural features of the town and area have been traditionally only revealed to the gang as necessary. :)


[> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Solitude1056, 21:37:02 06/26/01 Tue

Yeah about the castles - there's one in Gloucester, MA that's phenomenal, and bizarre as all get out. Guy who built it was an inventor to the nth degree. If I recall (and yeah, so it's off-topic, but it's almost 1am, sheesh), he's the brain who came up with radar... among a bizillion other things. So a castle in the US doesn't surprise me, after seeing Biltmore. It was simply Riley's line that cracked me up as to the utter ridiculousness of the whole scenario: "yeah, a big honkin' castle."

So just why would the monks pick Dracula, anyway? Why not someone a little less well known, for starters? And assuming they were pulling Drac's strings, why have him go on about the slayer's source?


[> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Rufus, 00:45:00 06/27/01 Wed

Or the monks could have worked with Buffys unconscious bringing her the one thing that would interest her...the Vampire....


[> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 05:32:40 06/27/01 Wed

Yeah, I don't think that the monks knew a great deal about vampires so they went for the one vamp celebrity - Dracula. Personally I think that this scenario is way more believable than the alternative - Dracula as presented in this ep doesn't fit in with the mythology of the show at all. In fact, the first time I saw it, I thought that it was a sign of things going a bit stale and the main way I have got over this is by focusing on this different and more interesting interpretation.

If it was a trick, dragging a famous monster out of Buffy's subconscious (or out of popular mythology) to distract everyone, it does not even imply the existence of Dracula in the Buffyverse at all - he may have simply been an invention of the monks.

BTW, I love the idea of the monks using Dracula to get Buffy's blood to make Dawn.

Sorry about the castle thing - I take your point(s). However, it hasn't appeared since then and they did make a big deal of the fact that nobody had seen it before.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- Andy, 06:00:43 06/27/01 Wed

I think the castle line was a self-parodying joke about how anything needed for the plot has a way of suddenly appearing in Sunnydale. You need an army base? Okay. How about a UC college campus? That too. Waterfront? Sure. Sunnydale's grown a lot from being just a "one Starbucks town" :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- rowan, 06:03:49 06/27/01 Wed

And the famous...'we have to follow Tara to locate where Glory is planning to bleed Dawn...oops, what's this big tower over here?!' I think BtVS is great at doing some self-parody as you mention. How about when the portals open, and the building (a hospital or apartment complex?) suddenly becomes a hellish version of it's Sunnydale self?


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: monks, schmonks/castles -- spotjon, 13:45:58 06/27/01 Wed

Personally I think that this scenario is way more believable than the alternative - Dracula as presented in this ep doesn't fit in with the mythology of the show at all. In fact, the first time I saw it, I thought that it was a sign of things going a bit stale and the main way I have got over this is by focusing on this different and more interesting interpretation.

Personally, I'm not sure why the Buffy creative team decided to do a Dracula episode. The best reason I can think of is that they were trying to pull in new viewers. I don't buy the "monks created a Dracula illusion" theory. If that were the case, it would have been explained as so when Buffy talked to the dying monk. I admit that the episode was a little too cheesy and unbelievable (even for a show like Buffy), but there's no point in reading into the episode something that wasn't there to begin with. It was, quite simply, a very bad episode. But fun, nonetheless.



[> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- rowan, 05:21:33 06/27/01 Wed

*Sigh* I've never been able to really appreciate this episode (at least not as part of the S5 storyline). I think purplegrrl that you've done a very nice analysis of how this ep is Buffyverse re-telling of Dracula. But this ep has never felt to me like it fits in with BtVS. It has the feel to me of a midseason filler ep that doesn't advance the plot very much (while it may sprinkle some valuable crumbs of information). It's like other shows that have Christmas episodes, for example, where the point is to have a Christmas episode, not really to tell a story that fits in seamlessly with what's going on in that show's world. The revealed connection of Dracula to Tara's prediction ('you don't know who you are' stuff) felt forced to me. The revelation of Dawn had a few overtones of Bobby Ewing stepping out of the shower. If we're revealing Slayer roots, why use Drac? Why introduce Drac's special powers (e.g. surviving a staking).

I'm sorry to be so critical, but I almost feel as if the thought process behind this was, 'well, we're a show about vamps, so eventually we have to deal with Dracula.' It was not a "bad" ep. It was an enjoyable ep, it was a different ep, but it was IMHO an unusual choice for a season opener.

I now expect flames to fall down upon my head. Be gentle.


[> [> Re: Episode Dates -- mundusmundi, 06:47:33 06/27/01 Wed

"But this ep has never felt to me like it fits in with BtVS. It has the feel to me of a midseason filler ep that doesn't advance the plot very much (while it may sprinkle some valuable crumbs of information)."

Interestingly, if one checks the dates that the B5 eps were written on the shooting script site, one finds that "BvD" was written *after* a few of the others. The earliest dated ep is David Fury's "Real Me" (July 28), followed soon after by "The Replacement" and "Out of My Mind." "BvD" wasn't completed by Marti Noxon until August 31. So it seems that Joss got Fury et al started on the Dawn/Key stuff and may have originally intended the Dracula episode for the fourth or fifth episode, 'round Halloween (really where it belongs). "Real Me" is a nice episode but would've been just too jarring to start with, so pushing back the Drac spoof with the little Dawn coda inserted at the end was the best way they could think of to do it, I guess.


[> [> Re: Buffy vs. Dracula redux (fairly long) -- Sue, 01:23:00 06/28/01 Thu

I liked Dawn from the beginning.

"Superstar" kind of prepared me for it though.

The difference between "Bobby in the Shower" and "Dawn" is the universes. In Buffy reality does have a way of turning on its head. "Dallas" was supposed to obey the normal laws of physics.

I would have felt the same way about JR being kidnapped by aliens. That would work in the X-files universe, but again in Dallas it would have been lame. If ER suddenly had an episode about the doctors fighting off a vampire attack, that would be lame as well. For it isn't in that universe.

I have been a fan of Dawn from the start. I think the writers did a very good job of writing her into Sunnydale. And they sure picked an incredible actress to play her. I look forward to great things from her in the future.


[> where did my thread go? -- purplegrrl, 11:43:44 06/27/01 Wed

Sigh. I was hoping to discuss the "Buffy vs. Dracula" episode in a different light. Not just rehash "did the monks do it?" Or even whether or not it fit with the rest of the season arc. I just thought the parallels with Stoker's novel were interesting and noteworthy. Guess I was wrong.

Going away now.


[> [> It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now: Buffy's response -- Solitude1056, 12:39:21 06/27/01 Wed

Don't go away. I think that was an inadvertant mid-summer rerun-triggered thread hijacking, if a casual one. I got what you were saying about the idea that this was Joss' homage to the Dracula tradition, just as he paid lip service to Stagecoach in Spiral. And I think to a certain extent, this reading works - for the most part - against the episode, but there's definitely more to the current than just that. (Isn't there always, with Joss?) Then again, I've never managed to finish the original novel - I get bored right about the point where the good guys start winning. Film-wise, I'm only familiar with the Lugosi version & the original Nosferatu. The rest of the tradition I pretty much avoid as inane if not downright silly (Love at First Bite, anyone? Or worse, Once Bitten?).

But you made a comment about Mina/Lucy being drawn to the sexuality that Dracula is proferring. The Victorians may have been prudish in public, but behind closed doors they liked their women wicked and their sin really, well, sinful. Girl in the red velvet swing, and all that. So in the eyes of the Victorians, what Dracula was offering (as I understand it) was a free sexuality, in which there'd be no "closed doors" to hide behind, because they wouldn't be needed. Dracula, in Buffy's case, though, was offering knowledge of where she'd come from, her power Source. The original lure of Dracula was that he was offering something the young women were taught was "bad," and that they should stay away from, despite their reluctant (or eager) desire to know more. I don't recall Buffy ever being told by Giles or anyone else that searching for more about the Slayer Source was bad or something she should stay away from... so I'm not positive that the lure of Dracula as the snake in the garden, the one who holds the key (ahem) to dangerous (self) knowledge, works in the Buffy paradigm.

Oh, no doubt, it works on some levels. But much of the dynamic that's so quaintly outdated now is Mina's & Lucy's innocent curiousity in, and fear of, what Dracula is offering them. It's not Dracula who's shown (as best I recall) as being a terrifying person. In fact, the people around him seem to chalk him up as just one more old world wealthy eccentric noble inbreed. He fascinates them, but confuses them as well. He's in on a joke they don't even realize is being made, and the young women don't see him as the danger - they just know that the information or power he imparts is in itself something that they've been taught is dangerous. Joss let Dracula come close, with Buffy: "you don't get that until you beg for it," or some such. But it wasn't immortality that the women were begging for - it was first-hand knowledge of their own power and sexuality. They weren't begging to know Dracula - they were somehow begging to know themselves, with the caveat being that Dracula may be their only chance to really do that.

We don't get that dynamic with Buffy - she's no shrinking violet of the Victorian age. If Dracula carries knowledge about the Slayer source, this hardly rates as something that would force Buffy to rebel against her society in order to learn. We were left with Dracula being the frightening aspect in & of himself, solely, and that by virtue that he was a vampire. He had nothing to say (IMO) that could qualify as recreating that dynamic - in fact, he didn't leave a Mina or Lucy behind saying, "oh, I'm so glad I'm back in the arms of my sweet husband where I can now go on to a life of being the naive wifey I'm supposed to be" or some such crock. He left behind a Buffy saying, I want more - and this desire was clearly stated with her peers, and not treated as a bad thing, nor did she herself consider such desire bad, if she ever had.

You more literary types might do better than I with this, but that's what it seemed to me in this episode. The makeup cracked me up, the Renfield redo was obvious - and there just wasn't any fear of Dracula. He's a known entity now, despite all his showy gypsy tricks. He's not a harbinger of the arcane arts of sexuality anymore. That's retread for Buffy - she's done that already. And his status as a vampire just isn't the shocker it might've been had he, uh, been her first. In that sense, the ultimate bad-good-what-is-bad-what-is-good conflict in the original Dracula, got eaten away somehow by the changes in society, and trying to recreate that dynamic with a female lead who just don't play that game no more. Dracula came bearing a different message, but it still wasn't one that prompted the difficult internal conflict of society's teachings versus secret desire.

So while there was definite literary connections (as you well illustrated), I don't think the tradition translated well... if at all. The "you don't know who you are" lines were just barely smokescreen enough & still didn't succeed (in the long run) to cover the fact that without the means to catalyze the protagonist's crucial yes-no inner dynamic, Dracula is just another vampire who needs to cut back on the maybelline.

And lastly, go back to the idea that Dracula's teaching Lucy/Mina of themselves, and the dynamic that their real desire was not to unleash Dracula's demon but their own - Buffy didn't have that need, really, at the beginning of the season. Ok, so she had the First Slayer, and done the song & dance with the Slayer Source. But she still fundamentally knew who she was, who her community was, and all the rest of it. Yeah, as someone else has mentioned, sticking Dawn in at the end of it may explain some threads - but I still don't think it works, in the greater scheme of things... unless we move it to mid-fall. By mid-fall, her mother's been sick, Riley's on his way out or gone already, and she's already found out that Dawn's not really her sister. She doesn't know what's up, and she's starting to question who she is. If Dracula had come along at that point? Hell yeah we'd have dynamics - we might've had dynamics out that wazoo. Buffy might've been struggling to keep mind 'n body 'n relationships 'n family together, and here's something/one offering to give her a glimpse of who she really is. Glory's appearance would've upped the stakes: now it's twice as important to want to know, thus explaining Buffy's willingness to allow the thrall, to go along with it, if only for a little while. She'd have a lot more on the line, and a lot more questions in her heart by mid-season. At the beginning, though, there was no sign of trouble and hence little need to go chasing after big risk for potential little reward.

IMO, of course. :-)


[> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now: Buffy's response -- purplegrrl, 13:16:30 06/27/01 Wed

Thanks, Sol!

***what Dracula was offering (as I understand it) was a free sexuality, in which there'd be no "closed doors" to hide behind, because they wouldn't be needed. Dracula, in Buffy's case, though, was offering knowledge of where she'd come from, her power Source.***

This is what I was getting at. Dracula offers knowledge. Perhaps even knowledge that could be considered "dangerous." I think Joss used the Dracula story in several ways: 1. as an homage to the genre 2. it's a vampire show, so let's have the world's most famous vampire 3. as a way to start Buffy on her journey of self-discovery

I don't think it would have worked to just have Dracula "drop by Sunnydale" in a normal episode (although as someone else mentioned, having "Buffy vs. Dracula" as the Halloween episode might have been better). So Joss and Co. took the Dracula story and used bits and pieces as they could and as would fit in the Buffyverse.

And of course Dracula is still playing head games with the women he is attracted to. With Lucy and Mina it was a release from the Victorian sexual prison. With Buffy it is the possible source of her power. Is he to be trusted? Of course not. But Buffy seems willing (or is this the thrall?) to go along with his line of stuff just to see where he's going and what he will try.

In the end Dracula is confused by Buffy. He is used to women who are willing to give up everything for him -- even when their heart lies somewhere else, as it did with Mina. Perhaps Dracula has even run up against other Slayers over the centuries. But never one like our Buffy Summers. She is strong -- body, mind, and soul -- and not easily taken in by "hypno-eyes."


[> [> [> [> Warrior Tradition? -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 14:08:49 06/27/01 Wed

One of the things I heard about Dracula was that as a human he had longed for the revival of an ancient warrior tradition in which people had to band together to fight their enemies. Of course, by becoming a nasty vampire guy, he resurrected this tradition in a small way because it was the only way anyone could stop him. In this light, maybe another tiny purpose of the episode was to cement the SG back together after the split in the Yoko Factor (it was only partially resolved in Primeval IMO) by giving them something specific to fight against.

I'm probably getting this slightly wrong since I don't know the Dracula story very well. Any thoughts?

(Sorry - trying to redeem myself)


[> [> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now: Buffy's response -- Rufus, 15:32:11 06/27/01 Wed

I think that the Dracula is underrated because many didn't understand it. The season has been about reality, what is real and what isn't and how we come to those conclusions. I think is was facinating to have Buffy confront "the Vampire"..and as the episode had a dreamlike quality we have to wonder what was real. The episode also gave you the answer to The Gift in blood is life. I go back to when Buffy drinks Draculas blood and flashes to her actions as the slayer, blood, and light(Dawn). Dracula was Buffys temptation or seduction to power being darkness. We then get further confused with Dawn at the end of the episode. The episode was fun, surreal, and forshadowed the rest of the season. Dawn isn't "real" but Buffys love changed that and she transformed unreality to reality with her love for Dawn. If one would be tempted to evil why not put it in a package that is attractive, seductive, but ultimately not real. Buffy found that out as her seduction progressed, she saw the light when she consumed the blood of Dracula, I loved the episode.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Dracula: Myth vs Reality -- Jarrod Harmier, 17:25:39 06/27/01 Wed

Unreality and reality. That's interesting. I posted something similiar to some other thread, but I can't find it. I'll try to remember as much as I can.

Ah, Dracula. Able to create storms. Able to transform into a mist, a wolf, a bat. Able to control minds. Powerful. Deadly. Well, the last two are incorrect. What's that? You don't agree?! Well, I'll tell you why the last two adjectives don't apply to Dracula.

To me "Buffy vs. Dracula" is about myth vs. reality. When Buffy first meets Dracula, she is shocked that Dracula knows her. She is kind of flattered. However, when Xander meets him for the first time, he starts mocking Dracula in a scene that's pure Xander. Okay, when he learns that the vampire is really Dracula, he is shaken up a bit. Of course, when he meets Dracula later, Xander dares to mock Dracula AGAIN and then challenges Dracula to "fisticuffs".

Why the differing responses? Most of the female Scoobies (Anya, Buffy, and Willow) are taken in by the image of Dracula. However, the majority of the male Scoobies (Spike and Xander) are not impressed by him. They are clued in to the fact that the myth of Dracula far outweighs the reality of Dracula. Spike knows because he has a past with Dracula. I dealt with how Xander seems to know instinctively in a thread called Xander and Destiny. (Look it up. Respond even if you don't agree.) Of course, Buffy understands the difference in the end and does what she has to do.

The reason some people think this is a lame episode is because Dracula turns out to be a wuss. But that's really the point.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Dracula: Myth vs Reality -- Rufus, 18:10:53 06/27/01 Wed

Yup, Dracula turned out to be just so much smoke and empty promise.......:):):)


[> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now: Buffy's response -- Humanitas, 06:25:53 06/28/01 Thu

Sol, I can't blame you for being unable to finish the original novel. The problem is that Dracula in the novel is not a character so much as a force of nature. We are never told why he does anything. This is why so few of the films have stayed true to the book. Even the Gary Oldman version, which followed the original narrative more closely than any of the others, had to add an entire sub-plot involving reincarnation to give the character some motivation. Stoker's Dracula is simply un-actable.

As for the inversion of the dynamic with Buffy, I agree that it doesn't work in the same way as it did with Mina, but in part I think that may be the point. The whole Buffy concept is about turning classic horror on its head. One of the things that we have learned about Vampires in the Buffyverse is that barring extraordinary circumstances (Gypsy curse, Government chip) they do not change very much. Dracula is still playing the "forbidden sexuality" card that worked so well in the Victorian era, but the rest of the world has, to a certain degree, moved past that particular hang-up. Buffy has had sex, with a number of partners, so it doesn't hold the same level of terror and mystery that Dracula was expecting. This forces him to offer her information about the source of her power, in the expectation that she will hide her desire for power from the rest of the SG. He's playing on the traditional notion of "how women behave." Of course, that notion does not constrain Buffy much. She has always shared information (and therefore power) with her friends. That's why she has lasted as long as she has. (Had? Do we speak of her in the past tense, since she is dead at the moment, even though we know she's coming back? English isn't built for this.)

I also think that the lack of fear of Dracula helped establish the premise of the season - that we've conquered all the "regular" monsters, or at least have a mechanism for doing so. Vampires, even oddball ones like Dracula, are beatable. We know this because, well, we've been beating them for four years now. The pattern is established: Encounter, Research, Eliminate. Because Dracula is essentially a known quantity, there's not much to fear. Now Glory, on the other hand, is unknown, so there's lots to fear. To some extent, I think Joss is lulling us into a false sense of security, saying to us "You think you know what to expect. We start off the season by doing all the things the dying shows do: bring in famous villains and add new characters. But wait 'till you see what comes next!"


[> [> [> Re: It's right here! Dracula then, Dracula now: Buffy's response -- Malandanza, 21:48:07 06/28/01 Thu

"Then again, I've never managed to finish the original novel - I get bored right about the point where the good guys start winning. Film-wise, I'm only familiar with the Lugosi version & the original Nosferatu. The rest of the tradition I pretty much avoid as inane if not downright silly (Love at First Bite, anyone? Or worse, Once Bitten?)."

Solitude, IMO, you missed the best part of the novel. The beginning is rather bland for modern readers -- we already know the vampire mythology, so much of the early novel is material we really don't need to know. Van Helsing mentions Dracula vs the Turks in the early chapters -- how Dracula's army was defeated, so he returned to his castle for many years planning a second expedition, and so on, until he won. This anecdote sets the stage for the final chapters -- Dracula is defeated in London (but not killed) -- so he attempts to flee back to his homeland -- in the expectation of returning again (perhaps decades later) to try his plan again. The problem is that Mina had been bitten -- if she dies before Dracula does (whether through accident, disease or old age), she will rise as a vampire. To prevent this, the good guys set out across Europe in an effort to kill Dracula before he reaches the safety of his castle (Drac travels by sea, using his control over the winds to hasten his boat -- the good guys travel by land). These last chapters remind me of the action of a Dumas novel -- quite gripping -- I recommend you finish the book :)

As for screen versions -- you are right -- most vampire flicks are uninspired (some of the better ones I've seen are Fright Night and Fright Night II, plus a weird independent film called Nadja). The worst, for me, are the ones where vampirism is explained as some sort of blood disease that modern science is capable of curing. Andy Warhol's Dracula was less about vampires and more about class struggle (Dracula representing the worn out and effete aristocracy). Unfortunately, I think that "Buffy vs. Dracula" has more in common with the bad vampire films of the 60's and 70's than Bram Stoker's novel. Certainly, the depiction of the bug-eating Renfeild is at odds with the novel: the movies seemed to have bug-eating flunkies merely for the disgust factor. Renfeild from the novel ate bugs, spiders & birds (he wanted a kitten, but the doctor wouldn't allow it) as a means of devouring lives (as Dracula devoured human lives). He would feed flies to spiders, spiders to birds then eat the birds raw to consume not only the life of the bird, but all the lives that the bird had consumed. Dracula didn't make Renfeild insane, but he did capitalize on Renfeild's insanity by sending small creatures to him to eat.


[> [> OK, this time I did'n do it! -- masq, 12:53:31 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> guess I should have said "hijacked thread"!!.....:) -- purplegrrl, 07:41:20 06/28/01 Thu


[> [> Sorry 'bout that... -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 13:38:51 06/27/01 Wed

...didn't know if you had discussed it before or not.
Vampires and Christiam Symbols -- darkpoet, 14:37:20 06/26/01 Tue

I´ve already posted this but seems like someone had deleted it and since it seems like some people yet don´t understand it I would explain again why does the legend of christian symbols serving as a protection for vampires exists...

The Real Verse (not Buffyverse) Vlad Tepees the third of Wallakia a.k.a Dracula was a prince that received and award from the hands of the Pope for bravery shown fighting on the crusades. Lately when he returned to reign as prince of Wallackia he turned insine he desired a world with a perfect morality and applied very cruel punishment to those who weren´t up to his moral standard (for example cutting of the breasts of a womam who had commited adultery) the most notorius punishments were impaling them on long wood stakes on the yard of his castles and making his servants drink the blood of those he killed...

That´s why the villages of Wallackia later on developed the legend of those who had been killed on hands of Vlad coming back to drink their blood and that they could be killed with stake and that they could be scared of with christian symbols because that was the symbol of his master.

Bram Stoker visited Vlad´s Castle and interviewed some villagers and then got the idea for his book Dracula.
Buffy and Love -- Wisewoman, 18:42:38 06/26/01 Tue

One of the threads below contains an off-shoot concerning Buffy's attitude (in particular toward Spike) and her struggle with her ability to express love.

It made me think of the many books I've read and the many TV specials I've seen recently on the Near Death Experience phenomena. I'm aware that all of the experiences described by people after an NDE can be attributed to the slow loss of oxygen in the *dying* brain, but one thing that can't be explained away so easily is the extreme personality changes that sometimes result from NDEs, changes far more substantial that those achieved by drug and/or psychiatric/therapeutic intervention. Personalities are incredibly resistant to change.

Most of the people who have had NDEs, even those who can't remember the event in detail, remember the overwhelming feelings of love, joy, bliss, security, safety, etc., that they felt during the time they had *died*. When they return, they often go about expressing that love much more freely in their own lives. They no longer see themselves as separate from others, but see everyone as a part of the Divine. Some go into a completely different line of work, one in which they can express their love of their fellow beings in service to them.

I'm wondering if we'll see anything like this dramatic shift in Buffy when she returns in S6? She's already spent a great deal of her life in service to her fellow humans, but she hasn't had a great deal of joy in doing so lately, and not much opportunity to express her love of anyone but Dawn. If she experiences something like an NDE while she's dead, I wonder how that will affect the way she interacts with the SG? (Actually, a Buffy-full-of-love, as she was in Something Blue, would get old pretty fast!) ;o)


[> Re: Buffy and Love -- Kerri, 19:08:44 06/26/01 Tue

I think we will definately see a change in Buffy. I'm not sure that will entirely be due to her death, but also the events that led up to it. When Buffy realized that she could sacrafice herself for Dawn she gained a renewed sense of love for all of humanity. As she wanted Dawn to tell Giles she was *okay*-she understood why her job was so important. She understood her calling and everything that it meant. Buffy loved the world that allowed her to give herself instead of killing her innocent sister.

I think that when Buffy died she finally accepted what the spirit guide had told her: that she was full of love. In Buffy's death she embraced this love.

Ofcourse it will be interesting to see how the love manifests itself when Buffy returns and how it will change Buffy and her relationship with others.


[> [> Re: Buffy and Love -- Dedalus, 22:18:58 06/26/01 Tue

Fascinating idea. NDEs are quite interesting.

Unfortunately, I'm recovering from a 2 1/2 hour root canal procedure and my consciousness is floating on waves of antibiotics and pain medication, so I have nothing further to add at the moment. Nothing that would sound even marginally coherent anyway.

I'll just be slipping back into lurk mode now ...


[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Love -- Manoon, 03:29:11 06/27/01 Wed

I remember this really great film a while back called Resurrection. The lady who died and was brought back came back with the power to heal.

would THAT be an interesting addition to the Slayer's abilities...?

good post, really interesting wisewoman


[> [> [> [> Re: Buffy and Love O/T -- verdantheart, 06:47:32 06/27/01 Wed

I second the recommendation for Resurrection (1980; apparently there are a lot of films by this title). It includes a great performance by a great actress, Ellen Burstyn.


[> [> [> Re: Buffy and Love -- rowan, 05:03:55 06/27/01 Wed

It would be interesting to hear your ideas when you're whacked out on pain medication. ;) Seriously, I hope you're feeling better.


[> [> [> Ouch! Yow!! Hope you feel better soon... ;o) o/t -- Wisewoman, 08:03:20 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> Sending Cyber Get-Wells, Best Wishes and Chocolate Kisses =) -- Little One, 08:43:32 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> Re: Sending Cyber Get-Wells, Best Wishes and Chocolate Kisses =) -- Dedalus, 09:03:43 06/27/01 Wed

Thanks all. Good to know this is such a caring forum. I am feeling better. Still can't open my mouth quite all the way, but hey, we can't have everything. See, my molar roots were really, really curvy ...

Take my advice kids - never go six or seven years inbetween dentist appointments. That's my public service message for today. Resume your normally scheduled Buffy talks.


[> [> [> [> [> My sympathies, friend. Been there, done that, although it wasn't 2 1/2hrs! Yikes! -- OnM, 09:39:58 06/27/01 Wed

But of course, all of those procedures differ from person to person and instance to instance. For me, the procedure itself wasn't too particularly awful, but I was really sore for weeks and weeks afterward, and it took almost a year before occasional low-level achiness left the area. Go figure-- for most the procedure is bad, but recovery is pretty quick afterward.

I say, enjoy the drugs while you can, assuming they give you the good ones. They wouldn't give me anything more than ibuprofen or acetominiphen, bummer...

We will all wait anxiously for your return to form-- and appreciate the public service message. We could always add Baz Luhrmann's 'Sunscreen' message on top of that for a double dose of sensible advise, eh wot?



[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My sympathies, friend. Been there, done that, although it wasn't 2 1/2hrs! Yikes! -- Dedalus, 10:45:40 06/27/01 Wed

Well, at least half an hour was due to getting my gums appropriately numb. And then ya know, once they even get you in that chair, the dentist is always wandering off for like ten minutes at a time. Plus, there is a regulation that says they have to take five x-rays now to make sure they've got everything cleaned up. And that takes even more time ...

I had it on Monday afternoon, and I am still feeling pretty bad. Of course, this was a walk in the park compared to the oral surgery/wisdom teeth earlier this year ...

BTW, I am on a major Star Wars binge. So now I have to spend half my internet time back on the forums defending TPM. Can't wait for the DVD though. I doubt my arguments are helping though. Pain medication and all.

"No, no, you don't understand - Buffy had to jump in the portal to bring balance to the Force!!!"


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: My sympathies, friend. Been there, done that, although it wasn't 2 1/2hrs! Yikes! -- Humanitas, 06:30:38 06/28/01 Thu

"No, no, you don't understand - Buffy had to jump in the portal to bring balance to the Force!!!"


Seriously, my best wishes go out to you. I'm looking at something similar in the next year or so, as soon as I get my insurance straightened out. :( We'll have to compare medication stories!


[> Re: Buffy and Love -- Rufus, 03:34:46 06/27/01 Wed

First off the Buffy in Something Blue was the wedding planning,Spike groping,hormones gone horribly wrong, result of bad magic. That wasn't love we saw but unreasoning, crazy,blind, stupid, but I know I hate this guy but can't help myself, Buffy.:):):):)

The love that The Guide referred to is love that isn't lust based but life based. Buffy has gone from a girl who felt her father left because of her, boyfriend went evil because of her, Parker used then left because of her, then Riley self destructed because of her. She was missing something. All these things didn't happen because she is capable of loving, they happened because of circumstances beyond her control. The result is that she pulls back from love because she doesn't trust it will last, she feels she will be worse off because of it. Until she got Dawn. Dawn allowed Buffy to love someone besides her mother in a way that wasn't hampered by sex. Buffy was able to realize her potential because she finally got what love really meant. Dawn allowed Buffy to connect with her purpose as a Slayer, why she was created for. Humanity is what Dawn is, that part of Buffy she thought gone, the reason she is here. The Forces of Light, PTB's, whatever, made the Slayer to balance the darkness, make sure humanity survived. The job of a Slayer unfortunately distances the girl from the humanity she protects. Buffy began to feel her existence was to bring death, nothing more, a very dismal fate for anyone. The monotony of killing ending with your own death would be enough to make anyone wish for their own death. Dawn changed that. At first she was that bratty kid sister that Buffy envied and wanted to ditch, then, when Buffy knew the truth she realized that Dawn had to be protected, she was innocent, just like Buffy had been around Dawn's human age. In Checkpoint the Watchers had Buffy protect a dummy, they said protect it like it was precious. Buffy ended up putting an axe in it's head, this happened because as an inanimate object Buffy had no connection to it. Humanity was the same, Buffy felt disconnected, apart from those she would save. Dawn, love, brought her back to her gift. In Buffy vs. Dracula when she tasted his blood she saw flashes of what she was, what she did, and light, perhaps Dawn. In the Gift Buffy gave her gift at Dawn. April said it's always darkest before...............


[> Re: Buffy and Love -- Marie, 06:20:13 06/27/01 Wed

Do you think she'll have more understanding of Spike and Angel now that she's died, too?

IMO, they are going to be more easy in their manner to her than the rest of the Scoobies, at least at first, 'cos just what do you say to someone who once was dead and now isn't? Would be pretty spooky at first, I'd imagine. And will she even remember them? If it's reincarnation, she may now 'belong' to another family altogether - can you imagine one of the SG walking down the street and seeing 'Buffy' walking towards him, maybe with other friends, another mother?

(or Spike, if she was with another guy, or MARRIED?!! (Hehehe!)).


[> Re: Buffy and Love (a rowanesque response) -- sollig, 06:41:20 06/27/01 Wed

This may have been covered in the thread you mentioned with Buffy's attitude toward Spike, but here goes:

If she is affected by an NDE in the way you describe, then I think it is her feelings toward Spike that will change most dramatically. She already loves the Scoobies and may be more outwardly affectionate with them. But with Spike, since she was already beginning to trust him (with Dawn's life, no less), and maybe even respect him as an asset to the SG, perhaps she'll develop an affection of sorts for him.

I don't think she'll be a wacky love bunny as in Something Blue, but she may finally accept Spike's attempts to help as an expression of genuine concern and love for she and Dawn. (Whether this would be wise is another issue altogether. While I see Spike as being on the road to redemption, I only started watching in Season 4, and don't have the inherent mistrust of him that many longtime viewers do. Maybe after the reruns start airing on cable this fall, I'll change my mind about him.)

Even if she doesn't have an NDE, at the very least, maybe she won't be so venemous in her dealings with Spike, given the sacrifices he made for her and Dawn. We saw evidence of this when she kissed Spike after he revealed he'd sooner die than see the Sunmmers women hurt, and again, when she enlisted him in their battle with Glory.

(In case you can't tell, I also have a Spike fascination. Can't help it. I'm with you on those cheekbones, rowan. I also love his character--a delicious blend of danger, passion, humor and vulnerability. Bitter evil sweetened by a capacity to love. Sounds like a coffee. Okay, all done now.)


[> [> Welcome to the club! Shall we all meet and have coffee? ;) -- verdantheart, 06:49:15 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> Yes indeed! Maybe it could be a Spike-accino-- -- sollig, 07:51:09 06/27/01 Wed

Starbucks' new cold as-the-dead blended frozen coffee treat, "spiked" with a shot of whiskey, mixed with chocoloate "chips" and topped with whipped cream drizzled with bloody red cherry syrup. On second thought---eeeeccccch!


[> [> [> [> Re: Yes indeed! Maybe it could be a Spike-accino-- -- Humanitas, 10:07:50 06/27/01 Wed

I don't know, that sounds pretty good, except for the cherry syrup! :)


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Yes indeed! Maybe it could be a Spike-accino-- -- purplegrrl, 11:23:08 06/28/01 Thu

Nah, the cherry syrup is what makes it. Otherwise it's just a plain ol' coffee drink.



[> [> Let's make it hot cocoa with mini-marshmellows....:) -- rowan, 07:41:42 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> Make mine one with marshmallows and another with Weetabix for my companion! -- Marie, 07:49:23 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> Re: Coffee Proverb -- Brian, 14:11:08 06/27/01 Wed

Ancient Persian Proverb:

Coffee should be as hot as hell, as black as death, and as sweet as love!


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Coffee Proverb -- Solitude1056, 17:51:11 06/27/01 Wed

You sure that's not Southern? :-)


[> Why does every thread I start degenerate into a Spike Love-fest? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:24:20 06/27/01 Wed

Of course I wondered how that would affect Buffy's relationship with Spike, but I managed to suppress that in favour of attempting, at least, a non-Spike-centric, somewhat philosophical (metaphysical?) post...but you guys are incorrigible!!!!

Okay, I give in... let the bleating and drooling begin.

(I'm kidding, BTW) ;o)


[> [> Once again, proving the rule: all threads lead to Spike (ATLtS). LOL -- rowan, 08:37:27 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> Picture me, every ep, bib-swathed!! -- Marie, 08:52:22 06/27/01 Wed

Does that make me a 'bibbling idiot'?


[> [> [> Re: Picture me, every ep, bib-swathed!! -- Rahael, 16:07:19 06/27/01 Wed

Am I the only woman on this board who doesn't fancy Spike? I like the character, but even the cheekbones cannot make up for his terrible hair. (I know this is going to be hugely controversial!)


[> [> [> [> Bedheaders Unite! (o/t) -- rowan, 18:03:42 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> I'm partial to Riley myself....lucky for rowan....I'm way worse than a hair puller.....:):):):) -- Rufus, 18:08:37 06/27/01 Wed

And now OnM is sweet enough to write about Riley.....


[> [> [> [> Re: Picture me, every ep, bib-swathed!! -- Cynthia, 19:35:36 06/27/01 Wed

I kinda fancy Giles myself. More my age and you know the saying "still waters run deep". Shy on the outside, tiger on the inside. I suspect, he's not know as the ripper just for only one reason :.)


[> [> [> Are you borrowing the bib from your Weetabix companion? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 21:10:19 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> Darlink, ve share everytink! (That was my 'Bella' Lugosi voice!) -- Marie, 02:21:35 06/28/01 Thu


[> [> Re: Why does every thread I start degenerate into a Spike Love-fest? ;o) -- verdantheart, 12:27:14 06/27/01 Wed

You can blame sollig for this one ... on the other hand, it may be your vibe ... ;)

(really, just teasing, it's not just you!)
Joyce and Giles (Spoilers to "Band Candy", "Earshot", and "Forever") -- Jarrod Harmier, 12:55:23 06/27/01 Wed

[I posted this to another forum here. I am posting here also so that people may not see it there will be able to see it.]

[I went to www.mustreadtv.com to confirm the scene information for "Forever".]

At one point in "Forever" (the episode right after "The Body"), we see and hear a record play. It's Giles' apartment. He's alone. He sits down with a whiskey and listens and drinks. The record is the same one he and Joyce listened to together in "Band Candy". We all know what happened then. The scene suggests that Giles' feelings for Joyce--aside from what happened in "Band Candy"--went beyond what you would call "just friendly". (I'm not saying that he was in love with her. I don't know that. I don't think I made that clear in the post in the other forum.)

More evidence can be found in "Earshot". During that episode, it was said that whatever they gang least wanted Buffy to hear would be what they would think about most. It was Joyce's thoughts that let it slip that she and Giles had had sex under the influence of the candy in "Band Candy". An observation that was mentioned on the Everything Philosophical on Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode guide entry to "Earshot" was that Giles never seemed to think about having sex with Joyce during that episode. At first that may seem callous. However, based on his general reaction to Joyce's death in "The Body" and his need to listen to that specific record in "Forever", it suggests that Giles was not just unashamed about what happened with Joyce, he valued the experience of being with her in that fashion. (A responder on the other forum mentioned that Giles had more important things on his mind at the time and that Buffy "hearing" it from her mom made a better set up. Those also seem to be reasonable points.)

What do you all think?

On a lighter note, one of the funniest Giles moments I've ever seen also occurs in "Earshot". It's when Buffy mentions what she overheard her mother thinking and runs into a tree. A very funny way to end an episode.


[> Re: Fair assessment -- squireboy, 14:52:12 06/27/01 Wed

I think that's a reasonable assessment. I'm thinking that Giles may never have pursued an active relationship with Joyce because of his duties as Buffy's Watcher/mentor (father figure) and the awkwardness that would then ensue. Let's also remember that, in spite of his competence in his field and the Ripper persona, Giles is bookish and shy (re-examine the Jenny Calendar moments for confirmation).

Even if there was no actual sparkage there (and there are tons of little clues, shynesses, glances, etc., Band Candy notwithstanding), Joyce is the only other real adult in the group, especially if you accept the "vampires as eternal teenagers" analysis. Of course he would mourn her. As well as Buffy's mother, she may have been a "maybe, someday" longing that was never really acted on, and grief is stirred in with regret.
The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ), etc -- Slayrunt, 15:56:00 06/27/01 Wed

Sorry if this has been discussed before, but is there anything to lineage in vampires other than bragging rights.

As I understand vampires in the Buffyverse a demon mixed with a human and created vampires, so all lead to one, but over the years, we've seen some old and bad vamps and some pretty (not in cheekbones) wimpy ones.

Is a vamp bigger and badder because they were sired by the Master or Kikistos a la Darla, Luke (presumably), Mr. Trick (presumably)

And since all threads lead to Spike anyway, conversely do they get wimpier though the line as in the Master to Darla to Angel to Dru to Spike (our Big Bad who used to be a bad ass vampire but love and a pesky chip has turned him into a big fluffy puppy with bad teeth. No Rowan, not the hair, never the hair! Who likes to work up a load of sexual frustration and use that nancy boy hair gel he loves so much.)


[> Re: The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ), etc -- Nina, 19:36:52 06/27/01 Wed

I have no answer to that, but another question. If the person they used to be as human determines what kind of vamp they are going to be, how come Willow was such a bad ass vampire in VampWillow?

How come Harmony remains exactly the same (with bloodlust)?

Maybe it does have something to do with the sire. If I remember well, VampWillow would have been sired by the Master himself, so she would have his blood through her veins and could explain why she is so evil. Härmony was probably sired by an anonymous vamp, with no special blood. Harmony sired Brad who doesn't seem to have any kind of special evilness (except the need to fight and drink blood).

Hmmm I'm writing while I'm thinkung and it doesn't make much sense, but maybe you are onto something Slayrunt. Maybe both the sire and the person you used to be have importance to determine what kind of vamp you will be.


[> [> Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- Sebastian, 22:14:19 06/27/01 Wed

I would think that a vampire's sire has something to do with how evil he/she is.

Most vamps in BtVS are run-of-the-mill baddies. They're evil, they give Buffy and the Scoobies a good fight - but not much else.

The Master, Kakistos, Angelus, Darla, Drusilla and Spike were another story.

It seems that evil in relation to vampirism is somewhat genetic in nature (at least in theory). That is the degree of evil is passed on by the carrier, but is diluted with each succeeding infection.

Harmony was bit by a typical vamp (seen in Graduation Day Pt. 2) and wasn't that much of a threat. She was evil - but nothing earth shaking. Buffy's humorous reaction to Harmony's "minions" in The Real Me is proof of that.

But look at The Master, Angelus, Darla, etc. The Master, as we know, was one of the oldest "living" vampire in the Buffyverse.

The Master sired Darla, Darla sired Angel, Angel sired Drusilla, and Dru sired Spike.

In terms of cruelty, each of them were exceptional (enough to merit warrant in the Watchers' Diaries) but their level of evil (at least, how we perceive it) and capacity to cause chaos and destruction moves in descending order.

So I would almost think that a vampire's capacity for TRUE evil is carried like a trait. The farther away it is from the actual source, the weaker it becomes.

IMHO, that is. :)


[> [> [> Think it works that way with Anne Rice's vamps, too. -- Wisewoman, 22:35:58 06/27/01 Wed


[> [> [> Re: Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- vampire hunter D, 12:55:48 06/28/01 Thu

I have a problem with your resoning here. In my opinion, Angelus was more evil than Darla (of course, I missed the first season, so havn't seen what she did back then). I am also wondering if Drcilla would have been as bad had Angelus not driven he insane.

Actually, this is the one aspect of the show I never really liked. Becoming a vampire immediately makes you evil. I much prefer the way it's portrayed in Vampire: the Masqerade or Anne Rice, where a good person made vampire retains their goodness (and agonizes over hurting people when they feed).

I also just had a thought on VampWillow, VampXander and Spike. All three, in life, were people who were picked on and teased by their peers. Then, they became vampires and recieved power in addition to bloodlust. Something I've noticed is that when the downtrodded and picked on recieve power over others, they tend to start abusing others, sometimes worse than they ever recieved. So the meanness we saw from these three is almost normal human behavior made worse by vampiric instincts. (forgive me if that made no sencse, I'm thinking as I type here)


[> [> [> [> Re: Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- Sebastian, 17:49:47 06/28/01 Thu

Good points...and something to consider.

I guess considering "which vamp is more evil?" is a matter of personal perspective. In season one, Darla attempted to aid the Master in opening the Hellmouth until she was killed by Angel. However, Angel (as a restored Angelus) also tried to bring hell on earth by awakening Acathla.

And because Darla and Angel spent over a hundred years with each other - you could say that they both influenced each other in terms of atrocities they became famed for.

Peer pressure - as it were. :)

So with the actions that we (as an audiance) know they have committed - we would have to debate which are worse - Angelus' or Darla. Which would be rather pointless. :)

I suppose I always saw Darla as more evil because her desire to cause chaos was on a broader scale - she wanted to cause pain to a wide range of people. Meanwhile, Angelus tended to pick specific targets.

But then again, Angel's actions could seem more heinous to someone else because he is picking out specific people to torment (Drusilla, Buffy, etc)

Regarding the common trait of VampXander, VampWillow and Spike being picked on before being vamped - that is something to consider. But it is also hard to decipher because their degree of "wickdness" (as it were) are so close to The Master (Willow and Xander by one degree, Spike by three).

So in regards to being a moot point -it is and it isn't.

But you still have to compare them to other vamps on the show. And lik I pointed out - all the other vamps just kind of pale (aprdon the pun) to that group. And I'm sure there were some "former nerds" in the many that the Sccobies have fought.

Regarding showing vamps with morals - it seems to me that they are broaching that subject with the Spike/chip arc.

I think in the long run its best for the show if the vamps are inherently bad on the show - because dealing with vamps conflicting issues would proably take too much away from the issues the Scoobies deal with.


[> [> [> [> [> Sorry - I rather rambled in that last post...:) -- Sebastian, 17:51:55 06/28/01 Thu


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Six Degrees of Wickedness? -- Olympia, 11:59:08 06/30/01 Sat

OK, yes. I believe that vamp genetics play a significant role in who gets to be a bad ass. But have you thought that maybe time might also factors into it? The older a vampire gets, the more powerful. In the Buffyverse, it also means a vampire takes on more and more characteristics of the demon. The Master was so old that he lost his human visage. Kikistos had cloven feet if I'm not mistaken. In the end, doesn't it really come down to survival of the fittest, even among vamps? The ones who live the longest get to pass on their blood and create new vampires. (Have you ever noticed that the stronger lines are awefully selective about who they turn?) The ones who survive are always the strongest. And I think surviving for a vampire means an eventual total loss of humanuty. They loose even their human aspects and become the demon absolute and powerful.


[> [> [> [> [> [> I think about a big bubbling pot of soup.......... -- Rufus, 16:23:22 06/30/01 Sat

With the vampire it's and infection, makes sense that as the vampire becomes older they slowly reduce the amount of humanity in the demon like you would when you boil the water out of a soup. It takes centuries from what I could see. The infection eventually may just overtake the host and any residual humanity is lost. So I'd think Angel would eventually get those bat ears he was so worried about.


[> [> Re: The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ), etc -- Slayrunt, 05:32:50 06/28/01 Thu

Hmmm I'm writing while I'm thinkung and it doesn't make much sense, but maybe you are onto something Slayrunt. Maybe both the sire and the person you used to be have importance to determine what kind of vamp you will be.

Thanks, and you made sense to me.

I have no answer to that, but another question. If the person they used to be as human determines what kind of vamp they are going to be, how come Willow was such a bad ass vampire in VampWillow?

I think Vamp Willow was a bas ass vamp because Willow has it in her to be that kind of bad ass, an Harmony doesn't. There certainly may be something to the degrees of evil degradating as you go down the line.

Great, now I'm taking the opposite view. Well, I do try to see both sides of a discussion.


[> [> Re: The Master, Kissingtoast ( I mean Kikistos ), etc -- Rattletrap, 07:38:10 06/29/01 Fri

As someone brought up in the debate on Willow last week, real life Willow tends to be a fairly repressive person, so it follows that VampWillow had a similar personality, but without the layers (and layers, and layers) of inhibitions and the generally sweet nature of her human predecessor.

Harmony, on the other hand, was a fairly shallow person that didn't really conceal much below the surface, nothing really kept back. Hence, when she became a vampire, there was very little change.

Just a theory. *drops his 2 cents into the jar*
I'm BACK!! -- Glory, 01:11:07 06/28/01 Thu

yes, it's me, Glorificus... and I'm BACK! As IF that little squirt Slayer could kill ME, I was only pretending to die, cos I was like, BORED, and ER was on the other channel so I zoomed off to watch it, only to find that somebody had suffocated little Benjy-boy... when I find out who did that, he's MINCEMEAT!

Anyway, to all those of you who wrote nasty things about me, I'M COMING TO GET YOU TOO!

For those of you who write such NICE things... wanna be my new minions? Come on boys, you know you want to!

Ah, I'm so pretty.


[> No minion wannabe's here, Glory. Maybe you better stay dead! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 12:33:50 06/28/01 Thu


[> [> I'm too pretty to be dead, wisewoman... -- Glory, 08:35:15 06/29/01 Fri

But since you were the only one brave enough to reply to me.. I'm going to make YOU my new HOST!! You are PRIVILEGED dear! Hasta la vista, Ben. I got myself a new home..... HA HA HA HA HA


[> [> [> Hey, great! Does this make me The Third Evil? ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:23:02 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> Can we have more than six degrees of Evil? :-) -- Solitude1056, 11:17:33 06/30/01 Sat


[> [> See, this is all wrong. -- Solitude1056, 11:22:36 06/29/01 Fri

If you really wanted to provoke this board, or even cause more than a minor ripple, Glory isn't the one to do it. Nor even an eyebrow lifted, I think, really. I'd guess we had maybe ten posts, max, about Glory once she was dead. Giles' conflict over killing Ben, Buffy's mercy, and Ben's death all notwithstanding, I'd say it's safe to assume she of the lopsided ass has been forgotten.

Now... if someone were to post who just happened to be James Marsters, and just happened to want to say hello to all these brilliant, intelligent, thoughtful philosophers?

You'd get more than eyebrows. You'd be able to hear the simultaneous WHUMP as various members of this board passed out in instaneous shock, pleasure, and sheer excitement, all over the world. I dare say we might even have a few who'd take a screen shot of the original post just for posterity's sake.

Glory? Bored now. Spike? Stand back unless you like being trompled! :-)


[> [> [> Mm. Spike? Bored now. -- Masq, 16:15:10 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> [> Did someone say Spike? Big bad cheekbones...;) -- rowan, 19:32:32 06/29/01 Fri


[> Why did it seem Glory was so uninteresting to many...(Long-winded) -- KendratVS, 11:55:43 06/30/01 Sat

(Perpetual lurker here, first time posting)

This thread got me to thinking - the arc of season 5 involved a villain who most people really didn't seem to care too greatly about. In fact, almost every other fan I know spends more time talking about the changes in Willow or Xander/Anya than what I thought were some really over-the-top battles and interesting premises an exiled hell-god raises. Maybe it's a bit low-brow, but I think a truly memorable scene this season (and what kind of hit the theme of Buffy going into many battles she isn't going to win on Slayer strength) was Glory backhanding Buffy about 20 feet into the wall of the factory in No Place Like Home and asking her if she was sure about the not being stupid.

Am I the only one who really enjoyed the introduction of Glory as a new threat into the Buffyverse? I read a while back on this board (my apologies for not being able to give due-credit to the insightful author, but there are so many great ones, it's hard to keep track) a truly interesting thread about Glory as evil; how her representation of it is so different than prior villains who actively sought to bring humanity pain and do the protagonists harm, in that her sole purpose was to pack her bags and vacate our reality. Her ill-intentions towards humanity rarely surpassed being a parasite or reactive violence when people were "rude" and did something to displease her. In her mind, snapping the neck of the security guard in the hospital in Blood Ties was probably a completely appropriate response. When it came to the Key, she seemed to use violence as a way of removing obstacles, but contrasted to vampires/demons/etc., she did not seem to find inherent pleasure in it. Rather, it seems as if it was like work for her. Granted, she did want to bring "super-size portions" of suffering and misery to the hell she came from upon her return, so my thoughts are maybe in her mortal confines, doing harm and causing suffering was too taxing to be a habitual recreational activity. I guess that also raises questions as to what kind of powers hell-gods would have in pure form (I'm also wondering right now what 'super-size portions' of suffering look like...).

My take-away feeling from Season 5 is that I found her great as a new twist, being a villain who was uninterested with and generally viewed the SG and Buffy (and our whole world) as minor irritants on her path. The fact that she had a penchant for the finer things in our realm such as couture and mimosas during bubble baths was also pretty entertaining as maybe a non-major layer to the threat, but it amused me (i.e. I knew it wasn't going to be an achilles heel as it was for the Mayor, but still developed her a bit). Does anyone else agree (or even vehemently disagree) with me on this?

Whew - glad I finally got this all off my chest and I hope this first post wasn't too off the wall (and I know I abuse the parentheses, so I'll go back to lurker-mode and see what you insightful folks thing about my rantings)!


[> [> good point -- vampire hunter D, 13:28:35 06/30/01 Sat

I agree with you on some of this. I don't know why everyone hates Glory either. I guess the people on this board are more into more diabolical intentions aout of thier villans.

btw, that wasn't bad for a fist post. A whole lot better than mine. And about abusing the parentheses, try reading one of my posts and you'll feel a whole lot better about your post.


[> [> Glory as "one more bad guy" -- Solitude1056, 14:42:56 06/30/01 Sat

I think Glory worked outside the usual paradigm, for the reasons you mentioned, and that made her harder to grasp, or even care about. She didn't tiptoe about hiding her intentions, or her methods. The Mayor and the Master both worked in secrecy; Glory just wanted to go home and didn't seem up to wasting time being secretive about it. She was a pretty blunt character, when ya think about it. Maybe I'll expand more on that when I've got more time, since you've gotten me thinking about it.

And btw, a rule I think I may institute, just because a Second Evil's gotta do something evil every now & then... you make a good post like that as your introduction, don't follow it up by saying you're going back to lurking! no fair, 'coz now I want to hear what you think about so many of our other ongoing posts 'n topics! So just realize you lost your lurking rights and now gotta speak out. Bwahahahaha.

And second, paranthesis are frequently abused around here - man, you should see some of my posts - I think there's more in parenthesis than not. The real button around here seems to be ellipsis. Three little periods ... intercepting ... every phrase ... hehehehe.


[> [> [> A lurker bites the dust... -- KendratVS, 15:33:22 06/30/01 Sat

(Taking off lurking hat, putting on active-participant-in-my-favorite-board hat)


[> [> [> [> Yay! Welcome! :-) -- Solitude1056, 15:54:13 06/30/01 Sat

But I'm partial here, since my sister's named Kendra. She doesn't have a problem with boys, though, unlike the Slayer by the same name... ;-D


[> [> [> Putative Third Evil...and Queen of the Ellipsis...agrees with Sol. Welcome! -- Wisewoman, 18:03:42 06/30/01 Sat


[> [> Re: Why did it seem Glory was so uninteresting to many...(Long-winded) -- rowan, 16:13:35 06/30/01 Sat

You've brought up something I've wanted to talk about for a while. Glory wasn't a very popular Big Bad by most accounts I've read. But I must confess, I loved her.

Glory was evil to a degree heretofore unseen in the Buffverse. First, she wielded tremendous physical and mental (note I didn't say intellectual) power. She could swat the Slayer like a fly and drain the sanity out of humanity. The full extent of her evil acts weren't even shown on screen, since they occurred during her reign in the hell dimension. But by references to her as "the Beast", she became linked with the most gruesome & fundamentally evil images of unending torment conceived of in places like the Christian Hell.

All this was contained within a 'skanky, fashion-victim, ex-god with a bad perm' (to paraphrase Spike) who demonstrated a fetish for shoes and a total disregard for anything human. She could inflict pain and cruelty of any magnitude on the Buffyverse, because she was so fundamentally detached from it. This made her scarier in conception than any Big Bad before her. They at least acknowledged what they would destroy or dominate; Glory could have given a rat's a$$ about any of it, as long as she could go home. She was an evil that we laughed at, while at the same time it crushed us.

As Glory and Ben began their bleed together (as the 'mojo' faded), we saw Glory being infected with humanity. She was forced to start confronting her acts and those she acted upon. This began to drive her to despair and weakened her power. She then became beatable.

Much was made of Clare Kramer's perceived "poor acting" this season. I thought she played Glory just right -- like the cheap tart of a hell god she was. And that very tawdry cheapness made it all so much more evil for me. After all, Evil (with the capital E) somehow deserves, by its opposition to Good, to be beautiful in its terribleness, seductive in its attraction, graced with an intelligence and purpose that makes it a worthy adversary. But when it's vapid, stupid, and whorish, that's frankly very disturbing.


[> [> [> rowan, Glory sure talked a lot about sex............... -- Rufus, 16:19:46 06/30/01 Sat

Glory was always talking about sex, to the monk she killed, the knight, comments about Bens appearence. She talked but I never got the impression she ever did the nasty in her human form.


[> [> [> [> remember what sex equals -- Solitude1056, 16:27:06 06/30/01 Sat

Going on a twisted version of Xtianity, the Beast being the ultimate Bad Guy, the Fall, the serpent, sin, blah blah blah... it only made sense to me that temptation (but no follow-through) would be an underline for Glory's role as The Beast. It's a mish-mash of Xtian imagery, granted, but much more of a pop-culture view - the Beast, the Bad Guy, being one that would tempt and lure with seductive looks and lovely curves and speak all about sex, sensuality, the pleasures (and pains) of the flesh. Continue ad nauseum.

That's why I didn't see Glory as offering or even mentioning anything so crude as "squishing bodies," to use Anya's visual. Naw, I thought of it as Glory tempting with physical pleasures (since who would know better all about the pleasure of the body, who knows already about the pains of the body - seems to know one, you'd know the other).

Come to think of it: we've been talking about Dracula offering something that causes severe internal conflict in his intended victim. Glory uses the same card in her dealings with Orlando & others - that of tempting folks who (we assume) have sworn themselves to celibacy. Again, it's the idea of sex, and the body, and the fact that it's the Big Bad who's offering the experience (regardless of whether the offer is carried through). Could Dracula be the season's precursor in that sense, too?


[> [> [> [> [> Re: remember what sex equals -- Rufus, 16:37:54 06/30/01 Sat

First Buffy was truly tempted by Dracula, then she met Ben the coffee guy who never even got a coffee out of her. I remember the convesation Glory had with the minions about Ben banging the key out of Buffy, there was the assumption that Buffy couldn't resist Ben, or should I say them? Her reaction to Buffy cancelling the coffee date stuck with me, "she turned us down?". Not just Ben, Buffy turned down Glory and that made Glory look puzzled and insecure. Now maybe if they had added Charlize Theron (sick Crush reference) into the mix it would have been a bit more tempting for Buffy....:):):)


[> [> [> [> OMG, now I have an image of Glory/Ben switching in mid-act...I have to wash my mind out with soap... -- Wisewoman, 18:25:12 06/30/01 Sat


[> [> [> [> [> Thank goodness Buffy and Ben never dated! ;) -- rowan, 09:10:50 07/01/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> don't bother -- vampire hunter D, 12:02:41 07/01/01 Sun

Hey, if it makes you feel any better, I've had an image like that in my head since we first saw them switch (Ben's with Buffy in bed when he suddenly becomes GLory). Of course, my mind perpetually lives in the gutter.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: don't bother -- LadyStarlight, 20:47:40 07/01/01 Sun

Of course, my mind perpetually lives in the gutter.

But you meet such interesting people down here!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> You found rowan in the gutter???.....;):):):):) -- Rufus, 21:15:27 07/01/01 Sun


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Excuse me! I resemble...I mean, resent...that remark! :) -- rowan, 18:28:33 07/02/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Having an intense giggle fit here...a philosophical fit of course..:):):):) -- Rufus, 18:58:12 07/02/01 Mon

Thought it would take you a bit to notice that.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Having an intense giggle fit here...a philosophical fit of course..:):):):) -- rowan, 19:07:10 07/02/01 Mon

You're getting sneaky and hiding your little notes at the bottom of the page or in the middle of posts...but I'm wise to you. :)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Curses, I've been found out..have to get more cunning....can one be philosophically cunning? -- Rufus, 19:19:55 07/02/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Machiavelli and Rufus...perfect together. ;) -- rowan, 21:08:05 07/02/01 Mon


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> You knew my cat, Machiavelli?????:):):):):) -- Rufus, 22:11:03 07/02/01 Mon


[> [> [> "like the cheap tart of a hell god she was" -- Liquidram, 02:22:14 07/01/01 Sun

Rowan - this line is a prime example of why I love this board so much and thank the stars every day that I found you all!


[> [> When I think of Glory I think of the word caprice...........:):):) -- Rufus, 16:16:58 06/30/01 Sat

I did like Glory, she was underestimated because she seemed so shallow and did most of her actions on her unpredictable emotions. She was the most powerful in a physical sense being that Buffy had battled. You couldn't know what she would do because nothing she did could be predicted. We didn't know about her bodymate, Ben, and it was his infusion of humanity that made Glory prone to capricious actions. Spike was right she was a light weight in the villian department because she only wanted to go home. The true danger to the world as a whole was if she used the Key. I loved Glorys madcap ways, she wasn't dripping with evil like the Master, she was so powerful she didn't need to be obvious. I loved the scene where the minions were packing her things to go to an alternate reality, made no sense when you consider her body was a rental, what would she need all those shoes for?:):):):)Welcome to the board, Kendrat......:):)


[> [> [> Prancing lightweight -- rowan, 09:08:55 07/01/01 Sun

For me, when Spike commented that Glory was a 'prancing lightweight of a god', he was pointing out that she apparently had little, if any, intellectual capacity. She didn't seem to be able to reason things out (I mean, look how long it took her to find the Key). But she was a chaotic, destructive force of unimaginable power for all that. Her very stupidity (yes, I'll go that far) combined with her apparent lack of motive behind her cruelty at times plus her one-note 'I want to go home' allied with physical strength made her a very dangerous foe indeed.


[> [> [> [> Re: Prancing lightweight -- Scout, 02:09:18 07/02/01 Mon

Glory reminded me of a bitch-queen I went to high school with who made life miserable for all and sundry (except for her "minions"). Throw in supernatural powers and permanent PMS and, voila, one hell-god with a footwear obsession.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Prancing lightweight -- Rufus, 04:06:16 07/02/01 Mon

Now, tell me where the hell were all those shoes going to go???Oh yeah....hell....:):):):)


[> [> Name that one note bad guy in, uh, one note -- Solitude1056, 10:50:41 07/01/01 Sun

"I wanna go home."

I think you've hit the nail on the head, as have others, in refreshing a discussion of this season's bad guy. I keep going back to the Mayor, Angelus, and the Master: all of whom were intelligent, secretive, ambitious, cunning, and worst of all, had every intention of sticking around Sunnydale to wreck havoc in one way or another once they'd gotten whatever they were after. Glory, on the other hand, had no intention of doing so, and like others have said better than me, her one-track-mind couldn't really do two tracks, let alone multi-task.

I wonder, if Dawn had been a bicycle pump, if Glory had come to Buffy looking for her Key... we could ended up with a season where Buffy struggles to determine whether letting Glory go home qualified as doing her Job, or if she should get rid of Glory here, instead. Well, shuffling Glory off to her own dimension qualifies as getting rid of, IMO. Somewhere down in the bottom of all the sound & fury of this past season, I think we were well aware that but for Dawn's presence, the whole argument might've been moot. Buffy and Scoobies look the other way while Glory heads on, and then they break the bicycle pump the minute Glory's through. Not much of a conflict, which makes Glory as a bad guy rather boring at the bottom line.

It's not surprising that we spent the majority of the season riveted on Spike and Dawn - those two characters were undergoing change from the very start, and that's what keeps our interest. Glory didn't get interesting to me, really, until the last few episodes when she started having to deal with Ben's emergence as a part of her own personality. Yeah, so that would've blown the whole "ben-and-glory-as-same-body" shocker, but seeing that developing conflict earlier in the season might've made her a bit more interesting than a simple one-note villian whose only motto is "you have it, I want it, I want to go home!"


[> [> Re: Why did it seem Glory was so uninteresting to many...(Long-winded) -- Andy, 10:56:10 07/01/01 Sun

> When it came to the Key, she seemed to use violence as a way of removing obstacles, but contrasted to vampires/demons/etc., she did not seem to find inherent pleasure in it. Rather, it seems as if it was like work for her. Granted, she did want to bring "super-size portions" of suffering and misery to the hell she came from upon her return, so my thoughts are maybe in her mortal confines, doing harm and causing suffering was too taxing to be a habitual recreational activity. I guess that also raises questions as to what kind of powers hell-gods would have in pure form (I'm also wondering right now what 'super-size portions' of suffering look like...).

Yeah, that's an interesting point. I hate mosquitoes, and if I had a magic wand would gladly wish every last one of them off the planet, but that doesn't mean I get off on manually squashing them when they get in my path. That's just...distasteful :)

All in all, I very much agree with your post. I really enjoyed Glory and feel that Clare Kramer did a great job nailing the portrayal of her :)

1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Rufus, 03:06:31 06/28/01 Thu


In 1997, Buffy the Vampire Slayer entered our homes looking like one of the many kids shows, only with monsters. It was in the characters and their lives that I first became interested, then devoted to the show. I'm writing about Giles because he is more than just a mild mannered librarian. Giles is a man who appears very old world, old school (Oxford), old boys club in his thinking and actions. Season one didn't do much to change that. His introduction in Welcome to the Hellmouth revealed a man who liked the past and was reluctant to enter the new age of television and computers. His comfort zone was in the library with his volumes about myth and monsters. His misfortune was to end up with a modern Slayer who played by her own rules and came complete with friends and family. Giles never bothered telling Buffy about the Slayer handbook.

In the season two episode "Halloween" we were shown a glimpse of what Rupert Giles was capable of under the right conditions. Ethan Rayne was in town to cause chaos in the form of a spell that caused the wearer of the costumes he rented from his shop to take on the appearance and behavior, the costume represented. It left Buffy helpless, in the form of a young lady from a time long past. With Buffy and her friends in danger, Giles went to the costume shop to find his former friend in a back room along with a bust of Janus.

Ethan: "Chaos. I remain, as ever, thy faithful, degenerate, son."


Giles: "Janus, Roman mythical god."

Willow: "What does that mean?"

Giles: "Primarily, the division of self. Male and female, light and dark."

Giles beat the shit out of Ethan, not because he enjoyed it, but to find out how to break the spell. Emotionless, just a man doing what he had to to get results. The smashing of the bust of Janus showed just how fragile the divide between light and dark of the self are. Giles is just like Janus a combination of light and dark.

Ethan: "Who you are? The Watcher, sniveling, tweed clad guardian of the slayer and her kin, I think not. I know who you are, Rupert, and I know what you are capable of.....but they don't...do they? They have no idea of where you come from ...and you said the Ripper was long gone."

The "Ripper" is the dark side Giles keeps hidden in proper clothes and manners, only an angry moment away. The full truth about Giles past is exposed in The Darkage(season two) when Ethan is back running from the consequences of "their" past partnership in magic and chaos.

Willow: "Look, the Mark of Eyghon, also called the Sleepwalker, can only exist in this reality by possessing an unconscious host. Temporary possession imbues the host with a euphoric feeling of power."

Giles told Buffy how he had rejected his destiny as a Watcher, changed his dress, speech, temperment, and got himself a new gang.(I thought of Spike/William in Fool for Love). Giles was sucked in by easy sex and illusory power until something happened to frighten the starch back into his collar.

Giles: "I was twenty and studying at Oxford. And, of course the occult by night. I hated it. The tedious grind of study, the ...overwhelming pressure of my destiny. I dropped out, I went to London....I fell in with the worst crowd that would have me. We practice magicks. Small stuff for pleasure or gain. And Ethan and I discovered something bigger."

Buffy: "Eyghon."

Giles: "Yes, one of us would um....go into a deep sleep, and the others would summon him. It was an extraordinary high. God we were fools."

Buffy: "You couldn't control it."

Giles: "One of us, Randall, he lost control. Eyghon took him whole. We tried to exorcise the demon from Randall, but it killed him. No....we killed him. We thought we were free of the demon after that. But now he is back. And one by one, he will kill us all."

Giles never wanted Buffy to see that he had ever been able to walk away from his duty because he was bored and wanted a normal life. He was most certainly horrified that she knew that he was capable of selfish actions that seem so unlike what the librarian facade would indicate. The Ripper is Giles, it's part of his personality, when angry Giles becomes more Ripper like. He was embarassed that Buffy ever found out about his mistakes as a young man.

Giles: "I never wanted you to see that side of me."

Buffy: "I'm not gonna lie to you. It was scary. I'm so used to you being a grownup, and then I find you're a person."

Once Buffy could see Giles as a person he became less the authoritarian Watcher and more a friend, one who knew the pressure of a predestined life first hand. Both Buffy and Giles had been forced into service, leaving the chance for a normal life remote. The barrier between the generations dissolved in the understanding of their similar lot in life. Giles wanted to be anyone else but a watcher, leading to his playing at magic, which had consequences that made him grow up and return to his destiny and the Council. The Ripper is still there, part of the Giles package that is prepared to use brutality to get the desired information or results. The difference is that in his youth, the Ripper was self centered and impulsive, his brutality self serving and more random. Now, Giles has control over his dark impulses the Ripper only becoming evident if needed. The man that beat Ethan in Halloween is the same man who drools around books. Giles was able to grow past the selfish need for power and Ethan wasn't. Ethan doesn't care about anything past his own needs and pleasure.

What Giles could have become had he not gotten smart was illustrated in Band Candy. Chocolate was a new route to chaos turning the adults of Sunnydale into teenagers. Giles reverted back to his Ripper persona and ended up meeting Ethan again.

Ethan spies a crowbar on the table, and being unguarded now, reaches for it and begins to advance toward Buffy. Giles notices his advance. He pulls back the hammer on his stolen Beretta and points it at Ethan's neck.

Giles: "I wouldn't"

Ethan stops cold in his tracks. Buffy turns around and swings the telephone receiver hard into Ethan's chin. He spins down to the floor, dropping the crowbar. Giles aims the gun at the back of Ethan's head, executions style. Buffy hands the phone to her mother.

Buffy: "Giles, give me the gun."

He just stares at Buffy and doesn't give in.

Buffy: "Giles...."

He keeps the gun aimed right where it is.

Buffy: "Now."

After a moment Giles reluctantly gives up his weapon. Buffy stuffs it into the back of her pants.

Giles had beaten a policeman to get that gun....he was prepared to use it on Ethan to protect Buffy. The younger Ripper may have been prepared to kill, but age and experience showed Giles how to let his Ripper side out when needed. He has manhandled principal Snyder to help get Buffy back in school, beaten Ethan a few times, and set Spike straight in season five about Buffy. Giles has learned restraint with his years...something he has taught Buffy...he knows what can happen if you let your angry feelings go. Giles said in Pangs vengeance is never sated, I have a feeling he knows something about vengeance.

The worst moment for Watcher and Slayer came as a result of the Council's visit to Sunnydale. These men had only been voices on the phone til their visit to Sunnydale. They weren't kindly old sorcerers, but bureaucrats who had reduced the Slayer to a thing to be used til broken (dead) then replaced. The Slayer was only useful as a instrument of the Council, the Watcher, the eyes and voice that made sure the Slayer was following procedure. Giles did what he was told and drugged Buffy to get her "Helpless"(season three) enough for a test to proceed. I didn't like Giles or the council when I saw what they were ready to do to a young girl who risked her life daily for humanity.

Quentin: "Cruciamentum is not easy...for Slayer or Watcher. But it's been done this way for a dozen centuries. Whenever a Slayer turns eighteen. It's a time-honoured rite of passage."

Giles: "It's an archaic exercise in cruelty, to lock her in this tomb...weakened, defenceless. And to unleash *that* on her."

Quentin: "Which is why you're not qualified to make this decision. You're too close."

The council was in Sunnydale to make sure that their interests were taken care of. The Watcher and Slayer, compliant, worthy to represent them. The only thing..if she failed she died, that possiblility mattered little to the council, the slayer changes the council stays the same. Giles betrayal of his relationship with Buffy was hard to watch. To stick a needle into the arm of someone who trusted him, and not tell her why and what was happening to her was pure council training in action. But Giles did the unexpected he gave into his conscience and told Buffy what was going on. He couldn't stand by and watch as the girl he had gotten so close to was tortured to satisfy tradition.

Giles: "It's a test, Buffy. It's given to the Slayer once she....uh, well, if she reaches her eighteenth birthday....The slayer is disabled and then entrapped with a vampire foe whom she must defeat in order to pass the test. The vampire you were to face....has escaped. His name is Zachary Kralik. As a mortal, he murdered and tortured more than a dozen women before he was committed to an asylum for the criminally insane. When a vampire........"

Buffy: (sobbing)"You bastard. All this time, you saw what it was doing to me. All this time, and you didn't say a word?"

Giles: "In matters of tradition and protocol, I must answer to the council...my role in this was very specific. I was to administer the injections and to direct you to the old bordinghouse on Prescott Lane."

Giles thought that he had nullified the test by informing Buffy about it. Quentin was getting his test no matter how many bodies it took to get it. This led to a confrontation between the two men.

Giles: "Then you know what's happened."

Quentin: "Yes."

Giles: (angrily) "He's killed Hobson and made Blair one of his own. Your perfectly controlled test seems to have spun rather impressively out of control, don't you think?"

Quentin: "It changes nothing."

Giles: Well, then, allow me. I've told Buffy everything."

Quentin: "That is in direct opposition to the Council's orders."

Giles: "Yes. Interestingly, I don't give a rat's ass about the Council's orders. There will be no test."

Quentin: "The test has already begun. Your Slayer entered the field of play about ten minutes ago."

Giles: "Why?"

Quentin: "I don't know. I returned there just as she entered."

Giles grabs his keys from his desk and starts out of the office. Quentin tries to stop him."

Quentin: "Now Giles, we've no business....."

Giles grabs him by the coat and shoves him up against the doorframe.

Giles: "This is *not* business!" He lets the other man go and strides out of the library.

Giles actions proved that he had chosen a side and it was that of human decency. The test is twelve centuries old and clearly barbaric. If a Slayer makes it to her eighteenth year I think a big party is in order, not a sick rite of passage. Giles went and helped Buffy because he values Buffy, not as an instrument, but as a daughter. His "fathers" love for Buffy helped him make the choice to disobey council orders and risk his positition as a Watcher. He redeemed himself by telling Buffy and taking his lumps. He then further proved himself by going to the house and interfering in the test because he knew it was pointless.

Kralik had taken Buffy's mother forcing Buffy into the test to save Joyce.To watch Buffy go against Kralik as a "normal" girl was frightening, she was helpless in her red riding hood cape, running from a twisted monster. The mortal Kralik was already a monster, becoming a vampire only gave him more stamina to carry out his fantasies about killing women. To this day I feel that Kralik was the most frightening vampire I have ever seen. To become a monster Kralick didn't need to be infected by a vampire, he was already there. Buffy used her mind and killed Kralik not with brute strength, but a batch of pills with a holy water chaser. Giles came in and took out a second vampire. The test was important, Buffy and her mother weren't. The test was done because it had always been done, times may have changed but the Council stayed the same, the progress of humanity wasn't going to change that. Giles took a chance, he didn't just use the rules to excuse his role in the test, he chanced losing his career as a Watcher to protect Buffy, he became a man to respect. Giles defiance of the council was punished.

Giles: "You're *waging* a war. She's fighting it. There is a difference."

Quentin: "Not quite, She passed, you didn't. The Slayer is not the only one who must perform in this situation. I've recommended to the council, and they've agreed, that you be relieved of your duties as Watcher immediately. You're fired."

Giles: "On what grounds."

Quentin: "Your affection for your charge has rendered you incapable of clear and impartial judgement. You have a father's love for the child, and that is useless to the cause. It would be best if you had no further contact with the Slayer."

Giles: "I'm not going anywhere."

Quentin: "No, well, I didn't expect you would adhere to that. However, if you interfere with the new Watcher, or countermand his authority in any way, you will be dealt with. Are we clear?"

Giles: "Oh, we're very clear."

Quentin:"Congratulations again." (to Buffy)

Buffy: "Bite me."

Calling Buffy a child helped Quentin stay in a superior position. It also hinted that she was too young to make her own decisions. The Council had kept their hold on power by complicated rules and intimidation, no one had questioned their authority until Giles stood up to them. They had become a bureaucracy only interested in their games and the continuation of the comfortable, old world ways. I can see why Buffy kicked them out of town and eventually cut ties with them. They tested the Watcher and Slayer to make sure that they were a fighting unit only, no relationship other than what the rules allowed. This dehumanizes the Slayer and Watcher and leaves a young girl an object, destined to die alone and afraid, without the thing that could make the difference, love and human closeness. The scene at the end of Helpless showed just how attached to Buffy, Giles had become. He stood his ground and was staying no matter the consequences. He was no longer a Council mouthpiece, he was a father of a sort.

With the Council out of the picture Buffy and Giles went into season four with a relationship that became strained as Giles went through a mid life crisis. No longer an official Watcher Giles became a bit lost. He was unemployed(he did blow up the high school) and felt that Buffy had progressed beyond needing his help. By the end of the season they were fractured by their self doubt and the Yoko Factor. Spike split them up to make them weak. Buffy figured it out in time for the four to join and defeat Adam. They remembered the importance of their friendship and bonded together in a spell to defeat Adam. In Restless they gathered at Buffy's to enjoy movies and some down time. They all had dreams that foreshadowed what was to come in season five.

Giles: "Buffy, you have a sacred birthright to protect mankind. Don't stick out your elbow."

Olivia: "For god's sake, Rupert, go easy on the girl."

Giles: "This is my business. Blood of the lamb and all that. Oh, now you're gonna get that all over your face."

Season five was about the family. Giles felt he wasn't needed in Buffy's life, her power enough that she could stand on her own. At the end of Buffy vs. Dracula Buffy asked Giles to become her Watcher again. Buffy may have power but she still needed guidance to understand how to use it.Giles got new purpose as Watcher and Magic Shop owner. He also had the job of helping Buffy endure her losses. First Riley left, her mother sickened and died. We also got to meet Buffy's monk made sister, Dawn, who is the Key. Giles helped Buffy train and comforted her when she was upset. This year Buffy needed Giles more than ever with her mother gone and Dawn the Key, Buffy faced a god and doubted her ability to win this battle.

In Checkpoint the council was back in town with another test. Buffy at first was afraid of their behind the scenes power, until she realized that it was she that had the actual power, power everyone wanted. The Council had power because no slayer survived long enough to question it.

Quentin: "Buffy.....I can sense your resistance, and I don't blame you. But I think you Watcher hasn't reminded you lately of the resolute status of the players in out little game. The Council fights evil. The Slayer is the instrument by which we fight. The Council remains, the Slayers change. It's been that way from the beginning.

Giles: (scornfully) "Well, that's a very comforting, bloodless way of looking at it, isn't it?"

Quentin: "Giles, let me talk to Buffy, because I think she's understanding me."

At one time Giles had been on the inside, one of the old boys, but his experience in life allowed him to see that the ways of the council were pathetically outdated and cruel. He broke away deciding to do the right thing by Buffy. Buffy had an epiphany regarding her place in "the game" after meeting up with first Glory, then the Knights. This made her rethink her former feelings of helplessness in regards to the Council, her conclusions reorganized the power stucture.

Buffy: (Glory came over to Buffy's house)"Just to talk. She told me I'm a bug, I'm a flea, she could squash me in a second. Only she didn't. She came into my home, and we talked. We had what in her warped brain probably passes for a civilized conversation. Why? Because she needs something from me. Because I have power over her."

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 your 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 "Everyone thinks We're Insane-O's Home Journal. So here's how it's gonna work. You're gonna tell me everything you know. Then you're gonna go away. 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."

You bet Quinton understood Buffy. The Council is all talk, all games, no actual power to fight the battle. The reason they exist is because of the Slayer not the other way around. Giles could see that as a human being Buffy deserved better than to be treated like an instrument. Giles worked with Buffy learning to trust in her judgement. Buffy's judgement established a new order, Slayer and Watcher work together, Council goes back to England to move paper about. The Council had shown they were undeserving of a command position, they were sent back to reasearch and inform the Slayer and Watcher team. Slayer and Watcher were "Helpless" no more.

In Restless Giles mentioned his job, his sacred birthright as well as Buffy's to protect the world. The only time Giles has ever lost it with Buffy was over Dawn. The fact that the key could be part of a ritual that would destroy the world. Giles understood Buffys need to protect her sister, but for him his duty was clearly to protect the world, even from Dawn. Buffy made it clear that the last thing Dawn would see was her protecting her. Giles and Buffy never had to confront each other over this as they had different roles to play in the defeat of Glory. Buffy found that love indeed would bring her to her gift, her gift to the world. Buffy turned out to be the blood of the lamb, the sacrifice that saved humanity, Giles did his bit to keep it safe. Giles saw Buffy hesitate when Glory turned back to Ben, she couldn't kill a helpless human. Giles made a choice one he felt a hero shouldn't have to contemplate.

Giles: "Can you move?"

Ben: "Need a minute. She could've killed me."

Giles: "No, she couldn't. Never. And sooner or later Glory would re-emerge, and make Buffy pay for that mercy. And the world with her. Buffy even knows that...(reaches into his pocket, takes out glasses) and still she couldn't take a human life."

Giles: "She's a hero, you see. She's not like us."

Ben: "Us?"

Giles suddenly reaches down and puts his hand over Ben's nose and mouth, holding them shut. Ben struggles weakly as Giles keeps him still. Giles expression calm throughout.

Giles killed Ben/Glory to spare the world and Buffy any further danger. He felt that as a hero, Buffy was above making choices that went against her honor code, so he took it upon himself to do what Buffy's mercy wouldn't let her do. He missed Buffy jumping into the portal to save the world and her sister. The look on his face showed the shock of loss and defeat, after all the battles Buffy was gone forever. He lost his Slayer, his daughter. Buffy was told her gift was death, her gift to the world was life through Buffys sacrifice. Buffys last words were of comfort to those left behind.

Buffy: "I love you. I will *always* love you.....but this is my work I have to do...tell Giles I figured it out, and I'm okay. And give my love to my friends. You have to take care of them now. You have to take care of each other...you have to be strong. Dawn, the hardest thing in this world ....is to live in it....be brave...Live .....For Me."

Buffy's solution lead her to the light of dawn, Giles choice to kill Ben took a certain amount of darkness. Both choices had to be made. Giles did what he felt was needed to prevent any further destruction from Glory, Buffy's made sure there was a world left to worry about. Now all the survivors have to do is live, it's the only thing Buffy wanted.

Giles and Buffy escaped the stereotypical Watcher/Slayer relationship because they took the chance and became close. They got results that speak for themselves. They were willing to ignore the Council based rules and work with friends that included demons. They combined old world knowledge and new world technology to come to new solutions. Giles was the best Watcher for Buffy as he was able to change with the times and try a new way of fighting the battle with demons and evil. Giles was able to get out of the library and back into living in the world, he may not always been comfortable, but he was a better man for it. Giles did so much more than simply document the life of a Slayer, he helped her become the best person she could have been. Giles is a man that is more than his look can define, he is more than the tweed clad Watcher, he is Giles/Ripper/Friend/Father/light/dark, a man. I'll never be able to see librarians the same way again.

I have only written about one small part of who Giles is, I look to your additional posts about a character that has brought so much to Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

Some episodes I liked and show Giles in his many guises: Welcome to the Hellmouth, Halloween, The Darkage, Passion, Band Candy, Helpless, Something Blue, Pangs, A New Man, The Yoko Factor, Checkpoint, The Body, Spiral, The Gift.

all quotes from Psyche's transcripts


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Marie, 04:13:37 06/28/01 Thu

Great post, Rufus. I really LIKE Giles, you know? He comes across as a nice person, who's really doing his best. I think he has come to really love Buffy - she's not just the Slayer to him, she's the daughter of his heart. One of the most heartbreaking moments for me was in 'Revelations', Xander has revealed to the group that Angel is back - and Buffy not only knows, but was KISSING him!

In the resultant confrontation in the Library, Willow is shocked, but wants to hear Buffy's explanation; Xander is just plain furious; Cordy is disgusted and accusatory; Oz is, well, Oz-like, Giles is quiet, dignified. He calls the meeting to a halt when emotions start to get out of control, and Buffy, very defensive, follows him into his study:

Buffy: I know this is a lot to absorb, but Angel did find the glove, and that was a good...

Giles: (interrupts) Be quiet. (slowly turns to face her) (sternly) I won't remind you that the fate of the world often lies with the Slayer. What would be the point? Nor shall I remind you that you've jeopardized the lives of all that you hold dear by harboring a known murderer. But sadly, I must remind you that Angel tortured me... for hours... for pleasure. You should have told me he was alive. You didn't. You have no respect for me, or the job I perform.

Wow! To me, that showed that not only was there all this fury bubbling volcanically under that calm surface, but SUCH HURT! Such disappointment! It made me cry.

Also, Buffy, up until that point, had got away with a lot things with Giles, by pouting or kidding around. Suddenly, she's slapped in the face (metaphorically, I mean!) by someone who's basic approval she's taken somewhat for granted up to now. Giles is no longer the sometimes-bumbling old guy who always gets knocked unconscious, but this cold, disapproving person she can't get around this time.

(This turned into a bit of a ramble - sorry!).


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Solitude1056, 06:24:11 06/28/01 Thu

Awesome post, Rufus, and hell yeah, Marie - I always loved that response from Giles. He had usually come across as quiet & dignified, but that few seconds o' line revealed just how much he cared and how much he could be hurt, too. And it brought me back, as the audience, to the reality that Angel's always going to present some pretty conflicted feelings in Giles as a result.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Rufus, 16:40:28 06/28/01 Thu

Thanks Marie, I like Giles very much, his words can at times sting but at the bottom of the post I put a scene where he does shine with words to help not hurt Buffy. His character is very complicated because we can make the mistake in judging him by his daily actions as a tweed clad librarian, it's clear that he has much more life experience that dusting books.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Kimberly, 05:03:02 06/28/01 Thu

Wow! Great post; lots to think about.

Giles has always been my favorite character; I have a thing for British accents, glasses and attractive men.

I'll post more later, if I can come up with anything more.


[> Rufus, excellent post ! -- Slayrunt, 05:19:42 06/28/01 Thu

You really show the importance of the Watcher Giles.

Giles and Buffy escaped the stereotypical Watcher/Slayer relationship because they took the chance and became close. They got results that speak for themselves. They were willing to ignore the Council based rules and work with friends that included demons. They combined old world knowledge and new world technology to come to new solutions. Giles was the best Watcher for Buffy as he was able to change with the times and try a new way of fighting the battle with demons and evil. Giles was able to get out of the library and back into living in the world, he may not always been comfortable, but he was a better man for it. Giles did so much more than simply document the life of a Slayer, he helped her become the best person she could have been. Giles is a man that is more than his look can define, he is more than the tweed clad Watcher, he is Giles/Ripper/Friend/Father/light/dark, a man. I'll never be able to see librarians the same way again.

Giles was the best Watcher for Buffy. Had Gwendolyn Post or Wesley been assigned first to Buffy, everthing would be truly different. By now we might be waiting desperately for the UPN debute of Kendra the Vampire Slayer if we (the world) were here at all.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Aquitaine, 05:31:42 06/28/01 Thu


Great post! What you've made especially clear for me with your analysis is just how linked Buffy and Giles are. It is easy to forget that Giles' task is to be a buffer for Buffy. At times he possesses knowledge or experience that make black and white situations more ambiguous for him, that make his choices particularly difficult and painful. IMO, his excursion into controlled-Ripper mode in The Gift served to show that Buffy isn't the only Chosen One. In the end, death was his gift to the world as well.

I love Giles' integrity and intelligence. These attributes have always made Giles attractive to me. However, there is something about him that makes me uncomfortable and it isn't his dark side, at least not his Ripper dark side. What gets me about Giles is the suppressed but omnipresent feeling of sorrow that surrounds him. Giles is the epitome of the permanently-disappointed man. His disappointment is at once the source of his strength and the reason he needs to take cover behind his mild-mannered-librarian persona. Last season, Giles almost disappeared by self-effacement and this season he continued to struggle with his own inner demons and feelings of failure.

I can't wait to see what's in store for Giles now that his charge is dead. I would love to see him happy, if only momentarily. He deserves it.

- Aquitaine


[> [> Not trying to start an international incident ! -- Slayrunt, 05:44:39 06/28/01 Thu

Aquitaine, I just took it for Giles being British.

I mean from reading Douglas Adams, I can see Arthur Dent as being very much like Giles in that way.


[> [> [> Re: Giles is not your English-garden-variety dour boy. LOL -- Aquitaine, 10:09:23 06/28/01 Thu

I haven't read Douglas Adams, unfornatunately, so I can't comment on any possible British paradigm. Hehehe!

I don't know. Even more than Spike (or even William - another British guy if that helps your case - LOL), Giles exudes 'something' very deep and vulnerable. There is always an air of mystery beneath the awkwardness and fuddy-duddy-ness. But, despite this air of mystery, Giles always falls just a smidgen short of becoming a true romantic figure. I like to think that Giles himself is wary of the allure of romanticism.



[> [> [> [> Re: Giles is not your English-garden-variety dour boy. LOL -- Slayrunt, 15:03:56 06/28/01 Thu

Perhaps if they names the ep's for Giles instead of Buffy "The Gift" would have been "The Weight of the World"


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- gds, 06:28:28 06/28/01 Thu

Rufus, you did a good job listing the big issues about Giles. However some of the smaller issues have been really made me connect with Giles. E.g. 1. His relationship with Olivia - especially in "Hush" 2. His banter with Buffy in his new car "Real Me" which shows how comfortable they are with each other 3. His singing especially in "Where the Wild Things Are" 4. His practical non-supernatural approach to creating a door in "Fear, Itself" 5. His gentle revenge on the high & mighty Walsh chasing her for a few seconds as she runs away screaming in "A New Man"


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Humanitas, 08:35:03 06/28/01 Thu

Giles is easily my favorite of the SG. Maybe because I'm a bit bookish myself, I've always identifed with him. I think you captured the layered nature of his personality quite well. One thing I'd like to emphasise, though, is his self-awareness. The librarian is not merely a mask to hide the Ripper. Giles is aware of both aspects of his personality, and has even developed a sense of humor about it.

Olivia: "All the time you used to talk to me about witchcraft and darkness and the like - I just thought you were being pretentious." Giles: "Oh I was. I was also right." --"Hush"


[> Yea! It's here (and so early in the day!) -- rowan, 08:39:16 06/28/01 Thu


[> Rufus on anything BtVS -- Masquerade, 09:11:03 06/28/01 Thu

Always quotable! Now I'm gonna kill my harddrive with another Rufus down-load. Some day soon I gotta get all this stuff up on my page.

Especially your insights into the Watcher's Council:

"...They weren't kindly old sorcerers, but bureaucrats who had reduced the Slayer to a thing to be used til broken (dead) then replaced. The Slayer was only useful as a instrument of the Council, the Watcher, the eyes and voice that made sure the Slayer was following procedure...

Calling Buffy a child helped Quentin stay in a superior position. It also hinted that she was too young to make her own decisions. The Council had kept their hold on power by complicated rules and intimidation, no one had questioned their authority until Giles stood up to them."

Very cool.


[> [> Re: Rufus on anything BtVS -- spotjon, 13:23:20 06/28/01 Thu

I really hope that all of these analyses will end up on the ATPOBTVS site in the near future. This forum has a tendency to swallow threads whole, and I would hate to see them gone forever (especially mine, wink wink). You could add an entirely new section: "Character Analyses", or some such thing. All of the character posts thus far have been great, and I have high hopes for the rest of them.

BTW, I think that somebody should do a character analysis of the new "Fray" character that was recently introduced in the comic books. I have the first issue (of eight), which just came out, and she has quite the personality. Kind of a mix of Faith and alternate-universe-Buffy without the "I hate my life" attitude. You all should check it out if you haven't already.


[> [> [> Re: FRAY -- Brian, 13:40:49 06/28/01 Thu

If you want a copy, better hurry. It is selling out across the country. I guess comic book retailers were caught by surprise at how popular the comic turned out to be.

Maybe they've learned their lesson and will order more copies of the Angel comic which Joss is writing, and it will be out in the Fall.


[> [> [> Re: Rufus on anything BtVS -- Masquerade, 14:10:58 06/28/01 Thu

Oh, don't worry. A special character analysis page with all the featured writers each week this summer was part of the original plan. But some especially insightful sentences or paragraphs may go on the standard pages (e.g. Moral Ambiguity of...)


[> [> [> [> cool! -- spotjon, 14:21:16 06/28/01 Thu


[> Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 09:16:59 06/28/01 Thu

You made me remember that Giles was the reason I originally stuck with BtVS through the first season (aside from the writing). It was reassuring to me that there was at least one *adult* character who had a large role in the show, and the fact that the adult was attractive and incredibly interestingly conflicted was a bonus.

I do think there is some great sorrow in Giles' life (aside from the death of Jenny Calender and the recent death of Buffy) that we haven't been made aware of, and may never be, unless it was the murder of his friend while possessed by Ehygon. He has always struck me as someone with not just an inner Ripper, but an inner *griever* as well.

Well done, Rufus. Chocolates for you!!


[> [> Re: Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Rattletrap, 07:30:31 06/29/01 Fri

Great point Wisewoman! I think Giles inner griever was captured especially well in Intervention. We didn't see much of him in that episode, he was always strong and supportive for Buffy and the gang. But then, there's the one priceless scene that shows him sitting down with a drink and Disareli Gears on the stereo, clearly remembering Joyce, but grieving inwardly, as always.


[> [> [> Re: Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 15:01:26 06/30/01 Sat

Yes, that scene reminded me of how little I really know about Giles. In fact, the Scooby Gang don't know a great deal about him either (though Buffy is much closer than the others).

I think there is evidence for this in Restless, when Willow clearly sees him as a 'doddery, well-intentioned director'- figure (no, I don't know what that is either) and Xander sees him as someone who he is less interested in being close to than he was and who he often fails to understand. In his own dream, Giles insists that he has 'a gig' himself - I wonder what this means...


[> [> [> [> Re: Excellent post, Rufus! ;o) -- Rufus, 15:59:27 06/30/01 Sat

I thought about the "gig" that Giles refered to in his dream and the only feeling I had was that it refered to his other interests in life. Giles saw Buffy as a little girl type in his dream but he spoke to her like he would his own child. Giles has always been torn between duty and having a normal life. He had to make a choice to continue as a Watcher but he still longs for something more in his life. He has talents that he had to forget to perform his duty as Buffy's watcher. This may be the time in his life that he withdraws to permit Buffy to grow up.


[> [> [> [> [> Agreed -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 04:45:05 07/01/01 Sun

Yes - that's exactly it. I'm really impressed that you seem to know so much about Giles - even more than was suggested by your superb original post. Good show!


[> Great post as usual, Rufus. -- Wiccagrrl, 10:26:37 06/28/01 Thu

Adding a couple of comments of my own:

Like many people here, Giles has always been one of my favorite Buffy characters. He's smart, ruthless when necessary, with a real vulnerability at times. His reaction after losing Jenny (going after Angelus, the comment in Revelations that people have already mentioned) break my heart every time. And, I wish they'd let him have a love life again. I've been rewatching some of the old eps, doing some episode reviews on the BC&S, and I'm struck by how wonderful the chemistry is between Giles and Jenny. Same with Olivia. I mean, Jenny had it nailed- he *is* kind of a sexy fuddy duddy.

Of all the Scoobs, I think Giles is going to have the hardest time dealing with Buffy's death. This is gonna hit him hard.

And, no one's mentioned his singing yet (or if they did, I missed it.) Yummy.

One last thing- just rewatched The Dark Age, and it seemed to me the whole Eyghon thing was kind of a drug use metaphor- Bunch of kids experimenting, extraordinary high, things get out of control, one of them ends up dead (OD's)Just a thought.


[> [> Re: Great post as usual, Rufus. -- Rufus, 20:26:16 06/28/01 Thu

I can agree with the drug metaphor, plus we also see that some problems growing up are universal. Giles did some immature stupid things as a kid, lucky he didn't get himself killed. He understands what it is like to make a mistake that cost lives. Sometimes things you did when you were younger have a way of coming back to bite you in the ass years later. His life experience made him perfect to deal with Buffy, he has grown since his "bad-magic-hates the-world-ticking-timebomb guy", he understands how mistakes can happen. I don't think someone like Wesley was ready to deal with an adolecent girl when he had the maturity level of a blueberry scone. Giles can be harsh but he also knows when kindness is the way to go.

I only mentioned the parts of Giles that I felt were the most important, he does have talents other than books and Watching. His singing is something I hope to hear some more of in season six.

As for his sex life I had started a post on Sex and the Middle aged Watcher but the one you see is what I finished.


[> [> Re: Great post as usual, Rufus. -- Sssaaammm, 14:14:25 06/29/01 Fri

Using the drug abuse metaphor, it is interesting to see the difference between Giles' and Angel's recovery.

Both have relapsed (Giles through band candy, Angel through the happy-clause) unknowingly yet only Angel has made the intentional metaphorical 'grab for that first drink' (By sleeping with Darla) - although it turned out to be non-alcoholic the intention was there.

Giles resembles a reformed addict who has replaced old thinking and old behaviours although can remember them and use his experiences. Giles' problem was created as a response to pressure and he rebelled with peer influences. Angel is a "dry drunk". Angel will never fully recover unless he can dettach from his past self and replace his thinking patterns as a new identity. Angel's problem was hereditary (the alcoholic gene?) from his sire which gave him a predisposition fuelled by escapism (Darla promising bigger brighter horizons).

Giles has no need for redemption as he is not the person he once was. Angel is a reflection of what he was but is even further removed in being a different being than what 'he' once was. Perhaps Giles does however carry a similar burden to Angel in terms of guilt for the loss of the Randall (good point about the OD Wiccagirl) or other, as yet, undisclosed events) Perhaps he either would feel unable to act as mentor to Buffy if it were disclosed or he chooses not to discuss it as he does not want to go down the path of identifying himself with his past.

Angel: Has taken on his past acts as part of his personality. They influence everything he is now and his fight for good is more a need for redemption. His dark side is uncontrollable as he is not detached from it enough to have an outside perspective (which is why he lost the plot mid AtS: 2). Angel has however had the 'moment of clarity' although it's been a long time coming.

Giles: Has learnt from his past and has evolved as a new person for it. Giles' fight for good is a need to do the right thing. His dark side/ memories of a dark side are accessible and controllable as he is detached from it enough to re-enact past behaviour patterns and let them link on to emotions as he chooses.

With this metaphor, it does however suggest that Angel had a heavy addiction and was physically dependant, whilst Giles was involved in drugs as part of a lifestyle and in that sence they were peripheral instead of the be all and end all. This could also indicate why recover patterns are different. It doesn't help that Angel must undergo withdrawal therapy (pig's blood) 100 years on!

The pressure of Giles' destiny to be a watcher pushed him into rebelling but do we know anything else about what this pressure and destiny consisted of apart from his father wanting him to follow in his shoes? How are watchers selected and where does destiny come into it - a birthright?...Was Wesley's father a watcher?

To everyone who's felt the need to apologise for rambling in their posts, I hope this post can help ease those feelings :)


[> A moment with Giles and Buffy that I had to mention seperately...... -- Rufus, 16:23:55 06/28/01 Thu

It was in Innocence that Buffy had to deal with the fact that Angel had reverted to Angelus. Angelus tried to get to her through her friends. At the end of Innocence there was a scene that I never forgot because Giles show of compassion was enough to make one cry.

Cut to the street in front of Buffy's house. Giles pulls up inan ancient car to drop her off. He looks over at her and shuts off the engine. Cut into the car. The only noise is that of crickets outside. Giles breaks the silence.

Giles: "It's not over. I-I-I suppose you know that. He'll come after you, particularly. His profile, uh, well, he...he's likely to strike out at the things that made him most human."

Buffy: "You must be so disappointed in me."

Giles: "No(she looks at him) No, no, I'm not."

Buffy: "But this is all my fault"

Giles: "No. I don't believe it is. Do you want me to wag my finger at you and tell you that you acted rashly? You did. A....and I can. I know that you loved him. And....he....has proven more than once that he loved you. You couldn't have known what would happen. The coming months a-are gonna, are gonna be hard...I, I suspect on all of us, but..if it's guilt you're looking for, Buffy, I'm, I'm not your man. All you will get from me is, is my support. And my respect."

Buffy smiles at him through her tears.

Giles could have destroyed Buffy's self-confidence, her self-worth by blaming her for Angel's transformation. He could have frozen Buffy out and punished her with silence. He did neither...he showed kindness and understanding. Giles understands how easy it is to make mistakes, even when you have the best intentions. To blame would have paralized Buffy, Giles told her what she needed to hear, no lecture, just kind words.


[> [> Re: A moment with Giles and Buffy that I had to mention seperately...... -- Rahael, 17:17:24 06/28/01 Thu

This is why I love Giles! It reminds me of 'When She was bad' , where Giles is the only person who understands her situation. When he first says hello to her at school, the expression on his face said everything - tenderness, compassion and understanding.


[> [> Re: A moment with Giles and Buffy that I had to mention seperately...... -- gds, 07:34:26 06/30/01 Sat

Thanks for reminding me of that very special moment. It did deserve to be mentioned separately. It is not only a part of the 'big picture', but also a moment which invites us to connect with Giles on a more personal level - a person we wish we knew instead of just a great character in a story.


[> Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- Masquerade, 17:19:22 06/28/01 Thu

Here is a sample of the page I would post on my site with the character analysis. I've just done Rufus' so far to see what ya'll think:




[> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- rowan, 18:00:19 06/28/01 Thu

Wow! This is fantastic. I really like it (it makes me sorry I'm not doing a post so that I can be immortalized). One suggestion: could we do a "Responses" area where we do something similar to the suggestions about the archived post? I'm thinking perhaps we'd edit the responses down to any new observations or elaborations on any point of relevance to the main post.


[> [> [> Wow pretty much sums it up.......... -- Rufus, 18:31:45 06/28/01 Thu

Looks very nice, loved the pictures. The green background is a good idea. (I had no idea how to paste a post so all the bold print and italics I did were gone when they showed up here, it would have been better if I knew something about computers.) To see the words with pictures gives one something more to think about. You did a lovely job.


[> [> [> Wow pretty much sums it up.......... -- Rufus, 18:36:08 06/28/01 Thu

Looks very nice, loved the pictures. The green background is a good idea. (I had no idea how to paste a post so all the bold print and italics I did were gone when they showed up here, it would have been better if I knew something about computers.) To see the words with pictures gives one something more to think about. You did a lovely job.


[> [> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- Masq, 18:40:42 06/28/01 Thu

Due to space limits with the 4w.com server, I am only going to post the original post. But I can put links to the archives once Sol or OnM or whomever gets them someplace I can link to.


[> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- Isabel, 18:44:32 06/28/01 Thu

Wow! Muy impressivo. I like it.

I never suspected that you'd be archiving my post (or anyone's) in this fashion. To tell you the truth, I'm glad I didn't. I would have been neurotically re-writing Willow well into Friday afternoon.

Don't misunderstand me, I'm grinning like a maniac and as soon as I get off the 'Net, I'm making long distance phone calls. :)


[> [> [> Re: Rufus, Isabel, Wiccagrrl, Rowan and other Anniversary posters--need your feeback -- Nina, 09:54:50 06/29/01 Fri

Well now the pressure is on, right? Why the hell did I choose Buffy? :) No kidding, it's wonderful Masquerade!!!!


[> [> [> [> I got *tons* of Buffy picks to highlight your enlightened treatise -- Masq ; - ), 11:19:08 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> Looks really good. -- Wiccagrrl, 20:24:45 06/28/01 Thu


[> [> Nifty! Immortalized in pixels! :-D -- Solitude1056, 05:51:16 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> Nice! -- verdantheart, 06:36:55 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> Cool!(NT) -- vampire hunter D, 13:15:56 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> Groovy! (but, hey, scared now!) -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 14:46:26 06/30/01 Sat


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- rowan, 17:56:52 06/28/01 Thu

Yes, I love Giles, too. It would be hard to over-emphasize Giles' importance to the Buffyverse. Spikes, Rileys, Parkers, and yes, even Angels come and go, but a Giles is here to stay. The foundational relationship of the Buffyverse is this first one: Slayer to Watcher. "When the student is ready, the teacher appears." We have a marriage of teacher and student here that is truly remarkable.

Rufus (and others) have pointed out how the relationship between Giles and Buffy has evolved over five years. Giles has shown a remarkable talent for adapting himself to Buffy's growth. His choices have been right, even while they were controversial. Rather than shedding roles, Giles seems to accumulate them, so that he is never less than he was, but always more. They have a relationship of love and respect (with the occasional family argument thrown in for good measure).

When someone asks my mother who her best friend is, she says: "My daughter." When someone asks me who my best friend is, I say: "My mother." This is the feeling that I get from watching Buffy and Giles in S5. They have now achieved every healthy emotional bond: professional colleagues, student/mentor, parent/child, and friends -- and they swap those roles fluidly. This is demonstrated very simply in Tough Love, when Buffy asks Giles to be "the foot-putting-downer" for Dawn and Giles responds that he can but "she needs you to do this." Buffy's echoes Giles when she agress that Dawn needs "the guiding hand and stompy foot that is me." Giles now brings Buffy full circle, as he tries to instill confidence in her about her own parenting abilities.

In The Gift, you see the bonds between Buffy and Giles tested. Buffy and Giles are in opposition: if they cannot make Glory miss her window of opportunity, Buffy will protect Dawn at the expense of everyone else, and Giles will protect everyone else at the expense of Dawn. Both operate out of love and out of a sense of their special obligation: Buffy as Dawn's symbolic mother and Giles out of his role to "protect this sorry world". They debate through the first part of the episode, without resolution.

Yet, despite their fundamental differences, the bond remains. When Buffy makes her decision, she imparts her final words to her friends, but importantly singles out Giles. She wants him to know that she has found a way to reconcile their opposition. She does not want him to live with guilt or sadness at how they parted and at how he saw her last: shaken in her faith. Her last compassionate thoughts are for her friends, and specifically for the most important man in her life.

This is partially because (as Aquitaine and Wisewoman have pointed out) Giles is a man of sorrow. I have always thought of Isaiah's "man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief" when thinking of Giles. He knows almost too much of life. His special mission has separated him from having family of his own. While Buffy maintains her connections through her family and the SG (and has drawn on that as a source of power), Giles only tentatively sustains that link, primarily through Buffy. His attempts to carve out his own life (as apart from his mission)each come to a disappointing or disheartening end. He is alone. He shares this with Angel.

I look forward to ASH's reduced role in S6 with trepidation. To Giles, I say: "Do not go gently into that good night" because the passing of such a man from prominence in Buffy's life to the perimeter (if that is what happens) needs to be marked with as much respect as Joyce's passing.

Giles tells Ben: "She's a hero, you see. She's not like us." But I say that Giles is wrong: she learned it from the best.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- verdantheart, 06:53:42 06/29/01 Fri

Well put! I see Giles as a man of duty. And as such, he seems to try to keep his emotions out of the equation ("Never let sentiment get in the way of your job" -- oh wait, that's Garak again). Buffy is more visceral, putting more of her heart into the effort. Buffy's heart is what led her to show mercy to Ben, whereas Giles sense of duty to the larger issue of preserving the world caused him to sacrifice Ben. The very position of Watcher, sending a girl out to do battle with monsters, requires a certain steeling of oneself. No wonder it can interfere with happiness.

- vh


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Isabel, 21:10:37 06/28/01 Thu

Wow, Rufus, that was terrific. (And I am so not surprised. Everything you post is so well thought out.)

The only thing I could think of Rowan just brought up in her post. Buffy has feared that she's somehow driven away all the men she's cared about in her life, her Dad, Angel, Riley. (I am not including Parker, even though she would, because he's a tasteless p***k who only cared about one part of her. pig.) I think it's a last season development, her realization that she'd never drive away Giles.

They don't talk about their bond very much, and when they do it's often subtle, but they speak volumes. In Fool for Love, when Buffy is commenting on Giles' hesitancy to speak about the previous Slayers' Watchers' reactions to their deaths. Buffy: 'Unseemly? Love ya, but you Watchers can be such prigs sometimes.' Giles: (looking very uncomfortable) 'I was going to say 'painful'.' Silence.

And Buffy returns the feeling. In Checkpoint, Buffy goes along with the tests of the Watchers Council because they threatened to deport Giles. She tells him she can't lose him.

Giles has shown he'd do anything to keep from losing Buffy. I think part of the reason he killed Ben was to keep her heroic and merciful. (The other part being to save the world.) If Giles had let Ben live, as he said, Glory would have made Buffy regret not killing Ben when she could have. The next time she faced that type of ethical dilemma, it would be harder for her to make the 'heroic, merciful' decision. Maybe Buffy would then kill the 'harmless human' to save the world, but the cost to her would be a large part of what makes Buffy so special. Am I making sense?

I also have a dark confession to make. It ties in to 'Giles doesn't want to lose Buffy'. Giles learned to work with and get along with the returned Angel. I don't think he ever forgave him for the murder and the torture, and I do not blame Giles at all. (I haven't seen all of third season, so I can't be sure.) But until a couple weeks ago, except for that episode with the drugs on AtS, I had never seen Angelus in action. I rented and watched the 6 2nd season eps available in the US. I had known what happened. I had read synopses and scripts, but after watching those eps, I wanted to stake Angel. And I'm talking Angel in Revelations. Since I don't live in the Buffyverse, I was wanting Giles to do it. I wanted him to send Buffy on a job with Xander and Willow and then pay Angel a little visit during the day with a couple of stakes, a crossbow and a dustbuster. (And I love Angel, that 'big fluffy puppy with bad teeth.')

But he didn't. I guess he's a much better person than I am, despite his Ripper-ness.

Sorry for rambling.


[> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Rattletrap, 07:15:34 06/29/01 Fri

I've been lurking for a little while, but this group is too interesting not to post.

Great essay this week, on one of my favorite characters. Giles is one of the few characters on television today who can make an intellectual, academic librarian seem heroic and, dare we say it, even cool at times. BtVS recognizes more than most shows that knowledge is power. Giles is the one who invariably has the knowledge.

A couple of other great essays on this subject are: Grace DeCandido's piece "Giles: Hero Librarian" (I don't have the URL for this right now . . . can someone help me?) and William Wandless's "Undead Letters," from Slayage, vol.1 (www.slayage.tv)


[> [> Welcome, Rattletrap! Hope you stick around... ;o) -- Wisewoman, 08:32:46 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Cynthia, 13:27:54 06/29/01 Fri

" couple of other great essays on this subject are: Grace DeCandido's piece "Giles: Hero Librarian" (I don't have the URL for this right now . . . can someone help me?) and"


I don't know if it's the same piece since it has a different title but it is about Giles. I found it through www.slayage.tv, which you mentioned under Number 1 (as in edition). Hope this helps.


[> [> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles -- Rattletrap, 06:50:58 06/30/01 Sat

Thanx Cynthia, that's it. That piece has been reprinted dozens of times with different titles, but that's the one.


[> [> Re: 1st Anniversary Posting Party: Giles (o/t) -- LadyStarlight, 14:40:24 06/29/01 Fri

Thanks for posting the URL for Slayage. I hadn't heard of it before and it looks very interesting. Couldn't read as much as I wanted due to a small person wreaking havoc around me. ;)


[> Giles and Buffy -- Elizabeth, 23:14:21 07/01/01 Sun

I was just thinking about the Giles/Buffy and Giles/S.G. relationship when I read the posts on underage drinking below. One thing that's struck me about Giles in S. 4 & 5 is how unfatherly he becomes when relating to the kids about sex and alcohol. He's like "I don't see anything, I don't know anything, this is not my terrain."

Well, except for the Buffy/Angel moment in S. 2. But only because that had consequences for everyone.


[> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 00:15:59 07/02/01 Mon

Giles is like many parents in real life when is comes to things that they are uncomfortable speaking about, don't ask don't tell. Giles has fatherly feelings for Buffy, he has no fatherly control over her. He is content to let Buffy come into her own when it comes to life. This was reflected in a talk he had with Professor Walsh in A New Man.

Maggie: "I don't lecture from the textbook, but I'm glad she's inspired by the material. She's a bright girl. All she's really been lacking is encouragement in the academic setting."

Giles: "Well, well, I think it's best to let a young person find their own strengths. If, if you lead a child by the hand, they never find their own footing."

Maggie: "And if it's true about hiking, ergo it must be true about life?"

Giles: "That's not...I'm simply saying Buffy isn't the typical student. If you really got to know her, you'd find out she's a very unique girl. I hope you're not going to push her too-"

Maggie: "I think I do know her. And I have found her to be a unique woman."

Giles: "Woman. Of course. How wrong of me to choose my own word....."

Maggie: "She's very self-reliant, very independent...."

Giles: "That's what I-"

Maggie: "Which is not always a good thing. It can be unhealthy to take on adult roles too early. I suspect what I'm seeing is a reaction to the absence of a male role model."

Giles: "The absence of a-"

Maggie: "Buffy clearly lacks a stong father figure."

I feel that as Giles reacted to the authoritarian approach to child rearing in the way he did(The Dark Age)he feels that to stifle Buffy in the same way would be counterproductive. He also only sees himself as a father figure to Buffy only, he frequently will lash out at Xander for making the same mistakes Buffy has. In regards to sex and drinking, Giles only comments when he feels he needs to letting the person sort their lives out by experiencing life. He has warned Buffy on occasion, he has rarely ordered her around as she listens to her heart, even if she has to learn the hard way about a few things. Buffy has learned from mistakes, even if she has to make the same mistake a few times before wisdom sets in. Giles learned from his own mistakes what can happen if you get heavy handed with a young person. Maggie was a complete contol freak and you can see what happened to her.


[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 02:00:22 07/02/01 Mon

Good earlier stuff about Giles, but I still don't get the 'father figure' analogy, and this is only one of the many reasons why. Why call Giles Buffy's 'father' when: 1) he really isn't 2) he only does the 'best friend' parts of parenting anyway? Why not simply call him Buffy's friend and mentor? The analogy straineth to the breaking point.

Also I think it's telling that when Giles gets drunk later in "A New Man", what he's lamenting to Ethan about is that Maggie said Buffy didn't have a 'male role model', not a 'father figure'. They aren't the same thing. Giles always has kept scrupulously out of all the younger SG's lives, Buffy included (except where her personal life might impact upon her duty as The Slayer). That's how one deals with one's friends, not with one's children. I think he feels that he must play 'father figure' to Buffy when he thinks she might need it, but it doesn't come naturally to him and he would far rather relate to her as a friend.

This sometime lurker and always-Giles-fan is greatly enjoying the Giles-fest nonetheless.


[> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 04:04:31 07/02/01 Mon

It depends on what you consider the criteria for a father. Giles has taken over that role when he became the man that Buffy goes to when she needs help. It is why Giles got canned as a Watcher, if he didn't have "a fathers love for the child" he would have continued on with the test in "Helpless". He may be Buffy's Watcher, but he also has taken the place of Hank where Buffy is concerned. Hank bailed and Giles has taken his place. She confides in Giles in a way I suspect is not in the Watchers rule book. In Something Blue, even though under a spell, Buffy asked Giles to take the place of her father in her "wedding" to Spike. His talk to her in Spiral was the only goodbye he got before she was gone in The Gift...he wanted her to know how proud he was of her.

From the shooting script.

Buffy is gripping Giles' hand like a lifeline, trying not to completely fall apart. Giles is barely conscious.

Buffy: "I'm sorry."

Giles: "For what?"

Buffy: "We should have stayed. If we had, none of this--"

Giles: "Don't. You did what was necessary. What I've always admired."

Buffy: "Running away?"

Giles: "Being able to place your heart above all else. I'm so proud of you. You're everything a Watcher - everything I could have hoped for....

Giles may not be Buffys father, but how would you describe his involvement in her life? He didn't stay in the Library or Magic Shop, just a Watcher to report into. Giles became involved in Buffy's life in a way her father hasn't been for years. That is more than being just a mentor. Giles has been willing to die for his "charge". A Watcher, trains the slayer and documents her life and death. The Watcher is to remain remote, uninvolved, not close enough to care about the Slayer. Giles has not only gotten close, but involved in Buffy's life and well being. Also remember, when Joyce died it was Giles that took care of the arrangements with Buffy, her real father nowhere to be found. I do consider Giles a father figure to Buffy, no other description fits his involvement and love for the young girl he was originally sent to just "watch".


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 11:31:01 07/02/01 Mon

I became a fan of the show because of the second season Buffy-Giles relationship, and not because he was playing her father figure. What they had then, and what they still have, if you go below the surface of things, is a complex, fascinating friendship and partnership that suceeds despite and maybe even because of the age gap, the gender gap, the generational gap, the cultural gap between them.

In any case, Giles couldn't have been a successful Watcher to Buffy if the 'father figure' thing defined their relationship. With few exceptions, he's always been willing to step back and allow her to be the one to face the risks, make the decisions, be the one in command. (Tony Head, in a third season interview, when asked if anything was ever going to happen between Giles and Joyce stated that he didn't think that Giles could continue to send Buffy out against the forces of evil if he were her actual stepfather.)

BtVS is a feminist show, Buffy has been shown to be a strong, decisive character. So why the insistence that Giles be her 'father'? He's never played out the 'authority figure' part of that equation -- his strength is in his ability to support, which is the hallmark of a close friend. Plus casting Giles as Buffy's father figure inevitably dooms him to a dwindling role in Buffy's life and on the show. (Which may be happening anyway, but I refuse to accept that the writers can't reverse this until they actually write him out of the show.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 13:33:15 07/02/01 Mon

It still goes to what your criteria for a father is. I feel that Giles has become a father figure to Buffy in the absence of the real thing. The fact that he is so involved in her life is part of it, as well as his devotion to her that goes a long way past being her Watcher. It's all in how you personally see it. I've seen many situations were a father is way less involved in a child's life than Giles has been. To me, if Buffy needs comfort like when her mother died, it is Giles she goes to, I know he isn't her father, but in the Buffyverse family has become what you make it, not what you were born into.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 14:32:02 07/02/01 Mon

I agree about finding your family ties where you can, as long as the analogy isn't overstrained. I love the 'family feel' on the Angel show, for example, especially because nobody is going overboard trying to cast Angel as 'Dad'. Note that Wesley, as Watcher there, is actually allowed to function as a Watcher, rather than some family member surrogate. Giles could only stand to gain by getting back to his Watcher roots on BtVS.

And I love the close connection between Buffy and Giles too, but I don't like seeing it stereotyped as father and daughter. Partly because there's a lot of levels on which it doesn't function as such (even the most sensitive new age parent is still 'head of the household' vis a vis his children, whereas Buffy is clearly the 'head of the household' as far as the SG is concerned), but also because it's a dead end for any potential character development for Giles on the show.

And why does Giles have to be Buffy's surrogate father to be involved in her life, to care for her and support her? Xander and Willow fulfill some of the same functions as well, plus it's usually Xander who gives Buffy the proverbial parental 'kick in the ass' when she needs one. (Not to mention that in real life we are usually stuck with the family we were born with. Part of growing up is learning to accept that fact and learn to cope with the people we're stuck with as family.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Brian, 15:21:14 07/02/01 Mon

Giles serves the father role in many ways. However, he has enough experience in life to allow Buffy to find her own way, but he is always there to help her sort through her emotions and ideas to find a solution. A perfect example of this technique is the end of Lie to Me:

The last rays of the sun are glancing off the trees as Buffy stands at Ford's grave, Giles beside her.

BUFFY I don't know what I'm supposed to say.

GILES You don't need to say anything.

BUFFY It'd be simpler if I could just hate him. I think he wanted me to. I think it made it easier for him. Be the bad guy. The villain of the piece. But really, he was scared.

GILES I suppose he was.

BUFFY You known it's just, like, nothing's simple. I'm always trying to work it out. Who to hate, or love ... who to trust... it's like the more I know, the more confused I get.

GILES I believe that's called growing up.

BUFFY (little voice) I'd like to stop, then. Okay?

GILES I know the feeling.

BUFFY Well, does it ever get easy?

Ford BURSTS from the grave, a snarling VAMPIRE, and lunges at Buffy -- who plants a stake firmly in his chest. She doesn't even look as he explodes into dust.

GILES You mean life?

BUFFY Yeah. Does it get easy?

GILES What do you want me to say.

She thinks about it a moment.

BUFFY Lie to me.

GILES Yes. It's terribly simple.

As they start out of the graveyard:

GILES The good-guys are stalwart and true. The bad-guys are easily distinguished by their pointy horns or black hats and we always defeat them and save the day. Nobody ever dies...and everybody lives happily ever after.


BUFFY (O.S.) (with weary affection) Liar.

Plus, in context of The Gift, this coda is a wonderful foreshadowing of Buffy's final choice.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 16:27:40 07/02/01 Mon

I remember that one Brian. In Helpless, Giles went from authority figure, to father figure. In the beginning Buffy was telling Angel about her date for her birthday...

Angel: "Um, am I gonna see you this weekend? You, uh, you probobly have plans."

Buffy: "Right, birthday. Um, actually, I, I do have a thing."

Angel: "Oh, a thing. (trying to be cool) A date?"

Buffy: "(nods)"Nice attempt at casual. Actually, I do have a date.(steps closer)Older man. Very handsome. He likes it when I call him *Daddy*."

Angel: "(smiles)Huh, your father. (frowns) It is your father, right?"

Buffy: "He's taking me to the ice show. (Angel sighs with relief) Which should be big fun. I could use a little fun."

Buffy originally had plans with her biological father, until he blew her off because he was busy. Buffy then went to Giles to try to fill that emptiness...

Buffy: "You know, it's not just cartoon characters. They do pieces from operas and ballets. Brian Boitano, doing Carmen, but a lot of sophisticated people go."

Giles: (absently)"Yes, I think we should start with the grounding crystal again."

Buffy: "You know, it's usually something that families do together."

Giles: "Now, look very carefully for the tiny flaw at its core."

Buffy: "I-if someone were free, they'd take their daughters or thier student....or their Slayer. (Looks up to him hopefully)"

Buffy was looking for someone to fill the role her father had given up by his repeated absence. Giles was trying to prepare Buffy for the test. He was trying not to be close, something he just couldn't follow through with in the end. He helped Buffy and wanted to make up to her.

Giles:"(imploringly)You have to listen to me. Because I've told you this, the test isn invalidated. You will be safe now, I promise you. Now, whatever I have to do to deal with Kralick...and win back your trust...."

Giles went against his Watcher training and the council for his fatherly love of Buffy, he got fired for being too close having a *fathers love* for Buffy. I would not have considered him a father figure if the show hadn't been so specific in making it look that way. Helpless wasn't just about the test, it was about how life can test your values and priorities. Giles at first was a dutiful Watcher, by the end of the show he had manhandled Quentin, directly interrupted the test to help Buffy, and was faced with the truth of his relationship to the Slayer. Giles is a Watcher, but if he didn't have a fathers love for Buffy he would have never gotten as close as he did. Giles priority went from being an uninvolved teacher, to a very involved person in Buffys life.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 17:28:18 07/02/01 Mon

Buffy looked to Giles to step into her father's shoes in "Helpless" only because her real father had to opt out. Giles was her second choice, and we were never given any other indication that they ever did anything after that of a father-daughter social type activity. (Giles did mention 'ice cream' in "The Prom" but Buffy bowed out on that one.)

"Father's love" was Quentin Traver's phrase for Giles' motivations. We've never heard from Giles on the subject. Is Travers really an expert on human motivation? Plus I expect that that's exactly what Giles was being tested for, because having a 'father's love' for his charge could be a definite liability in a Watcher, in that it could impact his willingness to send her out to fight the evils of the world. They assumed that because Giles put his loyalties to Buffy above his loyalties to the Watchers, that he loved her like a father loves his child. They were wrong. Giles loves Buffy, but that doesn't get in the way of his being a proper Watcher to her, of enabling her to fulfill her 'sacred duty' as protector of the world.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 18:18:46 07/02/01 Mon

We will have to go our seperate ways on this issue, the show has made it clear that Giles has a parental type influence on Buffy. As a Watcher he would have been more like an observer who documents her activity, not getting close or personally involved. Giles has taken chances for Buffy. I see him as a father figure, you do not.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 18:35:36 07/02/01 Mon

If the show had made it clear that Giles has had a parental type influence on Buffy, we wouldn't be having this disagreement. I'm arguing from the text, as much as you are.

Giles had become a mentor/advisor and a friend and a partner for Buffy, the last two of which take him outside the boundaries of the traditional Watcher-Slayer relationship. What is more is that he has surrendered that one aspect of the traditional Watcher-Slayer relationship that could be seen as parental: He sees the Watcher as subordinate to the Slayer, whereas traditional Watcher doctrine would have it the other way around. Yes he advises and supports her, as a good father (or friend) would do, but he doesn't presume upon their relationship to infringe upon her authority. Which isn't parental at all, when you get right down to it.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 19:11:21 07/02/01 Mon

"Yes he advises her and supports her, as a good father(or friend) would do, but he doesn't presume upon their relationship to infringe upon her authority. Which isn't parental at all, when you get right down to it."

Actually I think that can be very parental. Buffy is twenty now and her relationship has evolved with Giles. He was more involved when she was younger but has given way to her judgement as she has gotten more mature. Checkpoint had to be his proudest time, when Buffy turned the tables on the Council. As we age our relationships with friends and family changes. To me it goes full circle, your parents guide you to adulthood when they let you make your own life, then as they get older you may have to in turn become a parent of your parent. Giles has certainly been a mentor(trusted guide, teacher)but his other actions of a personal nature still suggest to me that he took on a parental role. He didn't replace Hank, he was just there when Hank no longer had much contact with Buffy. Giles is still very dual natured, he is Giles the Watcher/Ripper, Giles the mentor/Father figure to Buffy all these roles overlap and depending on the situation you may see more of one than the other. In The Gift, Giles the Watcher had a Ripper moment when he killed Ben. In Spiral he had a parental moment with Buffy when he told her how proud he was of her. If it weren't for Giles flexible nature we would have never gotten the moments we have between Watcher and Slayer, he would have been too busy writing her activities into a journal to send to the Council.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 19:41:02 07/02/01 Mon

Buffy is the authority figure in the Buffyverse. Hers has always been the last word, but even more so since Angel turned in S2. Giles may argue with her (although he frequently keeps his disagreements to himself unless asked), but, with one exception, when push comes to shove he defers to Buffy's decision. The only exception to this, and this was an extreme point with the fate of the world at risk, was when he strangled Ben.

And you can't be proud of your friends, your students? You have yet to point out to me the aspects of their relationship that makes it especially parent-child rather than friend-friend and/or mentor-student. I've never denied the special connection between them, I'm only pointing out that their relationship is far more complex than, and frequently doesn't pace, a parent/child relationship.

Parents do frequently become their children's friends as the relationships mature, but Giles was never Buffy's actual father. He first met her when she was almost a young adult; he had to throw the traditional rule book away with her and learn to work with her. From the beginning they had a partnership of almost-equals. His few forays (Reptile Boy, Band Candy, The Freshman) into parental-authority figure territory were failures. He's always done best with her working with her as her partner. He refused to intrude on or even comment on her personal life in the early years except where her work might be affected. He never questioned her growing involvement with Angel, even when he might have prudently done so.

Parenthetically, I'm also going to argue that the 'Ripper' moment in "The Gift" wasn't a Ripper moment at all. That was Giles The Watcher acting there, to protect 'this sorry world'. (Notice that Giles put his glasses on before strangling Ben? Ripper always removes his glasses before kicking ass.) There are many facets to Giles' personality, but he has them pretty well integrated.

Sorry to be difficult, but I'm an incorrigible Giles watcher.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 19:52:23 07/02/01 Mon

I took the putting on of the glasses to be indicative of how hands on his killing of Ben was. In his other fights he took off his glasses as it was an active beating, such as what he did to Ethan in Halloween(get rid of glasses in case they fall off in confrontation). With Ben he put on his glasses as if doing detailed work, focusing on the task. Remember the Ripper part of Giles surfaces in his violent moments but is only part of Giles, the Watcher part giving focus to the Ripper, so any action isn't random and sloppy. We are closer than you may think on Giles, I just see that father part of Giles he never got to be in real life has been transferred to Buffy. He is still her guide, her counsellor, but he has a fatherly love for Buffy that has influenced his actions as a Watcher.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 20:55:26 07/02/01 Mon

ASH is a very methodical actor, I've found, which means he usually knows exactly what his character is feeling behind the small gestures. Giles didn't need the glasses to strangle Ben, any more than he needed them when he gave Glory's minion a little 'incentive'. When he takes them off, it's usually a prelude to him getting violent, which makes the Ben strangling an anomaly. I think the gesture meant more than just allowing him to see better. He was donning his Watcher's executioner's mask, because he instinctively was flinching from what had to be done. That's what tells me that we were seeing Giles acting as The Watcher there.

I never thought we were that far on the subject of Giles, BTW, but I try to get people to look beyond the "surrogate father" role for him. It's there at times, I'll admit, but it's by no means the sum or even most of who Giles is, or even of who he is to Buffy. I've never thought of them as parent-child myself, (Buffy's much too strong and dominant a figure in my mind), but then I've never thought it a desirable thing that Buffy have a perfect Dad. (And really, how on earth could Hank, even with the best of intentions, devote himself 24-7 to Buffy to the extent Giles has?) Joyce was a good, if sometimes clueless, mother, and what more should any of us ask of a parent?

I worry especially, because to me the best evidence that the writers do see Giles as a father figure is the fact that they appear to have been whittling down his role, parceling out the tasks that were once things he did for the group (the magic, the research, training with Buffy): in other words allowing Buffy to grow up and become totally independent from him. I happen to think that Giles and Buffy have always had a strong enough friendship and partnership to survive her growing up, but Joss dearly loves his metaphors, even when they're creeping past the breaking point. The next season will tell, I suppose, whether Giles is primarily her father surrogate (and increasingly irrelevant to her life) or her friend (in which case their partnership can continue to flourish).


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Wiccagrrl, 21:29:55 07/02/01 Mon

See, my thing is...I think he can be a father figure and still be very relevant in a twenty-year-old's life- especially a twenty-year-old who happnens to have just lost her mother and is going to have the duty (I assume) of raising her teen-age sister. He'd just be the father figure of a twenty/twenty-one-year-old and not a 16-year-old. I get the sense that people who dislike this phrasing dislike it because they think it's limiting in how important he is and implies that she'll outgrow him. When I use that phrase, I don't mean that at all. I do agree that their relationship goes beyond just parent-child, but to me "father figure" can very much encompass all the things that are best about Buffy/Giles- mentor/student, friend, father/daughter love, protectiveness, pride, even irritation with each other at times. And those relationships can last far beyond the age of maturity.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 22:03:54 07/02/01 Mon

You know, people keep telling me this, that the parent-child relationship can continue to be strong when the child reaches adulthood, and I believe you in real life. Problem is BtVS is all about metaphor and coming-of-age, and the teachers and parents are left behind in these stories. Plus I see no sign that Joss is treating the story as anything but that.

In any case, as you say, real life parent-child bonds that survive into adulthood are the ones that develop into friendships. Giles is at best a surrogate father, which means he is only a father to Buffy as long as she relates to him as one. As soon as she stops, he ipso facto is no longer a surrogate father but does (one would hope) continue to be a friend.

In any case what I always liked best about the Buffy-Giles relationship is the way they usually tend to relate to one another as equals. Not the warm fluffy, "I could never be disappointed in you" Giles affirmations, but the "So after all this time it turns out we do have something in common. Which, apart from being a little weird... is kind of okay" moments of connection and understanding. Requires a little more from Buffy than basking in Giles' admirations. I loved when he yelled at her in "The Gift" and I loved that she stood her ground regardless. That is an adult relationship, and it gives me hope for the future.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Wiccagrrl, 22:40:37 07/02/01 Mon

Humm...I think part of the problem may be one of definitions and semantics here. I definitely see "father figure" role as going well beyond the adult-literal child "mold". I also don't think that the parent/adult child (or surrogate parent/adult child) relationship morphs completely into a friendship of equals, although that's part of it. But there is a dynamic there that, in my eyes, is a bit different than simply friends. And I'm not talking about it being an authority figure thing, cause that does, to some extend, get "outgrown"- it's more an issue of the type of respect and support and advice. I don't know if I'm explaining this very well.

As for the Buffy/Giles interactions, I love the "I'm so proud of you" moments, but also love the "turns out you're a person" moments too. Both are important and good.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 23:35:35 07/02/01 Mon

Well, yes semantics does have to play an important part in our definitions of 'surrogate parent', because it is an artificial concept. I can point to my blood parents and say, with much certainty, that they are indeed my mother and father. What makes a 'surrogate father-child' relationship, however, especially in a relationship where both people are adults, or near adults? The term is going to mean different things to different people, so the nature of the relationship is always going to be in the eyes of the beholder. It comes down to what the two people in question think that it is, and even they might not agree. (I suspect that S5 Buffy thinks of Giles at times as her surrogate father and at other times not, but I also suspect that while Giles thinks that he ought to be a surrogate father to Buffy he doesn't really see himself as one. Until the characters see fit to inform us, we can only judge by how they interact.)

FWIW, I think that Joss never took the notion as literally as a lot of the fans seem to do. The term of choice, when the actual Buffy characters see fit to label Giles at all, is 'patriarch'. Which I actually have no problems with at all, because 'patriarch' in its broadest terms means the male head of a clan or tribe. He's in a position of respect vis a vis the others, he's the elder and the voice of experience, but he's not the voice of authority. (The SG being a matriarchy at heart.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Cynthia, 04:42:33 07/03/01 Tue

Well, no matter how many aspects this relationship has, Giles has shown that he is willing to protect Buffy and Dawn with his life. Something, from what little I have seen of the Watchers, other Watchers wouldn't even think about doing.

Giles see Buffy as a human being and worthy of being treated as such. Something the other watchers seem to ignore. They seem to treat Buffy as a servent or slave in that they want to deny her as much of her free choice as possible.

The fact that he gives her such respect and, therefore, freedom, is one of the reasons, I believe, she as matured as a Slayer as much as she has.

In turn, when Buffy let go of some of the her boxed-in concepts regarding Spike, resulting in her treating him "like a man" is when Spike had the most growth. He, too, had the freedom to make a choice as opposed to just "acting like everyone, even himself, expected him to because of who he was preceived to be. So, Giles has had an indirect influence on Buffy's relationship with Spike, and I assume all the others.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 21:50:38 07/02/01 Mon

I don't know if you heard, but ASH did supposedly ask to work less in season six. I hear he will be in the first few eps then appear less. With the theme next year being "Oh grow up" it makes sense that he back off and let the characters do just that.

I did notice all the stuff with the glasses and taking fighting into consideration taking them off always made sense(no breakage)he also wiped his hands with his handkerchief after roughing someone up(after Ben he may need to wipe the blood off). I find it fun watching to see what he will do next. When he told Spike to get lost and get over Buffy the vampire noticed it wasn't just a stuttering librarian he was dealing with. Giles only wants the gang to see his light side(made the girls turn around when he convinced the minion to talk), but it's still there waiting for the right moment to surface. He no longer uses violence to, like in Band Candy, just rip someone off, he uses it as a last resort. When he killed Ben he felt it was the only option he had to keep everyone safe. The process of putting on the glasses for the job indicated to me what a close up and personal killing it was. Ben was no stranger to Giles, he knew the doctor to be the man who helped patch him up in Spiral. Giles also knew that Ben had no control over Glorys actions, if she were ever to surface again. Giles made the choice that he felt Buffy and everyone else shouldn't have to shoulder the guilt for.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 22:43:11 07/02/01 Mon

Yes, I did know, thanks. I'm usually a lurker here, so I was unsure as to how 'spoiled' the board was.

In fact, recent comments by ASH indicate to me that his decision to drop to recurring status was at least in part motivated by the fact that he simply hasn't been given much to do on BtVS the last two years. He's far too classy to make any public complaints about the situation, but at a convention earlier this year he did comment to the effect that 'Giles isn't as important to Buffy as he once was', and ASH also commented in a more recent interview that he'd been told by Joss that BtVS was about Buffy, not Giles, (Joss leading up to the new series which would be about Giles), which leads me to believe that ASH had at that time been voicing his concerns about his dwindling role on BtVS. In any case, ASH made significant sacrifices for five years to be a regular on BtVS, but the role of Giles as it has developed over the last two years didn't offer him much of an acting challenge or provide him with much incentive to stay. As far as I'm concerned, Joss and ME can bring the situation around, make Giles an important character to the show again. Faith was a powerhouse of a recurring character S3. But IMO they've got to drop the 'father figure' analogy, or let Giles develop beyond it, to make him a dynamic part of the cast again. Joss has likened the core four to the Fantastic Four, and he's said that he thinks that they are all essential to the mix. I'm waiting to see if he means that, or if he's too attached to his metaphors to give them up.

I'm looking forward to the spin-off (knock on wood that it gets off the ground and that I get to see it) in any case. Six episodes could give us more Giles character development than we've seen in the last 44 episodes of BtVS.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Wiccagrrl, 22:59:58 07/02/01 Mon

Well, here's a thought. If the "Oh, grow up" metaphor is in effect next year, yeah, there may be a tad less Giles. But...I think there's every chance that after some time to struggle with their new adult roles, Giles will very much get re-intergrated into the group (maybe being a regular again in season seven? Or at least having a meatier role?)It'll be interesting to watch.

It would work with the father figure metaphor, as well, because kids often do need to pull away for a bit at that age before re-establishing a more adult relationship with their parents (or in this case surrogate parent)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 00:08:33 07/03/01 Tue

I'm still not on board with Giles' status as 'surrogate parent', (and Tony Head, in the early years at least, said that he saw Giles as more of an uncle-figure than a father-figure to the Scoobies and I don't think he ever changed his thinking on that point), but otherwise I pretty much agree. The 'grow up' theme does go hand in hand with the young adult breaking away from the guidance of her elders to try out new things on her own, in the process repeating many of the same mistakes her elders did when they were young. (Doesn't sound like Giles would've have much to do S6 even if ASH hadn't decided to go to recurring.)

My best case S6 scenario, actually, would be a major Buffy-Giles conflict ending in her essentially firing him as her Watcher. He leaves for England, she deals with things on her own for much of the season, grows up some, discovers that she still needs a Watcher for some things even though she is an adult now. (Even the best of adults can't shoulder the whole weight of the world on her shoulders.) He discovers that he can have a life beyond Watcherdom. They reconcile, end of S6, into a newer, more mature partnership.

That's me, playing the optimist again.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Malandanza, 06:50:11 07/03/01 Tue

"I'm still not on board with Giles' status as 'surrogate parent', (and Tony Head, in the early years at least, said that he saw Giles as more of an uncle-figure than a father-figure to the Scoobies and I don't think he ever changed his thinking on that point), but otherwise I pretty much agree. The 'grow up' theme does go hand in hand with the young adult breaking away from the guidance of her elders to try out new things on her own, in the process repeating many of the same mistakes her elders did when they were young. (Doesn't sound like Giles would've have much to do S6 even if ASH hadn't decided to go to recurring.)"

I agree that Giles is not a father-figure in any meaningful sense of the phrase. He is a Watcher first -- as The Gift pointed out. If it means sending Buffy to her death, so be it. There is not much room in a true father/daughter relationship for this utilitarian mentality. I do see the relationship more as a mentor/student relationship. Also. consider how Giles subconsciously views his relationship with Buffy in the Restless dream sequences -- he is definitely not fatherly.

Buffy, however, does seem to see Giles as a father-figure. Either you or Rufus mentioned the skating rink scene which is, I think, the best example of his refusal to become more involved in Buffy's life and her desire to have Giles play more of a role. Also remember that Buffy asked Giles to give her away in her marriage to Spike.

Giles has had many opportunities to offer advice to Buffy and the Scoobies -- to help guide them through the difficulties of adolescence -- and has generally failed to assist them. Professor Walsh was a brilliant (if evil) psychologist. I see no reason to doubt her diagnosis of Buff's personality development. Besides, in the Buffyverse, evil people have the greatest insights into human nature (think about the Mayor's advice to Buffy and Angel, Spike's insights, Faith's remarkable perspicacity, etc.)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 15:14:55 07/03/01 Tue

I do remember Buffy asking Giles to give her away in her *marriage* to Spike. In Helpless Buffy made overtures to Giles to fill a void left by her father. It never said that Hank was a bad man but a busy one. Giles at first ignored Buffy because he was in the process of filling her full of drugs for that council test. He was trying to stay removed from the subject. By the end of the show he had been fired for having a "fathers love for the child". Now, Giles may be her teacher, her mentor, but he does love Buffy like a father would, that doesn't mean he replaces her father. I think it's normal for a girl Buffys age to reach out to Giles to fill the role of her absent father. He is there all of the time, doesn't make Hank a bad man. I would rather see Buffy reach out to Giles than do some of the many things younger people can do when they feel alone(drug abuse ect). Giles is Buffys mentor, friend, father figure. He is also her Watcher, something he never forgets.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 16:17:16 07/03/01 Tue

I do notice that some fans have in the past criticized Giles for 1) not doing more for Faith, 2) not doing something about Xander's home situation, 3) not doing more about Willow's potentially dangerous experiments in magic. In other words, they expected Giles to take a parental role with these young people, and felt disgruntled when he didn't. Thing is, Giles never undertook to play the parent to any one of these characters. He consistently interacts with the younger characters like peers. If they ask for his help, he gives it, with great insight usually, but if they don't he doesn't presume to intrude on their personal lives. Right or wrong, that is Giles.

As for the "Something Blue" wedding, it's not unusual for a woman to ask a close male friend to give her away at a wedding if her father isn't available for some reason. (And I doubt if Buffy wanted to have to explain Spike to Hank anyway.)

Buffy tends to turn to Giles as a father figure only when she's feeling very vulnerable. In "The Prom" she turned down Giles' offer of ice cream: In other words he (tentatively) was offering to step in as a father might, and she told him that it wasn't necessary. Her refusal didn't seem to bother him. The extent of the fathering that I've seen this last year were a couple of pats on the back from Giles, Giles doing the paperwork after Joyce's death (again something that a friend would've done), and Buffy trying to get Giles to take over the parenting of Dawn (he refuses).

And again, if Giles had a "father's love" for Buffy, he wouldn't be able to function as her Watcher. How many fathers could, consistently, resist stepping in to take on the dangers their children face? Why wouldn't we see Giles doing more of this, if he had a parent's instinct to protect? The love is there, but it is a friend's love. The only time we ever saw him trying to step in to spare her from the danger was "Prophecy Girl", and that was when she was facing her prophecized death.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 16:41:15 07/03/01 Tue

Giles did step in to help Buffy in Helpless. In the Freshman in season four he at first told her to start to deal with her problems herself, only to show up at the end to say he couldn't help himself he had to help her. The fact that he goes and gets involved in Primevil, The Gift, ect. goes against what his duties as a watcher entail. He is to Watch, not get close, get involved, but he has. If you don't like the term father figure just ignore it. I'm giving you my opinion on what I feel the situation is about using the show transcripts and my perception of the situation. You may not agree with what I say and that's okay.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 17:28:05 07/03/01 Tue

Giles set Buffy up for her peril in "Helpless", so he was kind of morally obligated to keep an eye out for her. And I'm not arguing that he doesn't back her up as a Watcher. That's not the same thing as parental backup. The mistake Giles made in "The Freshman" was that he tried to act like a father might (encourage his charge to become indepedent). But he's not her father, he's her Watcher and he owes her his technical support. That he rushes in to help in the end demonstrates that he recognized his mistake.

That's why Tony Head said that he didn't think it would be a good idea for Giles and Joyce to hook up, because as her father, Giles couldn't bring himself to send Buffy out into the perils he regularily has to send her out to face. He'd be constantly having to struggle with the impulse to do the patrols, to face the battles, himself.

The Watchers weren't wholly unwarranted in worrying about this issue. The Slayer has to be allowed to perform her duty, and the Watcher has to be able to step back and allow her to do it. Where they made their mistake was in assuming that because Giles cared about Buffy -- what Quentin termed a 'fathers love' -- he couldn't perform his job. They were wrong.

And you're making a good case for your side using canon, but I am referring to the scripts too. That we can have an intelligant debate about the subject indicates, to me anyway, that there is room for disagreement. The B-G relationship is not nearly as cut and dried as a lot of people seem to think.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Glasses -- Humanitas, 05:21:48 07/03/01 Tue

I think that removing the glasses is not necessarily an indicator of voilence, as such, but more of intimidation. ASH has some very intense eyes, when he wants to, and removing the glasses allows him to use them like a weapon. I'm thinking in particular of the scene in IWMTLY where he tells Spike off. In that moment, I feared Giles.

By contrast, there was no need to intimidate Ben. In fact, Giles seemed to feel bad for the poor boy. That didn't stop him from doing his duty, but he didn't feel the need to intimidate.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Glasses -- Rufus, 15:16:38 07/03/01 Tue

Whatever his reason, it made for a good scene.....something we always get from ASH.......:):):):)


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 17:09:24 07/02/01 Mon

So how does 'father' differ from mentor or friend in this respect, since this is exactly the same sort of advice a mentor or friend would give to Buffy?

Note that in the "Lie to Me" scene Buffy already knew the answer herself, she wasn't turning to Giles for any real guidance. Giles was commiserating with her about the moral complexity of the adult world.


[> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Solitude1056, 19:39:52 07/02/01 Mon

Giles didn't start out as a father figure, I'd say that's pretty much a given. He started out intending to be an Authority Figure of some sort, going on the Council's tradition that a Watcher is supposed to be running the show, and the Slayer just goes and slays.

It's hard to categorize the B/G relationship, because it's too easy to say father-figure, not-father-figure. The complexity, to me, revolves around the fact that Giles is not a parent. I don't mean that he's not a father figure, but that he's not a parent. I'm a non-parent myself, but I've had relationships with people who've had children, and it can be rough. As adults, we have several patterns we use for developing a relationship, and usually those boil down to friends and lovers. If we're from a family with multiple children, then there may also be a pattern for sibling relationships. But until you're thrust into a parental relationship, you really have no more clue than you would if you were an only child trying to grok the nature of a sibling relationship. You can come close, but there's always going to be that deep down recognition that you are not a parent, just as the only child will always know that s/he is not a sibling.

To make matters even more difficult, there are various types of parental styles, from authoritarian to laissez-faire. And on top of that, the relationship itself evolves as those in it also evolve. My relationship with my own father swung from authoritarian to verging on laissez-faire, depending on the circumstances of my rebellion and the situation we were in. On top of that, the relationship has further evolved as I've grown older - thus I can't say that Giles fulfills Buffy's adolescent requirements for a father figure. He doesn't enforce curfew, he doesn't lay down the law about sex & drugs - and the one time he came close to doing so, it was not only an unmitigated disaster, but he & Joyce proceeded to demonstrate their own latent adolescence thanks to the band candy. Any chance he might've had of shifting into an outright parental figure was blown at that point, once Buffy had gotten a firsthand glimpse of just how much boy still hides inside the man.

However, the relationship between Buffy and Giles relates very closely to parent/child relationship if you pretend, for a minute, that Buffy is actually in her late 20's or older. Her independence, self-reliance, and self-integrity are respected by the parent, who acknowledges her self-authority to govern herself and her life, and lets her do just that. Giles doesn't intrude on areas that he considers Buffy's domain, as the master of her own destiny. He voices his contradictions when necessary, but like any parent of an adult child, recognizes that he no longer has the ability or need to enforce those arguments upon her, if he ever did.

Short of having been there to change her infant diapers, Giles is as close to father figure as a person can get, when the father figure is a single non-parental man who's introduced into her life when she's already into adolescence. In that sense, Giles also has the benefit of not knowing that Buffy wrote on the walls at age 5 or any other scrapes that a parent remembers and tallies, however unconciously. He's able to interact with her as a young adult, and reframes a parental tendency into the closest framework he can manage, which is a teacher/friend.

So I'd say, he's a father figure because he fulfills many of the requirements that young adults have in their parent(s). He's not a father, no, and will never be. But he comes pretty close, while stretching across a lot of different aspects of his personality. In sum? Yup, once again I'm left marveling at Joss' ability to create complex characters that defy black & white categories.


[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 20:09:43 07/02/01 Mon

Giles wouldn't do well with little children, they would be too chaotic for him(he had enough of that in his youth). His reaction to an evening with cookie dough, boy talk, and Dawn was enough to cause nervous collapse. If you remember in Restless we got a glimpse of what part of Giles sees Buffy as, petulant child. His little dose of Band Candy resulted in he and Joyce checking out the paint job on a police car.....hardly dignified. But it's interesting that in a way he almost became a step-father.....the relationship didn't last past the effect of the candy. When Buffy brought up the fact that he had sex with her mother didn't he walk into a tree? Not only does Joss create complex characters, but he also shows how complex family relations can be. Giles is no good at the authoritarian approach to child rearing as he saw what he did as a result of the pressure it can cause. In season four I saw that Giles became almost an empty nest parent in that Buffy didn't seem to need him as much any more. He floundered that whole year only becoming more secure with his life when he got the Magic Box in season five. I suspect that in Season six he may just feel his presence is no longer required for Buffy and will begin to get his own *gig* seperate from Buffy.


[> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 21:43:47 07/02/01 Mon

Good points about real life parent-adult child relationships. But why force the metaphor here? (Ignoring for the moment the apparent fact that Joss likes his metaphors.) What does it mean that Giles is 'pretty close' to being a father to a young adult? Okay, so real life young adult/parent relationships are essentially friendships at their best. So why not skip the metaphorical hemming and hawing and call a friendship a friendship, especially when the show has seen fit to give Buffy all the real power in the relationship? Giles isn't, and never has been, Buffy's father. He never functioned as an authoritative/disciplinarian force in Buffy's life, except by proxy (never used) for the Watcher's Council. He's her friend, sometime mentor, sometime advisor, sometime partner in the battle against evil.

The father-figure metaphor is razor thin, worn away in places, and it has resulted in dumb Giles' acts like his telling Buffy to go solve her own problems in "The Freshman" when he thought she needed a nudge out of the nest, in his state of perpetual uselessness in S4-5, even while Wesley was proving very useful backup to Angel doing the exact same sorts of things that Giles used to do for Buffy pre-S4. (Duh. Giles is Buffy's Watcher, not her father. He's supposed to provide her with technical backup. The writers seem to have forgotten this.) I won't blame Giles if he decides to opt for his own gig in the future, but it's not as if he's been given a whole lot to do in the way of helping Buffy out recently. This isn't something they had to do to Giles, because Giles and Buffy do have a multi-faceted relationship. I hope the writers turn it around, but I haven't been real happy about the prospects lately.


[> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Rufus, 21:58:16 07/02/01 Mon

Now if we have to talk Wesley then we have to remember that he didn't help much until he went against Councils orders and directly helped in G2(won't go into how quick he went down). When Wesley helps Angel he is an ex-watcher doing more than just research. Both Giles and Wesley went against Council orders when they directly participated in the hands on battling. Wesley is another interesting character that has gone from academic-snob-fraid of his own shadow-screams like a girl- Council mouthpiece. He shares something with Giles, he has gotten close to the battle and become attached to those involved. I feel that the Council very much prefers the Watchers to remain distant, uninvolved in the actual fight type of people. Both Giles and Wesley paid for not following orders.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Giles and Buffy -- Coral Cat, 00:32:43 07/03/01 Tue

The real parental/authority figures in the Buffyverse are the Council of Watchers. Wesley's actual father appears to be a personification of that kind of authority: Stern, authoritarian, demanding, emotionally unattached. Both Giles and Wesley were once part of that order, but are now outcasts and rebels.

You can see Giles still at odds with his classical Watcher's training in "Restless": He starts out by trying to hypnotize Buffy speaking words of the traditional roles of men and women (shades of "Helpless"), moves to the stern paternal taskmaster of little girl Buffy in the carnival scene, moves beyond that to the crypt (a metaphorical death of that Watcher?) and to the Bronze with a gig of his own. He finds his watch (his calling?) again, just before the First Slayer metaphorically cuts out his brain. That seems to imply (IMO anyway) a dramatic shift in his relationship with The Slayer.

Giles has been trying to come to terms with what being a Watcher really means (beyond the traditional definition of the calling) ever since he was fired (well actually ever since he met Buffy), but he still doesn't seem to know for certain what a Watcher should be to The Slayer. His relationship with Buffy is a dynamic work in progress. He's tried being father, taskmaster, friend, teacher, partner, uncle, and everything in between. The relationship is all of that, and none of that. I don't known that they'll ever settle into one easily defined relationship, and I actually hope they don't. It's still, even after two seasons with Giles on the sidelines, one of the most complex man-woman relationships on television.


[> [> [> [> [> [> No one thing -- Solitude1056, 09:37:35 07/03/01 Tue

Agreed, and good points all. My argument was just that when it's an adult male, dealing with an adolescent easily 24 years his junior, there's a limited number of patterns for developing a relationship. "Friend" just doesn't work that well, in some degrees, since the young adult's experience just isn't going to give her a basis for meshing with someone who's seen a lot more. He may be able to provide some friendship for her, but it'll be more difficult in the opposite direction. In that respect, Giles takes on - as best he can, given his lack of knowledge - a fatherly dynamic, though I'd think it's more like the masculine version of a "maiden aunt" - someone without children and no practical knowledge of dealing with children, who nonetheless loves the child to some extent and thus forms a relationship with the child like, and unlike, a parental one... and also like and unlike a friendship among equals - because the two people (aunt and child) aren't equals. One is an adult. One's not.

As the two characters have progressed, and one has started growing up, the equality of the relationship has begun to level out. Giles is better able to deal with Buffy now that he's been inoculated against her adolescent tendencies, and she's better able to accept his fuddy-dud leanings. This is not a relationship that qualifes as what most people would call a friendship, in some ways: you don't see Buffy and Giles hanging out a lot, and he even remarks that she rarely asks him how he's doing until her freshman year starts. Olivia is a friend/lover to Giles; Joyce was a friend. Buffy is something else.

So I'd argue that if you asked Buffy what Giles is to her, then friend, mentor, teacher, partner would all be in there, but she may also say that he's her "other father." (I know several children of divorce who use this phrase to describe close family friends who've stood in as a father figure when needed, in various ways.) And if you asked Giles, he may also use the various other descriptions, but he's also shown in word and deed that he considers her the daughter he's never had.

I don't think it's a metaphor... I think it's just another handle for understanding a complex and wonderful friendship between two people a generation apart who don't have blood to come between them or tie them together. We can search the Giles/Buffy interaction for a month of sundays and find examples for just about any pattern of interacting that we wanted. Joss made it patently clear that the Scoobies consider themselves family, so IMO that makes the father-daughter element a major aspect of that - but not the only aspect. That's all.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No one thing -- Rufus, 15:26:48 07/03/01 Tue

Yes, I agree with you Sol. I have three step-children and they have called some of the people in their lives other than their father, Dad. Giles I would describe as an uncle type to the other Scoobies, but because the show has specifically made reference to father and Giles relationship to Buffy is much closer I consider that he has been a father figure to Buffy. That doesn't mean that "father" is the only role he has. Giles is also her Watcher and he never forgets his duty to the world as a whole. I wonder if he ever thought he would end up so close to the girl he was sent to "watch and train"?


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: No one thing -- Coral Cat, 16:46:11 07/03/01 Tue

Joss has been on the fence about whether the Scoobies are a real family or not. For all the talk about your real family being the ones closest to you, when push came to shove Buffy's commitment in "The Gift" was to her blood family, Dawn. When Giles offered to help after Dawn slashed herself in an earlier episode, Buffy told him that it was a 'family' matter, meaning herself, Dawn, and Joyce. Blood does matter in the Buffyverse, although I'm not sure to what extent. In a show about vampire slaying, it has to have some powerful significance.

And again, I think Joss takes the 'father figure' metaphor far less literally than a lot of the fans do. It makes a convenient handle, especially for pitching an episode or hanging a metaphor on, but I think it's counterproductive to get too attached to the labels. (Especially when overuse of the label starts hurting one of the characters, but I've been through that rant already.) Sure first season, Giles was the 'stuffy British guy who knows all the occult stuff'. Where would the show be if the writers had stuck with that characterization?

Buffy is coming into her adulthood, the show is a coming-of-age story, if the writers want to keep Giles a part of that story they need to let him leave what ever existed of the 'father-figure' trappings behind. The writers have already pretty much abandoned the 'father figure' anyway. If Giles has any active place now in Buffy's life he needs to be as something other than that.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> How about... -- Malandanza, 06:39:25 07/04/01 Wed

"And again, I think Joss takes the 'father figure' metaphor far less literally than a lot of the fans do"

When I think back to the Thanksgiving episode, I recall Buffy sitting at the head of the table (opposite Giles). Others have mentioned that Buffy is the "head of the household," and I agree. She has often been both the father and mother figure to the Scoobies. They look to her for both support and guidance and tend to flounder a bit when she is not around. So where does that leave Giles? The grandfather figure?

I suggest that since season 3 there has been more of a (strictly non-sexual) spousal relationship between Buffy and Giles. They are essentially equals (although lately Giles has seemed more of a junior partner). Giles' concern is for Buffy -- not her extended family. So I would place Giles in the role of "childless stepmother" -- someone who tolerates her stepchildren (Xander, Anya, Cordelia, Willow) but would be happier if they were all sent to a boarding school.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> boarding school... LOL! -- Solitude1056, 07:03:09 07/04/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Oh, no! -- Marie, 07:06:26 07/04/01 Wed

So I would place Giles in the role of "childless stepmother"

Now I have this vision of Giles in drag! Heeelp!


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> No kidding............LOL.............. -- Rufus, 13:13:44 07/04/01 Wed


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How about... -- Coral Cat, 19:48:24 07/04/01 Wed

LOL! "Childless stepmother" is an interesting image. I think Giles is genuinely fond of the others, however. A lot of the sniping between him and Xander seems to have an underlining affection to it, and he was genuinely distressed when he thought Willow was dead in "Doppelgangland".

Again, I like the term "patriarch" for Giles' function in the SG, keeping in mind that Buffy is the matriarch, and that this is a "matriarchy". A lot of the Buffy-Giles scenes during S4 and S5 had a definite domestic feel to them. I think of Giles as the tribal elder. (Uncle might not still be too far off even now.) In a lot of ways, the SG is better conceptualized as a tribe or clan than as a family. Even though Buffy is younger than Giles, she is still clearly the head of that clan. Her Slayer lineage gives her that power.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How about... -- Rufus, 21:24:49 07/04/01 Wed

To heck with terms....stick around for a helping of Riley from OnM tomorrow.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: How about... -- Coral Cat, 02:43:20 07/05/01 Thu

Thanks for the invitation! I like Riley, so I'll definitely be driving by.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Sorry got the date wrong it's Angelus this week -- Rufus, 02:59:46 07/05/01 Thu

Still drive by.....you can't go wrong he's evil...:)
Buffy and the bar scene -- vampire hunter D, 13:32:25 06/29/01 Fri

Alright, I know that this question will sound dumb and sort of nitpicking but, What is the drinking age in California? I was rewatching Family the other day (I have most of the season taped) and realized that, while Riley and Giles were the only ones at the party over 21 (and therefore leagally old enough to drink in most states), Everyone had alcohol except Dawn. The same thing happens on Angel, where Cordelia's still only 20, but still gets served in bars. It's stuff like this which tends to break my suspension of disbelief. I can accept vampires, monsters and magic, but this is just stretching things too far. It looks like someone forgot how old thse characters are supposed to be and just let the actors act their real ages.


[> Re: Buffy and the bar scene -- AK-UK, 14:44:51 06/29/01 Fri

What, don't Americans indulge in under-age drinking *coughbush'sdaughterscough*?


[> [> Hey, AK-UK, you should have something done about that cough:):):):):) -- Rufus, 15:19:37 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> [> And what about my sneeze?? *atichoobringbackdoyleatichoo* -- AK-UK, 15:28:48 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> [> [> blessyouiagree -- Liquidram, 16:40:06 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> Re: Buffy and the bar scene -- Cleanthes, 17:53:21 06/29/01 Fri

I have a 20 year old daughter. She's telling me the other day that her pals all stop binge drinking at 21 'cause it ain't any fun any more.

The drinking age in the USA is 21 because Tipper Gore or someone like that insisted and NHTSA made it a condition of the State's getting federal highway funds.

The reason for the 21 limit is to encourage disdain for the law. This makes Americans much less willing to bend to other authoritarian rules. We used to have a 55 mph speed limit that had this same effect.

On another forum, this discussion came up and a frequent poster from Denmark was asked about the drinking age there. He said, "if you're old enough to put your money on the counter, they sell it to you".

When I last visited Greece, a waiter asked me if I wanted my son to have wine with dinner. I thought it over and decided it would be okay. He put five wine glasses on the table. We (my spouse and I) had (at the time) an 18-year-old daughter, a 15-year-old son and a 7-year-old-son. I *had* thought he was asking me if it was okay to serve the 15-year-old, but, he actually wanted to know about the 7-year-old!

Americans have some silly notions. Wouldn't it make more sense to have the DRIVING age be 21? That's a lot more controllable. But, as I say, the object isn't to stop "underage" drinking but to encourage disrespect for the law.

Anyways, I gotta say that Buffy and pals would be unbelievably out-of-synch if they didn't drink. I doubt if 5% of the alcohol drinking US population waited until they were 21 to start.


[> [> [> Okay, I've changed my mind about amalgamation. Gonna stay Canadian! ;o) -- Wisewoman, 18:15:25 06/29/01 Fri


[> [> [> Re: Buffy and the bar scene -- Brian, 20:52:37 06/29/01 Fri

You cracked me up. Very funny and well put. We Americans have some strange ideas about drinking and age.


[> [> [> Oooh, word on semantics-- -- Rosenberg, 16:51:07 07/01/01 Sun

All right, I agree that a drinking age is absurd, but you're absurd semantics are kind of bothering me here. The "object" of a law is what it is specifically created for. The object of the drinking age law is supposedly to prevent underage drinking and auto accidents (it's much easier to put a useless law into effect than it is to, say, pay for actual effective driver's ed. courses, isn't it?). The object of this law is not to cause disrespect for the law, that just doesn't make any sense. It's all about politics and the misuse of federeal funds. Sorry, I just like to keep any debate free from biased propoganda language even if it's my side. Otherwise I completely agree with the whole drinking age fiasco. And why does everyone think the American governement is evil and oppressive? It's not evil, it's just horribly, horribly inept and beaurocratically idiotic (though one of our top agencies DID kill a great President some forty years back . . .


[> [> [> [> P.S.: Does anyone know of any houses for sale in Canada or Scotlant? -- Rosenberg, 16:53:15 07/01/01 Sun


[> Fake IDs -- Malandanza, 05:04:53 07/02/01 Mon

It's not too difficult to get fake ID here and most places that sell alcohol are not particularly vigilant -- if the ID looks reasonably realistic, they won't look too closely (in fact, I can remember friends deliberately putting absurd information on their fake IDs -- ridiculous names, numbers or adresses). The most easiest form of a fake ID (although it doen't apply in Buffy's case) is using an older sibling's ID card. At a college campus, it is not surprising that some minors would be drinking.

In the Buffyverse, fake IDs should be even easier -- I mean, how much magic would it take for Willow to change one number on an ID card?


[> [> Re: Fake IDs -- Cactus Watcher, 07:29:29 07/02/01 Mon

Right! I'm from the stone age, but I'm pretty sure there are still plenty of places in college towns around the country that accept engraved pictures of presidents with green stuff on the back as sufficient ID.

Hinduism and Buffy -- heywhynot, 19:27:14 06/29/01 Fri

I was wondering if anyone has any thoughts on the aspects of Hinduism in Buffy. We have seen Giles reading the Legends fo Vishnu in "Invisible Girl". The same book made the credits for the first few seasons, to be replaced in season 5 by an image of the First Slayer. The first dream of Buffy's we saw had an image of a medallion that is of Shiva. Giles himself had a figurine of Shiva in his library office at the high school. If you read the shooting script for Restless is specifically states that Tara (which is a name of a HIndu Goddess) in the finale dream sequence is to be dressed in Indian wears (or the Hollywood version) when she speaks for the Slayer. Anyone care to take a shot? Love to hear what ideas people come up with on here.


[> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- vampire hunter D, 13:19:27 06/30/01 Sat

I don't think Tara's name has anything to do with Hinduism. Tara is actually a Celtic name meaning tower. I've never even heard of a Hindu god by that name (although the Romans had a goddess named Terra)


[> [> The Origins of the Name Tara & Tara in the Hindu/Buddhist Faiths -- heywhynot, 13:52:08 06/30/01 Sat

Actually Tara comes to us from various sources. According to the Behind the Names Website (which I find to be fairly accurate) this is where Tara comes from: "This name has several different sources. It can mean "hill" (Gaelic). Tara was the name of the hill in Ireland where the Irish kings resided. It can also mean "star" (Sanskrit). In Hindu and Buddhist mythology Tara was an astral goddess, the wife of Brihaspati. Tara is also the name of a Polynesian sea goddess. Finally, this name can function as a short form of ASTAROTH. "

A summary about Tara in the Hindu faiths by Stephen T. Naylor can be found at http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/hindu/articles.html, where it states: "In Hindu mythology, Tara was an astral goddess who was the wife of Brihaspati. A heavenly adventure was played out in the night sky when Soma, the moon, lusted after and abducted Tara, who was the pole star, from Brihaspati, the planet Jupiter. Soma kept Tara hostage, not releasing her at either the urging of Brihaspati or even Brahma. The gods rallied against Soma, who called on the asuras to be his allies, and a mighty war erupted. Before both sides could wipe each other out, Brahma again tried to intervene, and this time Soma listened and freed his captive. She returned to her husband, but she was pregnant, and would not say who the father was. Brihaspati refused to accept her back until the child was born. At that moment, the child heard the ultimatum and was born instantly. He was brimming with power and beauty, and both Soma and Brihaspati claimed the child as his own son. The boy became tire of the bickering over him, and was ready to utter a curse, but Brahma once again came to the rescue. He calmed the child down, then gently asked Tara who the father was. Tara confessed that it was Soma. Soma welcomed his son and named him Budha, who became the planet Mercury.

In southern India, Tara was an important aspect of the Mother Goddess. When the Buddhists came into their own, they made this Tara one of their most important goddesses, and her name came to be an appellation to most female deities. She had many different colors, and can be gentle or dangerous, depending on her hue. If she was white or green, she was loving and tender, but if she was red, yellow, or blue, then it was best to stay out of her way. "


[> [> [> Re: The Origins of the Name Tara & Tara in the Hindu/Buddhist Faiths -- heywhynot, 14:54:23 06/30/01 Sat

For those interested in Astaroth, it is a form of Astarte from the Old Testament. From the Behind tthe Name website: ASTARTE (f) Meaning unknown. Astarte was the Phoenician goddess of love, war and fertility. She was called Ishtar by the Babylonians.


[> [> [> [> Ashtaroth, Astarte, Inanna, Ishtar -- Solitude1056, 15:52:39 06/30/01 Sat

Ishtar, btw, is a later version of Innana.


[> [> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- Solitude1056, 14:33:57 06/30/01 Sat

Hinduism has a Tara, as heywhynot explains, but Buddhism's Tara is far better known. You can find the encylcopedia excerpt I posted by clicking here.


[> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- kelly, 14:32:24 06/30/01 Sat

Let me try. Shiva is one of the three Hindu Gods that make up the Holy Trinity in the Hindu faiths. Vishnu & Brahma are the other two. Each has a female consort, the female consort of Shiva being Parvati (Devi & Lalitha are other names for her). As with many Gods and Goddesses in the Hindu faiths, Parvati has different aspects that are worshipped under different names. The more out of control aspect is known as Kali, she has been described as a slayer of demons who can become bloodthirsty and turn on the world she seeks to protect, a goddess of destruction. The warrior aspect is known as Durga is considered to be inaccessible, the goddess beyond reach, in many ways the opposite of Kali.

If you associate the Slayer as the female aspect of Shiva you can look at the three slayers we have seen on Buffy so far. Faith is very easily Kali & it is no stretch of the imagination to see Kendra as Durga. Buffy seems to be a balance of the two. Each aspect has come to the surface and been dominant but eventually balance is restored.

Could the PTB be the Hindu Trinity? The Slayer associated with Shiva, with Angel being associated with Vishnu the protector maybe? If that is the case then the Slayer association with Devi/Parvati is all the more interesting. One aspect of Devi is Lakshmi, goddess of creative power (Buffy is fairly creative, thinks outside the box). Lakshmi is the wife of Vishnu.

All the Gods and Goddesses it should be noted in the many Hindu faiths are all aspects of the Supreme Being/God.

Hope this all made sense. Where Tara fits into all this, I do not know. Tara I do believe is the Goddess as savior.


[> [> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- heywhynot, 06:41:54 07/02/01 Mon

Kelly I was thinking along the same lines. Did not know about Lakshmi being an aspect of Parvati/Devi as well. Would make all the Buffy/Angel shippers out there happy.


[> Re: Hinduism and Buffy -- Rahael, 13:08:03 07/01/01 Sun

Hi, Heywhynot, glad to see I'm not the only one from the shelter lurking here! THanks for bringing this discussion over, cos I think its a very interesting line of thinking. Josh clearly likes to dovetail more faiths than just Christianity.
Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- OnM, 20:19:12 06/29/01 Fri


Never cared for westerns much, when I was a young'un. No sirree, pardner, all them horses and dirt and saloons and such-- bleah!

I mean, I thought myself a child of the modern era. My fascination ran to electricity, to radio, to clever and inventive machines, to space travel. Other kids may have wanted toy guns and ten-gallon hats, I wanted a telescope and a guide to constellations. Why on Earth would someone want to live in a time and place where there was no hot and cold running water, no indoor toilets, lighting was provided by dim, flickery oil lamps or candles, you often had to kill your own food, and worst of all, other people seemed hellbent on killing *you*!

Nope, I didn't get it then, and on a practical basis, I even more so don't get it now. I won't even get into the whole extermination of the Native American peoples thing, sheesh.

I have mellowed a bit as I've aged, however, and the perspective gained with the passage of time has allowed me to have some understanding of the appeal this aspect of popular culture has with so many individuals. I understand, for example, that there are similarities to many of the concepts explored in our beloved Buffyverse-- The Hero's Journey, the eternal fight of good vs. evil, characters of integrity and decency who provide us with a moral compass to model our own behaviour on, and the scheming, dirty-dealing card-sharps of the soul who we long to boo and hiss at.

What has also helped a lot is the simple fact that the whole traditional Western genre has been done to death, and so there isn't really anywhere to go with it but up, and in recent years that is just what's happened. There have been quite a number of superior films made over the last decade that start with the basic, underlying tenents of the Western, and then go-- well, interesting places with it.

Some of these are revisionist in nature, in that they aim to bring a greater sense of reality to the proceedings. The 'Indians' are now 'Native Americans' and they aren't portrayed as being stupid or mindlessly violent or uncultured. Even in a flick like *Shanghai Noon*, where stereotypes edge up on you on occasion, something will subsequently happen that shows that the director or writer is winking at you, or lets you in on the joke-- they're poking fun at the stereotypes, not engendering them.

Or, the fact that life was actually pretty damn hard for most of those intrepid settlers, that those spacious skies and purple mountain majesties proffered a tempting siren song that led thousands to dash their hopes against the harsh reality of scorching heat, bitter cold, dust storms, and of course the most dangerous element of all, other people.

Outlaws, gunslingers, corrupt sheriffs, politicians and other psychotic individuals are still very much with us today, of course, they just take on other forms or wreak other kinds of public havoc. We don't need to use the Western as a means to frame a conflict, there are plenty of other artistic methodologies available. But the genre endures, and my own opinion is that it does because it makes it possible to distill complex issues of morality down to a simpler, more digestible formula. We who have lived with Westerns since childhood understand the conventions, the shorthand techniques. We can quickly get into the story without much concentrating on the details of the set dressing.

So, one way you can make a 'modern' Western is to do what the director of this week's Classic Movie did, which was to (1) concentrate on updating the set dressing cinematically and (2) do a little gender twist. Does it work? Some critics thought nay, but I say yea in a big way. I went to see this film when it was first released, despite very mixed reviews, because I liked director Sam Raimi's other works (most of them, anyway), and his well developed and original sense of cinematic style. I also like Sharon Stone, and admire how she is willing to take chances on doing some films that aren't just a vehicle to show off her obvious physical assets, but are films that go off the beaten path a bit. This was one of them, and in it we get to see what happens when the mysterious gunslinger who ambles into town one day is, well, *not male*.

This fact, in and of itself, makes it a challenge to do a film that the averge moviegoer will accept, because the Mysterious Stranger is a staple of the Western, and the MS is never a Ms. Given that you are a filmmaker, and you decide to do this audacious thing, you certainly wouldn't pick as your lead actor someone as attractive as Sharon Stone. I mean, who is going to believe her as a gunfighter? Then, to make matters worse, you fill your cast roster with people like Gene Hackman, Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe (yes, *that* Russell Crowe), Lance Henricksen and Gary Sinise and various other testosterone-laden film heavies, and you expect her to hold this project together?

She does, though, and does very well. I bought it, and I think if you are willing to suspend disbelief for a short while as things get started up, you'll buy it too. Raimi aids you in your purchase by adding (at no extra charge!) a substantial helping of sheer photographic cleverness to the whole shebang, with one startling camera move after another, odd POV's, intense, almost surrealistic color shadings and densities, and on and on until you accept, just like any other 'conventional' Western outing of years past, the whole ridiculous mess and find your id immensely entertained.

The MS of this flick is named Ellen (Stone), and she's come to the town of Redemption looking for revenge. (Ooooo!) At first, we don't know exactly why, but we soon discover that she is gunning for one John Herod (Gene Hackman), who pretty much owns the town, and oh, by the way, is also the fastest gun around. Herod, along with fifteen others, has enrolled in a quick-draw contest, the prize to the winner being a rather substantial bundle of money, and the bonus aspect of not being dead. Naturally, Ellen cares little about money, but seeks the higher ground of seeing justice done and a past wrong righted. All she has to do is bide her time and eliminate a few unsavory ne'er-do-wells along the way to her ultimate confrontation with Herod. Only one tiny problem, though: while eminently skilled with her trusty six-shooter, Ellen's never actually killed anyone.

Ooooo, indeed. So I present to you, this week's Classic Movie, *The Quick and the Dead*, by director Sam Raimi, he of *Evil Dead* and *Darkman* fame. Ignore the other critics who dissed this flick, and check it out for yourself, even if you normally accept that 'Space is the Place', or aren't a big fan of Westerns. I do, I'm not, but I promise it will make you revisit the past of our collective imagination in a new and entertaining way.

E. Pluribus Cinema, Unum,



Technical Ammunition:

*The Quick and the Dead* was released in 1995, and is available on DVD. Running time is 1 hour 45 minutes. Aspect ratio of the original theatrical release is 1.85:1, although the DVD offers both widescreen and pan'n'scan (cropped for standard TV) versions. Sound is Dolby Digital 5.1 (English) and standard 2ch stereo (French). Subtitles are available in English or French.

Producers were Joshua Donen, Allen Shapiro, and Patrick Markey. Screenplay is by Simon Moore. Cinematography is by Dante Spinotti and music by Alan Silvestri. Additional cast members besides those mentioned above are Tobin Bell, Roberts Blossom, Kevin Conway, Keith David, Pat Hingle, Olivia Burnette, Fay Masterson and Raynor Scheine.


Closing notes and the question of the week:

For those who enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan's brilliant work in *The Sixth Sense*, be aware-- be very aware-- that his most recent film, *Unbreakable*, is now out on DVD. Oh, yeah...

OK, so the question of the week-- can you recall any other notable cases of lone female gunfighters in the past oeuvre of the Western film genre, and if so, were the portrayals successful, in your opinion? Not counting TV series here, film only, please.



[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Rufus, 22:16:34 06/29/01 Fri

I only got a chance to see part of the Quick and the Dead. I liked what little I saw, never had a chance to see the whole movie. I did however see Unbreakable two nights ago, I just love Samuel L. Jackson, at the end when you see he is clearly mad and has done some terrible things you still feel for the boy who was called Mr. Glass. I will have to watch it a few more times to get all the stuff I missed in the first viewing.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Rendyl, 00:52:38 06/30/01 Sat

***OK, so the question of the week-- can you recall any other notable cases of lone female gunfighters in the past oeuvre of the Western film genre, and if so, were the portrayals successful, in your opinion? Not counting TV series here, film only, please.***

Depends on your definition of 'Lone'. The obvious ones would be Calamity Jane (several movies, none really seemed to capture her. Buffalo Girls was not bad but still off historically), Belle Starr (several movies, NONE of which do her justice)

Etta Place (Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid) who was much more than just "the girlfriend". The movie was great, and it comes closer to showing her as three dimensional then many other movies. (it still misses the mark)

Then there is also Cattle Kate Watson who was lynched in Heaven's Gate. I have no comment good or bad. ;)

Is there a movie on Sally Skull?

There -should- be movies made about Mary Fields and Pauline Cushman (I would watch them) but to the best of my knowledge there are not. (sigh)

From a fiction perspective there is Mattie Ross in 'True Grit'. Technically she is not a gunfighter but she does carry a gun and shoots one of the bad guys with it. (besides it is one of my favorite movies-grin) My husband is clueless as to what I see in the movie and really gets annoyed when I threaten him with "my lawyer, J. Noble Daggett". When I was a pre-teen I wanted to be Mattie Ross. Her characterization was very true to the book and unlike many females in westerns she got to be a real character, not an idealised or sanitized version of a person. She was also very smart and resourceful. (traits not assigned to Belle in most of the movies about her even though she possessed them)

I would comment on The Quick and the Dead but I fell asleep about 15 mins into it. Not the movie's fault, I had a bad cold and the medicine put me out. Afterward I had this wierd dream where Keith David did the Elvis singing/fight restaurant scene in a western saloon, (they were strong meds-grin) but that is kinda off topic. I do think I will rent it again and give it another try. Thanks OnM!


[> [> Definition of 'Lone' -- OnM, 04:44:37 06/30/01 Sat

I generally meant as in the 'Mysterious Stranger' tradition, but my intended use of the word was to differentiate a woman gunfighter (or even an 'outlaw') who wasn't an adjunct or token member of some gang, or 'the girlfriend' to a gunfighter, etc., but who acted mostly by herself, for her own reasons, whatever they might be.

One reason for asking this question was, as I stated, I'm not a big fan of the genre overall, so there are literally hundreds of westerns I've never seen, and I was hoping that someone out there more familiar with the field could come up with a contradiction to my statement of 'The MS is never a Ms.'


[> [> [> Re: Definition of 'Lone' -- Rendyl, 17:42:16 06/30/01 Sat

Ahhhh...There were many actual western women who would fit your definition but I cannot think of any movies specifically portraying them as a Mysterious Stranger.

There is also the drawback (from a movie standpoint) that many of those women dressed and passed as men. Some even married other women. Many were not discovered as women or were not found out until they died.

Being a western movie nut I may think of one yet. (grin)

Rendyl, -still hunting for a female 'Shane'


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Andy, 06:44:16 06/30/01 Sat

> Never cared for westerns much, when I was a young'un. No sirree, pardner, all them horses and dirt and saloons and such-- bleah!

Heh. I've always liked westerns. What puts me to sleep are mob movies. From The Sopranos all the way back to Little Caesar, you start getting into mafia stuff and I just tune out :)

> Nope, I didn't get it then, and on a practical basis, I even more so don't get it now. I won't even get into the whole extermination of the Native American peoples thing, sheesh.

What fascinates me about the West is that it's this odd, liminal place and time in our history where we have a concrete idea of when and where it happened, and it really wasn't all that long ago, but we really don't have much in the way of exact specifics. I can't count the number of times I've read differing accounts of what "the real West" was. So that helps contribute to these legends that pop up about it, which are kind of modern but kind of archaic at the same time.

> She does, though, and does very well. I bought it, and I think if you are willing to suspend disbelief for a short while as things get started up, you'll buy it too. Raimi aids you in your purchase by adding (at no extra charge!) a substantial helping of sheer photographic cleverness to the whole shebang, with one startling camera move after another, odd POV's, intense, almost surrealistic color shadings and densities, and on and on until you accept, just like any other 'conventional' Western outing of years past, the whole ridiculous mess and find your id immensely entertained.

I loved Quick and the Dead and own the dvd. What amazed me about this movie was that even though I've always been a Raimi fan, I couldn't figure out how he was going to tell a story that hinged entirely on the concept of the showdown, which, to me, is possibly the lamest cliche there is in western movies (Unforgiven did a pretty good job of blowing holes through it, I thought). But he made up for it with all these incredible, Hitchcockian camera tricks. It's just really cool looking with an amazing cast and colorful characters :)

> For those who enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan's brilliant work in *The Sixth Sense*, be aware-- be very aware-- that his most recent film, *Unbreakable*, is now out on DVD. Oh, yeah...

I'm still trying to make up my mind about Unbreakable. There were a lot of things I appreciated about it, but I did have trouble completely biting into it. Probably because I'm a comics fan and a lot of Samuel Jackson's ideas about comics and superheroes strike me as ridiculous. It's like this movie that expresses this great love for comics without actually knowing anything about comics :)

> OK, so the question of the week-- can you recall any other notable cases of lone female gunfighters in the past oeuvre of the Western film genre, and if so, were the portrayals successful, in your opinion? Not counting TV series here, film only, please.

The biggest example I can think of is a relatively obscure 50's film directed by Nicholas Ray, called "Johnny Guitar". It's got Joan Crawford, Sterling Hayden, and Mercedes McCambridge.

It's been awhile since I've seen it but the story involves Crawford being the owner of a saloon who runs afoul of a group of conservative townspeople led by Mercedes. I can't remember the exact dispute but after starting out as a typical western with Hayden coming into town to protect his fair lady, the movie suddenly yanks the rug out from under him and and he starts playing second fiddle while Crawford and McCambridge take over the movie, pretty much being at each other's throats the whole time. The finale between them is pretty intense stuff.

(Sergio Leone supposedly based part of Once Upon a Time in the West on this movie.)

It's not really an amazing film in terms of consistent entertainment (and I've never really liked Crawford in much of anything), but it's really interesting to watch it just to see the women taking charge in a mid-50's film with these feminist and McCarthyist themes colliding together. The bottom line is that it's probably one of the most kick-ass female westerns I can think of. "Bad Girls" had nothing on this :)


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- rowan, 15:51:41 06/30/01 Sat

I too, have never been a big western fan, with a few notable exceptions. This is one of them. First, with a cast this fantastic, how can you go wrong? This is great Leo DiCaprio (of the Gilbert Grape, not the Titanic) and great Russell Crowe (of the LA Confidential, not of the Meg Ryan). Sharon Stone is no slouch, either.

And the town ain't called Redemption for nothing -- at least 3 major characters are seeking it, with mixed results. Throw in some vengeance, some justice, some atonement, some Oedipal conflict, some redemption -- and you've got a weighty mix of fun.

I totally agree about the sheer beauty of this film, as well. There is a shot near the conclusion which portrays the end of a gunfight that I promise you won't forget.

On another subject, please all head out and see AI. I saw it this week and I would love to get an o/t thread started on it with anyone who's interested in discussing it. It is one of the most singularly disturbing movies that I have ever seen, punctuated with stellar performances by Jude Law, Haley Joel Osment, and an extremely creepy one by William Hurt. The buzz is for real. This movie will have people talking about it for decades.


[> [> Me, me, me............ -- Rufus, 16:01:59 06/30/01 Sat

rowan, tell me what you thought of AI, I'm taking my 14yr old nephew out for a birthday movie and want to know if AI would be a good choice.


[> [> [> Re: Me, me, me............(o/t AI spoilers) -- rowan, 18:35:42 06/30/01 Sat

Well, I don't have children, so it's hard to say. It's truly a very disturbing story. It's very emotional. It has alot to do with the nature of love and the definition of humanity. Alot of the issues raised are ethical ones. Specifically, it deals with whether robots with artificial intelligence (called Mechas) can love and whether humans (called Orgas) can love them back as well as the responsibilities that exist when such relationships start. I definitely recommend it, but I really think it's more of an adult film. I will say I have never been so affected. I left the theatre beyond tears and it was several hours before I could calm myself down and stop my thoughts about it from racing through my head. That's why I'm hoping some of you will go see it, so we can discuss it.

I'll tell you the basic premise (not more than a trailer would reveal). The polar ice caps have melted. Coastal cities are flooded. Space becomes scarce as populations move inland. In the more affluent US, couples now must get licenses to have children (since space is at a premium). Companies abound who build robots with artificial intelligence that do not consume resources. As the "next generation of AIs," one company creates the prototype for an AI child that can love once a series of commands are activated that 'imprint' him on a specific human. The imprinting is irreversible.

David (the AI prototype child) is placed in a home where the couple's human child has fallen ill and is cryogenically frozen (with little hope of recovery from his disease). The mother eventually activates the imprinting and David begins to love her. The story is about what happens after the "real" child is miraculously healed and life with both children becomes increasingly problematic.

There are three things that might be problematic for a 14 year old. First, the story has alot to do with parental abandonment/rejection and its affect on children. It really pulls at your heartstrings when you see how David's human mother and father treat him.

Second, there is an AI (played by Jude Law) who is called Gigolo Joe. This type of AI is created solely for the sexual pleasure of humans. Although there is no graphic sex, there is extended discussion of the ethics surrounding the peddling of sex. NYC has turned into a flesh pot full of porno palaces.

Third, there is something called a Flesh Fair where the AIs are tortured and destroyed in front of paying throngs of humans a la Roman gladitorial games. It's very disturbing.


[> [> [> [> Re: Me, me, me............(o/t AI spoilers) -- Rufus, 23:09:18 06/30/01 Sat

I watched Bladerunner years ago and found the idea of these simulated humans needing to have a past something. So when Dawn arrives the Monks had taken care of making sure she felt like she belonged by creating her memories for her. She may have found out later they were false but it no longer mattered, she identified her home as being with Joyce and Buffy. Then you get April in IWMTLY who was programmed to love Warren, he never counted on her being able to go into growl mode. So we have to ask because it's a robot who loves does that make that emotion not count because it springs from a digital mind? AI sounds like a good movie to go to for me, my nephew I think will go to Cats and Dogs......:):):)


[> [> [> [> AI Image **spoilerish** -- Liquidram, 23:24:38 07/02/01 Mon

I just saw AI today with my kids (14 & 10 - they both loved it)and thought it was pretty exceptional. It seemed more Kubrick than Spielberg to me.

There was one scene that was one of the most visually powerful images I have ever seen on screen. It probably wouldn't give too much away, but if you don't want to know anything at all about it, STOP NOW.....

The scene when David jumped off the highrise into the water was astounding. The camera panned over to Joe watching him through the glass and the way the shot was set up, the image of David falling was reflected on Joe's face just like a tear. Amazing!


[> [> A.I. o/t -- Wisewoman, 17:56:27 06/30/01 Sat

I'm dying to see this movie. The original short story by Brian Aldiss that it's based on, Super Toys Last All Summer Long, is at:


The story is very short, so the movie must have tons of other stuff in it...love Osment and Law to begin with.

Ooooh, I'm so jealous of you, rowan!



[> [> [> Re: A.I. Viewing -- Brian, 08:35:18 07/03/01 Tue

I saw A.I. last night, and I found it a powerful and disturbing movie. It, too, took me several hours to wind down from seeing this film. My immediate reaction at the end of the film was to wipe away the tears, and head for the nearest bar. I needed a drink badly.

I can't imagine taking a child to this film. Unless it was a very mature child that was secure in its family relationships.

But, it is the most thoughtful film I've seen in years. Quite a challenge to the intellect, and I will be talking about this film for quite some time. I may even go see it again.


[> [> Re: the Quick, the Dead and A.I. (partly o/t) -- mundusmundi, 16:15:04 07/01/01 Sun

First, good choice OnM. "QATD" has long been a guilty pleasure of mine. Always loved Raimi's overheated visual style and wit. Glad to see it's become a cult fave, even if it's only to see Russell and Leo. Whatever works.

Second, A.I. I'm with you, rowan, on the excellent perfs, Law and O'Connor particularly, and the flick has some striking passages, but truth be told it left me underwhelmed. It continues two disturbing trends in Spielberg's recent work: A) an overreliance on tedious exposition, telling what he should be showing us; and B)unnecessarily drawn-out climaxes. There's a moment around the 2-hour mark, which I won't give away for those who haven't seen it, that would've made a perfect ending, the kind of ambiguous conclusion of classic fairty-tales. As usual, though, Spielberg's insecurities get the better of him, and he drags it out for another 25 minutes, causing the audience I attended with to groan in frustration. Sorry, but whatever happened to the great visual stylist of "Jaws" and "E.T.," who suggested terror with a simple shark fin or a pair of keys?


[> [> [> Re: the Quick, the Dead and A.I. (partly o/t) -- rowan, 18:25:51 07/01/01 Sun

Yes, I will give you (B). The movie could have ended quite nicely where I think you're suggesting. But some say that is the Kubrick ending. Spielberg pulled it along. I felt the last 1/2 hour was continued to yank my emotional chain, though. It made me delve a little deeper into the themes the movie was exploring, but it was a little too "talky" for my taste. And I don't know that the Spielberg ending was ultimately any "happier" than the purported Kubrick ending. 'Nuf said. The movie was truly disturbing intellectually and emotionally. Jude Law's character was...well, let's wait until others have seen it.

Teddy was my favorite character, though. Quite a Winnie the Pooh-like devotion displayed.


[> [> [> [> Re: the Quick, the Dead and A.I. (partly o/t)(partly spoiler-y) -- bess, 07:12:01 07/02/01 Mon

too interesting a thread too ignore....teddy !!! my favorite character, sadly enough. hee hee.... i went to see AI this weekend... at one point the friend i was with turned to me and said, "i know why they used all that secrecy surrounding the 'making-of'. they didn't want anyone to know they didn't have much of a plot." while i don't totally agree, i feel as you guys did - that the last part was... meandering. just out of curiosity, what serious filmmaker takes a step back and says "2,000 years then passed" and presents you with a future filled with glowy robot-creatures in flying lego ships ? it seemed more like a cheap shot at heightening the FX budget, rather than a logical outgrowth of the story. there were about thirty minutes they could have diced out here & there... my problem with AI ran a bit deeper. everything they said about david was not shown in david, but in the characters (also AI's) that surrounded him. his "love" seemed more like obsession, a single-minded goal rather than a feeling. teddy did not try to 'own' him or his love, but helped him, loyally, through all his adventures. his "abstract thought and reasoning" seemed more like he stood in a forest, asking where the blue fairy was, until jude law's joe came up with ideas for finding both women and the blue fairy (dr.know, etc...). it seemed like all the other AI's already posessed the traits they had tried (unsuccessfully) to instill in david. i wonder if this was intentional or not. perhaps it was the director's odd way of saying, we're so egotistical we can't believe anything but us has a soul, we have to create one ourselves... but can they ? (evil laugh - moowahahahaaa)... who knows ??? ;)


[> [> [> [> [> Huh, I liked A.I....go figure (spoilery) -- fresne, 13:34:55 07/02/01 Mon

Chiming in...I went to see AI this weekend with a few friends. A number of them had the same reaction to the final section (beware travelers, after this point lie spoilers) of the movie. They felt that the end was disjointed. Didn't belong. Tacked on, etc.

It was weird and yet, at least for myself and my housemate, emotionally perfect.

I would agree that David does not fully express love throughout most of the movie. How can he. He has been programmed to love by people with an imperfect understanding of the emotion themselves. Professor Hobby is so obsessed over his son's death that he chooses to remake David over and over in a hardier form. He is not really the best source of a complete understanding of love. David's love is the obsessive of a child, without the adult understanding of the emotion.

David's quest is to become human so he can receive love. However, it is only when he is freely given the love, which the parent, the creator, owes the child, that he can finally make that leap to become human. His mother tells him that she loves him and David is finally able to dream. Thus in that weird faery tale sort of way, his mother was the Blue Faery all along.

I suppose the story could have ended with David futily praying to the faery. And yet, and perhaps this is just me, it would not have been true to the story. Which was not science fiction as far as I am concerned. It was a faery tale. I'll definitely have to see again because I really want to examine the faery tale motifs more thoroughly. What version of Robin Hood was Monica reading? Martin frozen in his case as Snow White. David likewise frozen, woken with a touch. Of course Pinocchio. David being thrown into the woods, so many faery tales. David's suicidal fall into the sea, which is more the hero going into the realm of the dead. Joe and Teddy's roles as guides and companions. The aliens as fellow seekers.

The movie was visually stunning. David in the pool with his outstretched arms. Teddy picking up the falling strands of hair. The Nannybots final smile. The vision of Man-hattan. The Blue Faery with strands of sea weed

The only thing I didn't like about the final image was that Teddy didn't crawl into bed with David at the end, but rather sat at the end of the bed. Given that Monica was his mother too.

I had no difficulty in emotionally connecting with David. Some have commented that they were afraid that he would turn on Monica, Martin, Henry, etc. Which of course it the excuse for abandoning him. Like Frankenstein who upon seeing his monster breath for the first time, feels horror at his creation, and obviates himself of all responsibility for raising it and teaching the creature. (What can I say Frankenstein's creation is my favorite character in Frankenstein. A horrifying killer, and yet if Frankenstein had stood up to his obligations, preventable) And okay, I'll admit it, I cried when David wrote those crayon messages and you could just see what Monica was intending to do. That absolutely focused childness that was at the core of David's quest. His anger at the other David, his only violent outburst in the movie. (Interesting that it so startled Joe) An anger that turns inward as he sees his own lack of uniqueness.

And poor Joe, he didn't get to come on the final quest. Being slowly lifted away. "I am. I was." Then again, I'm not sure that Joe could have made the cognitive leap of faith that David and Teddy possessed to wait for a miracle in the liminal space of the sea.

So, yeah, here is one vote of, I liked it. I laughed, I cried, I feel like writing a paper, which come to think of it, I just did.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh, I liked A.I....go figure (spoilery) -- rowan, 15:40:52 07/02/01 Mon

I liked it too, my comments about the various potentialities for the ending nonewithstanding. I think it will be considered one of the masterworks of film for this century.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh, I liked A.I....go figure (spoilery) -- fresne, 09:06:18 07/03/01 Tue

Good, I was beginning to feel lonely.

Course, now that I've talked to my housemate. "Future robots looking for their creators not aliens." and my response of, "Huh, well that makes sense" I feel much better as well.


[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Re: Huh, I liked A.I....go figure (spoilery) -- bess, 14:23:57 07/05/01 Thu

oh, don't get me wrong ! it had its moments.... the visuals were gorgeous, joe against the moon, the blue fairy covered in seaweed... an artist's dream. i think you're totally correct in saying that his love was imperfect because it was programmed (hey, way to tie in spike... the buffybot wasn't real enough for him because her love was just a program... ;).... it's just that for me.... it was lacking something. like in the end, after everything, no one still "got" love. and they didn't have to get rid of joe so abruptly ! ahh, but that's my un-indulged inner jude law fan... hee hee.


[> [> Re: AI and buzz -- OnM, 19:57:48 07/01/01 Sun

Haven't gotten out to see AI yet, but I plan to sometime in the next couple weeks. The reviews have been mixed, but since it involves Kubrick and Spielberg I will see for myself.

One comment I have heard several times is that weakness in the film is largely due to trying to meld the very dissimilar styles of Kubrick and Spielberg-- some feel it works and some do not.

The issue itself (AI) is a very important one, one that we need to be thinking about now, since I have very little doubt that sometime in the next century we will finally create synthetic 'living' beings, although I feel they will be biological rather than mechanical/electronic. (Yes, clones would count-- will they have a 'soul'? Does that matter?) Companies that have already created the basic constituents of living matter are trying--and succeeding-- in getting patents for them! Thus, they 'own' them. This is pretty scary, methinks.

Any who wish to discuss this theme, or any other movie-inspired philosophical concepts, are welcome to use any current 'Classic Movie' thread to comment. Just be sure to clearly label spoiler material if the film is in current release, as the various posters have done on 'AI' this week.

This is one of the big reasons I started doing this column in the first place, movies and philosophy go together, the former is just one modern language for expressing the other.

(Not always, but often!)


[> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- rowan, 20:41:00 07/01/01 Sun

"One comment I have heard several times is that weakness in the film is largely due to trying to meld the very dissimilar styles of Kubrick and Spielberg-- some feel it works and some do not."

I hope some of us do see this so that we can have a discussion about it later. After having seen the film, IMHO, even if one could demonstrate an artistic failure to meld the dissimilar styles (which would be a very fun conversation to have), the content would remain. And that content is very, very disturbing and thought-provoking. As I mentioned earlier, I was in a funk for several hours after the movie, totally unable to express what I felt about it, or what I thought it was really about.


[> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- mundusmundi, 05:06:08 07/02/01 Mon

"One comment I have heard several times is that weakness in the film is largely due to trying to meld the very dissimilar styles of Kubrick and Spielberg-- some feel it works and some do not."

The most perceptive critique I read suggested that the real creative conflict in the film is Spielberg vs. himself (his contradictory impulses as a filmmaker). I'm inclined to agree.


[> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz (plenty o' spoilers) -- Humanitas, 10:32:23 07/02/01 Mon

Y'know, it occurred to me in the shower this morning that OnM probably wouldn't mind if I hijacked CMtoW for a bit to talk about "AI," and here I find that y'all beat me to it! :)

I found the movie more engaging on an intellectual level, than an emotional one. From the moment that nameless assistant asked about the resposibilties of humans towards machines that can love, I was hooked. I thought "Oh, goody! Here we have Spielberg, the master of giving special effects emotional resonance, talking about a deeply philosophical issue!" >sigh.< The emotions barely kicked in for the rest of the film. There were moments (Monica and David in the woods), to be sure, but David's behavior was so problematic that I didn't know whether to feel pathos or fear. On the one hand, I felt horrible for Monica, but the scene was shot in such a way that it was almost like a horror movie. I expected David's love to turn to rage, or for him to harm Monica to keep her with him. It was creepy. I ended up never really connecting with the character.

On the other hand, the movie did keep me engaged and thinking. Lots of great moral ambiguity, racism (or should that be orga-centrism), and pondering on the nature of love. I had the same reaction to the ending(s) that one of the above posters had: the first one was Kubrick's, the second was Spielberg's. I thought both were good endings, but they had very different feels to them.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz (spoilers) -- purplegrrl, 11:09:34 07/02/01 Mon

I, too, saw A.I. over the weekend with a couple of female friends. I'm not entirely sure what to think of it. I may have to see it again.

One friend and I agreed that the "2000 years in the future" end sequence was unneccessary. We thought the movie could have ended just fine with the scene where David is "praying" to the Blue Fairy. IMO, the ending seemed tacked on. And, to extend the Pinnochio analogy, almost too "Jiminy Cricket" -- he gets his heart's desire in the end. (My other friend's complaint was that even in the far distant future, super-skinny is considered the norm -- even if they are machines.)

Both Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law did an excellent job in the film. David is lovable, yet strangely disturbing. Gigolo Joe is smarmy without being truly disgusting.


[> [> [> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz (spoilers) -- Humanitas, 11:37:58 07/02/01 Mon

"Gigolo Joe is smarmy without being truly disgusting."

Hey, maybe we could set him up with the Buffybot!


[> [> [> [> [> [> AI's ending--very spoilerish -- Rob, 09:25:08 07/09/01 Mon

I have heard a lot of negative response for the final sequence in "A.I." which truly astounded me, because I thought that was the most brilliant part of the movie. It is the part where Spielberg truly took over, and I loved his reference to "Close Encounters" (the aliens were very similar). I believe the message of the film is that whether it is right or not to create an artificially intelligent child is unimportant...What is important is that once that child is created, the humans must have a responsibility towards it. In other words, if you create something completely dependant on your love, abandoning it would be as bad as abandoning a real creature. I found the true great irony in the film is that after 2000 years, after all of mankind is destroyed, the only living vestige of humanity is one small little boy robot and his talking teddy bear... I found the innocence of David's character beautiful. He was created only to love. He did not feel anger towards his mother, even though she abandoned him, but just longed to return to her, to become real so that she would love him. This makes him all the more poignant. The only time he ever struck out in anger was against another David robot...After all, his mommy had told him he was unique, the only one of his kind, and now he found out that he was not. I never found David's character disturbing...I found what was done to him disturbing. The character I found disturbing was Martin. He deliberately set about trying to get David in trouble, pointing out to him that he was just a toy. Real or not, David does have feelings. He is not even allowed to explain to his parents what truly happened, that he had not meant to drown Martin. Martin never told his parents that David had only done what he did because he was afraid. He was jealous. I think it would have been a cruel injustice to leave David at the bottom of the ocean as the closer for the film. After so much heartache and sadness, this little boy deserved a happy ending. And it was not a typical Spielberg ending, either. A typical one would have the mother being returned to him forever. Instead, he is only given one single day. Thus, the ending, where he finally is able to dream, is both happy and extremely sad. I thought the idea of the aliens was brilliant. Early on in the film, David asked his mother when she would die. He was heartbroken, because 50 years or so was not a long time...and he would then be alone, for robots can potentially last forever. This perfectly sets up the idea that he does last forever. In the end, the mother he gets is an idealized, perfect version of his mother, one who is not torn by her love for her husband or for her son...A mother for whom David is the only child...A mother who loves him completely. His love for this mother is what finally turns him into a real boy. As far as the directing, Spielberg has once again proved his genius to me. Never before has he ever done a childhood fantasy that has so many disturbing elements. He didn't shy away from, at points, making the audience uncomfortable. The scene where David is abandoned is one of the saddest, most gutwrenching moments in film I have ever seen. And the direction was also extremely visionary: The visuals in Rouge City, for example, and the underwater Manhattan were among the best in the history of science fiction. I loved how the movie began as a science fiction story, and ended as a fantasy. What made it perfect, however, was how the fantasy elements did not come out of nowhere. In David's mind, he was speaking to the Blue Fairy. In actuality, it was a hologram image generated by the aliens. To a small boy, bringing a dead mother back to life is magic. To the aliens, it was science...they created her out the DNA from her hair. I think in the end the movie was very much Spielberg's story more than Kubrick's. Kubrick inspired the darkness, but the true brilliance lies in Spielberg, who realizes that nothing is more pure and beautiful than the love a young boy has for his mother. Despite all the corruption and darkness the boy is forced to go through, he remains unscathed... I know I've been rambling on and on, but my point is, and I probably already said this...After such horrible occurences, David deserved a happy ending. I don't find that contrived or tacked on. I find it beautiful. After all, dark though it may be, this movie's purpose was to be a fairy tale. If a movie like this cannot end with at least some hope, it would be a horrible commentary on the world. In the end, I am glad Spielberg's spirit won out over Kubrick, although I am grateful for Kubrick's inspiration in some of the darker elements of the film.


[> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- Anthony8, 20:26:35 07/04/01 Wed

Haven't seen it myself, but Kubrick's widow (on a recent Charlie Rose Show) really loved it.


[> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- Brian, 07:13:40 07/05/01 Thu

Probably A.I. should be considered Kubrick's last film, not that disaster Eyes Wide Shut.


[> [> [> [> [> Re: AI and buzz -- Anthony8, 19:00:05 07/05/01 Thu

I'm curious as to what made Eyes Wide Shut such a disaster for you. At first viewing, I thought it was pretty good. It bears up even better after repeated viewings. For me, it wasn't as enthralling as 2001, Clockwork Orange, or Paths of Glory, but I thought it was comparable to Full Metal Jacket or The Shining. People seemed to either love it or hate it (there was a similar reaction to The Shining when it came out).


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- Lurker Becoming Restless, 04:55:18 07/01/01 Sun

I, too, have never been a big Western fan but I loved this movie. I enjoyed the edgy atmosphere and the way that each gunfight was filmed in a different way (this was a very self-conscious genre movie).

However, picking up on just one thing you said (I'm sorry, this way lies thread-theft), I have to join you in recommending 'Unbreakable' to everyone. It's one of my favourite movies and is so well-directed, well-acted and original that anyone with an open mind who doesn't insist on comparing it to 'The Sixth Sense' (which it beats hands-down, BTW) is sure to enjoy it.


[> Re: Classic Movie of the Week - June 29th 2001 -- purplegrrl, 11:17:15 07/02/01 Mon

I, on the other hand, am a big Western film fan. Especially John Wayne westerns (El Dorado, Chisum, True Grit, The Searchers, The Sons of Katie Elder, to name a few).

That said, I also like off-beat westerns like "The Quick and the Dead." No one is what they seem at first meeting. And the cinematography is very interesting.

OnM, have you seen "The Ballad of Little Jo"? I think it's an independent film. It's based on the real-life story of a woman in the old West who was forced by circumstances to dress and act as a man just to survive. Sort of a twist on the "mysterious stranger" theme.


[> [> 'Ballad of Little Jo' - Heard of it, haven't seen it. Anyone else out there have? -- OnM, 21:31:57 07/02/01 Mon

And if you have, what did you think?

BTW, always appreciate suggestions from y'all for possible movies to check out. I keep a list, and if I run into them at the video store I will often purchase a copy.

(I rarely rent, although with rentable DVD's becoming more common, that could change in the future for flicks I might be interested in seeing but not necessarily buying. I used to depend on premium cable movie packages for this (Showtime, Cinemax, etc.), but it just got too costly forking over $30.00+ a month to get a whole big buncha channels, just to tune into one or two interesting movies a month, and then usually in pan'n'scan versions. I do currently subscribe to Sundance and IFC on DirecTV, although time doesn't permit me to watch as much as I would like to.)

So please don't feel any kind of slight if I respond with a 'haven't seen it' to your recommendation, I do consider them all seriously.



[> [> [> Re: 'Ballad of Little Jo' - Heard of it, haven't seen it. Anyone else out there have? -- Rufus, 22:09:08 07/02/01 Mon

Hey, I saw and enjoyed that one very much. The reaction of the towns people when she died was something else. This movie didn't just break gender rules but racial ones as well. I remember it being a movie I watched because it was mentioned on Siskel and Ebert. That show has done a great service for the smaller movies as they do deal with titles that would have been buried under the blockbusters.


[> [> [> [> Rufuuuus! You gave away what happened!! -- Leah, 04:09:42 07/03/01 Tue


[> [> [> [> [> Re: Rufuuuus! You gave away what happened!! -- Rufus, 15:29:11 07/03/01 Tue

Not really specially when you consider that we know from square one what the others don't. It was never a secret in the movie what happens. That was only one aspect of the movie....
Buffy's Power Source -- Simplicity, 15:45:40 06/30/01 Sat

*SPOILERS* for everything up to and including "THE GIFT" S P O I L E R

My apoligies if someone has already discussed this on the board. I'm not current. :) After viewing "Buffy vs. Dracula" this past week, I started thinking about Buffy's power source. Then, I ran for the video tapes to see if I saw what I thought I saw (say that five times fast!)

Just where does all that Slayer strength and stamina come from? She just can't be completely human. Giles mentioned (in one of the first episodes) that in the beginning that only demons walked the Earth. Human beings came later. So, is the Slayer a human/demon hybrid? The only strong enough to fight a demon is a demon

To back me up. . .

Below, in Graduation Day, prt 1, Anya speaks about demons. . .

All the demons that walk the earth are tainted, are human hybrids, like vampires. The Ascension means a human becomes pure demon. They're different.

Below, Buffy speaks about Dracula's take on her power.

He understood my power, better than I do. He saw darkness in it.

Dracula, enticing Buffy with his blood, says. . .

All these years, fighting us - your power so near to our own - and you've never once wanted to know what it is we fight for? Never even a taste?

And as Buffy drinks from him, Dracula says. . .

Find it... the darkness.... Find your true nature.

In "Restless", a veritable gold mine of Buffyverse information, Buffy is speaking with the man that ADAM was before he was turned into a demon/human/machine hybrid. . .

Adam says. . .

Aggression is a natural human tendency. Though you and me come by it another way. Buffy, who looks upset by this information says. . .

We're not demons. Adam looks at her mockingly and says. . .

Is that a fact?

Also in Restless, Giles speaks about the "thing" that is stalking him. . .

It's strange. It's not like anything we've faced before, yet it seems familiar somehow. Of course! The spell we cast with Buffy must have released some primal evil, that's come back seeking... I'm not sure what. Willow, look through the Chronicles. Some reference to a warrior beast...


[> All these questions.............. -- Rahael, 13:29:24 07/01/01 Sun

I agree that all your (excellent) points seem to show that Buffy's slayer nature is not human. But the question is, is it in fact a demon? Dedalus suggested some weeks ago that slayer power could in fact come from the same energy that is the 'key'.

I think that Buffy is scared during Season 5 that the darkness within her is demonic.

Also another interesting thought (off topic) is the Narnia connection. If in the Gift BUffy sacrificed herself as Aslan did, could it have been recompense for the spell they cast in Season 4? The primeval slayer sought their lives in revenge - but only in a dream. THey woke up alive. Was Season 5 a long build up to an actual revenge? and Buffy had to give up her life instead......

And another thought - Angel was visited by the first evil, whose origin is never clearly explained, and whose connections with the rest of the Buffyverse never shown.

Primeval - Prime Evil - First Evil

Is there some connection here?


[> Re: Buffy's Power Source -- Rosenberg, 17:12:02 07/01/01 Sun

Mmm, very interesting concept you have there. I'm seeing some sort of hiearchy throughout the Buffyverse in terms of vampires, human/demon interaction, souls, etc. Basically we have two kinds of basic living creatures on Earth--humans and other related biological creatures (be they dogs, cats, or two-toed sloths), and demons. Humans have souls, and I believe it was Joss who said something along the lines of "all can do good, but beings without souls are more inclined towards evil". Would that be implying that demons have no souls, or would there be specific human and demon souls. Vampires would be humans inhabited by a demon soul, or by the actual physical demon? There are physical changes in the vampire, but could that also be accounted for by some metaphysical property of the demon soul? Okay, I'm probably wrong, but a zombie would be defined as a dead human reanimated with no will of its own--i.e., a human without a soul or without a consciousness? Or are the two interelated? Okay, now I'm rambling. Does any of this have any relevance at all to Buffy philosophy? Oh, I didn't even think of anything about the Slayer's powersource.


[> Re: Buffy's Power Source -- FanMan, 00:14:13 07/02/01 Mon

Good post and valid points...


1...an evil spirit

2...a source or agent of evil, harm, distress, or ruin

3...usually daemon: a supernatural being of Greek mythology intermediate between gods and men.

4. one that has exceptional enthusiasm, drive, or effectiveness

Relivance of the definitions of "demon" to Buffy

1. Maby; extreme agression of the First Slayer might have been caused/inspired by evil...I doupt this one myself. I think the violence of the Slayers is reactive and thier strength varies directly with the need to counteract threats...

2. Buffy is an agent of harm distress and ruin...for evil!(Grin) Example; she ruinned Spikes evil plans...when he was still the "Big Bad"

3. Entity between gods and men? Demigod of course! BTW Deamon was the original word and it meant any etheral or nonphisical supernaturalentities; not neccisarily evil... Christian religions are what started the current practice of using "demon" and "deamon" interchangably... Demon(christian) a denizan or authority of hell, also any supernatural entities that are serving hell, Satan etc. Note that neither definition or word accurately matches the ussage of "demon" on the show. Only Glory and the Mayor(if he had succeeded...) could be described as Deamons according to the original Greek definition.

4. Dead on Accurate!( In a GOOODDDD way!!! grin)

I have speculated in previous threads on POSSIBLE sources of Buffy's power. As far as the REAL source of Buffy's power, it is still up to Joss to tell us...

It would be interesting if it tied in with the KEY; more reason(although there is allready plenty) to consider Dawn to be PART of Buffy, not just her sister)

The main point I wanted to get across on this post is that the definition of "demon" has variable although similar interpatations and that it is not neccisarilly bad to be a deamon/demon...

One other point is that in the show there are not many other options of WHAT to describe supernatural entities(besides ghosts), also we see the worst of demon species; other species of demons/deamons that are not as evil would not be as interesting for an action/horror/drama like the Buffy show.

Whew! I was just going to post definitions of "demon" and a comment! I am done rambling for now..LOL.

Current board | July 2001